My objection to atheism is that I still don't see how morality could have formed in a naturalistic universe in the first place.
I have to admit that I don't fully understand how my DVD player works, either. Doesn't mean that lasers don't exist. Often we need to accept that "I don't know" is an OK answer, and does not automatically translate to "it's impossible."
Could you be more specific?
I hate to do this, because I don't mean to sound like a jerk -- but do you have the background that would allow me to do so in fewer than 50 pages? If I have to explain how to interpret seismic tomography (or even worse, start with what seismic tomography is) this could get really long, and there's a limit to how many unpaid hours I'm willing to spend. I'm not trying to be dismissive, just to indicate that 30-second sound bytes won't convince anyone of anything.
"Good" people will be "good" regardless of what religion they choose to believe, or whether they choose to believe in none at all. The same goes with "bad" people. "Bad" people can justify themselves to themselves by any number of methods, including butchering the Bible and twisting it to make it tell them what they want to hear.
I largely agree, with the bold caveat above. However, I don't believe people neatly divide into "good" and "bad." I've seen a lot of otherwise "good" people do a lot of evil things. And I've known some very "bad" people to show real nobility of spirit in some cases.
My objection to atheism is that I still don't see how morality could have formed in a naturalistic universe in the first place.I have to admit that I don't fully understand how my DVD player works, either. Doesn't mean that lasers don't exist. Often we need to accept that "I don't know" is an OK answer, and does not automatically translate to "it's impossible."
Sometimes the gap is so big that it's proper to look for alternative explanations, even if it's not necessarily "impossible" to theoretically bridge it someday maybe.
Could you be more specific?I hate to do this, because I don't mean to sound like a jerk -- but do you have the background that would allow me to do so in fewer than 50 pages? If I have to explain how to interpret seismic tomography (or even worse, start with what seismic tomography is) this could get really long, and there's a limit to how many unpaid hours I'm willing to spend. I'm not trying to be dismissive, just to indicate that 30-second sound bytes won't convince anyone of anything.
That is a very fair question and I take no offense with it. You need to know that some random person on the Internet will understand you before you type a huge pointless paper. I'm very familiar with much of the sciences, including seismic tomography. Even if I'm not already familiar with something, I (with as much modesty as possible) think my INT score is high enough for me to spend a bit of time reading up and then be able to follow you on it.
"Good" people will be "good" regardless of what religion they choose to believe, or whether they choose to believe in none at all. The same goes with "bad" people. "Bad" people can justify themselves to themselves by any number of methods, including butchering the Bible and twisting it to make it tell them what they want to hear.I largely agree, with the bold caveat above. However, I don't believe people neatly divide into "good" and "bad." I've seen a lot of otherwise "good" people do a lot of evil things. And I've known some very "bad" people to show real nobility of spirit in some cases.
Touche, kinda. I do consider it a necessity to have faith no matter what you believe in. If nothing else, faith that you're intelligent enough to figure anything out and faith in a set of beliefs about the universe, a deity or deities, or lack thereof. In the bold text I meant actively believing in what they consider to be a religion. It's all semantics at this point though, isn't it?
|
Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist.
Wrong. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in god(s). Atheism makes no positive claims about the universe.
What you're talking about is something like gnostic atheism, which is a rare position to take (unlike the common position of agnostic atheism, which is generally what people mean when they say "atheist").
In fact there is no truly neutral position. Everyone believes something about these things.
Not quite. Someone who has never heard of the concept of god(s) (e.g. an infant) has no belief about these things at all.
The existence of God can't be absolutely proven one way or the other.
And neither can the existence of the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, the teapot orbiting Mars, or the invisible pink unicorn in my bathroom. Hell, the existence of anything can't be absolutely proven - there's always the possibility that solipsism is correct and I'm just a brain in a jar imagining all of reality.
But there is such a thing as probability. Just because you can't say 100% or 0% probability of existence doesn't mean you can't say any number in between, and it certainly doesn't mean that it's automatically 50%.
The probability of god(s) existing is a vanishingly small percentage.
Also, depending on which god we're talking about, we can say for certain that it's probability of existing is 0% - there are, for example, some gods who are defined as having characteristics which are logically impossible, and can therefore be discarded as nonexistent.
|
|
I do consider it a necessity to have faith no matter what you believe in. If nothing else, faith that you're intelligent enough to figure anything out and faith in a set of beliefs about the universe, a deity or deities, or lack thereof. In the bold text I meant actively believing in what they consider to be a religion. It's all semantics at this point though, isn't it?
Speaking of semantics...
If we're going to start talking about faith, we need to nail down a definition first. I find that there's mainly two ways of using the word faith:
1. Trust in a person or event, which is usually based on past experience. E.g. I have faith in your abilities, or I have faith that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow.
2. Belief without evidence. E.g. I have faith that God is watching out for me, or I know your life is difficult but you need to have faith that there's a divine plan for you.
I propose that in discussing faith we reserve the word "faith" only for the second definition, and use "trust" or similar for the first definition.
In fact there is no truly neutral position. Everyone believes something about these things.Not quite. Someone who has never heard of the concept of god(s) (e.g. an infant) has no belief about these things at all.
If you have to resort to an infant as someone this doesn't apply to I don't see that as helping your case. Infants have no position on this or anything else by default. There is no truly neutral position to this question for anyone who can comprehend the concept of theism.
The existence of God can't be absolutely proven one way or the other.
And neither can the existence of the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, the teapot orbiting Mars, or the invisible pink unicorn in my bathroom. Hell, the existence of anything can't be absolutely proven - there's always the possibility that solipsism is correct and I'm just a brain in a jar imagining all of reality.
But there is such a thing as probability. Just because you can't say 100% or 0% probability of existence doesn't mean you can't say any number in between, and it certainly doesn't mean that it's automatically 50%.
The probability of god(s) existing is a vanishingly small percentage.
Also, depending on which god we're talking about, we can say for certain that it's probability of existing is 0% - there are, for example, some gods who are defined as having characteristics which are logically impossible, and can therefore be discarded as nonexistent.
So? It's irrelevant to the truth of Christianity how jacked up other religious ideas are. It only takes one correct religion for a religion to be correct. They can't all be right, and by definition many of them can't be right anyway because they're mutually exclusive.
I also hardly think it's fair comparing Christianity to the list of things in your first paragraph. There really is much more positive evidence for the truth of Christianity than there is for that list.
I do consider it a necessity to have faith no matter what you believe in. If nothing else, faith that you're intelligent enough to figure anything out and faith in a set of beliefs about the universe, a deity or deities, or lack thereof. In the bold text I meant actively believing in what they consider to be a religion. It's all semantics at this point though, isn't it?Speaking of semantics...
If we're going to start talking about faith, we need to nail down a definition first. I find that there's mainly two ways of using the word faith:
1. Trust in a person or event, which is usually based on past experience. E.g. I have faith in your abilities, or I have faith that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow.
2. Belief without evidence. E.g. I have faith that God is watching out for me, or I know your life is difficult but you need to have faith that there's a divine plan for you.
I propose that in discussing faith we reserve the word "faith" only for the second definition, and use "trust" or similar for the first definition.
I defined faith a few pages ago, straight from www.dictionary.com. Suffice to say, belief without evidence wasn't one of the definitions. Belief without proof is likely what you mean. Saying religious people believe what they believe despite the obvious evidence is kind of insulting. Different people look at the world differently. That doesn't make others mindless zombies.
I also hardly think it's fair comparing Christianity to the list of things in your first paragraph. There really is much more positive evidence for the truth of Christianity than there is for that list.
Sorry for not getting to you, I missed a lot of posts over the holiday. As far as I can see, Plate Tectonics was formulated in the 1960s.
I think the most compelling evidence for Christianity is the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. I also see a creation that needs a Creator, which was what the link to Creation Science was about.
I should have put quotation marks around "obvious evidence". By that I meant that both sides tend to assume that the other side refuses to seriously consider evidence that violates their biases, even if it's considered "obvious" by some. To be fair, that's generally not a very bad assumption. That's simply human nature.
As to the specifics of evidence, I've been trying to show that for a little while, but to be frank I don't think very many people have taken it (at least that website) seriously.
My objection to atheism is that I still don't see how morality could have formed in a naturalistic universe in the first place. Morality is relative or absolute. If it's relative, it means nothing because people are different, so application would be impossible. If it's absolute, where did it come from? Atheists can be very good people, but that says nothing about the origins of morality. That's a very short form. I can elaborate if necessary.I don't understand what you mean by the origins of morality. Do you mean the concept people have that some things are good or bad/right or wrong, without getting specific about which things? Or do you mean some specific moral code, probably one your religion pushes?
People are different. Cultures are different. Cultures have different moral codes. People within those cultures have different moral codes as well. Yet somehow we all survive, interact and function, albeit not without friction. Morality is shaped by culture, which includes religion. How can we talk of absolute morality, unless we are then prepared to fight over which particular moral code we mean.
As for the generic concept that some things are right and others wrong, we are social animals. Other social animals exhibit behaviors that show what we might consider rudimentary morality, it hardly seems a stretch to think that as our minds and society became more complicated our morality would to.
Do you believe that at least some actions are right or wrong all the time, regardless of circumstances? Is it always wrong to hurt others physically? If it is, why is it always wrong? What makes it wrong in a naturalistic universe? Is it because you don't like to be hurt, so you shouldn't do that to others? Why should that even matter?
That seems to me like saying that men shouldn't be selfish because it would benefit society. Why should a man care about being selfless to benefit society when all society is his him and other people? That ultimately means men should be selfless because they should be selfless.
Either that or men shouldn't be selfish because they don't like people being selfish to them. Why should he though? And, more specifically, why does he feel guilty when he doesn't?
Furthermore, some people like to be physically hurt. Should masochists hurt people because they like to be hurt?
I do consider it a necessity to have faith no matter what you believe in. If nothing else, faith that you're intelligent enough to figure anything out and faith in a set of beliefs about the universe, a deity or deities, or lack thereof. In the bold text I meant actively believing in what they consider to be a religion. It's all semantics at this point though, isn't it?Speaking of semantics...
If we're going to start talking about faith, we need to nail down a definition first. I find that there's mainly two ways of using the word faith:
1. Trust in a person or event, which is usually based on past experience. E.g. I have faith in your abilities, or I have faith that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow.
2. Belief without evidence. E.g. I have faith that God is watching out for me, or I know your life is difficult but you need to have faith that there's a divine plan for you.
I propose that in discussing faith we reserve the word "faith" only for the second definition, and use "trust" or similar for the first definition.
Excellent definitions, Jagyr. I often say that I do not have faith in anything, I only have trust in things that I know to be true. You have stated my view more succinctly than I could.
I think that the points which nategar05 brings up will be much easier to discuss once we are able to not conflate these two extremeally different ideas.
Ok, the you all look alike to me comment didn't come out right.
What I mean is that no one particular version of Christianity stands out as THE right one. You claim that you're the real Christianity and so do the fundamentalists. You can't just say that you're a christian and expect me to know which you are.
I'm more than willing to answer honest questions to the best of my ability. But you seem more intent on lumping me together with "some bronze-age barbarian tribe."
Ok, seriously man. You need to put a little more effort Into reading and understanding whats being said. You're taking the absolute smallest snippets you possibly can and running with them.
I don't think you're nearly as free of your preconceptions about atheists as you think.
I think the most compelling evidence for Christianity is the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. I also see a creation that needs a Creator, which was what the link to Creation Science was about.
I'll get back to you on that. Much of my sources of empirical evidence on other topics come from actual books so I've had little need to look for it online.
I should have put quotation marks around "obvious evidence". By that I meant that both sides tend to assume that the other side refuses to seriously consider evidence that violates their biases, even if it's considered "obvious" by those. To be fair, that's generally not a very bad assumption. That's simply human nature.
Yes you can say the same thing about that web page. Everyone has biases. In case it's relevant, Walt used to be an evolutionist. I agree that madness lies down that path though, so it may not be in the best interest of this thread to carry on. I have a nice Cracked article that can be linked to about people being biased and refusing to admit when they're wrong though, or even see that they're wrong. :P
As to the specifics of evidence, I've been trying to show that for a little while, but to be frank I don't think very many people have taken it (at least that website) seriously.
...
Well, as a Christian I find that the Bible is quite well supported by that model. As an amateur scientific researcher (more of a hobby really), I find that it makes quite a lot of sense scientifically as well. That last part is what I tell people who don't think much of the Bible. I'm not saying that you must abandon all other thinking and become Walt's mind-slave, but an honest open-minded evaluation seems reasonable.
As far as navigating goes, I use the table on the left margin. There's a Table of Contents within if you want to find something specific and an Index if you want to find something really specific. There are many pictures and a lot of text throughout, though there's much less pictures in Part I.
PS: I like your username a lot. It's fun. :)
Did you actually read the theory and the section on radioactivity or did you rush through and assume you were right and therefore didn't need to read it?
Yes, I read it. He said pressure could alter rates of radioactive decay. He left out that 1) you needed a sun to alter it 2) earth could alter it only slightly 3) It has to be altered in such a way at different points at different depths so that their answers make sense if gradualism is true. The chances of that happening is beyond the impossible.
You posted a rebuttal quite quickly and I'm not sure you had time to properly read it. However, if you managed to thoroughly read and understand a theory in about 35 minutes that it's taken me many many months to understand, congratulations. You are mentally very well endowed.
I read very quickly and this is not the first time I've seen very similar ideas before.
Maybe he and I underestimate(d) the size of the Earth in relation to this theory. Maybe, JUST MAYBE, you underestimated the amount of energy available (described by the theory), the mechanics involved (described by the theory), to do the work (described by the theory), and cause all of the effects of a global flood (also described by the theory). An entire theory based only on one assumption and the laws of physics.
Me, every physicist, geologist, and the head of every major energy provider on the planet (because they're not using those ideas to do some pretty easy cold fusion) don't understand the physics involved... or some crackpot with a blatantly obvious religious motivation doesn't care one whit for the truth as long as he can provide some straw of hope for creationists who desperately need to believe.
Also, he lists gravity as one of the primary forces involved throughout the flood and the main mechanism behind the Continental Drift phase and a whole lot more. So saying the Earth is too massive for a theory to be correct when the theory says that gravity did it isn't really helping your case that much.
Dude, you only get the gravity working on the plates from the weight of the water. If the weight of the water is negligible then the effects of the gravity will be too.
If his crackpot ideas (i will not honor them by calling them a theory if i can help it) were true then every single gas giant should be a radiation spewing minsun with a magnetic field strong enough to rip battleships into orbit.
As to rocks matching the sediments, as far as I knew there was a lot of circular reasoning and assumptions involved with dating the sediments, not to mention the assumptions behind dating the rocks.
This is yet another very commonly told lie about dating rocks.
We KNOW how sedimentary rocks form. You can go to the mississippi river, take a shovel and start digging in the deltas. You can see the sediments from the river being deposted there, year after year.
We know the older sediments are on the bottom. We don't need radioactivity to tell us the relative ages. All we need to do is look and see what order they're in
http://derfenrirwolv.deviantart.com/gallery/?catpath=scraps#/d1of7ru
If you see some sort of circularity there feel free to point it out, but please don't just say its circular without explanation.
The idea that the continents moved around is at least as old as darwin: He didn't subscribe to the idea but he did mention it in The Origin of Species. He thought that continents stayed in place, but rose and fell repeatedly.
The idea of HOW they were moving around developed more gradually.
No. There's a difference between you and other atheists.
I take it its NOT my winning personality?
You managed to take
Then again, many Christians are not getting bogged down by said [bronze age] morals, because you've effectively managed to free yourself from them by letting your morals lead your religion rather than the other way around.
And turn it into
But you seem more intent on lumping me together with "some bronze-age barbarian tribe."
How on EARTH is explaining how and why you're not tied to that morality TRYING to lump you in with them?
You have an idea of what good is. Your ... interpretation process is fluid and subjective enough that no matter what you're looking at you can finagle the bible to read as good. Your morality leads your beliefs, not the other way around, thus you're not using bronze age morality. Many christians are like this or accomplish the same goal through different means. Not all are.
|
I take it its NOT my winning personality?
It's your tone and what was said. Once you said "...bronze-age barbarian tribe...", a) it's hard to see that as anything but insulting and b) you never said that was a false statement.
Regardless...
Your ... interpretation process is fluid and subjective enough that no matter what you're looking at you can finagle the bible to read as good.
Since you don't seem to understand how what you say is coming across, let's take this statement. I believe in the Bible. I believe that the Bible is "the Word of God" (whatever that might mean). Implying or (in this case) stating that I "finagle" the Bible is a) wrong and b) offensive.
What I do is do my best to take a look at the time period it was written about, the time period it was written, the target audience at the time, and what the possible reason for writing the passage might be. This I do LONG before I try to apply any "finagling" (as you might call it).
As opposed to you who read it through Western eyes, assume that you are the target audience, and seem to assume that every written word is meant to be scientifically factual.
Maybe I am "finagling" the Word of God. I just thought I was doing my homework first.
Since you don't seem to understand how what you say is coming across, let's take this statement. I believe in the Bible. I believe that the Bible is "the Word of God" (whatever that might mean). Implying or (in this case) stating that I "finagle" the Bible is a) wrong and b) offensive.
Well you understood me this time, so you know.. progress.
I'm aware that my opinion of what you're doing is offensive, but I tried to use slightly less inflammatory and to the point language the first few times and it wasn't getting through. I tried softening the blow with humor and a Disney reference and you didn't get me. So I'm pretty much stuck with the bull in the china shop act.
I don't think that I'm wrong here. I think its possible to have a moral belief in the bible or an accurate belief in the bible but not both. The old testament atrocities are simply too plainly laid out in the text for their rationale to be anything but what they clearly say. The sort of mental gymnastics on the page you linked me to pretty much require that you start with your end result in mind.
What I do is do my best to take a look at the time period it was written about, the time period it was written, the target audience at the time, and what the possible reason for writing the passage might be. This I do LONG before I try to apply any "finagling" (as you might call it)
And how do you make it Christ centric?
As opposed to you who read it through Western eyes, assume that you are the target audience, and seem to assume that every written word is meant to be scientifically factual.
----->I<----- do not think that's how genesis was intended to be understood but many Christians do. Again, Ya'll aren't wearing signs.
I do think that's how numbers and judges were meant to be understood. It reads like lightly mythologized history.
Don't give me the western eyes malarky. While I appreciate the need to scale back from previous ideas of universal western superiority I really am tired of the outright racism in the reverse: assuming that anything non western must be superior.
Maybe I am "finagling" the Word of God. I just thought I was doing my homework first.
That page was more than homework. It was a license to make things up on some fairly convoluted reasoning.
It's your tone and what was said. Once you said "...bronze-age barbarian tribe...", a) it's hard to see that as anything but insulting and
That's what they are to me. How else do you want me to treat them?
b) you never said that was a false statement.
Its a false statement FOR YOU and many other Christians. It is not a false statement for all Christians.
|
|
That page was more than homework. It was a license to make things up on some fairly convoluted reasoning.
I think I should be offended here, but I honestly don't know what you are saying.
----->I<----- do not think that's how genesis was intended to be understood but many Christians do.
---->You<---- stated that it was very clear that Genesis was written with birds and fish coming a day before mammals. Which is what I was going off of.
Don't give me the western eyes malarky. While I appreciate the need to scale back from previous ideas of universal western superiority I really am tired of the outright racism in the reverse: assuming that anything non western must be superior.
I did not say this. Please do not imply that I did. I did not even imply this. Please stop reading things that are not there.
The sort of mental gymnastics on the page you linked me to pretty much require that you start with your end result in mind.
Similar to what you accuse me of, did you miss the part where I said that I don't necessarily agree with that person 100%, but that it's a starting point?
In some ways, though, what you say is true. I've already said that I believe that the Bible is the Word of God. Which, to some degree, is the end result. You, however, seem to be starting off with the "end result" that the Bible is either only a moral guidebook or only a scientific historical document. I gave you a reference to how it could be both and more -- which you discount.
And how do you make it Christ centric?
Forgive me, I again don't know what you are asking.
|
|
That page was more than homework. It was a license to make things up on some fairly convoluted reasoning.
I think I figured out what you were saying. I was talking about "doing my homework" on any specific Biblical passage. You twisted that around to talk about the linked page -- which I wasn't talking about at all.
Moff, can you show one tenet of atheism that can actively encourage an individual to hurt some one else?It seems that you think that someone can't do evil in the name of atheism. Here a quick list I found.
I think the biggest fear is epitomized in the following quote -- "if a person doesn’t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?" Which was said by an Atheist.
There's plenty of mud to throw around. Can we stop now?
I'd rather not drop it, because this bit is important.
Some one can easily do evil in the name of anything. Some one says "i am doing this in the name of x", and they are doing it in the name of X. The question is, if X what made them do it, or is X a convenient flag to rally too.
Having a very quick look at the list, it doesn't even look like one of them made atheism their flag of convinence
Jeffrey Dahmer, would have know the answer to his question, if he were not seriously mentally ill, and demonstrating al the signs of pychopathy. he is the perfect example of an individual who is doing something wicked for other reasons, and just happens to be an atheists as well. Seriously, do you honestly think that his atheism is a better explination for his behaviour than his mental illness? Conversely, do you really think that the flogging of rape victims is better explained by some other factor that it being the religious law of the theocractic monarchy in which is occurs?
Your fear that "having no god, means a person will do what they like" is unfounded. I mean for a start, belief in gods clearly does not prevent genocide, or torture, or rape, or pillage. Most of histories genocides have been undertaken by religious people, and many have been justified on religious grounds.
In fact on closer inspection we find that say basic criminality is less common amongst atheist than almost any other group. The Federal Bureau of Prisons found 0.21% of the prison population was atheist, while in the general population atheists represent somewhere between 6% and 9% of the population. Atheists have lower rates of Teenage pregnacy than fundimentalist christian, and so on and so on.
And we have answers for "if a person doesn’t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?"
Society, and human generated laws provide a frame work for acting to prevent crime.
We are capable of building logical and consistent ethics and morality systems which allow use to make good choices about what is right and what is wrong.
Even our genetics influence our behaviour towards being social and living within the constraints of a society.
You could provide a list of a thousand atheists who also happened to be evil people, but that wouldn't for a second mean that it was where atheism that made them evil.
So again, how was it that Atheism made anyone of those people do those horrible things, as opposed to say their totalitarianism, or mental illness, or greed, or hubris
Moff, can you show one tenet of atheism that can actively encourage an individual to hurt some one else?It seems that you think that someone can't do evil in the name of atheism. Here a quick list I found.
I think the biggest fear is epitomized in the following quote -- "if a person doesn’t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?" Which was said by an Atheist.
There's plenty of mud to throw around. Can we stop now?
I'd rather not drop it, because this bit is important.
Some one can easily do evil in the name of anything. Some one says "i am doing this in the name of x", and they are doing it in the name of X. The question is, if X what made them do it, or is X a convenient flag to rally too.
Having a very quick look at the list, it doesn't even look like one of them made atheism their flag of convinence
Jeffrey Dahmer, would have know the answer to his question, if he were not seriously mentally ill, and demonstrating al the signs of pychopathy. he is the perfect example of an individual who is doing something wicked for other reasons, and just happens to be an atheists as well. Seriously, do you honestly think that his atheism is a better explination for his behaviour than his mental illness? Conversely, do you really think that the flogging of rape victims is better explained by some other factor that it being the religious law of the theocractic monarchy in which is occurs?
Your fear that "having no god, means a person will do what they like" is unfounded. I mean for a start, belief in gods clearly does not prevent genocide, or torture, or rape, or pillage. Most of histories genocides have been undertaken by religious people, and many have been justified on religious grounds.
In fact on closer inspection we find that say basic...
For my part, I hold the belief that eating donuts is a major factor in the promotion of good morals. Hey, most cops do eat donuts, right ? At least in the movies ?
On the other hand, take away food is an instrument of evil. My looong studies prove that a lot of heinous criminals DID eat takeaway food before committing whatever bad act sent them in jail.
<end of parodic mode>
Okay, more seriously, we all should realize making a list of atheists/religious people/cosplay lovers or whatever group we want who did bad things doesn't mean a thing.
Reminds me of the reasoning behind BADD, back in the old days : "oh, he committed suicide/drowned his cat and did play RPG sometimes in the last five years SO RPG LEAD TO VIOLENCE! Bring out the forks!". I think it's called correlation, not cause and effect (not sure about the translation sorry).
The sad truth is closer to the fact that bad/stupid people are everywhere, in every human group.
I agree with NWN and others on the fact that morals can exist without a religion. I also point out that they are heavily influenced, for historical reasons, by religion (christian values in western countries, other ones elsewhere). Morals are handed down from generation to generation, and slowly evolve by observation and peer pressure. Nothing magical in there, just sociodynamics at play.
It seems also that the size of the pinch of salt with which the Bible is taken varies wildly from a person to another : fundamentalists (thank God I've never met one! OK, just kidding...) would take it verbatim from one cover to the other, others would take it entirely as morally illuminating allegories, Christ resurrection included. All are welcome to believe in what they want, provided they don't insist on pushing their beliefs on unwilling others by any means, including political or educational.
The question about Tectonics was more aimed at Kirth Gersen who seems to have a better handle on that sort of thing.
Sorry... I'd lost your post in the shuffle. Like most other well-supported theories, Plate Tectonics was developed in stages, progressively improving its predictive power as it was adjusted to fit new observations. Alfred Wegener is credited with proposing a hypothesis of "contental drfit" in 1912 -- before that, the continents were largely assumed to be fixed in place. Wegener based this on the apparent fit of many coastlines (first noted around 1600), continuity of mountain ranges, types of fossils on matching coasts, etc. Unfortunately, he had no driving mechanism, so his hypothesis wasn't given much credit. Magnetic studies came next: "polar wander" (apparent movement of the pole over time, based on orientations of iron-bearing mineral grains) could be explained by moving continents, rather than a moving magnetic pole. Magnetic "stripes" on the floor of the Atlantic, resulting from magnetic reversals, were documented and studied in the early '60s -- they showed bilateral symmetry across the mid-Atlantic ridge. Harry Hess, in the 60s, proposed spreading at the ridges, with subduction at what he termed "convergent boundaries" -- supported by results of new (at the time) seismic imaging techniques at these locations. Subduction would have to result in melting crust and magmatic production -- that's exactly what we find in the Andes, for example -- and the rock compositions match what we'd predict. Earthquakes occur in conjunction with measured plate movements. The predicted spreading rate of the Atlantic is now being tracked by satellite, based on distances between points on opposite continents. Pretty much every continental-scale observation in geology made (before or since) fits the theory. And the mechanism is as simple as what happens in a pot of boiling water (convection in the upper mantle).
I'm very familiar with much of the sciences, including seismic tomography.
Good deal. When you claim "Seismic tomography has not shown unambiguous subducted plates in even two dimensions. If plates subducted, seismic tomography could convincingly and dramatically show them in three dimensions," then, you're aware that seismic tomography does not show anything "unambiguously," and certainly not what I'd call "dramatically" -- that's why we need to typically need to filter the data (post-processing) in order to point out salient features to people not as used to looking at them -- there were some very striking false-color images of Peru on display at the Houston Geologic Society meeting I attended last month, for example. As far as these images not showing subduction, go ahead and link to some of them and I'll be happy to look at them with you -- if you can't see where the images show subduction, I can probably point it out to you for you to check. In the interest of fairness, let's use images not from your originally-linked Creationist site -- there should be any number of images available in the public domain that we can look at (and of course cite references so we can all see where the images are coming from, and what methodology was used in producing them).
The question about Tectonics was more aimed at Kirth Gersen who seems to have a better handle on that sort of thing.Sorry... I'd lost your post in the shuffle. Like most other well-supported theories, Plate Tectonics was developed in stages, progressively improving its predictive power as it was adjusted to fit new observations. Alfred Wegener is credited with proposing a hypothesis of "contental drfit" in 1912 -- before that, the continents were largely assumed to be fixed in place. Wegener based this on the apparent fit of many coastlines (first noted around 1600), continuity of mountain ranges, types of fossils on matching coasts, etc. Unfortunately, he had no driving mechanism, so his hypothesis wasn't given much credit. Magnetic studies came next: "polar wander" (apparent movement of the pole over time, based on orientations of iron-bearing mineral grains) could be explained by moving continents, rather than a moving magnetic pole. Magnetic "stripes" on the floor of the Atlantic, resulting from magnetic reversals, were documented and studied in the early '60s -- they showed bilateral symmetry across the mid-Atlantic ridge. Harry Hess, in the 60s, proposed spreading at the ridges, with subduction at what he termed "convergent boundaries" -- supported by results of new (at the time) seismic imaging techniques at these locations. Subduction would have to result in melting crust and magmatic production -- that's exactly what we find in the Andes, for example -- and the rock compositions match what we'd predict. Earthquakes occur in conjunction with measured plate movements. The predicted spreading rate of the Atlantic is now being tracked by satellite, based on distances between points on opposite continents. Pretty much every continental-scale observation in geology made (before or since) fits the theory. And the mechanism is as simple as what happens in a pot of boiling water (convection in the upper mantle).
I have recently come across a conspiracy theory which state that the earth is growing, rather than their being subduction.
I have recently come across a conspiracy theory which state that the earth is growing, rather than there being subduction.
There were some Russian "scientists" making that claim at the Geologic Society of America conference back in '93 or '94, IIRC. They sort of neglected to answer questions from the audience, which is a tip-off that their hypothesis wasn't too well thought-out.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
BNW -- After sleeping on it, I think I'm done here. At least in "discussing" things with you. I'll try to explain why in the hope that it might help you in the future.
Here is one of the things you said that I really felt was, at best, VERY poorly said (and which you keep bringing up that I didn't understand)...
Its more along the lines of we're being more moral because we're not getting bogged down by the morals of some bronze age barbarian tribe.
Then again, many Christians are not getting bogged down by said morals, because you've effectively managed to free yourself from them by letting your morals lead your religion rather than the other way around.
From what was written, you seem to think that the potential problem with the first statement is the phrase "bogged down" since you repeated it in the second statement. The problem really begins with the implied message that Christianity is nothing more than a simple set of "morals" given to us by little more than cavemen.
But you don't stop there. You go on -- thinking that you are sufficiently changing the first statement so that I won't be offended with the second statement. Which is (kind of) a nice way of saying that I superimpose my own morals over the Word of God -- which still comes to us from little more than cavemen. And for some reason you think that this is correct (which it isn't) as well as somehow being "civil".
For your convenience -- "Civil" -- adhering to the norms of polite social intercourse; not deficient in common courtesy. (From dictionary.com)
Once I figured out why I was posting/reacting the way I was, I have done my best to tone it down. You have not.
I have tried to explain to you that the Bible is far more than a simple moral guidebook -- to which you ultimately tell me that what I believe is impossible.
You have said that I have given you "malarky" and have implied that my thinking is "convoluted".
You said -- "That's what they are to me. How else do you want me to treat them?" How about as human beings? Especially in a "civil" discussion. Otherwise, you seem to be becoming the very thing you are preaching against. (Even discounting that it was a pretty dumb thing to say. I could say that about so many things as justification to being an ass -- "That's what you are to me. How else do you want me to treat you?")
You do not seem to be interested in any form of discourse. You seem to be far more interested in correcting what I believe (before you even know me) and in attacking the Christian faith.
So, farewell and good luck.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have tried to explain to you that the Bible is far more than a simple moral guidebook
This is perhaps a stopping point. I personally view the Bible as a collection of myths and parables, with some semi-historical stuff and with quite a bit of very good literary value, and some very nice moral sentiments in some of Jesus' teachings. But I do not agree with you that it's the word of God. Nor does BNW agree. Nor do the 900 million Hindus in the world, for example. It's okay that Christians view the Bible as the word of God -- no one can tell you not to -- but, by the same token, you can't make everyone else agree that it is (if that's what you were getting at by saying it is "far more" than a moral guidebook).
|
|
It's okay that Christians view the Bible as the word of God -- no one can tell you not to -- but, by the same token, you can't make everyone else agree that it is...
I didn't think I was. BNW was telling me what I believe. I was stating, and correcting a misconception on what I believe. I am not saying that you need to believe that it is.
Sorry if that was not communicated appropriately.
I don't think we NEED religion much anymore, but we want it and people have lots of things they want and do not need. Some people find it helpful, so why not leave them alone and let them have it? The answer "because it is stupid and holds people back," and variations there of, is a response I have heard many times. This is a totally ignorant response and just pushes intolerance and stupidity.
Really great post! One caveat: "Let them have it" would be my preference 100%... except that there are always the bad apples who are given an inch and take a mile. "Oh, I have freedom of religion, which means I can choose to proselytize in class instead of teaching history"* Or, "I have freedom of religion, so I can require everyone to participate in my public group prayer" (seen that a few times as well). Most people don't do that, because they're not douchebags, and because they understand that freedom OF religion isn't real unless you also have the option of freedom FROM religion being rammed down your throat. It takes all kinds. People of all stripes just need to remember that their rights are constrained by the equal rights of the people around them.
---->You<---- stated that it was very clear that Genesis was written with birds and fish coming a day before mammals. Which is what I was going off of.
You're stuck in the idea that every atheist is stuck on the idea that every christian is a literalist.
If you believe the story of genesis then birds were made first in the story. What meaning does that have? Nothing I can see.
If you believe the HISTORY of genesis then you believe that the bird came a day sooner in reality.
I don't know, especially over the internet, which version of christian (or whatever) I'm talking to. I have no idea if I'm talking to a young earther, a Christmas and Easter catholic, or post modernist philosopher. I need to ask or find out.
I did not say this. Please do not imply that I did. I did not even imply this. Please stop reading things that are not there.
Then explain what you meant with your western eyes line.
Similar to what you accuse me of, did you miss the part where I said that I don't necessarily agree with that person 100%, but that it's a starting point?
Look, you can't rationally expect me to know what part of it you are or aren't using, and I don't expect you to map out 100% of what you're using, but you need to stop seeing deliberate slights and twisting when you say "this is what I'm doing" and I point out something on that page as a problem.
You're not using that part. Fine.
In some ways, though, what you say is true. I've already said that I believe that the Bible is the Word of God. Which, to some degree, is the end result.
Do you believe that god is good? Does Good have a definition other than what god wants?
You, however, seem to be starting off with the "end result" that the Bible is either only a moral guidebook or only a scientific historical document.
Ok, bear with me for a second.
There's what I think the bible is. (a collection of disparate jewish creation myth(s), semi mythologized history, hero stories, and morality tales)
There's what You think the bible is (i will not presume to fill in this blank) This absolutely needs to be ASKED or inferred because there's no way of knowing what another person thinks without asking/watching because christians have a wide variety of opinions on the topic.
I gave you a reference to how it could be both and more -- which you discount.
I don't discount it. I simply found it a very thin rational for trying to reconcile a contradiction. Its a well intentioned rational, but still an excuse rather than a reason.
And how do you make it Christ centric?Forgive me, I again don't know what you are asking.
It seemed to be the central point of the page you linked me. If you're not going that route then it doesn't matter.
I don't know, especially over the internet, which version of christian (or whatever) I'm talking to. I have no idea if I'm talking to a young earther, a Christmas and Easter catholic, or post modernist philosopher. I need to ask or find out.
Or just skim any of the previous 250 pages of the thread... Moff is on most of them, and has clearly re-iterated his views a couple of dozen times by now. "TL;DR" only goes so far. Remember that you're coming into the conversation almost 5 years into it.
From what was written, you seem to think that the potential problem with the first statement is the phrase "bogged down" since you repeated it in the second statement. The problem really begins with the implied message that Christianity is nothing more than a simple set of "morals" given to us by little more than cavemen.
Its one of the main points to the bible "This is what is good". Its very heavily implied in the parts of the text itself and as far as I know is universally agreed on by believers
But you don't stop there. You go on -- thinking that you are sufficiently changing the first statement so that I won't be offended with the second statement.
I'm pretty sure avoiding offense on that point is impossible. You think you're reading the bible as its supposed to be read to get the meaning. I think you're reading the meaning you want into the text. You think you're doing Exegesis I thnk you're doing Eisegesis.
Which is (kind of) a nice way of saying that I superimpose my own morals over the Word of God -- which still comes to us from little more than cavemen. And for some reason you think that this is correct (which it isn't) as well as somehow being "civil".
So in a discussion about religion I'm supposed to somehow avoid the mention of the fact that I don't believe your religion? I'm supposed to explain my point of view but keep your frame of reference... a frame of reference that doesn't allow the possibility of my point of view.
That you superimpose your morals over that of Yawey is at least half compliment given what i think the morals of Yawey are.
For your convenience -- "Civil" -- adhering to the norms of polite social intercourse; not deficient in common courtesy. (From dictionary.com)
Then a civil religious discussion would be an oxymoron, because religion is usually a taboo topic.
Believe me, if I was trying to be rude I had far more graphic ways of illustrating my point.
I have tried to explain to you that the Bible is far more than a simple moral guidebook -- to which you ultimately tell me that what I believe is impossible.
Yes. You have tried to explain that you're right and I'm not so that means that you're right and I'm not. Oddly enough that didn't work.
You have said that I have given you "malarky" and have implied that my thinking is "convoluted".
Based on the "light" reading from the website you linked yes. An epic level ranger couldn't track that thought process.
You said -- "That's what they are to me. How else do you want me to treat them?" How about as human beings?
I'm not very fond of human beings that commit atrocities and say its all for the greater good. I don't see why they should be treated any differently than American slavers,Nazis, the inquisitors, or the folks who got us into the iraq war.
Especially in a "civil" discussion. Otherwise, you seem to be becoming the very thing you are preaching against. (Even discounting that it was a pretty dumb thing to say. I could say that about so many things as justification to being an ass -- "That's what you are to me. How else do you want me to treat you?")
I have to treat YOU with respect, not people in history.
Tolerance doesn't mean you put up with everything. You don't tolerate child abuse, animal abuse, or genocide, you fight it. Or at least speak out against it.
You do not seem to be interested in any form of discourse. You seem to be far more interested in correcting what I believe (before you even know me) and in attacking the Christian faith.
As I said before, I don't have any hope of correcting what you believe. The only hope I have is that you'll understand why other people believe differently. Even that dies when you angrily react to someone plainly telling you what they think and getting upset at the candor... especially after multiple attempts at saying the exact same thing less harshly.
Yes, I've heard all of that before. It's all completely tangential to what I said.
No. I don't believe in absolute morality. Yes, I agree that an absolute morality can only be handed down by god.
Relative morality may not be perfect, but it works well enough. You can tell this because, practically speaking, it's the only morality we've ever had. People, cultures and religions have claimed absolute morality, but those moralities have all been different, so there is no way to tell which one, if any, is the correct absolute morality. For all practical purposes, we have to treat these as relative, despite the claims of each for absolute status.Society puts limits on behavior, because it benefits the society. People in the society accept those limits because it benefits them to be in the society. (They also attempt to change or evade those limits, but that's also beside the point.) Societies often claim their set of rules is absolute, divinely inspired, that often helps convince people to follow it.
I'm really not going to dive in sophomoric attempts to derive morality from the Golden Rule and devolve into arguments about masochists and things that simply don't arise in any real life moral situations.
I will however reassure you that not all atheists are amoral baby-eaters, despite your lack of understanding of how anyone could have any morals without God.
I'm going to say this again in case I wasn't clear enough the first time or any of you missed it: I don't assume that atheists are amoral baby-eaters or anything like that in fact. Just because I don't see how a relative morality can naturally exist doesn't mean that I don't believe there are atheists who follow an absolute morality, albeit imperfectly (just like everyone else). My objection is entirely intellectual here and I speak nothing of the behavior of anyone. If someone wants a loophole to misbehave, they'll find one.
Also, pointing out that we have many moral codes and that they disagree with each other is true. It's also irrelevant to whether or not objective morality exists. There are many possible answers to what 2 + 2 is, but there's only one right answer. In fact, there only needs to be one right answer. Of course, some of the possible answers are closer to 4 than others are, which is similar to how I see morality. There are a lot of codes out there and some of them are closer to the objective ones than others.
I think the most compelling evidence for Christianity is the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. I also see a creation that needs a Creator, which was what the link to Creation Science was about.
I agree that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus would be incredibly compelling evidence for Christianity, if we had compelling evidence for the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Unfortunately, outside of the Bible we have only a couple of references in Josephus to attest to Jesus's existence and there is a good deal of skepticism that the most detailed one, that does mention the resurrection, is a later Christian insertion.
So, yes if you believe the Bible, there's compelling evidence for Christianity, but that's sort of tautological.
Well, the Romans talked about him quite a bit too. There's documentation of many details about His life and the early church, including things as specific as three hours of darkness on the day of the crucifixion.
I agree that it's highly likely that the Josephus quote was (unfortunately) played with by early Christians. However, that wasn't Josephus's only reference to him anyway.
When Jesus's apostles first started preaching in Jerusalem that He had risen from the tomb, everyone still knew where the tomb was. All that the Jews would have had to have done was produced a body, but they couldn't. They claim the apostles stole the body, but every one of the apostles (except Judas and John) were martyred for their faith and died proclaiming the truth of Jesus's resurrection. Who is willing to die for a lie?
I consider myself a fundamentalist (shocking I know), and I don't think all of the Bible is literal in the wooden sense of the word. If it was written to be poetry, it should be interpreted as such. If it was written to be historical information, it should also be interpreted as such. That's why I hold to such a literal view of Genesis and not Psalms for example.
What I do is do my best to take a look at the time period it was written about, the time period it was written, the target audience at the time, and what the possible reason for writing the passage might be.
I'm not sure if this is going to be helping you or not because I don't get the feeling that I'm popular in this thread, but this is how I interpret things too. You don't read it as a 21st century guy. You read it and consider what the text would have meant given the historical context, who was writing, and who was being written to.
Also, FWIW, I'm pretty much an outsider when it comes to the conversation between you and BigNorseWolf because I haven't had as much of a chance to participate. I think that he was at least trying to be fair, even if he didn't come across as being entirely successful. Not that I agree with him of course, but it can be difficult dealing with assumptions about others, especially over the Internet. There are Christians out there who think and act like he was talking about, even if neither of us are among them. I think you were trying to be fair as well. I just think it was a misunderstanding and it's hardly worth trying to figure out who's more at fault in that kind of situation. I think that you two were making progress at understanding each other, so I'd be disappointed if you two stopped now.
Keep up the good fight brother. :)