Religions > Atheism > Was "Re: Some brilliant words by Professor Richard Dawkins"
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
06 Mar 2006 02:05:47 PM |
| Object: |
Was "Re: Some brilliant words by Professor Richard Dawkins" |
Mani Deli <mani@sympatico.ca>
Was "Re: Some brilliant words by Professor Richard Dawkins"
The Emptiness of Theology -Richard Dawkins
A dismally unctuous editorial in the British newspaper the Independent
recently asked for reconciliation between science and "theology." It
remarked that "People want to know as much as possible about their
origins." I certainly hope they do, but what on earth makes one think
that theology has anything useful to say on the subject?
Science is responsible for the following knowledge about our origins.
We know approximately when the universe began and why it is largely
hydrogen. We know why stars form and what happens in their interiors
to convert hydrogen to the other elements and hence give birth to
chemistry in a world of physics. We know the fundamental principles of
how a world of chemistry can become biology through the arising of
self?replicating molecules. We know how the principle of self?
replication gives rise, through Darwinian selection, to all life,
'including humans.
It is science and science alone that has given us this knowledge and
given it, moreover, in fascinating, overwhelming mutually confirming
detail. On every one of these questions theology has held a view that
has been conclusively proved wrong. Science has eradicated smallpox,
can immunize against most previously deadly viruses, can kill most
previously deadly bacteria. Theology has done nothing but talk of
pestilence as the wages of sin. Science can predict when a particular
comet will reappear and, to the second, when the next eclipse will
appear. Science has put men on the moon and hurtled reconnaissance
rockets around Saturn and Jupiter. Science can tell you the age of a
particular fossil and that the Turin Shroud is a medieval fake.
Science knows the precise DNA instructions of
several viruses and will, in the lifetime of many present readers, do
the same for the human genome.
What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody?
When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is
not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated
against them. I have never heard any of them ever say anything of the
smallest use, anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or
downright false. If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out
tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport
faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture
beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of
theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest
difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and
sonar?guided whaling vessels work! The achievements of theologians
don't do anything, don't affect anything, don't mean anything. What
makes anyone think that "theology" is a subject at all?
Hello,
Yes, science has done remarkable things. Where did all those scientific
laws come from? Did they just pop themselves into existence, and then
say to themselves, 'I am going to be a law and not deviate from my
purpose' . Or rather, did some intelligence CREATE all those stable
laws? The Bible supports the latter. Ge 1:1,
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (NIV)
Darwinian material is a theory, taught today as if it were a law. Is
that being truthful and scientific?
For example, if all the thousands of different life forms, starting in
the microscopic and ending in the macroscopic, evolved from lower life
forms, then the strata should be full of all the many thousands upon
thousands of transitional life forms needed to produce just the ones we
see today. (let alone all the ones that are now extinct) But even
Darwin himself couldn't find that evidence. Charles Darwin said,
"The distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended
together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious
difficulty." (Origin of Species, 1902, Part 2, p. 54).
Difficult? He had no idea how difficult. Perhaps he just thought that
they would be discovered in time. THEY HAVEN'T. They are not there.
(true there are some alleged links, but they are far to few to be any
'smoking gun' for that theory) But that THEORY of evolution demands
their existence. (unless they have altered their theory to eliminate
the need for them)
Also even many decades ago, the fossil evidence told its own story.
Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson after 40 years of his own research
said:
"It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of
palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that . .
.. the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the
scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be
filled." (Synthetische Artbildung [The Synthetic Origin of Species],
1953, p. 1212.)
So at the bottom line let's look at the SCIENTIFIC FACTS.
The Theory of Evolution demands thousands and thousands of transition
links, eventually producing all the life forms. The fossil record does
not show those multitudes of transitional links. They are missing.
The Creation account says that all life forms were created as full
complete life forms. Cats as cats, monkeys as monkeys, dogs as dogs,
humans as humans etc. (Ge 1:24-27) So if the creation account is the
way life occurred, then we should NOT find transitional life forms in
the strata, but rather whole and complete organisms suddenly appearing.
AND THAT IS WHAT THE REAL FOSSILE EVIDENCE SHOWS.
Thus concerning the origins of life, the Bible's account is more in
harmony with the fossil evidence, than the Theory of Evolution. To
ignore that those facts, is to ignore the truth. But a good scientist
accepts the truth, no matter how 'bitter' it may seem to him at the
time.
Sincerely, James
***********************************
Want a FREE home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************
.
|
|
| User: "Scott" |
|
| Title: Re: Was "Re: Some brilliant words by Professor Richard Dawkins" |
06 Mar 2006 09:35:26 PM |
|
|
<rebida@safeplace.net> wrote in message
news:1141675547.660497.147060@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Mani Deli <mani@sympatico.ca>
Was "Re: Some brilliant words by Professor Richard Dawkins"
The Emptiness of Theology -Richard Dawkins
A dismally unctuous editorial in the British newspaper the Independent
recently asked for reconciliation between science and "theology." It
remarked that "People want to know as much as possible about their
origins." I certainly hope they do, but what on earth makes one think
that theology has anything useful to say on the subject?
Science is responsible for the following knowledge about our origins.
We know approximately when the universe began and why it is largely
hydrogen. We know why stars form and what happens in their interiors
to convert hydrogen to the other elements and hence give birth to
chemistry in a world of physics. We know the fundamental principles of
how a world of chemistry can become biology through the arising of
self?replicating molecules. We know how the principle of self?
replication gives rise, through Darwinian selection, to all life,
'including humans.
It is science and science alone that has given us this knowledge and
given it, moreover, in fascinating, overwhelming mutually confirming
detail. On every one of these questions theology has held a view that
has been conclusively proved wrong. Science has eradicated smallpox,
can immunize against most previously deadly viruses, can kill most
previously deadly bacteria. Theology has done nothing but talk of
pestilence as the wages of sin. Science can predict when a particular
comet will reappear and, to the second, when the next eclipse will
appear. Science has put men on the moon and hurtled reconnaissance
rockets around Saturn and Jupiter. Science can tell you the age of a
particular fossil and that the Turin Shroud is a medieval fake.
Science knows the precise DNA instructions of
several viruses and will, in the lifetime of many present readers, do
the same for the human genome.
What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody?
When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is
not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated
against them. I have never heard any of them ever say anything of the
smallest use, anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or
downright false. If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out
tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport
faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture
beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of
theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest
difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and
sonar?guided whaling vessels work! The achievements of theologians
don't do anything, don't affect anything, don't mean anything. What
makes anyone think that "theology" is a subject at all?
"This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the
theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: In the
beginning God created heaven and earth... [But] for the scientist who has
lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream.
He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest
peak; [and] as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band
of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
- Robert Jastrow
(God and the Astronomers [New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1978], 116.
Professor Jastrow was the founder of NASA's Goddard Institute, now director
of the Mount Wilson Institute and its observatory.)"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Was "Re: Some brilliant words by Professor Richard Dawkins" |
06 Mar 2006 03:27:24 PM |
|
|
<rebida@safeplace.net> wrote in message
news:1141675547.660497.147060@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Mani Deli <mani@sympatico.ca>
Was "Re: Some brilliant words by Professor Richard Dawkins"
The Emptiness of Theology -Richard Dawkins
A dismally unctuous editorial in the British newspaper the Independent
recently asked for reconciliation between science and "theology." It
remarked that "People want to know as much as possible about their
origins." I certainly hope they do, but what on earth makes one think
that theology has anything useful to say on the subject?
Science is responsible for the following knowledge about our origins.
We know approximately when the universe began and why it is largely
hydrogen. We know why stars form and what happens in their interiors
to convert hydrogen to the other elements and hence give birth to
chemistry in a world of physics. We know the fundamental principles of
how a world of chemistry can become biology through the arising of
self?replicating molecules. We know how the principle of self?
replication gives rise, through Darwinian selection, to all life,
'including humans.
It is science and science alone that has given us this knowledge and
given it, moreover, in fascinating, overwhelming mutually confirming
detail. On every one of these questions theology has held a view that
has been conclusively proved wrong. Science has eradicated smallpox,
can immunize against most previously deadly viruses, can kill most
previously deadly bacteria. Theology has done nothing but talk of
pestilence as the wages of sin. Science can predict when a particular
comet will reappear and, to the second, when the next eclipse will
appear. Science has put men on the moon and hurtled reconnaissance
rockets around Saturn and Jupiter. Science can tell you the age of a
particular fossil and that the Turin Shroud is a medieval fake.
Science knows the precise DNA instructions of
several viruses and will, in the lifetime of many present readers, do
the same for the human genome.
What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody?
When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is
not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated
against them. I have never heard any of them ever say anything of the
smallest use, anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or
downright false. If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out
tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport
faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture
beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of
theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest
difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and
sonar?guided whaling vessels work! The achievements of theologians
don't do anything, don't affect anything, don't mean anything. What
makes anyone think that "theology" is a subject at all?
Hello,
Yes, science has done remarkable things. Where did all those scientific
laws come from? Did they just pop themselves into existence, and then
say to themselves, 'I am going to be a law and not deviate from my
purpose' . Or rather, did some intelligence CREATE all those stable
laws? The Bible supports the latter. Ge 1:1,
There is NO objective verifiable evidence that ANY god or gods created the
Universe.
And only man has created gods to satisfy his fears of the unknown.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (NIV)
The Bibles are books of myths, legends, contradictions, impossible tales and
pure nonsense.
If the Bibles are the word of your god he is a psychotic idiot.
Darwinian material is a theory, taught today as if it were a law. Is
that being truthful and scientific?
Evolution is a 'scientific theory' supported by tons of verifiable material
and 'facts'.
It is not just a 'theory'. Scientific theory is not the same as the meaning
of the term in
common usage. It is something that is supported by physical evidence and
facts. Get an education.
For example, if all the thousands of different life forms, starting in
the microscopic and ending in the macroscopic, evolved from lower life
forms, then the strata should be full of all the many thousands upon
thousands of transitional life forms needed to produce just the ones we
see today.
There are thousands of transitional life forms. get an education.
(let alone all the ones that are now extinct) But even
Darwin himself couldn't find that evidence. Charles Darwin said,
Darwin supplied loads of 'evidence'. Read his book. ( If you know how to
read)
"The distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended
together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious
difficulty." (Origin of Species, 1902, Part 2, p. 54).
You are twisting the facts by failing to provide the full texts.
Difficult? He had no idea how difficult. Perhaps he just thought that
they would be discovered in time. THEY HAVEN'T.
They have.
They are not there.
(true there are some alleged links, but they are far to few to be any
'smoking gun' for that theory) But that THEORY of evolution demands
their existence. (unless they have altered their theory to eliminate
the need for them)
Also even many decades ago, the fossil evidence told its own story.
Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson after 40 years of his own research
said:
"It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of
palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that . .
. the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the
scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be
filled." (Synthetische Artbildung [The Synthetic Origin of Species],
1953, p. 1212.)
That is a pretty old document and does not agree with modern scientific
knowledge
and evidence.
So at the bottom line let's look at the SCIENTIFIC FACTS.
The Theory of Evolution demands thousands and thousands of transition
links, eventually producing all the life forms. The fossil record does
not show those multitudes of transitional links. They are missing.
In your uneducted 'opinion'.
The Creation account says that all life forms were created as full
complete life forms. Cats as cats, monkeys as monkeys, dogs as dogs,
humans as humans etc. (Ge 1:24-27) So if the creation account is the
way life occurred, then we should NOT find transitional life forms in
the strata, but rather whole and complete organisms suddenly appearing.
AND THAT IS WHAT THE REAL FOSSILE EVIDENCE SHOWS.
Not true.
Thus concerning the origins of life, the Bible's account is more in
harmony with the fossil evidence, than the Theory of Evolution. To
ignore that those facts, is to ignore the truth. But a good scientist
accepts the truth, no matter how 'bitter' it may seem to him at the
time.
The foundations of all Christian religions are the Bibles. The Bibles are
the literature of pure 'faith', not of scientific observation, evidence or
historical fact or demonstration.
The Bibles are a foundation of quicksand. There are NO ORIGINALS in
existence. Why would God not protect the originals? What are available are
copies of copies by unknown men of questionable veracity biased by, and
dependent on, their membership in the clergy. The originals rotted and
disappeared thousands of years ago. The Bibles were hand written and
recopied more than a thousand years before the invention of the printing
press. And of course we not only do not know what was in the originals but
they were also written and altered by errant biased men motivated to impress
their flock.
According to Bart Ehrman, professor and Chair of the Dept. of Religious
Studies at the University of North Carolina, The Bible is not the error-free
word of any god. There are some 5,700 ancient Greek manuscripts that are the
basis of the modern versions of the New Testament, and scholars have
uncovered more thousands of differences in those texts.
The last 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark appear to have been added to the
text years later -- and these are the only verses in that book that mention
Christ reappearing after his death.
Another critical passage is in 1 John, which explicitly sets out the Holy
Trinity (the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit). It is a cornerstone of
Christian theology, and this is the only place where it is spelled out in
the entire Bible -- and it appears to have been added to the text centuries
later, by an unknown scribe.
For a man who originally believed the Bible was the inspired Word of God,
Ehrman sought the true originals to shore up his faith. The problem: he
found there are NO original manuscripts of any of the New Testament.
"If the history of the resurrection of Christ had not really happened, the
message . . . according to the authority of the apostle Paul, had to be
'null and void'. Ehrman slowly came to a horrifying realization: There was
no real historical record. It was, he felt, all incense and myth, told by
illiterate men and not set down in writing for decades that followed.
There is no solid agreement even within the Christian community on the
interpretation of the Bibles. There are 18 English versions alone. There are
thousands of variations and opinions as to the meaning of various Biblical
statements.
If Jesus was God, why did he not leave behind his recorded record of his
rules and commands? Why are there NO Biblical documents written during his
time on earth? The Old Testaments were written 'before his birth'. The New
Testaments were written '60 and more years after his death' by men that
could never have known Jesus personally. NON were written during his
'claimed' life time.
There is NO objective verifiable evidence as to their authenticity and
veracity. The Bibles contain both historical and scientific errors. They
contain manifest absurdities, unfulfilled prophesies, immoralities,
indecencies, obscenities, atrocities, barbarities, myths, folklore and
legends. They are nothing more than hearsay, myths, contradictions and
implausible tales.
Here is just a small sampling of implausible Bible stories.
The story of creation
A totally illogical Biblical story is the story of creation. It is obviously
pure fiction
Biblically, god created the world about six thousand years ago. Scientific
evidence indicates the Universe, as we now know it, began more than 13
BILLION years ago or more.
In the Bible, the Universe is a firmament and the Earth is a fixed (not to
mention flat) Planet and the Son, Moon and other planets revolve around the
earth. We now KNOW the Earth revolves around the Son and the Universe is
over 20 BILLION light years in diameter and is made up of trillions of Stars
and Planets of which our planetary system is a very miniscule and
unimportant part. There was no concept of a Universe in Biblical times.
Everything beyond our immediate Son and planets was considered Heaven.
In the Bible the earth is created in the first day, before the Son, Moon and
Stars. Objective scientific evidence is that the Earth did not form until
approximately 10 BILLION YEARS after the beginning of the present Universe
and after the formation of the Son, and many other stars.
The Creation of the World
Genesis
In the beginning of creation, when God made heaven and earth, the earth was
without form and void, with darkness over the face of the abyss, and a
mighty wind that swept over the surface of the waters. God said, Let there
be light, and there was light; and God saw that the light was good, and he
separated light from darkness. He called the light day, and the darkness
night. So evening came, and morning came, the first day. God created light
before he created the Sun and the Moon!
Astronomical evidence indicates shows the Son existed long before the Earth;
therefore the earth was not created before the Son. It is equally obvious
that the writers of that time thought the World was the center the firmament
and that they had no conception of the size and nature of the Universe.
Everything beyond the Sun and Moon was considered to be gods Heaven
God said, Let there be a vault between the waters, to separate water from
water. So God made the vault, and separated the water under the vault from
the water above it, and so it was; and God called the vault heaven. Evening
came, and morning came, a second day.
God said; Let the waters under heaven be gathered into one place, so that
dry land may appear; and so it was. God called the dry land earth, and the
gathering of the waters he called seas; and God saw that it was good. Then
God said, Let the earth produce fresh growth, let there be on the earth
plants bearing seed, fruit-trees bearing fruit each with seed according to
its kind. So it was; the earth yielded fresh growth, plants bearing seed
according to their kind and trees bearing fruit each with seed according to
its king; and God saw that it was good. Evening came, and morning came, a
third day.
And this good and loving God created animals that eat other animals (and
man) and poisonous plants and snakes that kill!
God said, Let there be lights in the vault of heaven to separate day from
night, and let them serve as signs both for festivals and for seasons and
years. Let them also shine in the vault of heaven to give light on earth. So
it was; God made the two great lights, the greater to govern the day and the
lesser to govern the night; and with them he made the stars. God put these
lights in the vault of heaven to give light on earth, to govern day and
night, and to separate light from darkness; and God saw that it was good.
Evening came, and morning came, a fourth day.
Ancient man erroneously thought the stars beyond the Sun and Moon to be
Heaven. The Moon was NOT considered a reflection from the light of the Sun
but a lesser light.
God, said, Let the waters teem with countless living creatures, and let
birds fly above the earth across the vault of heaven. God then created the
great sea-monsters and all living creatures that move and swarm in the
waters, according to their kind, and every kind of bird; and God saw that it
was good. So he blessed them and said, be fruitful and increase, fill the
waters of the seas; and let the birds increase on land. Evening came, and
morning came, a fifth day.
And this all loving God created creatures of that kill and eat other
creatures including man.
Archaeological evidence shows that animals evolved from primitive cells over
a period of about four billion years - not in one day!
God said, let the earth bring forth living creatures, according to their
kind: cattle, reptiles, and wild animals, all according to their kind. So it
was; God made wild animals, cattle, and all reptiles, each according to its
kind; and he saw that it was good. Then God said, Let us make man it our
image and likeness to rule the fish in the sea , the birds of heaven, the
cattle, all wild animals on earth, and all reptiles that crawl upon the
earth. So God created man in his own image; in the image of God he created
him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, be
fruitful and increase, fill the earth and subdue it, rule over the fish in
the sea, the birds of heaven, and every living thing that moves upon the
earth. God also said, I give you all plants that bear seed everywhere on
earth, and every tree bearing fruit which yields seed: they shall be yours
for food. All green plants I give for food to the wild animals, to all the
birds of heaven, and to all reptiles on earth, every living creature. So it
was; and God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. Evening came,
and morning came, a sixth day.
And God created animals that need to kill and eat other animals including
man in order to survive. This is a loving and caring God?
Thus heaven and earth were completed with all their mighty throng. On the
sixth day God completed all the work he had been doing, and on the seventh
day he ceased from all his work. God blessed the seventh day and made it
holy, because on that day he ceased from all the work he had set himself to
do and rested.
Why would a God that is not physical but spiritual, get tired and need rest?
If this creator is such a loving and caring guy, why does he permit totally
innocent children to die at birth? Or worse, be born lacking eyesight, a
fully developed brain, deaf and dumb, missing limbs etc.?
Why are some born idiots and others with super intelligence?
Why does this loving and caring god create Plagues, Tsunamis, Tornadoes,
Volcanic Eruptions, Wars, cancers and hundreds of debilitating diseases and
serious body malfunctions that effect people indiscriminately regardless of
their conduct or religious beliefs? Why does he permit millions of both
young and old to starve to death?
These afflict humans indiscriminately - young and old, atheists and members
of all religious beliefs.
Why did he design humans to suffer the decrepitude and malignancies of old
age? Even those that devote their lives to religious leadership suffer these
punishments of old age.
Why did this caring benevolent god create animals that need to eat other
animals to survive?
If there is a god that created the Universe, he is obviously not an
all-caring and benevolent god. The objective evidence is that, if there is a
god creator, he has no concern about the welfare of the creatures on Earth.
Adam and Eve
In the Bible, there are two different accounts of Adam and Eve's creation.
According to the Priestly (P) history of the 5th or 6th century BC (Genesis
1:1-2:4), God on the sixth day of Creation created all the living creatures
and, "in his own image," man both "male and female." God then blessed the
couple, told them to be "fruitful and multiply," and gave them dominion over
all other living things.
According to the lengthier Yahwist (J) narrative of the 10th century BC
(Genesis 2:5-7, 2:15-4:1, 4:25), God, or Yahweh, created Adam at a time when
the earth was still void, forming him from the earth's dust and breathing
"into his nostrils the breath of life." God then gave Adam the primeval
Garden of Eden to tend but, on penalty of death, commanded him not to eat of
the fruit of the "tree of knowledge of good and evil." Subsequently, so that
Adam would not be alone, God created other animals but, finding these
insufficient, put Adam to sleep, took from him a rib, and created a new
companion, Eve. The two were persons of innocence until Eve yielded to the
temptations of the evil serpent and Adam joined her in eating the forbidden
fruit, whereupon they both recognized their nakedness and donned fig leaves
as garments. Immediately, God recognized their transgression and proclaimed
their punishments-for the woman, pain in childbirth and subordination to
man, and, for the man, relegation to an accursed ground with which he must
toil and sweat for his subsistence. Adam died at the age of 930!
In later Christian theology, the concept of original sin (q.v.) took hold-a
sin in which human kind has been held captive since the fall of Adam and
Eve. The doctrine was based on Pauline Scripture but has not been accepted
by a number of Christian sects and interpreters. Why should BILLIONS of
innocent people be punished over thousands of years for this original sin
that they had no part in?
This is both sadistic and ridiculous!
Jonah
As the story is related in the Book of Jonah, the prophet Jonah is called by
God to go to Nineveh (a great Assyrian city) and prophesy disaster because
of the city's wickedness. Jonah, in the story, feels about Nineveh as does
the author of the Book of Nahum-that the city must inevitably be destroyed
because of God's judgment against it. Thus Jonah does not want to prophesy,
because Nineveh might repent and thereby be saved. So he rushes down to
Joppa and takes passage in a ship that will carry him in the opposite
direction, thinking to escape God.
A storm of unprecedented severity strikes the ship, and it shows signs of
breaking up and foundering. Jonah confesses that it is his presence on board
that is causing the storm. At his request, he is thrown overboard, and the
storm subsides.
A "great fish," appointed by God, swallows Jonah, and he stays within the
fish's maw for three days and nights. He prays for deliverance and is
"vomited out" on dry land (ch. 2).
Totally implausible. He would have been digested by the fish in those three
days!
Sodom and Gomorrah
According to the Bible these cities and everyone in them, except Lot and his
family, were destroyed by fire and brimstone for their sinfulness. Lot's
wife was turned into a pillar of salt for disobeying God's command to not
look back at her city of birth being destroyed.
There is no way that EVERYONE in two cities could be so sinful, especially
innocent children, to deserve destruction by fire and brimstone.
Sodom and Gomorrah constituted, along with the cities of Admah, Zeboiim, and
Zoar (Bela), the five biblical "cities of the plain." Destroyed by"brimstone
and fire" because of their wickedness (Genesis 19:24).
Sodom and Gomorrah probably were devastated about 1900 BC by an earthquake
in the Dead Sea area of the Great Rift Valley, an extensive rift extending
from the Jordan River valley in Israel to the Zambezi River system in East
Africa. When the catastrophic destruction occurred, the petroleum and gases
existing in the area probably contributed to the imagery of "brimstone and
fire"
Cruel, inhumane and pure nonsense!
The Tower of Babel
Genesis 11.1 - 11.9
God became concerned that the Tower being built would reach his heaven.
He confounded the builders by giving them different languages so they could
no longer communicate with each other to continue the construction.
Why would this be of any concern to an all powerful God creator and wouldn't
this God creator realize that no tower could possibly reach his spiritual
heaven?
Noah and the Ark
The Bible is claimed to be the inerrant word of God
The story of Noah and the flood is only one of many ridiculous biblical
tales with no authentication or plausibility of any kind. It is an
impossible story.
1. The largest boat ever built to this day could not even come CLOSE to
housing Noah, his sons, wives and two of every type of animal on earth. And
this was a boat built of wood many thousands of years ago. There are 1.7
million KNOWN species of animals on this planet. This story is patently
impossible, using only materials and tools available to Noah, to build an
arch large enough to hold all these creatures, together with suitable
environments for each of them to live in, keeping them all separated so they
don't kill and eat each other. And then provide room and an environment for
many hundreds of millions of known species of insects, plants, molds etc. on
this planet?
2. Where did they house all of the new born during this ten month
escapade?
3. In addition, the ship would have to carry a TEN MONTHS supply of food
and fresh water for the people and thousands of animals for them to survive.
What would the carnivores have eaten? Whatever prey they ate would have gone
extinct. How did they dispose of the thousands of tons of feces? It must
have been one stinking ship!
4. Now according to the Bible the earth was flooded for ten months. This
would kill off all the vegetation. What did the animals eat for an
additional year or more after the flood subsided?
5. Noah sends a dove out to see if there was any dry land. But the dove
returns without finding any. Then, just seven days later, the dove goes out
again and returns with an olive leaf. But how could an olive tree survive
the flood? And if any seeds happened to survive, they certainly wouldn't
germinate and grow leaves within a seven day period. 8:8-11.
6. And according to this myth, Noah was also over 600 years old!
This is a grossly implausible tale that ranks as a greater tale than Santa
Claus, The Wizard of Oz, The Easter Bunny and The Tooth Fairy!
Genesis 6:6
6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was
filled with pain.
7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face
of the earth: men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and
birds of the air-for I am grieved that I have made them."
9 Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he
walked with God.
Genesis 7
1 The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family,
because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven
[a] of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every
kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind
of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the
earth. 4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days
and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living
creature I have made."
6 Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters came on the earth. 7
And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives entered the ark to
escape the waters of the flood. 8 Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of
birds and of all creatures that move along the ground, 9 male and female,
came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah. 10 And after
the seven days the floodwaters came on the earth.
This is patently ridiculous and impossible. How could they capture and load
over three million animals in a period of seven days???
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the
second month-on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and
the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth
forty days and forty nights.
13 On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with
his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark. 14 They had with
them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to
their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its
kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings. 15 Pairs
of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and
entered the ark. 16 The animals going in were male and female of every
living thing, as God had commanded Noah. Then the LORD shut him in.
17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters
increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and
increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the
water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under
the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the
mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. [, 21 Every living thing that
moved on the earth perished-birds, livestock, wild animals, all the
creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry
land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing
on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures
that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the
earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.
24 The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.
This of course would have also killed all the vegetation on Earth!
Genesis 7:6 (New International Version)
6 Noah was "six hundred" years old when the floodwaters came on the earth.
7 And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives entered the ark to
escape the waters of the flood
Genesis 8
1 But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that
were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters
receded.
3 The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and
fifty days the water had gone down,
4 and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on
the mountains of Ararat.
5 The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day
of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible
And what did they eat until all the vegetation recovered from the flood???
Genesis 9 God's Covenant with Noah
1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and
increase in number and fill the earth.
2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and
all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground,
and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands.
3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you
the green plants, I now give you everything.
4 "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.
5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand
an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an
accounting for the life of his fellow man.
Before man learned how to create a fire, he had no choice but to eat raw
meat!
Samson
Hebrew Shimshon, Israelite hero portrayed in an epic narrative in the Old
Testament (Judg. 13-16). He was a Nazirite (q.v.) and a legendary warrior
whose incredible exploits hint at the weight of Philistine pressure on
Israel during much of the early, tribal period of Israel in Canaan
(1200-1000).
Samson was claimed to possess extraordinary physical strength, and the moral
of his saga relates the disastrous loss of his power to the violation of his
Nazirite vow. Credited with remarkable exploits-e.g., the slaying of a lion
and moving the gates of Gaza-he first broke his religious promises by
feasting with a woman from the neighboring town of Timnah, who was also a
Philistine, one of Israel's mortal enemies. Other remarkable deeds follow;
e.g., his decimating the Philistines in a private war. On another occasion
he repulsed their assault on him at Gaza, where he had gone to visit a
harlot. He finally fell victim to his foes through love of Delilah, a woman
of the valley of Sorek, who beguiled him into revealing the secret of his
strength: his long Nazirite hair. As he slept, Delilah had his hair cut and
betrayed him. He was captured, blinded, and enslaved by the Philistines, but
in the end he was granted his revenge; through the return of his old
strength, he supposedly demolished the great Philistine temple of the god
Dagon, at Gaza, destroying his captors and himself (Judg.16:4-30).
A truly implausible tale!
God created a three level Universe - Heaven above, a flat World resting on
water. Genesis 1:6-10; 7:11; 8:2; 11:11-9; 19:24; 28:12-13; Exodus 20:4;
Numbers 16:30-33; Deuteronomy 33:17.
God created the Sun and the Moon on the fourth day but created light on the
first day! Genesis1:1-9; 14-19
It is claimed that the Eve, first woman, was created from one of Adam's
ribs.
Genesis 3:1-5 Men and women have the same number of ribs on each side of
their body? And in any case why would a god that has created the Universe
and everything in it need to tale rib from Adam to create Eve???
The Bibles claim that a talking snake talked Eve into eating the forbidden
fruit.
The Bibles claim that Adam lived 930 years, Seth 912 years, Enosh 905 years,
Kenan910 years, Mahalael 895 years, Jared 962 years, Methuselah 969 years;
Lamech 777 years, and Noah 950 years. Genesis 5:-31; 9:29
God commanded that every baby boy at age of eight days be circumcised.
At that time sterilization (of knives) was unknown and many died of
infection for which they new no cure. Why did this almighty and all caring
God create baby boys with foreskins on their penis that he then required to
be painfully and dangerously removed?
This all caring and loving God sent ten horrible plagues upon the Egyptians
Exodus 7:14-12:32 and in his loving generosity gave Israel the land of the
Canaanites and the Israelites slaughtered every person of seven nations.
Twenty one million, men women and innocent children, were slaughtered
according to the Bible. Exodus 12:1-2
This is a loving god???
According to the verse, Jesus was being tempted by Satan, for forty
days. Assuming that Jesus is God, we are required to believe that God
was tempted by Satan, who was created by God in the first place.
[NIV, Mark 1:12-13]
Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all
the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. "All this I will give
you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me." Jesus said to
him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your
God, and serve him only.' " [NIV, Matthew 4:8-10] If Jesus is God,
would the Devil promise him that he will give him the kingdoms of the
world when all the all kingdoms of the world were created by and already
belong to God??
======================================================
God in the Bibles classifies bats as birds when anyone with an elementary
knowledge of biology knows that bats are flying MAMMALS!
Letiviticus11:13, 19
This God can't control his temper resulting in killing thousands of people.
Numbers 11:31-35; 25:1-9
He and Moses ordered the Israelites to kill all the male and Female
Medianites who had ever had sex but to spare the young women who were
virgins and keep them for themselves to enjoy. Numbers 31:14-1
Jeremiah:16:1: The word of the LORD came also unto me, saying,
2: Thou shall not take thee a wife, neither shall thou have sons or
daughters in this place.
3: For thus saith the LORD concerning the sons and concerning the daughters
that are born in this place, and concerning their mothers that bare them,
and concerning their fathers that begat them in this land;
4: They shall die of grievous deaths; they shall not be lamented; neither
shall they be buried; but they shall be as dung upon the face of the earth:
and they shall be consumed by the sword, and by famine; and their carcasses
shall be meat for the fowls of heaven, and for the beasts of the earth.
5: For thus saith the LORD, Enter not into the house of mourning, neither go
to lament nor bemoan them: for I have taken away my peace from this people,
saith the LORD, even loving kindness and mercies.
======================================================
According to the unerring Bible, the earth is the oldest object in the
Universe. (Genesis 1:1), snakes can talk (Genesis 3:1-5), and Man had
dominion over the dinosaurs (Genesis 1:26, 28)."
Really??? The Earth did not come into existence until 10 BILLION years after
the Universe. Man came into existence MILLIONS of years AFTER the extinction
of the Dinosaurs.
======================================================
God is satisfied with his works
[Gen 1:31]
God is dissatisfied with his works.
[Gen 6:6]
God dwells in chosen temples
[2 Chron 7:12,16]
God dwells not in temples
[Acts 7:48]
======================================================
Jesus' claimed last words on the cross, 'My God, my God, why hast thou
forsaken me?' Hardly seems like the words of a god that created and
controlled the whole world and who planned his entry and exit on earth.
More obvious nonsense!
======================================================
Additional Bible nonsense too voluminous to quote fully;
Mt.4:8: Gen. 1:6; Deut. 30.4; Job. 9:6,22:13, 26:11; PSA 75.3, 103.12;
1 Sam 2.8; Isa. 13.5, 40.21-22; Dan 4.10-11; Re. 7.1, 20.8; Psa 93:1, 96:10,
105.5Job. 22.14; Rev. 6.14; Acts 10:11; Rev. 6:13, 8:14; Mat. 2:9; Gen 1:16;
Lev.19.27, 11.7,10-12: Mat. 5:17-19; Luke 16:17; Lev. 19.19; Luke 16:1-9;
Amos 3:6; Isa. 45:7; Lev, 18.22, 20.13; Deut. 13.6; Judges 14.20; 1 Sam
16:21-23, 18.1-3; Sam 1:26, 13:3, 15:37, 16:16-17: Mat. 2:13-15; Luke 2:1-7,
21; Gen. 11.6, 18:21, 27:33; Exod. 9:14, 12:12; Num 33.4; Deut. 3.23; Exod.
18:11; Eccl. 9.5-6, 9:10; Job 7.9-10, 13:28, 14:1-2, 14:1-2, 10-12, 21; Prov
2:18-19; Eccl. 10:17, 17:27, 28, 30, 19.3, 44:9; wisdom 2:1-5
This is just a sampling of ridiculous Bible tales. The Bibles are obviously
a mixture of fiction, fables, folklore and pure nonsense.
And these Bibles were dictated by God??? Then this God must be a demented
idiot.
begin 666 clip_image001.gif
M1TE&.#EA- (%`'<`,2'^&E-O9G1W87)E.B!-:6-R;W-O9G0@3V9F:6-E`"'Y
M! $`````+ $``0`R`@,`@0```(" @-34U $"`P(\C(^IR^T/HYRTVHNSWKS[
M#X;B2):!@*;JRK;N"\?R3-?VC>?ZSO?^#PP*A\2B\8A,*I?,IO,)C4JGU&@!
"`#L`
`
end
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Was "Re: Some brilliant words by Professor Richard Dawkins" |
06 Mar 2006 04:29:13 PM |
|
|
wrote in news:1141675547.660497.147060
@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com:
Mani Deli <mani@sympatico.ca>
Was "Re: Some brilliant words by Professor Richard Dawkins"
The Emptiness of Theology -Richard Dawkins
A dismally unctuous editorial in the British newspaper the Independent
recently asked for reconciliation between science and "theology." It
remarked that "People want to know as much as possible about their
origins." I certainly hope they do, but what on earth makes one think
that theology has anything useful to say on the subject?
Science is responsible for the following knowledge about our origins.
We know approximately when the universe began and why it is largely
hydrogen. We know why stars form and what happens in their interiors
to convert hydrogen to the other elements and hence give birth to
chemistry in a world of physics. We know the fundamental principles of
how a world of chemistry can become biology through the arising of
self?replicating molecules. We know how the principle of self?
replication gives rise, through Darwinian selection, to all life,
'including humans.
It is science and science alone that has given us this knowledge and
given it, moreover, in fascinating, overwhelming mutually confirming
detail. On every one of these questions theology has held a view that
has been conclusively proved wrong. Science has eradicated smallpox,
can immunize against most previously deadly viruses, can kill most
previously deadly bacteria. Theology has done nothing but talk of
pestilence as the wages of sin. Science can predict when a particular
comet will reappear and, to the second, when the next eclipse will
appear. Science has put men on the moon and hurtled reconnaissance
rockets around Saturn and Jupiter. Science can tell you the age of a
particular fossil and that the Turin Shroud is a medieval fake.
Science knows the precise DNA instructions of
several viruses and will, in the lifetime of many present readers, do
the same for the human genome.
What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody?
When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is
not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated
against them. I have never heard any of them ever say anything of the
smallest use, anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or
downright false. If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out
tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport
faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture
beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of
theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest
difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and
sonar?guided whaling vessels work! The achievements of theologians
don't do anything, don't affect anything, don't mean anything. What
makes anyone think that "theology" is a subject at all?
Hello,
Yes, science has done remarkable things. Where did all those scientific
laws come from?
Scientific laws are just attempts to describe nature. They are not
prescriptive. This is seen with Newton's laws, which were the first
successful attempt at a comprehensive description of physics. Nature
doesn't play ball though. Newton's laws were found to just be a reasonable
approximation to what nature does under everyday conditions we were
familiar with. They break down in regions of intense gravity or high
relative speed or the very small and very large. Modern physics likewise is
just a newer and better desciption of nature but is obviously lacking in
many respects (the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum
field theory). What you are really asking is why nature can be described at
all or why nature appears to behave in a consistent and regular fashion
independent of where and when you are. Saying that this regularity or
explainabilty is due to a god is nothing but a combination of an appeal to
ignorance (we/I/science doesn't know/understand therefore a god) and
special pleading. In other words the exact same question can be applied to
the proposed god. In any case the god proposition gives no useful answer to
any question. It just says that nothing more can be learned. It is no
different to the primitive savage assumption that an angry god is
responsible for lightning.
Klazmon
<SNIP jabriol type nonsense>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Iain" |
|
| Title: Re: Was "Re: Some brilliant words by Professor Richard Dawkins" |
06 Mar 2006 02:26:24 PM |
|
|
wrote:
<snip>
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (NIV)
....doesn't go into detail. Still, he probably doesn't have to, 'cause
he's got a massive brain; Yours is tiny, so he'd be like: "Just trust
me -- I did." ~Ricky Gervais
Besides, just because something was created, doesn't mean the creator
had a beard, or even more unlikely, a mind.
~Iain
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "woland" |
|
| Title: Re: Was "Re: Some brilliant words by Professor Richard Dawkins" |
06 Mar 2006 03:10:11 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Mani Deli <mani@sympatico.ca>
Was "Re: Some brilliant words by Professor Richard Dawkins"
<snip>
I'm a little too drunk to go into the particulars so I'll point you to
here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
Please read it in its entirety several times.
peace-out
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Was "Re: Some brilliant words by Professor Richard Dawkins" |
07 Mar 2006 12:59:02 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Mani Deli <mani@sympatico.ca>
Was "Re: Some brilliant words by Professor Richard Dawkins"
Hello,
Yes, science has done remarkable things. Where did all those scientific
laws come from? Did they just pop themselves into existence, and then
say to themselves, 'I am going to be a law and not deviate from my
purpose' . Or rather, did some intelligence CREATE all those stable
laws? The Bible supports the latter. Ge 1:1,
There is no god, only physics
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and consciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism.
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
omnipotence and so aren't not truly independent
attributes, and may be considered special aspects
of omnipotence.
There are other attributes of god, that he is the
only such god, that he is is immortal and that
god has always existed that are not important
for this discussion and for now, can be ignored.
They are secondary arguments and are for the most
part not foundational or truly necessary, except
those that can be logically derived from the
attributes listed above.
A CLASS OF GODS
It is important to note here that this is a
definition not for a particular god, but an
entire class of gods.
Sub-theories about god are not important here.
Christianity claims one may attain salvation
only through Jesus, Islam claims the Christian
dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
blasphemous.
Ideas like this though, are of little importance
to the overarching and general claims made for a
personal, creator, omni-everything god. I have
coined a term, The Grand God of Grand Theologies
for this sort of god, this sort of theological
system of expansive claims for god.
Grand theologies are those theologies that have
adopted this class of god as their basic
attributes concerning the nature of god. But it
is important to remember here that what is being
discussed here is a class of gods, not particular
gods or specific gods.
THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand
Theologies holding to this basic class of god as
their basic definitions of what god is at god's
most basic level.
A big problem with this class of gods is, it
collapses rather easily into internal self-
contradiction.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
F. Or god is neither omnipotent or
omnibenevolent.
G. Or god is not existant.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
The free will defense of the problem of evil goes
back to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is
still popular, and is championed most notably
today by Alvin Plantinga, but also by other
theologians.
God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to do
evil. Ability to do evil is less evil than
lacking free will.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.
God has free will.
God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature
incapable of doing evil.
A. If god can have free will, and a good nature,
this good nature is not allowed to count
against god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence.
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
free will and a god like good nature.
D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count
against man's free will than it does for god's
free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will
and god does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free
will, thus free will is not a true necessity
at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and
can give man a god like free will and a
god-like good nature incapable of moral evil,
god must do so or god is not moral, not
omnibenevolent.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
So free will does not exist, or it does and we can
have a god like free will and a god like good
nature. Either way, free will cannot explain away
the existence of evil. This free will defense
then, is a failed argument.
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most
religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
in the Universe and he knows the future of the
Universe and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
damned, God will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
state will have a John Smith, god may then
contemplate the future state of Smith and
decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
specific personal and will choice made solely
by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
because of a choice made by god. In fact all
moral evil done by creations of god will be
evil and do evil only because of personal and
willful creations of god allowing evil acts
to be done, by direct decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
creator god, it is solely and only because
god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will, not even
in principle. A Universe with a god that
creates all and knows all precludes free will
for all beings god creates in the strongest
possible manner.
The Grand God of Grand
Theology is thus self destroying, it is
incoherent and contradictory as a theory.
THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
Grand God has been defined here with as few
terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defense, free will is fatally
flawed. God's good nature and free will doom
claims free will makes evil necessary for man
to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
doom claims of god's omnibenevolence and
man's free will free will cannot exist for
man. All evil is the direct and knowing
creation of god contradicting claims of
omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
free will cannot be a good quality, much less
necessary.
Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has
collapsed. As has Grand
Theology. As pointed out, this destroys the claims
and viability of an entire class of possible
gods,
all secondary and tertiary claims for such a god
of
this class also fail, as do dogmas or secondary
or tertiary claims.
If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined,
specific gods cannot, nor can claims such as this
or that Grand God sent this or that revelation to
man or some prophet or did this or that.
God is thus disproven and is utter irrelevant
to anything real and existant.
***********
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (NIV)
Darwinian material is a theory, taught today as if it were a law. Is
that being truthful and scientific?
For example, if all the thousands of different life forms, starting in
the microscopic and ending in the macroscopic, evolved from lower life
forms, then the strata should be full of all the many thousands upon
thousands of transitional life forms needed to produce just the ones we
see today. (let alone all the ones that are now extinct) But even
Darwin himself couldn't find that evidence. Charles Darwin said,
"The distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended
together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious
difficulty." (Origin of Species, 1902, Part 2, p. 54).
Difficult? He had no idea how difficult. Perhaps he just thought that
they would be discovered in time. THEY HAVEN'T. They are not there.
(true there are some alleged links, but they are far to few to be any
'smoking gun' for that theory) But that THEORY of evolution demands
their existence. (unless they have altered their theory to eliminate
the need for them)
Also even many decades ago, the fossil evidence told its own story.
Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson after 40 years of his own research
said:
"It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of
palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that . .
. the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the
scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be
filled." (Synthetische Artbildung [The Synthetic Origin of Species],
1953, p. 1212.)
So at the bottom line let's look at the SCIENTIFIC FACTS.
The Theory of Evolution demands thousands and thousands of transition
links, eventually producing all the life forms. The fossil record does
not show those multitudes of transitional links. They are missing.
The Creation account says that all life forms were created as full
complete life forms. Cats as cats, monkeys as monkeys, dogs as dogs,
humans as humans etc. (Ge 1:24-27) So if the creation account is the
way life occurred, then we should NOT find transitional life forms in
the strata, but rather whole and complete organisms suddenly appearing.
AND THAT IS WHAT THE REAL FOSSILE EVIDENCE SHOWS.
Thus concerning the origins of life, the Bible's account is more in
harmony with the fossil evidence, than the Theory of Evolution. To
ignore that those facts, is to ignore the truth. But a good scientist
accepts the truth, no matter how 'bitter' it may seem to him at the
time.
Sincerely, James
***********************************
Want a FREE home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************
--
An Inuit hunter asked the local missionary priest: "If I did not know about
God and sin, would I go to hell?" "No," said the priest, "not if you did
not know." "Then why," asked the Inuit earnestly, "did you tell me?"
-Annie Dillard, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Was "Re: Some brilliant words by Professor Richard Dawkins" |
08 Mar 2006 04:21:11 PM |
|
|
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and consciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism.
That's what's called a "strawman" argument.
What does the Christian book actually say? Let's take the gospel of John
In the beginning was the word, and the word was God, and the word was with
God ... and the word became flesh and dwelt amongst us.
A slightly different basic description of God than your weakened and
impoverished one.
If you say what you think it means to say God is "the word", and restart the
argument from there, maybe you'll get somewhere different.
--
Buy my book 12 Common Atheist Arguments (refuted)
$1.25 download or $6.90 paper, available www.lulu.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scott" |
|
| Title: Re: Was "Re: Some brilliant words by Professor Richard Dawkins" |
07 Mar 2006 09:54:38 AM |
|
|
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:120qbf06v45sl04@corp.supernews.com...
rebida@safeplace.net wrote:
There is no god, only physics
<snipping>
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
F. Or god is neither omnipotent or
omnibenevolent.
G. Or god is not existant.
YOU are one closed-minded moron, CC. Just look at your contradictions above.
You said no god exists, only physics. Then you make the unsupported
statement "Evil exist". WELL, if only physics exist what is the physics for
evil?
I want your physic equation for evil. If there is no such equation then evil
does not exist anymore than a god exist...if you assume materialism (aka
physicalism) is the factual description of reality. Materialism rejects real
gods and real morals such as evil. Neither could exists.
For the Euthyphro Dilemma (the problem of evil argument) to have any
validity you must assume materialism is false since the dilemma is based
upon the assumption that evil does in fact exist. Seems to me the ED is a
bigger problem for materialist like you wanting to use it to argue against
theist since you in fact do believe in the existence of evil.
But as straight foreword as that is, I know you are too closed-minded to
grasp it.
To Christian theology God is Good and evil is simply the actions of men
pushing Goodness away. In Christian theology evil is an absence of good and
not a contra.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Was "Re: Some brilliant words by Professor Richard Dawkins" |
07 Mar 2006 10:13:53 AM |
|
|
"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote in
news:21iPf.43179$F_3.11515@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:120qbf06v45sl04@corp.supernews.com...
rebida@safeplace.net wrote:
There is no god, only physics
<snipping>
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
F. Or god is neither omnipotent or
omnibenevolent.
G. Or god is not existant.
YOU are one closed-minded moron, CC. Just look at your contradictions
above.
You said no god exists, only physics. Then you make the unsupported
statement "Evil exist". WELL, if only physics exist what is the
physics for evil?
Evil is in the opinion of a physical observer.
I want your physic equation for evil. If there is no such equation
then evil does not exist anymore than a god exist...if you assume
materialism (aka physicalism) is the factual description of reality.
Materialism rejects real gods and real morals such as evil. Neither
could exists.
Your lame strawman materialism may reject abstractions such as morality,
but actual materialism has no problem with abstract concepts since they
are representations in a physical mind.
For the Euthyphro Dilemma (the problem of evil argument) to have any
validity you must assume materialism is false since the dilemma is
based upon the assumption that evil does in fact exist. Seems to me
the ED is a bigger problem for materialist like you wanting to use it
to argue against theist since you in fact do believe in the existence
of evil.
But as straight foreword as that is, I know you are too closed-minded
to grasp it.
Just because you're too stupid to understand your own error, don't
assume that we are also.
To Christian theology God is Good and evil is simply the actions of
men pushing Goodness away. In Christian theology evil is an absence of
good and not a contra.
No middle ground, eh?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"There are security precautions that were taken... One of those was not
informing you of the trip until now," McClellan told reporters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Was "Re: Some brilliant words by Professor Richard Dawkins" |
07 Mar 2006 03:39:51 AM |
|
|
wbarwell wrote:
rebida@safeplace.net wrote:
Mani Deli <mani@sympatico.ca>
Was "Re: Some brilliant words by Professor Richard Dawkins"
Hello,
Yes, science has done remarkable things. Where did all those scientific
laws come from? Did they just pop themselves into existence, and then
say to themselves, 'I am going to be a law and not deviate from my
purpose' . Or rather, did some intelligence CREATE all those stable
laws? The Bible supports the latter. Ge 1:1,
There is no god, only physics
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and consciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism.
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
omnipotence and so aren't not truly independent
attributes, and may be considered special aspects
of omnipotence.
There are other attributes of god, that he is the
only such god, that he is is immortal and that
god has always existed that are not important
for this discussion and for now, can be ignored.
They are secondary arguments and are for the most
part not foundational or truly necessary, except
those that can be logically derived from the
attributes listed above.
A CLASS OF GODS
It is important to note here that this is a
definition not for a particular god, but an
entire class of gods.
Sub-theories about god are not important here.
Christianity claims one may attain salvation
only through Jesus, Islam claims the Christian
dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
blasphemous.
Ideas like this though, are of little importance
to the overarching and general claims made for a
personal, creator, omni-everything god. I have
coined a term, The Grand God of Grand Theologies
for this sort of god, this sort of theological
system of expansive claims for god.
Grand theologies are those theologies that have
adopted this class of god as their basic
attributes concerning the nature of god. But it
is important to remember here that what is being
discussed here is a class of gods, not particular
gods or specific gods.
THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand
Theologies holding to this basic class of god as
their basic definitions of what god is at god's
most basic level.
A big problem with this class of gods is, it
collapses rather easily into internal self-
contradiction.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
F. Or god is neither omnipotent or
omnibenevolent.
G. Or god is not existant.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
The free will defense of the problem of evil goes
back to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is
still popular, and is championed most notably
today by Alvin Plantinga, but also by other
theologians.
God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to do
evil. Ability to do evil is less evil than
lacking free will.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.
God has free will.
God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature
incapable of doing evil.
A. If god can have free will, and a good nature,
this good nature is not allowed to count
against god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence.
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
free will and a god like good nature.
D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count
against man's free will than it does for god's
free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will
and god does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free
will, thus free will is not a true necessity
at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and
can give man a god like free will and a
god-like good nature incapable of moral evil,
god must do so or god is not moral, not
omnibenevolent.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
So free will does not exist, or it does and we can
have a god like free will and a god like good
nature. Either way, free will cannot explain away
the existence of evil. This free will defense
then, is a failed argument.
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most
religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
in the Universe and he knows the future of the
Universe and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
damned, God will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
state will have a John Smith, god may then
contemplate the future state of Smith and
decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
specific personal and will choice made solely
by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
because of a choice made by god. In fact all
moral evil done by creations of god will be
evil and do evil only because of personal and
willful creations of god allowing evil acts
to be done, by direct decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
creator god, it is solely and only because
god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will, not even
in principle. A Universe with a god that
creates all and knows all precludes free will
for all beings god creates in the strongest
possible manner.
The Grand God of Grand
Theology is thus self destroying, it is
incoherent and contradictory as a theory.
THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
Grand God has been defined here with as few
terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defense, free will is fatally
flawed. God's good nature and free will doom
claims free will makes evil necessary for man
to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
doom claims of god's omnibenevolence and
man's free will free will cannot exist for
man. All evil is the direct and knowing
creation of god contradicting claims of
omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
free will cannot be a good quality, much less
necessary.
Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has
collapsed. As has Grand
Theology. As pointed out, this destroys the claims
and viability of an entire class of possible
gods,
all secondary and tertiary claims for such a god
of
this class also fail, as do dogmas or secondary
or tertiary claims.
If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined,
specific gods cannot, nor can claims such as this
or that Grand God sent this or that revelation to
man or some prophet or did this or that.
God is thus disproven and is utter irrelevant
to anything real and existant.
***********
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (NIV)
Darwinian material is a theory, taught today as if it were a law. Is
that being truthful and scientific?
For example, if all the thousands of different life forms, starting in
the microscopic and ending in the macroscopic, evolved from lower life
forms, then the strata should be full of all the many thousands upon
thousands of transitional life forms needed to produce just the ones we
see today. (let alone all the ones that are now extinct) But even
Darwin himself couldn't find that evidence. Charles Darwin said,
"The distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended
together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious
difficulty." (Origin of Species, 1902, Part 2, p. 54).
Difficult? He had no idea how difficult. Perhaps he just thought that
they would be discovered in time. THEY HAVEN'T. They are not there.
(true there are some alleged links, but they are far to few to be any
'smoking gun' for that theory) But that THEORY of evolution demands
their existence. (unless they have altered their theory to eliminate
the need for them)
Also even many decades ago, the fossil evidence told its own story.
Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson after 40 years of his own research
said:
"It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of
palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that . .
. the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the
scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be
filled." (Synthetische Artbildung [The Synthetic Origin of Species],
1953, p. 1212.)
So at the bottom line let's look at the SCIENTIFIC FACTS.
The Theory of Evolution demands thousands and thousands of transition
links, eventually producing all the life forms. The fossil record does
not show those multitudes of transitional links. They are missing.
The Creation account says that all life forms were created as full
complete life forms. Cats as cats, monkeys as monkeys, dogs as dogs,
humans as humans etc. (Ge 1:24-27) So if the creation account is the
way life occurred, then we should NOT find transitional life forms in
the strata, but rather whole and complete organisms suddenly appearing.
AND THAT IS WHAT THE REAL FOSSILE EVIDENCE SHOWS.
Thus concerning the origins of life, the Bible's account is more in
harmony with the fossil evidence, than the Theory of Evolution. To
ignore that those facts, is to ignore the truth. But a good scientist
accepts the truth, no matter how 'bitter' it may seem to him at the
time.
Sincerely, James
***********************************
Want a FREE home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************
--
An Inuit hunter asked the local missionary priest: "If I did not know about
God and sin, would I go to hell?" "No," said the priest, "not if you did
not know." "Then why," asked the Inuit earnestly, "did you tell me?"
-Annie Dillard, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek
Cheerful Charlie
It was , of course, to extract WAD (Worthless American Dollars) from
the poor hunter.
Hi.
I thought of the following, maybe some sf story has covered it already.
Suppose we someday go through the space of all DNA combinations and
identify the adult version of every plant or animal combination
possible. Thus we would have a catalog that would give every life-form
possible from the DNA molecule. There might be 7 legged ostriches, for
instance. But what would be odd is if there are human-like creatures
say with 100 times our intelligence. If we advance to the point of
being able to actually create the creatures then we might pick the most
intelligent one of all and have it replace us. It might have, say, an
IQ of 10000.
So our purpose here on Earth might be to discover this creature and
create it.
One thing, however, is that (IMHO) the Global Brain is locking in and
you can't do any better, so there would be no push to create such a
creature.
Just some whimsy while painting the barn.
Don
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Was "Re: Some brilliant words by Professor Richard Dawkins" |
06 Mar 2006 05:07:20 PM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet (rebida@safeplace.net) made
the light shine upon us with this:
Darwinian material is a theory, taught today as if it were a law. Is
that being truthful and scientific?
You don't understand what it takes to become a scientific theory. I
suggest you become familiar with the concept before you make a fool out of
yourself again.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Atheists get to live their lives in accordance with their own desires. I
call that a win, compared to the collossal waste of time being an active
Christian. Atheist: win. Christian: lose. "No win" never comes into
play, because there are no gods.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "bam" |
|
| Title: Re: Was "Re: Some brilliant words by Professor Richard Dawkins" |
06 Mar 2006 07:00:01 PM |
|
|
The scientific community tells the religious to mind their own business, but
here's Dawkins posing as some kind of religious expert.
But if we are to allow scientists to opine about religion, why listen to a
pipsqeak like Dawkins? How about Issacc Newton, who declared that the
regulation of the solar system presupposed the "dominion of an intelligent
and powerful being."
BAM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mani Deli" |
|
| Title: Re: Was "Re: Some brilliant words by Professor Richard Dawkins" |
07 Mar 2006 02:55:01 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 20:00:01 -0500, "bam"
<mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
The scientific community tells the religious to mind their own business,
Religious paranoia!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: Was "Re: Some brilliant words by Professor Richard Dawkins" |
07 Mar 2006 07:34:02 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 20:00:01 -0500, "bam"
<mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
The scientific community tells the religious to mind their own business, but
here's Dawkins posing as some kind of religious expert.
But if we are to allow scientists to opine about religion, why listen to a
pipsqeak like Dawkins? How about Issacc Newton, who declared that the
regulation of the solar system presupposed the "dominion of an intelligent
and powerful being."
BAM
It's amazing how far science has progressed since those days, isn't
it?
Too bad the same thing can't be said about religion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bam" |
|
| Title: Re: Was "Re: Some brilliant words by Professor Richard Dawkins" |
07 Mar 2006 08:48:31 AM |
|
|
"LP" <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:on2r02tpjjdglv3ugvo1nnnk5hivracmpd@4ax.com...
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 20:00:01 -0500, "bam"
<mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
The scientific community tells the religious to mind their own business,
but
here's Dawkins posing as some kind of religious expert.
But if we are to allow scientists to opine about religion, why listen to a
pipsqeak like Dawkins? How about Issacc Newton, who declared that the
regulation of the solar system presupposed the "dominion of an intelligent
and powerful being."
BAM
It's amazing how far science has progressed since those days, isn't
it?
Not really. The theory of Evolution is moving at a snails pace. You can't
even find one Textbook on the subject. The truth is, Evolution is just an
application of laizzez faire economics (ie early 19th century political
economic theory of early capitalism) to the biological world.
Too bad the same thing can't be said about religion.
Yes. So much of the world is in denial about the supremacy of the Catholic
Church.
BAM
.
|
|
|
| User: "explainer" |
|
| Title: Re: Was "Re: Some brilliant words by Professor Richard Dawkins" |
07 Mar 2006 10:54:56 AM |
|
|
bam wrote:
"LP" <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:on2r02tpjjdglv3ugvo1nnnk5hivracmpd@4ax.com...
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 20:00:01 -0500, "bam"
<mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
The scientific community tells the religious to mind their own business,
but
here's Dawkins posing as some kind of religious expert.
But if we are to allow scientists to opine about religion, why listen to a
pipsqeak like Dawkins? How about Issacc Newton, who declared that the
regulation of the solar system presupposed the "dominion of an intelligent
and powerful being."
BAM
It's amazing how far science has progressed since those days, isn't
it?
Not really. The theory of Evolution is moving at a snails pace. You can't
even find one Textbook on the subject. The truth is, Evolution is just an
application of laizzez faire economics (ie early 19th century political
economic theory of early capitalism) to the biological world.
Too bad the same thing can't be said about religion.
Yes. So much of the world is in denial about the supremacy of the Catholic
Church.
Pointing to fundamentalists of any religion as holding contemporary
thought is like pointing to psychics as the experts in consciousness or
alchemists as leading scientists.
There are many progressive movements in religion which see their
spiritual path in full accord with modern science, but you will not
find them posting on TO because they have no argument with evolution.
Their proponents do, however, take issue with being lumped in with
religious regressives.
All the best, Gordon Hill
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
