Evolutionism vs creationism [Archive] - Page 2

JellySlayer

08-16-2010, 06:51 AM

> Mao and Stalin were communists. That they were atheists is largely coincidental

I somehow doubt that was a condolence to the religious people they murdered.

> --their interest wasn't in stamping out religion per se,

I seem to recall the phrase 'religion is poison', but again, different books.

Stalin and Mao killed lots of people. I don't deny that. Attributing these atrocities to atheism is rather far-fetched. It is more accurate to attribute their actions to their belief in communism.

> Hilter was a devout Roman Catholic.

I don't know much of catholocism, but I doubt many catholics would repeat
the above statement.

Probably not. Again, simply because Hilter was Catholic does not mean that it is correct to attribute his actions to Catholicism. Hilter's driving motivation was his belief in fascism and the superiority of the German race. That and he was probably crazy as a loon.

> doubt that had that [they?] the opportunity, resources, and a modern military,
> that Islamic nations wouldn't be just as brutal?

If memory serves, iran has never launched a pre-emptive strike against any nation.

I'm not sure what that proves. Some of their neighbours have proved to be rather unstable from time to time.

The point of that section of the article was to prove that bad deeds
have been perpetrated by believers and non. You agree that the believer's
bad deeds are valid, yet claim the bad deeds of non-believers aren't
valid, as they didn't previously declare that they were acting in the
name of non-believing.

I'm not arguing that non-believers can't do bad things. I'm arguing that non-belief is not, generally speaking, a motivation for doing bad things (or good things). Religion, by comparison, is a very good motivator for actions, both good and bad. The problem is that bad things tend to have a much bigger impact, on global or historical timescale, than good things. There's a reason that we remember people like Hilter, Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin, and not some equivalently great philanthropists.

There is plenty of blame to be distributed. I place more blame for the afghani
deaths upon vengence seekers. I remember no cries for 'justice' coming from
any religious organizations. Quite the contrary from secular sources.

I'll assume the reason you believe this is that you didn't watch TV at the time either.

Hogwash. The push for Iraq war was from uncle sam, not churches. Do not
equate the fed with religion, regardless of what they spout.

The Republican Party has been in bed with the evangelicals since the Reagan years.

> they believe that the only thing that matters is what happens in the next
> life, and are prepared to sacrifice anyone

You quote an extreme. The counter would be an athiest that says it's OK to
eat humans, as they're just animals... but you would call that invalid, as
he didn't first proclaim he was eating in the name of atheism.

The statement "I do not believe in God" does not compell you to take any action.
The statement "I believe in God" can compell you to take action.

A lack of belief in something generally does not obligate you to do anything. There are lots of things that a given person doesn't believe in, and these things have no impact on their lives to speak of. It is what you believe in that makes a difference in how you behave. Atheism is not a real philosophy in that sense. It makes no claims about how you ought to behave or what you ought to do with your life. It is simply the absence of beliefs about anything supernatural.

JellySlayer

08-16-2010, 07:03 AM

This has devolved into looking for the actions of extremists on both sides and using them to try to put the other side down. Its pathetic. Stop it.

>Hitler was a devout Catholic
Now you're just spewing complete bullshit and its become really, really sad. I thought you were above this. Maybe you should research things before you go off an make absurd statements like that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_religious_views

Hilter made use of Christian ideas symbolism constantly in his speeches and writings. The article notes that he was a member of the Catholic church until the day of his death. "Devout" might be too strong of term, but I don't feel it is entirely unreasonable to say he was Christian, if not Catholic. I emphasize my previous point on the matter: I don't claim that Hilter's religious views led to his actions. They were not his motivating influence, any more than his vegetarianism was.

gut

08-16-2010, 08:09 AM

> Now you're just spewing complete bullshit

delightful contribution

> Attributing these atrocities to atheism is rather far-fetched

I think it's far fetched to see athiests executing believers
for the crime of believing, then calling it coincidence.

> simply because Hilter was Catholic

belonging to a religion is more than attendance.

> Hilter's driving motivation was his belief in fascism

weren't Germans starving when hitler was young. I imagine
that might have done some stuff to his head. I think he
saw his function as to care only for germans, because he
thought nobody else did. I see the whole 'we are superior'
stuff as little more than a motivational tool.

>>> Islamic nations wouldn't be just as brutal?

>> If memory serves, iran has never launched a pre-emptive strike

> I'm not sure what that proves.

secular governments of Isreal, America, etc... have a record
of attacking first. The islamic fundamentalist iran doesn't.
It implies that believers can sometimes be comparitively
tolerant.

> bad things tend to have a much bigger impact, on global or
> historical timescale, than good things

again, we disagree. I think you aren't giving enough credit to
the good. I go to sleep every night with my doors unlocked and
sometimes even open. If I didn't live in the middle of the bible
belt, I wouldn't even try it. Don't just give penalties when a
building falls down. Give credit to everyday decency that is
encouraged by religion as well.

> I'll assume the reason you believe this is that you didn't
> watch TV at the time either.

I only stopped watching about 2 years ago. I do remember that
the pope counceled america not to respond, and have to wonder
if things would not have turned out better if we hadn't.

> Republican Party has been in bed with the evangelicals

evangelicals = a voting block, they do not push military agenda

> The statement "I believe in God" can compell you to take action

I know, I see it everyday, and it's mostly good. Just because
we don't celebrate the good doesn't mean it is outwieghed by
the bad.

> The statement "I do not believe in God" does not

lack of belief doesn't have to be the primary motivation for a
deed to attribute the deed, in part, to lack of belief. If
hitler really feared god, you wouldn't recognize his name.

> Hilter made use of Christian ideas symbolism

didn't we already cover this, about leaders pretending their
own will is that of gods? that doesn't make you a believer,
just a manipulator.

Silfir

08-16-2010, 08:36 AM

Albahan

08-16-2010, 09:02 AM

Hilter made use of Christian ideas symbolism constantly in his speeches and writings. The article notes that he was a member of the Catholic church until the day of his death. "Devout" might be too strong of term, but I don't feel it is entirely unreasonable to say he was Christian, if not Catholic. I emphasize my previous point on the matter: I don't claim that Hilter's religious views led to his actions. They were not his motivating influence, any more than his vegetarianism was.

The article says that he was confirmed unwillingly and never attended mass or received the sacraments after he left home. I'd hardly call that being a member of the Catholic church or of any form of Christianity.

The article also says that he preferred Protestantism because of how there was more room left for reinterpretation. Hitler liked this because he could use this to his advantage by twisting teachings around so that they could be reinterpreted in his favor. He used his corrupted form of Christianity and its ideals as a means to pacify and persuade the masses. As gut said he was a manipulator. He was more like Stalin in the sense that he really wanted people form a religion around him and to worship him as their "Messiah" which is how he had his hierarchy set up when he took control.

>Delightful contribution
Thanks :D

grobblewobble

08-16-2010, 12:26 PM

I don't
need no stinking books, tv shows, politicians,
'holy' men, or other assorted sources of mental
illness to tell me (to, or) not to go around
killing people. Someone tells me to go kill
someone, I tell them no thanks.

if I didn't fear god and the law, I would kill everyone I ever wanted to

Sometimes I find it hard to tell when you are being serious and when you are just being ironic or provocative.

gut

08-16-2010, 12:34 PM

do you really think I would go around killing people :D

JellySlayer

08-16-2010, 03:13 PM

It's hard to do things "in the name of Atheism", but it doesn't change the fact that it's perfectly possible to be atheist and perpetrate a cruel dictatorship (just like it's possible to claim yourself to be Christian and perpetrate cruelty - please note this doesn't absolve Christianity as a whole from responsibility). To cite the article, in both cases the people are just as dead. Atheism does not imply moral superiority I'm afraid - it doesn't imply moral inferiority either. "You Can Do Terrible Things in the Name of Either One" doesn't agree with you because it's hard to do things "in the name of Atheism", considering atheism is not a religion - perhaps "You Can Be Either and Still Do Terrible Things"?

I agree with this wholeheartedly. My interest is in motivations: atheism is not a philosophy that gives motivation to do good, nor is it a philosophy that argues that you should do evil. It is simply an absence of belief about things spiritual. Religion is a great motivator for both good and evil. It's been argued (eg. in Guns, Germs, and Steel) that, in fact, that is why religion was created in the first place--to give people motivation to do things that they would not otherwise be inclined to do.

secular governments of Isreal, America, etc... have a record
of attacking first. The islamic fundamentalist iran doesn't.
It implies that believers can sometimes be comparitively
tolerant.

There'd be a lot of people around the world surprised to learn that Israel and the United States are secular states. I'm not saying you're wrong, but that's not the perception that a lot of people get from their actions.

evangelicals = a voting block, they do not push military agenda

If you can, I'd encourage you to track down the documentary called "Waiting for Armageddon". It's out on DVD.

lack of belief doesn't have to be the primary motivation for a
deed to attribute the deed, in part, to lack of belief. If
hitler really feared god, you wouldn't recognize his name.

Well, that depends on which god he feared, now doesn't it? Joshua in the Old Testament annhiliated numerous cities and peoples; so did David. Both are revered figures in some Christian circles. In the Middle Ages, the Popes commanded armies and empires and did a lot of terrible things. Mohammad was as much a general and king as he was a prophet and slaughtered a lot of people. The motivations for such people (assuming they even existed) is complicated, but I think it'd be hard to argue that these characters were anything but devout. Again, religion is a great motivator to convince people to do things that they really ought to have better sense not to. It's a lot easier to go to war if you think that the supreme creator of the universe told your leader that's what He wanted you to do.

gut

08-16-2010, 04:51 PM

JellySlayer

08-16-2010, 05:22 PM

> If you can, I'd encourage you to track down the documentary
> called "Waiting for Armageddon". It's out on DVD.

Let me guess, it's vid where extremist political brainwashed
yankees tell me how my people really are. Maybe they are in
a position to know better than me though, as all I do is live
here.

It illustrates how and why the Christian right tries to influence the foreign policy of the United States with respect to the Middle East. As usual with docs, I can't make the case that they're completely unbiased without knowledge of how things were edited. As best as I can judge, it treats the material reasonably fairly and isn't overtly trying to introduce editorial bias.

> Joshua in the Old Testament annhiliated numerous cities

and claimed it was gods will, we covered that already.

> it'd be hard to argue that these characters were anything but devout.

it'd be hard to argue they didn't hear voices.

Maybe. But why were they believed?

gut

08-16-2010, 07:52 PM

> it treats the material reasonably fairly and isn't
> overtly trying to introduce editorial bias

by that logic, this pic is presented fairly, and isn't introducing editorial bias
http://i34.tinypic.com/2pq4z5t.jpg
but if you think that's how things really are, you are way off base. Like I
mentioned before, I live here.

> Maybe. But why were they believed?

how do I know? I'm a (reasonably) modern hillbilly, not an ancient
middle-easterner. dissent was discouraged?

by the way, thanks to silfir for that link, I liked it

fazisi

08-16-2010, 08:58 PM

If you want to learn a bit about how and why religion works the way it does, I would recommend learning about sociology. Belonging to a group and feeling the need to belong causes people do many things for the group. These activities are called rituals. An example ritual could be going to a building once a week to listen to some guy talk for an hour. By a group of individuals performing these rituals together, they increase solidarity and reduce individuality.

My favorite example of this is not religion but rather the military. A bunch of civilian individuals show up. They climb on a bus, get driven to a base, have their personal belongings taken from them, have their hair cut off and are all dressed in the same clothing. This is all to remove as much individualism as possible.

The next step is to fill this gap with feelings of solidarity. They are all refered by the same rank, eat the same food, perform the same training, go to bed at the same time, everything is identical between each other. Often, if one person in the division fails an activity, the entire division fails the activity.

This builds a very powerful bond between each member of the group to a point where in a situation where bullets are flying around and artillery is exploding, these members will do what they are commanded and even perform the most altruistic of actions for the good of the group.

Religion works in a similar way but I usually don't find it to be as powerful, simply because the frequency of the rituals is not on the same level as the military. But if you feel a fear of not being accepted by a group, you are more likely to conform to the group's wishes over your individual wishes. This includes overcoming a person's insticts of self preservation with the urge to strap explosive to one's self and detonate it in a cafe.

garyd

08-16-2010, 10:05 PM

JS Hitler made those quotes not because he was a cartholic or any other kind of Cristian but because he was a politician running for office in a country that was still around 60-70 Christian at the time.

If one reads "Mein Kampf" one quickly finds that he had little use for Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular and had it in mind to replace it essentailly with some sort of oddball Germanic paganism that was largely a creation of his own mind.

To say that Mao and Stalin's atheism had nothing to do with their attempts to kill millions of people is disengenuous at best. In fact I'd say their atheism gave them carte blanche to do as they damn well pleased after all if there is no God there is no ultimate justice.

minchazo

08-17-2010, 04:51 PM

The statement "I do not believe in God" does not compell you to take any action.
The statement "I believe in God" can compell you to take action.

I really like this statement. Just be very careful to avoid minor changes:
"I do not believe in God and I won't let you believe either."
"I believe in God and you will believe too."

On a different note, isn't communism a form of organized atheism?
Earlier, someone mentioned four people as being remembered instead of philosophers: Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin. Looking them up on wikipedia, only Hilter didn't attempt to destroy all religion in their country.

JellySlayer

08-17-2010, 05:23 PM

On a different note, isn't communism a form of organized atheism?
Earlier, someone mentioned four people as being remembered instead of philosophers: Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin. Looking them up on wikipedia, only Hilter didn't attempt to destroy all religion in their country.

No, it's entirely possible to be both communist and religious. Indeed, one could argue that the early Church was the prototypical communist collective (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism)--everyone sold their property to be used for the common good, for example. There are also a number of communist parties in various European countries that have enjoyed some measure of success despite many of those countries being highly religious.

fazisi

08-17-2010, 10:52 PM

Heaven is a communist nation.

gut

08-17-2010, 10:56 PM

how are the potato crops doing?

they reach to the foot of god sir.

we communists believe there is no god...

that's fitting, as there's also no potatos.

garyd

08-18-2010, 04:47 AM

Given that archeological studies conducted of these cities indidcate that they were engaged in human sacrifice especially of young children. And further given that such cultures when under stress tend to really get hyper with the practice two things are clear from the Biblical record.

1. God sent messenger for over four hundred years to the canaanites telling them to knock that crap off. They did not and so got the punishment they deserved for such atrocities.

2. There likely weren't a whole lot of children left for the Israelis to destroy by the time they took those cities.

grobblewobble

08-18-2010, 08:02 AM

Which cities?

> 1. God sent messenger for over four hundred years to the canaanites telling them to knock that crap off.
> They did not and so got the punishment they deserved for such atrocities.

Serves them right. Bastards.

> 2. There likely weren't a whole lot of children left for the Israelis to destroy by the time they took those cities.

A massacre of grown-ups isn't half as bad as a massacre of kids.

gut

08-18-2010, 08:08 AM

I call it all good eatin'

minchazo

08-18-2010, 06:14 PM

No, it's entirely possible to be both communist and religious. Indeed, one could argue that the early Church was the prototypical communist collective (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism)--everyone sold their property to be used for the common good, for example. There are also a number of communist parties in various European countries that have enjoyed some measure of success despite many of those countries being highly religious.

My mistake; I should have referred specifically to Marxism, not communism. So I'll ask my question again (correctly, this time):
Isn't Marxism a form of organized atheism?
The earlier 4 examples of "really bad people," 3 were Marxists (Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin) and attempt to destroy all religion in their country.

JellySlayer

08-18-2010, 07:25 PM

My mistake; I should have referred specifically to Marxism, not communism. So I'll ask my question again (correctly, this time):
Isn't Marxism a form of organized atheism?
The earlier 4 examples of "really bad people," 3 were Marxists (Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin) and attempt to destroy all religion in their country.

Marxism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism) is an economic and social philosophy that argues for the morality of a communist state. It is atheistic in the sense that it makes no particular reference to a creator, although, I hasten to add, neither to most modern political philosophies including liberalism, socialism, social democracy, libertarianism, objectivism, etc. Marx in particular was intensely critical of Christianity in particular, which he saw as an extension of the power system used to enslave the masses. I suppose you could say that Marxism is a form of organized atheism because the purpose of Marxism has nothing to do with religion. But then, by that reasoning, you could equally say that democracy is a form of organized atheism for the same reason. And just as it is possible to adopt a Christian or otherwise religious perspective on democracy, it is equally possible to adopt a Christian or religious perspective on Marxism.

fazisi

08-18-2010, 08:58 PM

I find all religion to support current power system of a group.

For example, ancient Australian tribes each assigned to themselves an animal totem or animal spirit, such as the tribe of the kangaroo. This animal is considered sacred to them. However, the purpose of this is a symbol of to which tribe they belong. All the grown men of a tribe have gone through certain trials and were considered equal members of a tribe. This is because most men had the exact same job in the tribe of being protectors and hunters.

Another example is the Greek pantheon and the strange existance of ancient Greece. They all shared the same language, customs and religion but were all individual states that constantly fought each other. There were two stages to the common Greek political structure: monarchy then democracy. First with a monarchy, each state was ruled by a king and they fought with each other but banded together to fight outside forces. This reflects the gods fighting each other but working together for common goals. Second is democracy in which the gods didn't fight each other as much but worked together more often.

Another is Christianity and monarchy. All in servitude to each other and following the church's hierarchical structure of regular folk < deacons < priests < bishops < pope (with other shit in between), this fit perfectly with the feudal structure.

garyd

08-19-2010, 12:09 AM

Communism is a religion of sorts. It is, as marx envisoned it, the notion that a state that is powerful and intrusive enough to mae even a half hearted attempt at, "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs" wil eventually wither away. This by the way isn't ever going to happen.

This is why attempts at atheistic communism always ended in blood baths.and truly communistic societies like the Shakers and Hutterites are almost always commposed of relitively small groups of like minded religious folk, who are, more often than not, Christians.

minchazo

08-19-2010, 02:36 PM

I suppose you could say that Marxism is a form of organized atheism because the purpose of Marxism has nothing to do with religion. But then, by that reasoning, you could equally say that democracy is a form of organized atheism for the same reason. And just as it is possible to adopt a Christian or otherwise religious perspective on democracy, it is equally possible to adopt a Christian or religious perspective on Marxism.

Interesting... I thought I'd read enough on Marxism to make a coherent argument, but I was unaware that there are multiple versions. Marx's initial concept could be argued that it was either pro-atheist or accepted religion as a necessary evil.

Since Lenin, Marxism has been definitely atheist. Lenin even stated, "Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism"1 (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_and_religion) Both Pol Pot and Mao's actions show they held the same opinion.

Heh, in looking for more info on Marxism, I found two articles that express the point I wanted to make: Government-led atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism) is as bad as government-led religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition). Don't do either one!

minchazo

08-19-2010, 02:49 PM

JellySlayer

08-19-2010, 03:16 PM

Exactly what constitutes Marxism is not always clear in my mind. I haven't done enough research on the subject to give a full account, but I am aware of various forms of Marxism: Marx-Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, Marxism-Deleonism, Marxism feminism, etc. Given that Marxism was quite popular for several decades, it's unsurprising that various philosophers (although I hesitate to call all of these people philosophers) have had their own take on it. If there's one thing academia is good at, it's taking some singular concept and making a couple hundred variations on it ;) garyd is correct that in practice, many Marxist (and other dictatorial regimes) came to resemble a religion with either the state or the leader of "the movement" becoming symbolically associated with the divine. This is a fairly typical way for a dictator to subvert the masses--to claim the mandate of heaven or something similar.

I don't feel that it is terribly appropriate for the state to be telling people what they ought to believe about anything. As a consequence of this, I do feel that the most appropriate position for the state itself is secularism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism).

fazisi

08-19-2010, 10:55 PM

I find all religion to support current power system of a group.I disagree. The Protestant reformation adjusted the power system controlled by the Catholic church. Religion can be a power system in and of itself. In the Middle Ages the Catholic church itself could topple political rulers. Did you mean 'mirror' instead of support?
Both. The religious structure mirrors the power structure. Because this causes a duality in the masses acceptance of how they should be ruled, both support each other. This was especially true in ages past where religion was a major part of politics, such as when ancient Greek kings had to consult with the oracle before making major decisions.

The Protestant reformation, I feel, was what allowed the change between feudal monarchies and modern day democracy. Both atheism and "multitheism" (the belief that there are many acceptable beliefs, I don't know if there is a real word for this but I'm making one up now) allow for the seperation of religion from politics.

garyd

08-20-2010, 02:23 AM

Or as in the current Middle East where the ruler is often aided and abetted by the religious authorities and vice versa.

JellySlayer

08-23-2010, 08:26 PM

I think I've had a change of heart on this whole matter. Clearly, the universe was created.

And it is all thanks to Mbombo, the great giant, who, upon feeling a great pain in his stomach, proceeded to vomit up all of the universe, the animals, and humans. And we thank Loko Yima, the god upon the earth, himself created by Mbombo's vomit, who continues to protect us from evil.

minchazo

08-23-2010, 08:55 PM

My favorite answer when I asked someone how the universe began (paraphrased):

"Matter slowly collected around cockroaches to form everything we have today."

grobblewobble

08-24-2010, 09:32 AM

Mbombo, the great giant, who, upon feeling a great pain in his stomach, proceeded to vomit up all of the universe, the animals, and humans. And we thank Loko Yima, the god upon the earth, himself created by Mbombo's vomit, who continues to protect us from evil.

I had expected you to come up with the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster) at some point.

JellySlayer

08-24-2010, 02:16 PM

Mbombo has thousands of years of history and culture behind him. More importantly, he's real!

fazisi

08-25-2010, 10:04 AM

Don't be so open-minded, your brains fall out.

Epythic

08-28-2010, 07:19 PM

Dear thread, please don't die.

:)

Silfir

08-29-2010, 10:08 AM

To not have a thread die you could contribute something you know :)

Since the previous links I've posted have been such runaway successes, another one won't hurt:

Linking extravaganza (http://www.squidi.net/comic/aaa/view.php?series=aaa&ep=1&id=1)

And if that doesn't elicit any responses, let me guarantee the spawn of a new, unrelated flamewar by pointing out that the webcomic linked to above has a thousand times better art than xkcd.

gut

08-29-2010, 11:17 AM

it was hard, figuring out which one was the 'asshole'

grobblewobble

08-29-2010, 07:18 PM

And if that doesn't elicit any responses, let me guarantee the spawn of a new, unrelated flamewar by pointing out that the webcomic linked to above has a thousand times better art than xkcd.
I tried my best to be inflamed at that comment, but it didn't work. :rolleyes: I'd say the art of that comic was cool, but I'm not really sure I understand what point they were trying to make.

JellySlayer

09-02-2010, 08:48 PM

Straying dangerously close to being back on topic, I thought I'd just post a link on an experiment that just a really kickass job of demonstrating evolution: the E.Coli long term evolution experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment).

In brief, they've been following 12 colonies of initially identical E.Coli bacteria in identical conditions for a period of 20 years. As of February, an estimated 50000 generations of E.Coli have been run through. They took preserved samples every 500 generations (give or take), and can thus compare the fitness of any given strains from any prior point in time, effectively making a "fossil record" of the bacterial history.

The most remarkable discovery occurred in 2008, when the bacteria in one colony evolved ability to use citrate as a source of energy (in around generation 30000). This is significant because the inability to process citrate is considered one of the primary characteristics of this species of bacteria. They were able to demonstrate that older generations of that same line were also eventually able to re-evolve this property, but only back to about generation 20000. Before this point, the bacteria were (to date) unable to re-evolve this property. They thus hypothesize the existence of some neutral mutation around generation 20000, that, 10000 generations later, became essential in the development of citrate processing in the specimen.

garyd

09-02-2010, 09:29 PM

fazisi

09-02-2010, 10:24 PM

I read the wiki article and was slightly impressed. But there still exists several doubts which this experiment does not address. I am also slightly wanting to agree and disagree with garyd. While this experiment is done within a laboratory with very controlled variables of climate, this is for testing purposes since it becomes extremely hard to do comparison tests in the natural environment. The use of E. coli in particular raises some concerns about this test. It is a very simple bacteria, both in comparison to other bacteria and to other organisms, and is already known for having frequent mutations, both natural and experiment-induced.

In other words, this is kid's-stuff test on evolution. There should be other groups foaming at the mouth for some funding to conduct some more complex experiments using this one as proof of concept.

JellySlayer

09-03-2010, 03:39 AM

Get back to me when something simalar happens outside of a laboratory. You have now proven conclusively that which every religionist on the planet could have told you before you started. To wit to get much more than terribly minor changes within a species requires intelligent interference in the natural order of things.

Did you actually look at what they demonstrated? Let me spell it out:

-Species are able to greatly increase their fitness to their environment through purely through random mutations and asexual reproduction
-Species are able to use successive neutral or beneficial mutations to build up a complex change
-Purely through the processes developed above, a species is able to develop a hugely beneficial trait that completely changes its relationship with its environment and allows it to easily out compete all of its parent generations
-This can happen over relatively short periods of time

If religionists believe that, I don't see anything more that really needs to be discussed.

I read the wiki article and was slightly impressed. But there still exists several doubts which this experiment does not address. I am also slightly wanting to agree and disagree with garyd. While this experiment is done within a laboratory with very controlled variables of climate, this is for testing purposes since it becomes extremely hard to do comparison tests in the natural environment.

Well, yes, obviously it's harder to repeat the experiment in nature because you can't control as many variables. That's sort of the point of doing a controlled experiment. In this case, they showed that mutation alone is sufficient to generate new, beneficial traits. If I want to test Newton's Three Laws, I'm not going to do it by trying to figure out whether I can use them to calculate the trajectory of a thrown boomerang in a windstorm--I'm going to test them on something simple, where I can control for variables that aren't interesting, to test only the relationships that I care about. Once the principle is established, then I can see how it responds to other influences. This is how science works. But the thing is, I don't need to be able to figure out how a thrown boomerang behaves in a windstorm to be able to establish that Newton's Laws work exactly the way that theory predicts they will.

I point out that many well-accepted theories have been accepted on the basis of a single effective experiment. General relativity worked pretty much this way. The nuclear model of the atom was too. And the Copernican model of the solar system. I'm sure I could come up with others.

In other words, this is kid's-stuff test on evolution. There should be other groups foaming at the mouth for some funding to conduct some more complex experiments using this one as proof of concept.

I'm sure there's other research groups looking for ways to enhance this work (this experiment is still technically ongoing AFAIK). The proof of concept is the really important part anyway.

Epythic

09-03-2010, 05:08 PM

garyd

09-03-2010, 06:38 PM

20,000 generations in 20 years. 200,000,000 million years, let's see 20 generation in 20 years 1 generation in a year oh 40 trillion years? Estimated age of the universe 15 billion years. We went from Ambulocetis a 15 footer, that was very much amphibious to Busilosaurus a spem whale sized critter in fifteen million years that is purely aquatic. Sorry not happening.

gut

09-03-2010, 08:13 PM

> -This can happen over relatively short periods of time

50K generations = short? For humans, 50K generations would be 2.5 Million
years... to develope the ability to eat a different type of leaf.

Epythic

09-03-2010, 08:23 PM

g
20,000 generations in 20 years. 200,000,000 million years, let's see 20 generation in 20 years 1 generation in a year oh 40 trillion years? Estimated age of the universe 15 billion years. We went from Ambulocetis a 15 footer, that was very much amphibious to Busilosaurus a spem whale sized critter in fifteen million years that is purely aquatic. Sorry not happening.

Try again.

The wikipedia article said has existed for 3.7 billion years, thats roughly 4 billion.
So how many times do 20 years fit in there?
4.000.000.000 / 20 = 200.000.000. Thats how I arrived at the "multiply by ..." number.

Now, in those 20 years there were ~ 30.000 generations.
In 4 billion years, thats 30.000 * 200.000.000 generations.

So right now we are at generation 6.000.000.000.000.
For comparison: the human DNA has roughly 3.000.000.000 base pairs (not all of which carry useful information, as far as is currently know)

EDIT: It might be tempting to also cite some mutation rate, but thats not nearly as easy, because of various DNA repair effects, different encodings (DNA/RNA), changing mutation rates (like for example if you live close to some radiation source), changing genome size and stuff like that. At least those are the reasons I can think about right now, and I dont know much about the topic.

Sradac

09-03-2010, 09:11 PM

both. If you know anything about the universe you would know everything works perfectly, and in such a complex way that it couldnt possible be a mistake, or just a random combination of elements and physics. Evolution is already proven. Things are created, then adapt.

garyd

09-05-2010, 07:03 AM

You are aware of course that there is a difference in the breeding rates of Bacteria and larger animals? As a general rule the larger the creature the longer the gestation peroiod and the smaller the brood and the longer it takes to get to sexual maturity. And no one has yet come up with much more than a best guess as to where bacteria and viruses may have come from. No one is really arguing about the fact that changes occur within a species all though exactly what constitutes a species is still up for grabs. All species of Canids seem able to interbreed and produce pups than can breed as well perhaps meaning that the canids would be a species rather than a family. On the other hand most big cats while they can interbreed produce sterile Hybrids that cannot produce offspring of their own.

Silfir

09-05-2010, 12:24 PM

One more link won't kill us (http://www.smbc-comics.com/?db=comics&id=752#comic)

Albahan

09-07-2010, 02:14 AM

I still don't understand that God knowing what you will choose equates no free will and predestination.

JellySlayer

09-07-2010, 04:09 AM

I still don't understand that God knowing what you will choose equates no free will and predestination.

Well, suppose you will be faced with a situation where you can choose either A or B. God knows a priori that you will pick B. Given this, is it possible that, when you reach that situation, you will choose A, even though God knows you will choose B? If so, what does that say about God's omniscience? If not, how is it any different from the situation where choice A was completely unavailable to you? If God knows what you will do in advance, then you are essentially deterministic: you can do nothing but follow the path that God has foreseen for you. From the moment you are born/created, God knows whether or not you will ultimately end up in heaven or in hell. How can your choices possibly influence that outcome?

Dudley

09-07-2010, 04:20 AM

*Pops in*

Well, suppose you will be faced with a situation where you can choose either A or B. God knows a priori that you will pick B. Given this, is it possible that, when you reach that situation, you will choose A, even though God knows you will choose B? If so, what does that say about God's omniscience?
That omniscience is crap? two reasons : first, if god knew everything, he'd be pretty damn bored. Second : if god knows everything, he cannot learn. therefore god, if omniscient, is stupid.

How can your choices possibly influence that outcome?
Because if you make the assumption that this hypotesis is true, you wouldn't bother living a life of work. Since you CANNOT know werether or not it is true, then it's best for your sanity and $ status to work daily, have children ect. People who do nothing are called vegetables, and the only purpose of vegetables is food.

littlebrather

09-07-2010, 05:46 AM

JellySlayer

09-07-2010, 06:27 AM

The bad point in this arguments is the world 'choose'. Is your choice free, or God makes it for you, or there are something bigger than just 'choice' and 'determinism'? Have no idea about how it works IRL (and no clear ideas about God's will), but in deep deep physics there are some strong experiments about choice. Two photons makes their properties connected without (faster) any real interaction. The conventional solution of this problem is that there are something bigger than just two photons and the vacuum between them. So even physics laws are much more complex than we can make it in worlds - such terms as 'time', 'experiment' and 'choice' have more than just conventional meanings, so make philosophical conclusions based on this worlds seems to be a kind of mistake.

It's not clear to me what you think quantum superposition has to do with the idea of choice. I am using the term 'choice', for the record, to describe a situation where an individual is faced with several options that lead to different outcomes, and is sufficiently able to distinguish between those options to select the one that is most preferable. I distinguish this from a 'free choice' which is a choice that is made without force or coercion being applied by an external agent to influence the selection process.

Unrelated: in the vein of link-dropping, I heartily recommend this deconversion video series (http://www.youtube.com/user/Evid3nc3#p/c/A0C3C1D163BE880A/0/mSy1-Q_BEtQ) as a fascinating and empathetic description of the process through which a born-again Christian can ultimately become an atheist. Be advised that the whole series runs well over an hour (but is well worth it).

littlebrather

09-07-2010, 08:06 AM

quantum physics abuse the world 'choice' strongly, but IMHO if smbd makes a decision, like in your example - preferable B or A, there are interesting question: That force can makes him to choose A instead of B (i stand that choosing B is better for this person, that is why God knows he will choose B)? This point IMHO is near the 'quantum choice' question, then decision you make depends on random processes (in human brain etc).
And after that, random processes occurs to be quantum. And then the frog dive in the pool. Who is responsible for random decisions? Or for smbd who see more this decisions are not random? (just like the side of falling coin depends strongly from billions factors but truly are not random).

but to be true Im not fully understand how this problem can be connected with religion. (and question of God existence).

Dudley

09-07-2010, 08:21 AM

but to be true Im not fully understand how this problem can be connected with religion. (and question of God existence).

Technically, Random things happen. There are factors who make a radioactive disintegration more likely to happen, but "god plays with dices".
As for religion, it really is a matter of being controlled by another being.

littlebrather

09-07-2010, 08:43 AM

Oh. As i tried to notice in #304 random things become truly determined than you (or smbd) watch them (just like this pure cat ^_^).
So if random things (not only radioactivity but also every quantum process) exists can not them be really determined for 'God'? Just because he is watching on everything?

So if the 'God' exist (means smbd, who knows much if not everything about all this stuff) there are no problems with his forecasts about humans behavior in 'choice situations'. And in human world random processes gives us to be free from determinism while for 'God's level' our actions are kind of program.
Just like ADOM RNG god is not a random to be true, and can be abused using pseudoRNG =)

Dudley

09-07-2010, 08:46 AM

And in human world random processes gives us to be free from determinism while for 'God's level' our actions are kind of program.

God would suicide if he knew everything. boredom is incredibly powerful

littlebrather

09-07-2010, 08:54 AM

Oh, incredibly powerful arguments.
Boredom can go out to be animal instinct, that has no relation with God.

Dudley

09-07-2010, 11:15 AM

Oh, incredibly powerful arguments.
Boredom can go out to be animal instinct, that has no relation with God.

God made men at his image. Men are animals. Therefore god is an animal. Therefore god got boredom out of animal instinct, if it is true that it is instinctive to be bored, which remains to be proved. I've never seen a bored animals sides a human being.

littlebrather

09-07-2010, 11:57 AM

God made men at his image...(Therefore god is an animal)You are so brave, but to be honest you are not right. Human nature is a subject of the billions of the theological disputes, so this phrase is only allowed in Sunday school then you are ten or drunk.
And this is only about Christianity, just to point.

I've never seen a bored animals
Just go to the Zoo at winter evening and look at the monkeys.

Sradac

09-08-2010, 01:16 AM

Well, suppose you will be faced with a situation where you can choose either A or B. God knows a priori that you will pick B. Given this, is it possible that, when you reach that situation, you will choose A, even though God knows you will choose B? If so, what does that say about God's omniscience? If not, how is it any different from the situation where choice A was completely unavailable to you? If God knows what you will do in advance, then you are essentially deterministic: you can do nothing but follow the path that God has foreseen for you. From the moment you are born/created, God knows whether or not you will ultimately end up in heaven or in hell. How can your choices possibly influence that outcome?

had to quote this. Just need to point out that has been argued so many different ways. "Either god can create a stone so large even he could not lift it, or he cant create a stone so large he couldnt lift it. Either way theres something god cant do."

blah blah blah. People look at this "god" as a being. Not a being. I'd say more like a force. Who's to say dark matter or dark energy isnt "god"? I mean without dark matter, the universe would collapse. Sounds pretty important to me.

Sradac

09-08-2010, 01:20 AM

ANYWAYS! Just face it guys, humans are just aliens. Either dropped off here from another planet, or we were a genetic experiment by aliens to see if they could forcably evolve a life form. I mean, of ALL the species of this entire planet, why are humans the ONLY one that developed the way we did? Been stated by historians that back in the day when we were just hunter/gatherers Wolves and Humans were the top two predators and had very similar behavior. Why did we suddenly develope complex societies, speech centers, cognitive though processes, and all these "emotions"?

Aliens. Or Alien experiment. Go watch ancient astronauts on the history channel.

they returning!

gut

09-08-2010, 06:26 AM

> God knows a priori that you will pick B. Given this, is it possible that, when you reach
> that situation, you will choose A,

TB created ADOM, yet didn't know how alex won with a level 1 PC.
The 'creator' doesn't have to know everything.

> we were a genetic experiment by aliens to see if they could forcably evolve a life form

That's crazy talk... humans were force evolved by the earth itself. After the
last meteor hit, it went "OUCH!" and decided dino's just weren't the way
to go. It scrapped them in favor of a high-IQ/opposable-thumb recipe, as
a meteorite immuno defense system. duh.

grobblewobble

09-08-2010, 01:02 PM

we were a genetic experiment by aliens
I'm convinced. We're the result of a genetic experiment of intelligent aliens. And don't ask where the intelligent aliens came from. That's obvious - they were the result of a genetic experiment of other intelligent aliens. No evolution needed to explain our origins, yay!

minchazo

09-08-2010, 02:24 PM

Four completely separate points here :D

I personally believe that god is an actual, physicial being.

Just because he knows what you're going to do doesn't limit your free will. Sherlock Holmes is a good example of this. He could determine what his opponent was going to do and plan for it. God can do the same thing, but to a much greater degree. Some people will bull-headedly refuse his help, no matter what intervention is provided.

I think one reason we are so upset about Hell is because we don't understand the alternative. I mean, *everyone* knows that Hell is "fire & brimstone" (though afterwards the explanations would split off mightily). But what's the other option, the 'choose not to play' option? Is that better or worse than going to Hell?

In my opinion, organized religion should be teaching us enough about the afterlife to make an informed decision, then help us get to whichever "place" we want.

fazisi

09-08-2010, 02:29 PM

In my opinion, organized religion should be teaching us enough about the afterlife to make an informed decision, then help us get to whichever "place" we want.
The problem here is no living person who has the capability to instruct others has any knowledge of what an afterlife would really be like. To supply the masses with mere speculation as if it were truth is not a good thing, regardless of intention.

I mean, *everyone* knows that Hell is "fire & brimstone"
I don't think there is any fire and brimstone in hell. It is a place that is completely lacking the presence of God and love.

Dudley

09-08-2010, 04:13 PM

I think one reason we are so upset about Hell is because we don't understand the alternative. I mean, *everyone* knows that Hell is "fire & brimstone" (though afterwards the explanations would split off mightily). But what's the other option, the 'choose not to play' option? Is that better or worse than going to Hell?

Most religions i know of do one of the following things about that option :
1) "That option is simply inexistent!"
2) "You may choose to see the right path or not once you die."
3) "You are an atheist heretic fool, and therefore will lie for eternity in hell, then vanish."

I personnally think of another category of people which are a huge problem : Doublethinkers. For those who didn't read 1984, it's people capable of accepting two contradictory things at the same time. In this case, people firmly believing in good AND evil values. Where do they go :confused:

gut

09-08-2010, 07:27 PM

> I don't think there is any fire and brimstone in hell. It is a place that is completely
> lacking the presence of God and love.

I think it's just having to do earth again ;)

We are cosmic spirits re-rolling earthling PC's in hopes that we get a good one. We
forget each time though, about having to enter with a blank slate. Because of this, we
don't have full control over our guys. Your last one could have believed completely
opposite to your current one, as your spirit can only guide. It's an ultra if you can
get enough people to believe in you :)

JellySlayer

09-08-2010, 08:54 PM

quantum physics abuse the world 'choice' strongly

Quantum physics does not talk about choice at all. This is going to come across as very rude, but I feel the need to say it anyway: if you don't know anything about quantum physics, it's probably best not to try to make any claims about it. Especially if there are people around who actually do know something about the field.

Four completely separate points here :D

I personally believe that god is an actual, physicial being.

Think very carefully about this before you answer. What exactly do you mean when you say that God is "physical"?

Just because he knows what you're going to do doesn't limit your free will. Sherlock Holmes is a good example of this. He could determine what his opponent was going to do and plan for it. God can do the same thing, but to a much greater degree. Some people will bull-headedly refuse his help, no matter what intervention is provided.

Two things. First, Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character. Therefore his abilities to predict human behaviour have no particular bearing on the real world. Second, even if he was a real person, Sherlock Holmes does not have the ability to know the future; he can only predict the actions of people to varying degrees of success. There is a big difference between saying that God has the ability to know with a high degree of certainty which outcome will come about, and saying that the only outcome that come about is the one that God has foreseen. Omniscience is incompatable with free will; superior knowledge, wisdom, and intelligence to what is available to us is not.

I think one reason we are so upset about Hell is because we don't understand the alternative. I mean, *everyone* knows that Hell is "fire & brimstone" (though afterwards the explanations would split off mightily). But what's the other option, the 'choose not to play' option? Is that better or worse than going to Hell?

Well, to a Buddhist, non-existence is their closest equivalent to Heaven, so they'd probably be okay with it. A lot of other people would probably be pretty happy taking non-existence over eternal torture. The Bible expressly does not give non-existence as an option, however (at least not to people who were born after the death of Jesus). There are a fairly substantial group of Christians who do not believe in a literal Hell (or believe in annhiliation as opposed to Hell); this is presumably because they recognize how unreasonably unjust and immoral the idea of a literal biblical Hell actually is.

littlebrather

09-09-2010, 01:30 AM

Quantum physics does not talk about choice at all.
delayed choice experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler's_delayed_choice_experiment)

JellySlayer

09-09-2010, 02:55 AM

delayed choice experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler's_delayed_choice_experiment)

This is an experiment about choice, in the normal sense of the term, by the experimenter, as to whether or not they want to view light as a particle or a wave.

Silfir

09-09-2010, 08:45 AM

Okay, I promise this is the last one, until I find another one that is eerily close to the topic that is. (http://amultiverse.com/2010/09/08/hot-tub-planet/)

littlebrather

09-09-2010, 12:46 PM

This is an experiment about choice, in the normal sense of the termWhile photons have to choose their way - A or B slit.
So for photons to make choice is also mean normal sense?

JellySlayer

09-09-2010, 01:22 PM

While photons have to choose their way - A or B slit.
So for photons to make choice is also mean normal sense?

The photons are in superposition; they go through both slits simultaneously. Hence the interference pattern. The (particle) measurement causes the wavefunction to collapse into one state or the other, entirely randomly, destroying the superposition state. The photons do not have the choice of A or B any more than a flipped coin has the choice between heads or tails.

littlebrather

09-09-2010, 01:56 PM

Ok, that the force makes photon to occurs in A nor B?
lets come to it from another part - wave-particle dualism of photons in normal experiments (without delay) is given by the experimental implementation - is it coordinate or impulse measurements. And so on we can say - photons are like wave and their diffraction is just a reflection of wave-function squared. But when 'superposition' state is destroyed, why not we have two less intensive flashes in both detectors? It seems to be enough just to say that photon can not split and decided to go A or B randomly.
I know enough about quanta and hv to explain it for myself, but all it will come to the world 'probability'. So after some time i decided for myself, that world 'choice' is enough to set aside all this deep-math stuff and after accepting some literature i understand that 'choice' is a common world to bypass such a 'probability moment'.

Dudley

09-09-2010, 04:08 PM

that world 'choice' is enough to set aside all this deep-math stuff and after accepting some literature i understand that 'choice' is a common world to bypass such a 'probability moment'.

You're basicly saying that humans have no free will, and are ruled by statistics? Why not? However, till you prove it, i'll stay with my idea that we have a free will, because of the following thing : if i don't know, WTF does it change????

Some space to annoy blank readers ^^

minchazo

09-09-2010, 07:45 PM

Think very carefully about this before you answer. What exactly do you mean when you say that God is "physical"?
*ponders before answering* I stated that God is an "actual, physical being." Meaning that He's not simply a 'force' pushing people to do good or a concept that controls nature. He is an actual being with a physical, tangible body having mass and occupying a three-dimensonal area.

Two things. First, Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character. Therefore his abilities to predict human behaviour have no particular bearing on the real world. Second, even if he was a real person, Sherlock Holmes does not have the ability to know the future; he can only predict the actions of people to varying degrees of success. There is a big difference between saying that God has the ability to know with a high degree of certainty which outcome will come about, and saying that the only outcome that come about is the one that God has foreseen. Omniscience is incompatable with free will; superior knowledge, wisdom, and intelligence to what is available to us is not.

Sherlock Holmes was a good example. No one considers his (albeit fictional) ability to predict actions as removing free will. Taking that ability to the Nth degree gets you someone who can (with 100% accuracy) predict the actions of another person. You're making the argument that God not only predicts the future but adjusts it to fit his whims. Omniscience is compatible with free will. Combining Omniscience with Omnipotence can cause problems...

A lot of other people would probably be pretty happy taking non-existence over eternal torture.

Who says we didn't exist? I was assuming we did exist and had the choice. Using the logical argument someone else used earlier, our options would be:
A. Choose not to play. Avoid the whole Heaven/Hell thing
B. Choose to play
B1. Go to Hell
B2. Go to Heaven

Dudley

09-09-2010, 07:52 PM

our options would be:
A. Choose not to play. Avoid the whole Heaven/Hell thing
B. Choose to play
B1. Go to Hell
B2. Go to Heaven

What about B3. Play on both sides equally well?

minchazo

09-09-2010, 07:54 PM

The problem here is no living person who has the capability to instruct others has any knowledge of what an afterlife would really be like. To supply the masses with mere speculation as if it were truth is not a good thing, regardless of intention.

I'm almost in total agreement with you. Organized religion makes sense to me *only if* it has correct knowledge that requires divine intervention to know. One of 'em's gotta be right...

Dudley

09-09-2010, 08:45 PM

I'm almost in total agreement with you. Organized religion makes sense to me *only if* it has correct knowledge that requires divine intervention to know. One of 'em's gotta be right...

What about all of them? you would go to the place you think you should go to. I remember a sf version of hell made by that basis.

fazisi

09-09-2010, 10:58 PM

Sorry to the "everyone can be right" well-wishers but it is more likely "everyone is wrong and we're all fucked".

*ponders before answering* I stated that God is an "actual, physical being." Meaning that He's not simply a 'force' pushing people to do good or a concept that controls nature. He is an actual being with a physical, tangible body having mass and occupying a three-dimensonal area.
I saw God at the liquor store the other night. He was bootlegging for some 15 year old girls.

littlebrather

09-10-2010, 02:06 AM

You're basically saying that humans have no free will, and are ruled by statistics?
Never said smth like this. Idea of 'free will paradox' was firstly posted by JellySlayer and my idea was to argue again this paradox using some principles of probability. And you are ok, because the main idea was that 'free will' and 'determined probability' are the same things just observed from different levels. (While statistic may be is well known by God IMHO)

Quoted message was about 'quantum choice', and i have no idea how IRL it can be connected with human 'decision-making brain center'. But why not?

minchazo

09-10-2010, 01:32 PM

Sorry to the "everyone can be right" well-wishers but it is more likely "everyone is wrong and we're all fucked".

I saw God at the liquor store the other night. He was bootlegging for some 15 year old girls.

I laughed at this :D

grobblewobble

09-10-2010, 05:09 PM

The photons are in superposition; they go through both slits simultaneously. Hence the interference pattern. The (particle) measurement causes the wavefunction to collapse into one state or the other, entirely randomly, destroying the superposition state. The photons do not have the choice of A or B any more than a flipped coin has the choice between heads or tails.

Why wouldn't the photon have a choice? What proves it? If the photon would have a free choice, what would that look like and in what way would that differ from actual observations?

Dudley

09-10-2010, 05:16 PM

Why wouldn't the photon have a choice? What proves it? If the photon would have a free choice, what would that look like and in what way would that differ from actual observations?

Free choice => tendency. there's no half half with choice.

grobblewobble

09-10-2010, 06:32 PM

Free choice => tendency? You speak in riddles, my friend.

I think that what you mean is that the "choices" of the photons are randomly drawn from a certain predictable distribution. Do I understand you correctly?

If yes, my answer is free choice inevitably has to follow some statistical distribution, when enough data are gathered. How could it not? In this respect, free will is indistinguishable from random behaviour. In fact, I'd say there is no way one could observe a difference between randomness and free will at all. Maybe they are two labels for the same thing? Or are they? :confused:

Consciousness very much has the same problem. How could you possibly observe a difference between a very intelligent robot that has no self-awareness but can act like it and a robot with self-awareness? This can lead to the idea that self-awareness doesn't really exist, that it is merely some kind of illusion. However, in this case I see a scientific objection: you canobserve your own self-awareness. To ignore that is to ignore an observable fact, even though you are the only one who can directly observe it without telepathy.

Epythic

09-15-2010, 07:39 PM

Bump, because I think this thread is too big to fail :)

Evil Knievel

09-16-2010, 08:38 AM

This thread is also to big to be completely read through by me.

For procrastination I reply to something I caught on statistics, hope I can explain it well.

Think there is something of free will. Free meaning, that the decision do not have to follow any law. Tendency are fine, since they can arise from reasoning.

Ok, think of the decisions a lot of people make as free will driven. Then the probabily distribution of their decisions can only be known to the extend to which they are determined by a law ( and reasoning ...). Hence, any free will brings in an not-knowable element to every statistics, that even remains, when an infinite number of decisions has been made.
Even when infinitely many photons have passed the slits, the ratios of their decisions would have to be unknown.
Now there is no experiment checking infinitely many photons, but the decay of the uncertainity with growing number of experiments behaves exactly as if there was no free will at all for them.
If this is enough for a mathematical proof that there is no free will in photons, I cannot say, but it is at least enough to be extreeeemely likely. Maybe some physicist knows better?

Anywow.No thread hijacking intended.

grobblewobble

09-16-2010, 01:03 PM

Ok, think of the decisions a lot of people make as free will driven. Then the probabily distribution of their decisions can only be known to the extend to which they are determined by a law ( and reasoning ...). Hence, any free will brings in an not-knowable element to every statistics, that even remains, when an infinite number of decisions has been made.

What exactly do you mean by "not-knowable element"? Suppose I gather lots of data from some kind of hypothetical experiment where agents with a free will make some decision. Now I can plot the result, obtaining a statistical distribution (by definition). If the results are more chaotic, that means the standard deviation from the mean result is greater. But a larger standard deviation still doesn't make for a real "not-knowable element".

So in terms of experimental data, what does this "not-knowable element" look like?

Evil Knievel

09-16-2010, 03:17 PM

What exactly do you mean by "not-knowable element"? Suppose I gather lots of data from some kind of hypothetical experiment where agents with a free will make some decision. Now I can plot the result, obtaining a statistical distribution (by definition). If the results are more chaotic, that means the standard deviation from the mean result is greater. But a larger standard deviation still doesn't make for a real "not-knowable element".

So in terms of experimental data, what does this "not-knowable element" look like?

I think I meant, that while in a non-free will driven statistics, the experimentally observed probability distribution should, in case of ideal conditions, with number of samples approaching infinity, become equal to the "true" probability distribution, in free-will containing case, this should not be the case, as there is no "true" probability distribution to the extend as free will prevents it to be fixed.

I wonder however, if this wasn't just a stupid postulate of mine, that can not all be proven or not, as it is now evening and my mind is even less sharp than in the morning.

I guess, for a completely nice random (e.g. gaussian) process that doesn't have anything changing in the background, one should be able to predict and observe the rate of convergence of the observed towards the final, stable (and the true) probability distribution. (e.g. 1/sqrt(n) for the standard deviation).
In the free will situation, I think I ment to think, this convergence would have to be slower than that prediction, in fact no convergence should occur in the end.

But well, maybe that#s balony. If the free will thing can be predicted, then that would all be nonsense, but i doubt that you would call it free will then.

Epythic

11-12-2010, 06:05 PM

Clearly this thread is too big to fail.

And i just found this (originally found here (http://wurstball.de/39755/)):

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/6867/8c16e6034373166c80bc009.th.png (http://img139.imageshack.us/i/8c16e6034373166c80bc009.png/)

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
- Stephen F Roberts"

I think he's got a point.

PS: I actually clicked on the thumbnail because I thought it might be a screenshot of a roguelike. And now I end up posting it here, of all places.

Dorten

11-24-2010, 07:32 AM

Hey, I come back to boards after a year of absence, and first thing that catches my eye is some theological dispute.
It really hurts me to see these. Really. Cause, youknow, I'm trying to be a good orthodoxal christian, and I went through a number of similar discussions in the late four or so years, and the worst thing in most of these discussions was opponent not even trying to understand your point of view. Having some sort of twisted image of christian belief in their mind, and saying to themselves: "meh! thing that stupid doesn't deserve any serious thinking", they keep repeating all the thousand-year-old "contradictions" of christianity, which in reality are not contradictions IN christianity, but are contradictions between their way of living and their understanding of christianity.
And what hurts me most: I'm not eloquent enough to remove that wall of "meh". And until it removed, it absolutely does not matter what you say to them. And that's sad.

Dudley

11-24-2010, 10:13 AM

My thought to this now is : i don't care wherever we evoluted or were made. As cioran said : whatever happens, life goes on.

gut

11-24-2010, 12:01 PM

this thread is the 'TH sucks' of theology.

fazisi

11-24-2010, 03:18 PM

Silfir

11-24-2010, 08:36 PM

Christianity also tells you that you should care about others, if it's only dumb people on the internet. I'm similarly hurt when I see people being close-minded and unwilling or incapable of understanding. My continuing contribution to this forum thus strongly hints at a masochistic tendency.

Naaah just kidding guys, I love you all in an entirely appropriate platonic manner.

bucket

11-25-2010, 03:18 AM

I like the internet more than real life, in some ways. If you can search a bit (and I'm very picky about this; my co-workers have friends and I don't), it's much easier to select who you want to talk to on the internet. Also, I tend to find less of the annoying daily gossip kind of discussions and more things that lead toward debate. Better than putting the meek people with the opinionated ones. I will admit that people's opinions on the internet hardly ever change their minds, but there are such a number of opinions that I can find something interesting after a while. However, this suits me perfectly; I want to develop my own thoughts more than working on other people.

Also, I dislike the phrase "closed-minded" (new form: "That doesn't deserve ... thinking."). Plenty of unsettling characters can be quite thoughtful, or just burdened by work. Also, I think that there exist backwards ideas which are more assertive than proper ones, and that resisting something until it makes perfect sense, including all of the logical conclusions of that thing, until you reach the point where you think of it as your own idea, never did wrong by me. Plus, the record for agreeing with people who use that phrase is abysmally low. I think this is because it's so commonly used without enough supporting evidence.

Just observations. Not picking on you. Maybe.

Dorten

11-25-2010, 03:22 AM

How does it hurt, Dorten? Does not your denomination of Christianity preach tolerance and understanding? Even if other people refuse to even attempt to open their minds to other perspectives , that doesn't have any bearing on the salvation of your soul. Especially people on the internet, they seem to be exceptionally ignorant.
It hurts, because I want to help them understand what's right in this world (in my belief), but I can not do that. Simple as that. Also: understanding - yes. tolerance - no. Tolerance is medical therm, meaning incapability of body to stand up against poison/disease. And when it comes to theological disputes, tolerance is accepting the others' wrong view of the problem. And if you know (OK, OK, believe), that their point of view WILL make them suffer later, you cannot just stand still without trying to convince them. And if you can't it hurts. Just because you can't help people.

On topic (forgot about the topic :eek:)
Genesis 1:11-12
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:20-21
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

You see:
earth brought forth grass
every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth

I can't see how does that contradict with abiogenesis and evolutionary theories.

And more imortant: I can't see how's can that be really important to anybody except strict biology specialists.

JellySlayer

11-25-2010, 04:22 AM

It hurts, because I want to help them understand what's right in this world (in my belief), but I can not do that. Simple as that. Also: understanding - yes. tolerance - no. Tolerance is medical therm, meaning incapability of body to stand up against poison/disease. And when it comes to theological disputes, tolerance is accepting the others' wrong view of the problem. And if you know (OK, OK, believe), that their point of view WILL make them suffer later, you cannot just stand still without trying to convince them. And if you can't it hurts. Just because you can't help people.

I do not believe it is possible to convert anyone to Christianity (or any other religion) via debate. Most Christians that I have encountered (myself included, although, as I mentioned, I no longer consider myself Christian) either became Christians through a personal experience of some significance of what they believe was a manifestation of God, or because they were essentially raised as Christian and adopted the belief system of their parents. It is this subjective experience that generally motivates faith. Developing the evidence to support that faith, either from the Bible, or from supporting evidence, generally follows afterward, if at all.

On topic (forgot about the topic :eek:)

If you read the last hundred or so posts, you'll see that the thread has strayed pretty far from on topic ;)

Genesis 1:11-12
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Just to add context. Genesis 13 then says And there was evening, and there was morning--the third day. This will be important.

Genesis 14 reads as follows (this is NASB, by the way):

14And the Lord said: "Let there be lights in the expanse of heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for the seasons for days and years;
15and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so.
16God made two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.

Skipping ahead a bit...

19There was evening, and there was morning, a fourth day.

God clearly made the plants on day 3. He made the Sun on day 4 (and the Earth on day 1). Now, how do you suppose those poor plants survived the time between day 3 and day 4? Without the Sun, the temperature on the Earth will sit at a comfortable -270C (-454 for you Americans), give or take a few degrees. The plants wouldn't be able to photosynthesize either, but that's a much smaller issue unless we're talking some sort of metaphorical "day" much longer than a 24 hour period. Then there's the problem of the Sun suddenly appearing to existence in proximity to the Earth. The instantaneous change in acceleration of the Earth due to the Sun's gravity required to put the Earth into orbit would be nothing short of cataclysmic.

As an aside, I'm pretty sure that our current evolutionary understanding would suggest that fruit-bearing plants would not have evolved before animals. The essential purpose of fruit is to be eaten, which allows the seeds within the fruit to be carried elsewhere by the animal. Without animals, making fruit would be a huge waste of energy for a plant, and a big evolutionary disadvantage.

Genesis 1:20-21
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Well, let's see. Whales are mammals, and did not evolve in tandem with most other sea life--they would be millions of years later in fact, long after the extinction of the dinosaurs and the subsequent emergence of mammals. Birds have similar problems, almost certainly evolving from land creatures rather than water creatures, placing them more accurately in biblical day 6 rather than 5.

I can't see how does that contradict with abiogenesis and evolutionary theories.

The similarities between a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and modern scientific understanding of the origins of life, the diversity of life, and the origins of the universe are superficial at best, and, in many places outright wrong.

And more imortant: I can't see how's can that be really important to anybody except strict biology specialists.

Well, that depends on what your belief system is. There are many people who believe that the Bible is the inspired, errant, literal Word of God, and that therefore the Genesis account must reflect a completely accurate recounting of the creation of the universe. The fact that modern science disputes these claims then, is a problem because it undermines the legitimacy of the Bible, specifically the part about it being perfectly correct in every possible way. There are other problems, ranging from how particular parts of the Bible, like Adam and Eve or Noah's flood, could possibly be compatable with the scientific model.

On the other hand, if you're a Christian who doesn't believe that the Bible must be interpreted exactly literally, and/or one who believes that the Bible is inspired by God but nonetheless written by humans, reflecting the understandings, prejudices, and biases of the time, then there is no real conflict in this area to speak of. The Catholic Church, of all places, officially recognizes and accepts evolution as valid and the age of the Earth to be what we've measured it to be, for example.

Dorten

11-25-2010, 05:31 AM

God clearly made the plants on day 3. He made the Sun on day 4 (and the Earth on day 1). Now, how do you suppose those poor plants survived the time between day 3 and day 4? Without the Sun, the temperature on the Earth will sit at a comfortable -270C (-454 for you Americans), give or take a few degrees. The plants wouldn't be able to photosynthesize either, but that's a much smaller issue unless we're talking some sort of metaphorical "day" much longer than a 24 hour period. Then there's the problem of the Sun suddenly appearing to existence in proximity to the Earth. The instantaneous change in acceleration of the Earth due to the Sun's gravity required to put the Earth into orbit would be nothing short of cataclysmic.

Wut?:confused:
There was already light. There's no reason to think, that Earth without Sun wold be cold. It's all pretty much speculating, anyway.

As an aside, I'm pretty sure that our current evolutionary understanding would suggest that fruit-bearing plants would not have evolved before animals. The essential purpose of fruit is to be eaten, which allows the seeds within the fruit to be carried elsewhere by the animal. Without animals, making fruit would be a huge waste of energy for a plant, and a big evolutionary disadvantage.

The plants are before animals. But who says, that fruit bearing plants are before animals?

Well, let's see. Whales are mammals, and did not evolve in tandem with most other sea life--they would be millions of years later in fact, long after the extinction of the dinosaurs and the subsequent emergence of mammals. Birds have similar problems, almost certainly evolving from land creatures rather than water creatures, placing them more accurately in biblical day 6 rather than 5.

Here you got me :). I'm no biologist, just some puny programmer :D

if you're a Christian who doesn't believe that the Bible must be interpreted exactly literally, and/or one who believes that the Bible is inspired by God but nonetheless written by humans, reflecting the understandings, prejudices, and biases of the time
That's the official point of view of Orthodoxal Church, AFAIK

gut

11-25-2010, 05:33 AM

> It hurts, because I want to help them understand

Closest emotion I get to hurt is hunger.
Personally, I dislike the 'spreading the word' aspect of all religions.
I prefer an approach like 'if they ask, then share'. At least it would
keep people from knocking on my door, waking me up.

> I do not believe it is possible to convert anyone to Christianity (or any other religion) via debate.

would not have spread to all continents if that were true.

> essentially raised as Christian and adopted the belief system of their parents.

that is true for all religions, athiesm included

> Without animals, making fruit would be a huge waste of energy for a plant, and a big evolutionary disadvantage

so you are now attributing telepathic abilities to trees. they sense animals, so make fruit.
would have to be trial and error if you discount guiding intelligence. Like this:
1. plant makes fruit
2. no animals
3. plant dies from evolutionary disadvantage
4. repeat steps 1 - 3 until animals happen.

Dorten

11-25-2010, 05:44 AM

> essentially raised as Christian and adopted the belief system of their parents.

that is true for all religions, athiesm included

Atheism is not a religion. Any religion has aspect of "I will do that because I want to be religious". Atheism produces no such deeds.

> Without animals, making fruit would be a huge waste of energy for a plant, and a big evolutionary disadvantage

so you are now attributing telepathic abilities to trees. they sense animals, so make fruit.
would have to be trial and error if you discount guiding intelligence. Like this:
1. plant makes fruit
2. no animals
3. plant dies from evolutionary disadvantage
4. repeat steps 1 - 3 until animals happen.
Isn't evolunion a big trial and error process on the large scale?

JellySlayer

11-25-2010, 06:10 AM

Wut?:confused:
There was already light. There's no reason to think, that Earth without Sun wold be cold. It's all pretty much speculating, anyway.

Where did the light come from if not from stars?

And yes, without the Sun the Earth would be cold. There are eight planets in the solar system. The hottest one is closest to the Sun. The coldest one is furthest from the Sun. The reason for this is that the hottest one gets a higher intensity of solar radiation than the furthest one. [edit]And, for that matter, the temperature distribution on the Earth at this very moment is very much tied to solar intensity. Why is Antartica cold and the equator hot? Because one area gets more direct sunlight than the other.

The plants are before animals. But who says, that fruit bearing plants are before animals?

The text says that trees that bear fruit come before animals. This doesn't make sense because, as far as I know, the only purpose for fruit is to be eaten by animals in order to spread the seeds of the plant.

> I do not believe it is possible to convert anyone to Christianity (or any other religion) via debate.

would not have spread to all continents if that were true.

Christianity doesn't spread through debate. It spreads through other means which are, I would say, much more effective at spreading the meme than debate. Threats of violence, for example, is a great way of bringing people to your point of view.

> essentially raised as Christian and adopted the belief system of their parents.

that is true for all religions, athiesm included

Atheism is not a religion. It is an answer to one, very specific question. If you ask, "Do you believe in gods (or God)?" and the answer is yes, you're a theist. If the answer is no, you're an atheist. That's all there is to it. The children of atheists are often atheists, yes, because their parents won't teach them about something they don't believe in, although, it would probably be more accurate to say that atheism is the default position of all people unless and until they are converted to theism.

so you are now attributing telepathic abilities to trees. they sense animals, so make fruit.
would have to be trial and error if you discount guiding intelligence. Like this:
1. plant makes fruit
2. no animals
3. plant dies from evolutionary disadvantage
4. repeat steps 1 - 3 until animals happen.

What, exactly, is wrong with this series of events?

gut

11-25-2010, 06:57 AM

> Atheism is not a religion.

then why do they preach it so vehemently?

> Christianity doesn't spread through debate.
...
> Threats of violence, for example,

The lowly peasants so effectively threated Ceasar? You go, peasants!

> Atheism is not a religion.

They must 'believe' in the big bang (first there was nothing, then it exploded),
as the alternative is unthinkable.

>> 1. plant makes fruit
>>2. no animals

> What, exactly, is wrong with this series of events?

I am going to quote you, back at you

> The text says that trees that bear fruit come before animals. This doesn't make sense because

Dorten

11-25-2010, 07:50 AM

Where did the light come from if not from stars?
Now, don't play dumb here, I know that you are not. I may as well say: how did the world appeared if not by the Word of God?

And yes, without the Sun the Earth would be cold. There are eight planets in the solar system. The hottest one is closest to the Sun. The coldest one is furthest from the Sun. The reason for this is that the hottest one gets a higher intensity of solar radiation than the furthest one. [edit]And, for that matter, the temperature distribution on the Earth at this very moment is very much tied to solar intensity. Why is Antartica cold and the equator hot? Because one area gets more direct sunlight than the other.

You know the religious answer to that: Earth was created warm. And omnipresent light was enough tio keep it that way.

> Atheism is not a religion.

then why do they preach it so vehemently?
Do they? There are SOME fanatics of course, but in global scope atheists do not preach their belief. They more of... ignore the question of God's exsistance. Do not see it relevant to their lives.

The lowly peasants so effectively threated Ceasar? You go, peasants!

They didn't debate with him either ;)
But religions DO spread by debate, of course, it's just not the MAIN factor.

> Atheism is not a religion.

They must 'believe' in the big bang (first there was nothing, then it exploded),
as the alternative is unthinkable.

Not any belief is a religion, you know. I 'believe' that I will be eating sausages today. Does it make me an adept of sausage cult?

gut

11-25-2010, 10:39 AM

>>> Atheism is not a religion.

>>then why do they preach it so vehemently?

>Do they?

Well, for now they aren't waking me, so at least there is that.
But yes, they do preach it. So much it makes my ears/eyes hurt.

> They didn't debate with him either

Nobody forced ceasar to be a christian. iirc, logic was the reason.

>>> Atheism is not a religion.

>> They must 'believe' in the big bang

> Not any belief is a religion, you know

OK, I'll take this opportunity to introduce a fun game I learned.
It is a bit questionable, but will give you laughs all the same.
The basis is this: 'google is us'.

http://i54.tinypic.com/m73wp0.jpg

by all means, follow that link. If anyone wonders why there is a
picture of a turkey on a search engine, I join you. I KNOW it's
thanksgiving, but still, turkey+searchengine=stupid

Dorten

11-25-2010, 11:17 AM

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathm_rel_religion.htm

First thing, that google gives me.

Secon and third are almost the same.

Dudley

11-25-2010, 12:14 PM

Wow. So, according to the definition of religion, my agnoscism is a religion. Double yay!

gut

11-25-2010, 01:10 PM

> First thing, that google gives me

the joke being that athiests energetically refute that athiesm is a religion.
few others do

JellySlayer

11-25-2010, 02:02 PM

> Atheism is not a religion.

then why do they preach it so vehemently?

I'd assume the atheists that choose to present their beliefs publicly do so because they live in a country dominated religious people that often make political or personal choices that adversely affect them.

> Christianity doesn't spread through debate.
...
> Threats of violence, for example,

The lowly peasants so effectively threated Ceasar? You go, peasants!

Leaders only rule by the consent of the people.

> Atheism is not a religion.

They must 'believe' in the big bang (first there was nothing, then it exploded),
as the alternative is unthinkable.

No, atheists aren't required to believe in the Big Bang. They aren't required to believe anything. Atheists don't believe in any gods. That's it. It is possible to be an atheist who doesn't believe in either a god or the Big Bang--they may simply not know, or not care, about how the universe came into being.

>> 1. plant makes fruit
>>2. no animals

Here's a nice paper on the evolution of fruit (http://plantbiology.msu.edu/files/Fruit%20evolution.pdf) that might give you some answers.

Now, don't play dumb here, I know that you are not. I may as well say: how did the world appeared if not by the Word of God?

The best model we currently to describe the early universe is the Big Bang Theory (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html). Planets are believed to form from the remains of accretion disks of stars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation). It is possible that we may never know the exact origin of the universe. That doesn't imply that a god must have made it.

gut

11-25-2010, 04:33 PM

> I'd assume the atheists that choose to present their beliefs publicly do so because they live in a country dominated religious people that often make political or personal choices that adversely affect them

Indeed. This guy isn't preaching, only, um, asserting his belief
that folk are annoying.
http://i55.tinypic.com/2rzt3b6.jpg

> Leaders only rule by the consent of the people.

iirc, romans didn't convert the ceasar to christianity. my (admittedly swiss
cheese) memory says it was vice versa, but ceasar converted do to logic

> It is possible to be an atheist who doesn't believe in either a god or the Big Bang

Please allow me to summarize: "I don't know, but I know it wasn't god."
how can one admit to not knowing, then claim to know?

> Here's a nice paper on the evolution of fruit that might give you some answers

I never claimed to have questions. To my surprise, I did actually look at that
linked paper. I saw nowhere in there an explaination as to why you first claimed
it "doesn't make sense" for fruity plants to evolve before animals, and later
claim the opposite by asserting it was logical for plants to continually evolve
fruits until animals evolved to eat them.

Grey

11-25-2010, 05:29 PM

Indeed. This guy isn't preaching, only, um, asserting his belief
that folk are annoying.

Yes, people are annoying. Is this a surprise? People can be annoying about all sorts of things - politics, economics, guns, health care reform, etc. They may even approach these subjects with religious fervour. That doesn't make them religions though.

Though I do like how you seem to be defining religion as "being bat-shit crazy about something". ;)

iirc, romans didn't convert the ceasar to christianity. my (admittedly swiss
cheese) memory says it was vice versa, but ceasar converted do to logic

Well it wasn't Caesar, it was Constantine, and it was for a mix of political reasons. He then converted the empire to Christianity by force and spread it across Europe with even more force (with some lovely perversion of the original faith to make it more appealing to the masses).

Please allow me to summarize: "I don't know, but I know it wasn't god."
how can one admit to not knowing, then claim to know?

"I don't know how a fridge works, but I'm pretty sure it's not the work of an invisible spaghetti monster." - is this a religious belief?

JellySlayer

11-25-2010, 06:38 PM

Indeed. This guy isn't preaching, only, um, asserting his belief
that folk are annoying.

Well, let's see. He's not advocating mass murder ("Death to fags"), suppression of rights ("Abortions are evil"), intolerance ("Atheists/Muslims/whoever are evil"), radically detrimental changes to public policy ("Shariah law should have equal voice to civil law"). At worst, he's advocating for the death of someone who is already dead, which is crazy, but little more.

> It is possible to be an atheist who doesn't believe in either a god or the Big Bang

Please allow me to summarize: "I don't know, but I know it wasn't god."
how can one admit to not knowing, then claim to know?

There's an important difference here that you're overlooking. It is not the same thing to say "I don't believe in God" and "I know that God does not exist". The former position only states that you are unconvinced by the evidence presented by theists that there is a God. The latter position explicitly states that you have sufficient knowledge of the universe that allows you to completely rule out the existence of something. I can say "I am unconvinced by evidence for the existence of either God or the Big Bang" without saying that I know that such things do not exist.

I never claimed to have questions. To my surprise, I did actually look at that
linked paper. I saw nowhere in there an explaination as to why you first claimed
it "doesn't make sense" for fruity plants to evolve before animals, and later
claim the opposite by asserting it was logical for plants to continually evolve
fruits until animals evolved to eat them.

As I said, it doesn't make sense for fruity plants to evolve before animals because the purpose of fruit is to transmit seeds. It works like this: animal eats fruit. Fruit contains seeds that are indigestable by animal. When animal defecates, the seeds can then grow, in an area that will be separated from the parent plant by however far the animal moved. In the absence of the animal, the fruit is not beneficial to the plant--it's detrimental because the plant needs to invest energy in making the fruit. Hence, in areas where there are no animals around, plants lacking fruit or fruit-like structures will be selected for over those that have them. That said, it is relatively unlikely that such a situation ever would have occurred: plants and animals moved onto land ~500 Ma ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution)(animals first, most likely) whereas flowering and fruit-bearing plants did not appear until around 130 Ma ago. The delay is presumably due, in part, to the fact that the first plants that moved onto land were algal in nature, not yet having roots, leaves, or seeds, without which the production of fruit would be exceptionally difficult.

Theym

11-25-2010, 07:55 PM

JellySlayer

11-25-2010, 08:44 PM

But bearing fruit is not a disadvantage to the plant, investing energy into producing nutrients surrounding the seed, instead of spreading seed w/o nutrients? Is that not what we do? Most life comes from eggs, but what are they except a seed and a source of nutrients for said seed?

To the best of my knowledge, plant seeds do not function in this manner. Certainly, plant seeds do not require the energy stored within the fruit--if you plant an seed in the ground, and it gets sufficient water and sunlight, you'll might get an apple tree. You don't need to plant the whole apple, nor do you need to supply it with external nutrients. That said, animal excrement is also excellent fertilizer. Using the fruit-for-food method, the plants not only get a means of transporting their seeds much further than other methods, they also get pre-fertilized soil for all of their seeds.

fazisi

11-25-2010, 09:23 PM

Trees can live extremely long life spans and have natural defenses like a thick bark. They ingest a lot of energy through a large network of leaves and nutrients through deep or wide roots absorbing water. Every year during a warm season, they invest the energy they are absorbing into preserving its genes by producing many seeds contained within their fruit.

Now this fruit can be used as nutrients for the birth of a new tree from this seed pod but then the child will be competing with the parent for ground water and light. Sometimes, these new plants get lucky when the parent tree dies and enriches the ground with its past nutrients but that would mean the plant is wasting its adolescence and adulthood just fucking other plants for no good reason, just giving his last offspring a chance at contributing his genes to future generations.

JellySlayer already explained that energy rich fertilizers, such as rotting matter or feces, is an excellent source of the nutrients that a seed needs to grow. Animal eats fruit, walks around, takes dumb. Voila, perfectly delivered new tree in a new location where it can contribute to the gene pool.

You don't have to be an atheist to know this.

Though I do like how you seem to be defining religion as "being bat-shit crazy about something".
QFT

Albahan

11-26-2010, 01:05 AM

Well, let's see. He's not advocating mass murder ("Death to fags"), suppression of rights ("Abortions are evil"), intolerance ("Atheists/Muslims/whoever are evil"), radically detrimental changes to public policy ("Shariah law should have equal voice to civil law"). At worst, he's advocating for the death of someone who is already dead, which is crazy, but little more.

I'm glad we've established, once again, there are crazies on both sides. (Though I'm really not sure how being pro-life is being in favor of the suppression of rights.)

gut

11-26-2010, 04:34 AM

> Yes, people are annoying. Is this a surprise?

Never indicated I would be surprised at the existance of annoying people.
Was rather clearly, and in context of topic, providing pictoral evidence
of athiestic preaching. There are numerous appologies/excuses that can
be made for this. The fist was that it doesn't happen at all, hence:
> Atheism is not a religion.
The second is that it does happen, sometimes, but only as a last resort, hence:
> atheists that choose to present their beliefs publicly do so because they live in a country dominated religious
The third is that, OK, maybe they are doing it out of a desire to 'spread the word'
but at least our preachers aren't as bad as YOUR preachers, hence:
> Well, let's see. He's not advocating mass murder ("Death to fags"),
The fact remains though, that athiesm may not be worshipped by some, but it is by others.
When it gets to the point where one's internet ADOM forum sig contains insults toward
the idea of god, or those who respect god, that is when you know you are a worshipper
of the athiestic religion. Have fun spreading the word, my brothers :D

> it wasn't Caesar, it was Constantine

The practical distinction escapes me.

> and it was for a mix of political reasons

"...but not logic!"

> He then converted the empire to Christianity by force

Which I find sub-optimal, yet preferable. The old religions accepted murdering
christians for the crime of being christian. There can not now, and never could
have been a law based on the teachings of Jesus that provided the same acceptance
of murdering other religious folk.

> (with some lovely perversion of the original faith

if it wasn't the teachings of christ, was it really christianity at that point?

> I don't know how a fridge works

I do. It is not a theory to which I worship as the "gut fridge theory", which
has monumental holes in it. It is 100% provable fact.

> I can say "I am unconvinced by evidence for the existence of either God or the Big Bang" without saying that I know that such things do not exist.

We are clearly talking about different athiests here. Maybe I'll call the guys to
which I'm referring as antithiests from now on.

> As I said, it doesn't make sense for fruity plants to evolve before animals

Then please explain this previous code snippet to me:
http://i54.tinypic.com/302ly8m.png

as you seem to be indicating that it is perfectly natural for exactly that to happen.

> It works like this: animal eats fruit.

Yes, having farmed before in my life, I am somewhat aware of how ^ that works :)

> In the absence of the animal, the fruit is not beneficial to the plant

then I will ask again as to why you claim it makes sense in above pic

> The delay is presumably due, in part, to the fact that the first plants that moved onto land were algal in nature, not yet having roots

a brave choice for a rootless plant, moving to land...

Orbic

11-26-2010, 06:03 AM

a brave choice for a rootless plant, moving to land...

Not brave, greedy :)
Fighting for best location in order to get light and oxygen can lead you to do stupid things like this...

JellySlayer

11-26-2010, 02:43 PM

> Yes, people are annoying. Is this a surprise?

Never indicated I would be surprised at the existance of annoying people.
Was rather clearly, and in context of topic, providing pictoral evidence
of athiestic preaching. There are numerous appologies/excuses that can
be made for this. The fist was that it doesn't happen at all, hence:

Let me spell this out for you then.

ADVOCATING SOMETHING DOES NOT MAKE IT A RELIGION.

If I try to convince people of the importance or merits of democracy, that does not mean democracy is a religion.
If I try to convince people of the importance or merits of sanitation, that does not mean sanitation is a religion.
If I try to convince people of the importance or merits of education, that does not mean education is a religion.
If I try to convince people of the importance or merits of atheism, that does not mean atheism is a religion.

Furthermore, I might add that, not all religions preach. Judaism, for example, generally makes no attempt to gain converts. Neither does Hinduism. Nor Buddhism.

> Well, let's see. He's not advocating mass murder ("Death to fags"),
The fact remains though, that athiesm may not be worshipped by some, but it is by others.
When it gets to the point where one's internet ADOM forum sig contains insults toward
the idea of god, or those who respect god, that is when you know you are a worshipper
of the athiestic religion. Have fun spreading the word, my brothers :D

Ridiculing something does not say anything about your beliefs. If my sig makes fun of psychics, that does not mean that I am actively involved in an anti-psychic religion. It might just mean that I think the idea of psychics is a stupid superstitition.

> it wasn't Caesar, it was Constantine

The practical distinction escapes me.

They're different people, separated by 400 years in time. That's like saying there is no practical difference between George Washington and George Bush.

> He then converted the empire to Christianity by force

Which I find sub-optimal, yet preferable. The old religions accepted murdering
christians for the crime of being christian. There can not now, and never could
have been a law based on the teachings of Jesus that provided the same acceptance
of murdering other religious folk.

Except for that part where he says everyone who doesn't believe in him is going to be tortured for all eternity?

> (with some lovely perversion of the original faith

if it wasn't the teachings of christ, was it really christianity at that point?

Yes, Christianity is more than just the teachings of Christ.

Then please explain this previous code snippet to me:

as you seem to be indicating that it is perfectly natural for exactly that to happen.

If a plant evolved fruit where no animals were present, it would probably eventually die. I agree with that. If it happened again, that other plant would probably die. Or even if it evolved a fruit that no animals wanted to eat, then it would probably die too. Some evolutionary strategies fail. As I've said, however, animals and plant evolved in tandem, not in sequence (or, if anything, animals made it to land before plants did), so the series of events probably didn't unfold in exactly this fashion. But so what if it did? Evolution isn't an intelligent process, so things like this could happen now and then.

Dudley

11-26-2010, 03:37 PM

Furthermore, I might add that, not all religions preach. Neither does Hinduism. Nor Buddhism.

The fact that those are religions is aguarble

(or, if anything, animals made it to land before plants did)

Reverse. You need much O2, produced by plants, to make an animal survive out of water.

JellySlayer

11-26-2010, 03:53 PM

Reverse. You need much O2, produced by plants, to make an animal survive out of water.

Water based plants produce oxygen. Water-based phytoplankton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytoplankton) alone are estimated to be responsible for half of the world's oxygen supply.

The oldest evidence (http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/earth_sciences/report-9641.html) for life found on land is animals, dating to about 530 Ma ago. The first evidence for plants isn't till around 430 Ma ago. Doesn't mean that plants weren't there first. We just haven't found anything to show that they were.

[edit]On a lighter note, the Catholic church is apparently in desperate need of qualified exorcists (http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/11/24/exorcists-wanted-and-fast/).

fazisi

11-26-2010, 07:37 PM

Plants and animals would have evolved in tandem. I don't have any clue which steps took place at which times but I would guess they were very well timed since evolutionary advocates keep telling me my beliefs are wrong.

gut

11-27-2010, 03:01 AM

JellySlayer

11-27-2010, 03:59 AM

> Let me spell this out for you then.
> ADVOCATING SOMETHING DOES NOT MAKE IT A RELIGION.
> Ridiculing something does not say anything about your beliefs.

So if I join a society of anti-psychics, regularly attend anti-psychic meetings, wear
anti-psychic shirts, spread the word of anti-psychic-ness to the general populace (to
their sometimes great annoyance), fundraise for various anti-psychic organizations, lobby
to have anti-psychic laws passed, have anti-psychic slogans attactched to every message
I post to the world, teach my children in the anti-psychic beliefs, in general just
devote my life to serving the anti-psychic caus- wait, you're right, that is not a
religion... it's a cult.

Or a sports team. Or a political party. Or a lobby group. Or the Boy Scouts. Or people who just happen to care about something. Your definition of religion is so broad it borders on pointless.

>> There can not now, and never could have been a law based on the teachings of
>> Jesus that provided the same acceptance of murdering other religious folk.

> Except for that part where he says everyone who doesn't believe in him is going to be tortured for all eternity?

He mentions it being OK to outlaw non-christianity? You'll have to point that one out to me.

He says that non-believers will be tortured for all eternity in hell. I would consider that to be a bit more severe than merely outlawing what they believe. Anyway, who ever said anything about outlawing Christianity? Or atheism, for that matter?

> Yes, Christianity is more than just the teachings of Christ.

Then I'll say it would be polite of them to chose a different name.

You'd have to take that up with the founders of the early church. That said, given that all of the accounts of what Christ supposedly taught and said are from, at best, second-hand sources anyway, it's difficult to infer that he actually taught what we believe he taught. [edit]Out of curiousity, though, do you follow all of his teachings? Or just the ones that you agree with anyway?

> As I've said, however, animals and plant evolved in tandem, not in sequence

You speak with forked tongue. Your response to dorten's post:

>> Originally Posted by Dorten
>> The plants are before animals. But who says, that fruit bearing plants are before animals?

> The text says that trees that bear fruit come before animals. This doesn't make sense

Then, with reverenc- I mean, reference to evolution doing the same thing:

> If a plant evolved fruit where no animals were present, it would probably eventually die
and:
> If it happened again, that other plant would probably die
and:
> if it evolved a fruit that no animals wanted to eat, then it would probably die
and:
> Some evolutionary strategies fail.
and:
> Evolution isn't an intelligent process, so things like this could happen now and then

The generous appologies that my appalachian brethren make for seeming contradictions
such as this are " god can just make it happen". It seems to me to be precisely echoed
in your belief, which I would summarize "it prolly didn't happen that way, but if it
did, it's OK. Evolution could just make it happen." One might even refer to such
appologetic tolerence as 'faith'.

I don't see a contradiction. I said that animals came before fruit bearing plants. This is what the evidence suggests. Is it possible that there existed a fruit-bearing plant came before animals? Well, hypothetically, yes. Do I believe it did? No, of course not. And I've explained why: Those plants would have died out very quickly because, at that time, fruit would be at a disadvantage compared to non-fruity plants, and therefore would not have survived any sufficiently long period of time. As a consequence, we don't see any evidence of fruit-bearing plants before the existence of animals on land. Occasionally a member of a species will gain a mutation that is entirely unproductive and useless to them. But that mutation will normally be bred out of the group, either immediately as the mutated member simply dies before it reproduces, or over some generations because the disadvantage will ultimately mean that the mutated species is unable to compete.

What specifically do you feel that I have no adequately explained here?

[edit]Some confusion may have resulted from the fact that I was completely misusing the word "tandem", I suppose.

gut

11-27-2010, 05:29 AM

JellySlayer

11-27-2010, 07:37 AM

> Or people who just happen to care about something. Your definition of religion is
so broad it borders on pointless

There is a thick line between caring about something and being obsessed. When followers
believe so deeply in something it begins to define their existence, then it borders on/
mimics/gives all perception to a rational mind of, religion.

The problem that I see with this definition is that it is possible to be religious without being a fanatic. Most Christians, for example, aren't fanatics. They're just regular people who go about life, except that maybe they pray now and then, go to church on Sundays, and happen to believe that there's a God who is going to reward them after they die. Even if they aren't bat-shit crazy, that is still, as far as I'm concerned, a religious person.

> He says that non-believers will be tortured for all eternity in hell.

If it turns out to be true, would you have prefered that he didn't? :D

YES. I believe that the idea of torturing anyone, for any reason, for all eternity is evil and immoral. If that's what Jesus thinks, then he's evil and immoral. If that's what God does, then he's evil and immoral. I don't care if you're Mother Teresa or Adolf Hitler: There is no crime that I can imagine that would be bad enough to justify that kind of treatment.

He was murdered for it, if it makes you feel as though justice was served. I'd say
it was further proof that times needed changing back then. I think he did a rather
admirable job. You could have done better?

If I was the all-knowing, all-powerful God of the universe, with unlimited powers at my disposal, yes, I think I could have done better. Among other things:
-I would have told people that slavery is absolutely immoral and the practice should be ended immediately.
-I would have told people that it doesn't matter what you believe; the most important thing is how you treat other people.
-I would have told people that they should treat each other fairly, even if they're a different gender, sexual orientation, or skin colour.
-I would have told people that regular bathing and washing your hands will help prevent you from getting sick.
-I would have told people that they should use their minds to figure out what is true and what is false.
-I would have told people that blood sacrifices of any sort are pointless and barbaric.
-I would have told people that murdering, raping, and sexually assaulting children is abhorrent.
-I would have told people to value knowledge and discovery over belief and superstition.
-I would have told people that it's really okay if people don't believe in me or believe in other gods.
-I would have told people that they only have one life here on Earth, so it is extremely important that they make the most of it.
-I would have told them a bunch of information on science, hygiene, mathematics, engineering, medicine, and philosophy to jump-start them out of the bronze age and to establish my own credibility as an authority.

Probably some others that I've missed.

And for miracles...
-I would have turned all of the world's desert into arable farmland.
-I would have stabilized the Earth's tectonic plates to prevent earthquakes and tsunamis.
-I would have wiped out as many diseases as I could have. Smallpox, bubonic plague, polio, leprosy, cholera, etc.

Lots of things to fix here.

[edit]Oh, and if there were a God who cared about sin and planned to send people to Heaven or Hell, I would instantaneously forgive everyone's sins, unconditionally, without a need for faith either in that God or in me.

[edit2]I would have also written all of this information down in every language that ever will be devised by men, and made numerous perfect copies of the text so that it would not be lost in translation, confused, or lost.

> who ever said anything about outlawing Christianity? Or atheism

grey and yerself mentioned the spread of christianity by force (which includes law). I
mentioned that christs teachings didn't support that method, as opposed to the other
religion/laws of the time that did. I would have assumed that would have been clear, as
I gave proper attributions in my posts.

Christ something to the effect of "Go forth and make disciples of all nations". He doesn't specify a method. If using force or violence was not the method he wanted to use, then an omniscient God who could see the future might have wanted to specify that exactly. He also makes some claim that he comes not with peace, but with the sword. I'll dig up the references tomorrow when I have a bit more time.

xan

11-27-2010, 09:59 AM

Then please explain this previous code snippet to me:
http://i54.tinypic.com/302ly8m.png

You're not understanding it correctly.

1. Mutations do not happen for a purpose, genetic mutations happen randomly.
2. When a mutation gives an organism an advantage in increasing it's ability to reproduce it's genes (most mutations do not), those mutated genes will be (on average) perpetuated to a greater extent.
3. Mutations continue, they do not stop once an "until animals happen" criterion has been met

Fruit like mutations may have occurred before the presence of animals, but only once animals appeared on land did that mutation offer an advantage.

gut

11-27-2010, 03:14 PM

> it is possible to be religious without being a fanatic.

I already switched from citing religion to cult.

>> If it turns out to be true, would you have prefered that he didn't?

> YES. I believe that the idea of torturing anyone, for any reason, for all eternity is evil

So, if I see danger to you, I shouldn't tell you, if I think
you would judge said danger to be evil?

> -I would have told people that slavery is absolutely immoral
> -I would have told people that they should treat each other fairly, even if they're a different gender
> -I would have told people that regular bathing

They would have killed you all the more quickly.

> -I would have turned all of the world's desert into arable farmland.

You'd screw up the earth's albedo like that? Hope none of our
eco friends are listening.

> -I would have wiped out as many diseases as I could have.
> -I would have stabilized the Earth's tectonic plates

and there would have been no downside to that, eh?
I think these 'if I were god, I would have' statements do
display why it is best to have mortals playing the role of mortals.

> an omniscient God who could see the future might have wanted to specify that exactl

you are trying to make a serious assertion that jesus failed
to advocate peace?

> makes some claim that he comes not with peace, but with the sword.

are you talking about the second visit there?

> You're not understanding it correctly.

there are only about 4 short sentences to read. it is difficult
to believe I goofed it.

> 1. Mutations do not happen for a purpose, genetic mutations happen randomly.

So you will join me in my confusion at jelly's words that
"it doesn't make sense" for plant to develope fruits before
animals were around to eat said fruits? By the logic of
mutations, it would make perfect sense for trees to develope
wings before the ability to feed off wind.

> Mutations continue, they do not stop once an "until animals happen"

You will note that I never asserted that they did.

If this continues, I may once again hit 10K character mark on regular post!

JellySlayer

11-27-2010, 04:18 PM

>> If it turns out to be true, would you have prefered that he didn't?

> YES. I believe that the idea of torturing anyone, for any reason, for all eternity is evil

So, if I see danger to you, I shouldn't tell you, if I think
you would judge said danger to be evil?

I never said you shouldn't tell me. But if you pray to and worship this evil thing, then that reflects poorly on you.

> -I would have told people that slavery is absolutely immoral
> -I would have told people that they should treat each other fairly, even if they're a different gender
> -I would have told people that regular bathing

They would have killed you all the more quickly.

They can't kill me. I'm god, remember? They are of no threat to me.

> -I would have turned all of the world's desert into arable farmland.

You'd screw up the earth's albedo like that? Hope none of our
eco friends are listening.

I'm god, remember? I'm sure I can come up with some clever way to compensate. Maybe add in some more freshwater lakes or something.

> -I would have wiped out as many diseases as I could have.
> -I would have stabilized the Earth's tectonic plates

and there would have been no downside to that, eh?

We've wiped out many diseases ourselves and there hasn't been much of a downside. Tectonic plates? Within our timescale, I doubt we'd notice any effect. They move pretty slowly, most of the time. It's just now and then there's a sudden jerk.

I think these 'if I were god, I would have' statements do
display why it is best to have mortals playing the role of mortals.

If there is a God, I think he's a pretty terrible designer.

you are trying to make a serious assertion that jesus failed
to advocate peace?

Yup. Jesus never advocated for peace at all. He almost never speaks of it. At best, he says that his disciples will personally have peace within themselves. But peace on Earth? No, he never speaks for it. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, he outright denies it:

34 ?Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

??a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law?
36 a man?s enemies will be the members of his own household.?[c]

37 ?Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

Note that this is all in the present tense. He isn't talking about some future coming.

xan

11-27-2010, 09:00 PM

> 1. Mutations do not happen for a purpose, genetic mutations happen randomly.
So you will join me in my confusion at jelly's words that
"it doesn't make sense" for plant to develope fruits before
animals were around to eat said fruits?

Jellyslayer was comparing evolutionary theory to the words of genesis from the bible.

By the logic of
mutations, it would make perfect sense for trees to develope
wings before the ability to feed off wind.

Could you please explain what you mean by this in more detail?

gut

11-28-2010, 09:18 AM

>>>>> He says that non-believers will be tortured for all eternity in hell

>>>> If it turns out to be true, would you have prefered that he didn't?

>>> YES. I believe that the idea of torturing anyone, for any reason, for all eternity is evil

>>So, if I see danger to you, I shouldn't tell you, if I think
you would judge said danger to be evil?

> I never said you shouldn't tell me. But if you pray to and worship this evil thing, then that reflects poorly on you.

You are saying that jesus prayed to, and worshipped hell.

> They can't kill me. I'm god, remember? They are of no threat to me.

You could just fake it, come back, and let the legend of you spread forth to change people.

> We've wiped out many diseases ourselves and there hasn't been much of a downside.

MRSA is, in a way, man-made.

> If there is a God, I think he's a pretty terrible designer.

yet more bias. if evolution is responsible for life, it is to be appreciated, if it
was god, then only blame

> Yup. Jesus never advocated for peace at all.

We'll just have to disagree on that. I think telling people to treat others as they
would be treated rather rules out violence, unless you would prefer for people to be
violent to you.

>> I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

> Note that this is all in the present tense. He isn't talking about some future coming.

The version you quoted is the even-more translated version. (One does begin to wonder at
the effect of such numerous translations). By contrast, the king james version (a bit
closer to original) doesn't read: 'turn a ___ against his/her ___', it reads: set 'at
variance', which I see as being desirable if your loved ones are into slaying christians
(or others) for the crime of thinking differently. At any rate, harmony (or 'peace') with
evil is not peace, as his contemporary times attested. Better to have conflict (sword) with
evil than to go along silently.

> Jellyslayer was comparing evolutionary theory to the words of genesis from the bible.

Jellyslayer was giving his (quite logical) analysis regarding the design plan of developing
fruits before fruit eaters. I summarize his analysis thusly: "For a designer to do it
'makes no sense', but for evolution, it's fine." Which I find, rather... inconsistant.
Note, I am not saying I do or don't believe either theory, I simply (am trying to) tease.
Actually, it would make more sense for an all-powerful designer to make things in
whatever order he fancied, even if it would be logistically more difficult. He wouldn't
be constrained by logistics, so would be free to do whatever he like in whatever order.
By contrast, evolutionary theory does have to abide by physics/logistics, so would make
it even less likely for the darwinian approach to fruit making to succede.

> By the logic of mutations, it would make perfect sense for trees to develope wings

Could you please explain what you mean by this in more detail?

Happily! As it provides another chance to tease jellyslayer.
The darwinian-style, jellyslayer-approved, mutation logic, trial and error cycle of:

1. make fruit
2. no fruit eaters
3. die
4. make fruit again
5. no fruit eaters again
6. die again
7. repeat

Could just as easily apply to sprouting wings as to fruit making. Since we had already
cited rootless plants moving to land in search of food, the creative side of me couldn't
resist drawing a contrast by citing a flightless tree sprouting wings in an effort to feed
off the wind.

(stop laughing, with enough trillions of years, it COULD HAPPEN)

Soirana

11-28-2010, 09:56 AM

MRSA is, in a way, man-made.

MRSA is just version of staph aureus. Actually since it wastes energy for proteins granted resistance it is slightly weaker than wild pathogen [keep in bind SA is very dangerous bacteria anyway]. Most problematic place is usually cost of treatment.

The darwinian-style, jellyslayer-approved, mutation logic, trial and error cycle of:

1. make fruit
2. no fruit eaters
3. die
4. make fruit again
5. no fruit eaters again
6. die again
7. repeat

Could just as easily apply to sprouting wings as to fruit making. Since we had already
cited rootless plants moving to land in search of food, the creative side of me couldn't
resist drawing a contrast by citing a flightless tree sprouting wings in an effort to feed
off the wind.

(stop laughing, with enough trillions of years, it COULD HAPPEN)

1. make non eatable fruit [or fruitlikish seeds]
2. Eaters adjust to source rich on good material [seeds mainly]
3. Plants adjust by making eatable fruits, which are easy to digest and hard to digest seeds. Thus protecting seeds.
4. Further relations develop - making animals as source of seed spreading and so on...

Well, i do know most americans know bible better than basics of biology, so could you please keep discussion on topic of מָשִׁיחַ worshiping הַשָׂטָן

That makes more enjoyable reading material...

Grey

11-28-2010, 10:11 AM

Happily! As it provides another chance to tease jellyslayer.
The darwinian-style, jellyslayer-approved, mutation logic, trial and error cycle of:

1. make fruit
2. no fruit eaters
3. die
4. make fruit again
5. no fruit eaters again
6. die again
7. repeat

Could just as easily apply to sprouting wings as to fruit making. Since we had already
cited rootless plants moving to land in search of food, the creative side of me couldn't
resist drawing a contrast by citing a flightless tree sprouting wings in an effort to feed
off the wind.

(stop laughing, with enough trillions of years, it COULD HAPPEN)

Well, technically we do have flying seeds. These things don't just happen overnight though - you get a tree with slightly extended ridges on its seeds, these float on the wind slightly better, the seeds propogate further, process repeats until you have reasonably well-formed "wings" on the seeds that float on the wind exceptionally well, allowing much greater propogation over large areas. There are physical limits on this of course (trees have no nerve and muscle tissue genes), but it could well be that sycamore trees develop much more advanced seed-wings over the next few million years.

Similarly with fruit it would have started out very small. Animals eat nuts and seeds anyway, some plants in favourable conditions might have produced bigger than necessary seeds, animals favour those, some plants start having extra nutrients on the outside of the seeds, and so on. Remember that we currently only see a snap-shot in time - these are things that will still keep changing over millions of years. (Though humans are specifically encouraging breeding of larger and sweeter fruits at the moment, and we've even begun genetic modifications to improve fruit yields and resistance to diseases.)

There are a lot of symbiotic relationships in nature - flowers/bees, rhinos/birds, etc. The complexity of these relationships is but a testament of the length of time over which they are developing. We also don't know how many of these relationships have existed in the past but have since become obsolete (did mini-pterodactyls pick the teeth of T-rexes?)

gut

11-28-2010, 11:46 AM

> MRSA is just version of staph aureus

in context, it is antibiotic resistant, made that way by humans in an effort to fight it .

> since it wastes energy for proteins granted resistance it is slightly weakerh

so you can tell these guys they got off easy:
http://middleeasy.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2056
^ this link provided for laughs, as it is presented humorously, but yeah, you
need a strong stomache

> 1. make non eatable fruit [or fruitlikish seeds
plants make non-edible fruit. got it.

> 2. Eaters adjust to source rich on good material [seeds mainly]
animals eat non-edible fruit. got it.

> 3. Plants adjust by making eatable fruits, which are easy to digest and hard to digest seeds. Thus protecting seeds.
despite animals happily eating non-edible fruit, the plants decide to be generous. got it.

> 4. Further relations develop - making animals as source of seed spreading and so on...
they get married and live happily ever after. got it.

^teasing

> most americans know bible better than basics of biolog

if you are implying that my citation of MRSA as being a (man made) problem is off base,
then we'll just disagree

> fruit it would have started out very small. Animals eat nuts and
seeds anyway, some plants in favourable conditions might have produced bigger than
necessary seeds, animals favour those, some plants start having extra nutrients on
the outside of the seeds, and so on

You win the prize for best explaination!

If you read my previous posts though, you can see I wasn't trying to disprove
evolutionary process (though I'm not above poking a bit of fun). As I said, I was
trying to draw a contrast between the 'it doesn't make sense' and the 'what is wrong
with that process' assertions toward the same thing.

Soirana

11-28-2010, 12:28 PM

> MRSA is just version of staph aureus

in context, it is antibiotic resistant, made that way by humans in an effort to fight it .

Not antibiotic resistant. Just some major groups of them.

Per se it is not problem if the mentioned bacteria could add few genes for further resistance...

And not by "effort to fight it" but with idiotic usage of antibiotics. Can't we really go on with Jesus and Satan topic?

gut

11-28-2010, 02:53 PM

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)

> And not by "effort to fight it" but with idiotic usage of antibiotics.

so the idiotic usage was in an effort to help it

grobblewobble

11-28-2010, 03:12 PM

> -I would have turned all of the world's desert into arable farmland.

You'd screw up the earth's albedo like that? Hope none of our
eco friends are listening.

Eco friend listening. :P

What's the name again of this movie where Jim Carrey got to play god for a while?

Anyway, if Divine Being is going to fertilize the deserts, why not make all those dead planets habitable, too? And outer space, while we're at it. That would be fun.

Soirana

11-28-2010, 04:48 PM

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)

> And not by "effort to fight it" but with idiotic usage of antibiotics.

so the idiotic usage was in an effort to help it

I see you clearly got LRBA
Logic resistant brain activity

If you want sumarizing on MRSA:
About 15% [number varies on different researches] people have SA as persistent nonpathogen flora in nasopahryngeal cavity.
Wide spread use of antibiotics for stuff like common cold [mostly of viral origin] clearly helped to develop resistance [by the case methicilin isn't used as antibiotic for humans, just got stick in name].

So basically yes, idiotic usage helped SA to develop resistant forms.

gut

11-28-2010, 05:00 PM

> So basically yes, idiotic usage helped SA to develop resistant forms.

thank you. it was like pulling teeth, but thank you.

JellySlayer

11-28-2010, 08:42 PM

You are saying that jesus prayed to, and worshipped hell.

Sure, you can think of it that way if you want. Not exactly my intended meaning, but if it helps you understand better, that's fine.

MRSA is, in a way, man-made.

So we've made one disease ourselves and wiped out hundreds made by God? I'll take that trade.

> If there is a God, I think he's a pretty terrible designer.

yet more bias. if evolution is responsible for life, it is to be appreciated, if it
was god, then only blame

Evolution doesn't have to be appreciated. It isn't making claims of being all-powerful and perfect.

We'll just have to disagree on that. I think telling people to treat others as they
would be treated rather rules out violence, unless you would prefer for people to be
violent to you.

Jesus did talk about other things besides treating others as you'd like to be treated. Such as, you know, that people who didn't agree with him would be tortured for eternity.

(One does begin to wonder at the effect of such numerous translations).

It's a big problem. There's a great book called "Misquoting Jesus" that deals with this topic in some detail.

Jellyslayer was giving his (quite logical) analysis regarding the design plan of developing
fruits before fruit eaters.

I'm glad that you're satisfied with my explanations now.

Theym

11-28-2010, 11:39 PM

What's the name again of this movie where Jim Carrey got to play god for a while?
Bruce Almighty

fazisi

11-29-2010, 12:31 AM

xan

11-29-2010, 02:33 AM

> Evolution doesn't have to be appreciated. It isn't making claims of being all-powerful and perfect.

Evolution is just powerful and perfect enough to create the world we know today through chance and coincidence. No appreciation necessary. I think I could guess why atheists love this theory.

Chance and coincidence are not the selection criterion for evolution, reproductive success is.

While powerful, evolution is hardly perfect, many species die out because of changes in their environment.

Most atheists don't "love" the theory of evolution, if a better theory for the existence and diversity of life were found, atheists would be the first to accept it. It's just that it's currently the most rational explanation.

gut

11-29-2010, 05:02 AM

> Sure, you can think of it that way if you want. Not exactly my intended meaning

I know that wasn't your intended meaning, but that was the way it was written.

> So we've made one disease ourselves and wiped out hundreds made by God? I'll take that trade

We have enhanced (not really made) more than just one disease. It's just that most of our
'work' isn't publicized or by accident. The other aspect is the usefulness of diseases. As
gruesome (ha) as it sounds, the old saying 'whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger'
is true here, at least in a long-term sense. Compare the effects of multiple diseases upon
the peoples of europe compared to america. The populace that suffered fewer diseases
suffered worst (well, I suppose that may be a matter of opinion in ways). My point is,
perhaps there is a vital function to disease we have yet to discover? I honestly wouldn't
rule out 'population control' theory, either from devine or evolutionary perspective.

> Evolution doesn't have to be appreciated

didn't say it had to be, I said it seems as though you do. really meaning that seem to
have taken the time to study it in depth. seems odd that you would have studied something
that much without appreciating it.

> people who didn't agree with him would be tortured for eternity

You prefer the reality of torture (and murder) to the threat of afterlife torture?
Those WERE the prevailing philosophies of the time. Frankly, I'm glad jesus's
teachings won out.

> I'm glad that you're satisfied with my explanations now.

Your deductions were logical from the begining, but only applied to one theory.
The other seemed to be given a pass.

> Chance and coincidence are not the selection criterion for evolution, reproductive success is.

In my opinion, chance and coincidence must be factored in, in order for evolution
to be plausible.

JellySlayer

11-29-2010, 03:56 PM

> So we've made one disease ourselves and wiped out hundreds made by God? I'll take that trade

We have enhanced (not really made) more than just one disease. It's just that most of our
'work' isn't publicized or by accident. The other aspect is the usefulness of diseases. As
gruesome (ha) as it sounds, the old saying 'whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger'
is true here, at least in a long-term sense. Compare the effects of multiple diseases upon
the peoples of europe compared to america. The populace that suffered fewer diseases
suffered worst (well, I suppose that may be a matter of opinion in ways). My point is,
perhaps there is a vital function to disease we have yet to discover? I honestly wouldn't
rule out 'population control' theory, either from devine or evolutionary perspective.

I don't know much about the evolutionary origins/functions of diseases. Obviously there are some types of bacteria (not so much viruses, AFAIK) that are essential to our survival. Others, well, at least so far, we seem to be doing just fine without.

> Evolution doesn't have to be appreciated

didn't say it had to be, I said it seems as though you do. really meaning that seem to
have taken the time to study it in depth. seems odd that you would have studied something
that much without appreciating it.

As a scientific theory, yes, I personally consider evolution among the most powerful and elegant theories that we have ever devised. The difference, as I see it, is that creationism in particular suggests that man was literally created in the image of God. So why are there fairly obvious flaws in our "design"? Evolution provides at least a suggestion of a solution--namely that we don't necessarily share a common ancestor and/or that we diverged significantly from species with more functional designs of the same system.

> people who didn't agree with him would be tortured for eternity

You prefer the reality of torture (and murder) to the threat of afterlife torture?
Those WERE the prevailing philosophies of the time. Frankly, I'm glad jesus's
teachings won out.

Well, first off, I wouldn't say that Jesus' teachings won out. Capital punishment and torture remained acceptable means of doling out justice up until quite recent history--even to the present, realistically, although blessedly rare in the developed world--even in regions dominated by people who considered themselves to be Christian (regardless of whether they actually followed the teachings of Jesus or not)--this was in addition to the threats of eternal punishment promised by Jesus.

Here's the thing. If Jesus was right and hell does exist, then yes, I would consider the reality of torture/murder here and now better than the reality offered by Jesus, for the simple reason that life here is finite. You can only be killed once, and you can only be tortured up to the endurance of your body. By comparison, according to Jesus, punishment is extended for an indefinite period of time, simply for thinking the wrong thing in this, the finite world. The choice offered by Jesus is clearly worse. Even if his teachings did bring about an era of peace and kindness (which they didn't), that would only exacerbate the gross injustice of then proceeding to torture the people who didn't believe in him specifically--because the primary requirement of salvation is not good works, but faith in Jesus himself. The idea of heaven, to my mind, is not a sufficient offset for the travesty of hell. As a moral person, I do not believe that I could appreciate or accept any sort of heaven with the knowledge that other people are experiencing an unjust eternal torture. I'd happily give up heaven in order to destroy hell.

Now if Jesus was wrong about hell, then he may well be wrong about everything else--Christianity would be dead. If he's wrong about some things but not others, then we need to find a way to parse the truth from the untruth in his statements--not an easy task in and of itself. From a purely utilitarian point of view, we might try to argue that, even if unjustified, belief in hell is beneficial. And while I might agree that belief in hell is useful for propagating Christian memes (nothing like fear to motivate people), I'm not convinced that it is beneficial for society at large.

> Chance and coincidence are not the selection criterion for evolution, reproductive success is.

In my opinion, chance and coincidence must be factored in, in order for evolution
to be plausible.

To a degree, I agree with you. Chance plays a role in evolution in the sense that mutations, transcription errors, DNA mixing through sexual reproduction, etc. are inherently statistical processes. For lack of better terms, these processes provide the raw materials by which natural selection functions. Given a wide distribution of possible features, traits, and defects within a given species, natural selection will remove the least favourable and enhance the most favourable. If these random factors didn't exist at all, then natural selection wouldn't work. But the number of variations is immense--it's not really a limiting factor to speak of. In any given population, there's always going to be some features among some subset of the population that are incrementally better than the remainder. For simplicity, think of it like a bell curve. Most of the individuals are in the middle region, essentially neutral. The very lowest end of the bell curve are weak, and will die off. The strongest on the curve have a reproductive advantage and will grow at a faster rate than the rest of the population. What happens over time? The average moves towards the more successful group. The width of the bell curve is determined essentially by the chance features you speak of; the movement of the bell curve toward the superior individuals is determined by natural selection.

gut

11-29-2010, 06:59 PM

> some types of bacteria (not so much viruses, AFAIK) that
are essential to our survival. Others, well, at least so far, we seem to be
doing just fine witho

Seem to be doing fine, but for how long? For individuals, it is great,
but for species is it great? A few hundred generation of no disease
deaths (kept at bay via medicines, increased levels of sanitation,
new vaccines, etc...) would leave human species more or less able
to survive a pandemic? The more host bodies, the more opportunities
for mutations. Population would double how many times in ~200 years?
Makes for a large breeding ground, eh?

>>>>> If there is a God, I think he's a pretty terrible designer.

>>>> yet more bias. if evolution is responsible for life, it is to be appreciated, if it
was god, then only blame

>>> Evolution doesn't have to be appreciated. It isn't making claims of being all-powerful and perfect.

>> didn't say it had to be, I said it seems as though you do.

> yes, I personally consider evolution among the most powerful and elegant

if the process is natural selection, with only factors you understand, the result
is 'elegant', yet if a guiding inteligence was involved, the same result is 'a
terrible design'. Perhaps physics/evolution are not exclusionary with a guiding
intelligence, but were created by it. Perhaps that intelligence saw the use of and
need for things you don't, such as disease. Perhaps the 'flawed' designs exist
for reasons you don't understand.

> creationism in particular suggests that man was literally created in the image
of God. So why are there fairly obvious flaws in our "design"?

Perhaps being made 'in the image' of something doesn't mean mirror image, but the
more faint kind. You think an omnipotent being would create only perfection? How dull.

>>> people who didn't agree with him would be tortured for eternity

>> You prefer the reality of torture (and murder) to the threat of afterlife torture?

> Well, first off, I wouldn't say that Jesus' teachings won out

So Jupitor and the lot have regular following in your country?

> Capital punishment and torture remained acceptable means of doling out justice up until quite recent history

The only periods that comes to mind where 'christians' murdered non-christians for
being different were spanish inquisition and scattered witch trials. Relatively
uncommon compared to the alternative.

> even to the present, realistically, although blessedly rare in the developed world

You don't like the idea of putting criminals under the jail? How odd.

> If Jesus was right and hell does exist, then yes, I would consider the reality of torture/murder here and now better than

The martyrs of the time agree with you :D

You are equating belief with reality. You start your sentence with 'if [snip] hell
exists, then...' but that wasn't what I asked you. I asked you if:
'>> You prefer the reality of torture (and murder) to the threat of afterlife torture?'

> the reality offered by Jesus

You are still speaking as though jesus created/worshipped/prayed to hell.

> Even if his teachings did bring about an era of peace and kindness (which they didn't),

So which do I believe, what you tell me, or what I live each day? You tell me that
jesus's teachings aren't responsible for peace, yet I haven't locked my door in years.
The blasted thing isn't even capable of locking, and I don't even bother fixing it.
Many people in christian neighborhoods do the same. Try replace the churches with
liquor stores though (like they do pretty much everywhere else in the world), and see
if you notice a difference.

> I'd happily give up heaven in order to destroy hell

Best line of this whole debate. I'll join you in that :D

> Now if Jesus was wrong about hell, then he may well be wrong about everything else

Maybe he was right, I know you would prefer he not have told anybody about it, as it
would have been unpleasant :D

> I might agree that belief in hell is useful for propagating Christian
memes (nothing like fear to motivate people), I'm not convinced that it is
beneficial for society at large.

You lock your doors at night?

> To a degree, I agree with you.

thank you. was like pulling teeth, but thank you.

JellySlayer

11-29-2010, 07:35 PM

Seem to be doing fine, but for how long? For individuals, it is great,
but for species is it great? A few hundred generation of no disease
deaths (kept at bay via medicines, increased levels of sanitation,
new vaccines, etc...) would leave human species more or less able
to survive a pandemic? The more host bodies, the more opportunities
for mutations. Population would double how many times in ~200 years?
Makes for a large breeding ground, eh?

...

I feel that I should point out something really, really obvious about this statement. Instead I'll just say that I think we agree on a lot more than I originally thought we did.

> yes, I personally consider evolution among the most powerful and elegant theories that we have ever devised[/COLOR]

Please quote me in context. I am not talking about the results of evolution. I am talking about the theory of evolution itself. I consider the theory of electromagnetism to be one of the most beautiful theories we've ever come up with as well. That doesn't mean that I enjoy sticking my fingers into electrical sockets. Evolution is an excellent theory because of its predictive and explanatory power. That doesn't mean that I still can't say "Gee, it's too bad that our eyes didn't follow the same evolutionary path as birds, because theirs are superior to ours in just about every way".

> creationism in particular suggests that man was literally created in the image
of God. So why are there fairly obvious flaws in our "design"?

Perhaps being made 'in the image' of something doesn't mean mirror image, but the
more faint kind. You think an omnipotent being would create only perfection? How dull.

That's an interesting question, actually. Is it possible for a perfect being to make something imperfect?

> Well, first off, I wouldn't say that Jesus' teachings won out[/COLOR]

So Jupitor and the lot have regular following in your country?

You don't consider most Christians to be followers of Jesus' teachings. Given that they believe all that other stuff in the Bible, you know.

> Capital punishment and torture remained acceptable means of doling out justice up until quite recent history

The only periods that comes to mind where 'christians' murdered non-christians for
being different were spanish inquisition and scattered witch trials. Relatively
uncommon compared to the alternative.

The Crusades? The colonization of the Americas? Just to point out, Christians also murdered/tortured Christians in fairly significant numbers too. See: the history of Europe from AD 100-1945 for some examples. Still not very Christ-like.

You don't like the idea of putting criminals under the jail? How odd.

Torture and capital punishment are not the same as jail.

You are equating belief with reality. You start your sentence with 'if [snip] hell
exists, then...' but that wasn't what I asked you. I asked you if:
'>> You prefer the reality of torture (and murder) to the threat of afterlife torture?'

Well, I consider that a false dichotomy. I believe that we have both the doctrine of hell and murder/torture here and now. I believe that having neither would be the best option. If having the threat of hell eliminated murder and torture now, sure, that'd be a benefit to the doctrine, regardless of whether or not its true. I just don't see any evidence to believe that is the case.

You are still speaking as though jesus created/worshipped/prayed to hell.

God created hell. Jesus is God. Therefore, Jesus created hell.

> Even if his teachings did bring about an era of peace and kindness (which they didn't),

So which do I believe, what you tell me, or what I live each day? You tell me that
jesus's teachings aren't responsible for peace, yet I haven't locked my door in years.
The blasted thing isn't even capable of locking, and I don't even bother fixing it.
Many people in christian neighborhoods do the same. Try replace the churches with
liquor stores though (like they do pretty much everywhere else in the world), and see
if you notice a difference.

Jesus died in AD 33 or thereabouts. From about AD 400 onwards, the majority of Europe was Christian. For much of that period, a significant portion Europe was called "Christendom". Are you intending to argue that this Christian area has been essentially free of strife and conflict since that time? For that matter, the United States, despite being a "Christian" nation, has the world's highest incarceration rate, and has, for all practical purposes, been in a continuous state of war for the last 60 or so years. Hardly a stellar example of Christ-like behaviour.

> Now if Jesus was wrong about hell, then he may well be wrong about everything else

Maybe he was right, I know you would prefer he not have told anybody about it, as it
would have been unpleasant :D

If he's right, then he and God are evil and immoral. That's doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, but I certainly don't see any reason to cater to the whims of tyrants.

gut

11-30-2010, 12:18 AM

> I feel that I should point out something really, really obvious about this statement.

I'm curious.

> I think we agree on a lot more than I originally thought we did.

Shame to see things winding down.

> Please quote me in context. I am not talking about the results of evolution

Fair enough, I will rephrase:

if the process is natural selection, with only factors you understand, the THEORY
ABOUT HOW THE RESULT CAME TO BE is 'elegant', yet if a guiding inteligence was
involved, said intelligence is 'a terrible designer'.

Happy?

> theirs are superior to ours in just about every way

Some birds eyes can take up more than 20% of their head. Personally, I think there
are reasons why our eyes are the way they are. Do I have the slightest interest
in finding out why? No.

> Is it possible for a perfect being to make something imperfect?

is it possible for an imperfect being to answer that question :D

> You don't consider most Christians to be followers of Jesus' teachings. Given that they believe all that other stuff in the Bible, you know.

I don't consider humans to be perfect followers of anything, but I don't compare
anything to the standard of perfection, only to the alternative.

> The Crusades

IMO that was for $$$, not for the crime of being different. And that was despite
jesus's teachings, not because of them.

> The colonization of the Americas

Same thing.

> Christians also murdered/tortured Christians

You call them christians, they call themselves christians, I'll withhold
what I call them.

> Torture and capital punishment are not the same as jail

thus the word 'under'.

> If having the threat of hell eliminated murder and torture now, sure, that'd
be a benefit to the doctrine, regardless of whether or not its true. I just don't see any evidence
to believe that is the case.

You don't think that fear of hell has turned any from the path of violence/murder?
You don't think that desire for heaven has done the same?
You are thinking too much in your own mind :D
I have worked with people who believe the lottery machine will spit them out
winners/losers based upon the time of day.

> God created hell

Actually googled that one. Was quickly reminded why I never could get
into this stuff. Anyway, the story goes that hell was created by god,
but not for humans, for devil and such. If humans were threatened with
it later, was too lazy to look for why.

> Jesus is God. Therefore, Jesus created hell.

Was too lazy to google more, but distant memories hint at that the
father/son/holy ghost trinity wasn't as simple a thing as that. I
remember it as being topic of disagreement between branches, and I
don't remember any instance of jesus claiming to have created hell.

> this Christian area has been essentially free of strife and conflict since that time?

Indeed not, but was it more or less violent because of jesus's influence?

> the United States, despite being a "Christian" nation, has the world's highest incarceration rate,

Putting criminals in jail is unchristian? The violent areas of which you speak are
not Kentucky and Utah, more like Las Angelas and New York. The church to liquor
store ratio in these different areas is in expected harmony with their respective
crime rates. Please do not consider all states 1/50th of the same mentality.

> and has, for all practical purposes, been in a continuous state of war for the last 60 or so years

I think america's military endeavors are more the result of military and/or
economic considerations than religious ones. Our government is secular, as is
a number of European governments, all rather constantly involved in militant
actions.

> If he's right, then he and God are evil and immoral.

Many things seem that way in this world. Baby deer being eaten by wolves and such
seem the creation of an evil mind. But if one thinks for a while, they can
understand how a system without dead baby deer could end up worse. The same
could be said for an Earth without a notion of hell.

Theym

11-30-2010, 12:40 AM

>Was too lazy to google more, but distant memories hint at that the
>father/son/holy ghost trinity wasn't as simple a thing as that. I
>remember it as being topic of disagreement between branches, and I
>don't remember any instance of jesus claiming to have created hell.

Has to do with catholisim, they believe that Jesus and God are the same, and that God and the Holy Spirit are the same, and that Jesus and the Holy Spitit are the same. Thus making Mary the mother of God. So i guess to them that also makes Jesus the creator of Hell.

littlebrather

11-30-2010, 02:27 AM

Has to do with catholisim, they believe that Jesus and God are the same This question has been discussed for >2000 years by thousands of great theologists, little disagreement results in more than one schism, branch of wars, near millions of deaths, and ofc great saga by pan Sapkovski) And you can make this so nice and easy - just in one sentence? Congrtz

JellySlayer

11-30-2010, 03:23 AM

> I feel that I should point out something really, really obvious about this statement.

Well, obviously the reason that viruses are developing antibiotic resistance is because they're evolving. That or God is messing with us again, which I guess is also possible.

if the process is natural selection, with only factors you understand, the THEORY
ABOUT HOW THE RESULT CAME TO BE is 'elegant', yet if a guiding inteligence was
involved, said intelligence is 'a terrible designer'.

Let me put it this way... many, many people believe that life came to be what it is now due to a process that you describe as essentially based on chance. Now I would contend that if something were designed intelligently, then it would be reasonable to believe that it should be distinguishable from something that is based on chance. So, if you believe that life was designed intelligently, why is it that so many people accept a theory that you equate to chance?

> You don't consider most Christians to be followers of Jesus' teachings. Given that they believe all that other stuff in the Bible, you know.

> The Crusades

IMO that was for $$$, not for the crime of being different. And that was despite
jesus's teachings, not because of them.

> The colonization of the Americas

Same thing.

So you agree that many Christians don't believe Jesus' teachings. And that they have no problem misconstruing them to violent ends when they need to.

thus the word 'under'.

Sorry, I'm not familiar with that expression then.

You don't think that fear of hell has turned any from the path of violence/murder?
You don't think that desire for heaven has done the same?

To be honest, no, I don't think it has been terribly effective at those ends, because getting to heaven/hell is not based upon what you do, but what you believe. Furthermore, as I've mentioned above, Christians seem to be able and willing to justify various despicable acts in spite of these doctrines. Other cultures seem to have gotten along pretty well without the idea of heaven or hell, though.

> Jesus is God. Therefore, Jesus created hell.

Was too lazy to google more, but distant memories hint at that the
father/son/holy ghost trinity wasn't as simple a thing as that. I
remember it as being topic of disagreement between branches, and I
don't remember any instance of jesus claiming to have created hell.

Jesus didn't claim to create hell, but he did claim to be God, and God did create hell.

> this Christian area has been essentially free of strife and conflict since that time?

Indeed not, but was it more or less violent because of jesus's influence?

History doesn't lend itself to those kinds of measurements very well, unfortunately.

> the United States, despite being a "Christian" nation, has the world's highest incarceration rate,

Putting criminals in jail is unchristian?

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, remember?

> and has, for all practical purposes, been in a continuous state of war for the last 60 or so years

I think america's military endeavors are more the result of military and/or
economic considerations than religious ones. Our government is secular, as is
a number of European governments, all rather constantly involved in militant
actions.

Much too complicated to discuss here. Yes, certainly most of America's foreign policy has nothing to with religion... except, pretty much, for politics surrounding Israel itself, which does contain a religious aspect (although even here other factors are important as well).

Dorten

11-30-2010, 03:44 AM

Theym

11-30-2010, 05:00 AM

This question has been discussed for >2000 years by thousands of great theologists, little disagreement results in more than one schism, branch of wars, near millions of deaths, and ofc great saga by pan Sapkovski) And you can make this so nice and easy - just in one sentence? Congrtz

It's a Jersey thing ;) J/k Washington born and raised

JellySlayer

11-30-2010, 06:21 AM

@JellySlayer

You really should read at least some theological books. Cause, now you don't even understand basic concepts of what hell is, what sin is and so on. You know, all your "If I were God..." sounds just like: "If I were chief of financial department, I'd print a lot of cash and give ten grand to every poor man!"

Except that the chief of finance has finite resources. Money given to one person is taken away from another, directly or indirectly. God is infinite in resources. He made the universe. Would it have been so hard to change a fraction of a corner of an insignificant speck of it so that His favoured beings wouldn't always be starving to death? Would it have been so hard for the God who created the Earth itself to have created it in such a way that it doesn't occasionally open up and swallow some of his beloved children? Can you not imagine a way that this world could have been made that would be better for us then how it was made?

For example: hell is not a punishment, nor a torture. Suffering? yes.

Nonsense.

Jesus describes hell as a place of "weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth" (Matt 13:42); and as a place of "eternal punishment" (Matt 25:46); and in the parable of Lazarus, describes hell as a place of "torment" and "anguish" (Luke 16:23).

In Revelation, we see that the devil, the beast and the false prophet will be thrown into the lake of fire and tormented forever (Rev 20:10) and will be joined by those whose names are not in the book of life (15). Revelation 14:9-10 is particularly clear on this: If anyone worships the beast and his image, and takes the mark on his forehead or his hand, 14:10 that person 29 will also drink of the wine of God?s anger 30 that has been mixed undiluted in the cup of his wrath, and he will be tortured with fire and sulfur31 in front of the holy angels and in front of the Lamb. 14:11 And the smoke from their 32 torture will go up 33 forever and ever, and those who worship the beast and his image will have 34 no rest day or night, along with 35 anyone who receives the mark of his name.

That seems pretty unambiguous to me.

Sin is not an act, sin is a state, like, disease. Acts are it's manifestations. And you can have that disease which does not manifest itselfs in any visible (to others) way.

It's the fault of western education at 7th-10th centuries, that the sin is seen as an act of crime, which should be avenged (You know, education was based on reading lots and lots of latin law codes and such => such menthality), and here goes: "why is there eternal punishment for limited crime" => whole new and fucked up concept of purgatory...

This is a complicated problem to describe, but fairly irrelevant to my mind. God inflicted us with the "disease" of sin, so it is hardly just for Him to then punish us for placing us in that particular state.* I contend, nonetheless, that you are incorrect about the idea that sin as an act of crime is a relatively more recent idea. The Old Testament clearly defines sins in terms of obedience to God's moral laws, and that righteousness could be attained by faith in God and following the Law. The concepts of hereditary original sin, or a sinful state of being, are entirely absent. Indeed, I point out that Jews do not believe in either of these ideas, nor, to my knowledge, have these ideas ever been seriously considered in mainstream Judaism (incidently, the concept of hell is also completely absent from the OT). The original description of sin is entirely legalistic. Jesus, being Jewish himself, discusses sin almost exclusively in these terms (there's a suggestion of the other interpretation in John 8). It is only Paul who really advocates for this idea that sin is an inherent property, and only he who argues for the existence of original sin.

To forestall your objection: No, we did not put ourselves in the state of sin. God did. God created the "sin disease" and defined its properties in much the same way He created the universe. However you believe we came into this state is entirely to the fault of God. If you believe it's a result of, say, Adam and Eve, I point out that having no concept of right and wrong, no concept of death, being pitted against a supernatural foe that they were never told about, who had deceptive powers beyond their abilities to appreciate, did not give Adam and Eve much choice in the matter. God chose to define it in such a way that it would invariably inflict all of mankind.

littlebrather

11-30-2010, 07:24 AM

God created the "sin disease"BTW Light creates the shadows. All this arguments have already been said far ago. An the main idea of Dorten was to turn you from flamewars on internet forums to reading theological and philosophical books. The subject has been discussed there for ages. But I know, having your own opinion is quite easy.

Dorten

11-30-2010, 07:34 AM

To forestall your objection: No, we did not put ourselves in the state of sin. God did. God created the "sin disease" and defined its properties in much the same way He created the universe. However you believe we came into this state is entirely to the fault of God. If you believe it's a result of, say, Adam and Eve, I point out that having no concept of right and wrong, no concept of death, being pitted against a supernatural foe that they were never told about, who had deceptive powers beyond their abilities to appreciate, did not give Adam and Eve much choice in the matter. God chose to define it in such a way that it would invariably inflict all of mankind.
I'll answer to this, as other is clearly result of not thinking about the problem, like "who will be torturing whom", and such.

Is darkness the fault of light?
God didn't "create" sin. Sin is a state of being against God. It's just this way: whole world lives and works only because of God, as you get 'farther' from Him, you lose His support. And suffer. It's not that He 'makes' us suffer. Instead, He does not make us not to suffer, but only those, who do not want to be with God. And Jewish 'laws', described in Old Testament were given only because people lost their natural ability to see what's good and what's not. So God tells: "OK, as you cant think for yoursalves that's it: this is bad, and this is good".
About Adam and Eve:
"having no concept of right and wrong" - where did you get this strange thought?
"no concept of death" - where did you get this strange thought?
"who had deceptive powers beyond their abilities to appreciate" - where did you get this strange thought?
"did not give Adam and Eve much choice in the matter" - have they been expelled from Eden right at the moment of eating that fruit?

gut

11-30-2010, 08:09 AM

> Well, obviously the reason that viruses are developing antibiotic resistance is
because they're evolving. That or God is messing with us again, which I guess is also possible.

I thought maybe you meant the seeming lack of evlolution in human bodies
that would allow to fight the virii without outside help.

> Let me put it this way... many, many people believe that life came to be what it is now due to a process
that you describe as essentially based on chance

Ahh, many people believe. So you are saying it is a matter of faith with them :D
Those cultists would be really difficult to debate with...

> I would contend that if something were designed intelligently, then it would be reasonable to believe that it should
be distinguishable from something that is based on chance

It is OK for me to not share that assumption? I have heard that assuming makes
an ASS out of U and ME :D

> So, if you believe that life was designed intelligently,

I do believe there was a guiding intelligence somewhere in there, somewhat based
on the fact that I don't believe theories such as 'first there was nothing, then it
exploded' and 'with ENOUGH billions of years (with proper conditions, no natural
disasters, etc...) it could happen'.

As I've said previously in this thread, I sometimes wonder if it is evil/disrespectful
for me to simply not care what roll said intelligence played or when. After years of
thought I came to the conclusion that it is not :D

> why is it that so many people accept a theory that you equate to chance?

You are asking me to explain the mind/thinking of my fellow man. This is one thing I
have consistantly failed to do.

Perhaps they were as you, endoctinated into (one of) the prevailing religions, got
old enough to think for themselves, decided it wasn't quite as true as they were
lead to believe, then went on to prove the old saying that 'zealots make the best
converts'.

> So you agree that many Christians don't believe Jesus' teachings

If they don't follow Jesus's teachings, how do you/them refer to them as christians?

> Sorry, I'm not familiar with that expression then

Putting criminals UNDER the jail? Get it? Under the jail???

>> You don't think that desire for heaven has done the same?

> To be honest, no, I don't think it has been terribly effective at those ends

Again, what do I believe, what you tell me, or what I live? I have seen it with
my own eyes numerous times. I'll give an unofficial gut estimation that about 2/3
of young men in my area have changed lives do to jesus' influence, and heaven and
hell do play their part.

> getting to heaven/hell is not based upon what you do, but what you believe

the counter being that if you really believe in good, you won't do evil...

> Furthermore, as I've mentioned above, Christians seem to be able and willing to justify various despicable acts in spite of these doctrines.

As I have mentioned above, these actions you mention are mainly the work of secular
govenments.

> Jesus didn't claim to create hell, but he did claim to be God,

to the best of my memory, it is not as simple as a=b=c

> Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, remember?

throwing stones = jail? How about 'treat others as you would be treated' instead?
If I commit a crime, I would expect to be thrown in jail. I'm OK with that
happening to me, so I'm OK with it happening to others.

> don't even understand basic concepts of what hell is, what sin is and so on

then I suppose I don't either, as his pretty much = mine

> all your "If I were God..." sounds just like: "If I were chief of financial department, I'd print a lot of
cash and give ten grand to every poor man!

Oh how I wish I had come up with that line...
Can we go back?

> whole new and fucked up concept of purgatory...

I am open to the idea that most people's theories about any religion have been
screwed through time, translations, and such.

> Religion of somethingism is like: you don't treat is as religion => you are not somethingist

Ahh, but what if you DO treat it like a religion?

" atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

People who are open-minded, yet unconvinced are agnostic. Athiesm means you
believe in the absence of god, with no proof. That is faith. If they deny
being a religion then they = cult.

> Can you not imagine a way that this world could have been made that would be better for us then how it was made?

Doesn't the story go that once upon a time, things were as you say?

> If anyone worships the beast and his image,

Well, just don't do that, and you're good :D

> God inflicted us with the "disease" of sin

I seem to remember the story going differently...

> there's a suggestion of the other interpretation in John 8). It is only Paul who really advocates for this idea

I said it before, and I'll say it again. If I knew scripture like you, I'd prolly
be an athiest too.

> However you believe we came into this state is entirely to the fault of God.

You say fault, I say credit. I'm not particularly unhappy with life.

...gonna hit 10K yet...

fazisi

11-30-2010, 08:55 AM

> Chance and coincidence are not the selection criterion for evolution, reproductive success is.

In my opinion, chance and coincidence must be factored in, in order for evolution
to be plausible.
I agree with gut on this topic. I know random events will eventually develop into patterns. I know that patterns generated in a truly random manner may appear to be intelligently designed. However, I understand a little bit about probabilities and apply this knowledge to having numerous random events generating diverse and complex patterns in such quantity as we find in our universe. It takes a little bit of faith to believe anything.

Seem to be doing fine, but for how long? For individuals, it is great,
but for species is it great? A few hundred generation of no disease
deaths (kept at bay via medicines, increased levels of sanitation,
new vaccines, etc...) would leave human species more or less able
to survive a pandemic? The more host bodies, the more opportunities
for mutations. Population would double how many times in ~200 years?
Makes for a large breeding ground, eh?
Medical advances are increasing the our evolutionary chances since it encourages the survival of mutated members of the human species. If at one point having an increased risk of heart failure presents itself as an evolutionary advantage, we will be glad for health care.

> Capital punishment and torture remained acceptable means of doling out justice up until quite recent history

The only periods that comes to mind where 'christians' murdered non-christians for
being different were spanish inquisition and scattered witch trials. Relatively
uncommon compared to the alternative.

The Crusades? The colonization of the Americas? Just to point out, Christians also murdered/tortured Christians in fairly significant numbers too. See: the history of Europe from AD 100-1945 for some examples. Still not very Christ-like.
A lot of things were done because of misinterpretation or a gross misuse of the teachings of the Bible. While one can blame "Christians", they should not blame Christ by proxy.

why is it that so many people accept a theory that you equate to chance?

Faith.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, remember?
This is a lesson about how all are guilty of sin and we must practice forgiveness. It is not a law about how to treat criminals.

JellySlayer

11-30-2010, 03:25 PM

I'll answer to this, as other is clearly result of not thinking about the problem, like "who will be torturing whom", and such.

You're going to ignore the major claims where I clearly lay out, with documentation from the Bible, where it says that hell is a place of punishment and torture to focus on the details of the footnote? Or do you concede the point?

God didn't "create" sin. Sin is a state of being against God. It's just this way: whole world lives and works only because of God, as you get 'farther' from Him, you lose His support. And suffer. It's not that He 'makes' us suffer. Instead, He does not make us not to suffer, but only those, who do not want to be with God.

God created the universe and everything in it. He defined sin and its properties. If sin results in suffering, it is because God chooses that sin results in suffering.

And Jewish 'laws', described in Old Testament were given only because people lost their natural ability to see what's good and what's not. So God tells: "OK, as you cant think for yoursalves that's it: this is bad, and this is good".

I'll argue the contrary. See below.

About Adam and Eve:
"having no concept of right and wrong" - where did you get this strange thought?

From the Bible, of course. Read the account of Adam and Eve. The punchline is Genesis 3:22:
22 And the LORD God said, ?The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.? 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.

Clearly Adam and Eve had no concept of good and evil (right and wrong) prior to eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

"no concept of death" - where did you get this strange thought?

From the Bible, of course. Adam and Eve do not experience the concept of death until after the Fall.

"who had deceptive powers beyond their abilities to appreciate" - where did you get this strange thought?

It's generally accepted that the serpent is the devil, who is himself a fallen angel. The devil has powers beyond human capacity--see, for example, the temptation of Jesus.

"did not give Adam and Eve much choice in the matter" - have they been expelled from Eden right at the moment of eating that fruit?

I'm not sure what difference this makes.

A lot of things were done because of misinterpretation or a gross misuse of the teachings of the Bible. While one can blame "Christians", they should not blame Christ by proxy.

I'll have to dig back in the thread to double-check this, but I don't actually believe that I ever ascribed blame to Christ for the behaviour of Christians. What I did say was that his teachings were mostly ineffective at actually achieving their intended purpose. Christians generally don't behave more morally than anybody else (with possibly the exception of whatever town gut lives in), and in some cases behave in ways that are outright evil.

gut

11-30-2010, 04:17 PM

you didn't quote any of my jibberish...

fazisi

11-30-2010, 05:32 PM

I'll have to dig back in the thread to double-check this, but I don't actually believe that I ever ascribed blame to Christ for the behaviour of Christians. What I did say was that his teachings were mostly ineffective at actually achieving their intended purpose. Christians generally don't behave more morally than anybody else (with possibly the exception of whatever town gut lives in), and in some cases behave in ways that are outright evil.
I just wanted to make sure people are blaming the right culprits. Many so-called "Christians" make the most ruthless murderers seem like good baby-sitter candidates.

JellySlayer

11-30-2010, 05:57 PM

you didn't quote any of my jibberish...

Didn't mean to leave you out :) I'm pretty sure if I had tried to cover both you and Dorten, I would have been way over 10k characters. His stuff took precedence because there's more there that I strongly disagree with.

I thought maybe you meant the seeming lack of evlolution in human bodies
that would allow to fight the virii without outside help.

Virii and bacteria evolve much more quickly than we do, given that they can reproduce on a scale of minutes or hours, whereas we reproduce on the scale of decades. I don't know how many generations it would take for us to develop a resistance to a given pathogen--my knowledge of immunology is basically zero--but I'd assume that it's not likely to be something we'd see on the timescales we're dealing with.

So you are saying it is a matter of faith with them :D

Faith is belief without evidence.

> I would contend that if something were designed intelligently, then it would be reasonable to believe that it should
be distinguishable from something that is based on chance

It is OK for me to not share that assumption? I have heard that assuming makes
an ASS out of U and ME :D

In that case, how do you know something is intelligently designed at all?

I do believe there was a guiding intelligence somewhere in there, somewhat based
on the fact that I don't believe theories such as 'first there was nothing, then it
exploded' and 'with ENOUGH billions of years (with proper conditions, no natural
disasters, etc...) it could happen'.

You prefer 'first there was nothing, then God spoke, and then there was something'? I'll also just point out that evolution doesn't deny the existence of natural disasters. There have been many mass extinctions during the history of the Earth. There hasn't been one that was so bad to wipe out all life, rather self-evidently.

As I've said previously in this thread, I sometimes wonder if it is evil/disrespectful
for me to simply not care what roll said intelligence played or when. After years of
thought I came to the conclusion that it is not :D

I agree entirely. I just also consider the possibility that intelligence didn't play a role at all.

Perhaps they were as you, endoctinated into (one of) the prevailing religions, got
old enough to think for themselves, decided it wasn't quite as true as they were
lead to believe, then went on to prove the old saying that 'zealots make the best
converts'.

Could be. Many Christians (eg. Roman Catholics) accept evolution as well though. As I mentioned earlier, Charles Darwin himself was an ordained minister and devout Christian.

> So you agree that many Christians don't believe Jesus' teachings

If they don't follow Jesus's teachings, how do you/them refer to them as christians?

Generally, if someone says that they are Christian, I assume that they're telling the truth. They may not have the same understanding of Christianity is another person, but then again, there's over 10000 denominations of Christianity, so that isn't really surprising. I think simply saying that someone who follows Jesus' teachings is a Christian is a gross oversimplification of the problem, to be honest. Particularly because, from what I've seen, most people who claim to be Christian are woefully ignorant of their own theology.

Again, what do I believe, what you tell me, or what I live? I have seen it with
my own eyes numerous times. I'll give an unofficial gut estimation that about 2/3
of young men in my area have changed lives do to jesus' influence, and heaven and
hell do play their part.

Are these people who were raised Christian? Or are these people who were formerly non-Christian and their lives changed after they became Christian?

the counter being that if you really believe in good, you won't do evil...

Sorry, let me be more specific. According to prevailing Protestant theology, the only criteria under which it is decided whether a person will go to heaven or hell is that they have accepted Jesus as their personal lord and saviour and believe that God has raised him from the dead. There is no requirement under the scheme of salvation to do good works, to believe in good, or to follow any of Jesus' teachings.

Somewhat tangentially, many Protestant Christians believe that once a person is "saved" that they are saved forever. That is because I accepted Jesus back when I was in my teens, even though I am now an atheist and no longer believe any of it, under their theology I still get into heaven.

> Jesus didn't claim to create hell, but he did claim to be God,

to the best of my memory, it is not as simple as a=b=c

Jesus is God or he isn't. Law of excluded middle.

I am open to the idea that most people's theories about any religion have been
screwed through time, translations, and such.

Very progressive of you. I agree completely.

" atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

How about we quote things in context?
"Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[5][6]"

I think it's a little disingenuous to take the "In a narrow sense" line and ignore the parts that lay out what other positions atheists can take. Yes, there are some atheists who have a positive belief that there is no God or gods. There are others who are unconvinced that there is evidence for deities, and therefore don't believe in them by default (eg. there's no evidence for unicorns, therefore I don't assume that they exist until evidence is provided). Others still, are atheist implicitly--that is, if you've never heard of god or Gods, you are atheist truly by default. Many people who claim to be atheist may also/actually be apatheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism).

I said it before, and I'll say it again. If I knew scripture like you, I'd prolly
be an athiest too.

I'm tempted to change my sig to that quote.

> However you believe we came into this state is entirely to the fault of God.

You say fault, I say credit. I'm not particularly unhappy with life.

By "state" there, I was referring to "state of sin" that Dorten was alluding to. If you mean this in context... I'm not exactly sure how to interpret you.

[edit]Shocked that isn't 10k.

gut

11-30-2010, 08:11 PM

>> many, many people believe that life came to be what it is now due to a process
that you describe as essentially based on chance

>> Ahh, many people believe. So you are saying it is a matter of faith with them

> Faith is belief without evidence.

They have evidence that 'life came to be what it is now' through nothing but chance?
Also, 'many' people believing anything has little impact on me.

>>> I would contend that if something were designed intelligently, then it would be reasonable to believe that it should
be distinguishable from something that is based on chance

>> It is OK for me to not share that assumption?

> In that case, how do you know something is intelligently designed at all?

Most abstract art COULD have been made by a randomly exploding clown, but was actually made
by an intelligence. I don't know 100% sure that my soda can doesn't exist as the result of
aluminum molecules randomly bumping into one another for millions of years, but such order
as I see in that can hints to me that it is more than the product of 100% non-intelligent
actions.

> You prefer 'first there was nothing, then God spoke,

If we are talking my preferences, I don't think I'd start with 'first there was nothing'.
Frankly, I don't think I'd start at all, as I have very little to start with.

> if someone says that they are Christian, I assume that they're telling the truth.

More assumption. No, not everybody that claims to be a christian is one.

> They may not have the same understanding of Christianity

They may not even care. There are people who will go to church every sunday and even fork over
10% of their paycheck for no other reason than to not be thought badly of.

> saying that someone who follows Jesus' teachings is a Christian is a gross oversimplification

would you consider a budhist who follows the teachings of budha the same?

> most people who claim to be Christian are woefully ignorant of their own theology

if they don't know the teachings of christ, then are they really christians

> Are these people who were raised Christian? Or are these people who were formerly non-Christian and their lives
changed after they became Christian?

I don't know them individually, and care little to associate with most, as they enjoy things I
don't (and we'll leave it at that). It is as simple as this, I see them before they start going
to church, and refering to themselves as christians, and I see them after. I prefer after.

> There is no requirement under the scheme of salvation to do good works, to believe in good, or to follow any of Jesus' teachings.

The counter, again, being that if you have 'accepted ... personal...' then you will be a changed
person that will live your life the right way. If you don't, then you didn't.

> many Protestant Christians believe that once a person is "saved" that they are saved forever.

never seen or heard of that branch, but then again, I never looked or listened for it. In other
news, some 'christians' believe in forcing their children handle rattlesnakes.

> That is because I accepted Jesus back when I was in my teens, even though I am now an atheist
and no longer believe any of it, under their theology I still get into heaven.

You came to know jesus? You had a personal relationship with jesus? You accepted him into your
heart because you knew he was real? If so, you are a traitor for betraying what you know to be
real. If you didn't know jesus was real, but just went through the motions because of some
deluded notions you had, then it wasn't a true acceptance, so didn't take :D

>>> Jesus didn't claim to create hell, but he did claim to be God,

>> to the best of my memory, it is not as simple as a=b=c

> Jesus is God or he isn't. Law of excluded middle.

If it had been that simple/logical, I might have actually studdied it. There are distinctions
between father/son/holy ghost in most (all?) branches of christianity. I am sorry that I am
not more informed on the subject.

>>> Religion of somethingism is like: you don't treat is as religion => you are not somethingist

>> Ahh, but what if you DO treat it like a religion?

" atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities"

>> People who are open-minded, yet unconvinced are agnostic.

> How about we quote things in context?

In my opinion, that was in context.

Dorten stated that athiestism isn't a religion because they refuse such notions as faith (which
you defined as 'belief without proof'). How do they prove that no diety exists? No, I was not
refering to all athiests (even specifically excluding agnostics), I was specifically refering
to the type of athiest which I did quote. In context.

> "Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In
a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most
inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is
contrasted with theism,[4] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one
deity exists.[5][6]"

> I think it's a little disingenuous to take the "In a narrow sense" line and ignore the parts
that lay out what other positions atheists can take.

To be fair, let's break that paragraph down. I see:

is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities
and
> specifically the position that there are no deities
and
> Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least
one deity exist
as opposed to
> Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist

Which mirrors agnosticism, which I quoted seperately.

> I'm not exactly sure how to interpret you.

:D

JellySlayer

11-30-2010, 09:03 PM

> Faith is belief without evidence.

They have evidence that 'life came to be what it is now' through nothing but chance?
Also, 'many' people believing anything has little impact on me.

Evolution doesn't say that life came about through nothing but chance. No, I'm not contradicting what I said earlier. I said earlier that you believe evolution is based on chance, and asked you to evaluate a series of claims based on that premise.

There is plenty of evidence for evolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/).

Most abstract art COULD have been made by a randomly exploding clown, but was actually made
by an intelligence. I don't know 100% sure that my soda can doesn't exist as the result of
aluminum molecules randomly bumping into one another for millions of years, but such order
as I see in that can hints to me that it is more than the product of 100% non-intelligent
actions.

There's a problem with this argument. The only reason that you know the pop can was designed is because you can compare it to things that you know were not--things in nature. If everything was designed, there would be no reason to make this sort of distinction.

> if someone says that they are Christian, I assume that they're telling the truth.

More assumption. No, not everybody that claims to be a christian is one.

> They may not have the same understanding of Christianity

They may not even care. There are people who will go to church every sunday and even fork over
10% of their paycheck for no other reason than to not be thought badly of.

I'll point you in the direction of the no true scotsman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman) fallacy.

> saying that someone who follows Jesus' teachings is a Christian is a gross oversimplification

would you consider a budhist who follows the teachings of budha the same?

Bad example (Buddhism has many distinct branches and sacred texts), but I get the point. Here's the thing. Nobody follows all of Christ's teachings. How about the one where you are supposed to sell everything you own and give it all to the poor? Or the one where you should gouge out your eyes if they cause you to sin? Regardless, Christians also rely on other texts besides just the words of Jesus to build their faith--most importantly the epistles of Paul, but the whole of New and Old Testament are part of standard Christian theology.

> most people who claim to be Christian are woefully ignorant of their own theology

if they don't know the teachings of christ, then are they really christians

Do you consider yourself to be a Christian?
Do all of those people who you claim to have been changed by Christianity follow all of Christ's teachings?

I don't know them individually, and care little to associate with most, as they enjoy things I
don't (and we'll leave it at that). It is as simple as this, I see them before they start going
to church, and refering to themselves as christians, and I see them after. I prefer after.

How do you know they're true Christians?

You came to know jesus? You had a personal relationship with jesus? You accepted him into your
heart because you knew he was real? If so, you are a traitor for betraying what you know to be
real.

Yes, I believed all of those things. I no longer do. When I was six, I believed Santa Claus was real. I saw him in the malls. I received letters from him in the mail. My parents told me he was real. The weather network tracked his sleigh on Christmas Eve. Presents showed up under the tree from Santa, and they were always exactly what I wanted. Based on the available evidence at the time, I believed with all my heart that Santa was real. Who could doubt it? The next year, I figured out Santa Claus didn't exist.

Likewise, I came to believe that Jesus was real. I talked/prayed to him regularly. He sometimes provided answers to my prayers, and sometimes provided direction to me about his will and desires for my life. I knew all about him from the Bible. Sometimes during worship, I'd feel a heat that would swell up in my chest, which I associated with the Holy Spirit. I had seen miracles performed. I knew people who had been healed. I knew people who spoke in tongues. If I committed a sin and didn't confess it, it would bother me all day--conviction by the Holy Spirit, you understand. Based on the available evidence, I believed with all my heart that Jesus was real. Who doubt it? Then I figured out God didn't exist, and Jesus was probably just a nice guy with some good ideas but wasn't resurrected and wasn't divine. And all those feelings that I experienced were just that--feelings, intuition, conscience, but nothing more.

gut

11-30-2010, 11:36 PM

>>>>>>if the process is natural selection, with only factors you understand, the THEORY
ABOUT HOW THE RESULT CAME TO BE is 'elegant', yet if a guiding inteligence was
involved, said intelligence is 'a terrible designer'.

>>>>> Let me put it this way... many, many people believe that life came to be what it is now
due to a process that you describe as essentially based on chance.

>>>> Ahh, many people believe. So you are saying it is a matter of faith with them

>>> Faith is belief without evidence.

>> They have evidence that 'life came to be what it is now' through nothing but chance?
Also, 'many' people believing anything has little impact on me.

> Evolution doesn't say that life came about through nothing but chance.

Just because evolutionary theory doesn't say 'there is no room for intelligent design in this
theory, therefore it is at the mercy of chance alone' doesn't mean I can't evaluate for myself
that it is so. I see that saying 'nothing but chance' was badly worded. It implied that I was
saying there were no other aspects to evolutionary theory than chance.

> There is plenty of evidence for evolution.

None of that evidence proves there was no guiding intelligence involved. You have said:
> Chance plays a role in evolution in the sense that mutations, transcription errors, DNA mixing
So if you don't have intelligence AND chance, you only have chance. Right? That is what I meant
by 'nothing but chance'.

> The only reason that you know the pop can was designed is because you can compare it to things that
you know were not--things in natur

that isn't true.

> If everything was designed, there would be no reason to make this sort of distinction.

I can't formulate a response to this, as the first part was false.

>>> if someone says that they are Christian, I assume that they're telling the truth.

>> More assumption. No, not everybody that claims to be a christian is one.

>>> They may not have the same understanding of Christianity

>> They may not even care. There are people who will go to church every sunday and even fork over
10% of their paycheck for no other reason than to not be thought badly of.

> I'll point you in the direction of the no true scotsman fallacy

I don't think that applies. I am not saying 'no TRUE christian would do such a thing'. I am not
saying that some people are less christian than others. I AM saying that some people, literally,
fake it. The reason I know this is because not all of them remain silent about it forever.

> Nobody follows all of Christ's teachings.

agreed. most religious texts acknowledge the imperfection of man.

> the one where you should gouge out your eyes if they cause you to sin?

If your eyes somehow make you want to murder someone, then yeah, I guess I'd prefer to live next
to a bunch of blind neighbors than to be murdered by any of them.

> Christians also rely on other texts besides just the words of Jesus to build their faith--

I don't have a problem with that in general, but when the texts conflict with those of jesus,
wouldn't a christian give more credibility to the teachings of christ?

> Do you consider yourself to be a Christian?

Would that make a difference in our debate?

> Do all of those people who you claim to have been changed by Christianity follow all of Christ's teachings?

Being imperfect, I would not think so, yet I'll repeat, I don't really know them individually.
The teachings they follow make them better people. They stop mistreating females, they cut out
the vices they had, they become less abusive toward family/friends, they become better
employees, they become better husbands and fathers. When they speak of the old days, they don't
do so nostalgically, like they are missing out now, but with regret and an explaination like
"but that was before I got saved".

> How do you know they're true Christians?

better question, why would I care? (<--not meant to sound snarky)

> I talked/prayed to him regularly.

not me

> He sometimes provided answers to my prayers

not once for me, unless the answer was the silent treatment

> and sometimes provided direction to me about his will and desires for my life.

I wish

> I knew all about him from the Bible.

I've read maybe 20 pages in my life.

> Sometimes during worship, I'd feel a heat that would swell up in my chest,

nope

> I had seen miracles performed. I knew people who had been healed.

nope, and nope

> I knew people who spoke in tongues

actually yes, but vocally accused them of faking

> If I committed a sin and didn't confess it, it would bother me all da-

heh, no

> Then I figured out God didn't exist,

Funny, you who had seen and felt all that wound up not believing in god, and me, who experienced
none of it does.

> all those feelings that I experienced were just that--feelings, intuition, conscience, but nothing more

maybe it was just your feelings, but does that invalidate it? On a different tact, even if it
was your body chemistry, that wouldn't exclude the possibility that god exists, just that it
wasn't god making you feel differently when you were younger.

Dorten

12-01-2010, 04:11 AM

You're going to ignore the major claims where I clearly lay out, with documentation from the Bible, where it says that hell is a place of punishment and torture to focus on the details of the footnote? Or do you concede the point?

God created the universe and everything in it. He defined sin and its properties. If sin results in suffering, it is because God chooses that sin results in suffering.

Hae you read what I wrote? I'll repeat: think who will be torturing whom.

From the Bible, of course. Read the account of Adam and Eve. The punchline is Genesis 3:22:
22 And the LORD God said, ?The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.? 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.

Clearly Adam and Eve had no concept of good and evil (right and wrong) prior to eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Genesis 4:1
And the man knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man with the help of Jehovah.

Clearly Adam had no concept of his wife prior to being expelled from Eden.

That's the problem of translation. The tree was not just giving the knowledge of what is good and what is bad. Eating from it meant expiriencing evil, deciding what is good and what is evil. Like, "Lord, I think, that you are wrong at your good/evil conceptions, I'll make my own decisions". Before that God decided what is good. Now, man started deciding by himself, becoming like God. But man was still not perfect, and so his decisions were wrong, leading to experience of evil

From the Bible, of course. Adam and Eve do not experience the concept of death until after the Fall.

As with good and evil. Experience and knowledge are different things.

It's generally accepted that the serpent is the devil, who is himself a fallen angel. The devil has powers beyond human capacity--see, for example, the temptation of Jesus.

Adam was far more smart than we are. See theological interpretation of naming the animals, for example.

I'm not sure what difference this makes.

Oh... Read some books already.
The Fall was not eating from the tree, but blaming God for that. And while you continue to blame God for existence of sin, it just shows us the presence of Initial Sin in you.

Likewise, I came to believe that Jesus was real. I talked/prayed to him regularly. He sometimes provided answers to my prayers, and sometimes provided direction to me about his will and desires for my life. I knew all about him from the Bible. Sometimes during worship, I'd feel a heat that would swell up in my chest, which I associated with the Holy Spirit. I had seen miracles performed. I knew people who had been healed. I knew people who spoke in tongues. If I committed a sin and didn't confess it, it would bother me all day--conviction by the Holy Spirit, you understand. Based on the available evidence, I believed with all my heart that Jesus was real. Who doubt it? Then I figured out God didn't exist, and Jesus was probably just a nice guy with some good ideas but wasn't resurrected and wasn't divine. And all those feelings that I experienced were just that--feelings, intuition, conscience, but nothing more.

Typical story of protestant, who was disappointed by his sect (not the sect in the bad meaning of the word, but like a branch of protestantism).
You seek miracles, you seek emotional comfort, misinterpret psychical affects as being spiritual experience, and then you think, oh, something is wrong with Christianity... And what was really wrong is not a Christianuity, but your view of it.

I still suggest that you read some theological books. preferably the ones which was written before 10th century.

Theym

12-01-2010, 04:31 AM

Genesis 4:1
And the man knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man with the help of Jehovah.

Clearly Adam had no concept of his wife prior to being expelled from Eden.
"And the man knew his wife" Is a way to say that they had relations......

Dorten

12-01-2010, 04:43 AM

"And the man knew his wife" Is a way to say that they had relations......

I was just pointing out, that literal understanding of every word in Bible is obviously incorrect.

JellySlayer

12-01-2010, 04:59 AM

> There is plenty of evidence for evolution.

None of that evidence proves there was no guiding intelligence involved. You have said:

You can't prove a negative. All you can do is apply Occam's Razor.

> Chance plays a role in evolution in the sense that mutations, transcription errors, DNA mixing
So if you don't have intelligence AND chance, you only have chance. Right? That is what I meant
by 'nothing but chance'.

Well, you can also have chance and other things that are not intelligence.

> The only reason that you know the pop can was designed is because you can compare it to things that
you know were not--things in natur

that isn't true.

What properties do you associate with something that is designed? What properties do you associate with something that is not designed?

I don't think that applies. I am not saying 'no TRUE christian would do such a thing'. I am not
saying that some people are less christian than others. I AM saying that some people, literally,
fake it. The reason I know this is because not all of them remain silent about it forever.

No true Scotsman works like this: If you were to say "No Christian would commit murder" and then I show you person Bob, who is Christian, and has committed murder, the fallacy then applies if you proceed to argue that "Well, Bob is not a real Christian".

> Christians also rely on other texts besides just the words of Jesus to build their faith--

I don't have a problem with that in general, but when the texts conflict with those of jesus,
wouldn't a christian give more credibility to the teachings of christ?

Well, if those other texts are the Bible, then a lot of Christians would just claim that they're not in conflict at all, because, of course, the Bible is without error. In spite of the illogic of it, I think Protestants in particular tend to defer to Paul over Jesus, in practice at least.

> Do you consider yourself to be a Christian?

Would that make a difference in our debate?

No, just curious.

> How do you know they're true Christians?

better question, why would I care? (<--not meant to sound snarky)

Well, it's relevant only in the sense that you're using them as examples of people whose lives have been improved by Christianity, and simultaneously arguing that a lot of Christians "fake it".

> Then I figured out God didn't exist,

Funny, you who had seen and felt all that wound up not believing in god, and me, who experienced
none of it does.

> all those feelings that I experienced were just that--feelings, intuition, conscience, but nothing more

maybe it was just your feelings, but does that invalidate it? On a different tact, even if it
was your body chemistry, that wouldn't exclude the possibility that god exists, just that it
wasn't god making you feel differently when you were younger.

Well, as I've said before, I haven't excluded the idea that a god exists. I do think that if a god exists, he hasn't left us any compelling evidence to suggest his existence, and, until such evidence presents itself, will operate under the assumption that no gods exist. I do think it would probably be quite difficult for me, at this point, to believe in the Christian God again.

For the other, I didn't stop being a Christian because I stopped experiencing those types of things. Some of them I still experience. I'd say my deconversion to Christianity essentially followed two parallel tracks. On one track, I found myself repeatedly disagreeing with the Bible morally on a number of subjects, including a number of core doctrines. I couldn't find any resolution to these--the Bible didn't recognize their inherent immorality at all, and I wasn't able to get satisfactory explanations from other Christians I consulted either. I found myself being forced to reject a number of foundational Christian beliefs because they weren't consistent with what I believed a moral, loving God would do. At around the same period, I spent a lot of time thinking about what "giving my life to God" really meant. I reasoned that if God demanded that I commit my life to him, then I should be prepared to take that literally--half measures weren't good enough. I spent a few days contemplating some insanities--quitting my job and becoming a missionary, type of thing--and at some point it occurred to me that I'd better be damn sure I was right before completely changing the course of my life. So I decided I'd better spend some time making sure Christianity was true. Needless to say, I found that the preponderance of evidence suggested the opposite conclusion.

JellySlayer

12-01-2010, 06:09 AM

Hae you read what I wrote? I'll repeat: think who will be torturing whom.

The text makes it abundantly clear who is being tortured. If you honestly think that the text can be sufficiently misinterpreted to say the exact opposite of what it appears to say, I would contend that the text is so unreliable as to be useless.

That's the problem of translation. The tree was not just giving the knowledge of what is good and what is bad.

So you agree that it did give the knowledge of good and evil itself?

Eating from it meant expiriencing evil, deciding what is good and what is evil. Like, "Lord, I think, that you are wrong at your good/evil conceptions, I'll make my own decisions". Before that God decided what is good. Now, man started deciding by himself, becoming like God. But man was still not perfect, and so his decisions were wrong, leading to experience of evil

None of this implies that Adam had knowledge of good and evil prior to eating of the tree, which is the critical point.

Adam was far more smart than we are. See theological interpretation of naming the animals, for example.

Intelligence and ignorance are not mutually exclusive. Adam had no reason not to trust the serpent. Indeed, Adam didn't have any reason to necessarily trust God either.

The Fall was not eating from the tree, but blaming God for that. And while you continue to blame God for existence of sin, it just shows us the presence of Initial Sin in you.

Adam and Eve don't blame God. Eve blames the serpent and Adam blames Eve. And God overreacts.

Typical story of protestant, who was disappointed by his sect (not the sect in the bad meaning of the word, but like a branch of protestantism).
You seek miracles, you seek emotional comfort, misinterpret psychical affects as being spiritual experience, and then you think, oh, something is wrong with Christianity... And what was really wrong is not a Christianuity, but your view of it.

Yes, I did think something was wrong with Christianity. I figured out that it was immoral and untrue.

I still suggest that you read some theological books. preferably the ones which was written before 10th century.

Just so we're clear: the interpretation that you hold to be correct is one that most Christians have not held for over a thousand years?

fazisi

12-01-2010, 06:53 AM

Sorry, let me be more specific. According to prevailing Protestant theology, the only criteria under which it is decided whether a person will go to heaven or hell is that they have accepted Jesus as their personal lord and saviour and believe that God has raised him from the dead. There is no requirement under the scheme of salvation to do good works, to believe in good, or to follow any of Jesus' teachings.

Somewhat tangentially, many Protestant Christians believe that once a person is "saved" that they are saved forever. That is because I accepted Jesus back when I was in my teens, even though I am now an atheist and no longer believe any of it, under their theology I still get into heaven.
Protestants obviously don't read the Bible as much as you. My memory isn't so sharp but I definately recall God spitting out lukewarm believers and hypocrites.

I used to study the Bible. It is actually a pretty fascinating book and I believe many things contained in it. I don't think I can interpret it for anyone else though. Everyone seems to read it in their own way, usually in the way that suits them best.

Dorten

12-01-2010, 06:58 AM

The text makes it abundantly clear who is being tortured. If you honestly think that the text can be sufficiently misinterpreted to say the exact opposite of what it appears to say, I would contend that the text is so unreliable as to be useless.

You've got one part of my question ansswered. Think more.

So you agree that it did give the knowledge of good and evil itself?

It did give more knowledge, than they initially had.

None of this implies that Adam had knowledge of good and evil prior to eating of the tree, which is the critical point.
None of it implies that he had no knowledge of good and evil. Think of it as of math problem. Assumption, that he had no knowledge leads to contradictions. => he knew. Logic is power.

Adam and Eve don't blame God. Eve blames the serpent and Adam blames Eve. And God overreacts.

And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

Just like you saying: well, people do sin, but only because God made them that way!

Yes, I did think something was wrong with Christianity. I figured out that it was immoral and untrue.
Just to be clear. Your view of Christianity is based on lots of assumptions. Most of all are about meanings of therms, like Love, justice, God, hell and so on. If you found out, that this view is immoral, you should've been revise your assumptions. Which you don't bother to do.

Just so we're clear: the interpretation that you hold to be correct is one that most Christians have not held for over a thousand years?
Just to be clear: yes. Cause, the one that most (i suppose, that you mean Catholics here?) christians held (or rather were rewriting to the needs of church as an organisation) is imoral and untrue. Poor protestants saw it, but instead of returning to original believes they just went: ahh, screw that! Let anyone decide for themselves...

gut

12-01-2010, 07:34 AM

>> None of that evidence proves there was no guiding intelligence involved.

> You can't prove a negative. All you can do is apply Occam's Razor

So if they believe in the absence of god, without having proof, it is not faith, because of
Occam's Razor.

And I'm still calling 'unfair' on the whole 'if god did it, I assume it should be perfect' idea.

> What properties do you associate with something that is designed? What properties do you associate with something that is not designed?

On gut's design-o-meter, there would be at one end something that displays no signs of order, or
being created intentionally. Sneeze on a wall and note where the drops hit. Unless they form a
picture of Abe Lincoln, there is little reason to suspect they were guided into that pattern
intentionally. That droplet pattern could have occured with very little chance being needed to
explain its existance. In the middle, let's take the example of a single-celled organism. It
is more orderly, so takes a high degree of chance to explain its existance without guidance. I
don't know (or care) what the current theory is, about when single celled organisms evolved,
but I'll just use the figure 'millions of years'. That's a lot of chance, but we'll say it's
possible, just to go onward. At the far end of my chart, there will be humans, computer chips,
that sort of thing. The amount of chance needed to explain these things, using only
non-intelligent methods is out of my realm of belief.

> then I show you person Bob, who is Christian, and has committed murder, the fallacy then applies
if you proceed to argue that "Well, Bob is not a real Christian".

That still doesn't apply, due to the difference in being a scottsman, as opposed to christian.
The qualification to be an irishmen is to be born in the proper geographic location (or arguably
to have a particular genetical sequence, or upbringing). The qualification to be a christian is
different, it is philosophy/behavior. It is like saying 'Bob, a member of PETA, clubs baby seals'.
It is reasonable to suggest that no Person who really believes in the Ethical Treatment of
Animals would club baby seals.

> if those other texts are the Bible, then a lot of Christians would just claim that they're not in conflict at all,

A lot of christians handle rattlesnakes. I've told you before, a 'lot' of people doing, thinking,
saying, believing, ANYTHING doesn't impress me. It doesn't make them one iota more right than if
they were alone.

> I think Protestants in particular tend to defer to Paul over Jesus, in practice at least.

The ones who do should be polite enough to call themselves Paulists.

>>> Do you consider yourself to be a Christian?

>> Would that make a difference in our debate?

> No, just curiou

If I used process of elimination, then yes. Though to call me devout would be an insult to believers
such as yourself :D

>>> How do you know they're true Christians?

>> better question, why would I care?

> Well, it's relevant only in the sense that you're using them as examples of people whose lives have
been improved by Christianity, and simultaneously arguing that a lot of Christians "fake it".

I MEANT that MY life had been improved by them believing jesus. I don't care if they follow 100%,
as I don't expect perfection from anyone. I am happy for what I get. If them fearing hellfire
causes them to stop being alchoholics, good for me. If it doesn't cause them to stop cheating on
their taxes, well, life goes on.

> I found myself repeatedly disagreeing with the Bible morally on a number of subjects, including a
number of core doctrines. I couldn't find any resolution to these--the Bible didn't recognize
their inherent immorality at all, and I wasn't able to get satisfactory explanations from other
Christians I consulted eithe

Ahh, then here seems to be the difference maker. My propensity to label anything that disagrees
with me as being mistaken. I have never felt the need to consult anyone about anything I find false
about the bible.

> reject a number of foundational Christian beliefs because they weren't consistent with what I believed a
moral, loving God would do

ahh, like creating hell. It still doesn't bother me. Whether god is loving or not, whether god
made hell or not (or for what purpose) has no bearing on the reasons why I believe god exists.

> spent a lot of time thinking about what "giving my life to God" really meant.
...
> half measures weren't good enough.

Maybe the real choice isn't 'believer=slave' or 'non-beleiver=free'. That IS the way it is often
presented, but usually by those who are trying to get money/labor out of people.

> I decided I'd better spend some time making sure Christianity was true. Needless to say, I found that
the preponderance of evidence suggested

If my ultimate decision to either be a slave or free was based on said evidence, I'm sure I would
have found the 'preponderance' to suggest whatever it needed to, and I would have believed it to
the core of my being.

JellySlayer

12-01-2010, 03:09 PM

>> None of that evidence proves there was no guiding intelligence involved.

> You can't prove a negative. All you can do is apply Occam's Razor

So if they believe in the absence of god, without having proof, it is not faith, because of
Occam's Razor.

I will note my objection to the term "believe in the absence of God" as noted earlier. Strong atheism (eg. the positive belief that God does not exist) is not defensible as far as I'm concerned. The best we can do is to state that there is currently no evidence for God and some evidence against specific conceptions of God. Occam's Razor simply argues that a theory should not contain extraneous assumptions.

It is like saying 'Bob, a member of PETA, clubs baby seals'.
It is reasonable to suggest that no Person who really believes in the Ethical Treatment of
Animals would club baby seals.

Well, strictly speaking they could be a member of PETA and club baby seals. I get your point, though.

> I think Protestants in particular tend to defer to Paul over Jesus, in practice at least.

The ones who do should be polite enough to call themselves Paulists.

I wouldn't have a problem with that :)

My propensity to label anything that disagrees with me as being mistaken.

I've noticed ;)

ahh, like creating hell. It still doesn't bother me. Whether god is loving or not, whether god
made hell or not (or for what purpose) has no bearing on the reasons why I believe god exists.

No, it doesn't have any bearing on the existence claims. It is entirely possible that God exists and is evil. Or incompetent. Or that God exists but just doesn't care. Morality makes a difference on whether or not a particular philosophy--in this case Christianity--ought to be believed, and whether the particular God that they adhere to, ought to be worshipped or obeyed.

If my ultimate decision to either be a slave or free was based on said evidence, I'm sure I would
have found the 'preponderance' to suggest whatever it needed to, and I would have believed it to
the core of my being.

Yes, I was certainly predisposed to accept evidence away from the insanity that I was contemplating. I was also predisposed to reject evidence that contradicted my beliefs. Maybe the two balanced out, maybe they didn't. I accept the possibility that I could be wrong. I think it's sufficiently unlikely that I'm not all that concerned about it, though.

You've got one part of my question ansswered. Think more.

Obviously the torture is being enacted either by God, or by some agency acting under his express wishes and authority. Were this not the case, God would be morally obliged to intervene and end the torture.

None of it implies that he had no knowledge of good and evil. Think of it as of math problem. Assumption, that he had no knowledge leads to contradictions. => he knew. Logic is power.

Except that it doesn't lead to contradictions. My reasoning is as follows:
God made Adam without knowledge of good and evil.
God made Adam without knowledge of death.
God made the tree of knowledge of good and evil with the intention of punishing Adam if he disobeyed His express command not to ate from it.
Because Adam had no knowledge of good and evil, he did not recognize that there was any problem with disobeying God.
Because Adam had no knowledge of death, he did not recognize the seriousness of the consequences of God's threat regarding death.
Because Adam had no knowledge of good and evil, he did not recognize that the snake could be lying to him (although technically it wasn't).
Therefore, Adam ate the fruit entirely ignorant of the possibility of both the moral implications and the real consequences of his actions.
Because Adam disobeyed God, God punished him for disobedience.
[Note for clarity: I'm treating Adam and Eve as the same person here. I don't actually feel that the addition of the extra person is relevant to the implications of the story. If you feel it is, then I can reform the argument reflecting this.]

And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

Just like you saying: well, people do sin, but only because God made them that way!

So you're saying that Eve didn't sin by eating from the tree?

Just to be clear. Your view of Christianity is based on lots of assumptions. Most of all are about meanings of therms, like Love, justice, God, hell and so on. If you found out, that this view is immoral, you should've been revise your assumptions. Which you don't bother to do.

Nothing you've said here even remotely suggests that my evaluations of Christianity are incorrect. You certainly haven't made the case that my evaluations of Christianity are immoral.

Just to be clear: yes. Cause, the one that most (i suppose, that you mean Catholics here?) christians held (or rather were rewriting to the needs of church as an organisation) is imoral and untrue. Poor protestants saw it, but instead of returning to original believes they just went: ahh, screw that! Let anyone decide for themselves...

I'll give you credit for your honesty.

Let's just put it this way. Catholics believe that Orthodoxy and Protestanism are immoral and untrue; Protestants believe that Catholicism and Orthodoxy are immoral and true. Orthodox Christians believe that Catholicism and Protestantism are immoral and untrue. I agree with all of you.

gut

12-01-2010, 06:49 PM

Protestants believe that Catholicism and Orthodoxy are immoral and true.

.................................................. .................................................^

xan

12-01-2010, 07:38 PM

> What properties do you associate with something that is designed? What properties do you associate with something that is not designed?

On gut's design-o-meter, there would be at one end something that displays no signs of order, or
being created intentionally. Sneeze on a wall and note where the drops hit. Unless they form a
picture of Abe Lincoln, there is little reason to suspect they were guided into that pattern
intentionally. That droplet pattern could have occured with very little chance being needed to
explain its existance. In the middle, let's take the example of a single-celled organism. It
is more orderly, so takes a high degree of chance to explain its existance without guidance. I
don't know (or care) what the current theory is, about when single celled organisms evolved,
but I'll just use the figure 'millions of years'. That's a lot of chance, but we'll say it's
possible, just to go onward. At the far end of my chart, there will be humans, computer chips,
that sort of thing. The amount of chance needed to explain these things, using only
non-intelligent methods is out of my realm of belief.

So what we have here is not a failure of the theory of evolution to explain how life developed, but a failure of guts powers of conception to properly envisage the entirety of that theory in action. It's not chance that shapes natural selection, it's time and inevitability. Although chance can play it's part in affecting populations, with natural disasters like floods and volcanoes, chance is not what affects the selective perpetuation of genes. Perhaps in very small populations chance may be the selection criteria, but then it's not evolution that's affecting them.

I think that's it's evidence of design that's most critical to the argument for a divine creator, yet it's consistently lacking. Once i saw a hilarious documentary advocating intelligent design, and as evidence of design they presented a banana, noting it's various perfections as a food source, how it perfectly fits in the human hand and many other "perfections". Funnily enough they made no mention of the fact that bananas as they exist today are in fact a product of artificially applied selection by humans over thousands of generations. Originally bananas were about finger sized and only barely palatable.

gut

12-01-2010, 09:54 PM

> So what we have here is not a failure of the theory of evolution to explain how life developed, but a failure of guts powers of conception

agian, you speak as though your sect knows the truth and others just don't understand.

> It's not chance that shapes natural selection, it's time and inevitability.

I've heard the 'monkeys + typewriters + infinity = hamlet' theory before, and didn't believe
it then either. In an abstract dreamworld where nothing interferes, sure, but the logistics I
have experienced in this reality just don't provide the same idealistic environment as neverland.
You have finite time, with ice ages, supersized volcanoes, and meteors thrown in for flavor.

You say that it is 'inevitable' that when molecules bump together long enough, they will make
complex things. You try to avoid using terminology like 'bump together', but in essence, that
IS what evolution is based on (and indeed, what we are still doing now if you look at mating
that way). So if you look at it that way, even pentium processors are the inevitable result
of enough collisions, as human-level intelligence is inevitable with enough time, and they
will naturally want moar power for their video games. So why stop there, if human-level
intelligence and 100 teraherz processors are inevitable, why not humans version 2.0, or 3.0,
with some chips and beneficial bio engineering thrown in for good measure. Would only take a
bit more time, right? With enough time, they will merge with one another as a species, leave
their physical bodies behind and become perfection incarnate. There, you are back to the
same problem you started with... it's inevitable.

So which is more probable, ascention to godhood, or blasting ourselves back to the stone age?
Logistics suck.

fazisi

12-02-2010, 03:27 AM

> > It's not chance that shapes natural selection, it's time and inevitability.
>
> I've heard the 'monkeys + typewriters + infinity = hamlet' theory before, and didn't believe
> it then either. In an abstract dreamworld where nothing interferes, sure, but the logistics I
> have experienced in this reality just don't provide the same idealistic environment as neverland.
> You have finite time, with ice ages, supersized volcanoes, and meteors thrown in for flavor.
>
> You say that it is 'inevitable' that when molecules bump together long enough, they will make
> complex things. You try to avoid using terminology like 'bump together', but in essence, that
> IS what evolution is based on (and indeed, what we are still doing now if you look at mating
> that way). So if you look at it that way, even pentium processors are the inevitable result
> of enough collisions, as human-level intelligence is inevitable with enough time, and they
> will naturally want moar power for their video games. So why stop there, if human-level
> intelligence and 100 teraherz processors are inevitable, why not humans version 2.0, or 3.0,
> with some chips and beneficial bio engineering thrown in for good measure. Would only take a
> bit more time, right? With enough time, they will merge with one another as a species, leave
> their physical bodies behind and become perfection incarnate. There, you are back to the
> same problem you started with... it's inevitable.
>
> So which is more probable, ascention to godhood, or blasting ourselves back to the stone age?
> Logistics suck.

I forsee many more millenia of bumping.

Dorten

12-02-2010, 03:46 AM

Except that it doesn't lead to contradictions. My reasoning is as follows:
God made Adam without knowledge of good and evil.
God made Adam without knowledge of death.
God made the tree of knowledge of good and evil with the intention of punishing Adam if he disobeyed His express command not to ate from it.
Because Adam had no knowledge of good and evil, he did not recognize that there was any problem with disobeying God.
Because Adam had no knowledge of death, he did not recognize the seriousness of the consequences of God's threat regarding death.
Because Adam had no knowledge of good and evil, he did not recognize that the snake could be lying to him (although technically it wasn't).
Therefore, Adam ate the fruit entirely ignorant of the possibility of both the moral implications and the real consequences of his actions.
Because Adam disobeyed God, God punished him for disobedience.
[Note for clarity: I'm treating Adam and Eve as the same person here. I don't actually feel that the addition of the extra person is relevant to the implications of the story. If you feel it is, then I can reform the argument reflecting this.]

Contradiction is: God is Love (says Bible) and God is non-loving, non-caring being (says you). You still don't want to accept that you may be wrong...

I'll try to give you my understanding of events. Wether you agree on it is up to you. (I'm not even sure if it's the right understanding, cause i'm not a theologist, you know)

God made Adam with basic knowledge of good and evil. Like evil is bad, and good is, well, good.
God made Adam with basic knowledge of death, at least He said, that Adam will die if he eats from a tree? so we can safely assume, that concept of death was present in Adam's knowledge, else it would be absolutely meaningless words.
God made the tree of knowledge of good and evil with two intentions.
a) So Adam could express and 'train' his love to God by fulfilling His command not to eat from it.
b) To give the knowledge to Adam, when he will be spiritually mature for it, i.e. will be able to touch and experience evil without being affected by it.
The snake offered to Adam to experience evil right now and right here. (Here my English starts to betray me, i'll try to be understandable) It's a problem of: 'I don't want to work and train, I want the power and knowledge right now, and no, I don't care if God wants otherwise'. Adam was immature, so he fell for that and experienced evil. And evil affected him, making him 'farther' from God.
God gave Adam another chance to improve situation, a chance for repentance. Asking wether Adam has eaten from the tree, He gave Adam the chance to accept his guilt. Just saying: sorry, I made You unhappy, by eating that fruit, would be enough. If Adam said that he would accept God's help.
Instead of that Adam started blaming Eve and, although indirectly, God.
Therefore Adam got even 'farther' from God, and God wasn't able to support him anymore. In my understanding it works like that: Adam says: I don't want to be with You, I want to be by myself. So God replies: OK, it's your choice, live without My help and support. And so Adam is expelled from Eden.

So you're saying that Eve didn't sin by eating from the tree?

:confused: I don't get you here

Nothing you've said here even remotely suggests that my evaluations of Christianity are incorrect. You certainly haven't made the case that my evaluations of Christianity are immoral.

Sorry, my English is not good, i don't understand the words "haven't made the case".

Let's just put it this way. Catholics believe that Orthodoxy and Protestanism are immoral and untrue; Protestants believe that Catholicism and Orthodoxy are immoral and true. Orthodox Christians believe that Catholicism and Protestantism are immoral and untrue. I agree with all of you.
First: How could you agree with all of us if you haven't even concidered learning orthodox, and maybe even Catolic teachings?
Second: You also can read the books (but this time historical), analyse the source of division between these branches and think.

JellySlayer

12-02-2010, 05:01 AM

Contradiction is: God is Love (says Bible) and God is non-loving, non-caring being (says you). You still don't want to accept that you may be wrong...

That contradiction does not necessarily invalidate my argument. I'm making no assumptions about the nature of God except what is written in the relevant text. The reason for this is that different authors have different conceptions of God, and there is no reason for them to necessarily be consistent. "God is love" could be talking about a different God entirely. There's a great book called "A History of God" by Karen Armstrong that deals with this issue at some length. Or it could be that "God is love" is wrong. The God described in the book of Genesis is not exactly what I would normally describe as "loving". He seems to spend most of his time killing people, actually.

God made Adam with basic knowledge of good and evil. Like evil is bad, and good is, well, good.
God made Adam with basic knowledge of death, at least He said, that Adam will die if he eats from a tree? so we can safely assume, that concept of death was present in Adam's knowledge, else it would be absolutely meaningless words.
God made the tree of knowledge of good and evil with two intentions.
a) So Adam could express and 'train' his love to God by fulfilling His command not to eat from it.
b) To give the knowledge to Adam, when he will be spiritually mature for it, i.e. will be able to touch and experience evil without being affected by it.
The snake offered to Adam to experience evil right now and right here. (Here my English starts to betray me, i'll try to be understandable) It's a problem of: 'I don't want to work and train, I want the power and knowledge right now, and no, I don't care if God wants otherwise'. Adam was immature, so he fell for that and experienced evil. And evil affected him, making him 'farther' from God.
God gave Adam another chance to improve situation, a chance for repentance. Asking wether Adam has eaten from the tree, He gave Adam the chance to accept his guilt. Just saying: sorry, I made You unhappy, by eating that fruit, would be enough. If Adam said that he would accept God's help.
Instead of that Adam started blaming Eve and, although indirectly, God.
Therefore Adam got even 'farther' from God, and God wasn't able to support him anymore. In my understanding it works like that: Adam says: I don't want to be with You, I want to be by myself. So God replies: OK, it's your choice, live without My help and support. And so Adam is expelled from Eden.

Three points:
First, you're reading a lot into Adam's motivations that isn't supported by the text. The only thing comment made about what Adam thought about the fruit was that it was pleasing to the eye and good for gaining wisdom. I'm not saying that this invalidates your interpretation, but if this information were as critically important as you claim, then the writer ought to have included it.
Second, you're reading a lot into God's motivations that aren't supported by the text. We have no indications as to what God's purpose for the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was, or for giving the command not to eat from it. For all we know, God planned this to proceed exactly as it did. God also never mentions Adam supposedly blaming him as a problem. His punishments and curses are exclusively for eating the fruit.
Third, the interpretation of Adam failing to ask forgiveness as being the ultimate cause of the fall begs the question: why is the only way to regain God's favour later in the story through blood sacrifice?

:confused: I don't get you here

Eve didn't "blame God" for her misfortune. She correctly blamed the serpent for tricking her. If the problem is that Adam tried to blame God for the situation, why is Eve punished just as badly as Adam?

Sorry, my English is not good, i don't understand the words "haven't made the case".

"Making your case" is means essentially the same as "proving your claim" or "proving your argument". I think it originally comes from the legal system: a trial is sometimes called a "court case"; a lawyer "makes his case" by successfully convincing the judge/jury that his version of events is true.

First: How could you agree with all of us if you haven't even concidered learning orthodox, and maybe even Catolic teachings?

You all claim that the other groups practice a Christianity that is immoral or untrue. I think that all three groups are based on a belief system that is immoral and untrue, but not necessarily for the same reasons that individuals in those groups do. I don't believe that the problem is that they haven't interpreted Christianity or the Bible correctly; I believe that much of the Bible is factually false, and many of the teachings derived from it are based on Bronze Age superstitions and traditions that are morally immature compared to modern philosophy.

Theym

12-02-2010, 05:22 AM

So why stop there, if human-level
intelligence and 100 teraherz processors are inevitable, why not humans version 2.0, or 3.0,
with some chips and beneficial bio engineering thrown in for good measure. Would only take a
bit more time, right?

Well, we have grown about a foot to a foot and a half as a species in the past 2000 years, does that count?

Dorten

12-02-2010, 05:50 AM

That contradiction does not necessarily invalidate my argument. I'm making no assumptions about the nature of God except what is written in the relevant text. The reason for this is that different authors have different conceptions of God, and there is no reason for them to necessarily be consistent. "God is love" could be talking about a different God entirely. There's a great book called "A History of God" by Karen Armstrong that deals with this issue at some length. Or it could be that "God is love" is wrong. The God described in the book of Genesis is not exactly what I would normally describe as "loving". He seems to spend most of his time killing people, actually.
Is it not written, that God is love?
The Bible is concidered Holy Writings. For me that is axiom. So, all inconcistencies, that seem to be there are result of wrong interpretation. If you interprete it in your way, then it leads to idea of non-loving God. And that's the proof for me that your interpretation is wrong. Simple as that.
>The God described in the book of Genesis is not exactly what I would normally describe as "loving".
When a parent doesn't let his child to play video games past midnight, child also often claims, that his parent doesn't love him...

Three points:
First, you're reading a lot into Adam's motivations that isn't supported by the text. The only thing comment made about what Adam thought about the fruit was that it was pleasing to the eye and good for gaining wisdom. I'm not saying that this invalidates your interpretation, but if this information were as critically important as you claim, then the writer ought to have included it.
Second, you're reading a lot into God's motivations that aren't supported by the text. We have no indications as to what God's purpose for the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was, or for giving the command not to eat from it. For all we know, God planned this to proceed exactly as it did. God also never mentions Adam supposedly blaming him as a problem. His punishments and curses are exclusively for eating the fruit.
Third, the interpretation of Adam failing to ask forgiveness as being the ultimate cause of the fall begs the question: why is the only way to regain God's favour later in the story through blood sacrifice?

First and second: mostly not me, but saints. And again, what is not directly written, can be logically implied from Writings. And if your implications contradict with other Writings, that means, that you do not understand something and should think more, or at least ask knowing people, or read books.

Eve didn't "blame God" for her misfortune. She correctly blamed the serpent for tricking her. If the problem is that Adam tried to blame God for the situation, why is Eve punished just as badly as Adam?

Correctly? has the serpent pushed the fruit down her throat?

"Making your case" is means essentially the same as "proving your claim" or "proving your argument". I think it originally comes from the legal system: a trial is sometimes called a "court case"; a lawyer "makes his case" by successfully convincing the judge/jury that his version of events is true.

:confused: You yourself said, that you found your view of Christianity to be immoral and untrue.

You all claim that the other groups practice a Christianity that is immoral or untrue. I think that all three groups are based on a belief system that is immoral and untrue, but not necessarily for the same reasons that individuals in those groups do. I don't believe that the problem is that they haven't interpreted Christianity or the Bible correctly; I believe that much of the Bible is factually false, and many of the teachings derived from it are based on Bronze Age superstitions and traditions that are morally immature compared to modern philosophy.Again: You do not even know this belief system.
It just goes like that:
I: I believe in this and it is moral.
You: No! You believe in that, which is immoral!

Cmon!

One of your major problems (as former protestant) is that you reject to take into account anything else aside from Holy Writings. And Christianity is not baset on them solely. Cause, as you can see, Writings are very easy to understand wrong. And here goes the Tradition. Catholics perversed it. Protestants looked at perversed catholic tradition and discarded it entirely, which was wrong. But you know, when it was decided which books shold be concidered the Holy Writ, and which should not, the decisions were based on Tradition. Orthodox believe, that their Tradition is the same as then. It does not contradict to ecumenical councils, at least...

JellySlayer

12-02-2010, 07:22 AM

Is it not written, that God is love?

Simply because something is written down does not make it true.

The Bible is concidered Holy Writings. For me that is axiom. So, all inconcistencies, that seem to be there are result of wrong interpretation. If you interprete it in your way, then it leads to idea of non-loving God. And that's the proof for me that your interpretation is wrong. Simple as that.

How do you know the Bible is Holy Writings? Don't take it as an axiom. Use your brain and think about it.

Frankly, if your claim is simply that anything that contradicts your viewpoint must be false, I don't know that we have much to discuss.

>The God described in the book of Genesis is not exactly what I would normally describe as "loving".

When a parent doesn't let his child to play video games past midnight, child also often claims, that his parent doesn't love him...

So when God had his children murder thousands of his other children in the books of Numbers, Deuteronomy and Judges then rape all the virgin women, this was somehow showing his love to those people? When God wiped out all of mankind with a flood, that was an example of divine love? What great love was shown when God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son to prove his blind obedience? When he sent bears to maul dozens of children for calling Elisha bald? Every one of these things are in your Holy Scriptures.

First and second: mostly not me, but saints. And again, what is not directly written, can be logically implied from Writings. And if your implications contradict with other Writings, that means, that you do not understand something and should think more, or at least ask knowing people, or read books.

The words "God is love" were written a thousand years after the passages that we're discussing. That means the original interpretation of this text could not possibly have included this information. That means that your saints are re-interpretating this passage from its original meaning based on their new theological standpoint. My point of view is entirely consistent with the Old Testament God: malevolent, petty, capricious, ruthless, and violent.

Correctly? has the serpent pushed the fruit down her throat?

She said the serpent deceived her.

:confused: You yourself said, that you found your view of Christianity to be immoral and untrue.

Sorry, I think I misinterpreted what you wrote earlier. I retract this objection.

I do think you're misinterpreting what I mean when I say Christianity is untrue. I don't mean that I believe my interpretation of Christianity was untrue. I think that Christianity is based on things that are not true. As a few examples: the first five books of the Bible were not written by Moses. They were written by at least four different people, spanning a period of hundreds of years in time, and their works have been mashed together uncritically. This can be easily demonstrated through historical linguistics. There is no extra-biblical evidence for Abraham, the Exodus, the Ten Commandments, the walls of Jericho: Israeli archeology has spent decades looking for such evidence. The account of the birth of Jesus is lifted more or less directly from older Egyptian myths. There is no extra-biblical evidence for any of the events surrounding Jesus' death or resurrection, and the accounts that we do have don't even agree on the basic facts of the matter. This is but a small sampling of things that the Bible claims that, at best, have no evidence to support them, and, at worst, are flat wrong or plagarized from other religions.

One of your major problems (as former protestant) is that you reject to take into account anything else aside from Holy Writings. And Christianity is not baset on them solely. Cause, as you can see, Writings are very easy to understand wrong. And here goes the Tradition. Catholics perversed it. Protestants looked at perversed catholic tradition and discarded it entirely, which was wrong. But you know, when it was decided which books shold be concidered the Holy Writ, and which should not, the decisions were based on Tradition. Orthodox believe, that their Tradition is the same as then. It does not contradict to ecumenical councils, at least...

I don't see why the interpretations of any of these people that you're speaking of are particularly more valid than mine, or, if not mine, than those of modern scholars. Or why the councils should be assumed to have chosen everything correctly: how do we know that Arianism wasn't correct rather than Homoiousianism, to take one rather infamous example?

Dorten

12-02-2010, 07:57 AM

gut

12-02-2010, 10:03 AM

> you just do not want to use your brain, and think

Please stop saying things like that about Mr. Slayer. It is obviously not
true, and is starting to annoy even me (and I'm kinda on your side).

Dorten

12-02-2010, 10:23 AM

> you just do not want to use your brain, and think

Please stop saying things like that about Mr. Slayer. It is obviously not
true, and is starting to annoy even me (and I'm kinda on your side).

I'm not telling, that he can not think (that is untrue). But he do not want to.

It's just what I was saying in my first posts here: someone has his twisted interpretation of christian belief, and says, that christianity itself is immoral and untrue. And when you try to tell him, that he just doesn't understand this or that, he replies: "and why should I believe you, or Bible, or whatever there is?"

Like:
- Whole math is wrong!: you can take x=1, divide the equation by (x-1) and get x/(x-1)=1/(x-1) so (x-1)/(x-1)=0 and 1=0 :eek:
-But wait, if x=0, then you cannot divide by x-1!
-How's that? I has just divided without any trouble and proven that math is wrong!
...
and so on and so forth.

Sad.

JellySlayer

12-02-2010, 01:18 PM

>How do you know the Bible is Holy Writings? Don't take it as an axiom. Use your brain and think about it.

I was a conviced atheist till about five years ago. I know how to use my brain, thanks. I just investigated the matter, found, that both materialistic and christian views of the world are both equally fit in 'describe the world's inner works philosophically' niche, and both do not contradict with all my life experience and knowledge. And I had to use my brain a lot during this. And I've chosen Christianity, cause it's at least moral. And as i've chosen the path, i had to accept it's foundations.

So you've accepted that the Scriptures are true entirely based on what they say? Okay.

>So when God had his children murder thousands of his other children in the books of Numbers, Deuteronomy
>and Judges then rape all the virgin women, this was somehow showing his love to those people? When God
>wiped out all of mankind with a flood, that was an example of divine love? What great love was shown when
>God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son to prove his blind obedience? When he sent bears to maul dozens of
>children for calling Elisha bald? Every one of these things are in your Holy Scriptures.

Yes. And you just show your misunderstanding of what love is and what an afterlife is.
And just so you know: any suffering here worth it, if it reduces sufferings there.

No, sir. You have no understanding of what morality is. I don't know what else to say to this. I'm flabbergasted.

>My point of view is entirely consistent with the Old Testament God: malevolent, petty, capricious,
>ruthless, and violent.

Old Testament God is absolutely the same as New Testament God. Only people differ. But you just do not want to use your brain, and think. It's always simple to stick to your stereotypes after all...

Okay, fine. Your God is malevolent, petty, capricious, ruthless, and violent. This isn't a stereotype. If a person did half the things that I just described above your God doing, he'd be considered the greatest villain and history and we'd consider hanging him from the nearest tree a service to humanity.

>There is no extra-biblical evidence for Abraham, the Exodus, the Ten Commandments, the walls of
>Jericho: Israeli archeology has spent decades looking for such evidence.

Well, at least Exodus has it's evidence. I'll try to google it for you, if you want.

Here's Wikipedia's summary of it:

While some archaeologists leave open the possibility of a Semitic tribe coming from Egyptian servitude among the early hilltop settlers and that Moses or a Moses-like figure may have existed in Transjordan ca 1250-1200, they dismiss the possibility that the Exodus could have happened as described in the Bible.[21] A century of research by archaeologists and Egyptologists has found no evidence which can be directly related to the Exodus narrative of an Egyptian captivity and the escape and travels through the wilderness,[18] and it has become increasingly clear that Iron Age Israel - the kingdoms of Judah and Israel - has its origins in Canaan, not Egypt:[22] the culture of the earliest Israelite settlements is Canaanite, their cult-objects are those of the Canaanite god El, the pottery remains in the local Canaanite tradition, and the alphabet used is early Canaanite. Almost the sole marker distinguishing the "Israelite" villages from Canaanite sites is an absence of pig bones, although whether this can be taken as an ethnic marker or is due to other factors remains a matter of dispute.[23]

That's from the article "The Exodus". The article is sourced, so you can check the original material yourself.

Dorten

12-03-2010, 03:47 AM

Facepalm

1) When did I say, that I accepted Scriptures entirely based on what they say?
2) So, we have different view of what moral is. We still do not know who's right about that, though.

I'll try to use logic again.

Any christian belief is Scriptures + Tradition. Scriptures are the same, Traditions differ. (Well, protestants claim, that they have no Tradition, but in this line of thought, lets agree to call anything that is present in belief and is not derived entirely from Bible to be Tradition)

So, you have some view of christianity. Let's call it JellySlayer Tradition, or JST. "Adam had no knowledge of good and evil" - part of JST. "God made tree of knowledge with intent of punishing..." - part of JST.
There also is Orthodox Tradition (OT). "Adam had basic knowledge of good and evil" - part of OT. And so on and so forth. I won't discuss cahtolics or protestant Tradition, cause i'm not familiar with them enough.

So, you found out that JST+Bible=immoral and untrue. Fine, I absolutely agree on that.
Then you imply that because of that Bible+OT=immoral and untrue

Where's logic?

OT has explanations, and not a simple ones, for God's deeds in Old Testament. And they do not contradict with both Old and New Testaments, and with the idea of loving and caring God. But you do not want to learn these explanations, saying "I don't see why the interpretations of any of these people that you're speaking of are particularly more valid than mine". Only thing I can answer: read, learn, think (sorry, gut) and see for yourself.

And if you do not want to. Then, well, it only means, that you are not really interested in Truth (or truth, whichever you prefer), and feel fine with whatever view you have regardless of it's validity

JellySlayer

12-03-2010, 05:09 AM

2) So, we have different view of what moral is. We still do not know who's right about that, though.

No, I'm not going to let you off that easily. You said that you accepted that God commiting/advocating rape, murder, genocide and human sacrifice was loving, and that this God, this faith tradition, is moral. I'm sorry, but if that's the view of Orthodox Christianity, I don't need to know any more. It doesn't matter what else you believe. None of the details matter in comparison to this. That belief system is abhorrent; it's terrifying. It gives license to commit any crime, no matter how outrageous, as long as you can justify to yourself that it is making someone's afterlife better.

It's wrong.

And you know it.

You don't do any of these things. You'd never believe someone who told you that they raped their children because they loved them, and you'd never do it yourself. You'd never believe someone who told you they killed their children because they loved them, and you'd never do it yourself. You'd never believing someone who told you that they fed their children to hungry bears because they loved them (the children, that is, not the bears), and you'd never do such a thing yourself. You are morally superior to your religion if they think this is okay. You are morally superior to your God if He thinks this is okay.

Dorten

12-03-2010, 05:20 AM

No, I'm not going to let you off that easily. You said that you accepted that God commiting/advocating rape, murder, genocide and human sacrifice was loving, and that this God, this faith tradition, is moral. I'm sorry, but if that's the view of Orthodox Christianity, I don't need to know any more. It doesn't matter what else you believe. None of the details matter in comparison to this. That belief system is abhorrent; it's terrifying. It gives license to commit any crime, no matter how outrageous, as long as you can justify to yourself that it is making someone's afterlife better.

It's wrong.

And you know it.

You don't do any of these things. You'd never believe someone who told you that they raped their children because they loved them, and you'd never do it yourself. You'd never believe someone who told you they killed their children because they loved them, and you'd never do it yourself. You'd never believing someone who told you that they fed their children to hungry bears because they loved them (the children, that is, not the bears), and you'd never do such a thing yourself. You are morally superior to your religion if they think this is okay. You are morally superior to your God if He thinks this is okay.

I've bolded your mistake. Not people justified it, but God did.
The whole essence of Old Testament is: mann cannot justify what's right and what's wrong, because his nature is broken. God can.

F50

12-03-2010, 07:57 AM

So when God had his children murder thousands of his other children in the books of Numbers, Deuteronomy and Judges then rape all the virgin women, this was somehow showing his love to those people? When God wiped out all of mankind with a flood, that was an example of divine love? What great love was shown when God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son to prove his blind obedience? When he sent bears to maul dozens of children for calling Elisha bald? Every one of these things are in your Holy Scriptures.

Ah wonderful, lets take these one by one, starting with the easiest. The text you quote regarding Elisha reads "Go on up, baldhead". This is spoken by a group of youths, probably teenagers, telling him, to go on up, like Elijah did. Now the question is, was this meant as a death threat?

The theological significance of the near sacrifice of Issac is probably best described by this (http://rapidshare.com/files/434605569/Michael_Card_-_08_-_God_Will_Provide_A_Lamb.mp3) song (lyrics here (http://www.mp3lyrics.org/m/michael-card/god-will-provide-a-lamb/)): Great love was shown by Abraham to God. Also, Abraham is interpreted by Paul to have reasoned that God could/would bring Issac back from the dead, since God promised descendants through Issac. The fact remains that if the bible is true, then God is sovereign over all, and the ultimate faith demands nothing be put before God. Of course, God never intended to kill Issac.

The most difficult issue is of course (re-quoted):

So when God had his children murder thousands of his other children in the books of Numbers, Deuteronomy and Judges then rape all the virgin women, this was somehow showing his love to those people? I searched for reference to this raping of virgin women of which you speak, but could not find it. However there was mass murder, and I support it.

Further Reading:

http://christianthinktank.com/midian.html
http://www.christianthinktank.com/rbutcher1.html
http://www.thinkingchristian.net/series/god-and-genocide/

Although I haven't read the last article very thoroughly.

Ultimately their destruction is based on this: "These were cultures that needed destroying. They were idolatrous and rapacious. They practiced a host of moral outrages including ritual prostitution and child sacrifice." In some cases we know that God sent prophetic messages and warnings to these people for considerable lengths of time. Honestly, this would be like more like killing all Nazis than anything else from our culture. Only unlike here a considerable number of Germans were not Nazis. I highly doubt that many of the people of those cultures dissented from the state religion, which in). I apologize for the comparison, but the fact was, this is the sort of culture in the Ancient Near East (ANE) where "wicked men" would surround the house of a guest from outside the town and bring the guest out to rape them.

The words "God is love" were written a thousand years after the passages that we're discussing. That means the original interpretation of this text could not possibly have included this information. That means that your saints are re-interpretating this passage from its original meaning based on their new theological standpoint. My point of view is entirely consistent with the Old Testament God: malevolent, petty, capricious, ruthless, and violent. Thats like saying that the Trinity is not in the bible. God introduces himself as merciful in Duteronomy, and is called merciful in the prophetic works many times. The Psalms use the word "loving" to describe God. This interpretation of the text existed long before the time of Christ.

I do think you're misinterpreting what I mean when I say Christianity is untrue. I don't mean that I believe my interpretation of Christianity was untrue. I think that Christianity is based on things that are not true. True.

As a few examples: the first five books of the Bible were not written by Moses. They were written by at least four different people, spanning a period of hundreds of years in time, and their works have been mashed together uncritically. This can be easily demonstrated through historical linguistics. Nowhere in the Bible is it specifically stated that Moses wrote the entire Pentateuch. It *does* however state that moses wrote particular parts. However according to the wikipedia article (you can check the sources if you like) on the Documentary Hypothesis: "While the terminology and insights of the documentary hypothesis?notably its recognition that the Pentateuch is the work of many hands and many centuries, and that its final form belongs to the middle of the 1st millennium BC?continue to inform scholarly debate about the origins of the Pentateuch, it no longer dominates that debate as it did for the first two thirds of the 20th century...in their place scholars are confronted by competing theories which are discouragingly numerous, exceedingly complex, and often couched in an expository style that is 'not for the faint-hearted.'" To tell the truth, I highly doubt there is any decent way to determine the difference between the various authors, both Elohim and Jehovah are used by J and E in the traditional theory for instance, and D essentially charged with the required style to put in genealogies. I don't think you can really call this a scientific procedure.

There is no extra-biblical evidence for Abraham, the Exodus, the Ten Commandments, the walls of Jericho: Israeli archeology has spent decades looking for such evidence. The account of the birth of Jesus is lifted more or less directly from older Egyptian myths. There is no extra-biblical evidence for any of the events surrounding Jesus' death or resurrection, and the accounts that we do have don't even agree on the basic facts of the matter. This is but a small sampling of things that the Bible claims that, at best, have no evidence to support them, and, at worst, are flat wrong or plagarized from other religions. Interesting that you should say Egyptian, most mention Mithraism (which in fact plagerized Christianity). Can I have a link please?

As for Jesus' death, I believe there are historians who state that there ways a Jesus, and that he was crucified. Ressurection is of course out of the question, as anyone who would say that he saw Jesus after he died or had any other evidence for his ressurection is by definition a Christian, and is immediately excluded from your search. Perhaps you should look up Cornelius Tacticus or Lucian of Samosata, or perhaps even the Talmud.

I don't see why the interpretations of any of these people that you're speaking of are particularly more valid than mine, or, if not mine, than those of modern scholars. Or why the councils should be assumed to have chosen everything correctly: how do we know that Arianism wasn't correct rather than Homoiousianism, to take one rather infamous example?

Well the thing is the question here is not whether there are interpretations of Christianity which see God as a demon. Creating such interpretations is quite easy, considering some of the things God did are counter-cultural (which we should expect). The question is whether or not there are valid interpretations of the Bible which can resolve issues like the mass slaughter in a way which does not contradict its own ethics. What argument could you possibly make from "There exists possible interpretations of the Bible which do not view it as true or morally upright". Only if there are no arguments that can declare the Bible as morally upright (which it declares itself to be) can one say anything of much use to an atheist. Of course, Christians should ask these questions to form a moral code from the result.

Old Testament God is absolutely the same as New Testament God. Only people differ. But you just do not want to use your brain, and think. It's always simple to stick to your stereotypes after all... Perhaps you should use your brain and think of a response, or just not respond to this argument at all. Honestly a lot of your answers have really been non-answers. However, it would be hard to find a Christian who would disagree that the OT God is the same as the NT God.

If a person did half the things that I just described above your God doing, he'd be considered the greatest villain and history and we'd consider hanging him from the nearest tree a service to humanity. I'd say this is true, but only because few humans are so arrogant as to assume that they know completely the results of their actions, have a perfect vision of what morality actually is, have absolute sovereignty, etc. Which incidentally is the definition of God, minus the arrogance. In short, God has something of an omniscient morality licene (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OmniscientMoralityLicense), and having actually created all people in the first place adds to this.

You'd never believe someone who told you they killed their children because they loved them Its been done before. Deuteronomy 21:18-21. Some random fellow posting on a CNN blog said it fairly well: "There is a slight group of parents who feel that it is better to kill their wayward children than let them stay alive and ruin their lives." Saying this probably will sound revolting to you, however, but its right there in the Bible.

Gut, please correct me if I'm missing anything, or if you have differing views. There is always more sides to the argument than Christian/non-christian (Arianism is a good example, if a bit out there)

F50

12-03-2010, 08:16 AM

I apologize for my huge wall of text, I'd put this message in the previous post, but it would cause that post to exceed the character limit Oo

Silfir

12-03-2010, 12:53 PM

Screw ADOM, this now a theology forum. Nothing more exciting!

And here we thought we were joking when we predicted this thread would outdo "TH sucks". It's already well on its way.

JellySlayer

12-03-2010, 03:48 PM

Ah wonderful, lets take these one by one, starting with the easiest. The text you quote regarding Elisha reads "Go on up, baldhead". This is spoken by a group of youths, probably teenagers, telling him, to go on up, like Elijah did. Now the question is, was this meant as a death threat?

There is no suggestion in the text that this was meant as anything but ridicule for the fact that Elisha apparently was lacking in hair. Considering that Elijah didn't die, I don't see how that could be taken as a threat.

Great love was shown by Abraham to God. Also, Abraham is interpreted by Paul to have reasoned that God could/would bring Issac back from the dead, since God promised descendants through Issac.

God asked Abraham to do something monumentally evil and immoral.

Of course, God never intended to kill Issac.

But Abraham did. Abraham, as far as he was concerned, was going to offer his son as a human sacrifice to his God. The fact that he didn't succeed is almost irrelevant. God asked Abraham to commit murder, and Abraham would have done it.

I searched for reference to this raping of virgin women of which you speak

Judges 21:10-24
Numbers 31:7-18
Deuteronomy 20:10-14

Ultimately their destruction is based on this: "These were cultures that needed destroying. They were idolatrous and rapacious. They practiced a host of moral outrages including ritual prostitution and child sacrifice."

Without being too glib, but from my point of view, the Israelites were hardly ones to complain about these things. They practiced idolatry fairly frequently (Golden Calf most memorably; throughout the OT they're also being badgered about praying to Baal or Ashera--I think that's the name, but I might have misspelled); as I note in the verses above, they aren't above rape; the convenant with their God was established based on the sacrifice of a child, namely Isaac.

In some cases we know that God sent prophetic messages and warnings to these people for considerable lengths of time.

Which of the kingdoms wiped out by Joshua received these warnings?

Honestly, this would be like more like killing all Nazis than anything else from our culture. Only unlike here a considerable number of Germans were not Nazis. I highly doubt that many of the people of those cultures dissented from the state religion, which in). I apologize for the comparison, but the fact was, this is the sort of culture in the Ancient Near East (ANE) where "wicked men" would surround the house of a guest from outside the town and bring the guest out to rape them.

None of the kingdoms wiped out by Joshua displayed anything remotely comparable to what you're suggesting.

Thats like saying that the Trinity is not in the bible.

Well, strictly speaking the Trinity concept isn't mentioned anywhere in the Bible. Each element of the Trinity is discussed separately, but it wasn't until well after the writing of the NT that the Trinity became accepted in the form we know it today. After, I might add, much dispute within the competing Christian factions of the day.

God introduces himself as merciful in Duteronomy

If God has an "omniscient morality license", then He could be lying. We can't assume that anything He says is true.

"While the terminology and insights of the documentary hypothesis?notably its recognition that the Pentateuch is the work of many hands and many centuries, and that its final form belongs to the middle of the 1st millennium BC?continue to inform scholarly debate about the origins of the Pentateuch, it no longer dominates that debate as it did for the first two thirds of the 20th century...in their place scholars are confronted by competing theories which are discouragingly numerous, exceedingly complex, and often couched in an expository style that is 'not for the faint-hearted.'"

You left out the last line. "A majority of scholars, if by no means all, continue to follow some version of the classic formulation of the Documentary Hypothesis".

To tell the truth, I highly doubt there is any decent way to determine the difference between the various authors.

If I gave you a book from the 18th Century and one from the 20th Century covering the same material, you don't think you'd be able to figure which one was which?

Interesting that you should say Egyptian, most mention Mithraism (which in fact plagerized Christianity). Can I have a link please?

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ_in_comparative_mythology) might be a good place to start. The Egyptian parallel story is that of Horus, although the evidence isn't, admittedly, as conclusive as I recall it being.

As for Jesus' death, I believe there are historians who state that there ways a Jesus, and that he was crucified. Ressurection is of course out of the question, as anyone who would say that he saw Jesus after he died or had any other evidence for his ressurection is by definition a Christian, and is immediately excluded from your search. Perhaps you should look up Cornelius Tacticus or Lucian of Samosata, or perhaps even the Talmud.

Cornelius Tacticus was born a few decades after the death of Christ. There is no evidence to suggest he ever visited Judea. Even the scant evidence he does report on Jesus is heresay.

Lucian of Samosata was born over a century after the death of Christ.

The Talmud was written almost two centuries after the death of Christ.

I'd say this is true, but only because few humans are so arrogant as to assume that they know completely the results of their actions, have a perfect vision of what morality actually is, have absolute sovereignty, etc. Which incidentally is the definition of God, minus the arrogance. In short, God has something of an omniscient morality licene (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OmniscientMoralityLicense), and having actually created all people in the first place adds to this.

No, God does not get a free pass on morality. He certainly can't claim to get a free pass on morality and expect to be loved and worshipped for it.

Its been done before. Deuteronomy 21:18-21.

...

And you consider this a good thing?

Some random fellow posting on a CNN blog said it fairly well: "There is a slight group of parents who feel that it is better to kill their wayward children than let them stay alive and ruin their lives." Saying this probably will sound revolting to you, however, but its right there in the Bible.

You know what we do with people who do these sorts of things? We lock them in a tiny room for a very, very long time to keep everyone else safe from them.

Gut, please correct me if I'm missing anything, or if you have differing views. There is always more sides to the argument than Christian/non-christian (Arianism is a good example, if a bit out there)

Arianism came within a hairsbreadth of becoming orthodox doctrine, actually.

gut

12-03-2010, 05:32 PM

> However there was mass murder, and I support it.

I don't like the idea of being merciful to victomizers at all, and sometimes desire for them to die,
but if it was up to me to pull the trigger, I wouldn't if I had a choice. With all power at god's
disposal, I would imagine options to be possible. Murdering when one doesn't have to doesn't sound
very christian.

> Honestly, this would be like more like killing all Nazis than anything else from our culture

we decided not to kill all nazis. things are prolly better because we didn't.

>> If a person did half the things that I just described above your God doing, he'd be considered
the greatest villain and history and we'd consider hanging him from the nearest tree a service to humanity.

> I'd say this is true,

I wouldn't. History is written by the winner. We have statues built in the images of murderers everyday.
Yeah, they had other problems too: slavery (USA), incest (britlanders), drunkards (prolly irish :D), and
rape was prolly universal.

> You'd never believe someone who told you they killed their children because they loved them

conditionally, I might, but would still not like them very much

> Gut, please correct me if I'm missing anything, or if you have differing views. There is always more
sides to the argument than Christian/non-christian (Arianism is a good example, if a bit out there)

Well, I suppose I can try to give the Arian point of view, though it isn't really my forte:

Um, most religions that are followed today were created by people who spent too much time in the desert
heat. The sun disturbed their minds and darkened their skin horribly. That is why everyone should cast
off all beliefs that didn't originate in the geographical territory of northern europe.

> God asked Abraham to do something monumentally evil and immoral

for what it is worth, this is one of those things I labeled as mistaken upon hearing it.
God would have better things to do, and if he doesn't, that is sad. This is a story that
people tell to other people, not an account of god.

On a somewhat side note, I want to talk a bit more about this:
> There is always more sides to the argument than Christian/non-christian

Particularly, I want to ask you and dorten (and any other specific religion followers) how they feel
knowing that the religion they follow is based 99% on geographical location of birth.

Also, I feel a bit funny about being thought of as a straddlepole. I really do lean toward christianity
in many ways, it's just that I see too many holes to follow blindly.

fazisi

12-03-2010, 07:59 PM

The problem with these threads are everyone feels the need to quote everything because if they don't, people will start to misunderstand statements. It makes it very hard on the eyes for the ADD nation.

I like the old testament God. There is a guy who knew how to get things done.

The first five books developed over time. It wasn't a saucy romance novel written over a particularily cold winter. More than one author supplying text for five seperate holy texts (they weren't all contained in one handy pocket Bible in your hotel drawer) would not be surpising. Don't forget there wasn't as sophisticated information storing technology back then.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21

18If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

19Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

20And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

21And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
This sounds like a pretty good rule to me. Imagine how few fat stay-at-home 30 year olds parents would have to put up with today if we kept this one.

Ah wonderful, lets take these one by one, starting with the easiest. The text you quote regarding Elisha reads "Go on up, baldhead". This is spoken by a group of youths, probably teenagers, telling him, to go on up, like Elijah did. Now the question is, was this meant as a death threat?
There is no suggestion in the text that this was meant as anything but ridicule for the fact that Elisha apparently was lacking in hair. Considering that Elijah didn't die, I don't see how that could be taken as a threat.
This is because OT God is bad ass. Respect holy men or get eaten by bears.

Judges 21:10-24
Keeping the tribes alive. This is proof that we have a natural instinct to preserve our genes.

Numbers 31:7-18
Sounds like a pretty successful military endeavor. This is the bonus of having God on your side.

Deuteronomy 20:10-14
These are the spoils of war. Modern morality is lame.

Without being too glib, but from my point of view, the Israelites were hardly ones to complain about these things. They practiced idolatry fairly frequently (Golden Calf most memorably; throughout the OT they're also being badgered about praying to Baal or Ashera--I think that's the name, but I might have misspelled); as I note in the verses above, they aren't above rape; the convenant with their God was established based on the sacrifice of a child, namely Isaac.
A lot of human sacrafice was practiced in our not-so-distant history. The covenant with God was established based on the substitution of animal sacrafice instead.

> God asked Abraham to do something monumentally evil and immoral

for what it is worth, this is one of those things I labeled as mistaken upon hearing it.
God would have better things to do, and if he doesn't, that is sad. This is a story that
people tell to other people, not an account of god.
This is part of the formation of the entire religion. It is part of the essential relationship that started between God and his promise to Abraham of an entire nation to be spawned from him.

grobblewobble

12-03-2010, 09:06 PM

Oh my god.. discussion asploded.

Why not throw a random unrelated controversion into teh flamewar? What do you guys think of Wikileaks?

Grey

12-04-2010, 12:05 PM

I'm quite disturbed by the large-scale denial of service attacks going on against Wikileaks. The US is happy to criticise China for censorship and and internet hacking to enforce that censorship, but pulls the same shit itself when it wants its way.

gut

12-04-2010, 02:02 PM

the US government is DoS'ing a website? How sad.

Theym

12-04-2010, 06:12 PM

Actualy it was Amazon.com inc. they dumped Assange's site due to terms of service,

As Amazon.com Inc. explained after dumping WikiLeaks from its servers this past week for violating the company's terms of service agreement, "it is not credible that the extraordinary volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that they weren't putting innocent people in jeopardy." - http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-oped-1205-page-20101205,0,6517556.story

Though I will admit that it's highly likley that the gov pushed for this to happen.
Edit-
U.S. congressman Peter T. King called for WikiLeaks to be designated as a terrorist organization in response to the leak of the cables.[99]

Access to WikiLeaks is currently blocked in the United States Library of Congress.[100] On 3 December 2010 the White House Office of Management and Budget sent a memo forbidding all unauthorized federal government employees and contractors from accessing classified documents publicly available on WikiLeaks and other websites.[101]
Apparently they did, what happened to free speach?

fazisi

12-04-2010, 08:09 PM

You would be amazed to know...

Grey

12-04-2010, 10:07 PM

Actualy it was Amazon.com inc. they dumped Assange's site due to terms of service,

I was more talking about the specific attacks on the domain hosting (not Amazon) which has now led to Wikileaks having to be moved to a new domain. On top of that Paypal have stopped allowing donations to Wikileaks, no doubt after receiving pressure from the American government. Apparently there have been attempts against Assange's life too, though that's harder to verify.

Ah, the joys of living in the free world...

gut

12-04-2010, 10:51 PM

if my relative was endangered by this, I'd threaten them too

Theym

12-05-2010, 05:56 AM

The only way IMHO that they could endanger anyone(except the occasional political scandal, or something worthy of starting a war over(and if it's worthy of starting a war over, I'd rather it be publicly known)) is leaking (current) troop positions, and I'm pretty sure they haven't done that.

fazisi

12-05-2010, 07:41 AM

I love the average American's perception of freedom.

gut

12-05-2010, 01:02 PM

> The only way IMHO that they could endanger anyone(except the occasional political scandal

I skimmed the wiki, and I saw ways it could. From what I remember,
they currently have documents in their possesion that they plan to
release, but haven't yet. The reason for this is that they are
combing through them with a fine-toothed comb, trying to eliminate
all names that could cause anyone to be endangered. I think they
are even asking governments to help. I don't think it is unreasonable
to assume they haven't been this thourough from the start. Sure, I
know nothing starts out perfect, but that would be small consolation
to whatever informer that may have died because of them.

Silfir

12-05-2010, 05:21 PM

From German perspective, we greatly enjoy some of the details regarding certain German politicians - those were a) not secrets (everyone in Germany knew) and b) completely correct and exactly the kind of truthful information I would expect my ambassador to report to me. At least I like to imagine that the German ambassodors to the US sent home bulletins describing George W. as "Volltrottel" or "Halbdackel", just to remove any traces of doubt.

Anyway, I imagine wikileaks has made plenty more enemies than just the US government capable and willing to pay some hacker to get cracking. Let's not get in over our heads there.

Also, what are you doing. This is my daily go-to place for pointless theological/philosophical debates. The thread is far longer than is healthy as it is without all the hijacking.

fazisi

12-05-2010, 10:13 PM

Start a new thread if you wish to discuss wikileaks in detail.

Grey

12-05-2010, 10:54 PM

I can't believe people are complaining about derailing in this of all threads!

But going back to the original subject, I think Treasure Hunter is by far the best talent, and every character should get it. The important thing in ADOM is LOOT = POWER, and so more loot is always better. Anyone who believes differently is obviously a disgusting heretic unbeliever who should be burned in fiery flames.

fazisi

12-05-2010, 11:15 PM

Good job grobblewobble.

JellySlayer

12-06-2010, 06:12 AM

I can't believe people are complaining about derailing in this of all threads!

The thread hasn't derailed; it has evolved.

Particularly, I want to ask you and dorten (and any other specific religion followers) how they feel
knowing that the religion they follow is based 99% on geographical location of birth.

Childhood indoctrination works really, really well.

Grey

12-06-2010, 11:14 AM

The thread hasn't derailed; it has evolved.

No, it was intelligently designed. This thread is far too complex to be made by mere chance.

gut

12-06-2010, 11:46 AM

.................................................. ..................................10 more to go before I shoot myself! .....................................^

You clearly don't understand the mechanics of how threads evolve.
Molecules bump together, randomly, for enough billions of years to
make roguelike designers. It would be impossible for one of them
to not create a forum, and similarly impossible for all forum user to
eternally refrain from posting a topic like this. It is all based on
symbiotic relationships you are clearly unable to comprehend.

Grey

12-06-2010, 12:01 PM

I have 60 left before I follow.

It is funny though how on an internet forum with enough members you are pretty much guaranteed to have some sort of religion thread with heated views. There's no intelligent design involved, it is just the nature of humans to start up silly discussions that get completely out of hand.

JellySlayer

12-06-2010, 01:51 PM

No, it was intelligently designed. This thread is far too complex to be made by mere chance.

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but my posts are just made by a monkey hammering away at a keyboard.

Laukku

12-06-2010, 05:45 PM

Evolution seems to progress exponentially, going faster and faster. According to current theory, multicellular life came to be only 1 billion years ago, after almost 3 billion years of simple cells. Dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, and homo sapiens appeared only 200 000 years ago. Also, in the past 100 years, our technology has probably progressed more than in the previous 100...

Technological singularity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity) anyone?

JellySlayer

12-06-2010, 08:40 PM

Going back a bit to some unfinished business...

1) When did I say, that I accepted Scriptures entirely based on what they say?

Allow me to demostrate:

I was a conviced atheist till about five years ago. I know how to use my brain, thanks. I just investigated the matter, found, that both materialistic and christian views of the world are both equally fit in 'describe the world's inner works philosophically' niche, and both do not contradict with all my life experience and knowledge.

You find that both Christian and secular viewpoints are both consistent with your experiences and knowledge. Thus, there is no reason to choose one over the other.

And I've chosen Christianity, cause it's at least moral.

Okay, so you've chosen Christianity based solely on moral reasons. I'll leave aside my objections to this for the moment.

And as i've chosen the path, i had to accept it's foundations.

So you've accepted the Scriptures based on... what, exactly? Simply because Christianity is moral, in whatever sense you want to define "moral" doesn't necessarily imply that it is also true, or that the source material is true. It could be a bunch of stories designed to instruct about the nature of morality without there being a God, Jesus, heaven, hell, or afterlife, at all. Christian morality tells you nothing about the truth value of the Bible. So you simply postulated the axiom that Scriptures are true, for some definition of truth. Why would you postulate this? Because the Scriptures tell you that you are required to. Otherwise, there'd be no need for this assumption.

There's an interesting aside here. You accepted Christianity as moral not based on God's standards of morality, but on yours. You are the arbiter of morality in your life; God is not. You've already demonstrated that you have the capacity to figure out morality for yourself entirely independent of Christianity, or of God.

As a follow-up to this: What other traditions did you look in to before choosing Christianity? Did you rule out Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. for moral reasons?

So, you found out that JST+Bible=immoral and untrue. Fine, I absolutely agree on that.
Then you imply that because of that Bible+OT=immoral and untrue

Works like this. I found the Bible to be immoral and untrue. If A is false, then A + B is false regardless of the truth value of B. The specific traditions of every possible denomination are irrelevant if the common element is faulty.

OT has explanations, and not a simple ones, for God's deeds in Old Testament. And they do not contradict with both Old and New Testaments, and with the idea of loving and caring God.

I'm sure you'd be happy to explain how the various genocides, murders, rapes, child sacrifices, etc. that I mentioned earlier are consistent with a loving God who wants the best for all of his children.

I've bolded your mistake. Not people justified it, but God did.
The whole essence of Old Testament is: mann cannot justify what's right and what's wrong, because his nature is broken. God can.

Let me just make sure that I understand what you're saying here. You are saying that whatever God does, whatever God says, is, by definition, moral?

If that's not what you mean, then I'm sorry, I don't exactly understand what you're trying to say here.

fazisi

12-07-2010, 07:07 AM

I feel the temptation to make a Bible study thread... but something tells me it would quickly degrade into a brutal flame war.

JellySlayer

12-07-2010, 04:27 PM

I feel the temptation to make a Bible study thread... but something tells me it would quickly degrade into a brutal flame war.

I'm not sure why you'd think so. This forum is very polite and civil. I don't know if we could have a flame war here if we tried.

Silfir

12-07-2010, 06:09 PM

JellySlayer is a stupid n00b faggot!

Theym

12-07-2010, 09:01 PM

NO!!! He's -THE- JellySlayer!! He has intrinsic Jelly Slaying. Therefore, NOT a n00b.

gut

12-07-2010, 10:53 PM

I'm staying away from any thread with the word 'study' in it.

Dorten

12-09-2010, 09:16 AM

@ JellySlayer:

I'll skip the whole "Dorten is moral and God is not" thing, since, I'm not sure how to explain my point to you, and you do not understand it (yet). Maybe later I'll come up with exact wording.

As a follow-up to this: What other traditions did you look in to before choosing Christianity? Did you rule out Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. for moral reasons?

Hinduism - no. Islam, Buddhism - yes.

Works like this. I found the Bible to be immoral and untrue. If A is false, then A + B is false regardless of the truth value of B. The specific traditions of every possible denomination are irrelevant if the common element is faulty.

Again. You found JST+Bible to be immoral and untrue. Not the Bible itself. If A+B is false that does not imply, that B is false.

I'm sure you'd be happy to explain how the various genocides, murders, rapes, child sacrifices, etc. that I mentioned earlier are consistent with a loving God who wants the best for all of his children.

Come on, read the books. Learn. That's not an easy task to explain such a big part of orthodox theological learnings to you in a couple of forum posts. I can try, of course, but I doubt that I will convince you.

Let me just make sure that I understand what you're saying here. You are saying that whatever God does, whatever God says, is, by definition, moral?
Well, yes, actually.
Take Abraham, for example. He had enough faith to believe, that whatever God says is good, regardless of how evil it seems to be. And he was right after all.

JellySlayer

12-09-2010, 02:13 PM

Again. You found JST+Bible to be immoral and untrue. Not the Bible itself. If A+B is false that does not imply, that B is false.

No, I found the Bible is immoral and untrue. I've illustrated this before, but I'll elaborate for your benefit:

We can judge the truth of the Bible directly by looking at the claims that it makes about things that are testable. If the Bible makes a claim about, say, there being a global flood, and we can determine, with a fairly high precision, that no such flood could have happened, then that makes the Bible less reliable. If we can look at a very large number of claims and find that there is no evidence for any of them (eg. lack of historical evidence for virtually any of the first six books of the Bible; lack of historical evidence for Jesus himself); look at a significant number of prophetic claims that have failed (eg. Jesus' return within the lifetime of his disciples); trace the nature and influences of the writers of the various texts (see: "A History of God"; "Who Wrote the Bible"; "Who Wrote the New Testament"; "Misquoting Jesus"), then regardless of our tradition, we can assert that two other major claims by the Bible are false, namely that it is infallable, and that it was written by perfect, omniscient the creator of the Universe. If you aren't willing to go that far, you can certainly assert that the Bible is so unreliable about claims that we can test, that we have no reason to believe any of the claims that it makes that we can't.

As for morality, well, the Bible sets such low standards that it's hard to know where to begin. The Bible condones murder, slavery, rape, genocide, child sacrifice, wars of aggression, lying, thieving, thought crimes... the list goes on. It encourages its followers to support dictators and tyrants. It encourages the subjugation of women. It encourages the persecution of homosexuals. It advocates violence against people of other faiths. It completely undermines the idea personal responsibility for our own actions. It encourages people to treat their own lives as worthless and depraved. It encourages all kinds of evil under the notion that any suffering now is tolerable in exchange for a better afterlife. It says that it is okay if an innocent person is punished in the place of a guilty one. It is to the credit of Christians that they recognize the inherent evil of these doctrines and generally don't to practice any of them anymore (with a few exceptions). But they do so to a significant extent simply by ignoring or whitewashing huge portions of the text.

[edit]On a general level, I'll add one thing about the absurdity of this proposition that you make. Christianity has on the order of 3-4000 denominations. Now, were I to spend one Sunday per week investigating the individual claims of each faith tradition, then I'd be over eighty before I'd have finished them all, and could not, by any reasonable measure, have done the due diligence you seem to feel is required. And that still assumes that Christianity itself is correct. If it turns out Islam is correct, then I'd have been wasting all of my time investigating Christian traditions and still be wrong. Clearly, the only rational approach is to investigate the claims common to all (or at least most) Christian denominations, and evaluate those claims directly. This can be done most easily simply be looking at the Bible itself, which is the foundation for all Christian traditions.

Come on, read the books. Learn. That's not an easy task to explain such a big part of orthodox theological learnings to you in a couple of forum posts. I can try, of course, but I doubt that I will convince you.

I don't see it as being terribly promising if you need to reference a dozen books to explain the (im)morality or murder, rape, or genocide, but suit yourself.

Well, yes, actually.

Are you familiar with Euthyphro's dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma)?

[edit]
Hinduism - no. Islam, Buddhism - yes.

On what grounds did you reject Islam and Buddhism? Did you investigate all of the major philosophical schools within each religion and reject those individually?

Silfir

12-09-2010, 04:16 PM

we can assert that two other major claims by the Bible are false, namely that it is infallable, and that it was written by perfect, omniscient the creator of the Universe.

And this is somehow news?

JellySlayer

12-09-2010, 04:38 PM

And this is somehow news?

You obviously haven't met that many fundamentalists.

tapi

12-09-2010, 05:58 PM

The bible is inerrant.

But not in the way the idolatry of fundamentalism and many protestant sects understand it.

Here's the word from ret. Archbishop Lazar of Ottawa, abbot of the Canadian Orthodox monastery:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RBjkHBEfqE

Silfir

12-09-2010, 06:20 PM

You obviously haven't met that many fundamentalists.

Your grand revelation is standard teaching in German public schools ("Religion" is part of the basic curriculum, note that the class is not called "Bible Study"). Basically, you take fundamentalism as the standard for all Christianity, and get all amazed at the ludicrous results (as rightfully ludicrous as they are). That way you engage on a fool's errand; fundamentalists cannot be swayed by arguments to begin with, and your arguments don't apply to moderate Christian directions who might be open for reasons, but not if you're going to argue against positions they don't hold in the first place.

The Bible is a collection of about 70 books written by various humans of various ethnicities over the course of several hundred years. Those are old books and scriptures, from old times, representing old mores. You can judge individual parts of the Bible by modern standards and yes, they will come up short, just like bread you bake in 300 BC won't be very tasty when consumed as part of a 2010 breakfast. Christianity has evolved since then.

Grey

12-09-2010, 08:30 PM

Christianity has evolved since then.

Nuh-uh! It's the product of intelligent design by an invisible flying spaghetti monster.

gut

12-09-2010, 11:32 PM

it couldn't have evolved, as it didn't spend enough time
properly bumping into other religious texts

Theym

12-10-2010, 02:02 AM

It didn't need to. It bumped against it's self(the sub texts that make it up) as the people around it bumped against each other. Evolution, ain't it grand?

Dorten

12-10-2010, 03:29 AM

No, I found the Bible is immoral and untrue. I've illustrated this before, but I'll elaborate for your benefit:

We can judge the truth of the Bible directly by looking at the claims that it makes about things that are testable. If the Bible makes a claim about, say, there being a global flood, and we can determine, with a fairly high precision, that no such flood could have happened, then that makes the Bible less reliable. If we can look at a very large number of claims and find that there is no evidence for any of them (eg. lack of historical evidence for virtually any of the first six books of the Bible; lack of historical evidence for Jesus himself); look at a significant number of prophetic claims that have failed (eg. Jesus' return within the lifetime of his disciples); trace the nature and influences of the writers of the various texts (see: "A History of God"; "Who Wrote the Bible"; "Who Wrote the New Testament"; "Misquoting Jesus"), then regardless of our tradition, we can assert that two other major claims by the Bible are false, namely that it is infallable, and that it was written by perfect, omniscient the creator of the Universe. If you aren't willing to go that far, you can certainly assert that the Bible is so unreliable about claims that we can test, that we have no reason to believe any of the claims that it makes that we can't.
So, you like formal proofs? OK. Where's your 100% proof that there were no Flood? Is lack of evidence working as a 100% proof of something not happening? Jesus' return within the lifetime of his disciples? there's no such claim in Bible, actually. Who ever told you, that Bible was written by God?

As for morality, well, the Bible sets such low standards that it's hard to know where to begin. The Bible condones murder, slavery, rape, genocide, child sacrifice, wars of aggression, lying, thieving, thought crimes... the list goes on. Facepalm.

It encourages its followers to support dictators and tyrants. Where?

It encourages the subjugation of women. Oh, and any law system, that says, that you should obey police, for example, encourages subjugation of people by police officers?

It encourages the persecution of homosexuals. It advocates violence against people of other faiths. Old Testament, yes. People like that at that times were not 'curable' from sin. Not now.

It completely undermines the idea personal responsibility for our own actions. Funny. Wherever I look into Bible or christian teachings, I see the idea of complete personal responsibility for actions.

It encourages people to treat their own lives as worthless and depraved. Which is bad, because..?

It encourages all kinds of evil under the notion that any suffering now is tolerable in exchange for a better afterlife. encourages?

It says that it is okay if an innocent person is punished in the place of a guilty one. It does not say, that it is OK. It says, that is such person suffers willingly, understanding, that such situation may be sent by God, then it's good and 'profitable' for that person. It also says, that if you are not that person, knowing of situation and you do nothing to help, then you are doing evil.

It is to the credit of Christians that they recognize the inherent evil of these doctrines and generally don't to practice any of them anymore (with a few exceptions). But they do so to a significant extent simply by ignoring or whitewashing huge portions of the text. You are funny. You do not understand huge portions of text, and if someone does, you claim, that thay are just ignoring it. Funny, but sad.

[edit]On a general level, I'll add one thing about the absurdity of this proposition that you make. Christianity has on the order of 3-4000 denominations. Now, were I to spend one Sunday per week investigating the individual claims of each faith tradition, then I'd be over eighty before I'd have finished them all, and could not, by any reasonable measure, have done the due diligence you seem to feel is required. And that still assumes that Christianity itself is correct. If it turns out Islam is correct, then I'd have been wasting all of my time investigating Christian traditions and still be wrong. Clearly, the only rational approach is to investigate the claims common to all (or at least most) Christian denominations, and evaluate those claims directly.
That's why it is needed to know how real coin looks before looking onto false ones. You can argue about not knowing which coin is real actually, but I send you to orthodoxy. You still didn't give any proof that it is false or immoral.

This can be done most easily simply be looking at the Bible itself, which is the foundation for all Christian traditions. Bible is not foundation of traditions, it's the other way around, actually. Jewish laws, written in Exodus and other books of OT were already there, when the books were written. All New Testament books were selected from much bigger pile of writings, beacause they were not contradicting teachings of Christ. First there was Tradition. Then there was Writings. That's why Writings are meaningless without tradition. That's why it's impossible to understand Writs correctly (as we can see on your example) without knowing Tradition, which produced them.

Are you familiar with Euthyphro's dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma)?

False-dilemma response. It works, actually.

fazisi

12-10-2010, 05:12 AM

LOL... no offense Dorten, but you should be expecting a sick burn in the near future.

JellySlayer

12-10-2010, 06:09 AM

So, you like formal proofs? OK. Where's your 100% proof that there were no Flood?

I never used the word "proof". It doesn't make sense to talk about proof outside of mathematical or logical systems. I said that "we can determine, with fairly high precision, that no such flood happened", which is true. I'm not going to bother going into how many things are wrong with this story--there are probably a dozen things in it that would, on their own, make this story ridiculous and implausable. Taken together, this is quite honestly among the most outrageous stories in all fiction, and I am frankly shocked that any person could believe this account.

Is lack of evidence working as a 100% proof of something not happening?

No, it's entirely possible that the world could have been created last Thursday. Does that mean that we should seriously consider such a thing as possible? No, of course not. Lack of evidence isn't proof. But lack of evidence is justification for lack of belief, which is all that really matters here--especially if all of our knowledge about such subjects (say, floods, which we know a lot about because we've observed them before) would indicate that evidence for such an event should be extremely easy to find.

To be honest though, I would probably have an easier time believing that the world was created last Thursday than that the account of Noah's flood occurs exactly as the Bible says it does.

Jesus' return within the lifetime of his disciples? there's no such claim in Bible, actually.

Matthew 16:28, among others.

Who ever told you, that Bible was written by God?

I'm a little surprised that you of all people would have a problem with this claim. Alright, let me elaborate: Christian theology (some of them, anyway) claim that the Bible was literally written by people who were inspired by the Spirit of God to write exactly what He wanted them to say. Same difference.

Facepalm.

That's not an answer. I've already provided you with a handful of examples of such things. I can give you plenty more if you need them.

Where?

Romans 13:1-7

Oh, and any law system, that says, that you should obey police, for example, encourages subjugation of people by police officers?

This analogy fails on several levels. Anyone can become a police officer. Obedience to police officers is not always required, and certainly not under every circumstance. Police are ultimately responsible to the people and their powers (or they themselves) can be removed/reformed by the people that they are responsible to. Giving inappropriate power to police for their station is called a "police state", which is considered extremely oppressive and undesirable.

Old Testament, yes. People like that at that times were not 'curable' from sin. Not now.

God didn't think that one through very well, did He? The only solution to being born in the wrong place or being born with the wrong genetic makeup was for God's people to kill you?

Funny. Wherever I look into Bible or christian teachings, I see the idea of complete personal responsibility for actions.

I might be willing to concede that this is an issue of traditions, but I'll make the point for clarity anyway:
Catholic priest abuses child. Catholic priest goes to Catholic bishop, confesses his sins, receives absolution from the bishop and from God. Has he accepted responsibility for his actions? No, of course not. His crime was against the child, not against the bishop, nor against God.

Which is bad, because..?

Because their lives have value and aren't depraved. People who don't value human life have a bad habit of doing very stupid things, like suicide bombing or commiting genocide.

encourages?

Sure. Under this doctrine, you would, for example, be morally justified in torturing me until I become Christian again. Depending on your interpretation, you might not only be morally justified, but morally obliged.

It does not say, that it is OK. It says, that is such person suffers willingly, understanding, that such situation may be sent by God, then it's good and 'profitable' for that person.

And you don't find this outrageously immoral? Oh, wait, right. Everything your God does is moral, even the things that are clearly not. Never mind.

It also says, that if you are not that person, knowing of situation and you do nothing to help, then you are doing evil.

I actually agree with this. I would have been, for example, morally obliged to stop the crucifixion of Christ had I been there at the time. Similarly, I am morally obliged to reject such a sacrifice on my behalf, because it would be evil to accept it. That is personal responsibility for one's actions. If there is a God in the universe that judges what is right and what is wrong, and finds me guilty of wrong, then I will accept that and face the punishment. I will not use a loophole that involves punishing an innocent person for my guilt, regardless of who that person is and their relationship to the God who is judging me. If that sends me to hell, then I'd rather go to hell a good and moral person than to heaven an evil and immoral one.

That's why it is needed to know how real coin looks before looking onto false ones. You can argue about not knowing which coin is real actually, but I send you to orthodoxy. You still didn't give any proof that it is false or immoral.

This doesn't make any sense. If I knew which one was true, there'd be no point in looking at any of the others. But the problem is more profound than this: we don't know that there is a real coin.

Bible is not foundation of traditions, it's the other way around, actually. Jewish laws, written in Exodus and other books of OT were already there, when the books were written.

The first statement contradicts the second. The second may actually be self-contradictory as well, for that matter.

All New Testament books were selected from much bigger pile of writings, beacause they were not contradicting teachings of Christ.

How could they know what the teachings of Christ were, if not by reading what the people who were (supposedly) there wrote down? Things that aren't written down have a way of... evolving... over time much more quickly since there's a lack of an authoritative standard.

False-dilemma response. It works, actually.

Not really, because your choice of defining God to be good is arbitrary. You could just as easily define God to be evil, and the false dilemma response is still valid. If you try to follow this line of reasoning, you have no basis to claim that God is good and Satan is evil, rather than the opposite, for example.

Dorten

12-10-2010, 07:23 AM

I never used the word "proof". It doesn't make sense to talk about proof outside of mathematical or logical systems. I said that "we can determine, with fairly high precision, that no such flood happened", which is true. I'm not going to bother going into how many things are wrong with this story--there are probably a dozen things in it that would, on their own, make this story ridiculous and implausable. Taken together, this is quite honestly among the most outrageous stories in all fiction, and I am frankly shocked that any person could believe this account.

No, it's entirely possible that the world could have been created last Thursday. Does that mean that we should seriously consider such a thing as possible? No, of course not. Lack of evidence isn't proof. But lack of evidence is justification for lack of belief, which is all that really matters here--especially if all of our knowledge about such subjects (say, floods, which we know a lot about because we've observed them before) would indicate that evidence for such an event should be extremely easy to find.

To be honest though, I would probably have an easier time believing that the world was created last Thursday than that the account of Noah's flood occurs exactly as the Bible says it does.

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/great-flood-faq.htm
Very simple. You can believe it. You can not believe it. No proof, only evidence.

Matthew 16:28, among others.
Verily I say unto you, there are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
That's about Transfiguration. Not about the End of Days.

I'm a little surprised that you of all people would have a problem with this claim. Alright, let me elaborate: Christian theology (some of them, anyway) claim that the Bible was literally written by people who were inspired by the Spirit of God to write exactly what He wanted them to say. Same difference.
And so the Writings are not written by God, but by people, inspired by God. Ant thus it is limited by their culture, their understanding and their scientific knowledge.

Romans 13:1-7
1Let every soul be in subjection to the higher powers: for there is no power but of God; and the [powers] that be are ordained of God. 2Therefore he that resisteth the power, withstandeth the ordinance of God: and they that withstand shall receive to themselves judgment. 3For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. And wouldest thou have no fear of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise from the same: 4for he is a minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil. 5Wherefore [ye] must needs be in subjection, not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience? sake. 6For this cause ye pay tribute also; for they are ministers of God?s service, attending continually upon this very thing. 7Render to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute [is due]; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.

So... Where's support there?

This analogy fails on several levels. Anyone can become a police officer. Obedience to police officers is not always required, and certainly not under every circumstance. Police are ultimately responsible to the people and their powers (or they themselves) can be removed/reformed by the people that they are responsible to. Giving inappropriate power to police for their station is called a "police state", which is considered extremely oppressive and undesirable.
That's where the analogy does not fail. And that rules out subjugation.

I might be willing to concede that this is an issue of traditions, but I'll make the point for clarity anyway:
Catholic priest abuses child. Catholic priest goes to Catholic bishop, confesses his sins, receives absolution from the bishop and from God. Has he accepted responsibility for his actions? No, of course not. His crime was against the child, not against the bishop, nor against God. Go and learn what a penitence is. Until then you will not understand.

Because their lives have value and aren't depraved. People who don't value human life have a bad habit of doing very stupid things, like suicide bombing or commiting genocide.
It encourages people to treat their own lives as worthless and depraved. The lives of others - no way. So suicide bombing or commiting genocide are completely out of here.

Sure. Under this doctrine, you would, for example, be morally justified in torturing me until I become Christian again. Depending on your interpretation, you might not only be morally justified, but morally obliged. And now again. Where did you get this noncense? "this doctrine" says, that it cannot be spread by force, among other tings. Cause the one who says, that he believes, because he was forced to will not really believe. That's simple, really.

And you don't find this outrageously immoral? Oh, wait, right. Everything your God does is moral, even the things that are clearly not. Never mind. You'll be surprised, how many things that are 'clearly' not moral are moral. And how many things that are 'clearly' moral are not. Because to see such things really clearly you should be as clean from sin as possible. And that's very hard to achieve.

I actually agree with this. I would have been, for example, morally obliged to stop the crucifixion of Christ had I been there at the time. Similarly, I am morally obliged to reject such a sacrifice on my behalf, because it would be evil to accept it. That is personal responsibility for one's actions. If there is a God in the universe that judges what is right and what is wrong, and finds me guilty of wrong, then I will accept that and face the punishment. I will not use a loophole that involves punishing an innocent person for my guilt, regardless of who that person is and their relationship to the God who is judging me. If that sends me to hell, then I'd rather go to hell a good and moral person than to heaven an evil and immoral one.
Again commo catholic/protestant mistake of sin being guilt. And to go to heaven you must be good and moral. Crucifixion of Christ does not save you automatically, you know. It just gives you the ability to accept God's help in cleaning yourself from sin, nothing more.

The first statement contradicts the second. The second may actually be self-contradictory as well, for that matter. How so?

How could they know what the teachings of Christ were, if not by reading what the people who were (supposedly) there wrote down? Things that aren't written down have a way of... evolving... over time much more quickly since there's a lack of an authoritative standard.
That's why Writing were needed, orf course. But still, first there was only spoken word. Then some writings. Then more writings. and more writings and spoken words. And they evolved. And people saw, that some of them evolved in different directions. So the most knowing and enlightened people, guided by Holy Ghost gathered and fixated portion of writings to be Writings, so there would be some authoritative standard.
And why should you believe, that they really were guided by Holy Ghost? Hey, you are free, don't you? That's faith for you.

Not really, because your choice of defining God to be good is arbitrary. You could just as easily define God to be evil, and the false dilemma response is still valid. If you try to follow this line of reasoning, you have no basis to claim that God is good and Satan is evil, rather than the opposite, for example.
Facepalm again.
I did not define God. I believe God to be good. That's me, your average schismatic.

Silfir

12-10-2010, 08:29 AM

FACT: The chance of your post convincing the opposing side in an argument is directly proportional to the amount of times you quote his writing for a rebuttal. There are not NEARLY enough QUOTE tags in here people.

gut

12-10-2010, 08:43 AM

> If the Bible makes a claim about, say, there being a global flood,

I feel so silly, but if shaky memory serves, it doesn't use the word 'global'. Would be
rather telling if it did.

>> It encourages people to treat their own lives as worthless and depraved.

> Which is bad, because..

It causes one to have a weak mind, leaving them open to be controlled. The 'sacrifice now in
exchange for later benefits' philosophy is one of exploitation. Convince someone that their
life is worth nothing, and you can get them to do anything. This is not a motivation of god,
it is a motivation of man. God doesn't need to convince you that you and/or your family is
worthless, as he would be quite capable of doing his own work.

> Under this doctrine, you would, for example, be morally justified in torturing me until I become Christian again.

That's what we've BEEN doing.

> we don't know that there is a real coin.

You see an imprint of a coin in the ground, it implies there is one. Unless of course you
believe the dirt was just assumed that arrangement of its own accord over enough time.
Personally, I don't have that much faith.

> Things that aren't written down have a way of... evolving... over time

Again, memory warning, but I think there was/is a threat of eternal damnation for changing
the bible (or maybe just parts of it), so that would have had some effect of quality control.

Dorten

12-10-2010, 09:03 AM

FACT:
Why are you so sure about it? I'd rather called it a hypothesis.

The chance
It's not the chance we are speaking of. Chance is something random ,while convincing is not!

of your post
And how do you call it "your" if it consists primarily of quotes?

convincing the opposing side
Here I agree. Convincing would be superb.

in
In what?

an argument is directly proportional to the amount
Here I lost you. How can be an argument proportional to amount?:confused:

of times you quote his writing for a rebuttal.
Do you even know what a rebuttal is?

There are not NEARLY enough QUOTE tags in here people.
Oh, RLY?

Dorten

12-10-2010, 09:14 AM

[COLOR="#1A557A"]
It causes one to have a weak mind, leaving them open to be controlled.
Very common mistake.
In a couple of words: concidering yourself to be less valuable than others does not imply considering yourself less right about something.
More elaborated answer... You know it. Go read books. It's all there.

fazisi

12-10-2010, 09:26 AM

It encourages its followers to support dictators and tyrants.
Where?
The entire religion prepares followers for this. It teaches its followers to accept law and power from a single source. This was quickly adapted by the Roman Empire and many empires to follow. Politics and religion go hand in hand very nicely.

Oh, and any law system, that says, that you should obey police, for example, encourages subjugation of people by police officers?
Too many commas. People have to read these things.

Funny. Wherever I look into Bible or christian teachings, I see the idea of complete personal responsibility for actions.
When I look into christian teachings, I see the idea of using the divine scapegoat as your free ticket out of eternal damnation and perfect excuse to sin every day of the week as long as you show up to church on one of them.

Old Testament, yes. People like that at that times were not 'curable' from sin. Not now.
God didn't think that one through very well, did He? The only solution to being born in the wrong place or being born with the wrong genetic makeup was for God's people to kill you?
It is all God's plan.

It encourages people to treat their own lives as worthless and depraved.
When you don't value your own life, how much value are you going to give someone else? Think about it a little.

And you don't find this outrageously immoral? Oh, wait, right. Everything your God does is moral, even the things that are clearly not. Never mind.
You'll be surprised, how many things that are 'clearly' not moral are moral. And how many things that are 'clearly' moral are not. Because to see such things really clearly you should be as clean from sin as possible. And that's very hard to achieve.
I will agree with some things may not be as clear as they seem when weighed in on the moral scales. However, I know a stink even if I smell. You don't always have to be pure of sin and holy as God to realize when something is right or wrong.

Dorten

12-10-2010, 09:46 AM

The entire religion prepares followers for this. It teaches its followers to accept law and power from a single source. This was quickly adapted by the Roman Empire and many empires to follow. Politics and religion go hand in hand very nicely.
It teaches its followers to accept law and power from a single source only to the point where it starts to be against God. Christianity says to obey law only if it is not evil law. There wouldn't be so many executed christians in first ceturies in other case.

Too many commas. People have to read these things. Sorry, I'm used to Russian punctuation rules. And there are lots of commas :)

When I look into christian teachings, I see the idea of using the divine scapegoat as your free ticket out of eternal damnation and perfect excuse to sin every day of the week as long as you show up to church on one of them. You are clearly looking in wrong direction. The bolded part is against one of statements of Bible itself. I can't say which, as I do not know the Bible so well as JellySlayer, but it say that "sin and confess, sin and confess" method do not work

When you don't value your own life, how much value are you going to give someone else? Think about it a little. We are still speaking about Christianity, and not about any random man, who does not value his life for random reasons.

I will agree with some things may not be as clear as they seem when weighed in on the moral scales. However, I know a stink even if I smell. You don't always have to be pure of sin and holy as God to realize when something is right or wrong. Not always of course. But in some cases you have to. And sometimes when you breath fresh air after long time of breathing smoke it smells terrible.

JellySlayer

12-10-2010, 03:40 PM

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/great-flood-faq.htm
Very simple. You can believe it. You can not believe it. No proof, only evidence.

Please tell me you aren't serious.

Just in case you are, here's (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html) a non-exhaustive treatment of the problem. You don't need to respond to this.

Verily I say unto you, there are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
That's about Transfiguration. Not about the End of Days.

That isn't really suggested by the text. More to the point, the early Christian traditions believed that Jesus would return within their lifetimes. It was only much later that, as Christians realized that Jesus' return wasn't imminent, that they were forced to reinterpret all of the passages where he points to his return being extremely soon.

[Text of Romans 13:1-7]
So... Where's support there?

Rulers are divinely ordained by God. They are only in power because God wants them in power. It follows then, that if your ruler is a tyrant or a dictator, you were not to oppose them because they were placed their by God for your benefit.

This analogy fails on several levels. Anyone can become a police officer. Obedience to police officers is not always required, and certainly not under every circumstance. Police are ultimately responsible to the people and their powers (or they themselves) can be removed/reformed by the people that they are responsible to. Giving inappropriate power to police for their station is called a "police state", which is considered extremely oppressive and undesirable.

That's where the analogy does not fail. And that rules out subjugation.

No, it doesn't rule out subjugation at all. Police are responsible to the people because the people give them the powers and authority that they have. This power and authority can be taken away by the people. By comparison, the biblical relationship is that men are sovereign to women in the way that God is sovereign to man. This requires absolute obedience, without any input from women as to what powers men ought to be allowed to have. This is the identical relationship that the Bible uses to describe how slaves should behave towards their masters.

And now again. Where did you get this noncense? "this doctrine" says, that it cannot be spread by force, among other tings. Cause the one who says, that he believes, because he was forced to will not really believe. That's simple, really.

The Church has been spreading the Word by force for as long as there has been a Church. The ends justify the means has been the governing philosophy of Christianity for nearly two millenia. And uh... you'd be surprised what people can be made to believe--really believe--under duress. See Stockholm syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome), for example.

Again commo catholic/protestant mistake of sin being guilt. And to go to heaven you must be good and moral. Crucifixion of Christ does not save you automatically, you know. It just gives you the ability to accept God's help in cleaning yourself from sin, nothing more.

As I said before, accepting the sacrifice of someone else on your behalf is neither good nor moral.

That's why Writing were needed, orf course. But still, first there was only spoken word.

Ah, yes, the spoken word. So infinitely reliable that there's no way that it could ever be altered as it is passed from one person to the next. I mean, I can, of course, remember, word for word, all of the teachings from my courses at university and recite all of the lectures verbatim. And the person I'm reciting the lectures to can, I'm sure, recall the lectures that I've recited well enough that, thirty years down the road, can recite those lectures to her children, word for word. And three hundred years from now, I'm sure that people will be able to take the words from the great-great-great-great-great grandchildren of that person and be able to reconstruct the lecture.

Yeah, a lot of faith is needed, that's for sure.

It teaches its followers to accept law and power from a single source only to the point where it starts to be against God. Christianity says to obey law only if it is not evil law. There wouldn't be so many executed christians in first ceturies in other case.

Somewhat ironicially, many early Christians were executed because the Romans considered them to be atheist.

gut

12-10-2010, 05:54 PM

> The ends justify the means has been the governing philosophy of Christianity for nearly two millenia

not so.

> accepting the sacrifice of someone else on your behalf is neither good nor moral.

then you should promptly move to a country with no military. I recommend Liechtenstein ;)

fazisi

12-11-2010, 02:26 AM

The entire religion prepares followers for this. It teaches its followers to accept law and power from a single source. This was quickly adapted by the Roman Empire and many empires to follow. Politics and religion go hand in hand very nicely.
It teaches its followers to accept law and power from a single source only to the point where it starts to be against God. Christianity says to obey law only if it is not evil law. There wouldn't be so many executed christians in first ceturies in other case.
There were many executed christians in first centuries because it was teaching there should be a source of power from someone other than the Ceaser. There were many other reasons for this as well.

However, someone finally saw the benefit in having a supernatural source of power and simply claiming to be the sole human capable of dictating the supernatural's word to the masses. Follow this with several hundred years of this supernatural source's word only being written and spoken in Latin when most commoners do not understand the language. Who is to know if a law is evil or if it is God's word in this situation? Many holy wars were carried out as moral actions.

When I look into christian teachings, I see the idea of using the divine scapegoat as your free ticket out of eternal damnation and perfect excuse to sin every day of the week as long as you show up to church on one of them.
You are clearly looking in wrong direction. The bolded part is against one of statements of Bible itself. I can't say which, as I do not know the Bible so well as JellySlayer, but it say that "sin and confess, sin and confess" method do not work
I may be looking in the wrong direction, but I sure see what I am talking about. Surely, you are aware there are some christian denominations that do teach this method of salvation. These ones seem to be the most popular since they make it pretty easy to collect your ticket to the pearly gates.

We are still speaking about Christianity, and not about any random man, who does not value his life for random reasons.
So a Christian who does not value his life for some random reason is different than any other man who does not value his life?

infernovia

12-14-2010, 08:06 AM

You guys really shouldn't have linked this....

So, you like formal proofs? OK. Where's your 100% proof that there were no Flood?
Dude, the foundation of modern Geology was people searching for the obvious evidence of the flood (if you look superficially, there are tons of places you can start off in, and that is what they did). But this guy not only realized that not only was there no evidence of a global Flood (there are tons of evidence of more limited flood in vastly different time period, as there should be), but that the timespan was too small to work. So, facing incredible amounts of evidence against his belief, he did the smart thing and changed his belief. These guys were devout christians who were trying to prove the Christian history, but they weren't blind enough to not see what was in front of their face.

I mean we have gut here talking about imprints of a coin implying that there is a coin. We aren't even talking about imprints of a coin, but massive geological formation changes.

As for the idea that evolution is a bunch of chance elements, yeah you can look at it like that. In fact, the whole universe is a flux anyway and you can't isolate one thing from another, so the basis of this idea is not correct (the idea itself is a misinterpretation of this basic idea).

Platonist ideas mutilating evolution
What made the universe begin? What was before everything? We don't know. And we can't, because the universe is defined as "everything." How is it even possible to know such things? We would have no way of actually interacting with it (and if we did, it would be part of the universe, so we would have to account for how THAT began).

How can you get complex interaction like what we have? By enormous expenditure of power. The suns create the higher elements of atom through fusion power (these can be expelled in death or just generally) which are then collected in the gravity well of the new suns. These higher elements form the rocky planets in the interior of the well due to their mass. This can sometime form the correct amount of energy to form a chemical process that can--not just eat, every chemical interaction is an abstraction of the giving/taking of energy--but even self-replicate using a chemical reaction as a basis.

This then goes on until the chemical process is taken apart by the chemical interaction outside of it. But this isn't the only thing that can happen, the very basis of its replication will be affected by the chemical interaction. These mutations changes the way the organism is created and how they interact with their environment. Eventually, in the span of billions of years, one of these mutations allows them to also interact with the self-replicating process, that is by injecting their gene to something else. We are especially interested in the gene that also forces the newly created organism to also be able to inject this same gene to others. This naturally catches on as it creates even more variations (it creates more die rolls) which creates "new" organisms faster to expand their basis.

Then naturally, the genes that can get the most energy (photosynthesis, eating or w/e) will populate faster as long as they can pass the genes to the later generation. And this selective process continues until the environment is ripe for more complex organisms which can feed off of the energy used by these guys (it naturally needs to eat a heck of a lot more). And in the span of millions of years, that even these guys will be eaten by even bigger guys, etc. That is as long as there is enough energy and little guys to feed the big guy.

So its a selective property. The chance is not as infintisemal as you make it out to be. Is it fragile? Certainly, after all, when the sun dies we will all be gone along with it. But is it wrong on that account? no.

And this fragility doesn't extend to all things. Just think of the cockroach. It can survive just based on the sheer population variation.