What is the literalist-Christian view on dinosaurs? Why weren't they mentioned in the Bible?
Sorry if this has come up before, I'm curious.
A fundie-Christian in my biology class refuses to believe in evolution or black holes, apparently they're too unrealistic.
I can't conceive of this, therefore it can't be true. My mind is too small to understand this concept therefore it isn't true.
I think the Christian view on dinos is that the Bible talks about leviathans and giant monsters who lived alongside humans, but that these were wiped out in the flood. I know...
To nat and Paul: I wouldn't say either of you are idiots or fools, however I would say that you are acting foolishly with your dismissal of the body of scientific thought. The grounds upon which you dismiss the current thought are weak. You know nothing of the theories you claim are false.
I only hope that jomo can help you to understand why radiometric dating is sound, but I have my worries that you won't accept these. I already see the seeds of this in your worry that the laws of physics and radioactive decay may have been different in the past, despite the fact that there is no evidence for this. In the past aliens may have lived alongside humans and erased all signs of this. They may have aided in our evolution, I can't disprove this, but there is no actual reason for coming to this conclusion.
disagreeing with everything you say does not make me arrogant.
accusing me of being arrogant upon disagreement is a form of arrogance.
ill just say two things, because you won't take in anything if i start talking about God or anything. you say you are not an enemy of God, yet you are an atheist. the Bible says that you are either for God or against God, there is no middle ground; obviously being an atheist isnt being for God.
finally two questions which you didn't answer; do you really want God to exist? and what made the universe start in your opinion?
but you do have to admit to me, you still are going around in circles if you are still arguing about radiometric dating, the flood and dinosaurs. i think paul's shown you what he thinks many times before, i can see him repeating himself for your benefit.
i don't know why a "fundie-Christian" (great name!) would not believe in black holes because they are too unrealistic. they can actually be observed. evolution however cannot, making it therefore unrealistic.
Yet again simply accusing me of something I have accused you of. Terrible form. Perhaps defend yourself or explain why I am arrogant and you are not. I have explained that you are insulting the intellect of thousands of scientists in the way you seem to think that they can be so horribly and consistently wrong.
Since you say I am an enemy of god, it must be so. I however claim I am no enemy of god, I wouldn't force people to stop believing if they know it to be true. All I would do is stop these people from subjecting others to live by their beliefs, for example gay marriage should be allowed and the science taught in schools should be determined by scientists and not religious fundamentalists.
I simply adore your with us or against us attitude, it exudes tolerance. An atheist is not a person who actively fights against god, we don't particularly care because we don't think god exists. All we care about is the freedom of non believers from the religious ideas of believers.
Do I want god to exist? What an idiotic question, either he does or he doesn't. If he does I hope he makes himself obvious to me at some point and if he doesn't then so be it. Come to think of it I desperately hope that the allmighty ruler of the universe (should he exist), doesn't turn out to be a horrible being who would condemn non believers to hell. If I believed in Christ, I don't think I could bring myself to live for eternity in heaven whilst good Muslims and Atheists burned in hell simply for being mistaken. I may request to be stricken from existence rather than know that countless decent people are suffering.
I am not going around in circles, Paul and yourself are simply refusing to do the necessary research required to confirm that the perceioved holes and problems with radiometric dating are in fact so insignificant that they can generally be ignored. How can we move on when you guys haven't even managed to shake off your incorrect debunking of radiometric dating.
Jomo has informed me that "there are both theoretical AND experimental reasons why the decay constant of a species (radioactive isotopes) should be constant over time". Yet you think radiometric dating is flawed simply because we can't go back in time and check that decay rates are indeed as constant as all known evidence shows them to be. Your reasoning is so weak.
hahahaha you didnt answer the questions!
a yes or no would be fine. and the beginning of the universe, didn't even try to answer that one! and if i may, can i add another question. how on earth can you support gay marriage and be an evolutionist? man + man = no babies buddy. you're pretty inconsistent. if the purpose of life (according to you, and you did say this) is reproduction and the emotions attached to it, then it sounds like you just gave homosexuals no purpose in life. your reasoning is so weak.
Responding to points:
You have sunk pretty low, I go through all your points and miss out perhaps one and you decide to pounce... In the meantime you have managed to avoid the majority of my points and instead responded to only one single portion of my post. Not to mention spending half your time trying to mock me in your own slightly pathetic way. Can you please acknowledge that I am at least trying to respond to you, whilst you are not affording me the same curteousy (I don't mind if you are unable or do not have the time to respond, but don't be so petty as to accuse me of something you are doing!)
In fact I meant to say that I don't know all the answers and that is ok by me. It's a resounding I don't know, I don't know how the universe started. I can probably tell you what the current scientific explanation of the data is, but I expect it is far too in depth for me to understand without a proper teacher.
What points have I avoided? Are you refering to the question about whether I want god to exist? I did respond to that by letting you know that the question is stupid. What would you answer to the question: "Do you want evolution to be the mechanism through which god created the species?" It is a non-question.
Living by natural selection:
It's a common mistake (one which I have pointed out to you before) to assume that we should act in a way which tries to conform with the laws of nature. Gravity pushes us towards the ground, this doesn't stop us from building planes or walking straight. Evolution is just a process which has occured and Darwin gave us the basis for explaining the mechanism by which it occured. This in no way means that natural selection should be actively encouraged, we shouldn't weed out the weak and exterminate them. It is only you which have made the connection that knowing the mechanism of evolution automatically implies we should mimic its processes in our lives. In fact, if the human brain behaved in a way where we weed out the weak then we probably would have become extinct through in fighting!
The human brain has emergent properties which allow it to work against natural laws. In fact, if homosexuality is a genetic trait then we should find that this trait will no longer be passed to the next generation (as homosexual men are outted more and no longer forced to live in loveless marriages bearing children). In my opinion there is nothing inherently good or bad in characteristics, just characteristics which are selected for or against.
The "meaning" or purpose of life can be interpreted on two levels. On a purely physical level the purpose of all life is to reproduce, otherwise it would cease to exist. Human brains have emergent qualities which seem to be able to suppress this urge to reproduce in some cases for various reasons. Actually I think i had said that people give their own lives meaning. On a mental level the meaning of life is determined by each person by what they choose to value and what they choose to be important and dedicate themselves to.
Your argument as to why I should be against homosexuality is completely ridiculous, but completely excuseable as you are only 16 and don't understand either the theory or what "believing" in the theory means.
QuoteThere's only one fundie-Christian in your class?
My biology teacher couldn't even teach the lesson on evolution because all the Creationists complained too much.
There's biology, then there's theology.
Dies Veneris xiv October MCMLXXXIX
Great Scott! Christopher Lloyd would have been appaled. I hope you did something to try and allow the teacher to do their work. Or perhaps you could have reacted in kind by shouting down teachers in Religious Studies!
To nat: I am starting to think that you may be having a bit of a joke at my expense. Watching me bang my head against a wall. I am starting to think that you are intentionally trying to irritate me by making ridiculous accusations and arguments. I almost hope you are because that would make you an evil/comic genius!
Incidentally, your point about my position on homosexuality is a prime example of people of belief and religion's inability to understand the mind which doesn't require some natural law. I see morality and right and wrong as something that each person can determine and I don't believe in any grand rules of the universe by which intelligent beings must live.
What in the hell happened to the omnipotent topic of Muse?
hahaha i expected it to be inconsistent. but not this much. so you would have no problem if the human mind chose to value murder and rape. thats what im hearing here.
and im not surprised that you are left speechless when you try and imagine the beginning of the universe without a creator. thats atheism for you.
and my "excusable" 16 year old views just happen to be shared by 26 year old Paul. if your going to call him ridiculous, please call me ridiculous i beg you.
i dont know where your arrogance against God went from a few pages ago, sounds like you're really under fire! please put up a fight if we're going to discuss on an intellectual level. im not trying to make a joke of you, i just personally think your views are completely hilarious if you don't mind. the thing is, you don't find mine hilarioius, you find them frightening. because if your views are true (which unlike you, im 100% sure theyre not) it means absolutely nothing! but if my beliefs are true, you are absolutely screwed and it has massive implications to your life and every single other life that has ever lived.
but you see, God is the answer to all your doubts. all your insecurities can be answered by God. all pain you suffer, anytime you feel lonely; God has an answer for it all. how bout you do yourself a favour and accept God and his answer in Jesus who is alive today. cos deep down you know its true (thats why you can't be 100% true in atheism, true?), thats why you are so offended when it is brought up that maybe all your unfounded foundation in the non-existence of God, the relativity of truth (which in fact is a logical contradiction), the superiority of mankind and the ideal of evolution and its teachers is a lie. truth is confronting, the Bible says the word of God penetrates the very soul and strips everything bare for all to see. God has given the world the control in your life, because thats what you wanted; but if you just say to God who you know exists, "do with ME whatever YOU want", his love will be yours and the Glory will be his.
hope thats much more challenging than my previous un-answerable questions. its not the first time you've admitted to have no idea, but i promise you; bring these questions that we apparently havent adressed (forgetting that i have been away on holiday for an entire month) to us and any Bible believing Christian with the Holy Spirit that you know and they will be answered! thats the power of the Gospel!
to DESARENEZETIC, the conferences were absolutely fantastic. we heard from a British chruch reformer William Taylor who's fighting the good fight for the Gospel to be preached in England although the liberal church wants him excommunicated. Sydney has started sending missionaries to England to start preaching the Bible but are under strong opposition, so pray for that. on the conferences we heard a series on Acts and the Holy Spirit and 1 Peter which were pretty much life-changing (as always) and the sense of fellowship being with ten thousand Christians under God's word at once is something that can't be repeated (until in heaven!).
and to "what happened to the omnipotent topic of Muse?", we decided to give credit to the one who created them!
Oh dear. Let me run you through this slowly. Well adapted people don't enjoy murder or rape because these types of behaviour are selected against in our evolution. Those who take from others are cast out and more often than not are prevented from passing on their genes. This is illustrated in a link I posted to you about 15 pages ago (so now we are indeed going round in circles). The video demonstarted that an attitude of tit-for-tat (repay cooperation with cooperation and cheating with cheating) is the most successful for the individual in the long run. So it is clear that the rule of "do as you would be done by" is beneficial to the survival of an individual and of a species. This is a vast over simplification, but it goes to show that non magical explanations for our behaviour can be postualted and studied formally.
Have you even watched this video:
I can't remember either you or Paul giving me your feedback on it. This is what I mean by you ignoring me. I think the fact that you are ignoring me would be obvious to an impartial observer (if anyone is reading this, am I right here or is there a pattern of my points not having responses?)
Right. I also don't know what the most efficient way of stacking oranges in a box is. Science can't tell us many things. I believe the current theory on the beginning of the Universe involves a singularity and we have a model consistent with the evidence which takes us back to the Planck Time (tiny amount of time) after the Big Bang. I personally know very little about this. Actually, many people see the fact that we can only take our model back to moments after the Big Bang and not the actually instant to be evidence for a creator sparking the universe into existence. Of course this is, like all evidence for god, based on gaps in our knowledge.
Glad to see my ignorance has left you so smug. I'm not so glad that you still haven't understoood that not knowing everything and admitting it is not a weakness. Science will never know anything because I happen to think that there are an infinite amount of things to know (finite/infinte=0 lol).
Calm down dude! I may well be screwed, but as I explained earlier I think I would rather be in hell with my family than in heaven knowing that people like Einstein or Gandhi are rotting in hell. Your god is clearly is not loving enough for me to believe in him.
How can you cope with a god that will condemn people who you know to be decent apart from a technicality and an error. I don't think I could, as I said I think it would be unbearable for me to exist in heaven whilst other good people were suffering for eternity. Does this make me more sympathetic than god? If so is this character really a god?
I hope you don't mind me editing/truncating your post. The reason I can't be sure of anything is because I know that no one is actually sure of anything no matter how convincing the arguments for it may be and no matter how much they know it to be true in their heart. There is always the slightest possibility that it is all delusion or that it is all a fabrication or illusion.
I am not offended by talking about religion. In fact I find discussing god and the possibility of his existence to be highly compelling, as evidence by my continue presence on this thread. What I do find offensive is when believers want to force their beliefs on others, like banning gay marriage, or banning anything in fact. Or forcing women to cover up, or insinsting that science not be taught in the science classroom.
Please remember I am often talking to you and Paul at the same time, so it isn't always all about you. If you look back at this thread you will see the amount of effort I have had to put in to move the debate forward. My unanswered questions basically amount to trying to get you to do the research necessary to know enough about evolution and radiometric dating. For example I have often made the point in my first paragraph but I don't think I have once seen a response from you, I don't think I have once heard either of you tell me what you think about the naturalist explanations for morality. You may well have taken in and thought about the things jomo and I have said but I don't get any feedback from you so it just seems as if my words are falling on deaf ears.
Another point I don't think has been addressed to my satisfaction is why the Gospels have to be literal. The Bible may well be the absolute truth of the word of god, but I still don't understand why this necessarily means that the creation story is literal. As far as I know it never says that the story must be taken as literal, all it says is that the OT and NT are god breathed. Is god incapable of allegory and simplifying a story in order for primitive humans to understand it? If he had done this then he surely wouldn't have told us, otherwise it would destroy the allegory...
PS: Not to be a stickler, but do you have something against capitals and apostrophes? I guess it doesn't matter really!
The conversation seems to have moved on somewhat from radiometric dating. Rather than dragging it back, I've started a new thread dedicated to science and specifically Young Earth Creationism. Enjoy.
To ask what is the meaning of the universe is like asking what is the angular momentum of Much Ado About Nothing. ~ Steven Poole
great idea jomo.
the Gospels have to be taken literally because Jesus and the Apostles say it has to, or otherwise it is meaningless and has no effect. Paul says that if Jesus didn't rise from the dead then we are still dead in our sins (he said that of course hypothetically). but just the fact that many leaders in the Christian church don't believe in the resurrection is a terrifying thought.
one thing for certain though, is that every book in the Bible has to be read differently. they have to be put in context, you have to understand what was going on at the time to see the full will of God's plan. of course you would read Psalms (hymns to God) differently to the way you read Luke (Jesus Life, Death and Resurrection), and you'd read Corinthians (Instruction to the Church) differently to Revelation (Prophecy of the End of Times). the books that are meant to be "taken" as you would say differently, specify in themselves how they should be taken differently. Jesus' parables that he spoke never took place, so to read them literally would be foolish. they are as you say allegories. for example Revelation talks of how things such as the White Horse represent Jesus and the Sea representing Seperation from God; different symbols for different things (and heavy use of anthropomorphism)but still, all things take place. it is the same with reading Genesis, arguably the hardest book to read, whether regarded as symbols or as being literal, the events definitely did happen. to deny that is stating your non-belief in God. why? because thats what the Bible says.
in response to atheism. how can you say, "I know that no one is actually sure of anything no matter how convincing the arguments for it may be and no matter how much they know it to be true in their heart" whilst holding the view that nothing can be for sure. im sure you can see the contradiction there.
on God. i knew you'd find God offensive, but tell me, why do Gandhi or Einstein deserve to go to heaven? why do you you or me deserve to go to heaven in your opinion? its not about whether God is deserving of us (we can see that he is perfect, and it his Word tells us that), its about whether we deserve God? you have a think about it.
the answer you will always come to is no. there is no other way around it. imagine if every single one of your friends and family saw a movie of every second of your life and all your thoughts. would they still love you after that? i know for me, they certainly wouldnt.
but the thing is, God still does. and hes seen all of us, all the time. and what he sees is us rejecting him. thats our nature.
but God sent Jesus so he could reveal his love to us. it was part of his plan all along to unveil his will.
know do you love God? i doubt it, since you don't believe he exists. but he loves you, why don't you except this love.
i encourage you to disect the paragraph i told you the Gospel in the previous post. i didnt see you take any notice of that one. truthfully, id be happy if thats the only thing you learnt from anything i say.
How irritating. For one I didn't ask you about all books other than Genesis and yet you see fit to insult my intelligence by explaining to me that Jesus' parables were allegorical. Thank you, I am not an idiot.
Why does creation have to be taken absolutely literally? You say "whether regarded as symbols", so why can't the whole account of creation in six days and a young earth be symbolical? This is all I asked you and don't see this being addressed at all in this lengthy paragraph.
No contradiction. The two points you see as contradiction are in fact the same thought:
I know that no one is actually sure of anything = nothing can be for sure.
Now if you are trying to say that even the fact that nothing can be for sure, is itself not for sure then you are way off the mark. The statement that nothing can be for sure is outside of every absolute statement. If you are saying this, then you are straying into philosophy and group theory which is interesting itself but in no way refutes my statement that nothing can be for certain. It's a funny little word and group theory trick.
There is undoubtedly a truth for the question of whether there is a god or not. However as humans in this world we can never be absolutely sure if there is or isn't.
We can be sure of nothing, except that we can be sure of nothing. Alright now?
I expressly said the opposite. (confused)
I think people who live good lives, caring for those around them, helping those in need, are deserving people. If a god exists who would send people to hell simply because they didn't understand that jesus was the son of god, then I don't think I would want to be close to such a god. To send any person to hell makes a god imperfect in my eyes. If I made it to heaven as a Christian I would spend every moment pleading with god to stop punishing people in hell for their mistakes. If there were no chance of him having mercy on these people, then I would kindly hand in my resignation from existence. It would be too unbearable.
How can a god be so pety as to only accept people who realise that he is the true god. That negates the idea that such a god is perfect.
That is terribly sad that your family wouldn't love you if they knew everything about you. I think you are mistaken however, love is different from approval. Your parents may disapprove of the way you lead your life but they will still love you. I can't stress this enough, you have some real problems if you worry that you could lose the love of your family. If they don't, I still will. Deal?
I know for me that I still love every human being no matter what they do. I really don't hate anybody or wish ill upon them. I abhor the death penalty, I hate to see even the most evil people suffer. There is no need to execute Saddam for example, I would have him excluded from society and would allow him to live a relatively free life, with free access to his family.
I don't believe he exists, because I see no proof for it. Just saying he loves me isn't going to convince a rational person. Allah loves everyone too, so does the Jewish God. I do however acknowledge that he may well exist and I am certain that if he is a loving god he will accept every human into heaven no matter what they have done. If he doesn't then I don't think I want to be in heaven anyway because I would see such a god as imperfect and bordering on malevolent. To condemn a person for eternity, it's the cruelest punishment in the universe. Worse even than wiping a person from existence (which he could do), so god is not only excluding people from heaven, he is actively punishing them!
1. Please consider my last paragraph deeply. Is a god who decides to punish people instead of destroying their soul really kind?
2. Please try to explain why the creation can't be symbolic and why the earth has to be young.
3. I hope you realise that your family's love is unconditional. I can't think of anything anyone could do to anyone else to make me stop loving them. I may be disappointed with the person or realise that the person is mentally ill and has problems, but you would still have to love them.
Please god tell me you are taking the piss out of me and intending to publish our discussions as comedy. You must be stringing me along. Surely, can anyone else let me know if this guy is just taking the piss out of me now? there was a website which was impersonating a baptist church and it was hard to tell if it was real or not, I feel the same way about you. It's the spelling mistakes, the repetition, the unrelenting way you misunderstand my points and repeat the same old hackneyed and unconvincing drivel. I apologise profusely if you are for real, but I just thought I would put this in as a disclaimer in case you are actually pulling my leg.
QuoteWe don't have religious studies at my school. This area of the world is already imbued with Christianity anyway. I can imagine the Fundies here getting in an uproar about their kids being taught about Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. My father certainly would.
Oh, and the teacher didn't want to do her work. She was a Christian, and she too didn't like the subject of evolution. For once I'd like to learn about the world around me in a science class, instead of the world people insist on creating in their minds.
Dies Veneris xiv October MCMLXXXIX
WOW I have missed out on quite a bit there!
If there are any specific points you would like me to address then let me know but I'm just going to make a couple of points here.
I told you before Kashmir to read the Creation account and tell me what you think?
If you read it any other way then it makes no sense, God made this part of the Bible real easy to understand you read it as it happened it's really amazing.
But God also put in loads of other stuff for us like no remission of sin without blood - God killed an animal to make clothes for Adam and Eve to hide their nakedness and therefore take away their shame.
In the flood story Noah was telling everyone God was going to judge the world with water and that they should come on his ark to be saved but they all scoffed at him (maybe thought him delusional?) and they all perished.
Jump forward about 4,500 years and what is happening? We are telling people that God is going to judge the world (this time with fire) and that they should get on board the ark of salvation (Jesus) but hey we are getting scoffed at and called delusional.
God’s Word is so amazing and we should all take heed of what it says. In regards to “good” people going to hell then God does not enjoy this but He is incapable of looking at sin so He sent His son to die for us so that there was a way of getting out of what we wanted (eternal separation from God) and all we have to do is accept Jesus as our Lord and Saviour – amazing.
Being forced to listen to evolutionary teaching in school as the ONLY way of us coming into existence is forcing one set of beliefs onto people just because it is the most popular belief doesn’t make it any more right.
I know what your response will be Kashmir, there is “overwhelming, mountainous evidence to support evolution” great but I don’t believe it. There is also evidence that a lot of people in this country don’t believe we evolved as well.
Just one further point you didn’t give me evidence of where you got your 95% figure from that dates agree, I would be interested to know if this is an actual fact or a number you just put down.
Nats Isabelle Jessica
I think Kashmir meant 95% figuratively, like we might use 99.9% as a euphemism for "a very large percentage". In any case, I've covered this point over in the new "Age of the Earth" thread.
In paragraph one, you say that popularity doesn't necessarily equate to correctness, which is spot on.
Then in paragraph two, you mention that many people disbelieve evolution. If the first statement is true, then surely the second one is utterly irrelevant to the matter at hand! Or am I missing something?
To ask what is the meaning of the universe is like asking what is the angular momentum of Much Ado About Nothing. ~ Steven Poole
I know it is utterly impossible for you to see how absolutely hilarious your "reasoning" is. This steraming pile of incoherent and irrational rhetoric will get this discussion nowhere.
Imagine I was trying to convert you to Islam and my arguments consisted of warnings about what would happen if you didn't. Imagine if I expected you to be impressed at how amazing Allah was in the miracles he performs, and how amazing Muhammed was in leading a perfect life (as close to perfection as is humanly possible). Of course you would laugh at me, none of this is convincing or even interesting in the slightest to the skeptic. You however are blind to the fact that you are doing exactly this, and in the process ignoring much more interesting avenues of discussion. Avenues which have boulevards of debate instead of roundabouts of rhetoric.
I will go get my Bible and have a look at Genesis to refresh my memory. I have a strong suspicion that I will come out realising that the stories told there could indeed be allegorical.
Not amazing, it's incredible, contrived and retarded. Please explain why such a roundabout way of doing things is amazing. He makes the rules then he decides that he can't change the rules so he has to use a loophole. It's completely ridiculous.
Well this is the problem, evolution and science are all about data and evidence. Your refusal to accept them is pure belief. This is why the intelligentia of this world will always side with science and abhor dogma.
If a lot of people didn't believe in Quantum Mechanics, would we then have to stop teaching it at schools. I mean come on a cat can be alive and dead at the same time?!? The foundation of the problem is that you think the scientists practicing the scientific method are systematically making the same mistaken and independently coming to the same conclusion from many different fields and angles. It's amazing how one field of science turns out results which actually reinforce the findings of another field. I imagine you think this is because the scientists contrive the results to fit it, I haven't actually heard you explain how a scientist might be able to do such a thing.
I was just saying that the number of anomalous readings is insignificant compared to the number of readings which agree. This means we can safely attribute the anomalies to known possible sources of error (such as contamination). Szee jomo87's thread about the Age of the Earth.
I have yet again been ignored:
1. Points about the naturalist view on the development of morality.
2. The video link I posted received no acknowledgment that you even contemplated watching it, let alone letting me know what you thought.
answer to Kashmir question:
1. Maybe you don't understand what being perfect means? it means doing NOTHING WRONG! i don't think you actually grasped that when thinking about an immeasurable, eternal God. i would have thought the creator of the universe has every right to judge his creation, and the created being (you) has no clue what they're talking about. EITHER WAY, God is giving people what they want; SEPERATION FROM HIM. he is being so loving, he gives them what they want, although it pains him.
Also, Allah doesn't even love all muslims (there is no assurance of his love). i was in an open conference debate between a Muslim Imam and a Christian, and the Muslim HAD to admit that Allah did not love Christians. the Christian could clearly say that the one true God love all of his creation. why? because he says so. the modern day Jewish God apparently only loves "Israel". a shame seeing theres only 12 million Jews in the world (pretty narrow minded God don't you think). so once again, you were wrong!
2. creation has to be literal because, without the fundamental basics of Genesis, the whole Bible is flawed. there must be one Adam (to fulfill Adam's seed - which is Sin), it must have happened in that order etc.
we've told you all this before, but remember Paul is the hardcore Creationist. i just think denying it all happened, is denying God's word.
oh and interestingly enough, apparently there has been a scientific discovery linking every woman back to a single person. i doubt youll take me seriously, but i heard that from non-Christian scientists. surely this is supportive of the Genesis account?
3. come on you must be joking with me here. you think humans are so vast and boundless in their love? is that why they kill each other, and divorce each other because of how unconditional there love is? wow your more naive than i thought. OF COURSE if everyone in the world saw every thought you ever had they would all deem you are a bad person, they certainly would for me, and part of being a Christian is admitting this. now if you saw your best friends life 100% with every thought or deed, i highly doubt you could find it in yourself to reconcile with them. i doubt you are that perfect. tell me why there is hate and anger between humans again? what is it some sort of radiometric evolution big bang or something?
like you, im surprised you are not joking. but i know you're for real, because so many people think like this. and why? because they listen to the world, and not to God. it is an endless circle of self contradiction. like that whole being sure that no one is sure...YOU MUST BE KIDDING!! that is an absolute joke, i burst out laughing when i read that. im 100% sure, what gives you the right to say "err um no your not". you have no clue what your talking about mate. surely you can't see the error in this stupid generalization, come on someone who knows so much about radiometric dating and philosophy can realize that saying is an absolute laugh!
of course im not pulling your leg, its not like anything me or Paul is saying contradicts the Bible. if we said anything other than what we're saying we'd be liars. and of course we've described to you a hundred times how youll never understand until you realize you need to be saved. obviously you are so proud with yourself at this time that it might take a great tragedy in your life to realize that you are helpless and small, and you are in need of a saviour. once you realize that man cannot save, because they are temporary, flawed, fuelled by greed and incapable of doing good; youll find the eternal, perfect, all compassionate God, incapable of doing wrong who will recieve you with open arms. can't you see it is the logical conclusion of evil man? a perfect God.
and can't you understand that God is compassionate in his judgement? come on tell me do you really want to be in a relationship with God? your answer "err um judging by Dawkins and radiometric dating i find no evidence to believe in God". of course you wouldnt! the world DOESNT WANT YOU TO BELIEVE IN GOD. that is plain to see even for the simplest child; so what do you think then? will you choose to be blind, or give in to the truth.
and maybe just the fact that im making such a laugh of you, is a testament to the undeniable truth that your beliefs are so temporary and futile not even you can hold true to them. can i encourage to grasp hold of the way, the truth and the life. you know deep down what it is.
oh and i don't really use capitals and make a few mistakes because im using to microsoft word correcting my spelling. surely not speaking like an english proffesor doesn't somehow take away credit from what im saying? im 16 mate! the Apostle Paul said that he came from God not with any flashy words, not with any skill in speaking, and not with any power from himself; but just as God spoke out of a donkey in the Old Testament, God can speak out of the least to save the great. Jesus had nothing attractive to bring people to him, he was marred and disfigured on the cross that people would turn away; but this was God's plan, so that all could see the great cost of his love.
and its still good to see you havent replied to the paragraph you ignored a few posts back. well i guess i know what "it" feels like now.
You are absolutely wrong. Saying your god is all loving and others' aren't doesn't make it so. I believe Muslims believe Allah loves all his creation and wants them to revert to Islam. They believe everyone has Islam in their hearts but they must only open themselves to it and submit to Allah.
As a jew I can definitely tell you that the Jewish belief is not that God only loves Israel. That is pure crap, utterly steaming turdulescent, offensive, anti-semetic bullshit. I don't know who told you this, but they are a malicious liar. I can't put this any more forcefully. The jews believe that all people are eligible for the kingdom of heaven regardless of their beliefs, in fact I think everyone will get ressurected according to Jewish thoughts on the subject. So the Jewish god loves all people regardless of religion, it is only the jews who have the task of foolowing the religion of judaism as given to them by god. Others don't follow it, but that doesn't condemn them. Actually, judaism is more about this life and there is much less emphasis on the afterlife and "getting into heaven". You are absolutely and totally misinformed on the issue and should be thoroughly ashamed.
You like to think Christianity is so different from every other religion but it ain't mate. You say Muslims and Jews have no assurance? What assurance do you have? Muslims are 100% certain that Allah loves them and as muslims they will enter his kingdom. They know this in their hearts just as you know it in your heart. They know it through the joy he brings to their lives and the absolute certainty they have that they are right. What assurance do you have that a muslim would not have by his own admission?
You still have not shown me anything from the Bible which says that the creation story is literal. You have basically said that you think it is literal because you think it is literal. No hard evidence to support your claim. I will read it myself again at some point. God may have chosen to write in an allegorical manner or chose to leave out trivialities and technicalities, and I see no arguments to refute this possibility.
Here we have a prime example of picking and choosing what you want out of science. A mitochondrial Eve has been traced back and it is approximated that most humans are decended from a single woman's genetic code around 40 000 years ago. Incidentally similar research into the male equivalent shows that the "Adam" lived much later than this mitochondrial eve.
If I saw every thought my friend had ever had it would bring me closer to them. I would understand them better and love them even more. They are only human like myself and if I must revile others on the basis of all their thoughts and deeds, then I must surely revile myself.
I am most certainly not joking, it is the perceived flaws in humans which make us interesting. These flaws are no reason to stop loving and caring for one another.
ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY and the IMPOSSIBILTY of this CONCEPT:
No, nothing can be assertained with absolute certainty. You are contradicting yourself because you think humans are imperfect, and yet you think that as imperfect beings we are still capable of being absolutely certain. I think you have confused th concept of landing on the truth, and being absolutely certain that this truth is correct. Only an idiot thinks he knows all or that he is absolutely certain.
What if there was a malevolent god who invented the concept of a kind god simply to trick humans. Such a god would be able to fool you into worshipping him, he would implant ideas in your mind and make you believe you were absolutely certain that you god was real and good. Surely you have to admit this possibility. If not you are a supreme idiot.
A poor man's philosophical aside: Even god can't be absolutely certain that he is the supreme creator, in the back of his mammoth mind there must be the possibility that he has been created to believe that he is omnipotent and perfect. Can god destroy himself? Surely he must be able to, but once he has how can he be sure that existence will vanish with him... When a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Please don't pick on this point it was meant to be subordinate to my ten or so other points in this large and exhaustiuve post.
Most definitely not. Imperfect man doesn't imply there must be an existence of a perfect god, fallacy alert! It shows that people like the idea of perfection and certainity because it settles their worries. Their concepts of the perfect being may be true or they may not. No one knows.
I don't believe in an immortal soul, simply that we die and that is it. So why would there have to be a perfect god? Surely you can see that your arguments have no basis in thought and are all purely emotive (wouldn't it be great if there was a god and an afterlife, sure, but that won't make it so).
I do want to believe in god if he exists. Of course I would like to know the truth. I see no evidence for a god, that is all. You have clearly not understood a single part of my line of reasoning.
Let me rephrase your argument: "the religious fundamentalists of this world clearly don't want to believe in science and rationalism, they can't bring themselves to believe there is no god. that is plain to see for the simplest child; so what do you think then? will you choose to be blind, or give in to the truth that there is matter and nothing else."
I hope that you can now see how this argument is completely void of convincing points. It can be applied to anything!
I was just wondering, I didn't say that it took away from your empty arguments. It is however strange and it would perhaps be easier to talk to you if you organised your thoughts more clearly and edited your post to cut out all the stuff which you know just to be preachy, unconvincing rhetoric.
Oh my, I failed to respond to one point. I am soooo sorry! What was it again? Stone me... In case YOU have forgotten I asked you what you thought about the naturalistic view of morality and what you thought about that video I posted a link to. You completely ignored me, and yet you have the gall to accuse me of this. Perhaps you should start with one simple sentence in reference to my whole argument about morality without god!?!? Just one sentence, maybe even: "I read your argument about morality as an evolutionary product, and I can't be bothered to respond to it because I think it's stupid." Fail to respond to this again and I shall not bother talking to you anymore despite the fact that I kind of enjoy it!
Also please tell me your are joking about me not responding to you! Look at my posts. They are a blow by blow response to almost everything you say on which I feel I have something interesting to add. Please tell me this is some kind of practical joke at my expense. If it is, it is extremely cruel.
I will rephrase the argument here:
1) the Bible says that you are either for god or against god, there is no middle ground
2) being an atheist is not for god
Ergo, you are against god.
However, in not believing in god, I am not against him. I cannot be against something in which I do not believe, just as I am not against the tooth-fairy beause I do not believe in him. So no, atheists are not against god.
Your book, and god, it seems, are playing word tricks on you. Similarly, you can't accept love from someone you don't believe exists. You're totally blind to this. I doubt you'll even get this now.
Oh, and on the subject of your god: you should really learn how to do this evangelising thing. You start first by not insulting the other person, and the second one is to not argue for someone joining christianity because they're screwed without it. (Actually, that second point was a joke: it's a tradition for religions to get members that way.)
On sending preachers to England: at least by posting here I'm aware of the threat that you fundamentalist politicians will pose to rationality, common sense and science in England when you start to be a force here. God willing, you'll never manage it, because what you preach is intolerance and blind ignorance. Or maybe we'll just have all the fundamentalist Muslims blowing up the fundamentalist Christians, they can all go to hell, and I'll have tea with Dawkins.
To all the atheists here: these people are totally unreasonable. They're very good at missing, intentionally or otherwise, others' points that do not fit with their beliefs, and also at reconciling things which are at odds with each other so that they seem to fit (doublethink). They're fantastic at twisting facts around their beliefs without being able to see that they are and they have an inability to see things from another point of view -- or, more accurately, to suspend their belief for even a moment. They misuse science and logic to their own ends and cannot see the problem in doing so. They make unwarranted assumptions about others' morality, thoughts, and behaviour (i.e. "i would still love you if i saw every thought you have had", "no you wouldn't"). They even ignore the historical considerations which come into the translation, and selection of the texts and books which make up their own canonical bible. I implore you all, just stop this here. There's no point in it, and all you're doing is making their faith stronger. To the fundamentalists: I'm sorry I ever came on this thread. I didn't realise arging with you would make you more delusional, but there's a better use of your time, and that's going out and helping people, giving up your posessions, and spending all your time helping others without judgement. Jesus rated helping those in poverty far above helping the Pharisees.
Oh, and I think I might start a new religion around a group of heat resistant leprechauns having conspired to create the universe, but ended up in the centres of stars, just with the intent of seeing where it ends up in two thousand years' time, if we haven't wiped ourselves out by then...
there he goes. one of god’s own prototypes: some kind of high-powered mutant never even considered for mass production. too weird to live and too rare to die.
My goodness, what a breathtaking slur against my entire heritage!
Judaism does not have doctrinal beliefs about the afterlife in the same way as Christianity and Islam. However, the Torah and Talmud clearly state that the righteous among all nations have a place in the afterlife. The position of the Jewish people as a chosen nation actually refers to obligations and practices exclusive to Jews, while non-Jews receive from God other covenants and other responsibilities. It does not entail exclusive rewards for Jews.
We've gone over this, but I'll repeat the pages-old argument for your benefit. Only in the abstract fields of pure mathematics and logic can statements be determined for certain. This time, Kashmir went for the example of a malevolent God, but do you remember the example of the government which has developed a mind controlling device, and is making you think you’re certain there is a God?
So long as you accept that this scenario or any similar one, however unlikely, is a remote possibility, then you cannot be 100% certain of your belief. There must always be the nagging doubt in your mind that everything you think you believe is actually manufactured by an evil government/alien/god.
Of course the quality of your English doesn't take away from the validity of your arguments. To say otherwise would be an ad hominem. Unfortunately, the quality of your English can have a bearing on our ability to understand your point, which is a disadvantage to you. Kashmir wasn’t trying to cast aspersions on your arguments by attacking your spelling; he was only trying to make it easier for himself to understand your points, OK?
To ask what is the meaning of the universe is like asking what is the angular momentum of Much Ado About Nothing. ~ Steven Poole
Thanks takkaria, I am starting to come to my senses. I have warned nat that a failure to respond to some of my particular points will effectively end our discussion and it will be of his doing because the warning is very clear.
I am inclined to agree with your hear no evil, see no evil attitude to these enemies of science and rational thought. However, how can be defend our freedoms and education systems if we don't at least try to reason with them. It's futile, they are just consistently and willfully ignoring me.
NAT, please explain yourself or apologise over your terrible ignorance over Judaism.
Forgive them, for they know not what they do. I truthfully believe them to be totally unaware that they sweep problems under the carpet, and I believe there is nothing or little we can do about it. Dawkins has shown that taking a vocal stance against fundamentalism (which is, I feel, one of the things he is trying to combat more than anything) makes you into someone who is unreasonable and arrogant, at least in most people's eyes. Taking no stance against it also does not help. As far as I can see, we're screwed either way. I long ago gave up faith in the human race as a whole to deal with problems, so maybe that's the only solution.
Also, I find it interesting that alcoholics who take part in AA and take up belief in a higher power have the highest chance of remaining sober. They do not just take up belief in the Christian god, or necessarily any traditional formulation of god, but the effect is the same. Furthermore, different alcoholics take up different stances, but recieve the same benefits. Given that all higher powers cannot exist, this suggests strongly that increased confidence can indeed come from a higher power, regardless of whether it exists or not.
there he goes. one of god’s own prototypes: some kind of high-powered mutant never even considered for mass production. too weird to live and too rare to die.
dont you see what we've been saying all along though, when we know the truth, everything else is counted worthless. and takkaria, im glad you think you know what Christianity is about, but seeing you're not a Christian i doubt you can really have incredible insight to the scriptures. you wouldnt want me telling you that atheism is really about believing in God would you?
and i did watch that Dawkins video if you were wondering; it was bizzare. here was a man, who was talking like he knew everything; more than the "extreme" right and "extreme" left, more than Christians, more than any other religion, more than you or me...can't you see the irony of this? he is an incarnation of the antichrist. of course you'll scoff at this, but the Bible said that anyone who puts themselves in the place of God is the man of lawlessness; Dawkins is a contender, as well as the Pope, so don't get too offended; we're all antichrists when we put ourselves above God. id like to see how Dawkins holds on to his beliefs when he suffers tragedy, when his family dies or i wonder how he responds to starvation and disease in africa, will he remain emotionally detached or will he cry out why, like we all do?
REGARDING HUMAN LOVE:
so Kashmir you are telling me, that every time your friend had a thought that he wanted to kill you, or that he hated you which rationally happens to all at some state (if you deny this you are very impressive) or everytime he had a thought that is too grotesque to imagine; YOUR love would be so boundless to cover the multitude of sins? serioiusly, this can't be solved in an argument, but for you to actually experience it. im sure you've had a relationship that didn't last, was that because your love wasn't boundless and as vast as you thought? or do you claim you were in the right and the other was the unloving one. come on - how does sin and hate and thoughts of greed and anger make the human more intriguing? how!
i have no idea where you got that Islam information from, so im not counting it as any form of argument unless you derive it from the Koran. Mohamed says the only way to be sure of Allah's love is by dying for him. that is why there are so many terrorists; because it is the only to be certain of going to heaven. now it must be hard to be loved by Allah and a) not be a muslim, b) not die for Allah, hence because your not actually a muslim c) not actually regarding that he exists. this is from the Koran, this is what true Muslims believe; not this moderate crap that the west is trying to brainwash them with. it is the counterpart of Christian liberalism and the height of western pluralist intolerance; i am offended when my country threatens to deport a Muslim Imam for sharing his views which are true Islam to the core and derived from the Koran. for example when the Sheik in Australia condoned rape, proffesed his hate for his country, i did not mind; it is what the Koran inspires. you atheists and agnostics are so intolerant as to say "oh thats unacceptable" and "you should be banned from saying that kind of thing", wheres the democracy! matt was right when he said "our freedom is eating itself".
oh and the Jewish God? Jacob i loved, Esau i hated? because Jews don't believe in Gods full redemption plan, and how he revealed his love to all mankind through Jesus they have no reason to believe he loves all. this is modern Judaism for you. in Ancient Judaism, God showed his love for the nations through one nation, Israel; surely you know this being a "Jew" and all. im sure Jewish people wouldnt want someone claiming to be a Jew whilst denying God's existence representing their religion.
all this information you have got is from "moderate" Muslims, or "moderate" Jews. in other words, religous peoples who want to change their religion. it is the same with liberal Christians. they dont like what the Bible says, so they ignore it. of course sinners don't like what the Bible says!
LITERAL OR SYMBOLIC?
heres an english lesson. in the symbolism of revelation, it is obvious (not just because the writer says so) that certain things are representative of other things; for example the representation of Babylon and the prostitute. it is easy to see the comparisons. however in Genesis, what comparison can you have to, "on the ... day God created ..."?
its pretty plain to get what happened. and if you are wondering about the days, which seems to be you're only real problem. it seems that God although he created the world in what is 24 hour days (the days of course Judged by him, not say, the revolving sun) he created it with such skill that it appears to be the result of millions of years of work. and if we were there, would the 24 hour day feel like a 24 hour day? but i know you're not going to get this, so if you still feel like this is the only thing stopping you from judging the Bible as Gods word, let Paul explain on my part.
ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, and the HILARITY of TRYING TO SUGGEST THAT YOU're ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY
the title explains itself.
on GODS FLAWLESSNESS
the Bible says that the Lord is incapable of doing wrong. now i trust the Bible. why do i trust the Bible? two reasons. a) the Holy Spirit gives me faith in it. b) through this faith and logically i can see that God fulfills every single one of his promises and reveals to the eye a completely truthful and flawless God who holds to his word and makes promises in advance so in fulfillment all will see his greatness. i assume that if you understood the magnitude of how God fulfills all his promises that he made thousands of years in advanced you would be impressed. he fulfills ALL, 100% percent. the old Religions died out because the claims their prophets made were never fulfilled, and their gods never revealed themselves. the one true belief in God lasted because he spoke truth through his prophets = they were always fulfilled. he revealed himself in signs and wonders to his people, and he fulfilled his great promise to the world through Jesus. he did this all to show his love to the world.
so just by reading History (inside and outside of the Bible) you can see that God's promises are revealed and fulfilled and indeed, he and he alone is in control of the world. how can you disagree with history?
takkaria, the Bible says evangelism is offensive to non-believers because they dont want the message of Love. let alone, they don't even think it IS a message of Love. i would be lying if i said you weren't screwed without it. the Apostle Paul talks about how we are God's ambassadors sent to "persuade" men to change their ways. the liberal and emerging Church can't "persuade" anyone (this is the Church which you'd like Christians to be like) to become a Christian because they do it like this; they take out anything that offends the hearer so that all they say is "theres no Hell, all that really matter is following the example that Jesus led". thats no reason to believe in God! but of course the non-believer loves this, so then the church becomes a pluralistic convention in way and they threaten to ban Christians who want to preach and heed to the Bible. beware the "moderates".
no one likes to be told that if they keep doing what they're doing they're screwed, we're selfish people. but the person who says that is always speaking out of love and care; so in love and care Christians say to you atheists "why be this way! call upon the Lord and be saved otherwise you'll get the judgement that YOU wanted"
and finally, MORALITY WITHOUT GOD
i think that statement in and of itself is a grand contradiction. because morality without God therefore implies it is infact relative and subjective, which therefore implies it does not exist because ethics held by one individual mean absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things. tell me how ethics can be linked to evolution? your trying to suggesting something as ludicrous as the sky suggesting the way we walk. are you trying to suggest that the soul evolves to decide what was right for itself? if so im not surprised, but a little bit shocked at the selfishness of you ethics. in regards to the Video, where Dawkins talked about how ethics are linked with evolution as in "Nice Guys Finishing First". so is he trying to say that if there were two conflicting tribes, one tribe barbaric and cannibalistic and the other loving little Christian zealots the tribe that would win would be the Christians? is he really that stupid? natural selection cant be based on morality, it defies the whole definition of "natural" and "selection" and why it happens.
either way what gives us the belief that killing our own race is wrong? because it doesnt "benefit" the human race? rubbish, i can think of killing many people which would benefit the human race on a completely selfish level. population problems are one of the biggest threats to the human race. or is it because man was created in the image of God, and we can't bare facing up to that. i can find fault in the benefit of the human race (especially when you put this rubbish in about homosexuality being compatible with it - another considerable contradiction) but i can find no fault with us being made in God's image and that answer the question of where does morality come from. can't you see that if we followed God's law in the Old Testament, there would be no sin in the world? but the thing is, its impossible! man is not that good, its like asking a horse to be a mouse. not possible! and God knew this, so he could show how good he is, through Jesus who is God. now through Jesus, and only through him can we have morality, and only because he gives it to us. because true morality is working for Gods good not for our own. because working for our own good creates problems; severes relationship, creates feuds, takes away love and replaces it with greed etc. but when working solely for Gods approval man would live in harmony (even though it in and of itself is impossible, for we are naturally sinners). and it is this way that we are naturally sinners, that God shows his love to us by dying for us when we didn't deserve it.
to sum up, Morality without God is to take the definition of ethics out of being ethical. do you think humans know what is good for other humans and what is not? why would there be war in the world and why would it always be sad and painful if morality is determined by the individual. you are left with your finger on nothing, and nothing to refer to. you can't link it with evolution, because i can see looking over history; man has always been the same, and always will be. observation! you obviously live in some kind of alternate universe.
good to see although you may have read it, you have not responded to the paragraph where i told you the gospel (not that i havent said it here). likewise, if you don't respond to that paragraph and tell me if there is any fault there, i see no reason why this conversation should continue.
but still i pray, that God will open your eyes. because only in him is there salvation, and only in him can your questions be answered.
EDIT: Judaism without Jesus = unloving God. because he doesn't fulfill his promises of loving the whole world. you're not even a Jew (you don't even believe in God therefore making it impossible), don't get offended and stop being so nominal.
regarding Jomo. the talmud was made up by Jews in reaction to the inclusion of Gods plan of gentiles recieving his Grace through Jesus. it was an obvious effort to make Judaism "popular" again. But in truth, without Jesus, God is a liar and therefore does not exist. maybe thats why you dont believe in him. cos you ignore Jesus.