Because its a system of control. What better way make people follow your archaic rules than to promise them eternal life? Live life in a non logical way in order to live forever with no pain in paradise!
The disconnect is not mine. You contradict yourself rather plainly.
If you create rules that allow for the possibility of evil, you are ultimately responsible for that evil, especially if you can reasonably foresee the possibility. See the question in my previous post.
I don't believe it started out that way. Man's mythological attempts to reason out our existance were honest enough. Without science or the ability to meaningfully ac ulate large amounts of knowledge in writing, one has to start somewhere.
Later on, religion was used rather cynically for just such purposes, though. That is not to say all modern religion serves cynical ends.
I agree with MannyIsGod and RandomGuy to an extent. Initially, the Judeo-Christian God was thought up thousands of years ago by supers ious Middle-Easterners who roamed around the desert. After a while, these people used the scriptures as a way to get people to do what they want (e.g. not eat pork because of disease, treat slaves a certain way, etc.).
But I don't know what Phenomanul was saying when he claimed that those who don't accept Jesus were bound to these Old Testament laws. Does that mean that they can't eat pork? Does that mean that they have to follow the ten commandments?
Oh, I guess it's because I haven't been enlightened by the Holy Spirit. If I was, Phenomanul's incoherent assertions would become clear.
No.
Wouldnt call it trolling at all, but yes, I realize he has participated in these threads frequently.You realize he's been trolling such threads for years... he's just out to get a rise out of folks...
Example: You cant preach peace, love and understanding and above all forgiveness and then openly hate sexuals.That said, yes... most definitely we're all sinners... We should be living lives of continual repentance... no one here has claimed moral superiority. I'm trying to make the point that outsiders can't set the terms for the understanding of our own scriptures. I'm not suggesting they aren't allowed to understand them... But somehow that elicited their undignified anger....
Example: You cannot deny the societal norms and the "moral" relativism of Biblical times were brutal by any definition of the word. Murder and slavery being completely acceptable even as it is written supposedly by God Himself, tells me one of two things. God is a miserable, hateful asshole, or that the Bible is a complete fabrication. My take, its a fabrication designed as a control mechanism to influence everything from personal responsibility, political thinking, governing and most importantly, death.
Those who choose to abide the codex as Holy Scripture are free to do so, this is a free country. Like I said, I am over the self-importance and arrogance of your typical Bible-thumper. They are all very right or very wrong. But just being able to say "I dont know" seems to be well beyond a Christian's vocabulary, as this would imply doubt and critical thinking of what has been pounded into their heads via family, society, sin and punishment.
Many people find God and it helps them cope with a world that isnt fair, just or kind. I guess some people cannot cope with the harsh reality of existence, that this world must have more meaning than is readily apparent because the alternative leaves a dependant personality feeling unfulfilled.
For the Holy, a world and existence without God is no world or existence at all because their lives, perspectives and convictions would then be called into question.
I believe that is called a confirmation bias, as studies have shown people have a serious aversion to any data that calls their opinions and stances into question.
It is what it is, I guess. Scientifically, there is no worse label to be applied to any theory as "unfalsifiable". Its the death knell for many aspiring scholars of all colors. God is unfalsifiable. But IMO, religion is not.
The two are mutually exclusive. Belief in God is not a problem for me, belief in a particular cult of worship of said God is a real hangup, otoh. I have never once encountered any sort of ideology that could ever completely encompass my thinking, not because I am special or "so damn cool", but because every person is complicated and a product of nature vs nurture.
What boggles my mind, is that organized religion has swallowed so many so easily. What was a pagan world where the Sun, moon and stars were the objects of wonder and worship has turned into a personified worshiping of Earthly men who walked among us sent from the very being who created the Sun, moon and stars in less than 3000 years.
Thats a blink of an eye in relative terms. That the human condition is so weak and fragile, that intimidation and extermination are so clearly the most effective tools for the mass conversion of thinking on a global scale says to me that the only truth is the truth found at the end of a sword.
The effectiveness of this tactic throughout all organized religions the world over is an undeniable fact weighted by the incalculable volume of blood as evidence.
With that, it became clear to me that the less I associate with these brainwashed psychopaths, the better. There is no doubting the organization that sprouts from religion on a purely regional basis, one could even make the argument that the world would be far less than it is without it, but its all at the sacrifice of truth in existence.
This, I cannot abide.
take it easy on phenom. you do know that he was spoon-fed this garbage from birth, right?
Even though I used the 100% as a means to convey conviction, I'll take a whirl...
Because those who know God are human. Humans are hypocrites, all and everyone. I am, you are, he is and so is she. They are too, as well as those people.
What makes it amusing for me as this relates to religious people, is that they profess to have a higher understanding than those without religion.
So whats worse? The willfully ignorant or the just plain ignorant?
Finally a post in this thread that made it worth while.
so was I. Somewhere along the line I started questioning why my stomach still felt empty after dinner.
was your dad a preacherman, too?
No but my mom's dad was a southern Baptist preacher. Grandma played the piano at his church and grandmas on both sides taught their sunday school classes. My mom's brother is an ordained minister in East Texas. Pretty much all of my aunts have sung in the choirs.
Mom still plays the organ at the same church I grew up in. She was a teacher at the the same private school I attended through high school which is/was affiliated with that same church.
clearly, some people aren't "blessed" with the strength of individualism.
I thank Jesus that I was.
LOL
Nice.
Wow, this article has generated a mega-thread! I didn't even notice is until I took a look inside the thread.
You’re still not getting it... that outcome is useless no matter how improbable. You want me to forcibly accept that the chance formation of code sequences 200+ or 1000s of base-pairs in length “just happened” and then to boot you want me to disregard the mathematical odds that your proposed processes would have to overcome in order to arrive at said sequence(s)? Uh yeah... ok? Those sequences are not only improbable but purposeful. Why is that important? Because you can’t gain purpose from random chance, especially not of the magnitude contained within genes.
And we’re not talking about the random chance of making a meaningful word, sentence or even a paragraph here... we’re talking about the chances that said paragraphs convey coherent substance – characters, a plot, twists, etc... it’s ludicrous to believe that the value of this information is completely irrelevant to you (or Mr. Searns for that matter). If genes were considered sets of instructions then it should follow that genomes are entire instruction manuals.
So here is what we know: Instruction manuals have never arisen “on their own”... and this is a theory that is always confirmed and never denied (i.e. computer code has not yet become self-aware without any direction, books don’t begin to reason and printing themselves, assembly lines don’t start producing other products not programmed into their function, etc...). Why would this supposition not apply to the most complex instruction manuals known to man, that of biological organisms??? In fact, if everything we’ve managed to create thus far as a species is dwarfed in complexity by these genomes, why are we to assume that ‘poof’ they just ‘made themselves’... it’s silly and absurd. But hey, believe what you must for your denial to continue...
Wherever genetic information came from originally... be it by a believer’s postulate that "GOD did it," or because an ancient race of aliens created it, or whatever else anyone may wish to postulate... it reeks of design. Genomes are like an instruction manual comprised of billions of 'words'... structured such that strings of genetic sequences can recombine to be translated in many different permutations (not just straight thru, i.e. one gene = one expression). Their location in the genome is just as critical as the code contained by their sequences (due to the discovery of introns and exons). Further still, the instructions for how certain genes are to be translated are contained elsewhere in the code. And yet somehow the translation process knows exactly "what" to produce and "when" to produce it. The biological complexity is formidable. So to those who would rather believe that ‘instruction manuals’ can actually piece themselves together, make coherent sense and produce viable products (in this case organisms)... the mathematical implications would have to be considered… and unfortunately for your belief system the odds against said premise are staggering.
Even so, you insist on removing the mathematical probability from of the equation? How convenient. Some scientists have apparently come to terms with the odds against a natural earthly cause for DNA and developed other theories to incorporate that realization. For example, Nobel laureate Dr. Francis Crick promotes 'directed panspermia' (i.e., DNA originated somewhere 'out in space' and somehow made its way to Earth).
In The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins assumes the number of theoretically possible planets that may exist in the universe (10^20 by his accounting) in order to provide sufficient opportunities for the highly improbable event of life to occur naturally (i.e., without intelligent direction).
In The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Barrow and Tipler go far beyond Dawkins in that they invoke entire universes (theoretical, of course) as the potential arenas for (natural) life to emerge.
In The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution, Kauffman takes a different route than Dawkins, Barrow and Tipler; he introduces a hypothetical set of laws by which life may emerge here on Earth solely through a natural process. These scientists wouldn’t be trying to tip the odds in their favor (in this alleged game of chance) if they didn’t acknowledge that the odds they were trying to overcome were mind-blowingly staggering, and legitimate...
“only a fool says in his heart, ‘there is no GOD’”
You very well know, no answer I give you here will suffice your personal metrics...
---- I could answer, "because He lives in believers, and works in our lives." – but you all would scoff at that assertion.
---- I could answer, "because the order seen in Creation is finely tuned and structured such that even the mathematical language of Creation – is order of its own. These things don’t occur out of their own accord; it points to a Creator." – but observable order isn’t enough for those who would rather place their faith on processes which don’t exist.
---- I could answer, "that the existence of moral capacity, the ability to reason and create points to higher order as well." – but again, none of this would be sufficient.
I can’t give you what you’re looking for, because nothing will ever satisfy your unbelief.
Maybe I could pray that you'd be struck by lightning and live to tell about it. But somehow you would just gravitate towards the conclusion that being hit by lightning was merely a coincidence, and that the 'eventuality' was mathematically probable ultimately proving nothing... such an event would not be able to turn your heart… you’d probably claim it was Zeus' doing… Even so, I don't make it my business to go around tempting the LORD, and hence, said type of prayer is not something I would even invoke (not that you’d worry about it either given your noted unbelief).
And yet, your yet unfound processes for abiogenesis are equally “miraculous” and supernatural? Please toss the double standard aside.
If ever the FSM proclaimed to have Created everything… But unfortunately for you we know the origin of the FSM and how it was conceived in parody. We also know that no one knew of FSM’s 'existence' 'til a couple of years ago... so if it was only recently conceived (and do ented), we ABSOLUTELY know with full CERTAINTY that it hasn’t done anything, or that it isn’t capable of anything other than to fancy the mocking nature of those in your camp and those that created it...
Only in a very limited sense... We won’t ever see the singularity that created it all... As I stated earlier, the three immutable elements of the scientific method cannot be employed on matters concerning origins (neither repeatability, nor observation, nor measurement). You employ faith because your premise that GOD doesn’t exist is partially based on the assumption that the naturalistic processes that give rise to life (without the aid of a Creator) will one day be discovered. WE HAVE YET TO FIND those processes and yet you openly believe that they occurred. You believe in said processes with absolute certainty despite the fact that we’ve yet to find any evidence that supports their historical existence. That’s faith no matter how you slice it. Of course, I fully expect you to keep denying the fact that you’ve been living under the faux premise that said evidence exists...
That’s right, because He operates outside of the natural realm (hence the term 'Supernatural'… duh!). How can one use a toolset (the scientific method) that is designed to quantify our natural world to investigate those things which by very definition fall outside of its domain??? Based on those limitations, it’s rather foolhardy to suggest that lack of scientific evidence in favor of the supernatural is enough proof to claim that the supernatural cannot exist. It’s like a blind man asserting that light doesn’t exist simply because he cannot sense it.
Obviously it does... unless a course you have access to a time-machine and quantified the singularity that gave rise to the universe... or that you were actually present to observe the moment when life allegedly created itself… either here on earth or elsewhere in the universe...
i.e. faith... because that hasn’t happened yet. You take it for certain that said processes can be found, and argue on the premise that they have been found. I still laugh every time that someone argues on those grounds but then tosses in words like 'reasonably' or 'logical' for good measure...
I’ve never denied that my belief in GOD is based on Faith… or that my belief structure was based on the Special Revelation of the Scriptures… and only loosely on the General Revelation manifest in nature.
The point is getting you to understand that your belief system (on matters of origins - not the applied sciences) is based on faith as well. That’s why your quest for proof surrounding the GOD-question is pointless, especially when issued as taunts as you’ve done repeatedly in this thread. Even your fellow agnostics can tell you your request is foolhardy... So no, the difference between you and me is simple: I’m not in denial about my faith, and you most definitely are. I mean, you can’t even come to terms with that realization.
I can’t watch videos from work.
Exactly what definition of evolution are you referring to? The one that says "things change" (I would agree that 'this' is science), or the one that says "that’s how everything came to be" (this transcends science and is philosophical naturalism... a metaphysical position)? People use the two terms interchangeably without realizing the implications of either... Obviously you have chosen the latter meaning given your constant uttering of the phrase, "yet we are all here..."
Clearly there would not be a creation-evolution controversy if it were universally agreed and adhered to that evolution meant solely "a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time..." There is a creation-evolution controversy (a major one at that) precisely because evolution means far more than what that statement entails. The controversy exists because Evolution, the full-fledged manifestation of evolution (with a capital E - including Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution), is for many a metaphysical belief that elevates the philosophy of materialistic naturalism (hailing purely natural laws and processes, including time and chance, as our "creators"), and dismissing GOD (a Creator with purpose) as an irrelevant product of supers ion...
After all, why is it that so many people are offended by the theory of Evolution to the point of fiercely opposing it??? Why is it that emotions run so high and intellectual battles persist? Because of ignorance? Hardly! Although there will always be uninformed people on both sides of any dispute, a great many well-educated people in science, mathematics and other disciplines are among those who disagree adamantly with the precepts of Evolution. Evolution is offensive because it is bad science and is as equally bad a metaphysic construct... in short, on close examination, Evolution fails on all counts. There is a controversy precisely because of clashing metaphysics… the same type of conflict that exists when Christian theology comes face-to-face with Islam, Buddhism, or even atheism (and each carries its own distinct world-view)...
Despite all of this, you and others here have been promoting the view that the creation-evolution controversy is a war of 'religion versus science' or that of 'emotion versus reason.'
Again, Evolution, as a manifestation of methodological naturalism (the operational version of philosophical naturalism), makes countless assertions into metaphysical areas with cosmological and biological origins representing just a few of these. Then you all venture on to assert that Evolution is "the scientific explanation for biodiversity..." This second assumption is nothing more than a tautology in the sense that it is the "scientific community" that dictates what is admissible and what is not... Is it any surprise that this same community embraces philosophical/methodological naturalism and frowns heavily upon anything that even remotely suggests anything other than material causes?
I can think of no better illustration of this than the case of intelligent design theory (ID). Leaving out numerous details, ID had a difficult time being accepted into the scientific establishment as a bona fide theory simply because it has metaphysical—in fact theistic—implications. After all, if the logical conclusion is that specified and complex design is present, then a designer is the only available option and the big 'G' immediately enters the realm of possibilities. Naturalists were quick to pick up on this rather obvious and, to them, highly unpalatable conclusion and as a result ID is being treated by many as if it were advocating the practice of human sacrifices... around here, posters that bring it up get bombarded with stones from everyone else trying to debase whatever credibility you may bring to the table.
The fact of the matter is that ID is as robust a theory as one should reasonably expect, having all of the components—foundation, logical/mathematical formulation, explanatory/predictive power, etc... that other widely accepted theories have... In short, it questions how the order and complexity that we see in nature could arise out of entirely natural processes... but ventures further to suggest that design is clearly present. That's the step naturalists loath...
To summarize this point, ID is not being scorned because it is illogical, but because it crosses the line that separates one metaphysical worldview from another. The "people in charge," i.e., the naturalistic scientific establishment, are unwilling to allow that to happen... naturalism must be protected and defended at all costs... This is a blatant case of deception by omission, considering the fact that Evolution crosses that same exact line...
As the universally recognized and accepted authority on what is admissible as 'scientifically valid', the scientific establishment (anchored in naturalism) has constructed the rules so that Evolution is the de facto answer to most questions in the natural realm... This matter may be expanded in many directions so I’ll focus on this consideration: eliminate Evolution and what are the remaining options? Naturalists know well that to eliminate Evolution is to eliminate the single possibility for a natural explanation of the origin of life and of biodiversity. Therefore, Evolution must be sustained even if this requires hypothesizing the preposterous or the unfalsifiable... The only other alternative, the supernatural, is simply not admissible...
The establishment, hence is committed to defending its position at all costs... one would only have to study the incongruence surrounding transitional fossils. The transitional fossil evidence is highly suspect despite what many will claim to the contrary and a great deal of controversy exists within and outside of scientific circles... certainly not what the evolution advocates (particularly Darwin himself) ever expected considering he operated on the assumption that many such fossils would be found...
So what do the Evolution advocates do? Is the validity of the theory even questioned? Never! Instead, ingenious mechanisms such as Goldschmidt’s 'hopeful monsters,' the 'emication' idea of the Swedish botanist and geneticist Nils Heribert-Nilsson and the more palatable 'punctuated equilibria' of Gould and Eldredge have been proposed... whatever it takes to lend credibility to a theory weakened by the empirical data. There is a fine line between scientific 'ingenious mechanisms' and metaphysical ‘sorcerer concoctions’ and it is a historical fact that even reputable men of science have crossed this line many times in order to support a paradigm. So once again I must point out that if naturalists essentially have a carte blanche in what they may propose to uphold their pet theory, then it will be extremely difficult if not impossible for someone to falsify their position...
You can fancy whatever you want on the subject of origins, develop your own 'ingenious mechanism'… ultimately however, faith would be involved in all such scenarios… especially if you honestly wanted to believe in them or had to take a stand for their defense…
See... this is where you and I will forever clash… The 'scientific establishment' clearly does postulate a stance before any evidence is found, (postulae a priori). The stance is that GOD doesn’t exist. They operate on that premise. How is that any different from mine… considering that this premise is equally untestable? If any data doesn’t jive with their core premise, they simply toss it out and move on to the next theory… one that keeps the Creator perpetually out of the picture...
Last edited by Phenomanul; 09-10-2010 at 03:43 PM.
No offense taken. So then those that claim God does NOT exist must also show proof, correct?
As some have stated in this thread my faith will not be shaken by posts in this thread. I choose to believe and let others do as they please. Not everyone sees things as I do and that shouldn't surprise anyone. I mean, igotno always sees my posts as boring and deserving a joechalupa award but I don't see them that way. meh
Frankly, I find it odd that people don't believe in God but that is just me.
Ahura Mazda proclaimed to have created everything also.
How do you think the god known as Ahura Mazda was conceived?
I'll prove God doesn't exist, but only if you prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist first.
what 'scientific establishment' clearly postulates such a stance that God does not exist?See... this is where you and I will forever clash… The 'scientific establishment' clearly does postulate a stance before any evidence is found, (postulae a priori). The stance is that GOD doesn’t exist. They operate on that premise. How is that any different from mine… considering that this premise is equally untestable? If any data doesn’t jive with their core premise, they simply toss it out and move on to the next theory… one that keeps the Creator perpetually out of the picture...
Link please or else it's yet just another in a long line of strawmen for you.
That makes us even then I guess although I have no idea how the flying spaghetti monster came into this.
Explain how someone can show proof that someone else does not exist?
forget the FSM.
Prove that Zeus does not exist.
I've never made such a claim.
Do you believe in Zeus?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote