Creation vs. Evolution

[gcthomas]

Science is NOT all there is. It is a secondary add-on to life, in point of fact. Life is about family, love, friends and science plays an assessorie part. Hiding behind it for all truth is an abuse of what it actually 'can' do. It can't do that for you or anybody.

Family, friends, love? Absolutely agree with that. But religion still has nothing to offer my on top of that.

 

[Lon]

Family, friends, love? Absolutely agree with that. But religion still has nothing to offer my on top of that.

It is like having groceries but saying you don't need a farmer....

We will fill our lives with junk or with things supposed to be there, perhaps a combination, but missing God means a lot of necessary is missing. Again, the man with one arm wouldn't think two arms are necessary.

In the end, you miss both the eternal and eternity. That is a horrible trade-off, no matter what you got and are happy with. The satisfaction is too shallow and too settling. I realize I can't argue you into such, but I will pray for you. God is there. Not needing Him isn't the best response.

 

[gcthomas]

It is like having groceries but saying you don't need a farmer....

We will fill our lives with junk or with things supposed to be there, perhaps a combination, but missing God means a lot of necessary is missing. Again, the man with one arm wouldn't think two arms are necessary.

In the end, you miss both the eternal and eternity. That is a horrible trade-off, no matter what you got and are happy with. The satisfaction is too shallow and too settling. I realize I can't argue you into such, but I will pray for you. God is there. Not needing Him isn't the best response.

I appreciate the concern, but you have given nothing but assertion based on your gut feeling that there must be something more than we can see and measure. From my end, I see your position as the horrible trade-off, one where you feel the need of an imaginary crutch, where the world as it objectively appears is not enough for you.

I treasure the world as it appears to be, and I will live my life as if it is the only one I will get. What is wrong or shallow with that?

 

[Lon]

So what reason do you have to doubt the existence of Bertrand Russell's teapot, orbiting the sun just out of sight?

I don't. There isn't a vested interest in worry about, or spaghetti wearing a colander hat. There is, if a God exists. You could ask why I'm not Mormon but that isn't the same conversation. However, I did look. If one of them said he could prove Mormonism were true, I'd listen. I do know God is there, I just don't believe He was a man just like you and I. That has significant logical problems. I know something has had to have always existed, eternally. There is no escaping that. The Mormon doesn't account for that. We are getting off topic ("I" rather, but taking you with me), however I'm trying to say there is a difference between various skepticism. Some are more logical than others, AND some are more vested in our interest than others. I'm not sure the teapot is such a driving force, whereas, I think a claim of Intelligent Creator of the Universe is incredibly more compelling. If 80% of the population said that they were convinced we came from aliens, and that one of the aliens was coming to an arena near me, I'd think (granting I'd no idea of a Creator God) that I'd be sitting in attendance, rather than 'naw, that's okay, I'm good, don't believe he'll be there anyway.'

So 98% are deluded. So what? That's not the rate of god belief in the population, of course, in fact it's not even close to the rate of god belief in most christian denominations. 13% of Church of England vicars are atheists.

This last part is crazy. Churches in England and some of the inept priests in England, have always fascinated me, or rather caused me and still cause me to cringe. I am not sure what has happened in England, but some British atheists make more sense to me. I cannot fathom there are no truly Christian pastors left in England and I'm baffled that the poor ones get the spotlight. I'd think some of it media presentation, but you saying 13%? I wouldn't be an atheist, but I'd certainly avoid calling such a 'Christian' church and attending there.

So we each have different sets of facts, somehow, but by my definition of the word fact your facts concerning a conspiracy theory of gods running the universe don't stand up because they are not supported by unambiguous evidence, or indeed by any reason TO believe. Maybe we have different definitions of the word fact.

:doh: See what I mean? You don't even know what they are, haven't asked what they are. You immediately went to protecting something you value and thus questioned if 'facts' means the same thing to me. I realize I cannot argue you into the kingdom of God, but I can pray for you. God is, in fact a player in this Universe as it is His.

The reason to question your god beliefs is that the human brain is notorious for seeing patterns even when there aren't really any patterns. But the opposite behaviour is no way to survive on the African savannah. If you think you heard a sabre tooth and hide, then you survive whether there is a sabre tooth there or not.

Given there are no Sabre tooths there are still large predators and herbivores. I think I'd run, at least the first couple of times. I would not, in fact, think them deluded. Multiply that times the population of the entire planet and you are either in the Twilight Zone, or there is something to it. For me, even if I ever could forget what I know about God and doubt, I couldn't be an atheist in light of such staggering fact. Mass 'something' does not equate to hysteria. That's an odd conclusion. I 'think' it is more often the rigid 'do this, not that...this is bad" that turns people off. Such should not be allowed to influence your view of whether that being exists or not however.

Are you saying I haven't investigated? I think I have investigated circles around you.

:nono: Your laziness here only proves that to me. You haven't asked, not even once.

No, I think gravity works much better than Big Bang. It really is gravity that does all that sorting of the water and land, and indeed the matter that makes up the planets.

Can you show me that in a science journal? You were probably were trying for something here, but the example eludes me. I was asking you to show me where science could have a problem with Genesis. There isn't much in cosmology that you could compare the Bible to in the first place, but if I am reading correctly, all you are saying is you'd answer "God separated the waters [by gravity]. If He set the solar system in place, gravity is already part of orbiting around that sun.

From a brief trip to NYC I can believe that for myself too.

If I grew up there, that might be a different story. I'm just saying I prefer the isolated places, though they are farther and fewer.

Evolution by natural selection isn't a recommendation for an ethical system, it is an explanation for how the biological world works. It is a fact that human behaviours are adaptations that increase our fitness for survival and reproduction. The adaptations of a lion or chimpanzee would not work for humans, but that doesn't mean we can't learn from other species about how behavioural adaptation works.

Scientifically, it is a theory, and one I don't really buy into. I don't have much in common with the ape. I've seen enough of them and videos/television nature channels. I am far too complex and beyond that. Again, I don't believe in common ancestry, but even you are making a mistake here: Science does not believe in a linear Darwin table. It is a branch. We are not related to chimpanzees, even among science thinking, the way you suggest. Keep in mind too, I do not agree with scientists, I'd only said even you should distance from calling your son or daughter an ape. It indeed, is demeaning, the same as calling me an amoeba. The simplistic, even from a science perspective, is a derision with the comparison. If I call you 'monkey-brain' or ape or caveman, you should take it as an insult. Science is rarely delicate, but that dad should NOT take his work and terms home to his kids.

Your cells are a bit different to those of a plant, but they do indeed share a very ancient common ancestor. There is no denying common ancestry. Unless you want to be really perverse. The evidence for that is overwhelming....I don't follow your analogy, sorry.

One and the same here. We know a master's art pieces by his/her signatures. That is, he repeats himself. I think what you refer to as common descent/ascent, is nothing more than noticing signatures. I have no problem exactly how close one creating thing is to another, but I don't think it necessitates a scientific must that one is derived from the other, by any stretch. See, Darwin only 'speculated' that. The same stamps, imo, do not necessitate that kind of logic. I have no real problem if in creating kinds, God remolded something even, just that the Bible says "after its kind." You can see, I'd hope, that you could read that passage of scripture, without being against anything in it. That was my point for saying 'show me.' I could even be 'biblically' wrong. I believe it best to take as much of the Bible as literally as I can, simply because I'd be egocentrically rewriting it to fit my own needs if I didn't, but I do realize the Creation account is very much a gloss-over summation. I'd think God wants us to be good scientists in that light. The Bereans, afterall, were more noble than their counterparts because they did seek a matter out.

But there's nothing there! Obviously! Talk about the emperor's new clothes.

What makes you assume that? Let me ask a good science method question: How did you go about trying to find Him?

 

[Lon]

I appreciate the concern, but you have given nothing but assertion based on your gut feeling that there must be something more than we can see and measure.

Gut feeling? God says He WILL be found by those who seek Him earnestly. That's not a 'gut feeling.' It is a truth that can be scientifically proven. Christianity always ever has been one person at a time. He lifts up the humble and opposes the proud. I have much more than gut-feeling having gone through this, but because God makes Christians, it is always done on an individual basis. I can give reasonable answers to why He exists. An actual encounter can only be between you and God.

From my end, I see your position as the horrible trade-off, one where you feel the need of an imaginary crutch, where the world as it objectively appears is not enough for you.

Without getting into it, it was horrible. As to crutch, Colossians 1:16-18 says you can't even breath without Him. If I have one, you are simply denying your own. We both are dependent upon air. Go ahead, try to stop breathing, you can't get away from any crutch that actually sustains your life. You may not be 'aware' of air, but that doesn't mean you can stop breathing it. I am aware that God sustains you, whether you are aware or acknowledge that fact. If I am right (I am, I'm hypothesizing for you), it is a bit presumptuous to be blatantly against the very thing that provides you life.

I treasure the world as it appears to be, and I will live my life as if it is the only one I will get. What is wrong or shallow with that?

I think it good, but if God indeed 'spoke to us these later days through His Son,' then not listening could be considered rude, at the least. If there is a God, and desires all men to turn to Him, you can of course ignore that request. I had to find out. If conversely (in place of, hypothetically) an alien came to earth and claimed to have seeded it, with humanity, for a purpose, I'd have to find out. "Why am I here?" is fundamentally part of my make-up. You've come up with "no particular reason." Even 'if' that was my first reason and I found it satisfactory, "Wrong!" from somebody would have me looking simply because I don't want to live by convenience or what's comfortable, or even appealing, but rather, what is true, even if it messes up my little world.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Fair warning, I'm going to call a lot of your thought processes into question here:
Look, there are liberal Christians, and they are born-again Christians, that believe the conveyance is the point, not necessarily that it is meant to be a literal conveyance. I am not at all one of those liberals, but I'm saying I'm not buying your whole-sale rejection. It is an excuse, nothing less. Sorry, you don't 'want' it and that's about as juvenile and ego-centric as it gets. As far as intelligence goes, I do not believe atheism is logical, intelligent, or honest. It is literally saying whatever I have to say, you disbelieve it. In effect, you are calling me a liar just for the heck of it, and by that I mean for no good 'reason.' It is anti-intellectual. I don't care what fancy dance an atheist tries to make after this point, they are all coping mechanisms. I know God exists and that really is the end of the story against an inane atheist assertion because frankly, you are 'just' being inane and shallow. "If" I were an atheist, I'd be 1) a LOT more honest without hiding behind blind assertions and 2) I'd still be honest, I'd sure as heck ask someone like me why they are so sure and I'd be a better scientist and try to actually find out. Bottom line? You simply "Don't want to." Own that, it has nothing to do with honesty or veracity and, in fact, is very much against it.
I certainly don't play.

This says a lot about you, while you were yet in the arena of at least a potentially-Christian circle. You and possibly they, were dead. Of course you don't think you need what you were born without. I'd simply tell the one-armed man that he doesn't know what he is missing as he continues to reject the enrichment. Christianity is more than an enrichment, it is love. People without families raised in orphanages might not know what it is like, but they aren't closed to wanting an adoptive family. Something odd exists in the atheist that this is his/her preference. Put another way: If I were an atheist, and found out there 'might' be a Creator being in the universe, I'd want to know Him, not doubt Him. That never (ever) makes logical sense. Again, atheism is just untenable on so many levels. It is counter everything, including intelligence, but not limited. It is a shallow individual that would even 'want' to embrace such a dismal closure to possibility. It is bad enough that you don't want to seek such a thing out. That's not even good science or a good scientific mind, let alone poor inquiry and discovery. It really is just stagnant indoctrination and settling for the shallow. Why? To protect something, whatever it is. I posit whatever that thing is, it is unworthy of such close-minded protection. Atheism is close-minded. It is even anti-science.

:nono: You were a passenger, and on-looker. You weren't a participant, couldn't have been. Why? Because you never really listened to my story or any other's about why they know beyond doubts of reason, that God exists.

:doh: EVEN scientists are trying to figure out 'how' to do this you knucklehead. Again, some liberals doubt this too, but take the heart of the story and live as if it is central whether the thing happened or not. Story and history, always serve this function, it is why we have fiction and nonfiction in our libraries. You'd lambast a person for wanting to believe in Santa Claus, even if they were only 8 :noway: I never did teach my kids Santa exists, but the story is okay. It teaches something about love and wonder. It is 'okay' for kids to believe in Santa because it teaches love and giving as well as provides wonder to a child. Developmentally, make-believe is 'necessary,' I've learned from my developmental classes, for a child's growth and critical thinking. "What if" is make-believe. We could not have gone to the moon without it. The atheist, literally turns off this portion of his brain. He not only shuns religion, he shuns scientific inquiry as well. Again, I assert: No atheist ever did but a cursory job of asking me why I so adamantly believe. They'd likely come to believe, so I can understand why, but this isn't honesty. This is simply 'happy where I am' and settling. Truth demands more of us and this person is lazy or happy in addiction that isn't good for him/her.
Well, yes, men and women live for their computers and cell-phones BUT I'm not sure I'd call that advancement. Technology serves mankind, mankind does not serve technology. It is supposed to be the same with Government. I disagreed with Kennedy, I do ask what my government can do for me, but that is 'why' it exists and I pay for it. When it stops doing that, I'd like to put my resources somewhere where it will actually serve community. It is the same with science. If it serves man, great. If it demands I serve it, no dice. I live for love, family, friends, and community, to benefit man. Science plays a 'supporting' role ONLY.

:nono: Science can and is done by everybody. It is simply trying to figure out how to harvest the grain and keep myself healthy while I harvest it. That's all science is. All the bells and whistles will never change that. I'm all for curiosity and how things work. The sad thing is science pushes religion away (and likely vise versa). A good scientist would likely prod me relentlessly as to why I know there is a God.

Atheist don't 'want' to know and sadly, even some scientist who should know better, don't want to know. They are happy where they are, in ignorance, and excusing behavior of platitudes and confirmation bias as you've displayed here. I am not trying to convince you there is a God, I'm trying to tell show you that you don't care. You are an atheist, so of course you already know that, but as I said too, I don't think it tenable, just the desire you have, regardless of truth.

Dear Lon,

You are a godsend to be here and taste what I get to bear every day. Now you know how frustrating it can be. I used to be such a nice guy, but with an atheist, it is too hard to be nice. I recently gave up on trying. Never again. I wished a better life for them, but they want what they already have. They 'think' they are just going to die at the end of this life and be unconscious forever. Wait until they find out they are going to suffer forever. And people wonder why God has created a hell?? They 'spit' in God's eye every hour of every day, so it would not surprise me that He doesn't want to waste His time trying to set them aright! Let them believe what they want. Let the weeds grow with the tares, and in the end the weeds will be burnt up and the tares can be harvested without harm.

Do you see how feeble the brain can be? It's like talking to a scientific DUNCE!! Everyone on TOL must think that I am terrible after these over 3 years since I've been here. I've never met such inept, daft thinking. I didn't want them to go to hell, so I tried extraordinarily hard. Don't be like me as far as that point goes. You're wasting your time. If you're dealing with atheists on a daily basis, it is hard to be kind all of the time. They have turned me into a monster, but I rise above it. They will get what they so sorely deserve, so don't worry, Lon. You are spectacular for all of your gracious and well-educated excellent words to DavisBJ, et al. Just let it go. It's not worth it after all. I've tried for over three years now!! They have even tarnished my name and word. Next thing, they will try to get you to do something you'd rather not. Just thought you'd like to know. And evolution still remains a 'theory.' I also know why God lets them continue on the path that they have chosen.

You Have Such A Noble And Loving Heart!! May God Always Call You A Dear Son, Indeed!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Science has only explained microprocessors, nuclear bombs and genetic engineering. OK. But if science didn't create them, what did?

Dear gcthomas,

Not what did? It is Who did! God spoke to the thoughts of certain men to 'make' things for man's sake. Thus the need for microprocessors and genetic engineering. Some day you'll understand why. For now, look at ALL of the wars that NEVER HAPPENED because of Nuclear Bombs. With the threat that countries would annihilate each other, nuclear arms has served us well. Do you understand what I'm saying here? We have nuclear bombs, but we can't use them, because some other country might use theirs too. So now, we are still stuck fighting on the ground with our troops. You'd think we could just nuke the offending country, but then they might be amigos of Russia, so Russia would bomb us and we would nuke them and no one would win. It is called deterrence.

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

A researcher might come up with the idea that a particular substance can act against cancer cells. That researcher's job is to do what they can to prove it's not. If there is evidence that the cancer cells continue to be affected after every other possible causal factor has been eliminated (for example some impurity in the drug preparation that is actually having the effect) then you could call that a theory of cancer treatment. That's what I mean by trying to disprove the idea. Once you have the initial idea, you do everything you can to disprove it.


That statement hinges on your understanding of the word know. My understanding of the word know is that I can know facts, where the denial of those facts would be perverse given the evidence. It is not perverse to say there are no gods, except in the imaginations of believers in them. There is no unambiguous evidence whatsoever for gods.

But let's go to the level of knowing from gut instinct. Nothing I have ever seen about the universe tells me I should conclude there is some kind of supermind in operation. I get exactly the opposite gut instinct. If you read Genesis 1, replacing the word God with the word gravity, it makes slightly more sense. Of course the verses in which gravity names things don't make sense, but at least it doesn't make less sense than the original!

Gen 1:1 In the beginning, gravity created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of gravity was hovering over the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And gravity said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
Gen 1:4 And gravity saw that the light was good. And gravity separated the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 gravity called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
Gen 1:6 And gravity said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
Gen 1:7 And gravity made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so.
Gen 1:8 And gravity called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
Gen 1:9 And gravity said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so.
Gen 1:10 gravity called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And gravity saw that it was good.
Gen 1:11 And gravity said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth." And it was so.
Gen 1:12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And gravity saw that it was good.
Gen 1:13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.


The Amish are a really interesting example, because the ones whose job is sharpening agricultural blades do use electricity, and if an ambulance is needed they will use a telephone belonging to a non-Amish neighbour. I think they have decided that modern technology is useful but they are slow to introduce it directly into the community because of their fear of its effects on their way of life, which is very community-oriented. In some ways this is very backward but in other ways it is very smart (and very repressive too). So I would think that they of all people are motivated to really understand electricity, and not just as a theory of electrons moving in a wire, but as a whole theory of social change too. Of course I don't believe they all get that education... education tends to have the disadvantage of freeing people.


The differences between bonobos and chimpanzees that arose when the original population was split by the arising of the Congo river have happened because of the food supply for each group on each side, and the way that they had to carry their young when searching for food. Bonobos are much more cooperative and chimpanzees are much more competitive, partly as a result of that difference. Humans are much more like chimpanzees than bonobos. So I hope you see that knowledge of how our closest cousin species have evolved shines light on what it is to be a modern human. Make no mistake. We are apes. Ask Carl Linneaus, the creationist who first categorised us as such.


I don't particularly like the word atheist. I am all sorts of other things, but the word atheist defines me in terms of others' imaginary friends. That is why my profile has never shown that word. But I am unquestionably an atheist and not embarrassed about it. Do you actually know any atheists as personal friends?


Evolution by natural selection is the central organising principle of all biology, and because it explains how complexity can arise by natural processes it is an important principle in many other fields too.
Without evolution, biology is (as Rutherford would have called it) stamp collecting.

Stuart

Dear Stuart,

Carl Linneaus would not convince me that we are descended from apes. God created apes and He created mankind. Carl would just like us to believe that so he can have his 15 mins. of fame. Evolution has not been proven to me by scientists. The fact is, God does not want you atheists to believe in Him, lest you repent, and He has to Save you/let you into Heaven. So don't worry, He will not change your belief system at all. You're going down! And don't see me as the bad guy here. You chose what you want, so enjoy it. Yippee!! Two hundred years of science is suppose to change thousands of years of the Scriptures known as The Bible? I don't think so at all!!

Hopefully, this knowledge will help others in the future.

Michael

 

[Caino]

Family, friends, love? Absolutely agree with that. But religion still has nothing to offer my on top of that.

From my religious book:

101:10.5 "The purpose of religion is not to satisfy curiosity about God but rather to afford intellectual constancy and philosophic security, to stabilize and enrich human living by blending the mortal with the divine, the partial with the perfect, man and God. It is through religious experience that man's concepts of ideality are endowed with reality.

101:10.6 Never can there be either scientific or logical proofs of divinity. Reason alone can never validate the values and goodnesses of religious experience. But it will always remain true: Whosoever wills to do the will of God shall comprehend the validity of spiritual values. This is the nearest approach that can be made on the mortal level to offering proofs of the reality of religious experience. Such faith affords the only escape from the mechanical clutch of the material world and from the error distortion of the incompleteness of the intellectual world; it is the only discovered solution to the impasse in mortal thinking regarding the continuing survival of the individual personality. It is the only passport to completion of reality and to eternity of life in a universal creation of love, law, unity, and progressive Deity attainment.

101:10.7 Religion effectually cures man's sense of idealistic isolation or spiritual loneliness; it enfranchises the believer as a son of God, a citizen of a new and meaningful universe. Religion assures man that, in following the gleam of righteousness discernible in his soul, he is thereby identifying himself with the plan of the Infinite and the purpose of the Eternal. Such a liberated soul immediately begins to feel at home in this new universe, his universe.

101:10.8 When you experience such a transformation of faith, you are no longer a slavish part of the mathematical cosmos but rather a liberated volitional son of the Universal Father. No longer is such a liberated son fighting alone against the inexorable doom of the termination of temporal existence; no longer does he combat all nature, with the odds hopelessly against him; no longer is he staggered by the paralyzing fear that, perchance, he has put his trust in a hopeless phantasm or pinned his faith to a fanciful error.

101:10.9 Now, rather, are the sons of God enlisted together in fighting the battle of reality's triumph over the partial shadows of existence. At last all creatures become conscious of the fact that God and all the divine hosts of a well-nigh limitless universe are on their side in the supernal struggle to attain eternity of life and divinity of status. Such faith-liberated sons have certainly enlisted in the struggles of time on the side of the supreme forces and divine personalities of eternity; even the stars in their courses are now doing battle for them; at last they gaze upon the universe from within, from God's viewpoint, and all is transformed from the uncertainties of material isolation to the sureties of eternal spiritual progression. Even time itself becomes but the shadow of eternity cast by Paradise realities upon the moving panoply of space." UB 1955

 

[chrysostom]

The purpose of religion is not to satisfy curiosity about God but rather to afford intellectual constancy and philosophic security, to stabilize and enrich human living by blending the mortal with the divine, the partial with the perfect, man and God.

the purpose of religion
-is
-to protect and preserve beliefs that have withstood the test of time

 

[Caino]

the purpose of religion
-is
-to protect and preserve beliefs that have withstood the test of time

Well, the enemies of Jesus were dedicated to the preservation of their beliefs which had withstood the test of time. Think Chrysostom, think instead of kneejerk disagreeing with ideas before giving them full consideration. Had Abraham stuck with the religion of his father from beyond the rivers he would not have been open to the agreement. My quote was directed at the Atheist quibblers who see no reason for religion in their lives.

 

[chrysostom]

Think Chrysostom, think instead of kneejerk disagreeing with ideas before giving them full consideration.

I am just trying to protect and preserve the meaning and purpose of religion

 

[gcthomas]

From my religious book:

Er, OK. But has no-one told you that holy book quotes are unlikely to do anything for atheists?

101:10.6 … it is the only discovered solution to the impasse in mortal thinking regarding the continuing survival of the individual personality. It is the only passport to completion of reality and to eternity of life in a universal creation of love, law, unity, and progressive Deity attainment.

Hmm - seems rather self interested. Believe this and you will have eternal life where everything is better than the present? One advantage of realising the finite nature of one's existence is that the focus is on what one can do for the rather more long lived society to which I contribute. Less about me, and what I can be rewarded with, but what my eternal effect is to be.

101:10.7 Religion effectually cures man's sense of idealistic isolation or spiritual loneliness;

Spiritual company, as an alternative to human and intellectual company? No thanks.

101:10.8 When you experience such a transformation of faith, you are no longer a slavish part of the mathematical cosmos but rather a liberated volitional son of the Universal Father. No longer is such a liberated son fighting alone against the inexorable doom of the termination of temporal existence; no longer does he combat all nature, with the odds hopelessly against him; no longer is he staggered by the paralyzing fear that, perchance, he has put his trust in a hopeless phantasm or pinned his faith to a fanciful error.

Inexorable doom of termination? Yup - that's the way it is, and the realisation is exhilarating and liberating. No longer will you have to consider an afterlife, following someone else's rules to earn the chance, but you can focus all your dreams and efforts on developing and living the one life you actually have, leaving the world behind a better place for having lived in it.

101:10.9 … and all is transformed from the uncertainties of material isolation to the sureties of eternal spiritual progression. Even time itself becomes but the shadow of eternity cast by Paradise realities upon the moving panoply of space." UB 1955

Ignore the real uncertainties and limitations and replace them with wishful hope that reality is better than it seems, relying on wish fulfilment? Sounds like a rather vague and empty promise to me.

Live your life now, Caino! Live it for your mortal self, and your hopefully immortal family line, and your lasting intellectual or practical contributions to society, if you have the skills to do so.

 

[Caino]

I am just trying to protect and preserve the meaning and purpose of religion

We don't have a disagreement on that. Religious institutions haven't been perfect but they have preserved important truths.

 

[Stuu]

Dear Stuart,

Carl Linneaus would not convince me that we are descended from apes. God created apes and He created mankind. Carl would just like us to believe that so he can have his 15 mins. of fame.

All Linnaeus did was to classify plant and animals according to their similarities. Humans are very similar to the other great apes, so he classified us as great apes. What other category would we belong to? A special one of our own because we are special? Nonsense. We are animals, and we are apes.

Evolution has not been proven to me by scientists.

You are quite special, aren't you. Do you think they should come around to your house and testify, or something? Science is not like Mormonism or Jehovah Witnessing. It's not an evangelical sporting activity. You read and you learn. I know you write, but do you read and learn Michael?

The fact is, God does not want you atheists to believe in Him, lest you repent, and He has to Save you/let you into Heaven.

That's not what your book of talking donkeys says. But it makes little difference to me.

So don't worry, He will not change your belief system at all. You're going down! And don't see me as the bad guy here. You chose what you want, so enjoy it. Yippee!! Two hundred years of science is suppose to change thousands of years of the Scriptures known as The Bible? I don't think so at all!!

Scripture was never right.

Stuart (an African ape)

 

[Caino]

Er, OK. But has no-one told you that holy book quotes are unlikely to do anything for atheists?



Hmm - seems rather self interested. Believe this and you will have eternal life where everything is better than the present? One advantage of realising the finite nature of one's existence is that the focus is on what one can do for the rather more long lived society to which I contribute. Less about me, and what I can be rewarded with, but what my eternal effect is to be.



Spiritual company, as an alternative to human and intellectual company? No thanks.



Inexorable doom of termination? Yup - that's the way it is, and the realisation is exhilarating and liberating. No longer will you have to consider an afterlife, following someone else's rules to earn the chance, but you can focus all your dreams and efforts on developing and living the one life you actually have, leaving the world behind a better place for having lived in it.



Ignore the real uncertainties and limitations and replace them with wishful hope that reality is better than it seems, relying on wish fulfilment? Sounds like a rather vague and empty promise to me.

Live your life now, Caino! Live it for your mortal self, and your hopefully immortal family line, and your lasting intellectual or practical contributions to society, if you have the skills to do so.

Gcthomas, you're a rudderless ship who has come to offer humanistic despair to the saved. Even if the religious were merely imagining things, who the heck are you, with pessimistic doctrine of doubt in hand, to tell others they can't imagine things in, as you say, such an ultimately meaningless life?

There is no recollection in death silly! A life lived for the moment or in religious delusion doesn't exist anymore to recall!


"TO THE UNBELIEVING materialist, man is simply an evolutionary accident. His hopes of survival are strung on a figment of mortal imagination; his fears, loves, longings, and beliefs are but the reaction of the incidental juxtaposition of certain lifeless atoms of matter. No display of energy nor expression of trust can carry him beyond the grave. The devotional labors and inspirational genius of the best of men are doomed to be extinguished by death, the long and lonely night of eternal oblivion and soul extinction. Nameless despair is man's only reward for living and toiling under the temporal sun of mortal existence. Each day of life slowly and surely tightens the grasp of a pitiless doom which a hostile and relentless universe of matter has decreed shall be the crowning insult to everything in human desire which is beautiful, noble, lofty, and good.

But such is not man's end and eternal destiny; such a vision is but the cry of despair uttered by some wandering soul who has become lost in spiritual darkness, and who bravely struggles on in the face of the mechanistic sophistries of a material philosophy, blinded by the confusion and distortion of a complex learning. And all this doom of darkness and all this destiny of despair are forever dispelled by one brave stretch of faith on the part of the most humble and unlearned of God's children on earth.

This saving faith has its birth in the human heart when the moral consciousness of man realizes that human values may be translated in mortal experience from the material to the spiritual, from the human to the divine, from time to eternity." UB 1955

 

[gcthomas]

Gcthomas, you're a rudderless ship who has come to offer humanistic despair to the saved. Even if the religious were merely imagining things, who the heck are you, with pessimistic doctrine of doubt in hand, to tell others they can't imagine things in, as you say, such an ultimately meaningless life?

How presumptious you are! I am not rudderless, and I experience not the slightest despair, even though you seem to hope that I would — what a negative doctrine you follow. My life is not remotely meaningless, as I find meaning within rather than beyond life.

"TO THE UNBELIEVING materialist, man is simply an evolutionary accident. His hopes of survival are strung on a figment of mortal imagination; his fears, loves, longings, and beliefs are but the reaction of the incidental juxtaposition of certain lifeless atoms of matter. No display of energy nor expression of trust can carry him beyond the grave. The devotional labors and inspirational genius of the best of men are doomed to be extinguished by death, the long and lonely night of eternal oblivion and soul extinction.

That seems accurate enough, except for the bit about having a soul. I am not self-centred enough to need to have personal cosmic significance. But you are?

Nameless despair is man's only reward for living and toiling under the temporal sun of mortal existence. Each day of life slowly and surely tightens the grasp of a pitiless doom which a hostile and relentless universe of matter has decreed shall be the crowning insult to everything in human desire which is beautiful, noble, lofty, and good.

I don't see atheists or humanists experiencing despair, or pitiless doom nor crowning insults. You are simply mislead here, being told that those who don't follow your creed are irredeemably miserable. What an anti-human opinion to hold.

But such is not man's end and eternal destiny; such a vision is but the cry of despair uttered by some wandering soul who has become lost in spiritual darkness, and who bravely struggles on in the face of the mechanistic sophistries of a material philosophy, blinded by the confusion and distortion of a complex learning. And all this doom of darkness and all this destiny of despair are forever dispelled by one brave stretch of faith on the part of the most humble and unlearned of God's children on earth.

Why do you continue on if this life and material world are such a source of despair and misery for you? The non-religious don't seem to suffer nearly as much as you seem to want and believe us to. You are a pedlar of misery and gloom. Begone! You are an empty shell of a human if you cannot see the enlightenment that comes from living in and studying the material world.

This saving faith has its birth in the human heart when the moral consciousness of man realizes that human values may be translated in mortal experience from the material to the spiritual, from the human to the divine, from time to eternity." UB 1955[/COLOR]

That is your opiate, that saves you from believing in this world that you live in — that is your huge loss, as you mask reality, and slumber in a fiction of your own imaginings. Wake up! The world is a wonderful place!

 

[Stuu]

Stuu: So what reason do you have to doubt the existence of Bertrand Russell's teapot, orbiting the sun just out of sight?

I don't. There isn't a vested interest in worry about, or spaghetti wearing a colander hat. There is, if a God exists.

The problem is you have no defense against anybody's crackpot claims. My line in the sand is unambiguous evidence. But for you it matters a great deal that your religion claims an exclusive god but has no way of ruling out Hindu, Norse or Classical gods, except by bald assertion. That sounds like a belief system that needs blind faith to survive. It doesn't stack up on its own merits.

If 80% of the population said that they were convinced we came from aliens, and that one of the aliens was coming to an arena near me, I'd think (granting I'd no idea of a Creator God) that I'd be sitting in attendance, rather than 'naw, that's okay, I'm good, don't believe he'll be there anyway.'

I understand that about 6 million Americans claim to have been abducted by aliens within the last year. You seem to be ignoring their claims. Why? Where is the cut-off percentage for you to start believing crackpots?

I wouldn't be an atheist, but I'd certainly avoid calling such a 'Christian' church and attending there.

It is the established church in England, and the reason that they can honestly call themselves a christian country. But it is mostly cultural christianity, not actual belief in Jesus magic.

You immediately went to protecting something you value and thus questioned if 'facts' means the same thing to me. I realize I cannot argue you into the kingdom of God, but I can pray for you. God is, in fact a player in this Universe as it is His.

Is that another one of your facts that isn't one of mine?

Can you show me that in a science journal? You were probably were trying for something here, but the example eludes me. I was asking you to show me where science could have a problem with Genesis. There isn't much in cosmology that you could compare the Bible to in the first place, but if I am reading correctly, all you are saying is you'd answer "God separated the waters [by gravity]. If He set the solar system in place, gravity is already part of orbiting around that sun.

Where does Genesis discuss orbiting? The only reason you find science and Genesis compatible is because you reinterpret scripture in the light of your modern knowledge (or at least the bits you accept within your set of facts).

However, Genesis says that living species were created but science disagrees. Genesis says that there were plants before there was a sun to provide the light needed for photosynthesis. That's obviously wrong. In Genesis light exist before the creation of the only objects capable of providing the kind of light it talks about. A large proportion of the creative effort of your god goes into a thing called a firmament, apparently a beaten-out solid thing stretched out across the sky. Has NASA ever crashed a rocket into that?

Scientifically, it is a theory, and one I don't really buy into.

Who cares what facts you choose not to list as facts? Your loss. Unless you vote that way as a member of a school board. Then it's the children's loss, and the making of your state into a laughing stock if too many others agree with your fact denial.

I don't have much in common with the ape.

Your body plan; 100% of your biochemistry; the same inherited inability to make your own Vitamin C; large numbers of identical retrovirus insertions in exactly the same places on the same chromosomes (proving common ancestry beyond any doubt)... it's the differences that are trivial, especially when humans are compared to chimpanzees specifically.

But I suppose those facts aren't on your list of facts.

We know a master's art pieces by his/her signatures. That is, he repeats himself. I think what you refer to as common descent/ascent, is nothing more than noticing signatures.

OK then. How about a prediction from you. Given that you say there are these signatures, repeats of the same pattern, would you predict that the same job would be found to be done the same way in different species?

What makes you assume that? Let me ask a good science method question: How did you go about trying to find Him?

Trying to find who? The god that no one has ever seen, according to John 1:18 or 1 John 4:12 or John 6:46 or Colossians 1:15 or 1 Timothy 1:17 or 1 Timothy 6:16 or, indeed Exodus 33:20?

Can you suggest a method for seeing an invisible god?

There is a photograph of Charles Darwin on the front of my paperback copy of Origin of Species. Can you explain why there isn't a photograph of your god on the cover of the bible?

Stuart

 

[Caino]

How presumptious you are! I am not rudderless, and I experience not the slightest despair, even though you seem to hope that I would — what a negative doctrine you follow. My life is not remotely meaningless, as I find meaning within rather than beyond life.



That seems accurate enough, except for the bit about having a soul. I am not self-centred enough to need to have personal cosmic significance. But you are?



I don't see atheists or humanists experiencing despair, or pitiless doom nor crowning insults. You are simply mislead here, being told that those who don't follow your creed are irredeemably miserable. What an anti-human opinion to hold.



Why do you continue on if this life and material world are such a source of despair and misery for you? The non-religious don't seem to suffer nearly as much as you seem to want and believe us to. You are a pedlar of misery and gloom. Begone! You are an empty shell of a human if you cannot see the enlightenment that comes from living in and studying the material world.



That is your opiate, that saves you from believing in this world that you live in — that is your huge loss, as you mask reality, and slumber in a fiction of your own imaginings. Wake up! The world is a wonderful place!

If religion is the opiate of the people, it's not the religion of Jesus of Nazareth who faced all facets of life with courageous faith.

People of faith live dynamically on this beautiful world and in anticipation of the next.

The culmination of your philosophy is ultimately meaninglessness. Sure, you can have a sort of current meaning in life but religion addresses life beyond this world. I didn't mean to imply that you aren't reasonably happy now, however you must not be that content or have that full of a life if, as an Atheist, you waste so much of your limited time on religious forums making fun of religious people???

We don't despair this world, but at least we acknowledge that it is transient. According to you death is the reward of a life lived well, so you have no basis to imply that the way we live our life is somehow inferior to yours in the end.

 

[gcthomas]

I didn't mean to imply that you aren't reasonably happy now, however you must not be that content or have that full of a life if, as an Atheist, you waste so much of your limited time on religious forums making fun of religious people???

It was you who started with your message to atheists, which I responded to. I have been here for several years, and I never intervene in purely religious threads — I generally only join in when science is being misrepresented and betting distorted to pretend support for one viewpoint or another. Consider it an educational calling.

I have not made fun of religious people (please reference where you think I have and I'll edit), but I have responded to your inaccurate and self-serving caricature of non-religious people, not to try to make you change your mind, but to allow lurkers to see that there is an alternative to your personal view of the world and those that live in it.