Are you an atheist? (41 Viewers)

[Alc]

I calls 'em as I sees 'em. Especially in regards to a consistent and long-standing pattern of behavior.

Well, I'm in a good mood, so I shall give the benefit of the doubt.
(Besides, being nice is the Christian thing to do )

 

[Frothingslosh]

Well, I'm in a good mood, so I shall give the benefit of the doubt.
(Besides, being nice is the Christian thing to do )

Point.

Honestly, my big problem today is probably that I'm just in a crappy mood. Sudden, unanticipated transmission failures can do that to a person.

 

[Alc]

Honestly, my big problem today is probably that I'm just in a crappy mood. Sudden, unanticipated transmission failures can do that to a person.

Transmission as in car, radio, or data?

 

[Frothingslosh]

Car. Mine suddenly developed a deep and abiding dislike for shifting out of first gear this morning.

 

[Alc]

Pain in the neck. I'm already dreading the Winter drive to work.

 

[Libre]

Evolution of the species is antithetical to the word of God. Rem, all the animals on land (ALL of them) was made on the sixth day with Man being last on that list. Yes, there are mutations, and changes in a species on a small scale, but nothing that would suggest that man came from a monkey or birds came from Dinosaurs. Except there were some birds that were dinosaurs .....several of them from what I rem.

Blade - you just laid out the whole basis for evolution
Mutations.
Small changes over time accumulate.
Generation after generation.
Some changes are adaptive under certain circumstances - and not others.
The adaptive changes persist and are passed on
The maladaptive changed die with their host individual.
That's evolution.
***********

Oh, come on Libre,,,, you running around in left field here. you compare a war to a ball game. You know what is good and evil.!

I'm not comparing war to a baseball game.
I have seen athletes cross themselves before an at bat and praise Jesus when they do well. You said all struggles come down to good and evil. The ball players take it seriously enough. Of course it's ludicrous.

And no I do NOT know what's good and evil. Everything depends on circumstances and perspective. Nothing is absolute in my world.

 

[Bladerunner]

So is that what it actually says, that she all-of-a-sudden lusted after it, as opposed to seeing it for a while and being curious, then being coaxed into it by a serpent?

For the sake of argument, let's say that actually happened. There have been times when I - out of the blue - suddenly really fancy a particular food or drink. Is that always the devil causing my cravings?
If it isn't on at least some occasions, then that disproves the idea that it can only happen if the devil makes it so.
If it IS him doing it, what does he gain from making me want the odd ice cream? And they say God works in mysterious ways.

Alc,,,like some people would say that is the Devil coming out in you.....LOL....Oh,me...enough of that.......Just pull up Genesis 3 KJV and read about the first 6 or 7verses..I guarantee it will not hurt you or anything.

I am a little leery of placing a large amount of scripture on line. I already have everybody mad at me don't want them to ban me from the site.

Pay special attention to the 'it was pleasant to the eyes'...... There is a passage in Rev. that says that same thing in it. . When these phrases are in here two or more times, usually it means the phrase actually has a different meaning than what it appears to in the original verse. It is the way this book was designed. It is not just a book full of just stories.

Does that make sense to you??

have a good day.

Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

In which case it goes from a sudden intense craving for fresh fruit - which, in and of itself isn't proof of the Devil's existence - to seeing a piece of fruit on a daily basis and fancying a bite.

Alc, they were in paradise, wanting for nothing and God told them not to eat from it. along came the snake and tempted her and.......? you decide??

I understand,,,just joking with you,,,,it is an old good natured saying around here. Almost 'Like the devil is in the details' sort of thing.

The devil is real, The snake had been taken over by this fallen angel (Lucifer) and God condemned it for the rest of eternity. Having said that, he did have two of each animal including the snakes on the ark, I guess to torment us until the end.

Have a good day.

Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

Now THAT I can believe. Whenever my wife feels like a piece of cake, I usually get bought one, so she can feel less guilty. Yet to happen with an apple, though


Let's be nice and say 'exaggeration'. After all, he did admit the error.

Alc, I think I said, it was my opinion and it is. OK,,,,,,Hope you don't throw me out... here it is.....
Genesis
3 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

My focus is on the 6 verse where she saw the tree was good for food and it was pleasant to her eyes.

She had seen this very tree how many times before, and never did consider it was good for food...what change here, He did not tell her it was good for food. But what is more disturbing is the next part of the sentence 'and she saw it was pleasant to the eyes' What did this have to do with eating the apple...She had seen it many times before,,,what changed.........in her eyes in order to make her stomach crave the apple.?????? She ate the apple because she craved it,,,WHY? what changed.

OH, well, I am still researching the other verse in Rev.

More to the point, what do you all think.

have a great day......

Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

Evolution of the species is antithetical to the word of God. Rem, all the animals on land (ALL of them) was made on the sixth day with Man being last on that list. Yes, there are mutations, and changes in a species on a small scale, but nothing that would suggest that man came from a monkey or birds came from Dinosaurs. Except there were some birds that were dinosaurs .....several of them from what I rem.

[\Quote]
Blade - you just laid out the whole basis for evolution
Mutations.
Small changes over time accumulate.
Generation after generation.
Some changes are adaptive under certain circumstances - and not others.
The adaptive changes persist and are passed on
The maladaptive changed die with their host individual.
That's evolution.
***********

Oh, come on Libre,,,, you running around in left field here. you compare a war to a ball game. You know what is good and evil.!

[\QUOTE]
I'm not comparing war to a baseball game.
I have seen athletes cross themselves before an at bat and praise Jesus when they do well. You said all struggles come down to good and evil. The ball players take it seriously enough. Of course it's ludicrous.

And no I do NOT know what's good and evil. Everything depends on circumstances and perspective. Nothing is absolute in my world.

Hey Libre....

Ah but that was not the original use of evolution when Darwin started it off in the 1950(s)?????sorry from memory.

His theory was an animal come out of the ocean and over time this would split into other animals and maybe finally us. That has been debunked big-time.

There are mutation (if you want to call them evolution ok), lets take Staphylococcus Aureus. A bad organism. Now over time, this bacteria has mutated to be resistance to certain antibiotics. The ones that mutate to the Methycillin variety.are very dangerous and kill many people. Yes, they have changed but they have not changed to another species and never will.

second, there was not enough time for them to evolve.. Any land animals have only been around about 6-7,000 years depending on when God made them on the last day.

I think the ballplayers are pointing to God and thanking him for giving them the strength for getting the job done. I also pray each day thanking him for giving me the strength and wisdom to get through my day. Yes, I believe I do gain strength from him, Now the wisdom, I am not so sure of,,,you see I am here talking to you'll out there. LOL


Have a great day

Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

Car. Mine suddenly developed a deep and abiding dislike for shifting out of first gear this morning.

stupid question but have you checked the trans fluid in it. If it is low, the shifting component will be affected.

Blade

 

[Libre]

Froth-
Why not just pray that the transmission just gets itself fixed? That oughta to it.

 

[Frothingslosh]

stupid question but have you checked the trans fluid in it. If it is low, the shifting component will be affected.

Blade

Dude, you think I didn't think of that? I may not be your age, but I've still been around the block for a few decades.

It's an old transmission on an old vehicle and has been 'going out' for years.

'Going' just became 'went'.

My description earlier of what happened was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. The actual event was rather more involved and was most DECIDEDLY the transmission failing. It happened to me once before twenty years ago, so I know the signs, and my mechanic confirmed it for me once he had a chance to look at it (along with giving me an I-told-you-so because he's been warning me about it for a couple years now).

Why not just pray that the transmission just gets itself fixed? That oughta to it.

Good call!

 

[dan-cat]

Ah but that was not the original use of evolution when Darwin started it off in the 1950(s)?????sorry from memory.

WTF?!?!

 

[mariner1969]

I was an agnostic bordering on atheist for most of my younger years...from 18-34. Originally raised Catholic, I took the theory of evolution because, at first glance, it made sense. I began to have doubts when science could not explain subjects like irreducible complexity or the fossil gap.
Then I was introduced to the quantum physics field of study and I began to believe that there is a power much higher than ourselves. A designer. We as humans are more complex than all of the other animals on the planet..with much yet to learn. And the hyper-complexity of the universe coupled with spooky physics (the quantum eraser, delayed choice reaction, the double slit experiment, quantum entanglement) cries for a designer.

As a wanna be budding science geek, and theologian, that once mocked both Bible thumpers and the Geek alike, I was asked a question that has brought me to question absolutes.

Your belief (in this subject) in science based on theoretic evidence. So let's say that there is a 50% chance that it is right. So that means that there is a chance that it is also 50% wrong. As a scientist, why then would you discount that 50% wrong because it based on religious faith. In other words...you are half right that there may be no heaven or hell and that belief in both science and religion keeps you safe, as you can keep your theories and your belief in a higher power. But denying one based on a 50% probability can lead to an eternity of suffering.

Like law, evidence is that only what you are allowed to see. If your judgement is made on incomplete evidence...how can you be sure that you are making the decision that is best for you.

Just thoughts guys!

 

[spikepl]

#5445 Explaining complexity with something even more complex is contrary to the ways of science. And this even more complex complexity then becomes the irrational and the irrefutable and the unarguable, a.k.a. faith.

Oh yeah. This "complexity" is still behind - created the world as we know it yet doesn't have a talkshow, facebook or 1-800, some old-women's tales only. Stunning evidence, really

 

[Rabbie]

I was an agnostic bordering on atheist for most of my younger years...from 18-34. Originally raised Catholic, I took the theory of evolution because, at first glance, it made sense. I began to have doubts when science could not explain subjects like irreducible complexity or the fossil gap.
Then I was introduced to the quantum physics field of study and I began to believe that there is a power much higher than ourselves. A designer. We as humans are more complex than all of the other animals on the planet..with much yet to learn. And the hyper-complexity of the universe coupled with spooky physics (the quantum eraser, delayed choice reaction, the double slit experiment, quantum entanglement) cries for a designer.

As a wanna be budding science geek, and theologian, that once mocked both Bible thumpers and the Geek alike, I was asked a question that has brought me to question absolutes.

Your belief (in this subject) in science based on theoretic evidence. So let's say that there is a 50% chance that it is right. So that means that there is a chance that it is also 50% wrong. As a scientist, why then would you discount that 50% wrong because it based on religious faith. In other words...you are half right that there may be no heaven or hell and that belief in both science and religion keeps you safe, as you can keep your theories and your belief in a higher power. But denying one based on a 50% probability can lead to an eternity of suffering.

Like law, evidence is that only what you are allowed to see. If your judgement is made on incomplete evidence...how can you be sure that you are making the decision that is best for you.

Just thoughts guys!

And I am afraid not very helpful ones. Your whole argument is based on your 50% probability claim and you produce no evidence for this figure. It just seems to be a number plucked out of the air. IMO science that can predict what will happen in particular circumstances is more than 50% percent right regardless of whether there is a higher power or not. If there is a higher designer (which I don't accept) then it would be perverse if the science was wrong.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Mariner - both "Irreducible Complexity" and "Fossil Gap" arguments have been debunked.

If your judgement is made on incomplete evidence...how can you be sure that you are making the decision that is best for you.

Because scientific methods exist to allow a little thing called "extrapolation" to fill in gaps. If you can build a scientific model that allows you to predict what happens when you run into a gap and your prediction, when followed forward, rejoins known reality, then you have bridged the gap. For the "Fossil Gap" argument, that usually turns out to fixable by looking at specific genetic marker changes based on known mechanisms of mutation. That's why we talk about having 98% identical genomes to the apes, who are our evolutionary cousins. (We both descended/diverged from hominids.) Also, don't forget that fossils are available based on where the animals fell. If they died on incompatible soil, their bones didn't fossilize. If they fell where other predators could get to them, they were perhaps carried off and their bones were cracked open to get to the marrow inside - a delicacy for predators. Therefore, saying that we are "missing fossil Y" in the X-Y-Z sequence only REALLY means we haven't found an example of Y yet. It is a diversion off topic, but only this morning I read an article in which satellite images from 430 miles up in space over Khazakhstan were used to identify a work of Man from 7,000-8,000 years ago, mounds placed to form a 900-yard box with an X in it. The theory is that it was a primitive type of observatory. Back to the point - if we are still finding things on the surface of the planet in 2015, why do you think we should have found all the fossils in existence?

Irreducible complexity only means that the person claiming the irreducibility cannot himself / herself do the reduction - but others can and frequently DO manage to show the path from point A to point B. In essence, I can counter ANY claim of irreducible complexity simply by pointing out the arrogance of the claimant. They are saying, in essence, "If I can't figure this out, it must be irreducible." But the history of science is filled with examples of someone coming along a few years after some baffling result and fully explaining it.

Quantum physics doesn't necessarily point to a higher power - but if it does point somewhere, it points to randomness. If you want to say that "God plays with dice" (mirroring the Einstein complaint to Robert Oppenheimer), you blow up the entire concept of "God has a plan" unless, of course, you allow God to cheat at dice.

Those things you mentioned regarding hyper-complexity do NOT (categorically DO NOT) call out for a designer. They call out for experiments, thought, and detachment. If you bring your designer concept to the table, your detachment is totally gone already because you have brought along baggage that might not be compatible (might not? Try damned nearly certainly not compatible) with the field you are studying.

In a sense, I will have to (gently) chastise you. For you to say that these distractions like the fossil gap, ideas of irreducible complexity, quantum entanglement, and similar phenomena have caused you to think you can't solve the problems is EXACTLY THE SAME as someone saying that the inconsistencies, cruelty, and other factors in the Bible plus the apparent abandonment of Man by God cause them to lose faith. Either way, you got where you did because you didn't think you could live with the alternatives. It matters not whether your faith in science or your faith in God was what was shaken.

I said "gentle" chastisement because in fact I am one whose faith in God was shaken by the inconsistencies of the reality that I saw vs. the claims made in the Bible. I cannot actually excoriate you for losing faith in science, can I? Because in that sense, we BOTH have lost faith - but in different senses of the term.

Like law, evidence is that only what you are allowed to see.

Nope, don't work that way. Law defines multiple types of evidence including direct evidence (testimony), physical evidence (forensics), etc. Evidentiary exclusion (to define what your allowed to see) isn't about whether the evidence is relevant or suitable for forming conclusions. It is about whether due process of law was followed when gathering it. The idea of "due process" works for science, too. If you do a crap experiment, you'll get crap results, but don't expect a Nobel Prize for your work. That's why we scientists have this little concept called "Peer Review."

Mariner, believe as you wish. I know I shall do so.

 

[Libre]

Your belief (in this subject) in science based on theoretic evidence. So let's say that there is a 50% chance that it is right. So that means that there is a chance that it is also 50% wrong. As a scientist, why then would you discount that 50% wrong because it based on religious faith. In other words...you are half right that there may be no heaven or hell and that belief in both science and religion keeps you safe, as you can keep your theories and your belief in a higher power. But denying one based on a 50% probability can lead to an eternity of suffering.

The probabilities don't affect your argument, it seems to me. In some sense, there is a 50/50 probability of any occurrence happening or not happening. There are only two outcomes - something will happen or it won't happen.

The scientific method does not eliminate possibilities until it arrives at the one and only explanation. What it does is seek to find the MOST probable explanation of phenomena. Observations are made, questions are asked, hypotheses are postulated, experiments are done, evidence is accumulated, and finally, a theory is advanced. The theory is tested over and over, it is refined and improved, until it explains more or assumes less, and after all that, we can say, we think we know a little something about how this phenomenon occurs, and we think we can predict with SOME confidence how certain events would play out in the future, under certain conditions.

And that's IT. There is ALWAYS the chance that a better theory, one that explains more or assumes less, will be advanced and either modifies the former theory or blows it away completely.

There is no DEFINITE PROOF in the REAL world. There are logical proofs and there are mathematical proofs - which are systems devised by the human mind. Outside of that, there is no absolute certainty of anything.

So scientists (and other critical thinkers) look at the theories and explanations and form a conditional opinion - always ready to learn more. Theologians and devout religious types just bypass all this troublesome work and chalk it all up to "God's plan". No amount of experimentation, truth-seeking, or new knowledge can shake their faith - they pride themselves on how unshakeable their faith is.

This is the model that some of our more devout members follow. They may say that Darwin did not explain how life sprang into being in the first place. They may look at a few outliers where the theory does not fit as well - and then say that his whole theory of evolution "has been debunked". In fact there are very few theories that are as widely accepted, by most rational thinkers the world over, from geneticists to biologists, to just about anybody that will not accept supernatural, mystical, or religious explanations. The holes that exist in any scientific theory or explanation (there is, as yet, no acceptable "Theory of Everything") are used to discredit the knowledge that has actually been gained. It can all be chalked up to God's Plan. Those of us with curiosity and a healthy sense of skepticism just won't accept this easy and always available explanation, because it explains exactly nothing.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Ah but that was not the original use of evolution when Darwin started it off in the 1950(s)?????sorry from memory.

WTF?!?!

Holy shit, good catch.

As if we didn't already know he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about....