Evidence for God from Science

Nobody has crossed a line yet.

Just a pre-emptive message to put things in perspective for all involved.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Just a reminder for those on this thread.

If you haven't already, please read the Discussion Guidelines of this Board. We are not a general discussion board. We exist to discuss issues between Christians and those who are sincerely seeking or questioning in this area.

http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?p=4

Other boards exist for those who have already made up their minds and are not interested in civil discourse or open to working through issues with an open mind on their end.

Please check as well out the main board where you will find a great deal of articles that address the common arguments of Atheism and a Christian Apologetic response.

Blessings and thanks for examining the guidelines and determining if you can work within their perameters.

Hmmm...

This is a tough one. Civil discourse is easy, but I'd be lying if I said I was here to be converted. I'm here because I read an article here that said some things about atheists that were false and biased and I wish to refute them.

Frankly, I agree with the second poster on the thread you linked. This site seems to support one viewpoint while shutting down contrary beliefs. A system of belief with a solid foundation shouldn't have to do that.

NeedMoreChipotleTabasco wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:Just a reminder for those on this thread.

If you haven't already, please read the Discussion Guidelines of this Board. We are not a general discussion board. We exist to discuss issues between Christians and those who are sincerely seeking or questioning in this area.

http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?p=4

Other boards exist for those who have already made up their minds and are not interested in civil discourse or open to working through issues with an open mind on their end.

Please check as well out the main board where you will find a great deal of articles that address the common arguments of Atheism and a Christian Apologetic response.

Blessings and thanks for examining the guidelines and determining if you can work within their perameters.

Hmmm...

This is a tough one. Civil discourse is easy, but I'd be lying if I said I was here to be converted. I'm here because I read an article here that said some things about atheists that were false and biased and I wish to refute them.

Frankly, I agree with the second poster on the thread you linked. This site seems to support one viewpoint while shutting down contrary beliefs. A system of belief with a solid foundation shouldn't have to do that.

Please check your Private Message box for more elaboration and then you can decide if this board is for you.

Let's break this down and go to the root of the problem here... Obviously someone is right and someone is wrong here. If macro-evolution (without God) says that everything is in a perpetual state of change where survival of the fittest is the key to existence then how does this concept promote humanity? If I'm white and my neighbor is black, what evolution says here is that one race is more evolved than another. This doesn't only mean physically but intellectually as well.. Bigger brains right? What this tells me is that one race is more superior to the other. How does this promote love and equality to my black neighbor friend?

If macro-evolution were true, then I believe you fall into Darwin's trap.. Let's really see what Darwin wrote about love and equality (i.e. evolution). I'm going to quote PL here from a previous post. "Whatever the culture of the day believed, there can be little doubt that Darwin viewed the black race as inferior, and the white race to be further along in the evolutionary chain. You may have heard of Darwin's 1859 book, "On the Origin of Species". However, you have probably never heard the complete title, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life."

Here is another interesting quote from his work "Descent of Man (1871)".

"At some future period--the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world."

Darwin's "bulldog" Thomas Huxley once stated, "No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man."

Here is one such statement about women from the book "Descent of Man":

“The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than woman can attain - whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses”

Here is another one about comparing women and men:

"If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting, sculpture, music (inclusive both of composition and performance), history, science, and philosophy, with half-a-dozen names under each subject, the two lists would not bear comparison"

or

"Man is more courageous, pugnacious, and energetic than woman and has more inventive genius".

or

"Thus man has ultimately become superior to woman."

Do you realize if Darwin were to say these things in our college campuses today what would happen to him? He would be vaporized... Why are his concepts still being supported today? Is there something good about this primatve theory that we are missing?

My question remains.... How does this type of evolution promote love and equality for all? And why is there a problem with attributing creationism to God who stands for love and equality?? Where is the problem here, I'm dying to know.

Just a thought.. This is not a direct attack on atheists as people. In fact, I know some atheists that I would trust more than some "so-called" Christians that I know. I'm only looking at where the theory of evolution is heading to, and that is a brick wall in my book.

G -

Garza, Need and Birdie,
Thanks for your honesty. I hope that you at least stay honest and open minded when it comes to God. It can't hurt to investigate and not just go on surface evidence and feelings.

Take care
FFC

Gman - I believe one of the guidelines for this forum specifies that everyone should stay on topic. The general subject for the forum is morality, and moral behaviour was the substance of my post that started this thread. How do you answer what I wrote, and can you persuade me that my ideas about morality are wrong? I will listen with an open mind.

Hi Garza.. Glad you came back, welcome... I guess that's why they call me the G-man.. I don't think you are far off, ok? This is how I perceive this morality thing. First off, I think I know a few things about God, but if I were to say that I knew him totally, I would have a problem with that or with anyone else that may think that. Since I don't totally know how he thinks, then how can anyone really know who he deems as walking in his morality (or love)? I think it is ludicrous to presume that if someone were to say that since they are an atheist, or of some other religion that they are automatically immoral or it leads to that... Sorry Rich Deem... I don't totally agree with this, (not that he really said it this way..).

Here is my point... Can an atheist be moral? Sure, why not? As I've stated before, I know some atheists that I would propably trust more than some Christians I know. If you walk in love, to me, that means you are walking with God. In fact the word "God" is simply a germanic name for deified reference ("reverence") to the unitary concept of deity, (as per Wikipedia). So if someone told me that they try to walk with "reverence" I think we may have a better understanding of what they are trying to do. It's that simple in my book... Not too hard huh? You don't even really need to say the word God here. It's what you attribute to God that makes the difference...

My beef however is with evolution devoid of God (or to me "love"). I really don't like what it promotes... Call me biased, or whatever... To me it just breaks everything down to simple mechanisms (evolutional robots) devoid of any real feelings or emotions, (it's all in you head, right?).. Who really cares? Where is the love here? I don't know about you, but if I knew every part of my car, took it apart then put it back together again, I would get totally bored with that after awhile. To me it is the spiritual world that is far more fascinating and mysterious... And sometimes even downright WEIRD . That's what I like about it. Like a breath of fresh air. It brings meaning to life... And the neat thing about it is that you can still be an individual as well.. You don't have to blindly follow what everyone says either.. It's just you and God alone if you want that too.. A rebel per say..

I also think the concept of God promotes love. Although some people may have differnet functions in this world, whether they may be male or female black or white, they are all made in the image of God and should be respected as such.. And nature get's amplified too... As an example, God refers to himself like a green fur tree (in Hosea: 14:8.). So when you look at nature, you are really witnessing some aspects of God. Ok, maybe I'm getting off track here. I just don't see why we can't attribute creationism to God. That's all.. Why not? I don't think we should always be caught up on how... Perhaps the better question is why?

So to answer the question again, yes, I believe one can be moral without attributing that directly to God. However when it comes to doctrine, this is where I see the split. I try to focus on the doctrine alone and not the person. I don't necessarily believe that one's doctrine (or beliefs) truely reflects who they are as a person. It's more what you do than say.. Know what I mean?

Hope this helps, take care..

G -