PDA

View Full Version : Richard Dawkins: Archpriest of Atheistic Darwinism Misspeaks????


Valentine One Radar Detector

ColleenC2
05-28-2008, 12:32 PM
Richard Dawkins the Archpriest of Atheistic Darwinism stated on the new movie "Expelled" that if one "looks at the details of Bio-Chemistry, molecular chemistry one can find a signature of some sort designer".... "that could well be a Higher Intelligence"

Is it possible that Dawkins doesn't believe his own crap, that he thinks that Intelligent Design is a "legitamate pursuit", that there could be a higher Intelligence.

Wel,l even if he does, he is so vested in Atheistic Darwinism that for him to keep the money flowing to his pocket book he would be forced to keep up his charades.

Or he could flip to Aliens and say that they were that Higher Intelligence!

Disco Man
05-28-2008, 01:08 PM
The simple fact of stopping and stepping back then looking with an open mind, and seeing the sky, trees, grass, and all the majesty the only conclusion is that everything had to be created by a "Higher Being". If one seeks the truth they will discover God exists and is the creator of the universe and beyond.

In my experience most people who say they don't believe in God, usually are angry at God. It's very rare when you run into an atheist who truly does not believe in God. That's my take.

TC
05-28-2008, 01:16 PM
The simple fact of stopping and stepping back then looking with an open mind, and seeing the sky, trees, grass, and all the majesty the only conclusion is that everything had to be created by a "Higher Being". If one seeks the truth they will discover God exists and is the creator of the universe and beyond.

In my experience most people who say they don't believe in God, usually are angry at God. It's very rare when you run into an atheist who truly does not believe in God. That's my take.


Does anyone have an explanation of where God came from, or is God like Topsy - who just growed?

ColleenC2
05-28-2008, 01:37 PM
For God to be THE GOD, it is or has to be as it is written, "I AM"

If God was created than he cannot be the Creator!

So the Answer does not beg the question of where did GOD come from

Ken
05-28-2008, 01:47 PM
The simple fact of stopping and stepping back then looking with an open mind, and seeing the sky, trees, grass, and all the majesty the only conclusion is that everything had to be created by a "Higher Being". If one seeks the truth they will discover God exists and is the creator of the universe and beyond.

In my experience most people who say they don't believe in God, usually are angry at God. It's very rare when you run into an atheist who truly does not believe in God. That's my take.


Does anyone have an explanation of where God came from, or is God like Topsy - who just growed?


My guess is that idea of 'Gods' was propounded by those who, in the early days of civilisation and in the absence of greater wisdom, sought to explain what they saw around them whilst gaining social status. I have never yet come across a single piece of evidence to suggest to me that there is such an entity. Yes, there may be other greater civilisations out there in the vast space we call the universe, greater intellects, more advanced and more civilised - so what, that is no reason to worship them. My take is that religion is a false comfort for those who cannot accept that they, and only they, can effectively run their lives, a refuge of the indoctrinated, and a money making scam for those who recognise the gullibility of such people. I have no doubt in my mind that there are millions of people who would willingly beome 'High Priests' of anything for a guaranteed tithe.

Ken.

Disco Man
05-28-2008, 01:59 PM
My guess is that idea of 'Gods' was propounded by those who, in the early days of civilisation and in the absence of greater wisdom, sought to explain what they saw around them whilst gaining social status. I have never yet come across a single piece of evidence to suggest to me that there is such an entity. Yes, there may be other greater civilisations out there in the vast space we call the universe, greater intellects, more advanced and more civilised - so what, that is no reason to worship them. My take is that religion is a false comfort for those who cannot accept that they, and only they, can effectively run their lives, a refuge of the indoctrinated, and a money making scam for those who recognise the gullibility of such people. I have no doubt in my mind that there are millions of people who would willingly beome 'High Priests' of anything for a guaranteed tithe.

Ken.


However in your scenario who made the grass, trees, sky, etc. that you see? Somebody had to create it all.

ColleenC2
05-28-2008, 02:30 PM
My take is that religion is a false comfort

I have a problem when people use the word religion as I am not sure if they are talking about the church doctrine and practices or people that believe in God.

I have copied and pasted the dictionaries definition, so pick which definition you are referring to so that the dialogue reflects what you are saying this will help out in the discussion. Please

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.


I am usually referring to the first definition yet not the latter part of #1

Ken
05-28-2008, 02:31 PM
Pete wrote;

However in your scenario who made the grass, trees, sky, etc. that you see? Somebody had to create it all.

Why? Things evolve, simple life can be created by a mixture of chemicals and electricity. Things evolve, evolution is a natural process. To me the biggest mystery is what was there before 'big bang' but this is a purely scientific curiosity. If something/someone did actually seed this earth all those countless millenia ago, long before the dinosaurs roamed the earth, when the first elements of primitive, single celled, life came into being, can you offer one logical reason why that entity shoud be called a 'God' or worshipped. All it would be is an entity more advanced than us, not a god. Let us assume that, infinite years ago, some celestial being said 'Hey, I'm going to create another planet - lookee there, I'll call it Earth' then when the ball of molten rock, minerals, dust and lava had sufficiently cooled said 'Know what?, I'm going to create life (but not as we know it) on that there planet.' Even if that actually happened - likely story - then where did that celestial being come from - did he worship? and if so, what?

I will offer you one proposal though, Pete - God explained would be God destroyed. In the meantime I am happy with my life, no one except myself can make it better or worse. No one other than myself can control my destiny. My life is MINE, I need no gods. I do, however wholeheartedly accept that there are those who need to believe and need to have the belief in a higher power and an afterlife - whatever rocks your boat, believe and go in peace.

Ken.

Disco Man
05-28-2008, 02:42 PM
Why? Things evolve, simple life can be created by a mixture of chemicals and electricity. Things evolve, evolution is a natural process. To me the biggest mystery is what was there before 'big bang' but this is a purely scientific curiosity. If something/someone did actually seed this earth all those countless millenia ago, long before the dinosaurs roamed the earth, when the first elements of primitive, single celled, life came into being, can you offer one logical reason why that entity shoud be called a 'God' or worshipped. All it would be is an entity more advanced than us, not a god. Let us assume that, infinite years ago, some celestial being said 'Hey, I'm going to create another planet - lookee there, I'll call it Earth' then when the ball of molten rock, minerals, dust and lava had sufficiently cooled said 'Know what?, I'm going to create life (but not as we know it) on that there planet.' Even if that actually happened - likely story - then where did that celestial being come from - did he worship? and if so, what?

I will offer you one proposal though, Pete - God explained would be God destroyed. In the meantime I am happy with my life, no one except myself can make it better or worse. No one other than myself can control my destiny. My life is MINE, I need no gods. I do, however wholeheartedly accept that there are those who need to believe and need to have the belief in a higher power and an afterlife - whatever rocks your boat, believe and go in peace.

Ken.


And what do you think happens when you die?

And about life beginning with a "mixture of chemicals and electricity", who created the chemical makeup and power to generate the electricity? If I told you - that I push the ignition on a bike and it just starts and that's it there's nothing behind it. You know that there are many factors causing that engine to fire up like fuel, air, and spark. Behind the wonders of creation is a the "Master Creator" - God.

ColleenC2
05-28-2008, 02:48 PM
Ken, the point with the Bio-Chemistry and Molecular Chemistry has shown that their is no such thing as a "single cell", that as science is able to go deeper and deeper into the molecular structure of cells we find a very complex mechanism or the agency or means by which an effect is produced or a purpose is accomplished and that is what Dawkins was stated as having a signature of some designer -- higher intelligence.

Let us assume that, infinite years ago, some celestial being said 'Hey, I'm going to create another planet - lookee there, I'll call it Earth' then when the ball of molten rock, minerals, dust and lava had sufficiently cooled said 'Know what?, I'm going to create life (but not as we know it) on that there planet.' Even if that actually happened - likely story - then where did that celestial being come from - did he worship? and if so, what?


Is that easier for you to believe??? If there were "celestial beings" then by virtue of the Definition of God he created those, he created ALL things, he created the Heavens and the Earth, the Definition of God is that he existed before there was anything.

I will offer you one proposal though, Pete - God explained would be God destroyed. In the meantime I am happy with my life, no one except myself can make it better or worse. No one other than myself can control my destiny. My life is MINE, I need no gods. I do, however wholeheartedly accept that there are those who need to believe and need to have the belief in a higher power and an afterlife - whatever rocks your boat, believe and go in peace.


Egotism and Egoism is the greatest Religion today. What better way to make oneself important than to equate oneself as god.

Disco Man
05-28-2008, 02:59 PM
Colleen,

Very well said!

Ken
05-28-2008, 03:10 PM
I have a problem when people use the word religion as I am not sure if they are talking about the church doctrine and practices or people that believe in God.

I have copied and pasted the dictionaries definition, so pick which definition you are referring to so that the dialogue reflects what you are saying this will help out in the discussion. Please

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.


I am usually referring to the first definition yet not the latter part of #1


Religion, to me, is a belief in a God, the worship of that God, the acceptance of the (in)doctrination of the church that represents that God and the acceptance of the whole plethora of totally unprovable tenets of that particular belief. I accept that such beliefs can give some people comfort and solace, but, to me, that is false comfort based on a totally unsupportable premise. The act of living a 'good' life, helping those who need help, being a good neighbour, treating others as one would wish to be treated, etc., these are nothing to do with religion, these are a matter of simple humanity.

Ken.

Ken
05-28-2008, 03:33 PM
Let us assume that, infinite years ago, some celestial being said 'Hey, I'm going to create another planet - lookee there, I'll call it Earth' then when the ball of molten rock, minerals, dust and lava had sufficiently cooled said 'Know what?, I'm going to create life (but not as we know it) on that there planet.' Even if that actually happened - likely story - then where did that celestial being come from - did he worship? and if so, what?

Is that easier for you to believe???

It is certainly easier for me to consider than the existence of a supreme being.


Egotism and Egoism is the greatest Religion today. What better way to make oneself important than to equate oneself as god.

Why on earth should I, for example, want to equate myself to, what is to me, a non-existent myth? There are those who believe and those who do not. The act of believing does not make one any better or worse than one who does not believe. The only thing that matters is how we live our lives in relation to those persons and other lifeforms around us. When I die, I die, all I hope is that I will have lived my life in such a manner that someone will be able to, honestly,say 'He was a good man.' to me there would be no greater accolade and religion would play no part in it.

This is a discussion that could go on forever. There is no way my beliefs (formed in my pre-teens and hardened over some seventy years) will be shaken and it is obvious that your feelings are the same about your beliefs. Let us agree to disagree. Incidentally, many years ago I went through a series of meetings with a pair of Mormon Elders. Much to my surprise the senior Elder said that, although they had not shaken my beliefs, I had made them revisit theirs. Our last evening together involved no theological discussion - we just sat and listened to the wonderful sound of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.

Ken.

Disco Man
05-28-2008, 03:42 PM
Religion, to me, is a belief in a God, the worship of that God, the acceptance of the (in)doctrination of the church that represents that God and the acceptance of the whole plethora of totally unprovable tenets of that particular belief. I accept that such beliefs can give some people comfort and solace, but, to me, that is false comfort based on a totally unsupportable premise. The act of living a 'good' life, helping those who need help, being a good neighbour, treating others as one would wish to be treated, etc., these are nothing to do with religion, these are a matter of simple humanity.



Why is there a need to be a good person, if there is no God, heaven, or hell?

Ken
05-28-2008, 04:00 PM
Religion, to me, is a belief in a God, the worship of that God, the acceptance of the (in)doctrination of the church that represents that God and the acceptance of the whole plethora of totally unprovable tenets of that particular belief. I accept that such beliefs can give some people comfort and solace, but, to me, that is false comfort based on a totally unsupportable premise. The act of living a 'good' life, helping those who need help, being a good neighbour, treating others as one would wish to be treated, etc., these are nothing to do with religion, these are a matter of simple humanity.



Why is there a need to be a good person, if there is no God, heaven, or hell?


There is no NEED, as I said, it is a matter of simple humanity, one either considers one's fellows or one doesn't. For the sake of societal security we have a series of man made rules, laws and conventions, religion does not need to enter the discussion.

Ken.

ColleenC2
05-28-2008, 04:00 PM
Why is there a need to be a good person, if there is no God, heaven, or hell?

Excellent point, Pete.

I am struggling to add even the next level (as I do not know the psyche of the people on this site) but...

Why is there a need to live, why not just commit suicide....., why struggle for years with people, bills, relationships etc.., if there is no God why put the time here on earth??? For what?

Eric
05-28-2008, 04:26 PM
The simple fact of stopping and stepping back then looking with an open mind, and seeing the sky, trees, grass, and all the majesty the only conclusion is that everything had to be created by a "Higher Being". If one seeks the truth they will discover God exists and is the creator of the universe and beyond.

In my experience most people who say they don't believe in God, usually are angry at God. It's very rare when you run into an atheist who truly does not believe in God. That's my take.


I, too, am struck by the majesty of our universe and all it contains. But (to me) it doesn't necessarily follow that there is a being who created it, much less any of the specific beings described by the world's various religions.

We all have to grapple with the question of existence, what we think will happen after we die, whether consciousness continues - and so on. However, it seems to me that it is self-evident that no one can claim to know what happens after we die, whether there is a god - and if there is, what this being wants from us. We can have opinions and beliefs and intuitions, etc.

But not knowledge.

My only real problem religions is when they claim certainty - a lock on "the truth." Down that road lies dogma, irrationality - and worse.

Absent verifiable evidence, facts and so on to support a claim - any claim - it is no more than someone's opinion and no more valid than any other opinion on the subject.

That said, I hold the same view of atheism - because atheism claims there is no god or existence beyond what we can see with the same degree of certainty and absolutism that characterizes some religious belief. (I am inclined to believe that atheists are right ... but I can't go so far as to say I know they are.)

People should chill out - leave matters of the spirit to each individual's private conscience - and accept with humility that others may have different (and equally valid) beliefs than we have.

Live - and let live.

None of us will know until we die - and so far, no one has reported back! ::)

Ken
05-28-2008, 04:29 PM
Why is there a need to be a good person, if there is no God, heaven, or hell?

Excellent point, Pete.

I am struggling to add even the next level (as I do not know the psyche of the people on this site) but...

Why is there a need to live, why not just commit suicide....., why struggle for years with people, bills, relationships etc.., if there is no God why put the time here on earth??? For what?


why not just commit suicide? - some do some don't, Colleen.

Why struggle for years with people. bills, relationships? - life is a rich and varied experience, I just make the most of everything I have worked for, life is for living and enjoying. (If you don't enjoy it why not opt out - see previous question, it is a matter of ones mental strength).

...why put the time on earth? - Well I didn't ask to be born, but I was, therefore for the time I have I shall make the most of it. My highlight of yesterday was comforting an elderly lady neighbour, who is suffering severe tinnitus, and getting her doorbell working again. Today I have spent far too long on this computer but, hey, it is a miserable wet rainy day. Tomorrow we may go to Boston, in the evening I shall probably go out on my 'bike for a ride over the route for next Monday's club run with the other Lead Riders. Friday? - shopping and getting ready for Saturdays trip. Saturday Diane and I are going down South for my mother's 95th birthday, a joyous occasion, we shall take her out to lunch with my brother and his wife, watch her open her presents and share her pleasure - what better way to spend a day? Sunday I shall be on the club stand at the Lincoln BIG Bike Fest helping raise funds for our favourite charity. All simple things but all giving pleasure to both me, my friends and my family, yep, life is good.

Ken.

ColleenC2
05-28-2008, 04:48 PM
Today I have spent far too long on this computer but, hey, it is a miserable wet rainy day.

Well, I appreciate your time and input. I too this week have spent far too much time on the computer as well, but I have been on bed rest for the past week and will be until Friday (hopefully).

I much prefer getting out

Ken
05-28-2008, 05:25 PM
Colleen wrote;
Well, I appreciate your time and input. I too this week have spent far too much time on the computer as well, but I have been on bed rest for the past week and will be until Friday (hopefully).

I much prefer getting out

Not long to go now, Colleen. Hopefully next week you will be fully back on your feet, the sun will be shining and the world will be waiting for you just outside the door.

Ken.

misterdecibel
05-28-2008, 09:18 PM
Richard Dawkins the Archpriest of Atheistic Darwinism stated on the new movie "Expelled" that if one "looks at the details of Bio-Chemistry, molecular chemistry one can find a signature of some sort designer".... "that could well be a Higher Intelligence"

Is it possible that Dawkins doesn't believe his own crap, that he thinks that Intelligent Design is a "legitamate pursuit", that there could be a higher Intelligence.

Wel,l even if he does, he is so vested in Atheistic Darwinism that for him to keep the money flowing to his pocket book he would be forced to keep up his charades.

Or he could flip to Aliens and say that they were that Higher Intelligence!




I've read and heard enough of Dawkins' work to seriously doubt that he said that, at least in the context in which it is reported here. Unless he prefaced the comment with "Some might say that..."

ColleenC2
05-28-2008, 10:00 PM
I've read and heard enough of Dawkins' work to seriously doubt that he said that, at least in the context in which it is reported here. Unless he prefaced the comment with "Some might say that..."'


Absolutely, he said it, sorry but it is the truth. He has since tried to explain away his comment in that he was "tricked", he did not know that he was talking with Ben Stein who was making a documentary about creationism.

Whether he knew that he was talking to Ben Stein as an economists and/or chit chatting about intelligent design or not, his statement is in context with the discussion and he stated it........ Who is the wizard behind the curtain?..... looks like with Richard Dawkins the curtain was pulled back

but as I first posted even if he truly believes that a signature of a designer is evident in the molecular cell structure doesn't really matter in that he gets his money from peddling atheistic darwinism

ColleenC2
05-28-2008, 10:05 PM
BTW you can google the fire storm

Disco Man
05-28-2008, 11:18 PM
I am struggling to add even the next level (as I do not know the psyche of the people on this site) but...

Why is there a need to live, why not just commit suicide....., why struggle for years with people, bills, relationships etc.., if there is no God why put the time here on earth??? For what?


Very good point. The key is we struggle in this life for a reward in the next, as you mentioned.

Disco Man
05-28-2008, 11:22 PM
None of us will know until we die - and so far, no one has reported back! ::)



However there are numerous death experiences where people who have died and left their bodies, and were resuscitated (brought back to life). These people have reported seeing a glimpse of the next life some have even seen dead relatives, angels, saints, etc. Most of these stories fall along the same uniformity. Maybe some of these stories are bogus, but there are just too many to ignore.

misterdecibel
05-29-2008, 03:37 AM
I've read and heard enough of Dawkins' work to seriously doubt that he said that, at least in the context in which it is reported here. Unless he prefaced the comment with "Some might say that..."'


Absolutely, he said it, sorry but it is the truth. He has since tried to explain away his comment in that he was "tricked", he did not know that he was talking with Ben Stein who was making a documentary about creationism.

Whether he knew that he was talking to Ben Stein as an economists and/or chit chatting about intelligent design or not, his statement is in context with the discussion and he stated it........ Who is the wizard behind the curtain?..... looks like with Richard Dawkins the curtain was pulled back

but as I first posted even if he truly believes that a signature of a designer is evident in the molecular cell structure doesn't really matter in that he gets his money from peddling atheistic darwinism


What little of the clip with Dawkins that I've been able to find, you seem to have missed the part where Dawkins said "might".

Eric
05-29-2008, 07:54 AM
None of us will know until we die - and so far, no one has reported back! ::)



However there are numerous death experiences where people who have died and left their bodies, and were resuscitated (brought back to life). These people have reported seeing a glimpse of the next life some have even seen dead relatives, angels, saints, etc. Most of these stories fall along the same uniformity. Maybe some of these stories are bogus, but there are just too many to ignore.


Well, yeah - but there are also stories about anal probing by aliens! ;)Such claims are anecdotal and don't have evidentiary value as such. They're just assertions... . We can accept them (or not). But we can't know they're true in the way that anyone can know for an absolute certainty that 2 plus 2 equals four, that New York City is located at such and such longitude and latitude (and is a real place), that you are Pete Dunton and I am Eric Peters.. etc.

But the larger point (to me) is that we ought not to "package deal" the experiences you relate - by which I mean it does not necessarily follow that because someone believes they saw something during a near-death experience it means the Christian faith is true. Or the Muslim faith. Or any faith.

The earth is mind-bogglingly old... 4.5 billion years. Human beings have existed for more than 100,000 years; recorded history is at least 10,000 years old. Yet according to Christianity (and Islam) god only manifested himself 2,000 years ago (slightly farther back for the Jews) and not to humanity generally but only two a numerically small group of people in just one corner of the world.

That is just one of the many things that strikes me as unreasonable to believe on the face of it.

Eric
05-29-2008, 08:04 AM
I am struggling to add even the next level (as I do not know the psyche of the people on this site) but...

Why is there a need to live, why not just commit suicide....., why struggle for years with people, bills, relationships etc.., if there is no God why put the time here on earth??? For what?


Very good point. The key is we struggle in this life for a reward in the next, as you mentioned.


Just to weigh in with the agnostic point of view on this:

I don't base my actions in this life on any expectations of reward in the next; I behave decently because I'd like to be treated decently myself - and because I realize that it is essential for everyone to play by these rules for civilization to function. If, for example, I were a parent I'd want a stranger to be kind and helpful to my child - just as I would be toward a stranger's child. If I find someon's wallet, I try to find the owner to get it back to him - because I'd very much want the same courtesy to be extended to me.

The usual rejoinder is, well, why not just be a sneaky predator and do what benefits you - and take advantage of the suckers who do play by the rules?

The answer is that only a fool or a sociopath wants to live in an anarchic state of nature where it's expected that everyone will try to screw you over. Trust and fair dealing is the necessary lubricant of civil society; we all benefit.

But it goes deeper than that. Most normal people develop a sense of empathy for others. Simply put, it means we imagine the "other" and what they are feeling, how they'd like to be treated, etc. - if it was us in their shoes.

Religious belief is not necessary to moral conduct - just as religious belief does not automatically make a person moral.

There are millions of good people out there who do not subscribe to any particular religious faith; just as there are many examples of bad (and even outright evil) people who profess religious belief.

Dave Brand
05-29-2008, 08:39 AM
Why is there a need to be a good person, if there is no God, heaven, or hell?


So what you're saying is that the only reason you can find to be a good person is fear of reprisal from your god?

Ken
05-29-2008, 09:04 AM
Why is there a need to be a good person, if there is no God, heaven, or hell?


So what you're saying is that the only reason you can find to be a good person is fear of reprisal from your god?


From what has been said to me during many discussions on this subject, in many cases it would seem that you are not too far from the truth, Dave.

Ken.

Eric
05-29-2008, 09:44 AM
Why is there a need to be a good person, if there is no God, heaven, or hell?


So what you're saying is that the only reason you can find to be a good person is fear of reprisal from your god?


It's an excellent - and subtle - point that the religious often overlook.

How is it moral to behave decently when you are doing so only (or primarily) because you fear punishment or expect some reward in the afterlife? Arguably, the atheist or agnostic who acts decently toward his fellow men (and critters, too!) not out of fear of punishment (or expectation of some pay-off after death) bur rather because he wishes to be kind/considerate toward others out of simple goodwill, etc., is acting on a higher moral plane than the religious person who is only being nice because he fears some divine retribution for doing otherwise (or expects a pay-off in the afterlife).

Eric
05-29-2008, 09:51 AM
"Why is there a need to live, why not just commit suicide....."

Because life is good; because one enjoys one's existence, one's work, one's friends and family... the idea that one has to believe in a Space Ghost of some kind to find meaning, to enjoy this life, has always puzzled me....

"why struggle for years with people, bills, relationships etc.."

Because these things are part of living. And because the alternative - death and nonexistence - is much less appealing.

"if there is no God why put the time here on earth??? For what?"

You are alive; enjoy it and make the most of the time. The fact that you weren't around for Imperial Rome or the Golden Age of Greece or the Middle Ages or any period of history prior to your birth hardly makes the era you happen to be alive to experience right now meaningless. You had no consciousness, no awareness, no individuality prior to your birth; did that cause you to suffer? Why do you suppose it will matter when your consciousness of the future, after your death, will not be any different?

Why do you have to believe in some future state of existence to be happy with your current one? To enjoy and make the best possible use of it?

Disco Man
05-29-2008, 05:53 PM
So what you're saying is that the only reason you can find to be a good person is fear of reprisal from your god?


Everyday is a struggle to choose good over bad. Original sin has put the stain on man, it's both the fear and love of God that has kept many people from doing bad. When they have done bad it has brought them back seeking reconciliation with God.

It's no coincidence that as a society falls away from God, it tends to crumble from immorality. If you take away man's immortal soul, then there really is no difference between a man and animal. An animal does what feels good, with no regard for moral consequences.

Would you say we are a more moral society now in 2008 than say 1958? I would reply no. Are we a more religious society now in 2008 than 1958? I would say certainly not. The trend will continue until there's a movement back to God by the masses, until then the decline of our society will continue.

gail
05-29-2008, 06:36 PM
So what you're saying is that the only reason you can find to be a good person is fear of reprisal from your god?


Everyday is a struggle to choose good over bad. Original sin has put the stain on man, it's both the fear and love of God that has kept many people from doing bad. When they have done bad it has brought them back seeking reconciliation with God.

It's no coincidence that as a society falls away from God, it tends to crumble from immorality. If you take away man's immortal soul, then there really is no difference between a man and animal. An animal does what feels good, with no regard for moral consequences.

Would you say we are a more moral society now in 2008 than say 1958? I would reply no. Are we a more religious society now in 2008 than 1958? I would say certainly not. The trend will continue until there's a movement back to God by the masses, until then the decline of our society will continue.


I agree with you. The immorality shows up in subtile ways - young girls dressing like street-walkers, boys wearing pants hanging off their butts, and being in gangs, Juvenile delinquency rate escalating, rudeness of people, the absence of committment to others. It is a rarity to find a virgin older than 14 years old. A whole generation who believes that waiting for a second date to have sex IS morality.

Are there any blue laws left?

ColleenC2
05-29-2008, 08:11 PM
Would you say we are a more moral society now in 2008 than say 1958? I would reply no. Are we a more religious society now in 2008 than 1958? I would say certainly not. The trend will continue until there's a movement back to God by the masses, until then the decline of our society will continue.

One doesn't need to go back very far in the history of America to see that society has been on a moral decline, since the removal of any mention of God in the public arena.

"A Gathering Storm --- Violent Crime in America"

http://www.policeforum.org/upload/Gathering-Storm-PRINT-Final_110473745_1027200610304.pdf

gail
05-29-2008, 09:49 PM
Why is there a need to be a good person, if there is no God, heaven, or hell?


So what you're saying is that the only reason you can find to be a good person is fear of reprisal from your god?


It's an excellent - and subtle - point that the religious often overlook.

How is it moral to behave decently when you are doing so only (or primarily) because you fear punishment or expect some reward in the afterlife? Arguably, the atheist or agnostic who acts decently toward his fellow men (and critters, too!) not out of fear of punishment (or expectation of some pay-off after death) bur rather because he wishes to be kind/considerate toward others out of simple goodwill, etc., is acting on a higher moral plane than the religious person who is only being nice because he fears some divine retribution for doing otherwise (or expects a pay-off in the afterlife).


If more people feared God, we wouldn't need so many police. If our laws stayed based on the 10 Commandments, we wouldn't be so burden by so many useless laws. If churches were still living the principles of the Bible and taking care of the poor, helpless and widows we wouldn't be paying so much in taxes for welfare programs and schools that was once handled by churches. Prior to government intervention families helped each other too, now they can just go down to the welfare office. Families used to take care of the aged as well, now they stick them in holding coffins called nursing homes.

We sure have come a long way, baby!

Eric
05-30-2008, 07:35 AM
So what you're saying is that the only reason you can find to be a good person is fear of reprisal from your god?


Everyday is a struggle to choose good over bad. Original sin has put the stain on man, it's both the fear and love of God that has kept many people from doing bad. When they have done bad it has brought them back seeking reconciliation with God.

It's no coincidence that as a society falls away from God, it tends to crumble from immorality. If you take away man's immortal soul, then there really is no difference between a man and animal. An animal does what feels good, with no regard for moral consequences.

Would you say we are a more moral society now in 2008 than say 1958? I would reply no. Are we a more religious society now in 2008 than 1958? I would say certainly not. The trend will continue until there's a movement back to God by the masses, until then the decline of our society will continue.





This is an interesting argument - but it is also very general. There are many trends at work in the US that are corrupting the country and turning it into a violent (and depraved) place. But is this due to the decline of religion? (and has religious belief in fact declined?) And is the Christian religion the "key" to it all?

Arguably, religious belief has increased over the past 20 years; the views of very religious people arguably have much more sway over politicians, elections and public policy nowadays than they did in the 1950s or 1960s -when the public sphere was much more secular. (Note for example the way JFK had to go to great lengths to assuage the public that his faith was a private matter. Today, the candidates fall all over each other to tout their faith.)

As far as religion/Christianity in general being essential to a civil, decent, ordered society - what do we make of highly secular European countries such as the Scandinavian countries, Switzerland, etc. that have vastly lower crime, safer streets, more honest governments, etc?

They seem to be doing ok... .

Eric
05-30-2008, 07:45 AM
"If more people feared God, we wouldn't need so many police."

Wouldn't it be better if people "did the right thing" simply because they decided it was the right thing to do - rather than merely abstained from doing the wrong thing out of fear of being punished?

Who would you trust more: Me - an agnostic who doesn't want to kill anyone or steal from people or commit assaults, etc. not because I fear punishment but because such actions disgust me - or a person who lusts to kill, rape and steal but who is fearful of being caught and punished? (Our supermax prisons are full of "saved" murderers and rapists. Want to have one sleepover at your place? As a neighbor?)

"If our laws stayed based on the 10 Commandments, we wouldn't be so burden by so many useless laws."

The Old Testament and its rules are often brutal and arbitrary. Which holy laws will you accept as "righteous"? All of them? Or just the ones you think are ok? Should adulterers be stoned? Witches burned? Disobedient kids executed? And how much should I expect to get in return for my daughter? Etc.

"If churches were still living the principles of the Bible and taking care of the poor, helpless and widows we wouldn't be paying so much in taxes for welfare programs and schools that was once handled by churches."

Many churches are raking in millions (even billions) which instead of spending on the poor and schools they spend on lavish churches and facilities for the clergy. Some churches have enormous wealth, including vast portfolios of real estate and so on. When these churches stop enriching themselves and their clergymen - and actually practice the principles of poverty and selfless giving to those in need that we hear so much about - then I will have more respect for their prattle.

I'd love to see the tax exemptions for these religious frauds stripped away. It makes me sick to see shysters like Pat Robertson, that Hagee fruitcake McCain listens to, Rod Parsley, Benny Hinn, Creflow Dollar - the lot of them - living better than doctors and lawyers on the dime of the morons who send them money to "do the work of the lord."

Yeah... that's the ticket.

grouch
06-03-2008, 11:40 PM
First off, Charles Darwin was not an atheist. He has been chastised for years and words have been added to his mouth that he did not speak by people trying to show how righteous they are personally. Darwin for instance NEVER said Man was descended from Apes. He stated that Man and Apes descended from a common ancestor. I studied his writings in school and didn't agree with all his conclusions but the basis for them seemed to be solid.

Now, I am what is called a "Blue" Lutheran. That's about as conservative theologically as it's possible to get. I have no problems with the observed facts of Evolution. Evolution has been proven as well, if not betther than other scientific positing. In fact, to think that God is involved is not contradicted by evolution. After all, who is to say that evolution isn't the mechanism that God uses to create. The bible states that Man was given dominion over the earth and it's animals. This means to me that Man is the ultimate creation of evolution so far. Perhaps God will become unhappy with Man and create something better that isn't as head strong.

I can think of no way to better give glory to God than to study and try to understand the works of God. In other words, the scientific method. To me it is the height of hubris to tell God what to do. At one time when Albert Einstein was working on his special theory of relativity and the later work on atomic fission, he stated that God did not like a disorderly universe. To which Niels Bohr replied "Albert, don't tell God what to do". I have yet to see someone going on about Gods will to justify what they want to do actually seem to be trying to do Gods will. Mostly it's people trying to use religion for personal gain. Granted, a preacher has to eat so getting paid for preaching is fine by me. The same goes for the guy who fixes the plumbing in the church.

I've never paid much attention to Benny Hinn. I'm well aware of his ilk though. Usually, if you enter the auditorium with a limp, you'll be handed a cane or crutches. Well, if you were walking before, you can walk now. There is a former magician, whos real name I forget, who sometimes goes by the stage name of "The Amazing Randy". He makes it a point to show how "miracle workers" do their thing. One faith healer really was raking in the cash. He was also making a lot of trouble for anyone who would question him. That's when the amazing Randy went after him. The first thing he did was watch the TV programming the faith healer broadcast. The first thing noticed was he wore a hearing aid. Why would a faith healer NEED a hearing aid? A radio scanner was then taken into the auditorium to listen in. When you would enter, you were asked to fill out a "prayer card". People who filled out the prayer cards would also have things mentioned that they thought no one knew. Amazing, it must be because he's a faith healer touched by God. Actually, the scanner picked up the healers wife back stage reading the prayer cards and the "hearing aid" was a radio receiver.

My faith is fairly strong but I also try to avoid the sin of hubris.

ColleenC2
06-04-2008, 04:21 PM
First off, Charles Darwin was not an atheist.

Charles Darwin is a self proclaimed atheist as he has written in his autobiography;

"But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; -- I feel sure of this for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeji or elsewhere which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all of my friends, will be everlasting punished. ".....""

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_relig.htm

I can think of no way to better give glory to God than to study and try to understand the works of God. In other words, the scientific method.

It is the interpretations of these findings that cause all the arguments not the study of "the works of God" or the "scientific method" used, it is when one purports the "knowledge" of facts when the evidence clearly does not support it as a fact but only as a "theory" based on the facts. (i.e. fossils, bones, artifacts etc., ) When the militant secularist push their theories of "facts" as a gospel that it becomes a problem.

Evolution occurs or is it just a mutation? One cannot be so convinced in the "theories" of evolution that one would stake their lives on such a proposition. Yet this is what evolutionists, in words only, do. When a theory just as plausible is presented, evolutionists act as if their oxygen is being taken from them.

At one time when Albert Einstein was working on his special theory of relativity and the later work on atomic fission, he stated that God did not like a disorderly universe. To which Niels Bohr replied "Albert, don't tell God what to do".

This is a jump that Niels Bohr makes, Einstein wasn't "telling God what to do but only making an observation that if he too were to follow an orderly process that this would help him in his work.

Hubris goes for both sides of the argument and this forum

Eric
06-04-2008, 04:30 PM
"Charles Darwin is a self proclaimed atheist as he has written in his autobiograph"

I see nothing in the quote you posted that would show Darwin to be atheist; a disbeliever in Christianity, yes - but that is a different thing altogether.

I myself do not discount the possibility of "more than we know," "more than we can see." I call myself an agnostic. But I absolutely reject the basic theological tenets of Christianity.

ColleenC2
06-04-2008, 05:58 PM
"Charles Darwin is a self proclaimed atheist as he has written in his autobiograph"

I see nothing in the quote you posted that would show Darwin to be atheist; a disbeliever in Christianity, yes - but that is a different thing altogether.

You are right, although I could not find anything else regarding whether he was an agnostic, just that he claimed to reject his belief in the tenents of Christianity.

It does appear though that the atheist have "hijacked" his theory of evolution as some sort of proof for their belieeeeeefs of no God.

I myself do not discount the possibility of "more than we know," "more than we can see." I call myself an agnostic. But I absolutely reject the basic theological tents of Christianity.

This statement and tone of the statement (to me) fits more with a "logical" person than one who seems so vehemently opposed to any thought of a "higher being"

misterdecibel
06-04-2008, 06:18 PM
It is the interpretations of these findings that cause all the arguments not the study of "the works of God" or the "scientific method" used, it is when one purports the "knowledge" of facts when the evidence clearly does not support it as a fact but only as a "theory" based on the facts. (i.e. fossils, bones, artifacts etc., ) When the militant secularist push their theories of "facts" as a gospel that it becomes a problem.

Evolution occurs or is it just a mutation? One cannot be so convinced in the "theories" of evolution that one would stake their lives on such a proposition. Yet this is what evolutionists, in words only, do. When a theory just as plausible is presented, evolutionists act as if their oxygen is being taken from them.



You clearly do not understand the scientific concept of "theory". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

And when has another "theory just as plausible" been presented, other than evolution, to explain the fossil record and the inter-relatedness of all life on Earth?

ColleenC2
06-04-2008, 07:08 PM
And when has another "theory just as plausible" been presented, other than evolution, to explain the fossil record and the inter-relatedness of all life on Earth?

sigh, uninformed, uninformed, uninformed, do your own research

grouch
06-04-2008, 09:10 PM
And when has another "theory just as plausible" been presented, other than evolution, to explain the fossil record and the inter-relatedness of all life on Earth?

sigh, uninformed, uninformed, uninformed, do your own research



I've been reading the arguments both ways and find both sides to have their points. God gives us intelligence and the free will to use it as we will. Give a child a toy and it may be treasured or destroyed in short order. How that toy is treated tells you much about the child. To me, hubris is like taking a hammer to your new toy. Keep in mind where Lutheranism came from. Luthers thesises nailed to a cathedral door caused a lot of people to be burned alive. To just say "sigh, uninformed...." is nothing more than hubris. It's like saying "I'm right, you're wrong and that's that". That was the attitude that brought about the medievel "indulgences". Unfortunately, that's something that some Morman practices remind me of. However, I try to keep an open mind about them.

ColleenC2
06-05-2008, 12:31 AM
To just say "sigh, uninformed...." is nothing more than hubris. It's like saying "I'm right, you're wrong and that's that".

Then you missed my point and my bad for not making it more clear. Misterdecibel stated "You clearly do not understand the scientific concept of "theory". which was clearly a personal attack

and second he asked the question "And when has another "theory just as plausible" been presented, other than evolution, to explain the fossil record and the inter-relatedness of all life on Earth?", which either meant one of two things, either he hasn't done any studying on the alternative plausible interpretation or whatever he has "heard" he discounts outright based on his belieeeeef system, either way it was an observation on my part that he was being "hubris", to which I responded

misterdecibel
06-05-2008, 01:25 AM
I could tell by your usage that you are unfamiliar with the concept of "theory". In science, there really isn't anything more certain than that. When people say "only a theory" I just stop listening because they don't know what they're talking about.

ColleenC2
06-05-2008, 01:49 AM
I could tell by your usage that you are unfamiliar with the concept of "theory". In science, there really isn't anything more certain than that. When people say "only a theory" I just stop listening because they don't know what they're talking about.

I understand that you are being technical here, my "only" point here is that when someone claims a theory as a fact and not "just" a theory or it is only a theory than I have a problem with that. It was "only" for emphasis on the theory portion of the sentence used for Grammar. a. the function of an adverb or adjective that is used to indicate degrees of superiority or inferiority in quality, quantity, or intensity.

Eric
06-05-2008, 07:32 AM
I could tell by your usage that you are unfamiliar with the concept of "theory". In science, there really isn't anything more certain than that. When people say "only a theory" I just stop listening because they don't know what they're talking about.


Exactly. It is evidence of the general scientific illiteracy out there that people use "theory" in its conversational sense; viz "I have a theory about why Jane left Jim."

In the scientific context, as you note, a "theory" means as close to settled fact as you can get. It means the theory has been examined and challenged but never been found wanting in its essential points. That some people don't beeeeelieve that evolution is settled science also explains the presidency of The Chimp as well as the "Creation" museum, etc. d

ColleenC2
06-05-2008, 11:23 AM
In the scientific context, as you note, a "theory" means as close to settled fact as you can get. It means the theory has been examined and challenged but never been found wanting in its essential points.

It is a common mistake but it is the interpretation of the evidence that leads to different theories, and not all theories are accepted within the scientific community as "never been found wanting in its essential points".

misterdecibel
06-05-2008, 01:53 PM
Gravity is "only a theory" too, but we're not in any danger of suddenly flying off the surface of the planet.

Except for Rob, of course.

Eric
06-05-2008, 03:14 PM
Gravity is "only a theory" too, but we're not in any danger of suddenly flying off the surface of the planet.

Except for Rob, of course.


I think part of the reason some religious people have trouble accepting evolution is due to their weak time sense. One routinely encounters arguments such as "how come no one has ever seen a transitional form"? And so on. They either are unaware of or have yet to grasp the immensity of geologic time; that evolution is describing subtle changes over vast periods that often must be counted in the millions of years.... that the Earth itself is some 4.5 billion years old. That for some 3.5 billion years there was little more microbial and single celled life on this planet. That even 100 million years is a mere blip in the grand scheme of things....

Further evidence of this blind spot religious people have is their sense of the "everlasting" nature of their faith - when in fact Christianity is barely 2,000 years old (and Islam younger than that)... and older religions thrived for thousands of years before anyone ever heard of Jesus or Muhammad or even the Jehovah of the Old Testament... .

Countless generations of human beings stretching back into the infinity of time were born, lived and died without ever hearing "the good news," knowing Jesus or Muhammad. Yet somehow, we're supposed to accept this idea that everything truly important having to do with spiritual matters began far later in the historical record - and pretty much involved only a sliver of humanity itself.

The so-called "universal" god is pretty tribal - and in the grand scheme of life and human history, a bit player who came onto the scene relatively recently at that!

misterdecibel
06-05-2008, 05:37 PM
There's no such thing as a "transitional form". That is an interpretation that can only be made after the fact. While the organism is alive, it is the ultimate result of its line of evolution.

Eric
06-05-2008, 05:53 PM
There's no such thing as a "transitional form". That is an interpretation that can only be made after the fact. While the organism is alive, it is the ultimate result of its line of evolution.


Yep - exactly right!

ColleenC2
06-05-2008, 06:25 PM
There's no such thing as a "transitional form". That is an interpretation that can only be made after the fact. While the organism is alive, it is the ultimate result of its line of evolution.

and yet, even the theory of gravity has to be qualified i.e the theory of gravity is relative to this earth, existing with certain conditions, remove those conditions and gravity does not exist as identified

misterdecibel
06-05-2008, 07:22 PM
Gravity exists between any two objects in space with mass.

ColleenC2
06-05-2008, 08:41 PM
Gravity depends on the masses of objects, and the force between two objects depends on how far apart they are. The gravitational force between two objects decreases according to the square of the distance between them.