Easy options.

[GeminiBrian]

[QUOTE]

Quote by: shawmutt While the universe, per se, is amoral, the human species is not.

That's just my point - our species can be said to be moral (broadly speaking), but that doesn't justify us in projecting our moral constructs onto the cosmos, as religion tries to do with such unconvincing results.

Remember, this intellectual laziness is a double edged sword. To simply throw up our hands and say everything's relative is, to this humble poster, just as bad as saying "God did it".

Intellectual laziness is nothing but the bluntest of swords, if it can be called a sword in any sense. A sword is a tool for cutting, and in this case, there is no evidence of any cutting being done - no pairing away of accumulated nonsense and tired old ideas. The theist mindset can be compared to a garden chocked with weeds and brambles, blocking out all the light needed for new growth, so a little judicious pruning can have a very beneficial effect... trouble is, people mistake the claustrophobia caused by accumulated religious clutter as somehow comforting, choosing not to appreciate the benefits of fresh air, even fearing it.

We need absolute truths to survive and thrive as a species. The golden rule, in its many forms, is one of the reasons we have been so successful.

Let's not get side-tracked in a debate about absolute truth - whether such a thing exists, and would we have the capacity to handle it if it did... almost certainly we wouldn't.

For instance, one human murdering another is wrong, period. Some get hung up on the relativity on the matter, but there is no relativity. Sometimes we as a species need to do the wrong thing, that doesn't make it the right thing.

Would you have shot Hitler in the head before the war he started if given the chance? If you had pulled that trigger, you might have prevented untold human suffering on a scale never seen before. Then again, your conscience might tell you that shooting is wrong - period. Either way, you might find it difficult to live with your choice. --- My point being, that life sometimes presents us with impossible dilemmas, where notions of right and wrong are put to a cruel test... So no easy answers, perhaps - and certainly no absolutes.

Many holy books serve many purposes...Nowadays, we really don't need the old books, but they give the majority of the world the comfort of stability in this ever-changing world.

Like I keep saying, stability is an illusion we spend our whole lives chasing after - always in vain. Our only choice is to factor instability into our thinking if we are to avoid traumatic disappointment - and religious books work in the reverse direction by giving people a false sense of security. How many devout people lose their faith after the death of a treasured child, for instance?

Faith can undoubtedly be a crutch to many, but my OP suggests that many people, even at the peril of becoming atheist, eventually have to admit to themselves that a crutch is only a crutch so long as you are able to believe in it... Some of us reach a tipping point where we find it impossible to keep resisting disbelief, and no amount of wishful thinking is going to alter the basic amoral fabric of the universe we inhabit... but it's an indescribably liberating step forward, nevertheless.

[brisbane buddy]

Quote by: TheDastardlyOne (This is in regards to your debate as a whole on this forum.) While you do have a slight point, I believe that it does not come off as a full counter-point to the OP. The OP was dealt more towards people who disregard one thing in light of a lot of credible evidence. It does not highlight an area that has a lot of debate due to credible sources. You see not knowing something isn not the problem, it is those that "do not know" but stubbornly say they "do know". That was the point of the OP.

Points TheDastardlyOne have to be handled in order. No use jumping into the deep end if people don't understand the basics .

One thing I could near guarantee there would have been a mass search for palaeontology, or readers will have added new knowledge to their association patterns.

Some people learn the easy way, and others, what can I say, they have to learn the hard way.

You see not knowing something isn not the problem, it is those that "do not know" but stubbornly say they "do know".

That was the point I was going to make in the end, albeit maybe not against the theist. It is a human traite and all who are human do it, even the atheist, and I point to the Opening Post as tangible evidence to prove it.

Cheers.

[shawmutt]

Quote by: GeminiBrian That's just my point - our species can be said to be moral (broadly speaking), but that doesn't justify us in projecting our moral constructs onto the cosmos, as religion tries to do with such unconvincing results.

I agree, but that doesn't negate religion or make it useless.

Intellectual laziness is nothing but the bluntest of swords, if it can be called a sword in any sense. A sword is a tool for cutting, and in this case, there is no evidence of any cutting being done - no pairing away of accumulated nonsense and tired old ideas. The theist mindset can be compared to a garden chocked with weeds and brambles, blocking out all the light needed for new growth, so a little judicious pruning can have a very beneficial effect... trouble is, people mistake the claustrophobia caused by accumulated religious clutter as somehow comforting, choosing not to appreciate the benefits of fresh air, even fearing it.

This certainly isn't exclusive to theists. There is a lot of "accumulated nonsense and tired old ideas" among people no matter what they claim about God. Even the hardened atheist can get set in his ways, and when presented with a burning bush will run for a fire extinguisher. I think what you are doing is self-selecting folks from your own experience, and extrapolating that to all theists. Granted, arguing with theists online is the easiest way to set up a cognitive bias.

We are, after all, just smart animals. Looking for patterns, getting into a routine, etc.--it's all part and parcel of our evolution and survival.

Let's not get side-tracked in a debate about absolute truth - whether such a thing exists, and would we have the capacity to handle it if it did... almost certainly we wouldn't.

OK, we won't get sidetracked. You make it hard to with your next arguments though

Would you have shot Hitler in the head before the war he started if given the chance? If you had pulled that trigger, you might have prevented untold human suffering on a scale never seen before.

No, I wouldn't shoot Hitler in the head. If I was unaware of what would happen, what reason would I have? If I was aware of what would happen, how can I be sure another person wouldn't do something even more heinous? I'd kill Hitler, and then Hermann Göring would find a much more efficient method of genocide, resulting in 12 million Jews killed.

Then again, your conscience might tell you that shooting is wrong - period. Either way, you might find it difficult to live with your choice.

It's not my conscience, it is reality. Murder is wrong. This is evidenced by the fact that unless a person is a sociopath, murder has a profound negative impact on the perpetrator.

My point being, that life sometimes presents us with impossible dilemmas, where notions of right and wrong are put to a cruel test... So no easy answers, perhaps - and certainly no absolutes.

The notions of right and wrong are not the test--the choice to do the wrong thing or the right thing is the test.

Like I keep saying, stability is an illusion we spend our whole lives chasing after - always in vain. Our only choice is to factor instability into our thinking if we are to avoid traumatic disappointment - and religious books work in the reverse direction by giving people a false sense of security. How many devout people lose their faith after the death of a treasured child, for instance?

How many have their faith strengthened by loss? I'm not sure any holy book says the world will always stay the same. They offer guides for living. The people who read these books and get certain ideas about what they say try to make things stay the same. A former Christian, now agnostic like me can read the Bible and find a lot of wisdom contained within still.

In short "stability as an illusion" is what people do regardless of religion. Many studies have been done illustrating what happens to folks after their 20s. They tend to settle down, get stuck in their ways, and look for stability. This is why you have a big population of children, a big population of older folks, and a much smaller population of 20 somethings attending church every Sunday.

Faith can undoubtedly be a crutch to many, but my OP suggests that many people, even at the peril of becoming atheist, eventually have to admit to themselves that a crutch is only a crutch so long as you are able to believe in it... Some of us reach a tipping point where we find it impossible to keep resisting disbelief, and no amount of wishful thinking is going to alter the basic amoral fabric of the universe we inhabit... but it's an indescribably liberating step forward, nevertheless.

I don't see a problem with people needing a crutch of religion. If someone reaches a tipping point and stops believing, that's fine, but the vast majority of people never do reach that point. Where religion tries to cross into science, e.g. faith healing or acupuncture, is where I draw my line. Someone saying "I'll pray for you" doesn't bother me one bit--someone praying or relying on "energy healing" instead of getting a needed treatment bothers me quite a bit. Again though, this is not strictly a theist issue. I know plenty of atheists that swear by faith-based medicine.

[loser]

If Christian belief leads to the denial of established scientific knowledge and facts, such belief encourages intellectual laziness.

Well, they don't. Actually, it's atheism that does so. Of course, "established" is the subjective part. You can know or you can pretend to know.

Rarely, if ever, do we see a theist member debate against evolutionary theory, for instance, based on a sound understanding of that theory - rather we see a chaotic rag-bag of ill-thought through notions that, needless to say, never stand up to close scrutiny.

As a theist, I have an extremely sound understanding of evolution...theory is for people who have no knowledge, they prefer to guess. The last part of your statement ("a chaotic rag-bag of ill-thought through notions") describes evolutionists to a T...IMHO.

Evolution defined as change is a MUST...life doesn't exist otherwise. Evolution defined as common descent is a MYTH, it doesn't exist.

Two very different definitions of evolution. The first one is correct, the second one is false.

This glibly ignores the sheer volume of work and dedication that has gone into investigating these problems for at least a couple of hundred years.

Mankind has dedicated itself and worked tirelessly for THOUSANDS of years for world peace but is nowhere close to achieving it. Your point was...?

Calling a genius like Darwin 'mad', or ridiculing the erudite professor Dawkins with crude abuse has become a bit of an unpleasant sport for some, and reflects very badly on their mindset.

LOL...thanks, I needed a good laugh. What reflects badly is those who idolize these 'morons'. They're akin to the followers of Jim Jones...or Madonna.

For these reasons and others, I accuse all theists of mental laziness, because unless they can demonstrate serious objections, based on study, rather than religious prejudice, they are making fools of themselves. This applies also to knowledge of scripture, since it is alarmingly apparent just how sketchy that actually is in many cases, with us atheists often having to aquatint the theists with the very content of their own bibles.

Yawn...is Barney on?

...Compared to, say, less indulgent philosophies such as Buddhism, which require the individual to put some effort into attaining any worthwhile spiritual results.

Yeah, man's efforts are really paying off...maybe if we just try a little harder.

By comparison, Christianity offers easy salvation on a holy platter, as a slick package, and requires the believer to do no more in return than swallow their pride, intellect and rationality -- That, and a blind faith in their capricious supernatural redeemer... spiritual indolence, if you like... Worst of all, belief in God tends to neutralise the outrage we should feel at some of the worst injustices in the world, since God will see to it that it all turns out right in the end - he won't: because he doesn't exist.

What zeal! What fervor! What lofty platitudes! What crap!

Too bad none of it is true.

But, hey, everyone is entitled to their OPINION...no matter how ridiculous it is.

And surely, anything worth achieving cannot be gained without some pretty determined individual effort.

And what is worth achieving, again?

[loser]

Dinosaur and human fossils have never been found in the same geological strata, the main way of establishing co-existence, along with laboratory dating procedures.

Yeah, well, I've never been in the same room with Boy George. Does this mean that we don't co-exist?

And I don't care what dating procedures are used...I'm not going there.

According to the reasoning in the link you provided, pictures on pots etc. can be relied on as proof. By the same token, you might argue that all those medieval paintings of St. George and the dragon depict real-life events, with real fire-breathing mythical monsters... It's called Artistic License.

What makes you think that dragons are mythical?

Still, for excellent examples of "Artistic License", go here:

http://www.search4dinosaurs.com/

One of my favs:

Irrelevant, stick to the topic.

That's the very point that theists make. Atheists are always jumping to conclusions. Exactly what evidence did you base your assertion on?

Extinction of dinosaurs have nothing to do with this debate. It appears you're setting up some bate and switch or one of the other strawmen you always bring into a topic rather than addressing the actual points of a debate.

You probably meant "bait and switch".

If you look to the bible for a character sketch of god, you can't escape the impression that here we have an egocentric, vainglorious, megalomaniac, mass-murdering tyrant... and that's being generous. He also seems to have been asleep on the job for the last 2000 years, or maybe he just realised what a mess he'd made of running the show and disappeared to another dimension to try another of his little experiments with new playthings.

That would explain "let us make MAN in our image...", wouldn't it?

I think I can trust my innate higher instincts to prevent me from causing harm, and my innate respect for others to prompt me to be kind and considerate... (at least away from this forum)... and you would probably find the same thing.

Innate? Higher? Respect?

1) Where did it come from, what's the source of this "innate" instinct?

2) What do you mean by "higher"?

3) "...not unless he could prove that he was worthy of being respected...Under those circumstances, what incentive would I have, (other than a terror of ending up in hell) to voluntarily seek for a favour or a gift from someone I had no respect for?" That kind of respect?

Plus, the website uses shoddy biblical scholarship. Nowhere does the Bible mention dinosaurs, and the only dragon mentioned in the Bible is Satan.

The word 'dinosaur' was recently coined so of course the Bible doesn't mention that word. However, there are many words for what dinosaurs used to be called: dragons, behemoth, leviathan, etc. Logic and reason help in these instances.

That may be true, but I still maintain that the overall effect of Christianity down the ages has been to suppress the search for new knowledge, with plenty of book-burnings and prosecutions for heresy to testify to the fact.... Darwin's ridicule at the hands of the theological authorities is another case in point - and that was relatively recent.

Well, you are most definitely wrong. Christianity has done more to further education than any other force in the world. Take a look at all of the universities and hospitals that are Christian-based. When Harvard College "was officially incorporated in 1650, its charter specified a commitment to educate 'the English and Indian youth of this country in knowledge and godliness'" (Kenneth Davis, America's Hidden History, 2008, p. 65). Many of the greatest universities in America (and, in fact, the world) are religious-based (Notre Dame, Brigham Young, etc.)

Christianity helped reduce slavery in the world, helped change attitudes towards women, brought teaching to women and children and slaves, and brought compassion to the sick and the poor.

Study history a little bit to see just how much blessing Christianity has brought to the world. Compare Christian society to other cultures like ancient Rome and Greece. The truth is there for those not afraid to seek.

[loser]

Granted, there are exceptions (including you, I take it) who's need is to reconcile scripture with scientific fact.

I'm almost like that except my goal is to see that science is reconciled with scriptural fact. When science is founded in truth (like scripture), it will advance quickly and assuredly. When based on myth (like common descent), it stagnates and advances slowly, if at all.

I used to be the moderator of the Evolution/Creationism debate board at Beliefnet, during which time I encountered plenty of theists who demonstrated little or no knowledge of what modern evolution theory actually says. Here I have to disagree with GeminiBrian's accusation, because there are plenty of theists who support modern evolution theory.

What does modern evolution theory actually say? Does it say "common descent"? Is that what you believe?

Thankfully, there is a growing chorus of Christians who either reject creationism as it is commonly understood, or who deny that creationism is a necessity of the Christian faith. I happen to be a member of that chorus, which is somewhat amazing since I used to be a young-earth creationist. I did an 180-degree turn in my thinking after pursuing a scholastic study of modern evolution theory, which included reading the literary works of actual scientists.

How long before your INDOCTRINATION (into modern evolution theory) was complete? What makes them "actual" scientists and why were they able to deceive you? BTW, the earth doesn't have to be young in order for the creation story in Genesis to be true.

Goyboy: I read your 'essay' entitled "Creationism on Trial" (link in Goyboy post #21) and while I was impressed with its progression, style, and readability, I was dismayed to find that you make quite a few false assumptions. If you build upon incorrect premises, the whole logical progression falls apart.

Some of the erroneous contentions are:

1) "On one side of the debate are people who say that the creation account in Genesis should be interpreted figuratively. On the other side are people who claim that every verse of Genesis must be interpreted literally."

A: What about those who stand in the middle between both of those extremes? Any TRUE creationist/Christian KNOWS that the Bible is a combination of both literal and figurative language. It is for this reason that pure logic cannot make sense of the Bible. Without spiritual guidance (giving the recipient the key to understand), it will just seem like foolishness. Being able to know what to take literally and what to take figuratively is the key to understanding scripture.

2) "The answer to this question lies in the identity of Jesus. In Christian theology Jesus is God the Son. Because Jesus is God, the spiritual lessons of his parables are truth. Yet, God the Son delivered such truth by telling stories that are fictitious."

A: Jesus is NOT God, the Trinity is a false teaching. True Christians know this. Still, even so, Jesus the Man was not a liar...He was filled with God's holy Spirit.

3) "According to creationist thinking, God would not have chosen to work through a natural evolutionary process."

A: Fallacy. Not ALL creationists think alike. The problem is not in evolution; the problem is in some people's interpretations/conclusions.

4) "According to creationist theology God chose to make the Earth out of nothing."

A: I never got that. My understanding was always that "without form and void" meant sterile (void of life) and unshaped (a big smooth ball of water with no dry land), just as described.

5) "When the Apostle Peter mentions the creation of the Earth, he says that the Earth was "formed out of water and by water."(2 Peter 3:5) Water is not "nothing" either.

This information suggests that creationist theology may be in error."

A: This verse is often misunderstood. In the beginning, the earth was perfectly smooth and stood about a mile deep in water, In whatever method, God shaped the earth (pushed mountains up and valleys down) so that dry land appeared. Later, this was reversed and, once again, the earth was submerged in water. After that, dry land appeared for the second time. This is what Peter is referring to and, of course, the fact that life is composed mostly of water.

A LOT of theology (as well as science) is in error, that's for sure.

6. "Along with Genesis 1:2, Genesis 1:27 is also a problem for creationist theology. The verse says, So God created man in his own image. According to a strict literal interpretation of the verse, at the time of creation God had a body consisting of all the parts of a human body.

According to Christian theology God has not a body (Henry, 1991, p. 6) Jesus said, God is spirit.(John 4:24) For this reason creationists do not interpret Genesis 1:27 literally.

A question needs asking. If creationists insist that every verse of Genesis be interpreted literally, then why don't they interpret Genesis 1:27 literally?

A: Your body in a mirror is not the same as your real body but it is an image of your body. Just because God is spirit does not mean that he cannot have a form that is reflected in the physical. Still, how was man created in God's 'likeness'? Is it necessarily the body or could He be referring to intelligence?

It would be foolish to presuppose anything concerning God's body from this rather vague remark. One would need to consider all of scripture in order to come to some kind of conclusion as to what God looks like.

7) "Creationists admit that the empirical data conflicts with creationist theology. So how do creationists explain the conflict? In general, creationists say that God intentionally created Nature to give false empirical data. In other words, creationists are saying that God created Nature to lie."

A: Once again, I disagree with this assumption. Science does not disagree with scripture...it confirms its validity! What is wrong is man's deceived ideas and concepts of what science and the Bible really say.

All in all, however, a nice read. I admit that the majority of ALL people, atheists and theists alike, do not have a clue as to our origins and the nature of God.

[GeminiBrian]

[QUOTE]

Quote by: shawmutt I agree, but that doesn't negate religion or make it useless.

Useless is a term I didn't, and wouldn't use in this context. My only gripe with religion in this area is that it makes unjustified claims that the whole universe is under God's control - it doesn't actually negate religion but it does make it look as if it is over-reaching itself, scientifically speaking, and sacrifices credibility in the process. Keep religion as a moral guide if you will, because if it has any validity for the human condition, it would arguably lie in that, and that alone. But keep cosmology out of it if you want to avoid ridicule.

This certainly isn't exclusive to theists. There is a lot of "accumulated nonsense and tired old ideas" among people no matter what they claim about God. Even the hardened atheist can get set in his ways, and when presented with a burning bush will run for a fire extinguisher. I think what you are doing is self-selecting folks from your own experience, and extrapolating that to all theists.

You're undoubtedly correct, shawmutt. Nevertheless, there is a marked difference between a theistic and an atheistic mindset, and the reasons why and how each group believes in their favoured theories are crucially dissimilar. It's impossible to speak without some degree of generalisation here, of course, but if you care to analyse this opposition, I think you will find that it is a valuable means of drawing up a psychological distinction between the two camps.

For instance, the standard theistic mindset (for the sake of argument) is a direct reflection of a docile-type personality - one that is happy to be guided by a 'higher' authority - in this case the bible and its resident god.
Such a mindset is easily unsettled by insecurity, by any demands on its resourcefulness to handle its own problems in a more creative way. It requires constant reassurance that all will turn out well in the end in order to give form and meaning to a struggling existence. It functions best when it is told what to think and do.

So overwhelming are these needs, that many believers can't even contemplate a less personal alternative, which is why, as you suggest, so many people cling to fixed belief all their lives. It is out of fear of losing such a crutch, even if their rational capacity sometimes rebels... An atheist, by contrast, is someone who has realised the futility of fighting his rational side, and anything he 'believes' thereafter will be judged accordingly - big difference - the subjective versus the objective outlook.

We are, after all, just smart animals. Looking for patterns, getting into a routine, etc.--it's all part and parcel of our evolution and survival.

You are only able to openly acknowledge that we are animals because you have renounced Christianity.

No, I wouldn't shoot Hitler in the head. If I was unaware of what would happen, what reason would I have? If I was aware of what would happen, how can I be sure another person wouldn't do something even more heinous? I'd kill Hitler, and then Hermann Göring would find a much more efficient method of genocide, resulting in 12 million Jews killed.

OK. let's not take my illustration beyond its original purpose, which was to show that moral dilemmas do often present themselves, albeit not in such an extreme form.

It's not my conscience, it is reality. Murder is wrong. This is evidenced by the fact that unless a person is a sociopath, murder has a profound negative impact on the perpetrator.

I couldn't agree more, but my intention was to show that if GIVEN ALL THE FACTS we failed to assess the implications of action versus non-cation seriously enough, we would have to lead our entire lives on a strictly passive basis to be consistent... I'm not sure such a choice is the morally correct one in all circumstances. Eastern philosophical precepts, for instance, though sublime in their passivity, are often accused of indifference to social ills, focusing instead on the spiritual advancement of the individual as a priority.

Evil flourishes where good folks fail to act, you might say.

The notions of right and wrong are not the test--the choice to do the wrong thing or the right thing is the test.

See above.

How many have their faith strengthened by loss? I'm not sure any holy book says the world will always stay the same. They offer guides for living. The people who read these books and get certain ideas about what they say try to make things stay the same. A former Christian, now agnostic like me can read the Bible and find a lot of wisdom contained within still.

In terms of our religious history, we are in the same boat, although, as you see, I have moved some way beyond agnosticism. What I find interesting in our debate probably hinges directly on this vital difference, since I can see so much of myself in your argument, and yet...

Yes, admittedly scripture is not entirely lacking in wisdom, and if it were possible to lift the figure of Jesus out of the theological muddle attached to him in the NT, I would be prepared to find many things to say in his favour, strictly as a teacher of ethics. Trouble is though, shawmutt, that is not really possible, since the whole Jesus thing is so ensnared by a pernicious superstitious overlay. But an an theist like me can certainly discover value in Jesus the man - without, however, having any time for the religious claptrap that has claimed him and used him for its own incredible agenda -- ie. A crazy, vindictive God's tool for the redemption of original sin.

... In short "stability as an illusion" is what people do regardless of religion.

The sort of stability you indicate falls short of what I had in mind, I guess. What I was trying to say is more along the lines of actively embracing insecurity as a fact of life instead of wasting energy fighting it, always in vain.

I don't see a problem with people needing a crutch of religion.

Nor do I, as long as they are able to believe in it. The problem comes along when we start looking for deeper answers.

Where religion tries to cross into science, e.g. faith healing or acupuncture, is where I draw my line... etc.

So you would automatically have to dismiss every healing miracle performed by Jesus in the bible as being equally unscientific - so long as you're consistent, we'll leave it at that!

[loser]

Goyboy: Evolution simply means change. Because life is DYNAMIC, it only exists in change. Therefore, evolution (change) is an essential ingredient of life. I repeat, life only exists through change.

However, evolutionists (that are atheists) want to include 'common descent' in the definition of evolution. For this reason, we argue needlessly here over mere semantics. Of course I believe in evolution...I believe in life! However, I am a Creationist and, because God is intelligent, I believe in Intelligent Design. In my understanding, science and religion (Christianity) are in perfect harmony. There is no conflict, only gaps in knowledge. One of the smartest things that I ever say is, "I don't know".

Laziness is a curable condition, brisbane - given the determination. Who was it said "Beware of the man who has only one book" (meaning the bible)?

You've never seen my library! While I probably have 15 Bibles or so, my science collection is literally in the hundreds. Still, that ONE book (in terms of wisdom) reigns SUPREME!

I still prefer my chemistry books, though...and psychology...and nature.

You know, brisbane, you sometimes cross the line between being funny and being offensive... I don't intend to start defending the global reputation of either Darwin or professor Dawkins - I don't need to, they are both more than capable of seeing off the idle scoffers. However, it saddens me to see your constant unfunny reference to "the Dawk" - I can assure you he speaks very highly of you in private!

Now, you're being funny, aren't you?

Otherwise, it rather scares me to see your unhealthy obsession with 'Dick'. Honestly, professor or not, he's just a man...really. The same goes for Chucky.

Please don't go ruining my belief in the Flintstones... they are on telly so it must be true that man and dinosaur co-existed. What more proof can you want?

What he is trying to surreptitiously tell you is that dinosaurs still exist today as they have for the last several thousand years. Crocodiles, caymans, and alligators are just one small group...there are many more.

But I think you will find, statistically speaking, that there is a direct correlation between academic credentials and a tendency to reject religious explanations. In other words, theistic scientists are in a very significant minority (as low as 3% according to some research) compared with the average population. Read into this what you will, but the obvious conclusion would be that belief in scripture is not compatible with a higher than average IQ (but see another thread on this very debate if you are interested).

If your intelligence quotient was as high as you imply, you would notice that you are comparing vomit and ice cream. Academic credentials is vomit; I.Q. is ice cream...yummy.

In academia (the Hallowed Halls of Hokum), indoctrination and conformity are the norm. Rebels tend to be ostracized. IOW, mindless sheep is the product of our universities.

Being at one time a Christian myself,...

Shock me and tell me that you were other than a Catholic...

I guess some individuals find it too difficult to renounce the comforting aspects of belief in a deity, and set about re-doubling their efforts to convince themselves that God exists, and thus find a purpose for their lives... I can empathise with this to some extent, having been there myself in my youth. However, as soon as you have the courage to admit that the quest for reason in a chimera, everything falls into place with amazing clarity.

What is comforting in the realization that your ever move is being recorded as evidence against you in the future? Isn't that why people have fear (trepidation) of 'Big Brother'?

Amazing clarity? Like becoming Clear in Scientology?

Life for an atheist can be as 'spiritual' as the most devour Christian, and if this were not the case, my own life would be pretty bleak.

Well, good for you. I'm a devout (devoured, too) Christian and my life is pretty bleak. Every day, I get one step closer to death...and science still hasn't come up with a cure for what ails me. If I wasn't so stupid, I'd probably take drugs.

I believe NOT. Whilst the Roman Catholic church O'Connor represents wilfully obstructs the diffusion of education, as in Africa, where the terrible scourge AIDS is endemic - that is hardly contributing to the progress of science.

So, is it Christianity's morals that is exacerbating the AIDS epidemic or is the lack thereof? If sexual promiscuity and immorality was curtailed by invoking Christian mores, would AIDS begin to decline?

t is immature to suppose that mankind is incapable of shaping its own future under its own steam. God has never been seen to intervene in terrible human situations (eg, the holocaust) - so why should we assume that he has any plans for our perfection? Where progress in alleviating suffering has been made, it has been due entirely to man's resourcefulness.

You're mistaken. God works through PEOPLE, not some finger from the sky. God intervenes every second of every day as some person full of God's love and spirit helps another human being in their time of need. Compassion and love is how God works and He shows it through His individual servants...human beings just like us...if we would be so inclined.

[loser]

Based on DNA evidence, I am looking at a couple of dinosaurs now.

You live in Australia...all you have is dinosaurs!

Could you send me a wombat?...I've always wanted a wombat.

You see not knowing something isn not the problem, it is those that "do not know" but stubbornly say they "do know". That was the point of the OP

A very good point. However, the OP assigned these characteristics to the wrong group. It's not the theists who do as much, it's the atheists!

There is an onus to address the original post, after all, and so far, the response has been most disappointing in terms of an informed debate.

Could it be that the subjects of the debate (God, man's origins) yield scant information to begin with? All anybody has is beliefs and hunches and reasons and logic. It's your contention that theists leave logic at the door. It's my contention that it's the other way around. In the end, we will be arguing till the cows come home with neither side able to offer anything resembling credible evidence; credible, at least, to the opposing party.

I don't see a problem with people needing a crutch of religion.

I fail to see how religion can be thought of as a crutch. I see it more as a crucifix. He's not leaning on the cross, the cross is leaning on Him. Carrying a cross is not a crutch, it is a burden...a burden that many are not willing to bear.

[TheDastardlyOne]

Quote by: brisbane buddy Points TheDastardlyOne have to be handled in order. No use jumping into the deep end if people don't understand the basics . One thing I could near guarantee there would have been a mass search for palaeontology, or readers will have added new knowledge to their association patterns. Some people learn the easy way, and others, what can I say, they have to learn the hard way. You see not knowing something isn not the problem, it is those that "do not know" but stubbornly say they "do know". That was the point I was going to make in the end, albeit maybe not against the theist. It is a human traite and all who are human do it, even the atheist, and I point to the Opening Post as tangible evidence to prove it. Cheers.

But how do you point to this. Maybe I am not getting it, but how is his(according to you) inefficient knowledge of dinosaurs comparable to calling on one's insufficient knowledge of evolution with the stance that they have sufficient knowledge.

I will use me as an example. I do not know much of evolution. I never cared to. However like a theist who stands against it I stand for it. What is the difference? I believe it because over 90% of a respected community who studies it says it's true. The people who teach me physics and other sciences that I believe say this is true. I am acting in faith with people who are respected and know what they are talking about.

How does one who doesn't accept it act? They are not certified to teach and understand and have only heard arguments from the anti-evolution side.

Can you also tell which one acts like they "know" when they don't "know"? This is not rhetorical I want to see how you reason this.

[GeminiBrian]

[QUOTE]

Quote by: loser You live in Australia...all you have is dinosaurs! Could you send me a wombat?...I've always wanted a wombat.

You'd only eat it, loser. We both know that...

[Goyboy]

Quote by: GeminiBrian Quote: Quote by: Goyboy GeminiBrian So what is the problem? No problem, particularly - let's just call it stalemate and move on.

Thank you, GeminiBrian.

[shawmutt]

Quote by: GeminiBrian Yes, admittedly scripture is not entirely lacking in wisdom, and if it were possible to lift the figure of Jesus out of the theological muddle attached to him in the NT, I would be prepared to find many things to say in his favour, strictly as a teacher of ethics. Trouble is though, shawmutt, that is not really possible, since the whole Jesus thing is so ensnared by a pernicious superstitious overlay. But an an theist like me can certainly discover value in Jesus the man - without, however, having any time for the religious claptrap that has claimed him and used him for its own incredible agenda -- ie. A crazy, vindictive God's tool for the redemption of original sin.

At this point we are pretty much in agreement with everything but minor quibbles--isn't that nice

I just wanted to point out that it's not impossible to lift Jesus out of the muddle, and in fact it has been done, by one of our founding fathers no less. Thomas Jefferson wrote his own version of the NT, called Jefferson's Bible. It goes through the life of Jesus while leaving out all the mumbo jumbo. The last line of Jefferson's version is:

63 There laid they Jesus, 64 And rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.

The Bible is available on Amazon, and the free text is available here

[Goyboy]

Quote by: loser What does modern evolution theory actually say? Does it say "common descent"?

Loser asks an interesting question. What does modern evolution theory actually say?

Thankfully, I answer the question in my essay Evolution Theory for Dummies (which I need to revise). What follows is my essay in its entirety:

Evolution Theory for Dummies

In December of 2005, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled “that a Pennsylvania school board violated the Constitution in requiring discussions of intelligent design in ninth-grade biology classes.” This ruling will not stop the feud pertaining to Intelligent Design and Evolution Theory. The irony is that proponents of Intelligent Design aren’t actually challenging Evolution Theory.

In order for the irony to be understood, an explanation of Evolution Theory is needed.

When stripped of the excess baggage that has been added to it over the years, Evolution Theory is summed up in the following two sentences:

A genetic population evolves whenever new genetic data is added to that population. New genetic data is added either by cross-breeding or by mutations.

That’s really all there is to Evolution Theory. It is nothing more than an explanation of what causes life forms to evolve.

Evolution Theory is demonstrated to be accurate whenever dog breeders produce a new breed of dog, such as when the monks at the Monastery of Bernard de Menthon cross-bred previously-existing dogs in order to produce the breed of dog call the Saint Bernard.

The accuracy of Evolution Theory is demonstrated by the rise of antibiotic-resistant infections as the result of mutating bacteria.

Evolution Theory, as described here, isn’t disputed by proponents of Intelligent Design. Instead, ID proponents are disputing the theory of common descent, which is a separate theory about the evolutionary events that have taken place during the course of natural history.

Sadly, scientists and science teachers have done a piss poor job of explaining to the general public the difference between the two theories. Indeed, scientists habitually place different biological theories under the banner of Evolution Theory. As a result, Evolution Theory itself keeps being attacked by mistake.

In case you are wondering . . .


1) The passage of time by itself doesn't cause evolution to take place. The passage of time merely provides more opportunities for evolutionary events to take place.

2) The theory of natural selection isn’t the same thing as Evolution Theory, although the former theory is also confused with the latter.

According to the theory of natural selection, the species best equipped to survive in an environment is the species most likely to live long enough to reproduce. When an environmental change takes place, the species best equipped for the change is the species most likely to survive the change. If a species is ill-equipped for its environment, then that species will most likely die out. In other words, the environment (a.k.a. Nature) selects what species will survive.

3) Evolution Theory doesn’t explain how life began. The theory of abiogenesis is the theory about how life began.

4) Contrary to what Media members keep saying, Evolution Theory doesn’t require that all mutations be random. British zoologist Richard Dawkins wrote, “It is not critical to the theory that mutation must be random, and it most certainly provides no excuse to tar the whole theory with the brush of randomness.”

5) Contrary to what some critics of Evolution Theory keep claiming, Evolution Theory doesn't eliminate God. The late Stephen Jay Gould wrote, "Darwin did not use evolution to promote atheism or to maintain that no concept of God could ever be squared with the structure of nature. . . If many Western thinkers had once invoked a blinkered and indefensible concept of divinity to declare the impossibility of evolution, Darwin would not make the same arrogant mistake in the opposite direction, and claim that the fact of evolution implies the nonexistence of God."

Mark Butchheim is Associate Professor of Biological Science at the University of Tulsa. Mr. Buthheim wrote, ". . . I move to the issue that distresses me the most—the assertion that an acceptance of ToE as a scientific explanation for biological diversity negates a role for God. This is certainly the conclusion championed by Richard Dawkins in his popular books on evolutionary biology (e.g., The Blind Watchmaker). This also seems to be the conclusion of Mr. Fisher, Mr. Waters and others in the ID movement. My unequivocal answer is “absolutely not!” What Dawkins advocates is “science as morality or religion.” I see science and religion as two “ways of knowing.” Science offers us material causes for natural phenomena. Period." [Quote Source]


6) The reason that Evolution Theory doesn't eliminate God is because nothing in science eliminates God. Scientific laymen (and some scientists) often make the mistake of thinking that ontological naturalism is a requirement of science. Such thinking is incorrect.

Australian philosophy professor John Wilkins wrote, "A final form of naturalism is ontological naturalism. This is the opinion that all that exists is natural. Many scientists are also physicalists. They argue that if we do not need to postulate the reality of non-physical processes for science, then we can conclude that there are no such things. This argument is too quick. The claim that ‘if A then B’ explains B may be true, but there may also be a C that explains B. Moreover, many things in the physical world are cause by many things together rather than just a few. So, we might say that a physical event is caused by both God and by physical causes, without being logically inconsistent.”

The error in logic that Mr. Wilkins describes is called “affirming the consequent”.

Atheist philosopher Keith Augustine wrote, "In utilizing methodological naturalism, science and history do not assume a priori that, as a matter of fact, supernatural causes don't really exist. There is no conceptual conflict between practicing science or history and believing in the supernatural." [Quote Source]

Dr. Mark A. Foster is Professor of Sociology at Johnson Community College in Overland Park, Kansas. Dr. Foster wrote the following:

“I have frequently observed that many intelligent design theologians conflate methodological naturalism (or agnosticism, in T.H. Huxley's sense of the word) with ontological naturalism (or atheism). Because a scientist recognizes the operational limitations of science does not make her or him an atheist. . .

Ontological naturalists are, by definition, atheists. Methodological naturalists are not.

Like virtually all scientists (physical, biological, or social), I am a methodological naturalist. However, I am not an atheist (an ontological naturalist). As a methodological naturalist, I reject that science can be used to demonstrate the existence of God. I do not reject that the existence of God can be demonstrated through other means.” [Quote Source]

7) Evolution Theory doesn’t contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Evolution Theory pertains to living organisms, which are open systems. The Second Law of Thermodynamics pertains to closed systems. Comparing Evolution Theory to the Second Law of Thermodynamics is like comparing apples to oranges.


References:


Dawkins, R. (1996). Climbing Mount Improbable. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Gould, S.J. (1999). Rocks of ages: Science and religion in the fullness of life. NY: Ballantine.
Wilkins, J. (1997). Naturalism: Is it necessary? TalkOrigins. Evolution and Philosophy: Naturalism

[brisbane buddy]

Quote by: loser You live in Australia...all you have is dinosaurs! Could you send me a wombat?...I've always wanted a wombat. .

LOL loser, I hope you are nocturnal, cause brother wombat sure is. Big too.

No need to send you any dinosaurs though, you would have plenty around you. There is more DNA and physical evidence which suggests that the dinosaur evolved in birds than there is to suggest that mankind evolved from a common ancestral ape. You know the funny thing is many biologist don't believe the palaeontolgists, some even go as far as to say they are crazy, it spoils their wiped out by an asteriod theory. Ah scientists don't ya just love them.

Cheers.

[brisbane buddy]

Quote by: TheDastardlyOne But how do you point to this. Maybe I am not getting it, but how is his(according to you) inefficient knowledge of dinosaurs comparable to calling on one's insufficient knowledge of evolution with the stance that they have sufficient knowledge. I will use me as an example. I do not know much of evolution. I never cared to. However like a theist who stands against it I stand for it. What is the difference? I believe it because over 90% of a respected community who studies it says it's true. The people who teach me physics and other sciences that I believe say this is true. I am acting in faith with people who are respected and know what they are talking about. How does one who doesn't accept it act? They are not certified to teach and understand and have only heard arguments from the anti-evolution side. Can you also tell which one acts like they "know" when they don't "know"? This is not rhetorical I want to see how you reason this.

The dastardlyone, the point is chances are you will never get it it if you haven't gotten it as yet. Loser gets it, due to their association pattern. This is not a shot at your intelligence, it is just the way perception and association works.

Palaeontology is established scientific fact. Using the reference given by the opening post, only intellectual laziness would stop a person from knowing it. Without knowing it Gemini did a Socrates to himself.

To use the terminology of the Opening post, this glibly ignores the sheer volume of work and dedication that has gone into investigating these problems for at least a couple of hundred years.

As for your analogy pertaining to 90% of those that study it (evolution) believe it is true I really think you are doing these people a diservice. I would conclude 100% or very close would believe it were true, else they wouldn't be studying it. It is akin to saying 100% of people who study physics believe in physics. You are acting in faith when you say you accept what they say, but you are also denying all the good quality scientists who don't support this point of view or hold a different theory or hypothesis of a similar or different nature.

One who doesn't accept evolution generally acts exactly the same way as those that do accept evolution. All it says is people are human. No difference between people except what they believe and have faith in.

Cheers.

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: brisbane buddy LOL loser, I hope you are nocturnal, cause brother wombat sure is. Big too. No need to send you any dinosaurs though, you would have plenty around you. There is more DNA and physical evidence which suggests that the dinosaur evolved in birds than there is to suggest that mankind evolved from a common ancestral ape. You know the funny thing is many biologist don't believe the palaeontolgists, some even go as far as to say they are crazy, it spoils their wiped out by an asteriod theory. Ah scientists don't ya just love them. Cheers.

Where is the support for ANYTHING you've said here? Or is this where we are suppose to accept your "power of suggestions"? Without any support on your part, we can write this off as mere conjecture.

Now I don't deny that birds are descendents of dinosaurs, but they are not dinosaurs. UNless of course you want to change the "power of suggestions" definition of dinosaur.

BB, I don't get it, what is it that you actually believe about our existence? Do you even believe you exist? How is it that you believe yourself so much (at least it appears this way) yet at ever turn you seem to bash Science, atheists, theists etc... What makes you think you know more? If science is the way, then what IS the way to knowledge?

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: shawmutt At this point we are pretty much in agreement with everything but minor quibbles--isn't that nice I just wanted to point out that it's not impossible to lift Jesus out of the muddle, and in fact it has been done, by one of our founding fathers no less. Thomas Jefferson wrote his own version of the NT, called Jefferson's Bible. It goes through the life of Jesus while leaving out all the mumbo jumbo.]

Great! - But we'll have to start disagreeing again soon, shawmut, there's only so much concord and harmony that I can stand !!

I was, however, interested in your link to the Jefferson bible, and mean to follow it up in detail, thanks... I'd heard of it, of course, but given it very little thought, even though I've always had a big regard for Jefferson in many ways.

In return, I wonder if you might find another book of interest, one that influenced me quite a lot when I was in my late teens. It's name, The Wisdom of Insecurity (Alan Watts) tells you what the theme is, and I think it has relevance for this debate.

The Wisdom of Insecurity (Alan Watts)

Alan Watts: The Wisdom of Insecurity [Tesugen]

Brian.

[brisbane buddy]

Quote by: ItsDarts Where is the support for ANYTHING you've said here? Or is this where we are suppose to accept your "power of suggestions"? Without any support on your part, we can write this off as mere conjecture. Now I don't deny that birds are descendents of dinosaurs, but they are not dinosaurs. UNless of course you want to change the "power of suggestions" definition of dinosaur. BB, I don't get it, what is it that you actually believe about our existence? Do you even believe you exist? How is it that you believe yourself so much (at least it appears this way) yet at ever turn you seem to bash Science, atheists, theists etc... What makes you think you know more? If science is the way, then what IS the way to knowledge?

ItsDarts, don't be intellectually lazy, or do I need to read it for you too. I have given you the source, I have given you the topic, now it is up to you, either you want to increase your knowledge or you wish to remain ignorant of it, the choice is up to you. Always has been and always will be, it is not up to me to convince you one way or the other.

Science is the way to knowledge ItsDarts. But stick to facts not science fiction. Open the mind to learn. I don't bash science, just the way the atheists abuse science in order to abuse theists with their sanctimonious crap and personal brand of religious dogma.

I believe myself so much ItsDarts because I have already read and understood what you appear to be intellectually lazy to do. If you hadn't of been so lazy, we wouldn't be having this discussion for you would be saying I read and understood that too. Palaeontology really does go to great depths to explain it all. It is of course what they do and their field of expertise within the ranks of science.

Cheers.

[GeminiBrian]

[QUOTE]

Quote by: loser Goyboy: Evolution simply means change. Because life is DYNAMIC, it only exists in change.

I addressed your previous post yesterday, loser, with my usual unfailing wisdom, but very unwisely deleted the whole bloo*y thing as I was about to post it... so I'll move on to your subsequent post since I'm too lazy to go back over old ground.

However, evolutionists (that are atheists) want to include 'common descent' in the definition of evolution. For this reason, we argue needlessly here over mere semantics. Of course I believe in evolution..

You want it both ways, loser. I suggest that you can't possibly believe or understand evolutionary theory on such a partial basis: the whole paradigm of evolution rests on its essential notion of common descent - without that it becomes totally meaningless.

The fundamental premise of the whole theory is that life diversified from extremely simple biological organism millions of years ago, so if you can't accept this central fact, you can't claim to believe in evolution - period - ! What you are trying to do is to side-step in a cavalier and arbitrary manner, because you cannot deny that change in species is a demonstrable fact, and yet your biblical leanings prevent you from accepting the broader implications of Darwin's full insight.

I believe in life! However, I am a Creationist and, because God is intelligent, I believe in Intelligent Design. In my understanding, science and religion (Christianity) are in perfect harmony. There is no conflict, only gaps in knowledge. One of the smartest things that I ever say is, "I don't know".

Nonsense... Science and theism are two diametrically opposed ways of interpreting the natural world, and you will never reconcile them, or hope to bridge the chasm between them.

On the one hand you have Science, which doesn't require you to believe in anything -- all it asks is that the observable evidence of the Natural world is studied with great care, and belief doesn't come into the equation. Any conclusions are open to modification as knowledge progresses, and are therefore not immutable.

Religious belief, on the other hand, DOES demand a suspension of the investigative process, and DOES present you with a fully-formed set of beliefs which you are not supposed to question too deeply, if at all... That is the camp you choose to belong to - fair enough - but you can't go switching camps as it suits you whilst claiming there is no real divide.

There is -- there is a HUGE divide.

You've never seen my library! While I probably have 15 Bibles or so, my science collection is literally in the hundreds. Still, that ONE book (in terms of wisdom) reigns SUPREME! ...I still prefer my chemistry books, though...and psychology...and nature.

Oh! loser... hopefully you will one day make your mind up and go with your healthy, rational leanings, and see religion for what it is - a serious obstacle to the free functioning of the brain.

Now, you're being funny, aren't you?

Call it my dry humour.

Otherwise, it rather scares me to see your unhealthy obsession with 'Dick'.

Me being gay has no bearing, I don't think.

The same goes for Chucky

Who Chucky??

If your intelligence quotient was as high as you imply, you would notice that you are comparing vomit and ice cream. Academic credentials is vomit; I.Q. is ice cream...yummy.

IMPLY? - my brilliance speaks for itself, loser.

In academia (the Hallowed Halls of Hokum), indoctrination and conformity are the norm. Rebels tend to be ostracized. IOW, mindless sheep is the product of our universities.

Don't knock education until you've tried it...

Shock me and tell me that you were other than a Catholic...

No virgin birth for me, alas!

Well, good for you. I'm a devout (devoured, too) Christian and my life is pretty bleak. Every day, I get one step closer to death...and science still hasn't come up with a cure for what ails me. If I wasn't so stupid, I'd probably take drugs.

I'm truly sorry to hear that. Maybe you should allow yourself to be persuaded to take up whatever treatment there is on offer - I think you should.

So, is it Christianity's morals that is exacerbating the AIDS epidemic or is the lack thereof? If sexual promiscuity and immorality was curtailed by invoking Christian mores, would AIDS begin to decline?

You have to be realistic. You can't hope to change traditional sexual behaviour in the short time available to avert total catastrophe - and that's where the situation is rapidly moving. To rely on your Christian morals to save the day is a pipe dream, especially as things stand.

God intervenes every second of every day as some person full of God's love and spirit helps another human being in their time of need. Compassion and love is how God works and He shows it through His individual servants...human beings just like us...if we would be so inclined.

You know, loser, you have made it extremely difficult for me to offer a contradiction to this, since you clearly have so much invested in seeing the world in this holy, benign light, given your predicament... All I can think to say is that us human beings shouldn't be regarded as incapable of tremendous love and support in times of need, although, of course, I see no part for god in all this.