| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"sdr" |
| Date: |
14 Jul 2007 12:08:23 PM |
| Object: |
What Atheists Can't Answer |
What Atheists Can't Answer
By Michael Gerson Friday, July 13, 2007;
Page A17 Washington Post
" Human nature, in other circumstances, is also
clearly constructed for cruel exploitation,
uncontrollable rage, icy selfishness and a range of
other less desirable traits.
So the dilemma is this: How do we choose between
good and bad instincts? Theism, for several
millennia, has given one answer: We should
cultivate the better angels of our nature because
the God we love and respect requires it. While many
of us fall tragically short, the ideal remains.
Atheism provides no answer to this dilemma. It
cannot reply: "Obey your evolutionary instincts"
because those instincts are conflicted. "Respect
your brain chemistry" or "follow your mental
wiring" don't seem very compelling either. It would
be perfectly rational for someone to respond: "To
hell with my wiring and your socialization, I'm
going to do whatever I please." "
Consider, Mr. Gerson:
If it were the case that religion is our instructor,
then there would be no prisons. There are, and
consider, further, that the most religious (at least
professing to be) group in this country is the two
million criminals in our prisons. 'Nouf said.
But if you still think that morality/ethics is in any
way/shape/form associated with religious belief, then
but think about the depravity of priests and preachers
--who have been caught. Shouldn't that, at least, be
enough to remove any convictions you might have had
about religious instruction "bettering" our "naturally
evil nature."
Further: People who think they should be good BECAUSE
their God requires it are only setting themselves up
for the most evil preacher's definition of The Good.
Time and time again we have seen preachers "inform"
their congregations that God wants them to fight this
or that war (Confederate preachers urged their
congregations to kill as many Yankees as possible), or
to butcher and plunder this or that people (in the
best of Islamic traditions, Turkish preachers told
their congregations that murdering Armenians for their
possessions (and raping their women and children
before slaughtering them) was what God expected of
them... and because acknowledging this monstrous truth
about Islam before the whole world is so impossible,
the Turks to this day refuse to acknowledge that the
Armenian/Muslim genocide even ever took place).
But I don't have to prove to any parent that we are
ALL born with unfettered instincts--to be "bettered"
by the (sometimes even the most casual & offhand)
instructions of our parents and societies: Every child
KNOWS the difference between good and evil (deeds) by
the time he/she is four or five. And if they don't,
then that is a certain sign that such children live in
a warped and perverted society or family.
The four-year-old who does "evil" may not yet know how
to "get away with it," but he certainly knows he had
better not get caught doing it.
Therefore, if there be man or woman on this earth who
still does not know the difference between Good and
Evil... let them inquire of any (as-yet religiously-
uninstructed) four-year-old: for he will surely know,
and tell them.
S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3s.sdrodrian.com
All religions are local.
Only science is universal.
.
|
|
| User: "tooly" |
|
| Title: Re: What Atheists Can't Answer |
15 Jul 2007 02:29:00 PM |
|
|
"sdr" <sdrodrian@sdrodrian.com> wrote in message
news:1184432903.654962.263260@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
What Atheists Can't Answer
By Michael Gerson Friday, July 13, 2007;
Page A17 Washington Post
" Human nature, in other circumstances, is also
clearly constructed for cruel exploitation,
uncontrollable rage, icy selfishness and a range of
other less desirable traits.
So the dilemma is this: How do we choose between
good and bad instincts? Theism, for several
millennia, has given one answer: We should
cultivate the better angels of our nature because
the God we love and respect requires it. While many
of us fall tragically short, the ideal remains.
Atheism provides no answer to this dilemma. It
cannot reply: "Obey your evolutionary instincts"
because those instincts are conflicted. "Respect
your brain chemistry" or "follow your mental
wiring" don't seem very compelling either. It would
be perfectly rational for someone to respond: "To
hell with my wiring and your socialization, I'm
going to do whatever I please." "
Consider, Mr. Gerson:
If it were the case that religion is our instructor,
then there would be no prisons. There are, and
consider, further, that the most religious (at least
professing to be) group in this country is the two
million criminals in our prisons. 'Nouf said.
But if you still think that morality/ethics is in any
way/shape/form associated with religious belief, then
but think about the depravity of priests and preachers
--who have been caught. Shouldn't that, at least, be
enough to remove any convictions you might have had
about religious instruction "bettering" our "naturally
evil nature."
Further: People who think they should be good BECAUSE
their God requires it are only setting themselves up
for the most evil preacher's definition of The Good.
Time and time again we have seen preachers "inform"
their congregations that God wants them to fight this
or that war (Confederate preachers urged their
congregations to kill as many Yankees as possible), or
to butcher and plunder this or that people (in the
best of Islamic traditions, Turkish preachers told
their congregations that murdering Armenians for their
possessions (and raping their women and children
before slaughtering them) was what God expected of
them... and because acknowledging this monstrous truth
about Islam before the whole world is so impossible,
the Turks to this day refuse to acknowledge that the
Armenian/Muslim genocide even ever took place).
But I don't have to prove to any parent that we are
ALL born with unfettered instincts--to be "bettered"
by the (sometimes even the most casual & offhand)
instructions of our parents and societies: Every child
KNOWS the difference between good and evil (deeds) by
the time he/she is four or five. And if they don't,
then that is a certain sign that such children live in
a warped and perverted society or family.
The four-year-old who does "evil" may not yet know how
to "get away with it," but he certainly knows he had
better not get caught doing it.
Therefore, if there be man or woman on this earth who
still does not know the difference between Good and
Evil... let them inquire of any (as-yet religiously-
uninstructed) four-year-old: for he will surely know,
and tell them.
S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3s.sdrodrian.com
All religions are local.
Only science is universal.
I beg to differ.
Once again, we confuse religiousity between the dogmatic content on the one
hand, and the 'raised awareness' of state that such dogmatic teachings are
'supposed' to engender on the other [but often do not].
I have observed in this life strong charismatic individuals that can lead a
group entirely on tangents that have nothing to do with reality...all in the
name of science. Just to offer one example, refer to the Prion debaucle a
while back. But I've witnessed 'dogmatism' as close as my own workplace.
I've come to understand the underlying power of science is really just
language...or can be, and often is, wielded by brains that do not really
understand much, but can be relegated a more powerful social position if
only 'in that name of science' and the language it grows.
But what I've also witnessed is a true 'conjuring' of a deeper quality in
our makeup, if one pursues it with a certain sincerity, found in the
emotional content that religious dogma leads us toward [at least in the
Christian faith, so would be my argument...perhaps other faiths in some
way]. We call it 'love' (which once again I have to object to the word
itself, but only attempt to 'conjure' some poor conveyance of it's
condition as perused in that religious experience).
I have often argued that this thing we call 'love' is one and the same
'nurturing' characteristic that was so advantageous to mammals...but now
'aggregated' through religion, as a concerted effort to cultivate and
magnify it's production in ourselves. One of the greatest understandings of
such effort [at least as I have observed it emprically], is the capacity to
circumvent the normal gestaltive 'ball and chain' of objects [ergo, that one
must love 'something'], to find in one's self, almost through sheer force of
will [at least through willful maniuplations of our minds], a capacity to
love 'without object'. Usually, God is that object...but as I have
concluded that we cannot really define God, must be a 'placeholder'...a
symbol of 'non meaning'... by which we might release this 'capacity' in
ourselves [to love at levels before unreached].
Think of what this might mean; a tree finding the capacity to pull up it's
roots and 'move' around...only in ourselves, as abstract BEings, no longer
'constrained' by our environment. Love is it's own virtue...or as I often
think it surely is, harbringer of all 'virtue'. As a 'state'...a condition
of existing, it is not only sublime, but an answer to everything, as I often
argue, not by the solution of equations, but by the literal condition of
'state'. The question itself melts away where there is no need for answers
and equations. I am quite convinced that Love, as professed through the
Christian faith [and perhaps other faiths I'm not intimate with] is a HIGHER
STATE. I'd bet everything on it. I have bet everything on it.
And this gets confusing. God, then becomes both 'real' [but only that state
accomplished as a transcendent love], and 'unreal' at the same time [at
least undefinable, since God represents ALL objects, all creation, etc etc].
The state is only REAL object...even if talking about science.
The kingdom lay within...or something like that.
Anyway, the one thing I wanted to mention here before I go off too much in a
dissertation, is 'love' has one most functional residual IMO...that has
moved us greatly to define us as BEings [the Human essence in fact I would
argue]. That residual is CONSCIENCE. Science allows us to rationally
introspect, but it does not cultivate the emotional content needed to
'aspire' toward HIGHER CONSCIENCE. Rational introspection in fact, without
the benefit of love's grace to imbue our selfish nature, leads to something
almost devilish in our capacity to be clever and negotiate among other
humans; ha...we call it politics you know. Politics without conscience
leads to Machievellian antics that would make Shakespeare proud.
And thusly, is perhaps science's one great flaw [well, second after the fact
that it cannot provide us a life meaning beyond survival...actually giving
us rationale to do away with conscience in the greater scope of things].
Too bad too, for science provides us with so much...but falls short. Anyone
who has ever dealt with the human capacity for intrigue and vile immorality
at the corporate level will know what I am talking about here...all powered
by our most rational, scientific, side. Outwardly, the masks are
impeccable.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: What Atheists Can't Answer |
14 Jul 2007 12:39:51 PM |
|
|
On Jul 14, 10:08 am, sdr <sdrodr...@sdrodrian.com> wrote:
What Atheists Can't Answer
By Michael Gerson Friday, July 13, 2007;
Page A17 Washington Post
" Human nature, in other circumstances, is also
clearly constructed for cruel exploitation,
uncontrollable rage, icy selfishness and a range of
other less desirable traits.
So the dilemma is this: How do we choose between
good and bad instincts?
The choice between theism and atheist is a false dicotomy since there
are other non-religious thinking based alternatives. Attempt that
niether confirm or deny such religious based issues.
A False Dilemma involves a situation in which two alternative
statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality
there exist one or more other options which have not been considered.
The fallacy relies on a misuse of the "or" operator. The dilemma need
not be limited to two choices; it may involve three possibilities, in
which case it is known as a trifurcation. There may be even more
choices involved, in which case the fallacy may arise simply by
accidental omission - possibly through a form of wishful thinking -
rather than by deliberate deception. Two extreme points on some
spectrum of possibilities can give the impression that the options are
mutually exclusive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
....by appealing to the core principles of neurobiology, evolutionary
theory, and cognitive science, practitioners of a new human science
can reach a deeper understanding of why we feel certain courses of
action to be intrinsically correct. They can help us to understand why
we have moral feelings. For now, though, the scientists can offer no
guidance on whether we are really correct in making certain decisions,
because no way is known to define what is correct without total
reference to the moral feelings under scrutiny. Perhaps this is the
ultimate burden of the free will bequeathed to us by our genes: in the
final analysis, even when we know what we are likely to do and why,
each of us must still choose.
The challenge to science and philosophy to solve this dilemma is very
great-in our opinion, there is none greater. Society, through its laws
and institutions, already regulates behavior. But it does so in
virtual blind ignorance of the deep reaches of human nature. By
relying on moral intuition, on those satisfying visceral feelings of
right and wrong, people remain enslaved by their genes and culture.
Their minds develop along the channels set by the hereditary
epigenetic rules, and while they exercise free will in moment-by-
moment choices, this faculty remains superficial and its value to the
individual is largely illusory. Only by penetrating to the physical
basis of moral thought and considering its evolutionary meaning will
people have the power to control their own lives. They will then be in
a better position to choose ethical precepts and the forms of social
regulation needed to maintain the precepts.
Promethean Fire - Reflections on the Origins of Mind
Charles J. Lumsdem - E.O. Wilson - 1983
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1583484256/
....innate censors and motivators exist in the brain that deeply and
unconsciously affect our ethical premises; from these roots, morality
evolved as instinct. If that perception is correct, science may soon
be in a position to investigate the very origin and meaning of human
values, from which all ethical pronouncements and much of political
practice flow.
Philosophers themselves, most of whom lack an evolutionary
perspective, have not devoted much time to the problem. They examine
the precepts of ethical systems with reference to their consequences
and not their origins. Thus John Rawls opens his influential A Theory
of Justice (1971) with a proposition he regards as beyond dispute: "In
a just society the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as
settled; the rights secured by justice are not subject to political
bargaining or to the calculus of social interests." Robert Nozick
begins Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974) with an equally firm
proposition: "Individuals have rights, and there are things no person
or group may do to them (without violating their rights). So strong
and far-reaching are these rights they raise the question of what, if
anything, the state and its omcials.may do." These two premises are
somewhat different in content, and they lead to radically different
prescriptions. Rawls would allow rigid social control to secure as
close an approach as possible to the equal distribution of society's
rewards. Nozick sees the ideal society as one governed by a minimal
state, empowered only to protect its citizens from force and fraud,
and with unequal distribution of rewards wholly permissible. Rawls
rejects the meritocracy; Nozick accepts it as desirable except in
those cases where local communities voluntarily decide to experiment
with egalitarianism. Like everyone else, philosophers measure their
personal emotional responses to various alternatives as though
consulting a hidden oracle.
That oracle resides in the deep emotional centers of the brain, most
probably within the limbic system, a complex array of neurons and
hormone-secreting cells located just beneath the "thinking" portion of
the cerebral cortex. Human emotional responses and the more general
ethical practices based on them have been programmed to a substantial
degree by natural selection over thousands of generations. The
challenge to science is to measure the tightness of the constraints
caused by the programming, to find their source in the brain, and to
decode their significance through the reconstruction of the
evolutionary history of the mind. This enterprise will be the logical
complement of the continued study of cultural evolution.
Success will generate the second dilemma, which can be stated as
follows: Which of the censors and motivators should be obeyed and
which ones might better be curtailed or sublimated? These guides are
the very core of our humanity. They and not the belief in spiritual
apartness distinguish us from electronic computers. At some time in
the future we will have to decide how human we wish to remain-in this
ultimate, biological sense-because we must consciously choose among
the alternative emotional guides we have inherited. To chart our
destiny means that we must shift from automatic control based on our
biological properties to precise steering based on biological
knowledge.
Because the guides of human nature must be examined with a complicated
arrangement of mirrors, they are a deceptive subject, always the
philosopher's deadfall. The only way forward is to study human nature
as part of the natural sciences, in an attempt to integrate the
natural sciences with the social sciences and humanities. I can
conceive of no ideological or formalisric shortcut. Neurobiology
cannot be learned at the feer of a guru. The consequences of genetic
history cannot be chosen by legislatures. Above all, for our own
physical well-being if nothing else, ethical philosophy must not be
left in the hands of the merely wise. Although human progress can be
achieved by intuition and force of will, only hard-won empirical
knowledge of our biological nature will allow us to make optimum
choices among the competing criteria of progress.
On Human Nature - Edward O. Wilson 1978
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/067463442X/qid=1036537594/
...Theism, for several
millennia, has given one answer: We should
cultivate the better angels of our nature because
the God we love and respect requires it. While many
of us fall tragically short, the ideal remains.
Atheism provides no answer to this dilemma. It
cannot reply: "Obey your evolutionary instincts"
because those instincts are conflicted. "Respect
your brain chemistry" or "follow your mental
wiring" don't seem very compelling either. It would
be perfectly rational for someone to respond: "To
hell with my wiring and your socialization, I'm
going to do whatever I please." "
Consider, Mr. Gerson:
If it were the case that religion is our instructor,
then there would be no prisons. There are, and
consider, further, that the most religious (at least
professing to be) group in this country is the two
million criminals in our prisons. 'Nouf said.
But if you still think that morality/ethics is in any
way/shape/form associated with religious belief, then
but think about the depravity of priests and preachers
--who have been caught. Shouldn't that, at least, be
enough to remove any convictions you might have had
about religious instruction "bettering" our "naturally
evil nature."
Further: People who think they should be good BECAUSE
their God requires it are only setting themselves up
for the most evil preacher's definition of The Good.
Time and time again we have seen preachers "inform"
their congregations that God wants them to fight this
or that war (Confederate preachers urged their
congregations to kill as many Yankees as possible), or
to butcher and plunder this or that people (in the
best of Islamic traditions, Turkish preachers told
their congregations that murdering Armenians for their
possessions (and raping their women and children
before slaughtering them) was what God expected of
them... and because acknowledging this monstrous truth
about Islam before the whole world is so impossible,
the Turks to this day refuse to acknowledge that the
Armenian/Muslim genocide even ever took place).
But I don't have to prove to any parent that we are
ALL born with unfettered instincts--to be "bettered"
by the (sometimes even the most casual & offhand)
instructions of our parents and societies: Every child
KNOWS the difference between good and evil (deeds) by
the time he/she is four or five. And if they don't,
then that is a certain sign that such children live in
a warped and perverted society or family.
The four-year-old who does "evil" may not yet know how
to "get away with it," but he certainly knows he had
better not get caught doing it.
Therefore, if there be man or woman on this earth who
still does not know the difference between Good and
Evil... let them inquire of any (as-yet religiously-
uninstructed) four-year-old: for he will surely know,
and tell them.
S D Rodrianhttp://poems.sdrodrian.comhttp://physics.sdrodrian.comhttp://mp3s.sdrodrian.com
All religions are local.
Only science is universal.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What Atheists Can't Answer |
20 Jul 2007 02:58:13 AM |
|
|
On 14-Jul-2007, Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 14, 10:08 am, sdr <sdrodr...@sdrodrian.com> wrote:
What Atheists Can't Answer
By Michael Gerson Friday, July 13, 2007;
Page A17 Washington Post
" Human nature, in other circumstances, is also
clearly constructed for cruel exploitation,
uncontrollable rage, icy selfishness and a range of
other less desirable traits.
So the dilemma is this: How do we choose between
good and bad instincts?
The choice between theism and atheist is a false dicotomy since there
are other non-religious thinking based alternatives. Attempt that
It depends on how you choose to define your terms. If I define atheism as
being a simple rebellion against God, that doesn't mean I'm denying the
existance of other non-religious thinking based alternatives.
--
Overheard:"If I am a friend of the family then I at least must be from
Texas. You shouldn't worry your pretty little head about politics, baby, if
it is something that you're curious about, just ask an adult and we'll keep
you informed."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Buzzard" |
|
| Title: Re: What Atheists Can't Answer |
21 Jul 2007 07:43:54 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On 14-Jul-2007, Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
The choice between theism and atheist is a false dicotomy since there
are other non-religious thinking based alternatives. Attempt that
It depends on how you choose to define your terms. If I define atheism as
being a simple rebellion against God, that doesn't mean I'm denying the
existance of other non-religious thinking based alternatives.
Indeed. I thought "atheistic" and "non-religious" were synonyms,
'atheist' being (latin?) for 'no god'
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What Atheists Can't Answer |
22 Jul 2007 03:48:54 PM |
|
|
On 21-Jul-2007, Buzzard <Buzzard@domain.invalid.net> wrote:
Subject: Re: What Atheists Can't Answer
From: Buzzard <Buzzard@domain.invalid.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 20:43:54 -0400
Message-ID: <f7u98c$89d$1@news04.infoave.net>
References: <1184432903.654962.263260@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
<1184434791.423296.147320@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
<46a14509$0$7403$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com>
Lines: 13
NNTP-Posting-Host: modem-019-ct11.citizens.swva.net
Organization: Info Avenue Internet Services, LLC
Path:
news.ThunderNews.com!dartmaster!s02-b11.iad01!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!130.81.64.211.MISMATCH!cycny01.gnilink.net!news-out.usenet.com!sp6iad.superfeed.net!news-in.nuthinbutnews.com!news.infoave.net!not-for-mail
Newsgroups:
alt.angst,alt.bible,alt.philosophy,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.military
X-Trace: news04.infoave.net 1185065037 8493 66.37.75.19 (22 Jul 2007
00:43:57 GMT)
Followup-To: alt.angst
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 00:43:57 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.2.1)
Gecko/20021130
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
In-Reply-To: <46a14509$0$7403$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com>
Xref: news.ThunderNews.com alt.angst:71055 alt.bible:798862
alt.philosophy:369188 alt.philosophy.objectivism:43857 alt.military:297928
kmurphy004@houston.rr.com wrote:
On 14-Jul-2007, Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
The choice between theism and atheist is a false dicotomy since there
are other non-religious thinking based alternatives. Attempt that
It depends on how you choose to define your terms. If I define atheism
as
being a simple rebellion against God, that doesn't mean I'm denying the
existance of other non-religious thinking based alternatives.
Indeed. I thought "atheistic" and "non-religious" were synonyms,
'atheist' being (latin?) for 'no god'
Some people find it surprizing that I believe in God (for purely
philosophical reasons). The idea most opposed to a belief in God is the
'Safe Bet' principle which says that you can't lose by having a belief in
God. It's a pathological concept.
--
Overheard:"If I am a friend of the family then I at least must be from
Texas. You shouldn't worry your pretty little head about politics, baby, if
it is something that you're curious about, just ask an adult and we'll keep
you informed."
.
|
|
|
| User: "-Phil Clemence" |
|
| Title: Re: What Atheists Can't Answer |
22 Jul 2007 06:42:22 PM |
|
|
Indeed. I thought "atheistic" and "non-religious" were synonyms,
'atheist' being (latin?) for 'no god'
Some people find it surprizing that I believe in God (for purely
philosophical reasons). The idea most opposed to a belief in God is the
'Safe Bet' principle which says that you can't lose by having a belief in
God. It's a pathological concept.
Who says it is the most opposed to a belief in god?
If there is no god, there is no need for a safe bet.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: What Atheists Can't Answer |
24 Jul 2007 09:08:40 PM |
|
|
On Jul 22, 1:48 pm, wrote:
On 21-Jul-2007, Buzzard <Buzz...@domain.invalid.net> wrote:
Subject: Re: What Atheists Can't Answer
From: Buzzard <Buzz...@domain.invalid.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 20:43:54 -0400
Message-ID: <f7u98c$89...@news04.infoave.net>
References: <1184432903.654962.263...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
<1184434791.423296.147...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
<46a14509$0$7403$882e0...@news.ThunderNews.com>
Lines: 13
NNTP-Posting-Host: modem-019-ct11.citizens.swva.net
Organization: Info Avenue Internet Services, LLC
Path:
news.ThunderNews.com!dartmaster!s02-b11.iad01!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!ne wshosting.com!130.81.64.211.MISMATCH!cycny01.gnilink.net!news-out.usenet.co m!sp6iad.superfeed.net!news-in.nuthinbutnews.com!news.infoave.net!not-for-m ail
Newsgroups:
alt.angst,alt.bible,alt.philosophy,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.military
X-Trace: news04.infoave.net 1185065037 8493 66.37.75.19 (22 Jul 2007
00:43:57 GMT)
Followup-To: alt.angst
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 00:43:57 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.2.1)
Gecko/20021130
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
In-Reply-To: <46a14509$0$7403$882e0...@news.ThunderNews.com>
Xref: news.ThunderNews.com alt.angst:71055 alt.bible:798862
alt.philosophy:369188 alt.philosophy.objectivism:43857 alt.military:297928
wrote:
On 14-Jul-2007, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The choice between theism and atheist is a false dicotomy since there
are other non-religious thinking based alternatives. Attempt that
It depends on how you choose to define your terms. If I define atheism
as
being a simple rebellion against God, that doesn't mean I'm denying the
existance of other non-religious thinking based alternatives.
Indeed. I thought "atheistic" and "non-religious" were synonyms,
'atheist' being (latin?) for 'no god'
Some people find it surprizing that I believe in God (for purely
philosophical reasons). The idea most opposed to a belief in God is the
'Safe Bet' principle which says that you can't lose by having a belief in
God. It's a pathological concept.
Yes, you can, as there are infinitely many Gods where not believan in
the true God will get you in one of infinite Hells.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "chazwin" |
|
| Title: Re: What Atheists Can't Answer |
23 Jul 2007 07:01:10 PM |
|
|
On Jul 14, 6:08 pm, sdr <sdrodr...@sdrodrian.com> wrote:
What Atheists Can't Answer
By Michael Gerson Friday, July 13, 2007;
Page A17 Washington Post
" Human nature, in other circumstances, is also
clearly constructed for cruel exploitation,
uncontrollable rage, icy selfishness and a range of
other less desirable traits.
So the dilemma is this: How do we choose between
good and bad instincts? Theism, for several
millennia, has given one answer: We should
cultivate the better angels of our nature because
the God we love and respect requires it. While many
of us fall tragically short, the ideal remains.
False and circular argument! How do we choose good: answer choose
good!
False because many theist decisions have encouraged killing death,
torture and destruction: but then they were "good" becasue theists
said so!
Atheism provides no answer to this dilemma.
False argument two: there has been no "dilemma" stated here!
We follow the "good" regardless of any god, becasue it is in our
nature to follow that which we see as "good". If our culture tells us
that "god is good" and to strap explosives to our bodies to kill the
infidel then that is good too.
Only atheism can hope to provide a set of "good" things that are not
measured against the stupidity of superstition.
It
cannot reply: "Obey your evolutionary instincts"
because those instincts are conflicted. "Respect
your brain chemistry" or "follow your mental
wiring" don't seem very compelling either. It would
be perfectly rational for someone to respond: "To
hell with my wiring and your socialization, I'm
going to do whatever I please." "
You common sense and understanding of history is conflicted, my
friend.
Tell Joan d'arc that burning witches for god is good, tell the victims
of the Spanish inquisition, tell the Christians that dies at the hands
of the the good theists of Rome; and the pagans that died at the hands
of the good Christians in the same arena; tell the inhabitants of
Jericho put ot the sword in the name of god.
Consider, Mr. Gerson:
If it were the case that religion is our instructor,
then there would be no prisons. There are, and
consider, further, that the most religious (at least
professing to be) group in this country is the two
million criminals in our prisons. 'Nouf said.
The prison population shows a smaller proportion of atheists inside
than are represented outside.
But if you still think that morality/ethics is in any
way/shape/form associated with religious belief, then
but think about the depravity of priests and preachers
--who have been caught. Shouldn't that, at least, be
enough to remove any convictions you might have had
about religious instruction "bettering" our "naturally
evil nature."
Further: People who think they should be good BECAUSE
their God requires it are only setting themselves up
for the most evil preacher's definition of The Good.
Time and time again we have seen preachers "inform"
their congregations that God wants them to fight this
or that war (Confederate preachers urged their
congregations to kill as many Yankees as possible), or
to butcher and plunder this or that people (in the
best of Islamic traditions, Turkish preachers told
their congregations that murdering Armenians for their
possessions (and raping their women and children
before slaughtering them) was what God expected of
them... and because acknowledging this monstrous truth
about Islam before the whole world is so impossible,
the Turks to this day refuse to acknowledge that the
Armenian/Muslim genocide even ever took place).
But I don't have to prove to any parent that we are
ALL born with unfettered instincts--to be "bettered"
by the (sometimes even the most casual & offhand)
instructions of our parents and societies: Every child
KNOWS the difference between good and evil (deeds) by
the time he/she is four or five. And if they don't,
then that is a certain sign that such children live in
a warped and perverted society or family.
The four-year-old who does "evil" may not yet know how
to "get away with it," but he certainly knows he had
better not get caught doing it.
Therefore, if there be man or woman on this earth who
still does not know the difference between Good and
Evil... let them inquire of any (as-yet religiously-
uninstructed) four-year-old: for he will surely know,
and tell them.
S D Rodrianhttp://poems.sdrodrian.comhttp://physics.sdrodrian.comhttp://mp3s.sdrodrian.com
All religions are local.
Only science is universal.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: What Atheists Can't Answer |
14 Jul 2007 01:37:11 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 10:08:23 -0700, sdr
<sdrodrian@sdrodrian.com> spoke thusly:
What Atheists Can't Answer
By Michael Gerson Friday, July 13, 2007;
Page A17 Washington Post
" Human nature, in other circumstances, is also
clearly constructed for cruel exploitation,
uncontrollable rage, icy selfishness and a range of
other less desirable traits.
So the dilemma is this: How do we choose between
good and bad instincts? Theism, for several
millennia, has given one answer: We should
cultivate the better angels of our nature because
the God we love and respect requires it. While many
of us fall tragically short, the ideal remains.
Atheism provides no answer to this dilemma. It
cannot reply: "Obey your evolutionary instincts"
because those instincts are conflicted. "Respect
your brain chemistry" or "follow your mental
wiring" don't seem very compelling either. It would
be perfectly rational for someone to respond: "To
hell with my wiring and your socialization, I'm
going to do whatever I please." "
If evolution is true, then instinct is what we should
go by and there are no morals. Everything goes
and we can do whatever our instincts tell us to do.
Consider, Mr. Gerson:
If it were the case that religion is our instructor,
then there would be no prisons.
Actually, it would be the reverse, since if evolution
is true, nothing is "wrong" and therefore, it is a
contradiction to lock anyone up for going along
with "their baser instincts". In fact, to squash them,
is to deny evolution each and every day.
--
Pastor Dave
Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith.
God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest
part of the water.
The world says that seeing is believing.
The Bible says that believing is seeing.
Doctrine is not Scripture.
.
|
|
|
| User: "XeNO" |
|
| Title: Re: What Atheists Can't Answer |
17 Jul 2007 12:22:05 AM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:br5i939jfrlnv3qh8p2n23oa477q621icb@4ax.com...
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 10:08:23 -0700, sdr
<sdrodrian@sdrodrian.com> spoke thusly:
What Atheists Can't Answer
By Michael Gerson Friday, July 13, 2007;
Page A17 Washington Post
" Human nature, in other circumstances, is also
clearly constructed for cruel exploitation,
uncontrollable rage, icy selfishness and a range of
other less desirable traits.
So the dilemma is this: How do we choose between
good and bad instincts? Theism, for several
millennia, has given one answer: We should
cultivate the better angels of our nature because
the God we love and respect requires it. While many
of us fall tragically short, the ideal remains.
Atheism provides no answer to this dilemma. It
cannot reply: "Obey your evolutionary instincts"
because those instincts are conflicted. "Respect
your brain chemistry" or "follow your mental
wiring" don't seem very compelling either. It would
be perfectly rational for someone to respond: "To
hell with my wiring and your socialization, I'm
going to do whatever I please." "
If evolution is true, then instinct is what we should
go by and there are no morals. Everything goes
and we can do whatever our instincts tell us to do.
Morals exist due to human intelligence. By and large people don't want to
be bothered, and don't want to be killed. So we have an unwritten social
contract with our fellow human beings not to kill each other.
We create a sector within our civilizations to deal with people who break
these contracts. (Law.)
A very strong argument can be made that morals are preferential in natural
selection, hence why we are able to build cities.
Consider, Mr. Gerson:
If it were the case that religion is our instructor,
then there would be no prisons.
Actually, it would be the reverse, since if evolution
is true, nothing is "wrong" and therefore, it is a
contradiction to lock anyone up for going along
with "their baser instincts". In fact, to squash them,
is to deny evolution each and every day.
Except that, using the U.S. as an example, atheists comprise 2% of the total
population, and christians--in all their denominations, make up 85%.
In our prisons, Christians are represented with the same 85%
Atheists make up less than one-half of one-percent.
What does this suggest?
It means that belief in god has nothing to do with morality.
It means that being an atheist doesn't make one a mad and raving criminal
with no thought for his fellow man.
I tend to think that most of us live by an interpretation of the
'golden-rule.' Atheists only get one chance at life--so why would we commit
crimes that would put us in prisons? Why would we hurt when we don't want
to be hurt?
--XeNO
--
Pastor Dave
Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith.
God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest
part of the water.
The world says that seeing is believing.
The Bible says that believing is seeing.
Doctrine is not Scripture.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sketch System" |
|
| Title: Re: What Atheists Can't Answer |
23 Jul 2007 05:49:21 PM |
|
|
On Jul 14, 11:37 am, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
Actually, it would be the reverse, since if evolution
is true, nothing is "wrong" and therefore, it is a
contradiction to lock anyone up for going along
with "their baser instincts". In fact, to squash them,
is to deny evolution each and every day.
Now, THERE'S a false dicotomy: either evolution is wrong, or anything
goes.
I don't know where you get the idea that there is no evolutionary
advantage to cooperation.
Your absurd reasoning is disturbing. It is no wonder that you want
evolution to be false. Unfortunately for you, your whims do not
dictate reality.
The first thing I think you need to understand is that not all
knowledge is faith-based. Some knowledge is acquired through
observation and experimentation. As such, the Theory of Evolution is
not a faith that competes with yours for the hearts and minds of
believers, likewise offering nothing but baseless assertion. It is
based on reality. It is real. It is open to experimentation and
falsification.
Deal with it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "kenny g" |
|
| Title: Re: What Atheists Can't Answer |
05 Aug 2007 10:26:47 PM |
|
|
On Jul 14, 2:37 pm, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 10:08:23 -0700, sdr
<sdrodr...@sdrodrian.com> spoke thusly:
What Atheists Can't Answer
By Michael Gerson Friday, July 13, 2007;
Page A17 Washington Post
" Human nature, in other circumstances, is also
clearly constructed for cruel exploitation,
uncontrollable rage, icy selfishness and a range of
other less desirable traits.
So the dilemma is this: How do we choose between
good and bad instincts? Theism, for several
millennia, has given one answer: We should
cultivate the better angels of our nature because
the God we love and respect requires it. While many
of us fall tragically short, the ideal remains.
Atheism provides no answer to this dilemma. It
cannot reply: "Obey your evolutionary instincts"
because those instincts are conflicted. "Respect
your brain chemistry" or "follow your mental
wiring" don't seem very compelling either. It would
be perfectly rational for someone to respond: "To
hell with my wiring and your socialization, I'm
going to do whatever I please." "
If evolution is true, then instinct is what we should
go by and there are no morals. Everything goes
and we can do whatever our instincts tell us to do.
Consider, Mr. Gerson:
If it were the case that religion is our instructor,
then there would be no prisons.
Actually, it would be the reverse, since if evolution
is true, nothing is "wrong" and therefore, it is a
contradiction to lock anyone up for going along
with "their baser instincts". In fact, to squash them,
is to deny evolution each and every day.
--
Pastor Dave
Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith.
God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest
part of the water.
The world says that seeing is believing.
The Bible says that believing is seeing.
Doctrine is not Scripture.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
basic instincts to do bad!? that disgusts me. people who are smart do
not intentionally make bad decisions and if they do it is because they
did not use their head. i can control my basic instincts. we are
responsible for ourselfs because we "can" control ourselfs.
intentional bad decisions (crimes) are caused by lack of intelligence.
evolution is truly real, but i think we have gone too fast to evole to
our world. truly our instincts are still the same as they were 2000
years ago. we got where we are now not by our instincts but our minds.
the church is a crutch for the weak. atheists don't need people to
tell them how to live life, they figure it out themselfs and can
easily change views as needed, something a church or religion cannot.
p.s.- pastor dave- are you the pastor on the 750 (i think) am
station???
.
|
|
|
| User: "Slave" |
|
| Title: Re: What Atheists Can't Answer |
13 Aug 2007 04:49:14 PM |
|
|
Jeff Flamholz is a liar. He needs to be fired.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Numinous Cacogen" |
|
| Title: Re: What Atheists Can't Answer |
17 Jul 2007 09:16:42 AM |
|
|
On Jul 14, 2:37 pm, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 10:08:23 -0700, sdr
If evolution is true, then instinct is what we should
go by and there are no morals. Everything goes
and we can do whatever our instincts tell us to do.
I see that you are unacquainted with the works of French Jesuit Pierre
Teilhard de Chardin. True, in his lifetime he was discredited by the
Roman Catholic Church, but he was later redeemed by Pope John XXIII.
And Popes are infallible on matters of doctrine, you know.
Teilhard believed that evolution was in fact directed by God toward an
Omega Point, in other words toward an increasing rapport with God. He
taught that life is evolving in a moral direction.
I mention this not because I unquestioningly believe in Teilhard's
ideas, (though it is appealing in in a science-fiction sense), but
because it totally busts your inane false dichotomy between evolution
and morality.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: What Atheists Can't Answer |
17 Jul 2007 11:28:54 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 07:16:42 -0700, Numinous Cacogen
<mlideen@gmail.com> spoke thusly:
On Jul 14, 2:37 pm, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 10:08:23 -0700, sdr
If evolution is true, then instinct is what we should
go by and there are no morals. Everything goes
and we can do whatever our instincts tell us to do.
I see that you are unacquainted with the works of French Jesuit Pierre
Teilhard de Chardin. True, in his lifetime he was discredited by the
Roman Catholic Church, but he was later redeemed by Pope John XXIII.
And Popes are infallible on matters of doctrine, you know.
Teilhard believed that evolution was in fact directed by God toward an
Omega Point, in other words toward an increasing rapport with God. He
taught that life is evolving in a moral direction.
I mention this not because I unquestioningly believe in Teilhard's
ideas, (though it is appealing in in a science-fiction sense), but
because it totally busts your inane false dichotomy between evolution
and morality.
The desperation of evolutionists is incredible!
Like it matters what the Pope says! <chuckle>
--
Pastor Dave
When making liars happy in their word games takes
precedence over truth, Christ has been abandoned.
-unknown
Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith.
God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest
part of the water.
The world says that seeing is believing.
The Bible says that believing is seeing.
Doctrine is not Scripture.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JD" |
|
| Title: Re: What Atheists Can't Answer |
05 Aug 2007 10:47:06 AM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <noway@nowhere.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:ahrp93tt6fv8j8agvcj1u2shhd4tjs4rkd@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 07:16:42 -0700, Numinous Cacogen
<mlideen@gmail.com> spoke thusly:
On Jul 14, 2:37 pm, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 10:08:23 -0700, sdr
If evolution is true, then instinct is what we should
go by and there are no morals. Everything goes
and we can do whatever our instincts tell us to do.
I see that you are unacquainted with the works of French Jesuit Pierre
Teilhard de Chardin. True, in his lifetime he was discredited by the
Roman Catholic Church, but he was later redeemed by Pope John XXIII.
And Popes are infallible on matters of doctrine, you know.
Teilhard believed that evolution was in fact directed by God toward an
Omega Point, in other words toward an increasing rapport with God. He
taught that life is evolving in a moral direction.
I mention this not because I unquestioningly believe in Teilhard's
ideas, (though it is appealing in in a science-fiction sense), but
because it totally busts your inane false dichotomy between evolution
and morality.
The desperation of evolutionists is incredible!
Like it matters what the Pope says! <chuckle>
Then come up with a more plausible theory than evolution. If you did, all
scientifically-minded people would accept it. Of course, it shouldn't make
any reference to things not observable or things for which there is not the
slightest shred of evidence ( i.e. gods(s) ). Those, obviously, are grounds
for immediate rejection.
Go ahead, if you think you can somehow refute all of science - if you think
your knowledge of science is somehow superior to the vast majority of
scientists working in the profession.
The fact is, it makes no sense to even debate evolution with someone who
obviously lacks the scientific background and who is willing to attribute
everything to something he can't show us or even make conceptually
plausible. Until a creationist can prove a creator, there's no point in
dealing with the additional inconsistencies of his "thinking".
JD
Pastor Dave
When making liars happy in their word games takes
precedence over truth, Christ has been abandoned.
-unknown
Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith.
God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest
part of the water.
The world says that seeing is believing.
The Bible says that believing is seeing.
Doctrine is not Scripture.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: What Atheists Can't Answer |
05 Aug 2007 03:27:41 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 17:47:06 +0200, "JD"
<substitutivenospam@bookbiter.de> spoke thusly:
"Pastor Dave" <noway@nowhere.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:ahrp93tt6fv8j8agvcj1u2shhd4tjs4rkd@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 07:16:42 -0700, Numinous Cacogen
<mlideen@gmail.com> spoke thusly:
On Jul 14, 2:37 pm, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 10:08:23 -0700, sdr
If evolution is true, then instinct is what we should
go by and there are no morals. Everything goes
and we can do whatever our instincts tell us to do.
I see that you are unacquainted with the works of French Jesuit Pierre
Teilhard de Chardin. True, in his lifetime he was discredited by the
Roman Catholic Church, but he was later redeemed by Pope John XXIII.
And Popes are infallible on matters of doctrine, you know.
Teilhard believed that evolution was in fact directed by God toward an
Omega Point, in other words toward an increasing rapport with God. He
taught that life is evolving in a moral direction.
I mention this not because I unquestioningly believe in Teilhard's
ideas, (though it is appealing in in a science-fiction sense), but
because it totally busts your inane false dichotomy between evolution
and morality.
The desperation of evolutionists is incredible!
Like it matters what the Pope says! <chuckle>
Then come up with a more plausible theory than evolution.
Your first error was in assuming you could call evolution
"plausible".
If you did, all scientifically-minded people would accept it.
No, they wouldn't. If that were true, then they wouldn't
believe in evolution in the first place. The reality is, that
evolution is the only thing they can grab onto, to reject
God openly with.
The truth is, we both believe in a miracle. The only
difference is, you believe in a miracle without a
miracle worker.
People in these fields know they believe it by faith.
Enjoy your religion! I give you credit. Yours takes
more faith than mine!
Goodbye now.
--
Pastor Dave
When making liars happy in their word games takes
precedence over truth, Christ has been abandoned.
-unknown
Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith.
God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest
part of the water.
The world says that seeing is believing.
The Bible says that believing is seeing.
Doctrine is not Scripture.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sketch System" |
|
| Title: Re: What Atheists Can't Answer |
07 Aug 2007 06:55:34 PM |
|
|
On Aug 5, 1:27 pm, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
No, they wouldn't. If that were true, then they wouldn't
believe in evolution in the first place.
And your Earth-shattering evidence that will tear this theory down -
and earn you a Nobel Prize, as anyone who could do so undoubtedly
would - is forthcoming?
The reality is, that
evolution is the only thing they can grab onto, to reject
God openly with.
Still waiting for your evidence.
The truth is, we both believe in a miracle. The only
difference is, you believe in a miracle without a
miracle worker.
Perhaps you refer to the popular straw man argument that the TOE
claims to have solved the mystery of the origin of life?
People in these fields know they believe it by faith.
They've told you this?
Enjoy your religion! I give you credit. Yours takes
more faith than mine!
Goodbye now.
In other words, you have no evidence to falsify this falsifiable
scientific theory, and all the above is nothing more than baseless
assertion that only represents what you want to be true. Got it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: What Atheists Can't Answer |
14 Jul 2007 07:19:45 PM |
|
|
On Jul 15, 3:37 am, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
If evolution is true, then instinct is what we should
go by and there are no morals. Everything goes
and we can do whatever our instincts tell us to do.
There is no *if* evolution is a fact, it is a fact, it is real, it is
true, it does exist. e.g. plants evolve to become resistant to
herbicides, bugs evolve to become resistant penicilin, insects to
insecticide and of course religion evolves to try and become resistant
to those who wake up and need to leave and think for themselves.
Morals dont grow on trees, in the ground nor exist in thin air and
that is true, here read this.
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Ethics_Morality.html
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: What Atheists Can't Answer |
14 Jul 2007 07:57:52 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 17:19:45 -0700, Michael Gordge
<mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> spoke thusly:
On Jul 15, 3:37 am, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
If evolution is true, then instinct is what we should
go by and there are no morals. Everything goes
and we can do whatever our instincts tell us to do.
There is no *if* evolution is a fact, it is a fact, it is real, it is
true, it does exist.
That is a claim, not proof.
--
Pastor Dave
Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith.
God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest
part of the water.
The world says that seeing is believing.
The Bible says that believing is seeing.
Doctrine is not Scripture.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: What Atheists Can't Answer |
14 Jul 2007 08:20:07 PM |
|
|
On Jul 15, 9:57 am, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 17:19:45 -0700, Michael Gordge
<mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> spoke thusly:
On Jul 15, 3:37 am, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
If evolution is true, then instinct is what we should
go by and there are no morals. Everything goes
and we can do whatever our instincts tell us to do.
There is no *if* evolution is a fact, it is a fact, it is real, it is
true, it does exist.
That is a claim, not proof.
I gave you examples of proof of evolution, bugs, plants, insects toads
Blue Moon butterflies and ironically christians have all elvolved, but
as a mystic you are required to snip and ignore, why?
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: What Atheists Can't Answer |
14 Jul 2007 08:36:54 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 18:20:07 -0700, Michael Gordge
<mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> spoke thusly:
On Jul 15, 9:57 am, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 17:19:45 -0700, Michael Gordge
<mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> spoke thusly:
On Jul 15, 3:37 am, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
If evolution is true, then instinct is what we should
go by and there are no morals. Everything goes
and we can do whatever our instincts tell us to do.
There is no *if* evolution is a fact, it is a fact, it is real, it is
true, it does exist.
That is a claim, not proof.
I gave you examples of proof of evolution, bugs, plants, insects toads
Blue Moon butterflies and ironically christians have all elvolved, but
as a mystic you are required to snip and ignore, why?
You have given zero proof of macroevolution
and that is what you need to prove and can't.
Bugs staying bugs does not equal "goo to you".
Nor does falsely labeling me do anything but
prove your true intent.
--
Pastor Dave
Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith.
God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest
part of the water.
The world says that seeing is believing.
The Bible says that believing is seeing.
Doctrine is not Scripture.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: What Atheists Can't Answer |
14 Jul 2007 08:49:39 PM |
|
|
On Jul 15, 10:36 am, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
You have given zero proof of macroevolution
Because I didn't that claim anything about macroevolution, I said that
evolution is a fact, it is real, it exists as true e.g. that plants
evolve to become resistant to herbicides, insects evolve to become
reistant insecticides, man still has hip problems and a totally
useless appendix from when he was a grass eater, christianizm is
evolving to keep people in church e.g. The Old Testament to a New
Testament, now tell me that's not evolution, geeeeeesh who would go to
a church telling men not to sleep with *unclean women*?
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: What Atheists Can't Answer |
15 Jul 2007 09:03:53 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 18:49:39 -0700, Michael Gordge
<mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> spoke thusly:
On Jul 15, 10:36 am, Pastor Dave
<no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
You have given zero proof of macroevolution
Because I didn't that claim anything about macroevolution, I said that
evolution is a fact, it is real, it exists as true e.g. that plants
evolve to become resistant to herbicides, insects evolve to become
reistant insecticides, man still has hip problems and a totally
useless appendix from when he was a grass eater, christianizm is
evolving to keep people in church e.g. The Old Testament to a New
Testament, now tell me that's not evolution, geeeeeesh who would go to
a church telling men not to sleep with *unclean women*?
Actually, as are almost all evolutionists, you are
taught old information, because new information
continually tears apart macroevolution. Man's
appendix is not useless. It serves a purpose.
Go look it up.
As for "hip problems", man's hip works just fine.
The fact that various people have hip problems,
does not mean that hips are a bad thing. There
are many great engine designs that work
wonderfully, until a part breaks. That doesn't
make the design bad. Sometimes parts just
wear out.
As for what you were saying, we both know what
you were claiming with your supposed "examples".
As for the rest of what you described, it is microevolution
and that is indeed a fact of science. But when approaching
the natural world scientifically, if that is all you have
examples of, that you can scientifically demonstrate,
remembering that science consists of that which is directly
observable, or directly observable results of experimentation,
it should occur to you that that is all you should believe in.
So as for microevolution, I believe in it also. It is
directly observable. And no, the "What would stop
macroevolution from happening then?" question
is not a valid question. It is not up to me to prove
a negative. It is up to you to show that macroevolution
exists using the requirements above. Asking people
to believe in it if they can't prove a negative, is in
no way, "science". It is religious belief, period and
furthermore, it is hypocrisy for someone to point
their finger at someone for their religious belief,
while they hold their own religious belief, which
they falsely label "science". (:
And just FYI, I'm not going to get into an evolution debate
with you. You cannot prove it and you know that, or you
would have, first shot.
And you can try to dodge the bullet and say that,
"science isn't about proof", but it surely isn't about
fantasy either and science does require one of the
two things that I listed above and that, my friend,
you don't have for macroevolution. :)
And that says all that needs to be said about it. :)
Have a nice day. :)
--
Pastor Dave
When making liars happy in their word games takes
precedence over truth, Christ has been abandoned.
-unknown
Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith.
God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest
part of the water.
The world says that seeing is believing.
The Bible says that believing is seeing.
Doctrine is not Scripture.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: What Atheists Can't Answer |
15 Jul 2007 05:01:57 PM |
|
|
On Jul 15, 11:03 pm, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
Man's
appendix is not useless. It serves a purpose.
Well dont stop there, explain its use or purpose in a human being.
The fact that various people have hip problems,
does not mean that hips are a bad thing.
I didn't say hips were a bad thing, and only a christian masochist
would say that the excruitating pain associated with hip problems was,
not a bad thing.
There
are many great engine designs that work
wonderfully, until a part breaks. That doesn't
make the design bad. Sometimes parts just
wear out.
Only a mystic would say or suggest the hip was *designed*, alas it
wasn't, however if it was designed, then it would be regarded as a bad
design, or at best, a design that could do with improving
considerably, unless of course you are a surgeon or a health insurance
company.
As for what you were saying, we both know what
you were claiming with your supposed "examples".
They are example of evolution, meaning, living entities changing
slowly over time to meet the conditions of its survival from its
changing suroundings / environment.
remembering that science consists of that which is directly
observable, or directly observable results of experimentation,
it should occur to you that that is all you should believe in.
Wow, are you suggesting that its possible to believe in things which
are not directly observable and or which cant be experimented with,
e.g. the matter of sticks and stones flesh and bones?
Surely that only leaves believing in things originating OF THE MIND,
dreams, whims, the wished for and nightmares?
But but but the overwhelming evidence is, when you cant *poke what you
believe with a stick* then you are likely to believe that its a good
idea to slam jets into sky-scrappers, or that there exists a creator
of everything, therefore out of nothing.
The world says that seeing is believing.
The Bible says that believing is seeing.
But but but when you believe what you cant see or believe in ignorance
of your eye ears nose feel touch, then that only leaves believing in
that which comes entirely from the mind, people who slam jets into sky-
scrappers do that, grown adults who believe there was a creator of
everything, therefore out of nothing or that she was a virgin, do that
too.
Fact is, if you dont believe in matter, then it doesn't matter what
you believe in, so its best just to ignore them, or laugh at them i.e.
ignore or laugh at thoughts without matter.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: What Atheists Can't Answer |
15 Jul 2007 05:31:32 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 15:01:57 -0700, Michael Gordge
<mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> spoke thusly:
On Jul 15, 11:03 pm, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
Man's
appendix is not useless. It serves a purpose.
Well dont stop there, explain its use or purpose in a human being.
If you don't know what it is, you have proved
your ignorance.
--
Pastor Dave
When making liars happy in their word games takes
precedence over truth, Christ has been abandoned.
-unknown
Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith.
God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest
part of the water.
The world says that seeing is believing.
The Bible says that believing is seeing.
Doctrine is not Scripture.
.
|
|
|
| User: "-Phil Clemence" |
|
| Title: Re: What Atheists Can't Answer |
22 Jul 2007 06:49:40 PM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:b18l93d3n1l4mtdrhv8fqo33689lnjcetq@4ax.com...
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 15:01:57 -0700, Michael Gordge
<mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> spoke thusly:
On Jul 15, 11:03 pm, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
Man's
appendix is not useless. It serves a purpose.
Well dont stop there, explain its use or purpose in a human being.
If you don't know what it is, you have proved
your ignorance.
--
Pastor Dave
When making liars happy in their word games takes
precedence over truth, Christ has been abandoned.
-unknown
I wonder why the author is unknown
Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith.
God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest
part of the water.
there is no god to do any work.
Take responsibility for yourself and others.
The world says that seeing is believing.
No it doesn't. That is an old saying and everyone knows it is only partly
true in some circumstances. It is used to say that itf something must be
seen to be believed, then seeing is believing for some. Some might not fully
believe even once they see it.
The Bible says that believing is seeing.
That is a stupid idea tryng to be cute.
Doctrine is not Scripture.
and.... ?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: What Atheists Can't Answer |
16 Jul 2007 01:32:23 AM |
|
|
On Jul 16, 7:31 am, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 15:01:57 -0700, Michael Gordge
<mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> spoke thusly:
On Jul 15, 11:03 pm, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
Man's
appendix is not useless. It serves a purpose.
Well dont stop there, explain its use or purpose in a human being.
If you don't know what it is, you have proved
your ignorance.
You claimed that the man's appendix was not useless, that it serves a
purpose! you must substaniate that statement because there is evidence
of a contradiction to that claim.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html
The use / purpose of the appendix is undemonstrated in humans, why
dont you explain what is ignorant about that?
Perhaps biology and science can learn something from you.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: What Atheists Can't Answer |
24 Jul 2007 11:32:20 PM |
|
|
On Jul 15, 7:03 am, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
Actually, as are almost all evolutionists, you are
taught old information, because new information
continually tears apart macroevolution. Man's
appendix is not useless. It serves a purpose.
Go look it up.
Eat *****, Pester Dave: http://google.com/search?q=3Dincompetent-design.
Look these up.
http://dictionary.com/browse/pester
As for "hip problems", man's hip works just fine.
The fact that various people have hip problems,
does not mean that hips are a bad thing. There
are many great engine designs that work
wonderfully, until a part breaks. That doesn't
make the design bad. Sometimes parts just
wear out.
They should wear out after death. The point was that hips are too
narrow for comfy childbirth, as they didn't grow as fast as the skulls
of primates grew. BTW, Neanderthals' heads were bigger than ours;
maybe that was why they died out. Otherwise, what's with your
tailbone/coccyx? The next time you're on the toilet, reach down and
poke that thing atop your crack.
So as for microevolution, I believe in it also. It is
directly observable. And no, the "What would stop
macroevolution from happening then?" question
is not a valid question. It is not up to me to prove
a negative. It is up to you to show that macroevolution
exists using the requirements above. Asking people
to believe in it if they can't prove a negative, is in
no way, "science". It is religious belief, period and
furthermore, it is hypocrisy for someone to point
their finger at someone for their religious belief,
while they hold their own religious belief, which
they falsely label "science". (:
macroevolution: speciation FAQ on the web; domesticated strains of
crops and pets (only 6000-10000 years); that smoking, walking,
pranking chimp-man whose name I forgot; the further breeding of erstly-
barren mammals such as mules or ligers; those ape-men Muslims in
Turkey
in humans, mesoevolution: lotter of fingers and toes and ribs,
tonsils, appendix, wisdom teeth, tetrakr=F2matism, hermafr=F2ditism (Some
such women own both gonads too and can impregnat themselvs and breed:
parthenogenesis.), double-jointedness, dikr=F2matism, bodywide hairiness/
unhairiness, bitter supertaste gene, earwagging, tongucurlling,
lactose digestion, the racial strains, UV-vitamin D production, autism
microevolution: hair and eye and skin hue, disease immunity (MS, HIV,
allergies, etc.), t=F2xin immunity, heiht, longlife (a few beyond the
120-year limit in the wrong Old Testament), sizes of everything
When making liars happy in their word games takes
precedence over truth, Christ has been abandoned.
-unknown
What's your point? Krist plaid wordgames with that Canqhani woman
whose kind he calld dogs, and wouldn't heal her daughter until she
said something faithful, after she /already/ came to him. It was a
poor plot devise.
-Aut
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jonah Thomas" |
|
| Title: Re: What Atheists Can't Answer |
15 Jul 2007 10:27:44 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
Michael Gordge <mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> spoke thusly:
Pastor Dave
You have given zero proof of macroevolution
Because I didn't that claim anything about macroevolution,
Actually, as are almost all evolutionists, you are
taught old information, because new information
continually tears apart macroevolution. Man's
appendix is not useless. It serves a purpose.
Go look it up.
I thought we were talking about morality. What does macroevolution have
to do with anything? Ah, I see the current thread title. "What Atheists
Can't Answer". Oh. What a boring topic. Atheists can make up any stories
they want, as long as their stories don't have a god in them. Theists
can make up stories that do have gods in them. It isn't all that big a
difference. But once somebody decides their stories will be about a
particular god that they believe particular things about, that restricts
things a lot. On the other hand, an atheist who allows every god except
one only restricts his stories a little bit.
As for what you were saying, we both know what
you were claiming with your supposed "examples".
I guess you think he was claiming that bodies aren't perfectly designed.
So if a god designed everything instead of letting it evolve (and
letting things evolve is a perfectly good way for a god to do things, he
could ensure that the environment will select the things he wants, and
just sit back and let it happen, nothing wrong if a god chooses to do it
that way) so anyway, if a god designed everything he didn't do a perfect
job. If we suppose that everything a perfect god designs has to be
perfect, then this would say it wasn't done by a god.
But that would be a stupid argument for lots of reasons. If a perfect
god can't create anything imperfect, that would be a limitation on him,
and why should he accept that limitation? Plus, if the god himself gets
to decide what's perfect and what isn't perfect, then he can just
declare everything perfect and who are we to disagree? "In the same way
that a black widow spider can be a perfect black widow spider or a shark
can be a perfect shark, Roger was a perfect *****."
Anything that can be done by evolution can be done by a god who wants to
precisely imitate evolution. It's silly to try to use science to
"disprove" religion. And to say that a good god wouldn't try to fool us
that way, means deciding things for a god again. He could make an exact
imitation of an evolved world for reasons we simply don't understand.
They could be good reasons or evil reasons or inconceivable reasons --
god himself must be beyond good and evil.
Personally, I find arguing with argumentative atheists even more
stultifying than arguing with argumentative fundamentalists. When it's a
matter of faith based on the bible, I can accept they think that and
that their rationalisations why they can ignore some things and
interpret other things their own special ways are just quaint. When it's
people who use the same methods using science, it bugs me.
So as for microevolution, I believe in it also. It is
directly observable. And no, the "What would stop
macroevolution from happening then?" question
is not a valid question. It is not up to me to prove
a negative. It is up to you to show that macroevolution
exists using the requirements above.
We've observed a collection of speciation events. Population genetics
gives a fair idea what circumstances could allow a speciation event to
result in two species that adapt to fill two different ecological
niches. Molecular biologists are just beginning to uncover the genetic
mechanisms that result in one species having lots of speciation events
while another has none.
If you're looking for proof on the level of a mathematical theorem we
only have that for some theoretical things. But it all fits together
quite well and there's nothing here that's hard to explain. There's
nothing controversial about it. However, it's no particular help to
atheists who want evidence against a god.
And just FYI, I'm not going to get into an evolution debate
with you. You cannot prove it and you know that, or you
would have, first shot.
< | | | | | | | | |
