Say Hello to the Bad Guy

[JasonDrexler]

Hi, everyone. I'm new here. My name is Jason, age 31, raging theist of the Christian variety. You can forgo the protective helmets, however, because I don't hit people over the head with my Bible. I'm here to converse with atheists, learn more about where they're coming from, share (with anyone who's interested) where I'm coming from. I guess we could take Hitchens' book as a starting point; I just finished it and have plenty of thoughts on it. Take care.

[nkb]

Welcome, Jason.

I hope you can bring more to the table than the recent influx of theists we've had.

Could you tell us how you found this forum?

[Lurker]

Reinforcements! :thumbsup:

[Choobus]

Reinforcements! :thumbsup:

perhaps, but less cum to chug.....

[Lurker]

perhaps, but less cum to chug.....
Always seeing the negative side of things...

[a different tim]

Hello, bad guy.

[whoneedscience]

Not to be cynical or anything, but doesn't it seem like every new theist says something along the lines of "I don't want to proselytize or anything" but by the end of the week, they're spouting Jebus like it's going out of style?

Have to say, though, this Jason fellow can at least put together an English sentence. We don't see very many of those.

Welcome!

So which part of Hitchens's book made you join an internet forum to debate about?

[Rhinoqulous]

Hey Bad Guy, if you're up for it, you can take a swing at giving me a good argument for why I should believe in God over this way (http://ravingatheists.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13738). So far it's been highly disappointing. Being that you actually read books other than the bible, you'll probably fare better than the challengers to this point.

[Professor Chaos]

Welcome! So fill us in. What are your "thoughts" on Hitchens' book?

[JasonDrexler]

Well, thanks to everyone who responded; I was glad to hear from so many.

To give just a bit of background in order to answer a few of your inquiries: I found this site while browsing another atheist site (one of those clearinghouse-type places). I had joined a discussion on one other atheist site (American Atheists, at atheists.org) but got few responses. But people here seem to be more willing to engage, which I like.

I'll try to avoid making any boasts about whatever level of intelligence I might (or might not) have, but I do admit to being a language person -- I love words (reading them, writing them, thinking with them), and I work with them for a living. As to the question of proselytizing: A true Christian tries to proselytize in everything he/she does -- as the saying goes, actions speak louder than words. That being said, I won't be handing out any tracts, and you probably won't hear much (if any) Scripture from me, because I'm sure it means little, if anything, to any of you. I'm here to discuss and debate on intellectual grounds, using only (please humor me here) the God-given faculties of reason and logic.

Up until about six months ago, atheism was at the fringe of my consciousness; I didn't give it much thought. I had heard of Dawkins (even saw his book once at the local Barnes&Noble) but didn't feel much inclined to read it, and I'd never heard of Harris or Dennett. When Hitchens' book came out, though, it caused a much bigger stir than any of its predecessors (must've been the title), and at last I felt a pull to investigate all the hubbub. To make a long story short, I recently finished "god is not Great" and will soon (hopefully) be diving into Dinesh D'Souza's counterpoint volume, "What's So Great About Christianity."

In addressing the various atheist manifestos, at this point I can speak most fully to what Hitchens has to say, as I haven't read Harris, Dawkins, Dennet, et al. (though I have read several quotes from Dawkins in various interviews). If the writings of those others are similar to Hitchens', however, please let me know, because there wouldn't be much point in reading the same arguments over and over.

Regarding Hitchens, his book comes across to me as mostly emotional -- specious, sophistical. It's basically a laundry list of violent acts committed in the name of religion; the problem with that is that many (if not most or all) of those perpetrators of "religious violence" weren't interested in knowing the truth, only in using the most readily-available means -- religion -- to acquire the power and influence they craved. Now, perhaps that was the point Hitchens was trying to make -- that organized religion is used only for evil -- and perhaps I was under the mistaken impression that his book was going to be an intellectual case against theism. In either case, his book is mostly emotional, and I'm not sure what he hoped to accomplish by writing it, since his fellow athiests, I'm sure, were already in basic agreement with him, and since all sane theists (which includes all those whom I know) are against such violence. That leaves only the insane religionists to speak to, and I doubt they're listening (or reading anything from popular culture).

Hitchens is a polemicist, and that might be precisely his undoing: He is clever, with a sharp mind and a sharper tongue, but even though many of his barbs do cause thinking people to think, it doesn't take long to see the speciousness of his logic. One could just as easily write a comparable rant on the evil side of money or power, for example, but these devices, along with religion, are just that -- tools, inherently neutral, that flawed humans often misuse. Enron and WorldCom were led by greedy, deceitful people, but that doesn't mean that money can't be put to good use, or that positions of power can't help lead to a peaceful society. Likewise, the manipulation of religion for evil purposes doesn't mean that God is evil, or that He doesn't exist, or that there is no truth beyond the material realm.

I look forward to your feedback. Take care.

[Professor Chaos]

Why are you perusing atheist sites? Just curious. Welcome, again!

[Choobus]

It's hard to take seriously anyone who takes D'Souza's book seriously. The guy is a fucking moron.

[whoneedscience]

The idea that there is an "intellectual case" regarding belief in God is laughable, and entirely beside the point. One does not have to build and intellectual case regarding unicorns, so why should such a thing even begin to apply to God?

Hitchens, along with almost every such atheist, attacks the very popular notion among religious moderates that, despite the silliness of religious ideas, they nonetheless inspire people to be good. Indeed, this idea seems to be more of an established dogma than any other point of theology, and as such is defended extraordinarily rigorously by people of all faiths, and even some of no faith. It is a very powerful way of diverting attention from the absurd doctrines like the Trinity, and the immaculate conception (not to mention other things like the Church's insistence that condoms are evil).

You made a comparison between religion and money. I would argue that most people are at least somewhat aware of the dangers of money and greed. Surprisingly few will admit that religion, especially their own, can be evil - or if it is possible, it is only because of evil people, not any fault of the religion itself. Even you jumped immediately to making excuses. That is one of the many problems of dogmatically associating with an institution, especially one obsessed with (what they call) morality.

Religions are extremely good at giving people an easy out - only believe in Jebus, and you will be forgiven. This is not actual morality. It is really just inane, childish, and extraordinarily simple-minded. It is thus not surprising that we see so many atrocities carried out with religious motivation and support. Religion may be a tool, but it works because it is finely tuned for manipulation.

The ten commandments? Obvious to anyone. The rest? Some is a little nice. A lot of it is actually appallingly unethical. The mere fact that we (or some of us anyway) can distinguish it as such demonstrates very clearly that our actual morality is a function of the world we live in, not bronze-age myth. If you want to learn how to be more moral, take a class in philosophy and secular ethics, and throw out your damn Bible. Stop worrying about eternal salvation and concentrate on making good decisions in the world we actually live in. We "neo" or "militant" atheists would only like to suggest this, and not be pompously disregarded.

I guess the point is, for you who are reasonably intelligent, stop making excuses for those you happen to share an opinion with. If your religion is caught up in a scandal, or is generally behaving like a complete douchebag (read "Catholics") reprimand them. We want to hear reasonable people standing up for what is right, instead of behaving like fucking sheep.

[ocmpoma]

"...actions speak louder than words..."

I used to subscribe to this truism, until I reali(s)ed it was a crock of shit.

[JasonDrexler]

It's hard to take seriously anyone who takes D'Souza's book seriously. The guy is a fucking moron.

May I suggest that you'd be most beneficial to atheism's cause, Mr. Choobus, if you simply didn't say anything.

[Kamikaze189]

I'll try to avoid making any boasts about whatever level of intelligence I might (or might not) have, but I do admit to being a language person -- I love words (reading them, writing them, thinking with them), and I work with them for a living. As to the question of proselytizing: A true Christian tries to proselytize in everything he/she does -- as the saying goes, actions speak louder than words. That being said, I won't be handing out any tracts, and you probably won't hear much (if any) Scripture from me, because I'm sure it means little, if anything, to any of you. I'm here to discuss and debate on intellectual grounds, using only (please humor me here) the God-given faculties of reason and logic.

Good.

Up until about six months ago, atheism was at the fringe of my consciousness; I didn't give it much thought. I had heard of Dawkins (even saw his book once at the local Barnes&Noble) but didn't feel much inclined to read it, and I'd never heard of Harris or Dennett. When Hitchens' book came out, though, it caused a much bigger stir than any of its predecessors (must've been the title), and at last I felt a pull to investigate all the hubbub. To make a long story short, I recently finished "god is not Great" and will soon (hopefully) be diving into Dinesh D'Souza's counterpoint volume, "What's So Great About Christianity."

I'd recommend Dawkins or Harris. I think Hitchens may have actually planned his book to be read after those, as the other two really champion the argument part.

I've only read Dawkins and a short segment of Hitchens. Dawkins did a fantastic job, if a bit unorganized in places. Yet I'm not a Hitchens fan so much.

In addressing the various atheist manifestos, at this point I can speak most fully to what Hitchens has to say, as I haven't read Harris, Dawkins, Dennet, et al. (though I have read several quotes from Dawkins in various interviews). If the writings of those others are similar to Hitchens', however, please let me know, because there wouldn't be much point in reading the same arguments over and over.

Dawkins is most focused on science, from what I recall, but also considers some philosophy. As a whole, if I could recommend one book for anyone, anywhere, to read about religion, it is The God Delusion. It mentions the evils done in the name of religion, but it also covers a large, large, amount of arguments.

Regarding Hitchens, his book comes across to me as mostly emotional -- specious, sophistical.

Well, I think it would be a waste of time to discuss a book in this regard. We shouldn't sit here and discuss Hitchens when what we're actually here for is to discuss religion/god. Of course, you can draw in some people's arguments, but that would still keep the focus on the big question.


One could just as easily write a comparable rant on the evil side of money or power, for example, but these devices, along with religion, are just that -- tools, inherently neutral, that flawed humans often misuse. Enron and WorldCom were led by greedy, deceitful people, but that doesn't mean that money can't be put to good use, or that positions of power can't help lead to a peaceful society. Likewise, the manipulation of religion for evil purposes doesn't mean that God is evil, or that He doesn't exist, or that there is no truth beyond the material realm.

If religions aren't true (and you must admit that most of them aren't, if you belong to one and don't wish to contradict yourself) and are harming people, what should we be trying to do with them? That answer is everywhere. We should do our best to remove religion's influence. (Non-violent ways which still leave people their freedoms, of course)

And I don't consider money to be a good comparison to religion, especially since you can get people to do good without religion. There isn't a non-money of money which allows you to do good just as well with money. You can manipulate people to do good with religion, but, again, if it isn't true (and most aren't, even to most theists) then humans should not be so heavily controlled by them. The best control for people is no control, no manipulation. Good people doing good things because that's what they want, with no carrot or stick in sight.

[Kamikaze189]

May I suggest that you'd be most beneficial to atheism's cause, Mr. Choobus, if you simply didn't say anything.

God's (non- or) existence has nothing to do with what Choobus types on this board.

[nkb]

May I suggest that you'd be most beneficial to atheism's cause, Mr. Choobus, if you simply didn't say anything.
Not your best move so far.

Oh, by the way, could you give me a quick synopsis of "atheism's cause"? We're all very excited to finally find out what it is.

[Choobus]

May I suggest that you'd be most beneficial to atheism's cause, Mr. Choobus, if you simply didn't say anything.

no you may not dumbass, and not only because atheism has no cause.

[JasonDrexler]

Professor Chaos,

I'm perusing atheist sites because the recent wave of atheist tomes, capped by Hitchens' volume, drew my attention. I had never realized that atheism had the following it does.

whoneedscience,

I don't see the correlation between unicorns and God. Besides that, who's to say that the unicorn, or something akin to it, isn't one amongst the thousands of now-extinct species that used to populate the Earth?

But that is all secondary to this: It's great to see that some of those who accuse theists of "behaving like fucking sheep" show the intelligence of our alleged cave-dwelling ancestors. To say that "an 'intellectual case' regarding belief in God is laughable" -- without any supporting material, no less -- is the very epitome of narrow-mindedness, not to mention an insult to the very notion of an intellectual discussion, such as what some of us here are trying to have.

Concerning your comments about the Church, some of them are specifically directed at the Catholic Church, of which I've never been a part. I myself have many disagreements with the Catholic Church, and dislike having its beliefs assumed to be mine.

Regarding your comment that "religions are extremely good at giving people an easy out": Your summation of Christianity is just plain wrong. It's not as though we Christians we can do whatever we want and "get away with it" simply because we "believe in Jesus." We are accountable for our actions, both in the spiritual realm and here in the "real world." Furthermore, what could be an easier "out" than saying, "There's no God, so I can make up whatever 'morality' I want and live my life however I please with no real accountability" -- and with no supporting intellectual material, no less.

I make no excuses for whatever evil things have been done in the name of religion, but blaming religion (or any other thing) for the evil acts we do out of inherent fallibility is the wrong approach. My guess is that you believe that morality comes from evolution, which would lead you to conclude, most likely, that our morality is inherent and that we thus don't need any "commandments" to tell us what is right and wrong. I've heard other atheists make this same basic point. But are the Ten Commandments obvious? There seems to be a lot of people today who lie, covet, commit adultery and dishonor their parents without batting a lash; and -- to address Hitchens' most scathing criticism of the Decalogue --the pre-Hebrew inhabitants of Canaan routinely practiced child sacrifice. I guess their pre-Decalogue, innate evolutionary morality failed to notify them that murder was off-limits.

[Sternwallow]

Hi, everyone. I'm new here. My name is Jason, age 31, raging theist of the Christian variety. You can forgo the protective helmets, however, because I don't hit people over the head with my Bible. I'm here to converse with atheists, learn more about where they're coming from, share (with anyone who's interested) where I'm coming from. I guess we could take Hitchens' book as a starting point; I just finished it and have plenty of thoughts on it. Take care.
Welcome. Appearances to the contrary, we DO enjoy a good substantive discussion with rational people. It is just that the opportunities are so sparse...

What piqued your interest within "God is not Great"?

[Sternwallow]

Well, thanks to everyone who responded; I was glad to hear from so many.

To give just a bit of background in order to answer a few of your inquiries: I found this site while browsing another atheist site (one of those clearinghouse-type places). I had joined a discussion on one other atheist site (American Atheists, at atheists.org) but got few responses. But people here seem to be more willing to engage, which I like.

I'll try to avoid making any boasts about whatever level of intelligence I might (or might not) have, but I do admit to being a language person -- I love words (reading them, writing them, thinking with them), and I work with them for a living. As to the question of proselytizing: A true Christian tries to proselytize in everything he/she does -- as the saying goes, actions speak louder than words. That being said, I won't be handing out any tracts, and you probably won't hear much (if any) Scripture from me, because I'm sure it means little, if anything, to any of you. I'm here to discuss and debate on intellectual grounds, using only (please humor me here) the God-given faculties of reason and logic.

Up until about six months ago, atheism was at the fringe of my consciousness; I didn't give it much thought. I had heard of Dawkins (even saw his book once at the local Barnes&Noble) but didn't feel much inclined to read it, and I'd never heard of Harris or Dennett. When Hitchens' book came out, though, it caused a much bigger stir than any of its predecessors (must've been the title), and at last I felt a pull to investigate all the hubbub. To make a long story short, I recently finished "god is not Great" and will soon (hopefully) be diving into Dinesh D'Souza's counterpoint volume, "What's So Great About Christianity."

In addressing the various atheist manifestos, at this point I can speak most fully to what Hitchens has to say, as I haven't read Harris, Dawkins, Dennet, et al. (though I have read several quotes from Dawkins in various interviews). If the writings of those others are similar to Hitchens', however, please let me know, because there wouldn't be much point in reading the same arguments over and over.

Regarding Hitchens, his book comes across to me as mostly emotional -- specious, sophistical. It's basically a laundry list of violent acts committed in the name of religion; the problem with that is that many (if not most or all) of those perpetrators of "religious violence" weren't interested in knowing the truth, only in using the most readily-available means -- religion -- to acquire the power and influence they craved. Now, perhaps that was the point Hitchens was trying to make -- that organized religion is used only for evil -- and perhaps I was under the mistaken impression that his book was going to be an intellectual case against theism. In either case, his book is mostly emotional, and I'm not sure what he hoped to accomplish by writing it, since his fellow athiests, I'm sure, were already in basic agreement with him, and since all sane theists (which includes all those whom I know) are against such violence. That leaves only the insane religionists to speak to, and I doubt they're listening (or reading anything from popular culture).

Hitchens is a polemicist, and that might be precisely his undoing: He is clever, with a sharp mind and a sharper tongue, but even though many of his barbs do cause thinking people to think, it doesn't take long to see the speciousness of his logic. One could just as easily write a comparable rant on the evil side of money or power, for example, but these devices, along with religion, are just that -- tools, inherently neutral, that flawed humans often misuse. Enron and WorldCom were led by greedy, deceitful people, but that doesn't mean that money can't be put to good use, or that positions of power can't help lead to a peaceful society. Likewise, the manipulation of religion for evil purposes doesn't mean that God is evil, or that He doesn't exist, or that there is no truth beyond the material realm.

I look forward to your feedback. Take care.
An interesting, dense and unusually literate post. I am encouraged that a civil dialog will be possible for the enjoyment of all, even if there is no ultimate conclusion.

Hitchens went to some length to distinguish between evil acts performed "in the name of religion (or God)" and those performed because of religion.

His example that most readily comes to my mind is infant genital mutilation, a barbaric act that no loving parent would ever begin to contemplate if it weren't a command written in a holy book.

A paraphrase of one of his points from interviews: You look at a newborn baby and exclaim "here is a beautiful example of the perfection of God's creation." Then you say "But we will make it even more perfect by taking a sharp stone and scraping away at its reproductive organs."

The Inquisition wasn't the aberration of a few rabid fringe lunatics, it was accepted system-wide as being mandated by the Bible.

I don't criticize religion based on what members do, but on what their holy book tells them to do (and what it claims as history and science). I do class Christians as poor representatives of their alleged faith if they fail to give all that they have away to the poor and sell their skivvies in order to buy a sword whose only purpose is to kill people and let their dead relatives bury themselves and insult their mothers....................

[Sternwallow]

We want to hear reasonable people standing up for what is right, instead of behaving like fucking sheep.
Let us not disparage fucking sheep! :D

[Sternwallow]

May I suggest that you'd be most beneficial to atheism's cause, Mr. Choobus, if you simply didn't say anything.
It is a little early in your career here to comment based on your evident assumption that the Great and Powerful Choobus is interested in benefiting any cause.:eh:

[Rat Bastard]

Heh, he's godalsmitey on his side. He can say anything- 'course it could get ugly, quick.


Mr JasonDrexler, have you lurked here for awhile before signing on?

Welcome.

[mmfwmc]

Choobus doesn't seem to be aiming for victory. He's going for distance and offensiveness.

And he's a smart guy who's very good at what he does. I would suggest you quietly sidle away now...

[Professor Chaos]

Professor Chaos,

I'm perusing atheist sites because the recent wave of atheist tomes, capped by Hitchens' volume, drew my attention. I had never realized that atheism had the following it does.



Thanks for your answer, Jason, but it's not an answer. Why are YOU perusing atheist sites? What do you hope to gain from it?

"Atheist books were written" and "There are many atheists" doesn't really answer the question.

[Kamikaze189]

I don't see the correlation between unicorns and God. Besides that, who's to say that the unicorn, or something akin to it, isn't one amongst the thousands of now-extinct species that used to populate the Earth?

Burden of proof.

Imagine you're sitting peacefully in your home, perhaps as you are now. You hear a knock. You go to the door. You open your door, and see a man wearing tinfoil on his head. He tells you a long-winded and extraordinary story about unicorns which are trying to kill him. He says the only way he's going to survive is if you let him -- obviously somewhat of a whacko -- into your home.

Now, you might pause and say, "Well, I'm not sure your story is true. I can't even believe there are such things as unicorns because you haven't given any evidence." You may have to pause and stare for a moment. "Got any evidence?"

At this point the deranged man turns, taking off his little tinfoil hat, and leaves, as he really has no evidence, and there really were no killer unicorns.

A door to door Jesus salesman works essentially the same way as the door to door unicorn crazy guy.

But that is all secondary to this: It's great to see that some of those who accuse theists of "behaving like fucking sheep" show the intelligence of our alleged cave-dwelling ancestors. To say that "an 'intellectual case' regarding belief in God is laughable" -- without any supporting material, no less -- is the very epitome of narrow-mindedness, not to mention an insult to the very notion of an intellectual discussion, such as what some of us here are trying to have.[quote]

An intellectual case regarding belief in god would be surprising. Look at the other theists on our board for a moment: Lily, Lurker, PollyP, the other couple spammers. Lily says she has evidence for god -- absolutely refuses to post it. PollyP just tells us to accept Jesus into our hearts (as if that means something). And the other theist spammers seem to be barely literate spammers who probably don't care about engaging anyone at all. Now you know where we're coming from, and this statement -- at least here, on this board -- is pretty well supported.

You're more than welcome to make an intellectual case for god, and change everyone's mind. But I'd say the chances of you doing this are slim to none if the future is anything like the past.

[quote]Concerning your comments about the Church, some of them are specifically directed at the Catholic Church, of which I've never been a part. I myself have many disagreements with the Catholic Church, and dislike having its beliefs assumed to be mine.

Out of curiosity, then, where do you fall on the belief spectrum more specifically?

Regarding your comment that "religions are extremely good at giving people an easy out": Your summation of Christianity is just plain wrong. It's not as though we Christians we can do whatever we want and "get away with it" simply because we "believe in Jesus." We are accountable for our actions, both in the spiritual realm and here in the "real world." Furthermore, what could be an easier "out" than saying, "There's no God, so I can make up whatever 'morality' I want and live my life however I please with no real accountability" -- and with no supporting intellectual material, no less.

If your sins are already accounted for by Jesus' sacrifice, you do have an out. It doesn't particularly matter, as long as someone with religious authority is saying something to the effect of "god wills it," and so do most of the people in the audience to which he's speaking.

As for atheism being an out, it could be, I suppose. But this gets right back to good people being good without religion and bad people being bad with religion regardless. If you, unlike most atheists, are going to switch to the ubermensch idea and try to say you are above morality and whatnot, you might just be a jerk. (That sentence was using the "impersonal you" -- not to be taken as an insult :) ) And you'd still probably be a jerk with religion, and using it as an out. The only difference is, the jerk with religion can influence other non-jerks with religion much easier than a jerk without religion can influence other non-jerks without a religion. It's the whole "god (the all powerful, all knowing, all good being) wants you to do this" thing as opposed to "I want you to do this."

[whoneedscience]

I don't see the correlation between unicorns and God. Besides that, who's to say that the unicorn, or something akin to it, isn't one amongst the thousands of now-extinct species that used to populate the Earth?

But that is all secondary to this: It's great to see that some of those who accuse theists of "behaving like fucking sheep" show the intelligence of our alleged cave-dwelling ancestors. To say that "an 'intellectual case' regarding belief in God is laughable" -- without any supporting material, no less -- is the very epitome of narrow-mindedness, not to mention an insult to the very notion of an intellectual discussion, such as what some of us here are trying to have.

Others may be, but I'm not really interested in "intellectual discussion". I'm actually beginning to think it's impossible with regard to God and religion.

If you have something to contribute, though, by all means go ahead. Comparing me to "our alleged cave-dwelling ancestors", though, just makes me think you're an asshat as well as a sheep.

Not to get off topic, but does this mean you don't believe in evolution?

Concerning your comments about the Church, some of them are specifically directed at the Catholic Church, of which I've never been a part. I myself have many disagreements with the Catholic Church, and dislike having its beliefs assumed to be mine.

I never assumed you were part of it. I was giving examples from what I have experience with. It's nice that you disagree with them.

Now what was I saying about making excuses...

Regarding your comment that "religions are extremely good at giving people an easy out": Your summation of Christianity is just plain wrong.

Oh yeah. You're offended by being grouped with those dirty Catholics, and then go on to and accuse my "summation of Christianity" to be wrong. Now this might be fair, but you're now grouping all Christians together and defending their beliefs, as if every Christian believes the same thing you do.


My guess is that you believe that morality comes from evolution...

It does, at least in some sense. This can be clearly demonstrated by looking at basic moral instincts among our non-human animal relatives. Apes, monkeys, and even some fish show basic behaviours akin to the Golden Rule.

..which would lead you to conclude, most likely, that our morality is inherent and that we thus don't need any "commandments" to tell us what is right and wrong.

Nope. Never said that. Way to make a blatant, emotionally loaded strawman.

What I said was that serious, secular ethics and philosophy are a better place to look for morality. Huge difference.

You're leaping to conclusions, and grouping atheists together under a single banner. You are guilty of the same things you accuse me of.

I've heard other atheists make this same basic point. But are the Ten Commandments obvious? There seems to be a lot of people today who lie, covet, commit adultery and dishonor their parents without batting a lash

Yes, we could also talk about the parts of the commandments which have nothing to do with morality. You're right, I should have qualified which ten commandments weren't completely full of shit before saying they were obvious.

to address Hitchens' most scathing criticism of the Decalogue --the pre-Hebrew inhabitants of Canaan routinely practiced child sacrifice. I guess their pre-Decalogue, innate evolutionary morality failed to notify them that murder was off-limits.

And the Hebrews themselves slaughtered the men, older women, and children if the cities they conquered, you're right. Unfortunately, the whole thing is a strawman argument.

I thought you wanted an intellectual discussion, I really did. :rolleyes:

[Choobus]

I thought you wanted an intellectual discussion, I really did. :rolleyes:

Dude, he's a fucking theist. No matter how literate he may seem to be, nor how educated he may (or may not) actually be, he is fundamentally incapable of an intellectual discussion because he believes in fairy tales, and because he does not value reason or logic, by definition: no reasonable person can accept an outlandish tale based on an ill defined faith, especially when there are numerous alternative explanations for all religious articles of faith that are far more realistic (not the least of them being that people lie). Trying to have a genuine intellectual discussion (about religion) with a theist is like trying to have a romantic getaway with a sadistic rapist.

[nkb]

Trying to have a genuine intellectual discussion (about religion) with a theist is like trying to have a romantic getaway with a sadistic rapist.
How dare you mention rape, Choobus! Which part of Lily's explanation about us being women-haters did you not understand?

Ix-nay on the Ape-ray!

[Choobus]

How dare you mention rape, Choobus! Which part of Lily's explanation about us being women-haters did you not understand?

Ix-nay on the Ape-ray!

An ape ray would be so awesome. I don't mean an ape named Ray, although that would be pretty cool. I mean a ray that turns people into apes. Much more fun than a silly old death ray.

As for Lily, I am sure she understands that my lifelong policy regarding rape is summed up thusly: don't be rapin'.

[whoneedscience]

No matter how literate he may seem to be, nor how educated he may (or may not) actually be, he is fundamentally incapable of an intellectual discussion because he believes in fairy tales, and because he does not value reason or logic.

I was being sarcastic. The guy yelled at me for not being intellectual, and then filled an entire post with loaded terms and some of the worst strawmen I've ever seen.

When can we have another Quaker? Sure the guy ultimately played the faith card on us, as I remember, but at least he was respectable.

[Choobus]

Quaker was unusual. Indeed, on a number of occasions he more or less implied that his concept of god was so loose that he's not really a christian at all. At least he wasn't a puffed up dumbass with an entirely inaccurate view of his own intelligence.

[DrunkMonkey]

It's hard to take seriously anyone who takes D'Souza's book seriously. The guy is a fucking moron.

May I suggest that you'd be most beneficial to atheism's cause, Mr. Choobus, if you simply didn't say anything.

I have to agree with Choobus here. D'Souza is an idiot of the highest order.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/10/the_dimness_of_dsouza.php

I would also say that "Breaking the Spell" by Dennett is a much better book than Hitchens'. It uses a much more scholarly approach, plus Dennett isn't a right-wing douche. In fact, Dennett, Dawkins, and Harris are all better than Hitchens.

[DrunkMonkey]

I don't see the correlation between unicorns and God. Besides that, who's to say that the unicorn, or something akin to it, isn't one amongst the thousands of now-extinct species that used to populate the Earth?


Who's to say there isn't a diamond the size of a refrigerator buried in my backyard? The correlation is that both concepts have no proof whatsoever, and are crazy enough that you can't simply say "Maybe it is and maybe it isn't". There is no need to prove something wrong when there is no reason to think it is true in the first place, and several reasons to think that it isn't true.


But that is all secondary to this: It's great to see that some of those who accuse theists of "behaving like fucking sheep" show the intelligence of our alleged cave-dwelling ancestors. To say that "an 'intellectual case' regarding belief in God is laughable" -- without any supporting material, no less -- is the very epitome of narrow-mindedness, not to mention an insult to the very notion of an intellectual discussion, such as what some of us here are trying to have.


So would I need supporting material if I were to say that an "intellectual case" regarding belief in Thor is laughable? Belief in the government trying to control my mind? Belief that objects shaped like triangles are created by aliens to kill me?

You can't have an intelligent discussion about the reasons for belief in a religion because all of religious belief is based on faith and sometimes some crappy reasoning and/or "evidence" (such as believing the bible is true because it says that it is true).

[Professor Chaos]

Always seeing the negative side of things...

Therefore.......what?

[Lurker]

Therefore.......what?
:bop:

[Gnosital]

:bop:


Lurker just never tires of displaying his lack of mental ability. Where's his mind gone? Floating away in the ether world I guess.

SO how long will the new jeebus boy chew toy last? The smart ones always go away so soon .....

[JasonDrexler]

My, my. My, my, my. Where to begin? Thanks for all the responses.

Drunk Monkey,

I see your point about Thor, and I'll raise you this one: Nobody (as far as I know) ever claimed to meet Thor, whereas several New Testament writers personally knew Jesus (Matthew, John, Peter and James, for example.) And I'll grant you -- to a degree -- the point about a diamond in your backyard. The point I was trying to make there was that there have been instances when science said certain things weren't so, or didn't exist, only to be proven wrong later on (which is a fundamental aspect of science: continual correction of itself). A fairly recent example: Archaeology has confirmed the existence of the Biblical King David. Archaeology, by the way, has confirmed a lot of Biblical objects -- people, places and things -- and that's one reason why I am confident placing my trust in the Bible (not just because it says it's true). There are several outside sources, in fact, that support what the Bible says: archaeology, Roman history, the writings of Jewish historian Josephus. But I digress. You (and others here) make it sound as though the nonexistence of God is obvious, so much so that to even suggest His existence is the height of absurdity. But since God, by definition, exists beyond the material realm, neither His existence nor nonexistence could be "obvious." Thus, I think that each side in this debate bears the burden of proof. I won't let an atheist get away with simply saying, for example, "The gospels aren't true" without showing me (through scholarly research, for example) WHY they're not true.

whoneedscience,

You're right: I grouped atheists together and I shouldn't have. My apologies.

choobus,

If Quaker was an actual Quaker, then he wasn't a Christian. The theology of Quakers is quite different from that of Christians.

Some general comments for everyone:

Concerning morality: I've heard Dawkins say that he believes that morality came through evolution, yet in the same breath he said that evolution is an immoral process because of its violent and indiscriminate nature. So I ask you: How came a process that is completely and inherently immoral produce something moral?

Concerning evolution: In recent times I've maintained an openness to the idea that evolution is true (with the proviso that God was behind it), yet I remain unconvinced. If two skeletons -- similar but with certain notable differences -- are discovered and placed side by side, the creationist will look at them and say, "God created these two creatures separately," and the evolutionist will say, "The latter creature evolved from the former." Each of these theories -- taken strictly as theories -- are equally valid. What evolutionists would need to show in order to prove their theory is the mechanism by which evolution takes place. I'm always hearing about how this creature evolved into that creature and so on, but nobody has ever explained precisely HOW that occurs. And I'm not talking about natural selection. I'm talking about: What is it inside a creature's body, inside its genetic code or inside its brain or its cells, that says, "Hm, the creature to which I belong is living in a cold climate and would thus benefit from a thick, shaggy coat of fur, so I'll cause him to grow one." Furthermore, just as one example, consider the fish: Evolutionists says that some of them developed a capacity to breath in the open air and then moved onto dry ground and became land animals. This, however, raises some problems, such as: Fish, as we know, can't survive in the open air, so they'd have to have developed their open-air-breathing capacity before they ever came out of the water ... but that begs the questions, "How does a creature that's spent its entire existence in the water even KNOW of the existence of nonwater environs?" and "Why would a creature who's perfectly adapted to water even WANT to go onto dry land?" and -- and this is the real kicker -- even if it knew of dry land and wanted to get there and survive there, how could it make this happen? This goes back to what I was saying before: There would have to be something inside the creature -- either in its genetic code or its cells, for example -- that would "know" that it needed to initiate a change and that would then in fact initiate it. At the very least, I think that evolutionists would have to admit that evolution, if it existed, was itself a form of intelligence (a theory put forth by novelist James Rollins).

Concerning why I joined some atheist sites: I want to learn more about atheistic arguments so that I can hone my theistic arguments.

Concerning where I fall on the belief spectrum: For most of my life I've belonged to a conservative American Baptist Church (not sure if that helps at all, but there it is). Regarding specific belief, I believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, that God exists as three Persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), that Jesus was actually God on earth in fleshly form, that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary (but I don't believe in the immaculate conception), that Christ willingly paid the price for my sins and rose from the dead on the third day, that there will be a resurrection of all the dead and a final judgment, and that God gave us brains and wants them to be as sharply honed as any other weapon.

Concerning "atheism's cause": I was referring to the apparent atheist desire to see all theists give up their theism and become like-minded (dogmatic?) atheists.

And to Rat Bastard: No, I never lurked here before joining.

That's all for now. Take care.

[Choobus]

Concerning why I joined some atheist sites: I want to learn more about atheistic arguments so that I can hone my theistic arguments.


you have theistic arguments? You should tell us, we love that sort of thing.

[Eva]

biologically speaking, jason, those processes have been studied and the mechanisms are somewhat understood already, from what i know. sure, some details are still unexplained, but what has been explained already does not take god into account, nor has he been found to be needed for the processes to take place...

so, you can say "god pushed the button for evolution to happen" (bullshit, IMHO) but evolution is, period. no need to believe in it or not.

[Irreligious]

... But since God, by definition, exists beyond the material realm, neither His existence nor nonexistence could be "obvious." Thus, I think that each side in this debate bears the burden of proof. I won't let an atheist get away with simply saying, for example, "The gospels aren't true" without showing me (through scholarly research, for example) WHY they're not true.
Welcome to the forum, JasonDrexler.

Your proposition is that there is a realm beyond the material one we all know to exist. I don't know this to be true. Frankly, I don't know how anyone could. Have you been to or observed this other alleged realm? Where is it? What is it, if it's not concrete? Apart from your belief in what the Bible says about it, what evidence do you have for its existence?

As an atheist or skeptic, that's all I really care about when you make a claim like that.

I'm not interested in showing you "the gospels" are not true any more than you are interested in showing a Muslim that the Qu'ran is not true or a Scientologist that "Dianetics" is a load of bunk. Your beliefs are your beliefs and theirs are theirs, and you're all entitled to them, as long as they don't involve me.

You make the claim, you bring the evidence for your claim. Then we can weigh the veracity of it. That seems reasonable to me. Do you disagree?

As for scholarly research about claims based on a nonmaterial realm and its alleged intersection with the concrete realm we already know to exist, why would I bother to wade through all that before you have credibly established that the former alleged realm you claim exists actually does exist? I'm not claiming that it doesn't, mind you. What I am saying is that I have no reason to believe it does unless you or someone else can provide the necessary evidence to back up that claim.

If you can't do that, we'll just end up debating all manner of things from two irreconcilable positions. That is, your belief in things undemonstrated and my skepticism of such, or the material vs. the immaterial.

[whoneedscience]

So I ask you: How came a process that is completely and inherently immoral produce something moral?

What evolutionists would need to show in order to prove their theory is the mechanism by which evolution takes place. I'm always hearing about how this creature evolved into that creature and so on, but nobody has ever explained precisely HOW that occurs. And I'm not talking about natural selection. I'm talking about: What is it inside a creature's body, inside its genetic code or inside its brain or its cells, that says, "Hm, the creature to which I belong is living in a cold climate and would thus benefit from a thick, shaggy coat of fur, so I'll cause him to grow one."

You appear to be extraordinarily ignorant regarding evolution. Now ignorance of evolution itself is not a bad thing - really I can't blame you, especially if you grew up in a conservative Baptist household - but wilful ignorance is.

Your hangups are completely normal misunderstandings, although it's difficult for me to convey how far away from Natural Selection they actually are. I don't have time to explain details, but if you actually want to learn, there are people here who can explain it very well (Anthony, where are you?).

I also recommend doing some reading. I understand that you might have an aversion to reading Richard Dawkins, but his books, particularly The Selfish Gene, and also The Blind Watchmaker, are great places to start. Selfish Gene was never intended to be atheistic or anti-religious at all, although Watchmaker was intended to debunk intelligent design.

[Irreligious]

Concerning "atheism's cause": I was referring to the apparent atheist desire to see all theists give up their theism and become like-minded (dogmatic?) atheists.
There probably are some atheists who would like you to give up your religion, but I'm not one of them. I don't give one good goddamn about your religion. If it gets you through your days and nights, who am I to attempt to take that from you?

Whatever you believe is your business. If you think you have good reason to believe that I am made of cottage cheese, I don't want to argue with you. That is, until you start attacking me with a spoon.

I can't speak for other other atheists, but all I'd really like from theists is to be left alone and to not be drawn into their unfounded realities, whether it's one of the variant forms of Christianity, Islam or Voodoo.

Atheists don't have a formal cause, a singular philosophy or shared dogmas any more than people with green eyes do. The only thing we share is a lack of belief in what you claim to be true, because, collectively, you theists of all stripes steadfastly produce no observable, testable evidence for such.

Generally speaking, atheists do not offer proof that the basic premise of what you claim is untrue. Nor, in the strictest sense of the word, do we even posit an opposite viewpoint as regards your claims. Without compelling evidence for your claims, we are simply compelled to disbelieve them. Do you believe every claim that is presented to you?

[nkb]

My, my. My, my, my. Where to begin? That was exactly what I thought when I read your post. I'm not sure you could have crammed more mistakes and misconceptions into it if you tried.
I see your point about Thor, and I'll raise you this one: Nobody (as far as I know) ever claimed to meet Thor, whereas several New Testament writers personally knew Jesus (Matthew, John, Peter and James, for example.)
That is incorrect.
First of all, I am not very knowledgable about Norse mythology, but I will go out on a limb, and bet that there are accounts of people meeting Thor. Of course, somebody saying they met someone doesn't mean it's true, but that's beside the point.

As far as eye-witnesses to Jesus, maybe you need to do a little more research. Even our resident theist here, Lily, will agree that none of the Gospel authors ever met Jesus.
Secondly, even if we stipulate that they did meet Jesus, now you have the burden of proving that this Jesus had anything at all to do with God.

A fairly recent example: Archaeology has confirmed the existence of the Biblical King David. Archaeology, by the way, has confirmed a lot of Biblical objects -- people, places and things -- and that's one reason why I am confident placing my trust in the Bible (not just because it says it's true). There are several outside sources, in fact, that support what the Bible says: archaeology, Roman history, the writings of Jewish historian Josephus.
So, all it takes for you to believe a book is 100% true is if some of the details have been found to be accurate?
Is Harry Potter an actual wizard, if we can confirm that some of the people and places mentioned in the books actually exist (London, for instance)?
But since God, by definition, exists beyond the material realm, neither His existence nor nonexistence could be "obvious."
Irreligious has addressed this point already.

Thus, I think that each side in this debate bears the burden of proof. I won't let an atheist get away with simply saying, for example, "The gospels aren't true" without showing me (through scholarly research, for example) WHY they're not true.
If you are shown that the gospels contain errors, will you admit that they are not God's word?

If Quaker was an actual Quaker, then he wasn't a Christian. The theology of Quakers is quite different from that of Christians.
Quaker was an actual Quaker, and (repeatedly) averred that he is a Christian. Are you trying to invoke the No True Christian fallacy?

Concerning morality: I've heard Dawkins say that he believes that morality came through evolution, yet in the same breath he said that evolution is an immoral process because of its violent and indiscriminate nature.
I may be mistaken, but I believe Dawkins called evolution an amoral process, not immoral. Morally neutral, not evil morals. Big difference.

Concerning evolution: <lots of misguided and ignorant musings on evolution>
As whoneedscience noted, you have shown a complete lack of understanding of evolution, therefore it is very hard to respond to it. The first thing you have to understand is that evolution is not a guided process, therefore you are right that genes do not poke their head out and say "Hey, let's make some hair, because it's getting colder".

Concerning "atheism's cause": I was referring to the apparent atheist desire to see all theists give up their theism and become like-minded (dogmatic?) atheists.Maybe you should look up the definition of "atheism": the lack of belief in god(s).
So, talking about an "atheist cause" is like saying that there is a cause for people who like brunettes.

[Smellyoldgit]

Concerning "atheism's cause": I was referring to the apparent atheist desire to see all theists give up their theism and become like-minded (dogmatic?) atheists.
I am perfectly happy for you to continue to follow your strange beliefs behind closed doors - between yourself and your psychiatrist.

I will kick up a stink and "fight the good cause" only when:-

1) you claim special legislative power & privilige based on your beliefs.
2) you claim moral or ethical superiority based on writings in a collection of ancient books
3) you claim that your beliefs allow you to legitimately discriminate against certain groups of fellow humans.
4) you claim that your beliefs allow you to slaughter non-believers to propagate your "cause"
5) you claim priviliged knowledge of the natural world based on a collection of bronze age scribblings - and try to force our schools to teach it as true.

[JU Mike]

First of all welcome to the forum. Second, I'm just going to respond to a few things you've mentioned and the rest can be dealt with by RA members more informed than I am.

The point I was trying to make there was that there have been instances when science said certain things weren't so, or didn't exist, only to be proven wrong later on (which is a fundamental aspect of science: continual correction of itself).

I don't know if this was your point, but it sounds like you're trying to say that because science changes from time to time it has a weakness. If that's what you meant then you are mistaken, the fact that science changes is exactly what makes science so special and more reliable. Science is basically a self correcting machine that helps us learn.


Concerning evolution: In recent times I've maintained an openness to the idea that evolution is true (with the proviso that God was behind it), yet I remain unconvinced. If two skeletons -- similar but with certain notable differences -- are discovered and placed side by side, the creationist will look at them and say, "God created these two creatures separately," and the evolutionist will say, "The latter creature evolved from the former." Each of these theories -- taken strictly as theories -- are equally valid. What evolutionists would need to show in order to prove their theory is the mechanism by which evolution takes place.

You use the word theory as if it defines as unproven hypothesis. Do you understand that in the scientific context the word theory doesn't mean "guess" or "unproven hypothesis." In science the word theory is an explanation that has already been verified through observation, and testable evidence.

[JasonDrexler]

JU Mike,

Thanks for the welcome. Forgive me for being loose with the word "theory" ... in that example, I was simply trying to convey the idea of starting points, and that creationists and evolutionists start with the same material evidence (fossils, cells, etc.) before proceeding in different manners. But thank you for clarifying, and yes, I do understand the scientific use of the word theory.

Regarding the theory of evolution, 'twould appear that the general consensus is that I don't know jack about it. I respectfully disagree; I've done a fair amount of reading on it -- from both sides (I should say THREE sides: creation, evolution, and guided evolution) -- but honestly, I've yet to see (obviously) enough to convince me of evolution's veracity. I'm plenty eager for anyone here to enlighten me on the issue -- take as much time and put as much detail into it as you want -- but in all honesty, I'm just not seeing it. Evolution would involved hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of positive mutations, yet I've heard from more than one scientist that most mutations are negative. Is this untrue? And I wasn't trying to be a smartass with my fish-to-land-animal example, or the idea of evolution itself having some form of intelligence, or in asking about the mechanism(s) of evolution. Those are honest objections I have, and I've yet to see a cogent answer to any of them, here or anywhere else.

nkb,

I've never heard of the No True Christian fallacy .... but I can tell you for sure what basic Christian doctrine is, and Quaker doctrine isn't it. Maybe that sounds arrogant, but it's not: A fairly simple comparison of basic Christian theological tenets with basic Quaker theologocial tenets reveals that they're not two peas in the same pod (other than both being theistic). Likewise, Mormonism isn't Christian, and neither is Jehovah's Witnesses. In fact, as far as arrogance goes, I've run into as many arrogant atheists as arrogant theists. Hitchens, in particular (along with a few at least on this forum), is quite condescending towards people of faith -- even when people of faith stand up for what is right, Hitchens says it's due to their "humanism" and not their faith. How arrogant. It's one thing to say that a person's faith can lead them to do bad things, but quite another to say that one's faith canNOT be the cause of your good deeds. But, I suppose that when you think that you ("you" as in humankind) is all that there is, and that you're the one true hope for our race and our planet, insufferable arrogance is sure to follow. To think that we -- who have caused most of the suffering this world has ever seen -- are the solution to our problems is the apex of pride.

[freethought]

i stopped reading this place after the owner decided that cells have little souls attached to them we all should cherish and protect.
hope he got better.

[Kamikaze189]

Evolution would involved hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of positive mutations, yet I've heard from more than one scientist that most mutations are negative. Is this untrue?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

[Rat Bastard]

i stopped reading this place after the owner decided that cells have little souls attached to them we all should cherish and protect.
hope he got better.

I don't think he owns it (the forums, anyway) anymore. Chris, is that true?

[Professor Chaos]

Yes, that's true. It's all Chris' now. :)

[JU Mike]

i stopped reading this place after the owner decided that cells have little souls attached to them we all should cherish and protect.
hope he got better.

You haven't been here since 2005, in that case welcome back.

[antix]

Concerning where I fall on the belief spectrum: For most of my life I've belonged to a conservative American Baptist Church (not sure if that helps at all, but there it is). Regarding specific belief, I believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, So Pi= exactly 3? God once commanded his peeps to be happy as they smashed children against rocks? Giving a list of 5 names is somehow equal to 6-- twice? Bats are birds? Bad things happen because a talking snake once tricked a rib-lady into eating a magic apple that knew everything?

Just have to say that belonging to a conservative baptist church didn't seem to help you out at all.

that God exists as three Persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), that Jesus was actually God on earth in fleshly form, that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary (but I don't believe in the immaculate conception), that Christ willingly paid the price for my sins and rose from the dead on the third day, that there will be a resurrection of all the dead and a final judgment, and that God gave us brains and wants them to be as sharply honed as any other weapon. Just take a step back for a moment, if you will, and take a look at this...

Do you see why many of us don't give any credibility to any of this and see no way of turning any of it into a rational and reasonable position? I mean honestly. 1=3, or 3=1 or whatever? A human female giving birth without ever having had sex? The rise of the living dead? A dude getting the shit kicked out of him dying from those wounds somehow means that I can be forgiven for... what... having been born?

And you want to have an intellectual discussion about this?

[Choobus]

Bad things happen because a talking snake once tricked a rib-lady into eating a magic apple that knew everything?


:lol:

[JasonDrexler]

Antix,

Cool name, by the way.

No, forgiveness is necessary not because you were born, but because, as an adult human with free will to make your own decisions, you've sometimes made choices that were against God's will -- choices that we might refer to as "morally wrong."

[antix]

Antix,

Cool name, by the way. Thanks :)

No, forgiveness is necessary not because you were born, but because, as an adult human with free will to make your own decisions, you've sometimes made choices that were against God's will -- choices that we might refer to as "morally wrong."
What if I were to tell you that I've never once in my entire life made a choice that was against God's will? Or in compliance with God's will for that matter? This is quite true, since I don't accept any God-claims, his "will" becomes meaningless. Kind of like making a choice that is against Gandalf's will.

[fodder]

Antix,

Cool name, by the way.

No, forgiveness is necessary not because you were born, but because, as an adult human with free will to make your own decisions, you've sometimes made choices that were against God's will -- choices that we might refer to as "morally wrong."

God is ALL-POWERFUL, therefor it is IMPOSSIBLE for us to do anything that is AGAINST "God's will", unless He wishes it so.
Also, God has a PLAN, and since He is ALL-POWERFUL, it is impossible for us not to follow His plan.
How can we require forgiveness for things that we were destined to do by the ALL-POWERFUL?

I bet you'll now claim that we were given "freewill". So explain how God's plan co-exists with free will. And how we can make "freewill" choices under the duress and threat of eternal hellfire.

Freewill:"You can shop at any grocery store you like, but if you don't shop at mine, I'll burn your house down and kill your kids."

[mmfwmc]

Regarding the theory of evolution, 'twould appear that the general consensus is that I don't know jack about it. I respectfully disagree; I've done a fair amount of reading on it -- from both sides (I should say THREE sides: creation, evolution, and guided evolution) -- but honestly, I've yet to see (obviously) enough to convince me of evolution's veracity. I'm plenty eager for anyone here to enlighten me on the issue -- take as much time and put as much detail into it as you want -- but in all honesty, I'm just not seeing it. Evolution would involved hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of positive mutations, yet I've heard from more than one scientist that most mutations are negative. Is this untrue? And I wasn't trying to be a smartass with my fish-to-land-animal example, or the idea of evolution itself having some form of intelligence, or in asking about the mechanism(s) of evolution. Those are honest objections I have, and I've yet to see a cogent answer to any of them, here or anywhere else.




With all due respect you clearly don't understand evolution. I can email you a spreadsheet that uses an evolutionary algorithm. You can see the effects I'm about to describe. Unfortunately it's too big to attach. If anyone else wants it, PM me with your email address.

Let's imagine that 100 grues live in a place that just had an ice age begin. The temp has dropped 5 degrees. None of them have any hair, so lots of them start to die. In the next generation of children, there are the predictable and normal number of mutations.
1 child has an extra foot. It dies.
1 child has no ears. It dies
1 child has an allergy to things that rhyme with "purple." Nothing happens. It grows up and has a couple of kids.
1 child has a little more subcutaneous fat than normal. It isn't as cold as the others. It is more successful. It has lots of children.
In the next generation we have:
No children from the two negative mutations.
A couple of kids with the neutral mutation.
Lots of kids with the positive mutation.

In the next generation, this is even more pronounced. Soon all of the grues have an increased layer of subcutaneous fat. All because of selection pressure and a single positive mutation. Yes, there were many negative mutations, but they all died out.

Let's address your specific concerns:

Evolution would involved hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of positive mutations, yet I've heard from more than one scientist that most mutations are negative. Is this untrue?
Many millions of positive mutations. But since life has been around for many billions of generations, this isn't a problem. And yes, most mutations are negative, but we only see the effects of the positive ones.


And I wasn't trying to be a smartass with my fish-to-land-animal example, or the idea of evolution itself having some form of intelligence, or in asking about the mechanism(s) of evolution.
Lots of people have these objections. They are wrong. I'm not being nasty, but this is a statement of fact. The fact of evolution might be debatable, but you are mis-stating the theory.


"How does a creature that's spent its entire existence in the water even KNOW of the existence of nonwater environs?"
First of all, there is no need for knowledge. Things just happen. Ok, so next up, how did it happen? First of all, some algae ends up in tidal pools. The water dries out. Maybe only one cell survives, but somehow it is able to live until it gets wet again. It has lots of kids because all the others are dead. This happens a few million times. Now you have algae that live on land most of the time.

Then a fish, starving and eating algae finds itself jumping out of the water to eat algae on rocks. It doesn't stay out of the water, it just eats a mouthfull before it falls back in. The fish that are best at eating this algae get the most food and have the most kids. Eventually, one of the fish starts to develop the ability to stay on the land for brief periods of time, gorging itself on algae instead of getting it by the mouthful. It has prodigous numbers of offspring. Then, proper amphibians develop... At no stage did anything decide. At no stage was any knowledge possessed. Strong things ate, lived and procreated. Weak things died. End of list.


and "Why would a creature who's perfectly adapted to water even WANT to go onto dry land?"
Only one organism in a billion dies of old age underwater. It is one of the most brutal environments imaginable. But that doesn't actually mean anything directly - animals don't WANT to do anything. They just do.

More to come, but now I'm angry I have to go punch some people! Rugby pics for the girls tomorrow!

[whoneedscience]

take as much time and put as much detail into it as you want -- but in all honesty, I'm just not seeing it. Evolution would involved hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of positive mutations, yet I've heard from more than one scientist that most mutations are negative. Is this untrue?

What do you mean evolution "would involve" any number of mutations? This simply doesn't mean anything on its own. The idea is that positive mutations are selected for when they give their owner a competitive advantage. Thus, most of the genes (all of them mutated into existence at some point) carried by any living creature are "positive", or else that creature would not be alive, so the absolute number of "positive" mutations does rank in the billions.

Mutation, however, is a random process, and any living creature is highly tuned by natural selection, and thus in a delicate balance. Pull one piece out or add one at random to a working system, and you're likely to mess something up. As a result, most negative mutations are filtered out immediately (i.e. the carrier dies in the womb or soon after birth), so the net result is "positive" or "neutral".

These ideas can be found, very well explained, all over the internet and in any real book on the subject. They are not hard to comprehend when you look at them outside of your bigoted, fundamentalist viewpoint (the one that writes "take as much time and put as much detail into it as you want -- but in all honesty, I'm just not seeing it").

And I wasn't trying to be a smartass with my fish-to-land-animal example, or the idea of evolution itself having some form of intelligence, or in asking about the mechanism(s) of evolution. Those are honest objections I have, and I've yet to see a cogent answer to any of them, here or anywhere else.

You're not taking the time to understand ideas before rejecting them. This is quite clear. When you have your fingers planted firmly in your ears, I don't really care how many times you've been exposed to it.

Stop trying to tell us that you're educated on the subject.

But, I suppose that when you think that you ("you" as in humankind) is all that there is, and that you're the one true hope for our race and our planet, insufferable arrogance is sure to follow. To think that we -- who have caused most of the suffering this world has ever seen -- are the solution to our problems is the apex of pride.

What a worthless comment. Is it not also arrogant to assert that you were created in the image of a perfect and divine being, or that you (almost if not entirely exclusively) have access to what that being wants? Give me a break.

[Irreligious]

Antix,

Cool name, by the way.

No, forgiveness is necessary not because you were born, but because, as an adult human with free will to make your own decisions, you've sometimes made choices that were against God's will -- choices that we might refer to as "morally wrong."
Why do you keep talking about this character's will when you have yet to demonstrate to us in any coherent fashion that such a character as God exists?

So far as any of us knows, God is just a proposition, and a poorly constructed one, at that. At least, by your telling.

How is what you're doing right now any different from some wild-eyed individual telling you that there is a hungry, but invisible troll in your basement and you must feed it and live according to its will or the invisible thing will exact its revenge after you're dead? This is what you sound like to me.

Now, given the broad characteristics of the immaterial creature I've outlined, would you care on whit about its moral judgements on your choices?*

*Edited

[Sternwallow]

How dare you mention rape, Choobus! Which part of Lily's explanation about us being women-haters did you not understand?

Ix-nay on the Ape-ray!
:D

[Sternwallow]

My, my. My, my, my. Where to begin? Thanks for all the responses.

Drunk Monkey,

I see your point about Thor, and I'll raise you this one: Nobody (as far as I know) ever claimed to meet Thor, whereas several New Testament writers personally knew Jesus (Matthew, John, Peter and James, for example.) And I'll grant you -- to a degree -- the point about a diamond in your backyard. The point I was trying to make there was that there have been instances when science said certain things weren't so, or didn't exist, only to be proven wrong later on (which is a fundamental aspect of science: continual correction of itself). A fairly recent example: Archaeology has confirmed the existence of the Biblical King David. Archaeology, by the way, has confirmed a lot of Biblical objects -- people, places and things -- and that's one reason why I am confident placing my trust in the Bible (not just because it says it's true). There are several outside sources, in fact, that support what the Bible says: archaeology, Roman history, the writings of Jewish historian Josephus. But I digress. You (and others here) make it sound as though the nonexistence of God is obvious, so much so that to even suggest His existence is the height of absurdity. But since God, by definition, exists beyond the material realm, neither His existence nor nonexistence could be "obvious." Thus, I think that each side in this debate bears the burden of proof. I won't let an atheist get away with simply saying, for example, "The gospels aren't true" without showing me (through scholarly research, for example) WHY they're not true.

whoneedscience,

You're right: I grouped atheists together and I shouldn't have. My apologies.

choobus,

If Quaker was an actual Quaker, then he wasn't a Christian. The theology of Quakers is quite different from that of Christians.

Some general comments for everyone:

Concerning morality: I've heard Dawkins say that he believes that morality came through evolution, yet in the same breath he said that evolution is an immoral process because of its violent and indiscriminate nature. So I ask you: How came a process that is completely and inherently immoral produce something moral?

Concerning evolution: In recent times I've maintained an openness to the idea that evolution is true (with the proviso that God was behind it), yet I remain unconvinced. If two skeletons -- similar but with certain notable differences -- are discovered and placed side by side, the creationist will look at them and say, "God created these two creatures separately," and the evolutionist will say, "The latter creature evolved from the former." Each of these theories -- taken strictly as theories -- are equally valid. What evolutionists would need to show in order to prove their theory is the mechanism by which evolution takes place. I'm always hearing about how this creature evolved into that creature and so on, but nobody has ever explained precisely HOW that occurs. And I'm not talking about natural selection. I'm talking about: What is it inside a creature's body, inside its genetic code or inside its brain or its cells, that says, "Hm, the creature to which I belong is living in a cold climate and would thus benefit from a thick, shaggy coat of fur, so I'll cause him to grow one." Furthermore, just as one example, consider the fish: Evolutionists says that some of them developed a capacity to breath in the open air and then moved onto dry ground and became land animals. This, however, raises some problems, such as: Fish, as we know, can't survive in the open air, so they'd have to have developed their open-air-breathing capacity before they ever came out of the water ... but that begs the questions, "How does a creature that's spent its entire existence in the water even KNOW of the existence of nonwater environs?" and "Why would a creature who's perfectly adapted to water even WANT to go onto dry land?" and -- and this is the real kicker -- even if it knew of dry land and wanted to get there and survive there, how could it make this happen? This goes back to what I was saying before: There would have to be something inside the creature -- either in its genetic code or its cells, for example -- that would "know" that it needed to initiate a change and that would then in fact initiate it. At the very least, I think that evolutionists would have to admit that evolution, if it existed, was itself a form of intelligence (a theory put forth by novelist James Rollins).

Concerning why I joined some atheist sites: I want to learn more about atheistic arguments so that I can hone my theistic arguments.

Concerning where I fall on the belief spectrum: For most of my life I've belonged to a conservative American Baptist Church (not sure if that helps at all, but there it is). Regarding specific belief, I believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, that God exists as three Persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), that Jesus was actually God on earth in fleshly form, that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary (but I don't believe in the immaculate conception), that Christ willingly paid the price for my sins and rose from the dead on the third day, that there will be a resurrection of all the dead and a final judgment, and that God gave us brains and wants them to be as sharply honed as any other weapon.

Concerning "atheism's cause": I was referring to the apparent atheist desire to see all theists give up their theism and become like-minded (dogmatic?) atheists.

And to Rat Bastard: No, I never lurked here before joining.

That's all for now. Take care.
As you said, there is much material for you to access and digest.

Sadly, modern scholarship has shown that Matthew, John, Peter and James were not the authors of their respectively attributed gospels. The reports are generations (in the reproduction of information sense) removed from the event and so the stories are no more compelling as evidence than any made-up tale.

Seldom does science make absolute pronouncements like "such and such does not exist" Unless they can back it up with qualifiers like "under the best current theory covering all known cases." Further, Newton's laws were not shown to be false and trashed by Einstein's relativity. Rather they was refined, adjusted and their scope widened to accommodate the new information.

Given the number of incorrect statements in your paragraph about evolution, I recommend that you check out:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/
for information on evolution. There are also several threads here that explore it in detail.

Re "atheist cause", I agree it would be easier for all if theists just converted, but that is not the goal of any atheist cause. Our cause, if any, is to keep religion a private matter kept in your home and bedroom and strictly out of our homes and bedrooms.

In light of the patently obvious errors and contradictions in the Bible (what turned me off when I was sincerely searching for a basis for belief), how can you believe that it is inerrant (that is no errors at all)? Do you believe for example, that Pi=3 as it says in scripture?

[Sternwallow]

Yes, that's true. It's all Chris' now. :)
AH! Made my day. Having RA skulking in the background always felt a bit creepy. Good on ya, Chris. :thumbsup:

[Sternwallow]

Antix,

Cool name, by the way.

No, forgiveness is necessary not because you were born, but because, as an adult human with free will to make your own decisions, you've sometimes made choices that were against God's will -- choices that we might refer to as "morally wrong."
Then Adam's sin does not apply to (condemn) newborns before they are old enough to understand moral behavior? If that is true then Adam, equally unable to understand moral behavior could not have sinned by eating the fruit. So we are all off the hook! Yay!!

[antix]

Then Adam's sin does not apply to (condemn) newborns before they are old enough to understand moral behavior? If that is true then Adam, equally unable to understand moral behavior could not have sinned by eating the fruit. So we are all off the hook! Yay!! WOOT! I'm going to celebrate by eating 5 babies tonight :)

I'd eat 7, but I'm trying to watch my weight.

[Sternwallow]

WOOT! I'm going to celebrate by eating 5 babies tonight :)

I'd eat 7, but I'm trying to watch my weight.
Make the extra two eat each other. Careful, they are too young for barbecue sauce.

[JasonDrexler]

What if I were to tell you that I've never once in my entire life made a choice that was against God's will? Or in compliance with God's will for that matter? This is quite true, since I don't accept any God-claims, his "will" becomes meaningless. Kind of like making a choice that is against Gandalf's will.

This is a fallacy: The fact that you don't "accept any God-claims" doesn't mean they don't exist, or that they're meaningless (they may be meaningless to you, but they're not meaningless). The existence of authority and the acceptance of it are separate issues. There are some in America who "don't accept" the authority of the federal government, but that doesn't make the Fed's authority meaningless.

As far as eye-witnesses to Jesus, maybe you need to do a little more research. Even our resident theist here, Lily, will agree that none of the Gospel authors ever met Jesus.

Lily is wrong. The authors of Matthew and John were the same Matthew and John of Jesus' orginal 12 apostles.

Secondly, even if we stipulate that they did meet Jesus, now you have the burden of proving that this Jesus had anything at all to do with God.

Proof is there for anyone willing to see it: There's much scholarly research (from Mark D. Roberts, in particular) to demonstrate the accuracy and trustworthiness of the Gospels; the historian Josephus confirms the existence of Jesus and his ministry.

I may be mistaken, but I believe Dawkins called evolution an amoral process, not immoral. Morally neutral, not evil morals. Big difference.

You may be right about the a/im thing. However, even if evolution gave rise to morality (which is unproven), how do we determine exactly what that morality is? How do we settle debates of morality? Would our individual moralities be different? If so, none of us would have a right to judge, criticize or condemn another's actions. And if our moralities are all the same, why don't we all simply "know" it and act on it? It might be suggested that religion has interfered with morality, thus muddying the picture, but the fact that even atheists don't agree on all moral issues tells me that there's no obvious, evolution-based morality that we should all know about.

it sounds like you're trying to say that because science changes from time to time it has a weakness. If that's what you meant then you are mistaken, the fact that science changes is exactly what makes science so special and more reliable. Science is basically a self correcting machine that helps us learn.

The fact that science is self-correcting is indeed a strength, but the fact that science needs to be self-correcting (implying that it sometimes does make mistakes) is certainly a weakness.

So Pi= exactly 3? God once commanded his peeps to be happy as they smashed children against rocks? Giving a list of 5 names is somehow equal to 6-- twice? Bats are birds? Bad things happen because a talking snake once tricked a rib-lady into eating a magic apple that knew everything?

I have no idea what the Pi reference is about, nor the list of 5/6 names ... To someone living at the time of Moses, it's certainly plausible that a bat could've been classified as a bird (fowl) ... I'm not sure what you're referring to by children-smashing; please clarify and I'll take a look at it ... Bad things happen because we do things we're not supposed to do. It may seem odd to a child that his parents won't let him have a cookie anytime he wants, but the parents, being wiser, know plenty of reasons to limit his cookie-eating (cavities, stomach aches, childhood obesity, spoiling the child, etc.). Likewise, it may seem odd to you or any of us that that old prude God wouldn't let "rib-lady" eat a "magic apple," but God, being wiser than we ...

Just take a step back for a moment, if you will, and take a look at this...

Do you see why many of us don't give any credibility to any of this and see no way of turning any of it into a rational and reasonable position? I mean honestly. 1=3, or 3=1 or whatever? A human female giving birth without ever having had sex? The rise of the living dead? A dude getting the shit kicked out of him dying from those wounds somehow means that I can be forgiven for... what... having been born?

And you want to have an intellectual discussion about this?

Now it's my turn: Take a step back for a moment, if you will, and take a look at this ...

The universe exploded into existence on its own, out of nothing? A few chemicals randomly mixed in some "primordial soup" and - POP - out sprung the first living organism? Every organism gets its genetic material from its "parents," which means that first, parentless, living organism got its genes from ... where? The soup? Life just "happened" to take hold here, in the midst of a universe that is (as far as we know) otherwise cruel, harsh and intolerable? A couple of fish, somewhere in the world, somehow managed to learn open-air breathing, and somehow developed legs, thus giving rise to every amphibian and land animal we see now?

Do you see why many of us don't give any credibility to any of this and see no way of turning any of it into a rational and reasonable position? I mean honestly.

Then a fish, starving and eating algae finds itself jumping out of the water to eat algae on rocks. It doesn't stay out of the water, it just eats a mouthfull before it falls back in. The fish that are best at eating this algae get the most food and have the most kids. Eventually, one of the fish starts to develop the ability to stay on the land for brief periods of time, gorging itself on algae instead of getting it by the mouthful. It has prodigous numbers of offspring. Then, proper amphibians develop... At no stage did anything decide. At no stage was any knowledge possessed. Strong things ate, lived and procreated. Weak things died. End of list.

This is silly. Assuming that a fish "finds itself" out of the water for any significant amount of time -- which I'll grant could happen, such as when a violent wave might throw a fish onto shore -- and then somehow manages to get back into the water before it dies, it will not pass on an increased "air-breathing" capacity to its offspring. Why not? Because the fish's little "excursion" onto dry land will not have altered its genetic makeup in the least -- the fish will be genetically the same when it re-enters the water as when it left. Therefore, its "children" will not inherit an air-breathing capacity larger than their "father's". If a fish stays out of the water too long, it dies. If it has a "close call" -- stays out for a while but gets back in before the reaper comes -- then that's all it did: it survived. Good for him. Congratulations. But he's still the same fish (genetically) as before. If things were the way (and as easy as) you describe them, there surely would be some humans by now who could spend hours at a time under water without the assistance of a breathing apparatus.

The thing that gets me about evolution is that despite evolutionists' supposed "strict adherence to natural observation," there seems to be as many "ifs" involved as known facts. Your fish example alone involved a lot of "just so" moments -- the fish's home is somehow in an "algae drought," forcing it to look elsewhere; the fish somehow "finds," "knows," "discovers" that there's algae on them thar rocks; your fish just happens to have "prodigious numbers of offspring" (maybe it had none) --and we didn't even touch on the "legs" aspect of development! Your example is akin to the evolutionist idea that every single aspect necessary for life, right down to every last crucial, microscopic, fine-tuned detail, "just happened" to occur here on our planet. Wow. What are the odds?

[JasonDrexler]

Let's imagine that 100 grues live in a place that just had an ice age begin. The temp has dropped 5 degrees. None of them have any hair, so lots of them start to die. In the next generation of children, there are the predictable and normal number of mutations.
1 child has an extra foot. It dies.
1 child has no ears. It dies
1 child has an allergy to things that rhyme with "purple." Nothing happens. It grows up and has a couple of kids.
1 child has a little more subcutaneous fat than normal. It isn't as cold as the others. It is more successful. It has lots of children.
In the next generation we have:
No children from the two negative mutations.
A couple of kids with the neutral mutation.
Lots of kids with the positive mutation.

In the next generation, this is even more pronounced. Soon all of the grues have an increased layer of subcutaneous fat. All because of selection pressure and a single positive mutation. Yes, there were many negative mutations, but they all died out.

What you are describing here is micro-evolution -- change within a species. Creationists (most of us, at least) do not dispute such developments; we can see them all around us (skin color, eye shape, nostril size, etc.). (And again, you have the person with the "positive" mutation having "lots of children," and the one with the "neutral" mutation having only "a couple." Sounds awful convenient.)

Our (my) problem is with macro-evolution -- the changing of one species into a new one. The evolutionary development of a new species requires the introduction of new genetic material, which would then be passed on to the next generation. But no creature (such as a fish out of water) can change its genetic code at will. Here, perhaps, is where mutations come into play, altering the genetic coding so that something new (such as legs for fish) develops at random -- but again, isn't this a lot of "just so" deduction? Are we sure that positive macro-evolutionary mutations occur? I've read of plenty of examples of viruses "evolving" -- with scientists putting them forward as examples of "evolution" -- but these changes were only micro-evolutionary -- it was the same species as before, just with a new feature. And if the natural history of Earth is a several-billion-year-long chain of evolutionary changes amongst all species, where are all the intermediate species? The fossil record should be chock-full of them, yet only two have been put forth (that I know of): the archaeopteryx, whose "intermediate" status is disputed by many; and (according to Hitchens) a recent find involving a fish with some type of "legs" (I've yet to examine this case, yet if it were a smoking gun for evolution's veracity, I'm sure it would have been all over the news by now).

[JasonDrexler]

Then Adam's sin does not apply to (condemn) newborns before they are old enough to understand moral behavior? If that is true then Adam, equally unable to understand moral behavior could not have sinned by eating the fruit. So we are all off the hook! Yay!!

Wrong again. First, God doesn't condemn anyone, we condemn ourselves -- by our bad moral choices. Second, Adam was (obviously) not a newborn babe. He was a new creature, yes, but had an adult level of reason and understanding, as evidenced by his ability to name all the animals and understand the idea of a mate (Eve). And no one is held accountable for their sins until they've reached an age when they can understand the concepts of sin and free choice -- so kids are in no eternal danger.

[Irreligious]

Lily is wrong.
Chile, you done stepped in it now!

Oh, how I have lived for this day. Sic 'em, Lily!

[ocmpoma]

The universe exploded into existence on its own, out of nothing?Nope. Big Bang Theory concerns itself with the rapid expansion of the universe from a singularity, not the creation of the universe from nothing. A few chemicals randomly mixed in some "primordial soup" and - POP - out sprung the first living organism?Nope. First came self-replicating chains of chemicals, as the theory goes, and from there selection took over.Every organism gets its genetic material from its "parents," which means that first, parentless, living organism got its genes from ... where?Well, there would of course be a grey area between the first self-replicating systems and what we think of as organisms with a 'standard' DNA-based genetic code, so this last part is pure strawman.
Our (my) problem is with macro-evolution -- the changing of one species into a new one.What is a species? What about so-called ring species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species)?

Do you agree with the standard history of the rise of modern English? What about modern Spanish, French, and Italian? Small changes accumulating over time eventually lead to large differences, the common canard of micro vs. macro is completely fallacious.

[Kamikaze189]

Discussing evolution with a theist is a waste of time. Even if they eventually admit it's true, they're just going to say god was using it. So the only real impact it would have is to make them think their god is a little bit lazier.

However, here's some speciation for you. (Speciation is synonymous with macroevolution). It's easier to link to these things than garble up the whole page: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

Actually read that.

So now do you agree your god is slightly lazier than you previously thought?

[antix]

This is a fallacy: The fact that you don't "accept any God-claims" doesn't mean they don't exist, or that they're meaningless (they may be meaningless to you, but they're not meaningless). The existence of authority and the acceptance of it are separate issues. There are some in America who "don't accept" the authority of the federal government, but that doesn't make the Fed's authority meaningless. There is ample evidence that the federal government exists, so I can know for certain that if I ignore its authority and violate the law, I can be punished for it should I get caught. I can look at the laws and see first hand how they are enforced, what the possible punishments are for each offense as it is all clearly laid out physically for anyone to explore. (such as visiting inmates, talking to lawyers or judges etc...) With god, I get a book filled with nonsense about talking snakes and the living dead. It says don't do this or else, but then commands people to do what it is he commands us not to do. What the Fuck? If you don't know what I'm talking about, perhaps you should pick your babble and read it more closely.

Lily is wrong. The authors of Matthew and John were the same Matthew and John of Jesus' orginal 12 apostles. Oh no you di-int! You did NOT just go there! Get him Lily.


Proof is there for anyone willing to see it: There's much scholarly research (from Mark D. Roberts, in particular) to demonstrate the accuracy and trustworthiness of the Gospels; the historian Josephus confirms the existence of Jesus and his ministry. You really do need to brush up on your theology, cause you are filled with incorrect information. Yes, their is much scholarly research on the Gospels. But do a bit of real research on Josephus and see what you find.


I have no idea what the Pi reference is about, nor the list of 5/6 names ... To someone living at the time of Moses, it's certainly plausible that a bat could've been classified as a bird (fowl) ... I'm not sure what you're referring to by children-smashing; please clarify and I'll take a look at it ... Bad things happen because we do things we're not supposed to do. It may seem odd to a child that his parents won't let him have a cookie anytime he wants, but the parents, being wiser, know plenty of reasons to limit his cookie-eating (cavities, stomach aches, childhood obesity, spoiling the child, etc.). Likewise, it may seem odd to you or any of us that that old prude God wouldn't let "rib-lady" eat a "magic apple," but God, being wiser than we ... Not sure of the specifics and I can't be arsed to find them cause I really don't care that much, but the babble does reference the value of Pi as being 3. And twice in (Chronicles I believe) it gives a list of 5 names. And then says that their are 6 names on the list. And I believe you find "Happy shall they be who taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones" somewhere towards the end of Psalms. And bats have never been birds at any time in the past. If they were birds at some time, then they wouldn't have been bats. You'd think an omniscient deity would have known that.

As far as the "Eve wasn't supposed to eat the apple because..." argument is severly flawed. Yes, responsible parents know the risks kids take with eating too many cookies and take steps to ensure the health and safety of the child. Responsible parents also know not to leave a loaded gun lying on the coffee table near where young children are playing. Do you see where I'm going with this?



Now it's my turn: Take a step back for a moment, if you will, and take a look at this ... snip I can see by your willful ignorance of science that this most likely will not go well. All I can say is, read some real science texts. If you are unsure of something, ask a scientist rather than your pastor. You'll thank yourself for it.

[Lily]

Lily says she has evidence for god -- absolutely refuses to post it.

Where do you get this stuff? I have never said any such thing. In fact, I have said the opposite many, many times. Most recently here:

http://ravingatheists.com/forum/showpost.php?p=450813&postcount=118

Chile, you done stepped in it now!

Oh, how I have lived for this day. Sic 'em, Lily!

Oh no you di-int! You did NOT just go there! Get him Lily.

:lol::lol::lol: How did I miss this? Sorry to disappoint you but Jason has the important thing right, which is what matters. The incredibly interesting and complex world of the authorship and transmission of the Gospels is but a side issue in comparison.

[mmfwmc]

This is silly. Assuming that a fish "finds itself" out of the water for any significant amount of time -- which I'll grant could happen, such as when a violent wave might throw a fish onto shore -- and then somehow manages to get back into the water before it dies, it will not pass on an increased "air-breathing" capacity to its offspring. Why not? Because the fish's little "excursion" onto dry land will not have altered its genetic makeup in the least -- the fish will be genetically the same when it re-enters the water as when it left. Therefore, its "children" will not inherit an air-breathing capacity larger than their "father's". If a fish stays out of the water too long, it dies. If it has a "close call" -- stays out for a while but gets back in before the reaper comes -- then that's all it did: it survived. Good for him. Congratulations. But he's still the same fish (genetically) as before. If things were the way (and as easy as) you describe them, there surely would be some humans by now who could spend hours at a time under water without the assistance of a breathing apparatus.

The thing that gets me about evolution is that despite evolutionists' supposed "strict adherence to natural observation," there seems to be as many "ifs" involved as known facts. Your fish example alone involved a lot of "just so" moments -- the fish's home is somehow in an "algae drought," forcing it to look elsewhere; the fish somehow "finds," "knows," "discovers" that there's algae on them thar rocks; your fish just happens to have "prodigious numbers of offspring" (maybe it had none) --and we didn't even touch on the "legs" aspect of development! Your example is akin to the evolutionist idea that every single aspect necessary for life, right down to every last crucial, microscopic, fine-tuned detail, "just happened" to occur here on our planet. Wow. What are the odds?


I'm going to ignore everything else you got wrong, because there are others better qualified than me to argue them. As far as morals go, Mercer and I just had an argument on the "Atheist's wager" thread where I accepted your position. Morals are an evolved concept that do not reflect any kind of moral truth. They are simply things that control our behaviour to help society function. But we don't need to discuss this. What we do need to discuss is:


You don't understand evolution. Nothing I said was silly. You can't read.
Let's take it one by one:


[quote]Assuming that a fish "finds itself" out of the water for any significant amount of time -- which I'll grant could happen, such as when a violent wave might throw a fish onto shore -- and then somehow manages to get back into the water before it dies, it will not pass on an increased "air-breathing" capacity to its offspring. Why not? Because the fish's little "excursion" onto dry land will not have altered its genetic makeup in the least -- the fish will be genetically the same when it re-enters the water as when it left. Therefore, its "children" will not inherit an air-breathing capacity larger than their "father's". If a fish stays out of the water too long, it dies.

Here's a question: do you have a passport? Have you ever travelled anywhere outside your home town? Because the world is enormous. There are more than three fish in it. This fish washing up thing was happening hundreds of times a day across the world. Now, lets say we have 200 fish wash up on shore for a brief period of time. They have varying survival times due to genetic reasons. Assume that only the top 10% survive. Now, in the next generation, how many kids do those with low survival times have? 0. Because they are dead. The others have more kids because there is less competition and they are better able to find food. The experience does not change the fish. Only the fish that are already genetically prepared survive.


Your fish example alone involved a lot of "just so" moments -- the fish's home is somehow in an "algae drought," forcing it to look elsewhere; the fish somehow "finds," "knows," "discovers" that there's algae on them thar rocks; your fish just happens to have "prodigious numbers of offspring" (maybe it had none) --and we didn't even touch on the "legs" aspect of development! Your example is akin to the evolutionist idea that every single aspect necessary for life, right down to every last crucial, microscopic, fine-tuned detail, "just happened" to occur here on our planet. Wow. What are the odds?


Yes, the odds are slim. Thats why it took a billion years to get this far.

Now, you don't seem to understand how hard life really is - tell me, do you ever see any poor people? The ones living on a handful of dirt each week? Here's the thing: they came up with all the best food. Why would you eat oxtail? because someone's already eaten the ox. Bird's nest soup? Who ate the birds. All these delicacies only come about because people got desparate. [/blatentTerryPratchettPlagarism] In the natural world, most things are hungry most of the time. So a fish that is hoovering algae of a rock would have an incentive to reach every bit of algae it could.


(And again, you have the person with the "positive" mutation having "lots of children," and the one with the "neutral" mutation having only "a couple." Sounds awful convenient.)


And the one that got the most algae had the most kids. That's natural selection in a nutshell. If you haven't got it yet, read pharyngula. Because NOTHING YOU SAY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION. You are objecting to ghosts caused by your misunderstanding of the theory.

There is nothing convenient about it. The person with the positive mutation has lots of kids because he doesn't spend all his time shivering. The other one only has a couple of kids because he isn't as fit. This is part of the fucking theory, not some convenient assumption.

And your separation of macro and micro evolution is just bullshit. Speciation occurs when two beings with a common ancestor simply have too many differences in their genetic code for procreation to occur. It's no miracle. It's common sense. I will argue this point further when you demonstrate an understanding of evolution up to the point I have reached so far.

[Irreligious]

... Sorry to disappoint you but Jason has the important thing right, which is what matters. The incredibly interesting and complex world of the authorship and transmission of the Gospels is but a side issue in comparison.
Right.

Silly me. JasonDrexler is a Christian and, thus, cannot be wrong. At least, not in this forum.

So what if he believes the allegorical tales about Adam and Eve, Noah and Job in the Old Testament were literal accounts and you don't? He's allowed to be literal-minded because that's just a dopey criticism reserved for dopey heathens.

Yes, I suppose all the areas where you two would disagree are "incredibly interesting and complex."

What suckers we heathens are for even bothering to engage you. Just like PollyP, you're only here to preach at us no matter how many times we tell you this ain't church.

[Lily]

Right.

Silly me. JasonDrexler is a Christian and, thus, cannot be wrong. At least, not in this forum.

So what if he believes the allegorical tales about Adam and Eve, Noah and Job in the Old Testament were literal accounts and you don't? He's allowed to be literal-minded because that's just a dopey criticism reserved for dopey heathens.

Yes, I suppose all the areas where you two would disagree are "incredibly interesting and complex."

What suckers we heathens are for even bothering to engage you. Just like PollyP, you're only here to preach at us no matter how many times we tell you this ain't church.

Chill, dude. If you don't know that belief in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is the main thing, you haven't been listening.

Christians can be wrong about all sorts of things but not a single one of us needs to have a Ph D in theology to listen and respond to Christ. It is following him that matters.

I haven't followed this discussion and have only read one or two of the early messages, so I don't know what all Jason believes, beyond the essential matter. If he dismisses evolution, well, I am sorry for that but that won't prevent him from loving God and following Christ. If he believes in 6 literal days of creation, a young earth and all the rest of the stuff that scandalizes you so, well, I am sorry for it but it won't prevent him from loving God and following Christ.

I could "smite* Jason but to what end? For your amusement? I don't think so. He has the essentials right and can pursue fuller understanding of the various aspects of history, transmission of the biblical texts and all else at his leisure.

What I have tried to do here and still try to do is clear up misunderstandings and errors that keep you from considering the message. It is secondary preaching, if you like. But what I am trying to do is meet you on your territory, not insist that you meet me on mine.

[Eva]

irre, goes to show that we aint got no friend in lily...that she spends hours on end here posting dont mean shite......

[Eva]

another thing: maybe baptchrists think that cathoholics will rot in hell, but cathoholics believe that baptchrists can go to heaven......

sick!

[Irreligious]

Chill, dude. If you don't know that belief in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is the main thing, you haven't been listening.

Christians can be wrong about all sorts of things but not a single one of us needs to have a Ph D in theology to listen and respond to Christ. It is following him that matters.

I haven't followed this discussion and have only read one or two of the early messages, so I don't know what all Jason believes, beyond the essential matter. If he dismisses evolution, well, I am sorry for that but that won't prevent him from loving God and following Christ. If he believes in 6 literal days of creation, a young earth and all the rest of the stuff that scandalizes you so, well, I am sorry for it but it won't prevent him from loving God and following Christ.

I could "smite* Jason but to what end? For your amusement? I don't think so. He has the essentials right and can pursue fuller understanding of the various aspects of history, transmission of the biblical texts and all else at his leisure.

What I have tried to do here and still try to do is clear up misunderstandings and errors that keep you from considering the message. It is secondary preaching, if you like. But what I am trying to do is meet you on your territory, not insist that you meet me on mine.
So. Did you have a nice breakfast this morning? I was thinking of joining a good friend for brunch at this cool new restaurant that opened up in my neighborhood a couple of weeks ago. I hear the banana walnut pancakes are to die for. You ever had those?

[Kate]

http://www.thegookins.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/FSM-pancake.jpg

[Choobus]

an endless tream of nonsense and moronic babbling

Do you see why many of us don't give any credibility to any of this and see no way of turning any of it into a rational and reasonable position?

Yes, it is very clear: you're a fucking idiot and the type of evolutionary biology you think is proposed is indeed unrealistic. Thething is, it has nothing to do with what is actually described. Thus, instead of setting up straw man arguments you actually just point to a pile of straw on the floor and claim "this is no man like I ever heard of". Then you think that your simple mind is capable of greater thought on the matter than thousands of highly intelligent and well educated scientists who devote their lives to seriously studying such things. Beyond pathetic.

[Kate]

http://www.fingers.co.nz/images/Dodd%20SiG.jpg

[Kamikaze189]

Where do you get this stuff? I have never said any such thing. In fact, I have said the opposite many, many times. Most recently here:

http://ravingatheists.com/forum/showpost.php?p=450813&postcount=118

Even though I could probably find a post where you said as much, I'll gladly take the linked post's content.

So, to correct: "Lily ha