Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism?

[Caino]

It’s very simple, YEC was a “speculation” by men of faith during an age of ignorance. Holy men in subsiquent ages claimed that God wrote the scripture books, so sincere people of faith have confused faith in God with faith in the writings of holy men.

The same humans that wrote the imperfect scripture books put Jesus to death.

YEC is a matter of faith in spite of facts to the contrary.

 

[Caino]

Lucifer became an Atheist, he rejected faith in the unseen father and rebelled against his creator brother Christ Michael.

So the Atheism theory is very old.

 

[CabinetMaker]

So your god knew the flood would be necessary, but just wanted to see how things played out. That's the implication of what you are saying. Is that what you mean?

No, God had specific reasons for a flood.

So your god will not punish me by burning in sulfur if I know about its project but choose to ignore it, and just carry on as if it doesn't exist? In terms of the Judeo-christian fantasy, there is no choice, it's either commit to being a robot in the 'fun to watch' divine project, or burn, or possibly both.

As I said, if you chose your own project there may not be anybody interested in "purchasing" it.

What exactly has been observed in populations of animals?

Well, I don't have 'authority' to change the law, but I do have the power to change the law through the democratic process. So what you are describing is exactly the kind of system of totalitarian regime that the US went into war against in the case of Germany in the Second World war, and against the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War. Your country spilled the blood of its people to protect your freedoms, and here you are advocating for totalitarian dictatorship.

I see you like to compare apples and baseballs. You have the right to petition for a change in the law. You do not have the power to change it even in a democratic process. There are certain laws in every nation that will never change. (If they do change, I don't want to be there when they do.) Even in the wisdom of men, certain principles and morals remain invariable.

Ask Einstein what beauty is. Surely he would have said the comprehensibility of the universe, the thing he called god. I would tend to agree, that the beauty has to involve the natural human reaction to the appearance of the universe and the satisfaction of natural human curiosity in the investigation of the mechanisms behind the effects one considers beautiful.

So, do we have a universe that is essentially the application of gravity, with that single principle opening up in many different ways, leading to all the effects we observe? Or actually is it that the universe is incomprehensible, and is a patchwork of incomprehensible magic, deployed with the intention of deceiving us, and making a mockery of our instinct for finding simple, underlying principles?

The former is beautiful the latter is ugly, even as just a possibility. That's the beholding of beauty in my eye.

I do not believe the second nor do I find it to be ugly if it were true. Saying the universe is just a collection of laws and we are just a happy accident of chemical reactions is not a particularly beautiful view of the universe either. I don't believe that either. The universe operates as science understands it with just a touch of mystery and magic included. And that makes it truly wondrous and beautiful.

Yes, pretty much.

You don't understand Hawking's explanation. Might it be worth investigating what it says before dismissing it and embracing blind magic in the place of the state of the art of our current knowledge.

I stand by what I have said.

That's just a platitude, isn't it.

Not to me. I see it everyday in the way people act and the laws this country enacts.

Well you have never said what a god is, so what is there to say about it?

I don't know what God physically is. Nobody does. That I do not what He looks like does not negate the presence of Him in my life.

I mock faith, certainly, but not people (apart from public creationists). Are you faith or are you a human? There is a clear distinction in my head. Is there in yours?

This is like saying I mock homosexuality but not the homosexual person. Do you think the homosexual person sees the distinction? When you mock a central aspect of a persons personality you cannot help but mock the person as well.

Your god demands love on pain of death for itself but bans love between humans in whom, presumably, it instilled an instinct for love. This god's supposed commands to love are morally bankrupt. It is a supreme hypocrite.

Specifically, God bans a specific act between people, He never said they could not love each other. It is a question of who do you love more, your same sex partner or Jesus. As always, the choice remains yours.

These divine requirements, or rather petty fantasy rules of a fascist death cult, have never been fit for a just existence as a human. No wonder selection pressures are starting to reduce the frequency of this christian meme in the population at large. The death of christianity can't come fast enough in the interests of basic social justice across the world.

I note that all of your complaints still reside firmly in the "I" camp. You rail against what God will do to the unbeliever without ever stopping to think of the good that those who follow what Jesus actually taught do. Matthew 25 regarding the sheep and the goats has always been one of my favorite explanations regarding the life of the faithful.

Platitude 2.

Platitude 3.

Platitude 4.

Or statements of faith from who believes that God is real.

Not sure what kind of engineer you are. If civil, then I'm not sure whether I would have been keen to drive over one of your bridges. If electronic, not sure if I would have plugged in one of your devices. If mechanical, not sure I would have ridden on one of your fairground rides. If software, probably would not have logged on to do my banking on the site you designed.
I believe those who believe in miracles are not to be trusted.

Ah yes, the ad hominem fallacy. Always a good way to advance a conversation.

And resurrection is not possible without slaughter, and even if it was, you still have not justified other possibilities. Why did Jesus have to die, again? That's a justification for the embarrassment of having your cult leader executed as a troublemaker. Turn it into a martyrdom, like all tin pot cults do.
And redemption is not necessary. That is as invented as the claim of resurrection. There is nothing wrong with humans, that's just a petty rule of your club. By all means call yourself depraved (I don't think you should), but keep your opinion to yourself when it comes to the rest of us. There was nothing wrong with anything the first time we were born.

Jesus's death was required to complete the law of the Old Covenant. The spilling of His blood sealed the New Covenant which frees us judgement under the Old Law. Redemption is necessary since we have all turned away from God. There may be nothing wrong with the way we are born but there is certainly something that goes quickly wrong in the way we live. I will continue to share my opinion regardless of what you think. As will you.

You do know what is written about that, for example by the arch-zealot Saul of Tarsus, for example, I take it.

By all means, if you disagree then please share.

I don't give such absurdly irrelevant concepts much thought, to be honest. Humans are apes with a long ancestry, and our ethical codes are significantly embedded in our DNA. We also have much social discourse as a way of determining how ethical codes are applied. To think an ancient Jewish myth has any bearing on how we come about our morals is ludicrous.

Ethical codes are not deeply embedded into out genes. That is ludicrous. You can look at many different cultures and see that many things we hold as ethical in our countries is not the same in others. One big example is the concept of killing a child to protect a families honor. Do you really think genes code for that? We have great latitude in determining what we will hold as moral and we will not. God has set a standard that we can all use that is fair and just to all.

I think our justice, imperfect as it is, is far better than the 'justice' you claim is the belief system of your god. I think your god should be ignored. It is clearly a petulant bully, one that has a totalitarian system of retribution, similar-sounding to that of Stalin, the way you describe it.

I don't. Our justice coddles criminals because they had hard life. We no longer hold people accountable for their actions. That is not justice. It's legal and makes us feel better about ourselves, but it is not just.

I have to say there is no 'beauty of the universe' in what you write as your Dr. Jeckel meme character.

Obviously I don't agree. But then, I am not worried about what happens when I die.

It sounds like your god is pretty pathetic at the important engineering. It's created consciences fail, so it ends up having to undertake retributive punishment. What a petty, ugly, homophobic, vindictive, totalitarian, brutal death cult christianity is. And that's just on your description of it.

Stuart

I certainly don't see it as "retributive punishment". I see it as consequences to our choices based on the universe as God created it. I suppose that is a difference in our relative perspectives.

 

[Derf]

Where? Show where Darwin said "populations evolve, therefore universal common ancestry is true".

It may be asked how far I extend the doctrine of the modification of species. The question is difficult to answer, because the more distinct the forms are which we may consider, by so much the arguments fall away in force. But some arguments of the greatest weight extend very far. All the members of whole classes can be connected together by chains of affinities, and all can be classified on the same principle, in groups subordinate to groups. Fossil remains sometimes tend to fill up very wide intervals between existing orders. Organs in a rudimentary condition plainly show that an early progenitor had the organ in a fully developed state; and this in some instances necessarily implies an enormous amount of modification in the descendants. Throughout whole classes various structures are formed on the same pattern, and at an embryonic age the species closely resemble each other. Therefore I cannot doubt that the theory of descent with modification embraces all the members of the same class. I believe that animals have descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number. Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype.

First, I would strongly suggest you rely on the actual original paper rather than the Science Daily article. At best, sites like SD provide general overviews of the material, and at worst sometimes focus on getting clicks and views.

And if you look at the original paper, the only reference to the "Tree of Life" is...

Our genome-scale results provide a population genomic explanation as to why some species radiations may be more complex than a fully bifurcating tree of life.​

And that's exactly as I described...their work applies to specific circumstances, mainly adaptive radiations. And as you can see, they were even guarded in that statement (note the qualifier "some species radiations").

Yes, they point out that WHEN species were radiating, they were doing so in a different pattern than was predicted. The prediction was that the radiations were clean bifurcations of lineages. What they found--contrary to the prediction--was that the bifurcations were not always clean, but tangled. That's what the paper was saying. That's what their figures were saying. That's what their quotes were saying. And, as they said, that is not what the original group predicted. Thus in this instance, science was hampered by an evolutionary bias. Science was not stopped, only hampered a bit.
I
And Evolutionists wonder why their faith is seen by Christians as anti-science.

OTOH, creationism has contributed absolutely nothing to our scientific understanding of the world.

Nothing? Biomimicry, anyone? The idea that you can look at nature and find designs that can be adapted for human use doesn't bother your belief in random chance with cherry picking as the god of science?

maybe evolutionism has been holding us back. The scientific revolution started without it, after all.

 

[Stuu]

No, God had specific reasons for a flood.

So is it possible to tell which events in the biblical mythology are examples of your god showing fractal-pattern inquisitiveness, and which aren't?

I do not believe the second nor do I find it to be ugly if it were true. Saying the universe is just a collection of laws and we are just a happy accident of chemical reactions is not a particularly beautiful view of the universe either. I don't believe that either. The universe operates as science understands it with just a touch of mystery and magic included. And that makes it truly wondrous and beautiful.

Once again, a celebration of ignorance. Another example of the Judeo-christian fantasy meme intentionally misrepresenting the human condition, and attempting to suppress it.

I stand by what I have said [about Big Bang cosmology].

You haven't said anything though.

I don't know what God physically is. Nobody does.

And yet you know all about exactly how it wants you, and me, to behave. How convenient. If you didn't know better, it would sound like a con job, wouldn't it. But you don't really know better at all. Invisible, inaudible, this god is a con, isn't it.

That I do not what He looks like does not negate the presence of Him in my life.

I think it completely should negate it. Where is your photograph of this god, or have you swallowed some line that photography is not possible? Actually, why is it not possible? Do you have a satisfactory answer to that? One that should satisfy anyone? You are in no position to tell anyone else what they should do, are you.

This is like saying I mock homosexuality but not the homosexual person. Do you think the homosexual person sees the distinction?

No, now you are considering something that is a matter of identity. Homosexuality is not a crazy idea carried in someone's head, like faith, or Soviet communism, out of which that person could be convinced. You can't talk someone out of having white skin, it's not a concept that can be discussed in that way. It is a reality for the owner of the white skin, or the homosexual orientation.

When you mock a central aspect of a persons personality you cannot help but mock the person as well.

So, don't do that. Keep the discussion to the crazy ideas people hold. I don't think so lowly of you that you are stuck with the absurd idea of christianity. If I thought you were stuck with it, I would make soothing sounds and wish you luck in your life as you battle this impediment that forces you to live as a self-declared depraved human. But I think this is an entirely curable, self-infliced wound, or possibly a curable cultural infection. I think you should reject the label of depravity, so I persist. If you take that as mockery of you personally, well all I can appeal to is your memory of that not being mockery at a previous time in your life. If this was so fundamental to you, how is it you were able to change it just by accepting an unproved assumption about your existence?

Specifically, God bans a specific act between people, He never said they could not love each other. It is a question of who do you love more, your same sex partner or Jesus. As always, the choice remains yours.

What you are talking about are acts of love. How are you expecting the expression to happen? Gay people have exactly the same sex drive as straight people, or people of any orientation. But your god 'bans a specific act'? What an utterly petty and vindictive god you believe in. You must pray every night almost in tears to thank your god for not creating you gay and therefore condemning you to a life without the fulfillment of the acts of love that you are apparently 'allowed' to enjoy.

I note that all of your complaints still reside firmly in the "I" camp. You rail against what God will do to the unbeliever without ever stopping to think of the good that those who follow what Jesus actually taught do. Matthew 25 regarding the sheep and the goats has always been one of my favorite explanations regarding the life of the faithful.

I don't rail against any god. That would be insane. Gods don't exist. I am simply pointing out to you that if it was a real thing then the US would have bombed it by now, which would have been one of its more ethical interventions.

Or statements of faith from who believes that God is real.

Yep, statements of faith are essentially platitudes.

Ah yes, the ad hominem fallacy. Always a good way to advance a conversation.

It's not ad hom unless you are using some perceived fault in the person as an argument against the point he is making. I'm simply providing you with an opinion, based on what I would trust. An engineer who believed in miracles should not be trusted to build a bridge.

Jesus's death was required to complete the law of the Old Covenant. The spilling of His blood sealed the New Covenant which frees us judgement under the Old Law. Redemption is necessary since we have all turned away from God. There may be nothing wrong with the way we are born but there is certainly something that goes quickly wrong in the way we live.

Ok, so I'll go back to my original claim, having seen you justify it for me: christianity is a death cult.

By all means, if you disagree then please share.

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Essentially, knowledge is dangerous to faith. And especially in the case of the Colossians of ancient Greece, he was worried because he was right. Knowledge is corrosive to belief in fantasy stories.

Ethical codes are not deeply embedded into out genes.

It clearly is. Do you think that when Moses brought the tablets back down to his people with requirements not to kill or steal it came as a shock to them? No more of that! What about the golden rule, better expressed as other similar rules? They existed long before christianity. About 45-55% of the decisions we make regarding behaviour have been shown by separated twin studies and other similar research to be genetically determined. For Judeo-christianity to claim any kind of monopoly on the rules for conduct is one of its greatest conceits.

You can look at many different cultures and see that many things we hold as ethical in our countries is not the same in others. One big example is the concept of killing a child to protect a families honor. Do you really think genes code for that? We have great latitude in determining what we will hold as moral and we will not. God has set a standard that we can all use that is fair and just to all.

And honour killing is not mandated in the Koran, of course. But it is a product of patriarchal societies that devalue women, a very common theme in islam-dominated countries. The devaluing of women is a recurrent attitude in the Judeo-christian scriptures, as I am sure you are aware. As an upstanding christian male, are you the head of your household?

I don't. Our justice coddles criminals because they had hard life. We no longer hold people accountable for their actions. That is not justice. It's legal and makes us feel better about ourselves, but it is not just.

Our justice may be imperfect, as I said. Your idea of your god's justice stinks. Isn't it interesting that your god's justice seems to be identical to the ethical thinking of ancient Palestine, and not modern Western culture.

Obviously I don't agree. But then, I am not worried about what happens when I die.

Neither of us has any reason to be.

I certainly don't see it as "retributive punishment". I see it as consequences to our choices based on the universe as God created it. I suppose that is a difference in our relative perspectives.

You have just stated 'retributive punishment' using different words.

Stuart

 

[Jose Fly]

It may be asked how far I extend the doctrine of the modification of species. The question is difficult to answer, because the more distinct the forms are which we may consider, by so much the arguments fall away in force. But some arguments of the greatest weight extend very far. All the members of whole classes can be connected together by chains of affinities, and all can be classified on the same principle, in groups subordinate to groups. Fossil remains sometimes tend to fill up very wide intervals between existing orders. Organs in a rudimentary condition plainly show that an early progenitor had the organ in a fully developed state; and this in some instances necessarily implies an enormous amount of modification in the descendants. Throughout whole classes various structures are formed on the same pattern, and at an embryonic age the species closely resemble each other. Therefore I cannot doubt that the theory of descent with modification embraces all the members of the same class. I believe that animals have descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number. Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype.

So Darwin points to the nested hierarchy of organisms, the fossil record, vestigial structures, shared anatomy, shared embryonic development, and puts all that together to conclude that animals descended from "at most four or five" ancestors and plants "lesser". Then from analogy he goes "one step further" to universal common ancestry.

And to you, that's no different than "populations evolve, therefore common ancestry is true"? Huh.

I'll just let that speak for itself.

Yes, they point out that WHEN species were radiating, they were doing so in a different pattern than was predicted. The prediction was that the radiations were clean bifurcations of lineages. What they found--contrary to the prediction--was that the bifurcations were not always clean, but tangled. That's what the paper was saying. That's what their figures were saying. That's what their quotes were saying. And, as they said, that is not what the original group predicted. Thus in this instance, science was hampered by an evolutionary bias. Science was not stopped, only hampered a bit.

Again.....just plain bizarre. A better understanding of evolutionary patterns during adaptive radiation events was "hampered by an evolutionary bias"?

You're not making the slightest bit of sense.

And Evolutionists wonder why their faith is seen by Christians as anti-science.

Oh, we know exactly why Christians view the life sciences the way they do. It's nothing more than....

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record

Nothing? Biomimicry, anyone? The idea that you can look at nature and find designs that can be adapted for human use doesn't bother your belief in random chance with cherry picking as the god of science?

Again you're not making sense. The fact remains, creationism has not contributed to the sciences in at least 200 years. If you disagree, present documentation that shows how a specific contribution was a direct extension of creationism.

maybe evolutionism has been holding us back. The scientific revolution started without it, after all.

By all means....please continue tying Christianity to this sort of anti-science mindset. It's working wonders.

 

[Lon]

Looks like threats of being beaten up behind the bikesheds after school are the main means of attempted conversion by christians. So much for the untenability, and the blah blah blah.

No threat from me. I simply have told you that to the color-blind, red doesn't exist.

You haven't been able to describe your god in any comprehensible way at all. It is as if you haven't seen 'red' either, or for that matter pink giant eagles landing. How about a photograph of your god, or if not, why not?

"Red." If you are colorblind, you'll understand. If you aren't, you'll understand even better. If you are totally blind? You MUST take my word for it or continue as you like. I'm only in this for you. There is no 'me' need involved other than as it is part of a genuine desire to serve. I bet you can't take a swing at that. You don't take shots at philanthropy do you? I pointed you to pictures of pink elephants (real ones) and green glowing bunnies (real ones). Not sure if you looked, but it might help you with unbelief. Here is a goblin. They all exist my friend.

How about a unicorn or two while we are at it?

Be honest (with yourself, doesn't matter for me), you didn't believe they existed 'until' you saw them, right? If I just said so without the links, no good, right? :*(

 

[6days]

But who said the beginning of the universe has to conform to logic?

Science depends on logical deductions. The belief that nothing created everything is pseudoscience.... magic.

Religious: no, it requires no gods of any kind, whatever they are.

Perhaps its a discussion for another time, but many atheists are very religious and have a strong belief system.

Empirical science: Big Bang cosmology is entirely consistent with empirical evidence

Nonsense! Big Bang is a house of cards belief relying on a host of hypotheticals such as dark energy, dark matter, dark photons, faster than speed of ight expansion...ETC

Science does not require it, it's just a convenient way of relating one effect to another effect.

If you are willing to forgo empirical science and logic in favor of your beliefs, then your science has no basis. Shucks Stuu... You could end up in believing in little green men... that life comes from non life... multiverse...ETC

Was there ever enough evidence for it, for it to be called a theory in the first place (Theory of Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics)?

The question wasn't about what is a theory... You asked for examples of evolutionary beliefs that science proved false.

If Mendel had written paper in English, probably Darwin would have read it and given up on his view of the heredity of acquired characteristics.

I'm not so sure. Darwin really liked his own ideas, and many others preferred Darwin's ideas even years after Mendel published his work.

 

[6days]

So Darwin points to the nested hierarchy of organisms

Darwin was wrong. Science helps to show his tree idea was false.

the fossil record

Darwin was also wrong about fossils. "To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrtian system I can give no satisfactory answer..." He thought more time and more fossils would support a graduated organic chain. Billions of fossils have now been collected to give us a fairly accurate picture. The transitionals Darwin hoped for are missing. As Eldredge and Tattersall said, "...120 years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions..."

vestigial structures,

Science has exposed the belief is 'vestigial structures' is simply a non falsifiable belief.

shared anatomy, shared embryonic development,

Again... non falsifiable beliefs. Shared / similar anatomy and embryonics is often better explained by a common Designer.

and puts all that together to conclude that animals descended from "at most four or five" ancestors and plants "lesser". Then from analogy he goes "one step further" to universal common ancestry.

Darwin was wrong about many things... He was wrong about science. He was wrong about natural selection.... wrong about geology... wrong about nature of life.... and wrong about the Bible and God. Darwinism is toxic to science... and toxic to a relationship with our Creator.

 

[Stuu]

No threat from me.

No, this is a threat on behalf of your invisible friend.

I simply have told you that to the color-blind, red doesn't exist.

And it is as mindless a platitude as ever. You can't see your god, and given the rates of conversion between atheism and christianity in both directions, there is obviously no difference between the way our brains are able to use our senses to interpret the world, so the only reasonable conclusion is that christianity is a form of mental illness.

I'm only in this for you. There is no 'me' need involved other than as it is part of a genuine desire to serve. I bet you can't take a swing at that. You don't take shots at philanthropy do you?

I'd say the only reason you post on ToL is to find some support to prop up what you know is a nonsense set of beliefs, but one you have committed to, for some bizarre reason. So the psychology in this discussion is of you playing to the converted others in your ingratiation to their mutual admiration of the emperor's new clothes.

I pointed you to pictures of pink elephants (real ones) and green glowing bunnies (real ones). Not sure if you looked, but it might help you with unbelief. Here is a goblin. They all exist my friend.

Well I'm not against you comparing your god to goblins, pink pachyderms and green rabbits. They are all equal in their lack of existence.

Be honest (with yourself, doesn't matter for me), you didn't believe they existed 'until' you saw them, right? If I just said so without the links, no good, right?

You still haven't shown me a photograph of your god. Why not?

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Science depends on logical deductions. The belief that nothing created everything is pseudoscience.... magic.

But who said the beginning of the universe has to conform to logic? You?

Perhaps its a discussion for another time, but many atheists are very religious and have a strong belief system.

You should look up the definition of religion in the dictionary. You see to think religion isn't a very good thing. I agree.

Nonsense! Big Bang is a house of cards belief relying on a host of hypotheticals such as dark energy, dark matter, dark photons, faster than speed of ight expansion...ETC

I gave you a list of the empirical evidence that is consistent with Big Bang cosmology, and you deleted it in your reply, and replaced it with a different list, of things that aren't consistent with empirical evidence. Why did you do that? And what do you mean by ETC? That's a lazy man's failed attempt to appear impressive. I've been very clear, and I am happy to elaborate if you want. Would you like me to be even clearer about the items of empirical evidence that are consistent with Big Bang cosmology?

If you are willing to forgo empirical science and logic in favor of your beliefs, then your science has no basis. Shucks Stuu... You could end up in believing in little green men... that life comes from non life... multiverse...ETC

I am not willing to forgo empirical evidence ('empirical science' is a tautology). All I have provided you with is evidence-based science, and nothing else. You have not demonstrated that Big Bang cosmology requires the application of conventions of logic.

The question wasn't about what is a theory...

You called it a theory. Why did you?

You asked for examples of evolutionary beliefs that science proved false.

You offered them. I agreed with your first example. Next?

Darwin really liked his own ideas, and many others preferred Darwin's ideas even years after Mendel published his work.

And?

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

Who said the beginning of the universe has to conform to logic?

And there we have it.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stuu]

And there we have it.

Tell us that quantum mechanics conforms to logic.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

Tell us that quantum mechanics conforms to logic.

Stuart

You think logic does not apply.

That's all we need to know.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Caino]

God created life on earth using the meathod of evolution, scientific observation simply reveals the material remains of that evolution. That Atheist use this evidence to deny that God was behind the creation of life is just an opinion of a doubter who is only able to debunk the creation story created by holy men who didn’t know any better.

Life was created by and fostered by God.

Genesis was created by holy men and defended by people who ALSO believe that God created the Bible.

 

[CabinetMaker]

So is it possible to tell which events in the biblical mythology are examples of your god showing fractal-pattern inquisitiveness, and which aren't?

Is it possible for a pixel to ever truly understand the fractional it is part of? You will have to ask God when you see Him. I tend to think that God is always enjoying the operations of the universe while at the same time being sad that those He created to be with Him reject Him and hurt each other.

Once again, a celebration of ignorance. Another example of the Judeo-christian fantasy meme intentionally misrepresenting the human condition, and attempting to suppress it.

That I find wonder in the universe does not make me ignorant of the works of the universe. I just see it in broader terms than you do.

You haven't said anything though.

And yet you know all about exactly how it wants you, and me, to behave. How convenient. If you didn't know better, it would sound like a con job, wouldn't it. But you don't really know better at all. Invisible, inaudible, this god is a con, isn't it.

No one has ever seen God. We have nothing upon which to base speculation. I tend to believe that God exists in at least n+1 dimensions which is to say that God exists in at least one more dimension than we do. We exist in at least 4 dimensions and we can really only perceive 3 of those dimension. If we can't explain and orthogonality of the 4th dimension to the other three how do we model an Being that exists in 5 (or more) orthogonal dimensions? (Those are my shower thoughts) None the less, God did leave us scripture so that we can know Him and His will. And of one seeks, God does answer. You see that concept repeated regularly on these pages yet continue to write it of as some sort of mental disorder.

I think it completely should negate it. Where is your photograph of this god, or have you swallowed some line that photography is not possible? Actually, why is it not possible? Do you have a satisfactory answer to that? One that should satisfy anyone? You are in no position to tell anyone else what they should do, are you.

This is not logical. There is no reason that not having a picture of God should negate the experience of God coming into my life.

No, now you are considering something that is a matter of identity. Homosexuality is not a crazy idea carried in someone's head, like faith, or Soviet communism, out of which that person could be convinced. You can't talk someone out of having white skin, it's not a concept that can be discussed in that way. It is a reality for the owner of the white skin, or the homosexual orientation.

Faith is also a matter of identity. You reject that but that does not mean that my faith is not a core part of who I am and how I live my life. You cannot talk me out of my faith because I was not talked into my faith. It is much a part of me as my white skin.

So, don't do that. Keep the discussion to the crazy ideas people hold. I don't think so lowly of you that you are stuck with the absurd idea of christianity. If I thought you were stuck with it, I would make soothing sounds and wish you luck in your life as you battle this impediment that forces you to live as a self-declared depraved human. But I think this is an entirely curable, self-infliced wound, or possibly a curable cultural infection. I think you should reject the label of depravity, so I persist. If you take that as mockery of you personally, well all I can appeal to is your memory of that not being mockery at a previous time in your life. If this was so fundamental to you, how is it you were able to change it just by accepting an unproved assumption about your existence?

And who gets to decide what ideas are crazy? You? I do not find your judgment to be reliable in this area. I no longer hold the labeled of deprived, I am now labeled forgiven and I have no desire to be "cured" of that. I find great strength and peace in my faith and my walk with God.

What you are talking about are acts of love. How are you expecting the expression to happen? Gay people have exactly the same sex drive as straight people, or people of any orientation. But your god 'bans a specific act'? What an utterly petty and vindictive god you believe in. You must pray every night almost in tears to thank your god for not creating you gay and therefore condemning you to a life without the fulfillment of the acts of love that you are apparently 'allowed' to enjoy.

My wife went through breast cancer. Twice. The chemo and radiation utterly destroyed her sex life as in she has no desire and the act itself is physically painful. So that part of our life is over at a very young age. And yet we still find ways to express our love for each other in ways that no longer depend on one particular act. In some ways, it has brought is closer. It is possible to express love to others without the physical act. And as I noted before, people may have to make a choice between whether they love one physical act more than they love God.

I don't rail against any god. That would be insane. Gods don't exist. I am simply pointing out to you that if it was a real thing then the US would have bombed it by now, which would have been one of its more ethical interventions.

Of course you do. Otherwise you would not feel the need to try to talk me out of my "mental illness".

Yep, statements of faith are essentially platitudes.

It's not ad hom unless you are using some perceived fault in the person as an argument against the point he is making. I'm simply providing you with an opinion, based on what I would trust. An engineer who believed in miracles should not be trusted to build a bridge.

You are stating that I am not qualified to be an engineer because of my faith. That is an ad hominem by definition. The fact that I believe in Jesus as my Lord and Savior does not in anyway impact my ability to use math and science to design the systems I work with. As an engineer, my systems MUST work if I want to continue to work and provide for my family. I have been a licensed and practicing engineer for some 27 years. Apparently I know what I'm doing as an engineer.

Ok, so I'll go back to my original claim, having seen you justify it for me: christianity is a death cult.

Actually its a life cult as the resurrection of Jesus is central to redemption. Christianity is about living and loving and serving each other. It is not about any one single event.

Colossians 2:8

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Essentially, knowledge is dangerous to faith. And especially in the case of the Colossians of ancient Greece, he was worried because he was right. Knowledge is corrosive to belief in fantasy stories.

I don't see this verse as a warning against knowledge and science. I do see it as a warning to be wary of people that would use those things to turn me away from Christ.

It clearly is. Do you think that when Moses brought the tablets back down to his people with requirements not to kill or steal it came as a shock to them? No more of that! What about the golden rule, better expressed as other similar rules? They existed long before christianity. About 45-55% of the decisions we make regarding behaviour have been shown by separated twin studies and other similar research to be genetically determined. For Judeo-christianity to claim any kind of monopoly on the rules for conduct is one of its greatest conceits.

It clearly is not. Behaviors embed into our genetics are instincts and are extremely difficult to ignore. I have horses. When working with them I must always remember that their instincts are as prey animals. When spooked, that animal is going to react instinctively no matter how well it is trained and you can find yourself in a whole lot of trouble in the blink of an eye. We do not have genetic instincts towards morality.

And honour killing is not mandated in the Koran, of course. But it is a product of patriarchal societies that devalue women, a very common theme in islam-dominated countries. The devaluing of women is a recurrent attitude in the Judeo-christian scriptures, as I am sure you are aware. As an upstanding christian male, are you the head of your household?

And this proves that commandment "Thou Shalt not commit murder" is not a genetic code. That society has made murder all to easy and instincts are not that easily over come.

Scripture does not devalue women. It exults them. It is just that most people completely ignore this:
²⁵ Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her ²⁶ to make her holy, cleansing^[a] her by the washing with water through the word, ²⁷ and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. ²⁸ In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. ²⁹ After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— ³⁰ for we are members of his body.
Women are not devalued by scripture, they are devalued by men who use scripture to their own ends, not God's.

As an upstanding Christian male, I love and care for my family. I work hard so that there is food on the table and warm bed to sleep in. My wife helps and together, as God intended, we make our life together as one flesh.

Our justice may be imperfect, as I said. Your idea of your god's justice stinks. Isn't it interesting that your god's justice seems to be identical to the ethical thinking of ancient Palestine, and not modern Western culture.

Modern culture tries to be nicer than God and now we live in a cespool where what is legal is frequently not just and what is just is ignored. God's standard has not changed. There is no need for it to as people have not changed.

Neither of us has any reason to be.

Regardles, I have nothing to fear. On the other hand, you do. It is called Pascal's Wager.

You have just stated 'retributive punishment' using different words.

Stuart

I do not believe that it is retribution as I do not believe that God is vengful in His exicution of justice..

 

[Stuu]

You think logic does not apply.

That's all we need to know.

I am cherry-picking when logic applies and when it doesn't.

You should know about cherry-picking, Stripe, creationists do it all the time with empirical evidence.

When they bother with empirical evidence.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

I am cherry-picking when logic applies.

I know. And that's all we need to know.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

I have a feeling some of your fellow Christians like [MENTION=15431]6days[/MENTION] and [MENTION=4167]Stripe[/MENTION] might take issue.

Darwinists are always looking for disagreement among others as if it proved something. :idunno:

 

[Jose Fly]

Darwin was wrong about many things... He was wrong about science. He was wrong about natural selection.... wrong about geology... wrong about nature of life.... and wrong about the Bible and God. Darwinism is toxic to science... and toxic to a relationship with our Creator.

Thanks for sharing your beliefs.