Evidence for God from Science

In other words, carbon dating is only good when it proves your point.

You need to take an English class...you seem to be guessing at half the words I used.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

In other words, carbon dating is only good when it proves your point.

You need to take an English class...you seem to be guessing at half the words I used.

I don't know you two go at out of Spite or sheer fun??? So the date of the Vesuvius Volcano for Example was dated to almost the Exact time. (5 years off) Being around 79ad. Some of the Greatest Biblical Discoveries were dated and give great evidence to the Historicity of the Bible.

Food for thought

Tim

I really don't know why we love going after each other so much. Maybe we contradict each most of the time.

bizzt wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

In other words, carbon dating is only good when it proves your point.

You need to take an English class...you seem to be guessing at half the words I used.

I don't know you two go at out of Spite or sheer fun??? So the date of the Vesuvius Volcano for Example was dated to almost the Exact time. (5 years off) Being around 79ad. Some of the Greatest Biblical Discoveries were dated and give great evidence to the Historicity of the Bible.

Food for thought

Tim

We do know that the further back we go, the worse it gets. The max is about 50,000 years. In general, there are a lot of factors that can skew a result. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C14_dating At least that's an unbiased source.

My stance on it is that dating techniques are generally useful, but very prone to error. So single results are very questionable, whereas multiple tests from multiple samples that all yeild the same result are likely pretty accurate.

50% of dates are tossed out(can't remember my source, and I know someone will say "how convenient")...so how do they decide that the others are right...?

HelpMeGod wrote:

SLP wrote: This board is titled 'theology and science'. I wanted to discuss science. I came and saw the amount of disinformation being peddled here and thought I would briefly try to deal with it. I see that that was interpreted as attacks against Christianity and such. If simple corrections to falsehoods is an 'attack' on your beliefs, then your beliefs are weak indeed.

DISINFORMATION!? Yup, he's lost his mind . You are the one that is brainwashed, you are just here to argue with other Christians that you think you know everything that you are all knowing, all powerful, you ARE GOD. You have made it clear that you are going to stay an atheist and according to the forum rules, anyone that has already chosen thier religion against ours (i.e. atheism), can't be on the forums. This is because people like you like to attack Christians and other religions with flase information. 10% of the world are pagans/agnostics/atheist/non-believers, that holds 90% religion, do you really expect it to rise as the discovery of creationism increases as Newsweek put it? All of your so called information may contain hints of truth but most of it is false. Look into Christian theolgy, philosophy, apologetics, and all the doctrine it has to offer. You seem to just get your information from the atheist point of view instead of looking at it from the Christian and atheist views.

Just as I thought - you are desperately - and transparently - trying to set me up for a banning.

I notice that you did not even attempt to address the answers I provided, or respond to my explanation (but the gratuitous insults - marvelous!).

Brainwashed? Seek the help you need. But it won't be in some book.

kateliz wrote:SLP, I highly respect your position. HelpMeGod, I think you need to calm down and realize SLP does have good points that do deserve to be addressed.

Thank you. It seems obvious that HMG had an unwavering agenda and had no intention of reading what I wrote.

I am far, far too ignorant to argue about the details of evolution, but frankly that doesn't matter.

And it shouldn't, if you are concerned about Faith and salvation and all that. It has always seemed odd to me that a certain group of biblical literalists have such a strong need for science to support their beliefs.

As for evidence for Christianity's reality I've read two books: John McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict and Lee Strobel's The Case for a Creator. I find a number of those arguments for Christianity in those to be stupid and illogical grasping out of desperation, however, I did find things that seemed like pretty straight-forward, simple proof that can't be argued, and a lot of other believable points. Jesus and his miracles are historical events. The Bible is a trustworthy historical work, (setting aside controversy over many of the miracles,) and should be given it's due respect for that.

Indeed. I suspect most if not all of the evnts depicted in the bible have some historical corroboration. It is the miraculous events described that I believe are the results not of Divine intervention, but of an inability to adequately document phenomena that the bible's authors did not understand.

The odds for evolution to have "worked" at creating the life forms we see here on earth deems it nearly impossible.

I hope you are not basing that on Strobels' book. The reviews - the scientific reviews - that I have seen paint it as little more than uninformed propaganda.

And basing your beliefs on a dislike of a righteous Judge as a Creator and on believing in evolution seems pretty loaded.

Indeed. I find such a presumption ignorant and arrogant. Why on earth would a person 'dislike' such a being?

What are your reasons for being an atheist? I'm not trying to challenge or argue here in the mean-spirited way HelpMeGod did, (yes, you did Brian,) but I'd like to know because I'm guessing you're an atheist out of a desire for God to not be real, and that is the most illogical reason anyone could have for not believing in the possibility of a god. If you have other philosophical reasons I'd like to hear them.

You had me, then you lost me.

As I wrote previously, I was what I guess would be called a 'nominal Christian' for the first 20 years of my life. That is, I believed in God, occasionally read parts of the bible (though my family did not go to church - my father felt they were just about getting money), etc. After my father died, I was urged by my mother to read the bible, which I did. Twice. And it was after reading it that I concluded that I could not simply accept the tenets of the religion. I found the biblical narrative contradictory, superfluous, inconsistent, and implausible.
I became an agnostic for a time, and after reflection and further reading, became an atheist.

I am not an atheist because I hate God. I do not even dislike God. I simply do not think that the God described in the bible exists. I am not a militant atheist - I do not want to shut down churches, etc. I do think that Religion is a bit too influential in politics these days, especially when the likes of DeLay are shamelessly pandering to religious conservatives.

I often hear the 'desire' argument - that atheists don't want to believe in God so that they canbasically 'be bad.' That is just plain stupid. All of the non-religious people I know are far more conscientous, compassionate, law-abiding, and honest than the 'uber-Christians' I have known. I have been an atheist for nearly 20 years, and the worst offense I have committed is speeding, along with probably 90% of all Americans. I have not cheated on my wife or gotten divorced (been married for 18 years), I do not abuse my children, I do not lie, cheat or steal. Because I 'hate God'? No, because I see no reason to do so, as I would not want such things done to me or at my expense.

You and others have implied that I do not know about or understand the bible, and if I did , I would be like you. I was like you. It was my understanding that that lead me away. I do not worship myself or anything for that matter. I take actual personal responsibility for myself and my actions, unlike the pseudo-respopnsibility that others take.

I see no reason the believe out of fear. I see no reasoin thebelieve to be on the bandwagon. I see no reason the believe 'just in case.'

I understand that many people find solace and comfort in religion, and that is fine, but it is not for me.

And I find it grotesque that so many religionists seem content to distort, disinform, and bear flase witness against those they disagree with while simultaneously proclaiming their moral and ethical superiority.

Felgar wrote:Sorry Kateliz, I do respect your opinions, but I hold absolutely no respect for SLP at all, even a little bit.

That muchis obvious.

His attacks are so thinly veiled I don't even know what to make of them.

SLP wrote:I wanted to discuss science. I came and saw the amount of disinformation being peddled here and thought I would briefly try to deal with it.

Again, this is a plain and simple lie.

It is not a lie at all, and I resent your unfounded accusation. apparently, that is all you have to offer.

See the next 2 sentances:

SLP wrote:I see that that was interpreted as attacks against Christianity and such. If simple corrections to falsehoods is an 'attack' on your beliefs, then your beliefs are weak indeed.

Why did you bring up our beliefs if you are only interested in discussing science?

Again, your hyperzealousness has clouded your reasoning.

It was not I that attacked anything, it was you, MM, and HMG that interpreted my corrections of falsehoods as attacks.

Because of this, and these repeated, idiotic and childish accusations, I see little reason to read, much less respond, to your vitriol any more.

Felgar wrote:Sorry Kateliz, I do respect your opinions, but I hold absolutely no respect for SLP at all, even a little bit.

That muchis obvious.

His attacks are so thinly veiled I don't even know what to make of them.

SLP wrote:I wanted to discuss science. I came and saw the amount of disinformation being peddled here and thought I would briefly try to deal with it.

Again, this is a plain and simple lie.

It is not a lie at all, and I resent your unfounded accusation. apparently, that is all you have to offer.

See the next 2 sentances:

SLP wrote:I see that that was interpreted as attacks against Christianity and such. If simple corrections to falsehoods is an 'attack' on your beliefs, then your beliefs are weak indeed.

Why did you bring up our beliefs if you are only interested in discussing science?

Again, your hyperzealousness has clouded your reasoning.

It was not I that attacked anything, it was you, MM, and HMG that interpreted my corrections of falsehoods as attacks.

You ACCUSED me of attacking your beliefs for simply correcting the disinformation regarding agnosticism and atheism. What you quote above - out of context, of course - was my reply to those accusations. The dishonesty just oozes from you.

Because of this, and these repeated, idiotic and childish accusations, I see little reason to read, much less respond, to your vitriol any more.

colors wrote:slp,

it was after deeeeeeep down thought that i decided it was illogical...

must suck to be that shallow!

Oh my, that was a clever one.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

If simple corrections to falsehoods is an 'attack' on your beliefs, then your beliefs are weak indeed.

As far as I've read, these so called falsehoods you wish replaced with falsehoods.

Really? Perhaps ypou can docuemnt such falsehoods instead of blabbering on?

I am not going to debate Christianity with you - that will only give you and your ilk fodder for piling on me and urging the admin to 'ban' me.

If you were in danger of being banned for debating, Darwin_Rocks would have been long gone.

Why would I need ot explain the thought processes that occurred in an aging philosopher?

You find it necessary to call Flew a lunatic or a demented man since he, after many years, has come to the logical conclusion that God has existed, through the four years of being witnessed by a friend?

Funny, it would appear that I referred to him as an aging philosopher, which he is. You cannot even stay honest for ONE post!

Your repertoire of preconceived notions is so hackneyed and shopworn that I can only laugh.

Yours too

Clever comeback.

You mean like 'Mastermind'?? LOL!

Finally, someone that agrees he's a little ...odd

That I found the amount of distortion and disinformation incredible.

If you're referring to the fossils it's *cough* the distortion is on your side of the fence.

I was not referring to that, no, but I find the creationist treatment of fossils to be rather... shallow.

HelpMeGod....calm down, you're making up several things....as well as....going on and on....and saying you're right based on majority is bad-you can be right and be the only one who thinks so....or everyone could think they're right while bein wrong..

Indeed.

I find a number of those arguments for Christianity in those to be stupid and illogical grasping out of desperation

As I haven't read them, you could explain some of their bad arguments? It's a lot easier than actually reading the book...

I already documented one example. The others are of similar value. The same logic is applied as is used in claiming Nostradamus' work to be accurate prophesizing.

SLP, I'm sorry HMG harrassed you. Please don't let that, and others' "babbling" cause you to give up on us. I like to have different takes on the evidence for things so that I can sift through it and decide for myself, and you seem to be able to help with that more than other evolutionists that I've seen post here. Also, visitors just checking out the discussions would benefit as well.

It has always seemed odd to me that a certain group of biblical literalists have such a strong need for science to support their beliefs.

I myself might be one of those "literalists", depending on what you mean by literal. I fully believe that God inspired an almost entirely flawless Bible, the flaws coming in forms like slips of the hand, occassionally missing verses from some MSS, and things like that.

I do have a "need" for science and the Great Scientist's Book to agree with eachother at least for the most part. And to be frank, if science truly contradicts that inspired Book, I'd side with the Book. That is because the Creator doesn't need what we find to verify what He said He did. If He can work miracles, (and this because He's above the scientific laws He put in place, and can cause some specific laws in certain places and times to be temporarily over-ruled while keeping all the rest the same,) then He can cause things to seem different than what they were. Don't ask me why He would do that; I don't think He would be so deceiving, but He could choose to do that.

It is the miraculous events described that I believe are the results not of Divine intervention, but of an inability to adequately document phenomena that the bible's authors did not understand.

Could you please give me some idea of the natural causes for these "miracles" that you believe? Actually, I agree with this too, but only to a certain extent. I've come across the very believeable theory that the events in Revelation are things that only today's minds would be able to interpret. These include things like the the mark of the Beast being an implanted computer chip that includes your I.D., bank info, and the ability to act like a check card when scanned, the locust with faces being men in futuristic helicoptors, and the living image of the antichrist that can kill people being a holograph or robot or something like that. I got that intelligent idea from a book I've as yet only scanned over, There's a New World Coming by Hal Lindsey. According to that theory Revelations was way ahead of it's time in prophesying nuclear weapon attacks and computers and things of the like. The Bible also said that transportation and information would boom near the End Times. Pretty impressive, huh?! I get a kick out of that big time!

As for the rest of it, like miracles and all that, why wouldn't a God/Creator be able to accomplish such things? He may very well have used His knowledge of how His Creation works to perform these "miracles," and I think He actually did this once too. The walls of Jericho falling down like they did wasn't a supernatural event according to what I've heard. It was the Knowledgable One giving directions on how to cause this to happen. The vibrations caused by all of Israel walking around and around the wall and all of the noise they made increasingly made the wall unstable, and the final blast of noise with all of those people yelling caused the wall to finally collapse on itself, (or fall inward or whatever the wall did.) This wouldn't be a supernatural act except for the knowledge that God gave them.

Quote:


The odds for evolution to have "worked" at creating the life forms we see here on earth deems it nearly impossible.

I hope you are not basing that on Strobels' book. The reviews - the scientific reviews - that I have seen paint it as little more than uninformed propaganda.

In fact I did, but if you've got better info, please oblige me with it! I just want the truth, no matter how it turns out. That should be everyone's attitude, but unfortunately very few people have it. (I know you'll quote me on that agreeing with it! Be my guest, it deserves to be repeated.)

Quote:


And basing your beliefs on a dislike of a righteous Judge as a Creator and on believing in evolution seems pretty loaded.

Indeed. I find such a presumption ignorant and arrogant. Why on earth would a person 'dislike' such a being?

I said you were the one who disliked such a being! I got that from your finding that Judge to be repulsive because He, like a good judge, sentences people to serve their well deserved "time."

And it was after reading it that I concluded that I could not simply accept the tenets of the religion. I found the biblical narrative contradictory, superfluous, inconsistent, and implausible.
I became an agnostic for a time, and after reflection and further reading, became an atheist.

Sounds like you were following reason. No, that's not sarcasm. The problem I have with this, (no need to brace yourself if you are,) is that just reading it without any help on understanding what it means, which would bring almost anyone, I believe, to the same conclusions you came to, and leaves you with a very inaccurate assessment. People spend their whole lives studying this great Book just to fully understand what it all means. This isn't a pointless activity because with increased knowledge on the things in it you find just how homogeneous, reasonable, consistant and feasible it's account is. The study of the Bible yields infinite fruit of truth and benefit. Every little piece of it opens up infinitly, sort of like cracking a code that keeps recoding itself. You study something one time, and the next time you see so much more than you did before that it looks brand-new. This can continue happening for the rest of your life even on the same little piece of it. No "Bible code" is needed, for the depth of what's in it, (in an ordinary sense,) is infinite. That's the most incredible thing about the divinely inspired Book, and countless Christians throughout history can verify that. I encourage you to reinvestigate it with the aid of a knowledgable Christian, and references like Hebrew and Greek dictionaries, (meant for the Bible, or others on the time in which it was written, of course,) books on Bible-times culture, and an exhaustive concordance. Just even a few hours worth of study will, I believe, prove my point on this. A controversial part of the Bible, or maybe a miracle, would probably work the best.

I am not an atheist because I hate God... I am not a militant atheist - I do not want to shut down churches, etc.

I never would've believed it, maybe even if you tried to tell me you were.

I often hear the 'desire' argument - that atheists don't want to believe in God so that they canbasically 'be bad.' That is just plain stupid.

I've known people that are like that to be almost that blunt about it. They'd rather not have absolute morals just so that they can feel free to do what they want to do, and not feel guilt. Heard it with my own ears straight "from the horse's mouth"! I hope you didn't think we pegged you like that; I certainly didn't myself! And I applaude you for your morality. Most Christians aren't as moral as you probably are:

I see no reason to do [these unmoral things,] as I would not want such things done to me or at my expense.

You and others have implied that I do not know about or understand the bible, and if I did , I would be like you. I was like you. It was my understanding that that lead me away.

If I didn't imply that before I certainly have in this post! But no, you were not like me. You called your former self a "nominal Christian," and you hit the nail on the head. You weren't a real Christian, just brought up believing what you were told by adults that loved you, and just for that reason. When I questioned Christianity myself it was simply because I didn't want to blindly assume what I was taught was all true. You say your understanding led you away, and so it did. However, what you understood was the face-value of something too rich and deep to take at face-value like that. I know you found what by all logic looks like contradictions. I have found them myself. But it is when you study with all of the Bible before you and the appropriate aid, (such an old book requires that aid,) that you get your "aha!" moment where the seeming contradictions fit together in a perfectly reasonable and logical way. All who have adequately studied the Bible, (without great bias clouding all they read and consequently all of their understandings and interpretations,) should get these moments. Sorry SLP, but you have not adequately studied it.

I see no reason the believe out of fear. I see no reasoin thebelieve to be on the bandwagon. I see no reason the believe 'just in case.'

I wholly agree. I get very mad at those people!!! Don't believe what you don't believe in! Those aren't real Christians, and no real Christian should be pushing people to become that kind of nominal Christian! It's spiritual death... and annoying, and illogical, and dim-witted!

I understand that many people find solace and comfort in religion, and that is fine, but it is not for me.

Me neither. I want the cold, unrelenting truth. Nothing else could satisfy or comfort me or give me solace.

And I find it grotesque that so many religionists seem content to distort, disinform, and bear flase witness against those they disagree with while simultaneously proclaiming their moral and ethical superiority.

Amen! And shame on you who do it! I do think that most of the people you would name for this fault belonging to this forum don't do it on purpose, however. I give them slack because I don't believe they do it out of a malicious heart. Please be careful with accusations!!!

SLP wrote:
I see that that was interpreted as attacks against Christianity and such. If simple corrections to falsehoods is an 'attack' on your beliefs, then your beliefs are weak indeed.

Why did you bring up our beliefs if you are only interested in discussing science?


Again, your hyperzealousness has clouded your reasoning.

It was not I that attacked anything, it was you, MM, and HMG that interpreted my corrections of falsehoods as attacks.

Because of this, and these repeated, idiotic and childish accusations, I see little reason to read, much less respond, to your vitriol any more.

I agree SLP. But no hard feelings, please! Not every one can be a reasoning giant like I am, after all! (Seriously.) (No, j/k.)

Quote:
Why would I need ot explain the thought processes that occurred in an aging philosopher?


You find it necessary to call Flew a lunatic or a demented man since he, after many years, has come to the logical conclusion that God has existed, through the four years of being witnessed by a friend?


Funny, it would appear that I referred to him as an aging philosopher, which he is. You cannot even stay honest for ONE post!

Um, the comment of this philosopher as "aging" was honestly interpreted as an attack on his mental facility and/or the antiquity of his beliefs, as if they were out-dated. I made this appartently false assumption as well, and was offended by this as well. If it was poor choice of words on your part, SLP, then all can, (and should,) be forgotten!

I was not referring to that, no, but I find the creationist treatment of fossils to be rather... shallow.

Please explain why. I'm really interested in what you have to say about that.

Quote:


Quote:
I find a number of those arguments for Christianity in those to be stupid and illogical grasping out of desperation


As I haven't read them, you could explain some of their bad arguments? It's a lot easier than actually reading the book...


I already documented one example. The others are of similar value. The same logic is applied as is used in claiming Nostradamus' work to be accurate prophesizing.

I find this hilarious! It was Iwho made that statement, not you SLP! Great minds think alike, right?! And I answered that question under the thread "books." Two explanations for why that was said- one from the one who said it, the other from the one who thought they said it themselves!

Can I be done now? Or do I need to spend another thousand hours on this? [/i]

kateliz wrote:SLP, I'm sorry HMG harrassed you.

Yeah, he even sent me a PM again accusing me of 'attacking' Christianity and asking for the third if I am planning on trying to convert anyone...

Please don't let that, and others' "babbling" cause you to give up on us. I like to have different takes on the evidence for things so that I can sift through it and decide for myself, and you seem to be able to help with that more than other evolutionists that I've seen post here.

Thanks. I tend to respond in-kind. You are about the only one that has not launched into accusation and insult mode. And for that, I thank you.

Also, visitors just checking out the discussions would benefit as well.

It has always seemed odd to me that a certain group of biblical literalists have such a strong need for science to support their beliefs.

I myself might be one of those "literalists", depending on what you mean by literal. I fully believe that God inspired an almost entirely flawless Bible, the flaws coming in forms like slips of the hand, occassionally missing verses from some MSS, and things like that.

I do have a "need" for science and the Great Scientist's Book to agree with eachother at least for the most part. And to be frank, if science truly contradicts that inspired Book, I'd side with the Book. That is because the Creator doesn't need what we find to verify what He said He did. If He can work miracles, (and this because He's above the scientific laws He put in place, and can cause some specific laws in certain places and times to be temporarily over-ruled while keeping all the rest the same,) then He can cause things to seem different than what they were. Don't ask me why He would do that; I don't think He would be so deceiving, but He could choose to do that.

While I certainly do not agree with your logic, I at least respect you for being honest. The 'group of literalists' I obliquely referred to are the 'professional' creationist types - those affiliated with some fo the various organizations such as ICR or AIG or the DI, and individuals with elaborate web sites filled with disinformation. They as a group have a long, sordid, and fairly well documented track record of what is either monumental incompetence of purposeful deception.

It is the miraculous events described that I believe are the results not of Divine intervention, but of an inability to adequately document phenomena that the bible's authors did not understand.

Could you please give me some idea of the natural causes for these "miracles" that you believe?

Well, take the various 'plagues' in Egypt for instance. All of them were scourges of the ancient world - even the water turing to 'blood' was not an uncommon event. I believe that 'blood' was a figure of speech describing the mud-laden waters of the Nile after heavy upstream rains, which simply got misinterpreted.

Actually, I agree with this too, but only to a certain extent. I've come across the very believeable theory that the events in Revelation are things that only today's minds would be able to interpret. These include things like the the mark of the Beast being an implanted computer chip that includes your I.D., bank info, and the ability to act like a check card when scanned, the locust with faces being men in futuristic helicoptors, and the living image of the antichrist that can kill people being a holograph or robot or something like that. I got that intelligent idea from a book I've as yet only scanned over, There's a New World Coming by Hal Lindsey.

Not Hal Lindsey!

According to that theory Revelations was way ahead of it's time in prophesying nuclear weapon attacks and computers and things of the like. The Bible also said that transportation and information would boom near the End Times. Pretty impressive, huh?! I get a kick out of that big time!

Yes, but Nostradamus fans believe that he foresaw such things as well. That is the problem with ancient prophesy - it is so ambiguous so as to be applicable to nearly anything a believer wants itt to apply to. Just like the daily Horoscopes.
Ever watch the Simpsons? Best show on TV - anyway, there was an episode where a motivational speaker/Dr.Phil type came to town. He was putting on a presentation and he 'treated' the MC of the show, Troy McClure, to an evaluation. He drew a circle on a large piece of paper, and told Troy "This is you". Troy smacks his forehead and explaims, "My God, its like you've known me all my life!"
That is sort of how I see it when someone says that bible prophecies have come to pass.

As for the rest of it, like miracles and all that, why wouldn't a God/Creator be able to accomplish such things?

He sure could have done those things, and more. But why a swarm of fleas? Why not just ZAP Pharoah into doing his will? Why not just teleport the Jews out of Egypt to Israel?

He may very well have used His knowledge of how His Creation works to perform these "miracles," and I think He actually did this once too. The walls of Jericho falling down like they did wasn't a supernatural event according to what I've heard. It was the Knowledgable One giving directions on how to cause this to happen. The vibrations caused by all of Israel walking around and around the wall and all of the noise they made increasingly made the wall unstable, and the final blast of noise with all of those people yelling caused the wall to finally collapse on itself, (or fall inward or whatever the wall did.) This wouldn't be a supernatural act except for the knowledge that God gave them.

No, but where in the bible is it explained that they were instructed to do this? And why doesn't the archaeological evidence support the biblical version?

Quote:


The odds for evolution to have "worked" at creating the life forms we see here on earth deems it nearly impossible.

I hope you are not basing that on Strobels' book. The reviews - the scientific reviews - that I have seen paint it as little more than uninformed propaganda.

In fact I did, but if you've got better info, please oblige me with it! I just want the truth, no matter how it turns out. That should be everyone's attitude, but unfortunately very few people have it. (I know you'll quote me on that agreeing with it! Be my guest, it deserves to be repeated.)

Like I said, I have not read the book, but I am familiar with the theme of the arguments he presents. Why don't you tell me what some of his specific arguments were, and I'll see if I am knowledgible enough about them to discuss it.

Quote:

And basing your beliefs on a dislike of a righteous Judge as a Creator and on believing in evolution seems pretty loaded.

Indeed. I find such a presumption ignorant and arrogant. Why on earth would a person 'dislike' such a being?

I said you were the one who disliked such a being! I got that from your finding that Judge to be repulsive because He, like a good judge, sentences people to serve their well deserved "time."

But I never said anything about 'disliking.'
Is this:

"I find it reprehensible that any God would so punish its own creation"

what you are referring to?

And it was after reading it that I concluded that I could not simply accept the tenets of the religion. I found the biblical narrative contradictory, superfluous, inconsistent, and implausible.
I became an agnostic for a time, and after reflection and further reading, became an atheist.

Sounds like you were following reason. No, that's not sarcasm. The problem I have with this, (no need to brace yourself if you are,) is that just reading it without any help on understanding what it means, which would bring almost anyone, I believe, to the same conclusions you came to, and leaves you with a very inaccurate assessment.

In other words, you have to be told what it really means? That is interesting because some time ago I was told by another literalist that a 'straightforward reading' was all that was required.

People spend their whole lives studying this great Book just to fully understand what it all means. This isn't a pointless activity because with increased knowledge on the things in it you find just how homogeneous, reasonable, consistant and feasible it's account is. The study of the Bible yields infinite fruit of truth and benefit. Every little piece of it opens up infinitly, sort of like cracking a code that keeps recoding itself. You study something one time, and the next time you see so much more than you did before that it looks brand-new. This can continue happening for the rest of your life even on the same little piece of it. No "Bible code" is needed, for the depth of what's in it, (in an ordinary sense,) is infinite. That's the most incredible thing about the divinely inspired Book, and countless Christians throughout history can verify that. I encourage you to reinvestigate it with the aid of a knowledgable Christian, and references like Hebrew and Greek dictionaries, (meant for the Bible, or others on the time in which it was written, of course,) books on Bible-times culture, and an exhaustive concordance. Just even a few hours worth of study will, I believe, prove my point on this. A controversial part of the Bible, or maybe a miracle, would probably work the best.

Thanks for the info, but in my agnostic days, I did quite a bit of reading and investigation on the matter, including reading the works of some bible scholars and the like. I am not sure that doing it all over again would change anything.

I am not an atheist because I hate God... I am not a militant atheist - I do not want to shut down churches, etc.

I never would've believed it, maybe even if you tried to tell me you were.

I often hear the 'desire' argument - that atheists don't want to believe in God so that they canbasically 'be bad.' That is just plain stupid.

I've known people that are like that to be almost that blunt about it. They'd rather not have absolute morals just so that they can feel free to do what they want to do, and not feel guilt. Heard it with my own ears straight "from the horse's mouth"! I hope you didn't think we pegged you like that; I certainly didn't myself! And I applaude you for your morality. Most Christians aren't as moral as you probably are:

I see no reason to do [these unmoral things,] as I would not want such things done to me or at my expense.

You and others have implied that I do not know about or understand the bible, and if I did , I would be like you. I was like you. It was my understanding that that lead me away.

If I didn't imply that before I certainly have in this post! But no, you were not like me. You called your former self a "nominal Christian," and you hit the nail on the head. You weren't a real Christian, just brought up believing what you were told by adults that loved you, and just for that reason.

Which is what I believe most Christians do. I lived in Grand Rapids, MI, for a few years, just down the road from the Baptist Seminary and College. Many of the students lived in my building. I knew many of them. And without exception, each came from a very religious home. Those that I know personally (and many Ihave read about) who claim to have formerly been non-Christian and then 'did research' and been converted have been, without excpetion, I hate to say it, liars. Or Witnesses, I believe it is called. Here is a 'famous' example - Steve Austin, a geologist with the institute for Creation Research, has written articles and gives lectures about how he used ot be an old earth evolutionist, until he did research at Mt.St. Helens after the 1980 eruption, after which he amazingly became a Young Earth Creationist. Unfortunately, it was known that he had written creationist articles under the pseudonym Stuart Nevins (an anagram of Steve Austin) at least 4 and possihbly as long as 10 years prior to the eruption. That is, he has lied - repeatedly - about his 'conversion' all in the hopes of converting the masses.
With ambassadors like that, can you really blame people for being skeptical?
A bit off topic I suppose...
Oh, right - people rejecting God so they can be bad.
You say people have told you this - are these people now Born Again?

When I questioned Christianity myself it was simply because I didn't want to blindly assume what I was taught was all true. You say your understanding led you away, and so it did. However, what you understood was the face-value of something too rich and deep to take at face-value like that. I know you found what by all logic looks like contradictions. I have found them myself. But it is when you study with all of the Bible before you and the appropriate aid, (such an old book requires that aid,) that you get your "aha!" moment where the seeming contradictions fit together in a perfectly reasonable and logical way. All who have adequately studied the Bible, (without great bias clouding all they read and consequently all of their understandings and interpretations,) should get these moments. Sorry SLP, but you have not adequately studied it.

Well, I think I have. Our opinions differ.

I see no reason the believe out of fear. I see no reasoin thebelieve to be on the bandwagon. I see no reason the believe 'just in case.'

I wholly agree. I get very mad at those people!!! Don't believe what you don't believe in! Those aren't real Christians, and no real Christian should be pushing people to become that kind of nominal Christian! It's spiritual death... and annoying, and illogical, and dim-witted!

I understand that many people find solace and comfort in religion, and that is fine, but it is not for me.

Me neither. I want the cold, unrelenting truth. Nothing else could satisfy or comfort me or give me solace.

And I find it grotesque that so many religionists seem content to distort, disinform, and bear flase witness against those they disagree with while simultaneously proclaiming their moral and ethical superiority.

Amen! And shame on you who do it! I do think that most of the people you would name for this fault belonging to this forum don't do it on purpose, however. I give them slack because I don't believe they do it out of a malicious heart. Please be careful with accusations!!!

I'll send you a PM on that.

SLP wrote:

I see that that was interpreted as attacks against Christianity and such. If simple corrections to falsehoods is an 'attack' on your beliefs, then your beliefs are weak indeed.

Why did you bring up our beliefs if you are only interested in discussing science?


Again, your hyperzealousness has clouded your reasoning.

It was not I that attacked anything, it was you, MM, and HMG that interpreted my corrections of falsehoods as attacks.

Because of this, and these repeated, idiotic and childish accusations, I see little reason to read, much less respond, to your vitriol any more.

I agree SLP. But no hard feelings, please! Not every one can be a reasoning giant like I am, after all! (Seriously.) (No, j/k.)

So far, on this board, that is no joke!

Quote:

Why would I need ot explain the thought processes that occurred in an aging philosopher?


You find it necessary to call Flew a lunatic or a demented man since he, after many years, has come to the logical conclusion that God has existed, through the four years of being witnessed by a friend?


Funny, it would appear that I referred to him as an aging philosopher, which he is. You cannot even stay honest for ONE post!

Um, the comment of this philosopher as "aging" was honestly interpreted as an attack on his mental facility and/or the antiquity of his beliefs, as if they were out-dated. I made this appartently false assumption as well, and was offended by this as well. If it was poor choice of words on your part, SLP, then all can, (and should,) be forgotten!

I suppose so. He has, after all, re-recanted, last I heard. But that is another example of the sort of embellishment/distortion that I see from 'your side' - I had never heard of Flew until his supposed 'conversion', yet every time that was mentioned he is heralded as one of the 'foremost atheists' or a 'world renowned atheist' or some such thing. No, he is just an atheist philosopher that wrote some books. Many on your side often treat all on my side as a monolithic brotherhood, all of whom know the same things, believe the exact same things, actin lock step, etc. (I know - the same can be said for many on my side).

I was not referring to that, no, but I find the creationist treatment of fossils to be rather... shallow.

Please explain why. I'm really interested in what you have to say about that.

I can expand later, but just two quick examples:

1. "Gish's law"
If you do not know who Duane Gish is, I can tell you later (he is a YEC 'debater' and co-foounder of ICR). "Gish's Law" is a 'joke' at Gish's expense. He is well know for rambling on about 'missing link' fossils, and how they leave unfilled gaps in the fossil record that 'evolution cannot explain' (of course it can). So, whenever a new fossil is discovered that fill in agap, Gish then declares that there are now 2 more gaps to fill!
To wit:
We have fossils A and C.
Gish says Where is B?
B gets discovered. Gish then says, "Well, yes, but - What is between A and B and B and C?"

2. Sorting
The fossil record appears more or less ordered. Creationists acknowledge this. They have a couple explanations - hydrodynamic sorting, and ecological zonation.
Sorting states that because different sized animals have fidderent hydrodynamic properties, during the flood, they 'sorted' or settled out according to those properties, so large dinosaurs on the bottom, smaller mammals on the top.

Ecological zonation states that animals were buried where they live. So, because brontosauruses lived in marshes (supposedly), they are found above fish, who were already in the water, etc.

But what about elephants? They are larger than many dinosaurs, why no elephants in with stegasaurs or triceratops?

Why no modern mammals mixed in with equivalent sized extinct reptiles?

Oh, well, we are told that is because creatures like mammals are smart, and were able to 'run up hill' in the face of the rising flood waters.
So, why no pterodactyls? They flew, couldn't they have flown above the rising waters?

The creationist 'explanations' for the fossil record aren't.

Quote:

Quote:
I find a number of those arguments for Christianity in those to be stupid and illogical grasping out of desperation


As I haven't read them, you could explain some of their bad arguments? It's a lot easier than actually reading the book...


I already documented one example. The others are of similar value. The same logic is applied as is used in claiming Nostradamus' work to be accurate prophesizing.

I find this hilarious! It was Iwho made that statement, not you SLP! Great minds think alike, right?!

And I answered that question under the thread "books." Two explanations for why that was said- one from the one who said it, the other from the one who thought they said it themselves!

Can I be done now? Or do I need to spend another thousand hours on this? [/i]

I know the feeling....

kateliz wrote:

SLP wrote:
I see that that was interpreted as attacks against Christianity and such. If simple corrections to falsehoods is an 'attack' on your beliefs, then your beliefs are weak indeed.

Why did you bring up our beliefs if you are only interested in discussing science?


Again, your hyperzealousness has clouded your reasoning.

It was not I that attacked anything, it was you, MM, and HMG that interpreted my corrections of falsehoods as attacks.

Because of this, and these repeated, idiotic and childish accusations, I see little reason to read, much less respond, to your vitriol any more.

I agree SLP. But no hard feelings, please! Not every one can be a reasoning giant like I am, after all! (Seriously.) (No, j/k.)

At first I was thinking that you're nuts kateliz. But then I realized that the Lord has softenned your heart to enable your to bear witness to a lost child. Praise Him for that, and thank you for demostrating His love so well. And I do regret that HMG and I failed so dramatically in that regards.

1 Corinthians 13:4-6
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not selfseeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.

Sorry to bother you, kateliz. One of your past sentences caught my eye...

I fully believe that God inspired an almost entirely flawless Bible

What did you mean by this? Something like the Bible is the best book ever written or something?