Devil advocates for Creationism

[Will Torbald]

Hi Will, not to discredit your post, well explained, but I (think I) see where jnabors is coming from (albeit from a completely different angle).

 

The "Darwinian" idea that natural selection alone is enough I do not support. Environmental factors are just as important in evolution as in everything Stefan talks about (going against determinism). So not only "waiting for a recessive/unnecessary evolved feature to die out" (natural selection solely) but more importantly the effect the environment has on the species.

 

I am a geologist, so centered around evolution. But in my opinion forced evolution, or evolution based on stress situations has a lot more value to me than "slow steady evolution". Although the one doesn't discard the other, I think that evolution speeds up because of the environment and especially the changes therein. Just like with humans; in a war situation we develop our necessary strengths much faster than in quiet peaceful times. That is really the driver for evolution; our changing planet.

 

 

 

This only serves to reinforce my argument. That people who make these kinds of claims do not know what they are talking about. You are describing natural selection and at the same time saying that natural selection doesn't work. There is artificial selection, or what we do with cats, dogs, farm animals, birds, and so on - selective breeding for desired traits - and everything that isn't touched by humans thus "natural selection". It is all the forces of nature that conspire so to speak to drive evolution. The environment, the geology, the atmosphere and oxygen available, catastrophes and extinction events, population drift, random genetic mutation, all of it. Everything that is a naturally occurring phenomena that affects living creatures is participating in natural selection. So when you say "natual doesn't explain it all" I ask, then what isn't natural to explain it? Is it aliens? Is it a divine hand? Because everything described is natural.

[Torero]

This only serves to reinforce my argument. That people who make these kinds of claims do not know what they are talking about. You are describing natural selection and at the same time saying that natural selection doesn't work. There is artificial selection, or what we do with cats, dogs, farm animals, birds, and so on - selective breeding for desired traits - and everything that isn't touched by humans thus "natural selection". It is all the forces of nature that conspire so to speak to drive evolution. The environment, the geology, the atmosphere and oxygen available, catastrophes and extinction events, population drift, random genetic mutation, all of it. Everything that is a naturally occurring phenomena that affects living creatures is participating in natural selection. So when you say "natual doesn't explain it all" I ask, then what isn't natural to explain it? Is it aliens? Is it a divine hand? Because everything described is natural.

Of course, I am not defending any creationist point whatsoever.

 

The only point I wanted to make is that evolution is rather a stress-induced fast process than a slow moving process. It is both, but the former gains.

 

The violent history of the Earth, despite the amazing peace we live in (geologically), is too dynamic to have many slow evolutions.

 

Looking at the biodiversity in (ice age!) cold or hot (green house; didn't happen for the last 35 million years!) climates, it's too much to be fit in an almost religious "natural selection is everything" scheme.

 

If current diseases or nutrition can alter our genes, in the past that was possible too. It's a dynamic system and every model or theory we build of it is insufficient.

By definition.

[Will Torbald]

Of course, I am not defending any creationist point whatsoever.

 

The only point I wanted to make is that evolution is rather a stress-induced fast process than a slow moving process. It is both, but the former gains.

 

The violent history of the Earth and the amazing peace we live in (geologically) is too dynamic to have many slow evolutions.

 

Looking at the biodiversity in (ice age!) cold or hot (green house; didn't happen for the last 35 million years!) climates, it's too much to be fit in an almost religious "natural selection is everything" scheme.

 

If current diseases can alter our genes, in the past that was possible too. It's a dynamic system and every model or theory we build of it is insufficient. By definition.

 

You're still not getting it. Natural selection is neither slow nor fast, as those are relativistic terms. What's slow like a year for us to pass is only a blink in geological time. When Darwin said that evolution is a slow process he was speaking in the slowness compared to what we feel is slow, not what is slow for the Universe or the Earth. For a fish to evolve into a land walking animal it would take millions of years and that is "slow", but for a lizard to change its diet from insects to plants and become a new herbivore species is "fast" even if it took 300 years to occur.

 

So when you say that natural selection is an almost religious explain it all scheme you are still misusing and misrepresenting the term "natural selection". I already explained that by "natural" we mean all the forces and stresses in nature, and your explanation of the history of the Earth is also part of that "natural" process of "selection" of species and genes that survive to reproduce. You are making a case for it while trying to debunk it.

[jnabors]

Just to clarify, my beliefs on Evolution don't rely on, and aren't based on, influence from any Deity.  When I said I believe in Creation + Evolution, I simply meant that God started the process, the rest is found in the scientific record.  My post was more of a God vs. Big Bang argument than anything to do with Evolution.

 

My original point was that Darwin postulated Evolution as a slow, gradual process based on genetic mutations.  Many sources are available that indicate that he, himself, doubted his own theory.  In his book, Origin of the Species (p. 162), Darwin wrote, "…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps."  Thus, Darwin conceded that, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." (p. 158).  

 

Therefore, Darwin's Theory falls short in explaining Evolution in it's entirety.  In his book Darwin's Black Box, Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10e-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world."  In light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level.  

 

Additionally, we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed in Origin of the Species (p. 155) , "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."  Therefore, reasons for rejecting or minimizing Darwin's proposal are many, the main argument being that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous. 

 

The more widely accepted view of Evolution is one that takes place as a result of drastic changes to environment or climate. Organisms that don't adapt to the new conditions perish while those that remain survive to pass on their genes to successive generations.  Louis Agassiz summarizes it well in Contributions to Natural History - Essay on Classification (p. 51) "Between two successive geological periods, changes have taken place among plants and animals. But none of those primordial forms of life which naturalists call species, are known to have changed during any of these periods. It cannot be denied that the species of different successive periods are supposed by some naturalists to derive their distinguishing features from changes which have taken place in those of preceding ages, but this is a mere supposition, supported neither by physiological nor by geological evidence; and the assumption that animals and plants may change in a similar manner during one and the same manner is equally gratuitous."      

 

No one is arguing the validity of Evolution or Natural Selection, but rather Darwin's proposal of the mechanism by which Natural Selection occurred.  

[Will Torbald]

Just to clarify, my beliefs on Evolution don't rely on, and aren't based on, influence from any Deity. When I said I believe in Creation + Evolution, I simply meant that God started the process, the rest is found in the scientific record. My post was more of a God vs. Big Bang argument than anything to do with Evolution.

 

My original point was that Darwin postulated Evolution as a slow, gradual process based on genetic mutations. Many sources are available that indicate that he, himself, doubted his own theory. In his book, Origin of the Species (p. 162), Darwin wrote, "…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps." Thus, Darwin conceded that, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." (p. 158).

 

Therefore, Darwin's Theory falls short in explaining Evolution in it's entirety. In his book Darwin's Black Box, Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10e-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." In light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level.

 

Additionally, we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed in Origin of the Species (p. 155) , "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Therefore, reasons for rejecting or minimizing Darwin's proposal are many, the main argument being that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous.

 

The more widely accepted view of Evolution is one that takes place as a result of drastic changes to environment or climate. Organisms that don't adapt to the new conditions perish while those that remain survive to pass on their genes to successive generations. Louis Agassiz summarizes it well in Contributions to Natural History - Essay on Classification (p. 51) "Between two successive geological periods, changes have taken place among plants and animals. But none of those primordial forms of life which naturalists call species, are known to have changed during any of these periods. It cannot be denied that the species of different successive periods are supposed by some naturalists to derive their distinguishing features from changes which have taken place in those of preceding ages, but this is a mere supposition, supported neither by physiological nor by geological evidence; and the assumption that animals and plants may change in a similar manner during one and the same manner is equally gratuitous."

 

No one is arguing the validity of Evolution or Natural Selection, but rather Darwin's proposal of the mechanism by which Natural Selection occurred.

Darwin was indeed cautious of his ideas at first. He wrote extensively on how to discredit is ideas, as any good scientist should, but he also proposed ways of how complex structures like eyes could have evolved. However, the idea of "irreducible complexity", a term of no scientific value as it only means "I can't believe a god didn't do it" has been debunked by finer new advances in molecular biology in recent decades. Molecules are complex, but they are not impossibly complex, and new intermediate forms of complex proteins have been found in bacteria when before no one knew how they formed. The idea of gradual and incremental change over time does indeed serve as the basis for all complexity in life. Some mutations are more dramatic than others, yes, but most are very subtle.

 

There is a series of lectures by Richard Dawkins (yes, that Dawkins) that he did solely to explain natural selection and gradual change. It's on YouTube by the name of "Growing Up in the Universe". In it he shows the gradual evolution of complex structures like eyes, which were thought to be too complex in Darwin's time, but new discoveries show how it went about with gradual change over time. The skeptics case of "irreducible complexity" no longer has any heft to it if it ever had it at all, as it proposes no scientific alternative or predictions of how the supposed impossible structure could have formed.

 

In the last quote you made I must say he is talking nonsense. I don't know who this man is, nor when he wrote that book, but now in modern times and in modern science the talk of "no physiological or geological evidence" is downright false. It's exactly what I meant by good people listening to misinformation given by agenda driven liars.

[dsayers]

When I said I believe in Creation + Evolution, I simply meant that God started the process, the rest is found in the scientific record.

At which point I pointed out that belief is only useful if used as motivation to test the theory and that the Bible says 7 days and scientific record says otherwise. At which point you brought up that 7 days wasn't literal and human logic doesn't apply. At which point I pointed out that omnipotence is incompatible with ambiguity and that you revealed you reject that human logic doesn't apply when referencing homosexuality. At which point, we have this post, which is basically just repeating yourself as if no challenges were brought forth.

 

In your initial post, you mentioned respecting other people. Do you feel my interaction with you has been anything short of respectful? Do you think that ignoring somebody's large investment to the point of pretending it didn't happen is respectful of them? This is the second time I've identified a double standard. Double standards are a form of manipulation, which isn't compatible with truth. I ask that you rectify this please.

[jnabors]

At which point I pointed out that belief is only useful if used as motivation to test the theory and that the Bible says 7 days and scientific record says otherwise. At which point you brought up that 7 days wasn't literal and human logic doesn't apply. At which point I pointed out that omnipotence is incompatible with ambiguity and that you revealed you reject that human logic doesn't apply when referencing homosexuality. At which point, we have this post, which is basically just repeating yourself as if no challenges were brought forth.

 

In your initial post, you mentioned respecting other people. Do you feel my interaction with you has been anything short of respectful? Do you think that ignoring somebody's large investment to the point of pretending it didn't happen is respectful of them? This is the second time I've identified a double standard. Double standards are a form of manipulation, which isn't compatible with truth. I ask that you rectify this please.

 

@dsayers, please remember i'm new here and i may not be posting as timely as needed.  The quote you used above was my response to the discussion between @Will and @Torero and was aimed only at the Evolution portion (gradual change vs. immediate change) of my original post.  I also saw your reply this morning but realized it would take longer to answer, so I decided to try and further the Evolution portion and respond to your post after giving it some thought.  I don't have a routine yet and am just trying to get involved and active on the boards.  Also, I've found that if I don't take some time with my responses, they don't come off as I intend.  Being new, I didn't want to get off on the wrong foot with anyone or sound arrogant, uninformed, or disrespectful.  Even taking some extra time with my response, I've not made as spectacular an introduction as I had hoped; mentioning my faith seems to have labeled me as a Religious nut and you believe I am ignoring your post.  Oh well, bumpy at first, but i'll catch up.  

 

No one has been anything but polite and respectful and if I've offended anyone, that wasn't my intent.  The truth is you posed some good questions and I didn't want to give you a poorly thought out response.  One thing I have learned...  It looks like you guys use quotes from other posts fairly regularly to indicate who / what you are responding to.  This is my "duh" moment, but I should have included quotes in my last post to avoid any misunderstanding.  I'm sorry for the confusion and I will respond. 

[dsayers]

I understand and thank you for addressing that. I look forward to your response.

[Anjin-san]

I did a little poking around on the topic of "irreducible complexity," and found this page, the first of a series of questions and answers with Eugenie C. Scott on the DNA Learning Center website.  I found it helpful.  The rest of the questions are below under "Related content" - they're listed out of order, but numbered.

 

Intelligent Design and Creationism as Science

 

One thing I'd like to bring up from earlier in this thread, though, is the idea of "fully-formed species."  Fully-formed by what standard?  What are the criteria for an animal being "fully-formed?"  If it's able to survive and reproduce in its environment, even if conditions are promoting further adaptations, sounds fully-formed to me, but I'm no biologist.

[Will Torbald]

I did a little poking around on the topic of "irreducible complexity," and found this page, the first of a series of questions and answers with Eugenie C. Scott on the DNA Learning Center website. I found it helpful. The rest of the questions are below under "Related content" - they're listed out of order, but numbered.

 

Intelligent Design and Creationism as Science

 

One thing I'd like to bring up from earlier in this thread, though, is the idea of "fully-formed species." Fully-formed by what standard? What are the criteria for an animal being "fully-formed?" If it's able to survive and reproduce in its environment, even if conditions are promoting further adaptations, sounds fully-formed to me, but I'm no biologist.

Thanks for that website. I found a video in the eye that illustrates what I was talking about referring to Darwin and the people who wrote him https://www.dnalc.org/view/16982-The-Eye-and-Irreducible-Complexity-Creationism-Debunked.html In it she demonstrates how cherry picked quotes get taken out of context. In this case Darwin was talking in a literary sense when presenting skepticism of his own theory, buy ok the next breath grew goes on to shows examples of how it can happen with natural selection. In new modern findings it's been shown that eyes have evolved separately in different lineages with their own flavor so to speak. The human eye isn't very well made either. By comparison the eyes of mollusks like octopuses are much better.

 

On the subject of fully formed species, it's a facetious and ignorant complaint. Every species is a transitional species between what came before and what it can evolve into in the future. There's no such thing as a standard rabbit from which we could say there are protorabbits or superrabbits. These are just symptoms of the clutch of our mind to define things by categories in very rigid boxes. But nature is not like that, it's very fluid and ambiguous.

[jnabors]

Ok, @dsayers, I am working on a response to your post.  I must admit I am a bit overwhelmed with some of the issues you've brought forward, but I do look forward to attempting to address each one.  Aside from some Medical Ethics classes I’ve not studied much Philosophy and I’ve never done any formal debating, this is a learning experience for me as much as it is trying to support the community.  I look forward to putting my thoughts to paper and really do appreciate that you are interested enough in something I posted to respond.    

 

You commented on 5 sections of my original post.  I’ll most likely respond to them into separate posts due to time constraints today.

jnabors, on 19 Oct 2015 - 10:33 AM, said:

All I ask is that everyone respect my opinion as I will, in turn, respect theirs.  I’m not asking anyone to agree with me, nor am I claiming that my belief is the only “true” belief.  It’s simply what I believe.  I don’t pretend that my opinions are absolute, nor do I try and force them on anyone else.

Thank you for taking the time to explain. I hope you won't mind if I have some critiques.

 

I have some issues with your terminology here. When somebody makes an objective claim, they are also claiming that there's such a thing as truth, such a thing as falsehood, and that truth is preferable to falsehood. I'm not sure how you've concluded that opinion enters into it. If I say chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla, there is no, nor possibility of an objective proof. That is how we know it is a matter of opinion. Also, I find the word "belief" to be equally useless here. The way I see it, a belief is only useful if it motivates us to test the theory in order to either discard it as not accurately describing the real world or upgrade it to truth.

 

You bring up some interesting perspectives that I didn’t consider when posting.  My intent was just an introduction and some background about myself.  I felt it necessary to include my faith, as that can influence opinions and thought processes, but more importantly I hoped to demonstrate that Conservative Christians were capable of critical thought and reasoning.  I’m not sure that worked out very well, but that’s a different topic.  Also, I’m not on the boards to convince anyone that God exists; there isn’t anything I could say to convince the skeptics and any believers don’t require my input.  I offered my personal beliefs about Deity not as an argument for or against the existence of God, but simply as a way for members to get to know me.  Therefore, my assertion that “I believe in God” is valid in that it is a true statement and it served its intended purpose.  

 

Your response was well thought out, logical, and there is little I can disagree with.  Truth and Falsehoods exist and Truth is the preferable of the two.  However, I wasn’t asserting a truth, in fact I carefully worded my post to indicate that I was offering my opinion only, so I’m not sure what you mean by stating “I'm not sure how you've concluded that opinion enters into it.”  Entered into what?  My opinion is certainly valid if used to describe myself and my background; it’s only come up in my introduction and then in response to any questions that arose from there.  I agree that opinions and beliefs have no place in an empirical discussion, but unless my wording is much worse than I thought, I haven’t used faith or the existence of Deity as justification of any position I’ve posted; So far the only thing I’ve argued for or against is short term Evolution vs. Darwin’s Theory.    

 

I hope that addresses at least the first portion of your response.  The second is significantly harder, and outside of what I expected in response to my posts.  I have had much more experience arguing the Agnostic position, so this will be quite a challenge for me, but one I look forward to.  I'm working on it and hope to have it posted later today (i'm also working on a database design, so apologies in advance for the delay).

 

Again, I do appreciate your interest.  More soon....          

[powder]

Hi jnabors, welcome to the forum.  I have not been here long myself, but in that time I have seen a couple Christian members come and go, you might find it a bit challenging to discuss your ideas here.  I hope you are sincere in your desire to learn because I think there is great opportunity for that here.  

 

I don't like any of the Abrahamic traditions (religions) for the same reason I don't like the state - it advocates the use of violence.  You say you believe in the bible, I am not sure what that means since you are clearly OK with interpreting it suit your moral code.  If you rely on scripture that requires interpretation, then, as dsayers already pointed out, it cannot be a reliable source for determining behavior and must be dismissed.  Moreover, it then automatically requires a 'priest class' to interpret and disseminate the information, and we all know how dangerous that is.  

 

I know many Christians, some are good friends, and many of them are adopting the 'Universalist' movement where they declare that everyone is saved and its all about Jesus.  Still, it requires that you ignore some of the inconsistent and more heinous acts and statements he makes.

 

I am curious to know how you address these issues.   

 

I am a bit suspicious of people that declare up front that they want their opinions to be respected.  It often means that people want to be able to make irrational and morally contradictory claims without being challenged.  I am not accusing you of this and you have not given me reason to be weary of you on those grounds, I simply think it is important to be precise in your language.  Beliefs and opinions are not people, they do not exist in the real world, they do not deserve respect.  People that are virtuous, rational, consistent, curious, humble and so on, are easy to respect.  

 

That said, I do have a lot of admiration for church communities and I did attend a christian church for several years.  It brings together people in our society in a supportive and mutually beneficial way better than just about anything else.  Certainly the atheists and anarchists don't have anything comparable.  

[jnabors]

@powder: I have some responses to your post, I will get to them after I finish responding to @dsayer.  

 

@dsayers: I noticed when I went to post this response, that I missed one.  I'll reply to that one next.  You posed some excellent questions, In reading them, it looks like there are potentially 3 separate lines of thought.  Let me take each one individually and attempt to answer.

 

jnabors, on 19 Oct 2015 - 10:33 AM, said:

In Genesis, if you interpret the story of creation as God creating the universe in 168 hours split in 7 equal parts...

 

My belief is that when the Bible describes a “day”, it doesn’t translate to the 24-hour period that we recognize today.  A “day”, for the divine, may have been more like a week, a month, years, or centuries.  Human logic and definitions cannot be applied. 

I see a number of problems here also. Saying "a square triangle is valid because it exists in a universe where a two dimensional shape can have both 3 and 4 sides simultaneously" does nothing to substantiate existence in our universe. 

 

Based on the section of my post that you quoted, I’m not sure what the triangle reference is referring to.  As a general comment, I didn’t attempt to establish existence in our universe.  The universe has a beginning, this is scientifically proven. God had to exist prior to that if he was the Creator in the same way I existed prior to my children, as I created them. Therefore God exists in some other place than we do.  I’m not certain if the correct term is universe, dimension, or something else entirely.

 

Also, wasn't the purpose of the Bible to be read by humans? Of what use would it be if it wasn't communicated in a way that could be received by its intended audience? Are you suggesting that an omnipotent and omniscient (mutual exclusivity of these concepts notwithstanding) being lacks the capability of precision or communication? 

 

The bible was written in a way that is understandable by everyone (except perhaps Revelations, that book makes no sense to me).  It seems, based on the portion of my post you quoted, that the confusion is that the bible says the Earth was created in 6 days and science proves otherwise.  

 

The Bible begins with the statement “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth”.  Out of nothing, in an instant, God created the heavens and the Earth.  This is the definitive, starting point of our Universe, what scientists refer to as the Big Bang.

 

The next sentence says the Earth was “without form and void, and darkness over it.”  The rest of the Chapter goes on to describe God further developing his Creation:  the Earth’s atmosphere, the Sun and the stars, separating the water from the land, creating plant, animal, and sea life, and finally, humanity.  Admittedly, Genesis does read as though the heavens and the Earth were finished on the sixth day:  “Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.”

 

While it says “sixth day”, remember Genesis was written in Hebrew.  The Hebrew language uses fewer words than English, bringing greater ambiguity.  For example, in Hebrew, “Earth” can mean land, ground, region, or country.  The word “day” (“yom” in Hebrew) can mean a 24-hour day, daytime, today, forever, continually, or an undetermined amount of time.  So, the “sixth day” is actually an unknown length of time.  There is nothing that requires us to read it as six 24-hour periods. 

 

Ambiguous time is found throughout the Bible and is a result of the limitation of the language spoken at the time.  For example, Kings’ empires were often referred to as “In the days of King Josiah….”  History shows their reign lasted for many years, not just days. 

 

The bigger picture though it it makes little sense fixating on the length of time (when the Hebrew language is going to remain ambiguous) instead of focusing on the far more important message of what was actually happening.  If you won the lottery, would it matter to you which day you bought the ticket or how long you waited in line to purchase it?  

 

 

Finally, wouldn't a text being open to interpretation indicate that it cannot be used as a standard of what people ought to think and do?

 

Actually, I believe quite the opposite is true.  The Bible isn’t like God’s version of Apple’s “Terms and Conditions” Agreement where failure to one clause in the middle of page 87 will cause a breach of contract and thus banishment from God’s grace. The Bible, I believe, is more like a narrative that reorders our imaginations and holds for us an alternate way of seeing reality, with God at the heart of it rather than ourselves.  

 

Certainly there are some concrete rules that require no interpretation.  “Thou shalt not kill”, not much room for interpretation there, aside from determining the accurate meaning of the word “kill” in the original Hebrew.  “Thou shalt not commit adultery”, very straight forward.  These absolute and accepted by most faiths, even non-Christian ones.  

 

Other rules and teachings are dependent on interpretation.  The bible is ancient and obscure in parts which allows, even demands, readers to interpret the Bible in legitimately different ways.  This has been happening among Jews and Christians for over 2000 years.  Given multiple interpretation, we have the many different doctrines observed by different denominations. It is through discussions and debate with those of differing beliefs that deeper faith is found.  

 

The Bible doesn’t answer many of our questions, even some of the most pressing questions we face daily, aren’t answered in the Bible.  The Bible isn’t a sourcebook for fighting culture wars, a club used to gain political power, or a way of forcing secular culture to obey our rules. The Bible isn’t an answer book, but a story of how Jesus answers for us the biggest question of all: what God is like.  Most importantly, the Bible isn’t the center of faith, God is – or, for Christians, what God has done for us, though Jesus.                 

 

Finally, I don’t think the Bible is a standard of what people ought to think and do.  God gave us free will and a logical mind to decide for ourselves how to behave and what to believe.  Certainly the Bible can be an excellent moral compass, but far too often I see the Bible being used as a means to force an agenda or require specific behavior.  For this reason I reject religion, but I follow Christ.

 

I hope this addresses another of your responses.  Thank you again for your interest in my post.  I didn't intend on bring up Religion outside of my introduction, but I have enjoyed the challenge of expressing my thoughts on the topic.  Apologies to the community as I believe I have hijacked the original topic.  Just chalk it up to being new here and not knowing the rules yet.

 

Regards,

Jay 

[Torero]

Also, wasn't the purpose of the Bible to be read by humans? Of what use would it be if it wasn't communicated in a way that could be received by its intended audience? Are you suggesting that an omnipotent and omniscient (mutual exclusivity of these concepts notwithstanding) being lacks the capability of precision or communication? 

 

"The bible was written in a way that is understandable by everyone (except perhaps Revelations, that book makes no sense to me)."

 

jnabors, do you see the irrationality in your first (!) argument on the Bible as a credible source of moral?

 

Your argument is: "[the Bible is so important and credible as a source as] the bible [sic] was written in a way that is understandable by everyone"

 

You first make a claim about everyone, billions of individuals that may not have read the Bible or even find it incomprehensible, inconsistent and horrible.

So you lose your claim with 1 person that did not understand (the message of) the Bible, stepping on very thin ice...

 

But we don't even need that other person in Farawayistan, because in the same sentence you kill your own argument?!

 

- Revelations is part of the Bible, right?

- You claim that "everyone" can understand the Bible [and that is your first argument for the validity of the document*], right?

- But you, yourself who claims this, does not understand a main part of it, saying "that book makes no sense to me"

 

You see how irrational that is?

 

I look forward to your response. Take your time, no hurries. Camping trips with family and hard work (me) need their well-deserved attention too.

 

* afaik the Bible was written (by Elites, because they were the only ones who could write Greek and Hebrew) some 300 years (!) after Jesus Christ died... Imagine how information is spread now instantaneously via the internet and gets tweetily twisted. Put that in those times.

 

Even if Jesus from Nazareth did really exist

Even if he was the son of "God"

Even if he was a prophet

 

All the writings about him and his actions, opinions and words are written a whopping 300 years afterwards...

 

How credible is the Bible then as being "the word from God"?

[dsayers]

I hoped to demonstrate that Conservative Christians were capable of critical thought and reasoning.

Well before I respond to this, I want to let you know that I'm not one for throwing the baby out with the bath water. By that, I mean that if you were to demonstrate rational thinking, I wouldn't say you're an irrational person even if there was one topic I felt you didn't demonstrate rational thinking with regards to. That said, I have to point out that "Christian capable of reasoning" is a pair of competing claims. I don't think it's controversial to say that Christianity is an expression of faith. Reasoning is based on the objective arbiter of reality. They're opposing approaches. I guess what I'm saying is that if you want to present yourself as a rational thinker, leading with "I hold a conclusion I did not arrive upon by way of logic, reason, or evidence" may not be the best approach. It's led to this conversation, so I for one don't regret it.

 

Therefore, my assertion that “I believe in God” is valid in that it is a true statement and it served its intended purpose... I carefully worded my post to indicate that I was offering my opinion only

People speak in shorthand for the sake of efficiency. Like when I pointed out the additional claims being made any time somebody puts forth an objective claim, or say "God exists" specifically. So let's be honest. It doesn't matter how you word it, saying you believe in God is saying that you believe God exists, you believe that "belief" has meaning, you believe faith is a sound methodology for arriving at conclusions, and so on. That's okay, but stand by your claims even if challenges are uncomfortable.

 

I could tell you the price of tea in China, but even being factual, it would be meaningless in this conversation. My point was that when you're talking about whether God exists or not, things like beliefs and opinions aren't meaningful. They are meaningful when you're telling people about YOU. But when you say "I believe in God," you're not actually telling them about you, you're telling them about God, because belief has no value beyond the motivation I originally mentioned. Imagine I said to you that I believe in ice cream. Is that an expression that makes sense? Specifically, why not? Do you see how that expression isn't about me whereas "I like ice cream" is about me?

 

Based on the section of my post that you quoted, I’m not sure what the triangle reference is referring to.  As a general comment, I didn’t attempt to establish existence in our universe.  The universe has a beginning, this is scientifically proven. God had to exist prior to that if he was the Creator in the same way I existed prior to my children, as I created them. Therefore God exists in some other place than we do.  I’m not certain if the correct term is universe, dimension, or something else entirely.

The triangle wasn't meant to reference anything other than a 2-dimensional object that has 3 sides. "Triangle" is a competing classification to "square" since they both reference a different, finite number of sides of a 2-dimensional object. I only brought it up as a way of demonstrating that in order to learn about our reality, positing things that exist in not our reality is not useful. I say reality now because I acknowledge that your point about the story of the Christian God existing before our universe reveals my use of the word universe was imprecise.

 

While it says “sixth day”, remember Genesis was written in Hebrew.  The Hebrew language uses fewer words than English, bringing greater ambiguity.  For example, in Hebrew, “Earth” can mean land, ground, region, or country.  The word “day” (“yom” in Hebrew) can mean a 24-hour day, daytime, today, forever, continually, or an undetermined amount of time.  So, the “sixth day” is actually an unknown length of time.  There is nothing that requires us to read it as six 24-hour periods. 

 

Ambiguous time is found throughout the Bible and is a result of the limitation of the language spoken at the time.  For example, Kings’ empires were often referred to as “In the days of King Josiah….”  History shows their reign lasted for many years, not just days. 

Good point! However, I don't think this assails my point that ambiguity serves as a disproof of omnipotence. If you're omnipotent and wanted to communicate with your creations, you could project clarity, you could write it into our DNA, you could do anything other than utilize a language that is imprecise and subject to interpretation.

 

Additionally, the use of specific numbers also strips away ambiguity. If instead, the phrase was "in the seven days of King Josiah," we'd know that the author was referencing specifically 7 days. If it turned out that King Josiah was such for a different period of time, then we would recognize that the author was in err. Since the Bible is presumed to be the word of God, if he says 7 days, we don't have the option of thinking the author was simply in error.

 

The bigger picture though it it makes little sense fixating on the length of time (when the Hebrew language is going to remain ambiguous) instead of focusing on the far more important message of what was actually happening.  If you won the lottery, would it matter to you which day you bought the ticket or how long you waited in line to purchase it?  

Well your initial claim was "I don't see intelligent design at odds with either version of evolution." If it could be shown that one approach says everything happened in 7 days and another approach said it happened over billions of years, I think it's safe to say that the two approaches are in fact mutually exclusive.

 

Certainly there are some concrete rules that require no interpretation.  “Thou shalt not kill”, not much room for interpretation there, aside from determining the accurate meaning of the word “kill” in the original Hebrew.  “Thou shalt not commit adultery”, very straight forward.

You don't think think "thou shalt not kill" leaves room for interpretation? One of the most important questions you can ask of anything--indeed, the genesis of humility itself--is "How do you know?" How do you know you shouldn't kill? Because somebody said so? Is that a sound methodology? How does man receive nourishment without killing? If somebody kills somebody next to you and is coming for you, and the only way to stop him leads to his death, are YOU the sinner?

 

Similarly "thou shalt not commit adultery" isn't straight forward at all. What is committing adultery? Is it penetration? Is it flirtation? I've heard translations that said if you even think of such things, you have committed adultery. As if humans (especially in the context of being manipulated by a demon) can control what they think. Want proof? Hey, jnabors, don't think about the color blue. What did you just do? Shame on you!

 

Other rules and teachings are dependent on interpretation.  The bible is ancient and obscure in parts which allows, even demands, readers to interpret the Bible in legitimately different ways.  This has been happening among Jews and Christians for over 2000 years.  Given multiple interpretation, we have the many different doctrines observed by different denominations.

That's a problem! One of my strongest LIKINGS of going to church was the way every single week, the sermon spoke straight to me. Kind of like the way you can apply fortune cookies or horoscopes to YOUR life. Or the way you can be presented with a bunch of dots and see this text on your screen right now, which is actually flickering at an imperceptible rate. The point is that it is well established that the brain NEEDS to find meaning in things so much that it will actually insert things that aren't there just to makes sense of something. Which is another requisite for humility: Accepting one's own capacity for error.

 

"Different denominations" is a seemingly innocuous way of saying "people willing to kill each other for disagreeing." Any methodology that ends up with that HAS to be flawed, wouldn't you agree? I also think it's deceptive to say that "The Bible isn’t a club used to gain political power". What would happen to the career of a politician who claimed to be an atheist? Why do politicians say things like "God bless our country"? How did Ronald Reagan justify gambling human existence on this planet during the Cold War? For that matter, if somebody had their finger on the button, wouldn't you rather they accept that humans exist in the same moral category than thinking that nuking their enemies would be righteous and they would receive treasures in heaven for doing it?

 

Is God into eugenics to the point of not only creating and allowing things like pestilence, famine, and natural disasters that he would intentionally inject genocide as well? Does this sound like the description of somebody who should be accepted out of hand, treated as benevolent, praised, and worshiped?

 

God gave us free will and a logical mind to decide for ourselves how to behave and what to believe.

If a man held a gun to your kid's head and said to give him $10,000 or the kid gets it, I suppose in the literal sense, you could say you have a choice. But the reality of it is that the person with the gun took choice away from you by imposing a severe penalty. Threatening eternal hellfire is not giving free will. Doesn't the Bible say kill those who do not believe? Is that freedom to believe?

[jnabors]

I think I see what is going on here.  I've just had another "duh" moment! It's not so much that there is an interest in Christianity, my thoughts on religion, or any particular faith, it's the thrill and enjoyment of the logical argument (for lack of a better term). 

 

I haven't really been trying to prove or disprove anything or convince anyone that i'm right, i've just been sharing information.  Even with my points about Evolution, I wasn't debating the issue as much as I was just adding to the conversation.  It seems obvious now, but when I first posted, I couldn't figure out why it seemed I was being "attacked".  Even stranger, I'd post a long section and the response might be that someone took issue with the word "everyone", while the real information was largely ignored.  I see now that It wasn't an "attack", it's just a group of skilled debaters pointing out logical fallacies in what I had posted.  I'm slow on the uptake, but it's all part of getting the feel of the boards and what is expected in the posts.        

 

So.... I will need to reevaluate my approach to posting.  I can't possibly respond to each post and debate every point.  The more I write the further behind I get.  At present I owe:

 

@dsayers, 3 posts from several days ago

@powder, 1 from yesterday

@Torero, 1 from today

@dsayers, 8 from the above post....

 

So i'm asking for some advice on how to address these without leaving anyone out and addressing as many arguments as possible.  I feel that if you take the time to respond, likewise, I should take the time to answer.  I doubt i'm skilled enough to seriously "debate", but i'm willing to learn / try.  Bear with me as I put on my new "debating shoes" and try to get in a more logic based mindset.  Stupid arguments are likely at first, but i'm sure that you guys will catch them!          

 

I do want to respond to one post before I put on my debating shoes though...  

jnabors, on 22 Oct 2015 - 10:09 AM, said:

God gave us free will and a logical mind to decide for ourselves how to behave and what to believe.

If a man held a gun to your kid's head and said to give him $10,000 or the kid gets it, I suppose in the literal sense, you could say you have a choice. But the reality of it is that the person with the gun took choice away from you by imposing a severe penalty. Threatening eternal hellfire is not giving free will. Doesn't the Bible say kill those who do not believe? Is that freedom to believe?

 

I think you are looking at this the wrong way, Hell is not punishment for disobedience of God's word.  Hell was created as a place for Satan and the other fallen Angels.  It's very straightforward, if you accept God and his gift of salvation, you are welcome in his kingdom.  If you reject God, heaven is not open to you, much in the same way you probably don't invite people over to your house that hate you (not a great analogy, but "people that don't believe you exist" just didn't work).  Are you punishing those people?  No.  Neither is God.  The thief that was crucified on the cross next to Jesus didn't obey God at any point in his entire life.  Among his last words were "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."  His expression of faith alone was all that was required.  He never followed God's laws, he deserved Hell. God gave him Heaven.      

 

I would ask; if you reject God, why would you want or expect to spend eternity with him?  If you don't even believe God exists, then the whole Heaven/Hell argument seems unnecessary.  

 

It's really amazing, when I read some of your (meaning everyone) responses.  I remember having some of the exact same thoughts and issues.  I've been on that side and I know exactly what you are talking about.  I have also logically picked apart religion and christianity many times, using many of the same arguments.  It's enlightening to be on this side of the argument.  

 

As always, thank you to everyone that took their time to answer my posts.  Please give me some thoughts on how I can be more efficient on here.  I hope that if I lighten up on the content, but concentrate more on the logic, it may not be as overwhelming.  I need to read a good article on debate....

 

More later..

[Will Torbald]

I have also logically picked apart religion and christianity many times, using many of the same arguments.  It's enlightening to be on this side of the argument. 

 

This is absolutely heartbreaking for me to hear. What must be of man wherein reason isn't enough that he seeks comfort in myth. Seeing indoctrination of children is understandable how the machine gets in their brain. Seeing the machine enter a man of reason is carnage.

[dsayers]

@jnabors: If you'll recall, in my first post to you, I had shared how as a child, I believed in the creation of man and I believed in the evolution of man. Even if the world unfolded in a way that both are accurate, I had never thought of them at the same time despite them talking about the same thing. I would've LOVED for somebody to help me to understand that I was doing this. There are people in this world that simultaneously believe that theft is wrong and taxation is right. There's EXTREME value to somebody interested in the truth to be shown how their own values/conclusions are inconsistent.

 

Also, you don't owe me or anybody else anything. The proposition that if I speak to you, you must speak to me refers to an unchosen positive obligation, and would therefore be unethical. However, you do owe it to yourself, when faced with contradictions, to examine them. If you publicize something that is then debunked, you probably should either addressed the contradiction or confess that you're not interested in the truth. To clarify, I think that "I have also logically picked apart religion and christianity many times, using many of the same arguments" and "I hoped to demonstrate that Conservative Christians were capable of critical thought and reasoning" are competing claims.

 

Hell is not punishment for disobedience of God's word.

This was not my experience. It was portrayed to me as a threat for not obeying. Even if they were wrong to do so, this would cast doubt on omnipotence, benevolence, and intervention. Imagine you were throwing a party and you said that I wasn't invited (be it absolute or conditional). Then a friend of yours (somebody who represented you) said to me that if I didn't do something you wanted me to, you were going to beat my ass. Wouldn't you step in and clarify? Let's say you're the nicest guy in the world; would you want somebody thinking you were the opposite for something you never actually said? I maintain that this level of ambiguity and subject to interpretation disproves omnipotence.

 

Oh and I could also point out that belief in an afterlife is also an irrational conclusion. There was nothing before a person's life, so there is no reason to suspect there to be something after a person's life. Consciousness is an emergent property of matter, so there is no reason to suspect it would remain after being severed from that matter. There's certainly no proof for it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That's my main focus: methodology. I care more about how you arrived at a conclusion than what that conclusion is. Particularly if you engage in an attempt to demonstrate critical thinking and reasonability.

[jnabors]

This is absolutely heartbreaking for me to hear. What must be of man wherein reason isn't enough that he seeks comfort in myth. Seeing indoctrination of children is understandable how the machine gets in their brain. Seeing the machine enter a man of reason is carnage.

 

Ah!, my new friend.... Weep not for me, this path I walk is of my own choosing.  Reasoning draws a conclusion, but does not make the conclusion certain, unless the mind discovers it by the path of experience.    

[Will Torbald]

Ah!, my new friend.... Weep not for me, this path I walk is of my own choosing.  Reasoning draws a conclusion, but does not make the conclusion certain, unless the mind discovers it by the path of experience.    

 

I can leave you on your path, believe me. As long as you are happy and of your choosing it will never woe me. I'm in sorrow for those on my side, for how inept we are that we can't, how do I explain it, that it isn't enough for people. That reality is not enough.

[Torero]

Take your time jnabors, no hurries. And learning reason (argumentation, fallacies, etc.) takes time.

 

But in the "So I was talking to my mom" topic you have a fellow statement about the Bible which you considered "[such a credible source as] it is so understandable to all people":

 

The whole point of me bringing up anything related to the Bible is to show that there is a common misconception that the language or meaning is "vague" or has multiple interpretations. It doesn't.

 

Apparently Darknecrosforte doesn't think Revelations makes no sense. That would be a misconception. So you are misunderstanding a document you consider as (one of the) most important book(s) in human history?

 

Now we have two statements which are in conflict which each other. And two statements (your first part and Darknecrosforte's one) that are aligned.

 

In the world we have millions of different interpretations of the Bible leading to so many different Christian religions. So it must be possible to interpret the Bible in a multiple sense, right?

 

So what is the result of it all? The Bible is the most credible source or are there some objections to make against that...?

[jnabors]

@jnabors: If you'll recall, in my first post to you, I had shared how as a child, I believed in the creation of man and I believed in the evolution of man. Even if the world unfolded in a way that both are accurate, I had never thought of them at the same time despite them talking about the same thing. I would've LOVED for somebody to help me to understand that I was doing this. There are people in this world that simultaneously believe that theft is wrong and taxation is right. There's EXTREME value to somebody interested in the truth to be shown how their own values/conclusions are inconsistent.

I would agree with you and have found these discussions to be very beneficial.  

 

Also, you don't owe me or anybody else anything. The proposition that if I speak to you, you must speak to me refers to an unchosen positive obligation, and would therefore be unethical. 

Again, I agree that I don't "owe" anyone anything and your posts do not instill a sense of obligation, at least I wouldn't consider it in that way.  For me, it's more a show of respect or just simple kindness.  If I felt obligated, this would be too much like work and I wouldn't be participating.        

 

To clarify, I think that "I have also logically picked apart religion and christianity many times, using many of the same arguments" and "I hoped to demonstrate that Conservative Christians were capable of critical thought and reasoning" are competing claims.

I would disagree with you on this point.  They are not competing claims, but rather sequential claims.  If I posted on Tuesday that I'd just spoken to Bob, and posted on Friday that I just got back from Bob's funeral, those seem like contradictory statements, but I think most anyone could determine that Bob most likely died sometime between Tuesday when I spoke to him and that Friday.

 

In the same way, I said that I have picked apart religion and Christianity many times.  If you refer to some previous posts, I freely admitted to Agnosticism, but honestly looking back, it was probably more like apathy.  The Conservative Christian statement refers to the current time.       

 

This was not my experience. It was portrayed to me as a threat for not obeying. Even if they were wrong to do so, this would cast doubt on omnipotence, benevolence, and intervention. Imagine you were throwing a party and you said that I wasn't invited (be it absolute or conditional). Then a friend of yours (somebody who represented you) said to me that if I didn't do something you wanted me to, you were going to beat my ass. Wouldn't you step in and clarify? Let's say you're the nicest guy in the world; would you want somebody thinking you were the opposite for something you never actually said? I maintain that this level of ambiguity and subject to interpretation disproves omnipotence.

If you recall my first post, I said that I was a Christian, but was not religious; In a subsequent post, I explained the difference as Christianity = being like Jesus, following his example, etc....  While religion comprised all of the man-made rules, the guilt, and often hypocrisy.  What you are describing is religion.  Jesus didn't make you feel threatened for not obeying, someone taught you that.  Somewhere, in some church, you learned to feel that way.  The church needs people to feel guilty, and ashamed, and unworthy.  That keeps the seats and the coffers full.  

 

Don't get me wrong, some very good people go to church and some very good preachers lead churches.  But overall, I reject organized religion.    

Apparently Darknecrosforte doesn't think Revelations makes no sense. That would be a misconception. So you are misunderstanding a document you consider as (one of the) most important book(s) in human history?

A good observation and hopefully one that I can easily remedy.  I hate to admit it, but the honest answer is when I typed the bit about Revelations, I was attempting to inject some levity into the conversation.  I'm new here, and was trying to lighten things up a little.  I've you've ever read Revelations, you'd understand.  To be fair, Revelations is much different than the other books of the Bible.  

 

In the world we have millions of different interpretations of the Bible leading to so many different Christian religions. So it must be possible to interpret the Bible in a multiple sense, right?

Yes, it is not only possible, but we have the different denominations and doctrines as proof of this.  I don't know if there are literally millions, but certainly there are many. That isn't even bringing up Jehovah's Witnesses or the Mormons which also use the Bible, but aren't Christian.  

 

So what is the result of it all? The Bible is the most credible source or are there some objections to make against that...?

I'm not falling for this one.  By agreeing that the Bible is the "most" credible source, then a single example would negate my assertion.  

 

Also, one would have to consider the audience.  I am assuming that most of you are Atheists and predisposed against the Bible, so for you I would say the Bible probably holds little value outside of minor curiosity.

 

I would say that the Bible is a tool, and how much you get out of it depends in large part on how much you put into it.  After all, an unread book doesn't serve any purpose.  

[Torero]

 

A good observation and hopefully one that I can easily remedy.

 

 

Sorry to be picky, but I don't enter a discussion based on throws and remedies. It's about arguments, reason and with the non-belief part of Christianity that would still be the same thing, right? To me, the Bible is a book. Just read a bit more than Atlas Shrugged, but Alissa Rosenbaum is catching up...

 

 

  I hate to admit it, but the honest answer is when I typed the bit about Revelations, I was attempting to inject some levity into the conversation.  I'm new here, and was trying to lighten things up a little.  I've you've ever read Revelations, you'd understand.  To be fair, Revelations is much different than the other books of the Bible. 

 

 

But that's my point! These books are written so many freaking years after things allegedly happened. The Old Testament is even crazier. Knowing the world of today and the spread of word, the distortions, the propaganda, the hands, minds and ideologies it goes through, exactly how do you imagine that from let's say 33 to 333 after Christ??

 

 

Yes, it is not only possible, but we have the different denominations and doctrines as proof of this.  I don't know if there are literally millions, but certainly there are many. That isn't even bringing up Jehovah's Witnesses or the Mormons which also use the Bible, but aren't Christian.

 

 

How many Christians are there in the world, some 2.5 billion or so?? Then there are 2,500,000,000 different interpretations of "The Bible", "Christianity" or whatever branch they're brought up with and (still) believe in.

 

Every human is different. You have a different interpretation of "The Bible" from your neighbour, who might have gone to the same (Christian) school, went to the same (Christian) church, you may even work together and your kids play all along. Still, you are 2 different personalities, so 2 different interpretations of "The Bible".

 

Not 2, even more. Because the jnabors of 1999 had a different interpretation of the Bible than the jnabors of Summer 2015 (in Winter He Shall See The Light, I reckon...), right?

 

So if that book is written "for everyone to understand" (sorry, my Classical Greek is there but very rusty and ancient Hebrew and other texts I cannot read), then how come we have 2.5+ billion interpretations (also atheists study the Bible...)??

 

And now you're backing up but I guess most people who call themselves "Christian" know very little of what the Bible really says in some parts.

 

The overall structure is known to most people. Still, in the Bible some horribly unethical texts are plainly there. The Quran is more of a law book and unreadable, uninteresting and clearly written by a delusional epileptic desert warrior, but also in the Bible horrible things are written while in other books the virtues of Jesus are described.

 

Personally I wouldn't take an author very seriously when he writes so conflictingly and thus inflicting on innocent "non-believers" (if the Bible really would be "THE ULTIMATE WISDOM TEXT NOBODY CAN ESCAPE, SPEAKS FOR ITSELF, NO CAPITALS NEEDED" then by definition, there wouldn't be any non-believers, right?) the pains of (imaginary) hells, purgatories and what-have-yous.

 

 

I'm not falling for this one.  By agreeing that the Bible is the "most" credible source, then a single example would negate my assertion.  

 

Also, one would have to consider the audience.  I am assuming that most of you are Atheists and predisposed against the Bible, so for you I would say the Bible probably holds little value outside of minor curiosity.

 

I would say that the Bible is a tool, and how much you get out of it depends in large part on how much you put into it.  After all, an unread book doesn't serve any purpose. 

 

 

Oh right, that's ok. The Bible is a tool, indeed. Not all texts are horrible and bad and some good ethical upbringing in past ages has brought forward a pretty ok kind of society. I live in a religious country myself.

 

Yet your idea of me (I cannot or wouldn't speak for others) is not right. I was brought up anti-theistically but I have become much more understanding to religion when traveling and while living in Latin America. There's more virtue and decency among religious communities than in cold-hearted State-religious NW Europe where I grew up.

 

I am not criticizing religion or beliefs as a tool in life.

 

But you've come to a platform of reason, so that is what counts. Arguments, rationality. If you want to learn, feel free.

 

Cheers.

[dsayers]

Jesus didn't make you feel threatened for not obeying, someone taught you that.

You posted this as a response to me pointing out how this contrast casts doubt on omnipotence and/or benevolence. This only serves to reinforce it. Could you address this point?

 

I acknowledge you differentiating Jesus from religion. You mentioned following his examples. In what way? Let's pick way X. Have other people done X? People that perhaps lived before Jesus? I can make an airtight, secular, objective proof that theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral. If you live life by that code, why would that be following Jesus for example? According to faith, Jesus wasn't just some guy. If you believe that, my question is how do you know?

 

This is where I feel those quotes are competing claims that you refer to as sequential. If you've "logically picked apart religion and christianity many times, using many of the same arguments" and maintain that Jesus was the son of God, then I think this means "Conservative Christians were capable of critical thought and reasoning" isn't accurate.

[powder]

 

 

I think you are looking at this the wrong way, Hell is not punishment for disobedience of God's word.  Hell was created as a place for Satan and the other fallen Angels.  It's very straightforward, if you accept God and his gift of salvation, you are welcome in his kingdom.  If you reject God, heaven is not open to you, much in the same way you probably don't invite people over to your house that hate you (not a great analogy, but "people that don't believe you exist" just didn't work).  Are you punishing those people?  No.  Neither is God.  The thief that was crucified on the cross next to Jesus didn't obey God at any point in his entire life.  Among his last words were "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."  His expression of faith alone was all that was required.  He never followed God's laws, he deserved Hell. God gave him Heaven.      

 

I would ask; if you reject God, why would you want or expect to spend eternity with him?  If you don't even believe God exists, then the whole Heaven/Hell argument seems unnecessary.  

 

It's really amazing, when I read some of your (meaning everyone) responses.  I remember having some of the exact same thoughts and issues.  I've been on that side and I know exactly what you are talking about.  I have also logically picked apart religion and christianity many times, using many of the same arguments.  It's enlightening to be on this side of the argument.  

 

As always, thank you to everyone that took their time to answer my posts.  Please give me some thoughts on how I can be more efficient on here.  I hope that if I lighten up on the content, but concentrate more on the logic, it may not be as overwhelming.  I need to read a good article on debate....

 

More later..

Jnabors, I admire you attitude and your enthusiasm for engaging in this conversation.  Where some here will contest you on logic, reason and evidence, I prefer to challenge your position on moral grounds, because, as I stated earlier, this is where I have the most difficulty with governments and the doctrines of religion and Christianity as you have embraced them.  

 

In the quote above you are hoping to counter dsayers criticism of the hell idea with one that you presumably consider more virtuous - hell was created (by god) as a place for satan and his followers?  And that sits better with you?

 

What kind of person, or worse still, gracious loving omnipotent being, gets pissed off and holds a grudge forever?  how bad are God's conflict resolution skills that he decides to have a 'war in heaven' to sort things out, and then create this eternal heinous scenario for his former beloved family members, and all those humans in their ignorance who fall short somehow, and end up having to endure this - set aside for the moment the horrific idea of sending his son to be tortured and killed in low tech Roman culture as a way to settle some bizarre debt he created for us.  

 

Can you address this without going to the already refuted claim of freewill?  Freewill is the freedom to choose, not the freedom to make a choice.  

 

I always like to consider moral principles on a personal level, both with the state, and with religion.  If the NAP works for us in our day to day lives, there is no rational reason to expect it will not work for the greater good of human civilization.  Likewise, if I were to introduce you to someone that I described as very friendly and loving, but then told you about how he got pissed at his favorite son one day, got into a big fight, then locked him in the basement to rot, what would you think of that person?  

 

The God you describe in your post above is not someone worthy of worship and respect, and I certainly would not want to spend any time with him at his place.  

 

BTW Jesus did threaten with damnation on a few occasions and also threw out some gems like this one:  "...Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels"

 

I don't see anywhere to go with this stuff jnabors, and I have had this debate many times.  If 'interpretation' is the only way to rationalize the moral contradictions then we are back to the idea brought up earlier in the thread that the scriptures must be dismissed as not only ineffective and inefficient, but very dangerous indeed.  

[powder]

darn, looks like we lost another one,...