Why is Jesus seperated from Yahweh?

Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Why is Jesus seperated from Yahweh?

Perhaps my fundamental understanding of Christianity and the Bible is wrong, and please correct me if it is.  I just posted this on my blog at http://blog.dieudujour.com today and thought I would mimic it here since I'm likely to get more discussion here:

 

 

I very often am finding that Christians today constantly are talking about “Jesus Christ”.  They try to shy away from the Old Testament suggesting that it was before Jesus Christ and that accepting him is all that matters.  I find this greatly confusing.

 

The Father, the Son, and The Holy Spirit make up the Holy Trinity.  They are one.  Jesus subscribed to the teachings of the Old Testament and all of the teachings and acts of Yahweh.  Jesus IS Yahweh.  So Jesus’ confirmation of the Old Testament is not just a faith issue, it is an admission to his own actions.

 

How someone can then deny the teachings in, to take the extreme end, Leviticus after Jesus agreed to the claims made in the Old Testament as things that he believes in and stands up for as both Jesus and Yahweh is beyond me.

 

If Jesus came to correct history and re-establish a new regime and a new idea, why would he validate the Old Testament? If he was truly Yahweh and didn’t want the Old Testament to be accepted as fact, he would have denied it wouldn’t he?

 

I don’t believe in any of this, so what’s my purpose in proposing the question? It’s to point out my confusion and lack of understanding on how people can subscribe to partial faiths.  Do they just not read the fine print? Or are we getting back to the idea that every Christian has just convinced themselves of their own definition of what their religion is? If that’s the case, why do people subscribe to churches of people with similar faiths and look up to priests, reverends, bishops, and other ‘ranking’ religious peoples if their faith is just their own?

 

I’ll leave this open ended in hopes of discussion.

 


zntneo
Superfan
Posts: 565
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Yea this is realted to my

Yea this is realted to my confusion on something too. Why does an omni-max being need to send himself to save his creation from hiimself? it never made sense to me and I haven't heard an argument for it that comes close to making sense.


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Covenant Theology is, among

Covenant Theology is, among other things, a huge long argument for why certain parts of the old testament are invalidated while certain other parts are not.  Dispensationalism is a set of ideas descended from Covenant Theology that is a slightly different spin on the same idea.  You will notice that both doctrines are basically quote-mining from all over the bible.

In practice they allow Christians to appeal to the authority of the OT for certain rules (homosexuality=bad) while using the NT as an excuse for certain bad things in the OT ("Jesus never stoned anybody&quotEye-wink.  Most Christians will not recognize the terms for the doctrines: they are not taught as theological doctrines but rather are spread as general knowledge that must be true based on their convoluted Bible readings.

 The most likely explanation for the doctrine of the Trinity is that a lot of different factions in the early church had irreconcilable conflicts in their ideas about the nature of God.  The trifold God has historical antecedents in Neo-Platonism that influenced many of the early church fathers.  They conflated these beliefs into this doctrine which pretty much nobody is able to understand or explain adequately.  There is no direct mention of the Trinity in the oldest and best manuscripts of the bible.

There's a long history of apologetics for why God became man.  I can give you a quick review if you want, but it might be enough to say that it's an idea that has gone through a lot of changes and used up a lot of reasoning power and ink over the history of the church. 

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
I don't know if I'm as

I don't know if I'm as concerned with his reasoning for becoming man as much as the idea that Jesus is Yahweh and confirmed the OT.  Which would, in turn, make the OT more valid than the NT since it had been actually validated by God himself where as the NT was written after.


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Tarpan wrote: I don't know

Tarpan wrote:
I don't know if I'm as concerned with his reasoning for becoming man as much as the idea that Jesus is Yahweh and confirmed the OT. Which would, in turn, make the OT more valid than the NT since it had been actually validated by God himself where as the NT was written after.

In the first couple of centuries Christians decided that they were not a sect of Judaism, and thus don't have to be circumcised and follow the Law of Moses.  There was a much stronger movement pressuring the church into disregarding the Hebrew scriptures and adopting the newfangled gospels as the holy books instead.   If things had gone a bit differently, the OT might not have made it into the canon at all.

But I think that's not what you're asking--it's more whether this is an argument that has to be dealt with by Christians?  Covenant Theology is the rationale that explains why the new testament is more valid now and why Christians are not bound by OT law anymore.  The gist of the argument is found in the last supper reference to the "New Covenant" and in Hebrews 8-10.

Covenant Theology is so strongly ingrained in Christian thinking that it will automatically trump any logical considerations such as the OT being more officially validated or older. 

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
I'm reading a bit more on

I'm reading a bit more on convenant theory so may be mute until i get time to read through it all and get a better idea of the specifics =)


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Textom wrote: Tarpan

Textom wrote:

Tarpan wrote:
I don't know if I'm as concerned with his reasoning for becoming man as much as the idea that Jesus is Yahweh and confirmed the OT. Which would, in turn, make the OT more valid than the NT since it had been actually validated by God himself where as the NT was written after.

In the first couple of centuries Christians decided that they were not a sect of Judaism, and thus don't have to be circumcised and follow the Law of Moses. There was a much stronger movement pressuring the church into disregarding the Hebrew scriptures and adopting the newfangled gospels as the holy books instead. If things had gone a bit differently, the OT might not have made it into the canon at all.

But I think that's not what you're asking--it's more whether this is an argument that has to be dealt with by Christians? Covenant Theology is the rationale that explains why the new testament is more valid now and why Christians are not bound by OT law anymore. The gist of the argument is found in the last supper reference to the "New Covenant" and in Hebrews 8-10.

Covenant Theology is so strongly ingrained in Christian thinking that it will automatically trump any logical considerations such as the OT being more officially validated or older.

BGH - Another Post showing errors in Understanding Christianity

 1st error - The New Testament specifically distinguishes between gentiles and Jews. It states that gentiles do not have to be circumcised. So this is something that did not happen in later centuries, but when the Christian church was first formed. Most Jews, if not all Jews continued to follow the Jewish laws and festivals upon becoming Christian. There are some parts of the Law of Moses that the church does follow because these laws apply to all people -- Jews and gentiles -- such as the ten commandments. 

2nd Error - (see other post) Covenant Theology and  Dispensatinalsm are even close to the samething. Covenant Theology means that the New Testament has replaced the old Testament. The Church has replaces Israel. Dispensationalism means that The New Testament has not Replaced the Old Testament. The church has not replaced Israel. Jews that don't convert must still follow the Old Testament laws.

 3rd error (or error 2.5) - "Covenant Theology is so strongly ingrained in Christian thinking that it will automatically trump any logical considerations such as the OT being more officially validated or older." This is wrong. If you believe in Dispenstaionalism, then you believe that covenant theology is wrong and is not supported in scripture.


Broncosfan
Theist
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
zntneo wrote: Yea this is

zntneo wrote:
Yea this is realted to my confusion on something too. Why does an omni-max being need to send himself to save his creation from hiimself? it never made sense to me and I haven't heard an argument for it that comes close to making sense.

 

Evidence and arguments are funny things, aren't they..??

Two people, for example, can hear the same arguments / evidence and come to completely different conclusions. 

Although I was raised a Catholic, my faith and interest in the Church began to wane in my early teens.

When I was doing my MBA in university, I finally decided to put my "faith" to bed once and for all. So I spoke to alot of very learned people - on both sides of the aisle - and read alot of books on religion /  philosophy / etc over a two year period. 

 A funny thing happened.

Instead of emerging with a new found agnostic / atheistic point of view, my faith was actually strenghtened.

 Simply stated, the arguments for Jesus actually being who he said he was  / the truth of the resurrection / etc made more sense to me than the arguments against it.

 I don't believe for a moment that God NEEDED to send his Son to die a crimnals death. He did so out of love for mankind - not necessity.

And you haven't heard an argument that makes sense - funny, it made alot of sense to me 20 years ago when I was completing my education.

And in 2007, it still does. 

Like I said - same evidence - same arguments - two different conclusions. 

 

Go figure..!

 

 

 


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote: 1st

simple theist wrote:

1st error - The New Testament specifically distinguishes between gentiles and Jews. It states that gentiles do not have to be circumcised. So this is something that did not happen in later centuries, but when the Christian church was first formed.

Be sure to actually check your Bible, Simple Theist.  The passages you're referring to here, in the Pauline Epistles, are deliberatly equivocal about circumcision.  Paul basically says over an over again for people not to worry about circumcision one way or the other but to focus on other stuff.  He's trying to avoid answering the question.

The Pastoral Epistles, which were written later by a different author, supply the passages that suggest OT rules do not apply to Christians and are the source for Covenant Theology.

simple theist wrote:

Most Jews, if not all Jews continued to follow the Jewish laws and festivals upon becoming Christian. There are some parts of the Law of Moses that the church does follow because these laws apply to all people -- Jews and gentiles -- such as the ten commandments.

I'm going to have to ask for a source before I buy this one.    Where is the biblical passage that explains (1) which parts of the Law still apply to Christians and (2) how to tell the difference between the parts that apply and the parts that don't?  (And before you waste a lot of time I can give you a hint--there is no such information in the Bible.  That's why it's been a problem for Christians for a couple thousand years.)

simple theist wrote:

2nd Error - (see other post) Covenant Theology and Dispensatinalsm are even close to the samething. Covenant Theology means that the New Testament has replaced the old Testament. The Church has replaces Israel. Dispensationalism means that The New Testament has not Replaced the Old Testament. The church has not replaced Israel. Jews that don't convert must still follow the Old Testament laws.

You're looking at what is, in my opinion, a superficial difference between the two.

The founder of dispensationalism, John Nelson Darby, was an ordained minister in the Church of Ireland, which was a radically Calvinist institution at the time (John Calvin being the developer of Covenant Theology).  Darby's major disagreement with Covenant Theology was on the question of what happens to the Jews, which is really the only difference between the two theologies.  

The important point I intend to make, and one that holds true in spite of the doctrinal differences about Jews, is that Dispensationalism grew out of Covenant Theology (in this case, Darby was dissatisfied with certain parts of it) and that both dogmas teach that the rules for Christians are not dictated by the Old Testament.

 

simple theist wrote:

3rd error (or error 2.5) - "Covenant Theology is so strongly ingrained in Christian thinking that it will automatically trump any logical considerations such as the OT being more officially validated or older." This is wrong. If you believe in Dispenstaionalism, then you believe that covenant theology is wrong and is not supported in scripture.

Yep, but you still believe that Christians are not bound by OT rules, because this a belief that both Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology share.  They are both different attempts to solve the same problem of whether or not Christians are allowed to wear polycotton.

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Broncosfan wrote: I don't

Broncosfan wrote:
I don't believe for a moment that God NEEDED to send his Son to die a crimnals death. He did so out of love for mankind - not necessity.

With all due respect, Broncosfan, this argument didn't make any sense 2000 years ago and it still doesn't make sense today.

 If God so loved the world, why even bother sending a son?  Why not just bring everybody up to heaven without requiring everybody to declare his/her preference--without good evidence--on an arbitrarily limited-time offer?  Why not ask people *after* they die where they'd rather spend eternity and offer them *every* opportunity for forgiveness?  That's real love.

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


Broncosfan
Theist
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
With all due respect right

With all due respect right back at you, it makes perfect sense to me.

 You don't get it - that's why you're an atheist.

I get it - that's why I'm a theist.

 As for your question "if God so loved the world, why even bother..." 

I love these types of responses. 

When I was 5 or 7 or 9 years old, I could never understand why my parents would scold / reprimand me if I ventured too close to the road while I was playing.

When I was an adult, it made sense to me.

And now that I'm  43 and a first-time father of a 22 month old boy of my own, it makes PERFECT sense to me.

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.

My guess is that God is alot "smarter" than you or I and knows EXACTLY what HE's doing.

 

 


dassercha
Superfan
Posts: 229
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
A general observation, with

A general observation, with all due respect:

Christians must believe that Yahweh, a god of a nomadic people of the middle east is the one true god who created everything that is, including the human race.

Xians must also believe, then, that all people of the earth who are non-xian are "lost" and are rebeling against the "one true god."

This would make, for example, the Inuit a Satanic people, or at best, spiritually bankrupt, and therefore a people who will burn for eternity in hell if they do not accept Christ as their personal savior.

Please do not gloss over this, but do take A LONG TIME to ponder the absurdity of this, the tenets of your religion.

 

EDUCATION! EDUCATION! EDUCATION!


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
broncosfan wrote: You

broncosfan wrote:

You don't get it - that's why you're an atheist.

 

On the contrary, I was raised Southern Baptist, had my conversion experience and was Baptised in the big bathtub at the front of the church.  I got it completely, and used the same excuse that "God must be doing something we don't know about" that you're using now to explain this inconsistency.

It wasn't until after I studied the Bible for years that I began to realize that none of what the church was telling me made any sense unless you use that same kind of excuse--the excuse that *stops* you from using your brain.

When I was a kid, I didn't misbehave because my parents explained to me why things were dangerous/hurtful, not because they bullied or punished me.  Isn't God powerful enough to explain it in a way humans can understand it, instead of making everything inconsistent and obscure?  If it's so much beyond human understanding, then why isn't God capable of changing human brains so that we can understand?  

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


Broncosfan
Theist
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Textom wrote: broncosfan

Textom wrote:

broncosfan wrote:

You don't get it - that's why you're an atheist.

 

On the contrary, I was raised Southern Baptist, had my conversion experience and was Baptised in the big bathtub at the front of the church.  I got it completely, and used the same excuse that "God must be doing something we don't know about" that you're using now to explain this inconsistency.

It wasn't until after I studied the Bible for years that I began to realize that none of what the church was telling me made any sense unless you use that same kind of excuse--the excuse that *stops* you from using your brain.

When I was a kid, I didn't misbehave because my parents explained to me why things were dangerous/hurtful, not because they bullied or punished me.  Isn't God powerful enough to explain it in a way humans can understand it, instead of making everything inconsistent and obscure?  If it's so much beyond human understanding, then why isn't God capable of changing human brains so that we can understand?  

You state that "none of what the church was telling me made any sense"..!

So your church told that the Bible tells you it's wrong to murder and years later on reflection, you realize that this made no sense to you..???!!!

And you think that this makes no sense - that it's OK to go out and murder - or rape - or steal..???

Like I said, I don't think you get it..!!


Broncosfan
Theist
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
dassercha wrote: A general

dassercha wrote:

A general observation, with all due respect:

Christians must believe that Yahweh, a god of a nomadic people of the middle east is the one true god who created everything that is, including the human race.

Xians must also believe, then, that all people of the earth who are non-xian are "lost" and are rebeling against the "one true god."

This would make, for example, the Inuit a Satanic people, or at best, spiritually bankrupt, and therefore a people who will burn for eternity in hell if they do not accept Christ as their personal savior.

Please do not gloss over this, but do take A LONG TIME to ponder the absurdity of this, the tenets of your religion.

 

Why MUST I believe that all people who are not Christian are lost and will burn in Hell..??

Why MUST I believe this..??


zntneo
Superfan
Posts: 565
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Broncosfan wrote:

Broncosfan wrote:

Evidence and arguments are funny things, aren't they..??

Two people, for example, can hear the same arguments / evidence and come to completely different conclusions.

Although I was raised a Catholic, my faith and interest in the Church began to wane in my early teens.

When I was doing my MBA in university, I finally decided to put my "faith" to bed once and for all. So I spoke to alot of very learned people - on both sides of the aisle - and read alot of books on religion / philosophy / etc over a two year period.

A funny thing happened.

Instead of emerging with a new found agnostic / atheistic point of view, my faith was actually strenghtened.

Simply stated, the arguments for Jesus actually being who he said he was / the truth of the resurrection / etc made more sense to me than the arguments against it.

I don't believe for a moment that God NEEDED to send his Son to die a crimnals death. He did so out of love for mankind - not necessity.

And you haven't heard an argument that makes sense - funny, it made alot of sense to me 20 years ago when I was completing my education.

And in 2007, it still does.

Like I said - same evidence - same arguments - two different conclusions.

 

Go figure..!

 

What types of arguments are those for Jesus being who he said he was? What evidence do you have at all, other then supposed eyewitness testamony, that he was who he was? It's not that i came to a different conclusion based on the same evidence. I came to a different conclusion based on a different idea of evidence ,I would bet. Afterall, many people think that faith is a valid way to come to knowledge that doesnt' mean it actually is. Just like because you think something is evidence that doesn't mean it is. You have to provide this evidence for us to determine whether or not it is valid.

Also, if you look within the scientfic community you will see that many people come to the exact same conclusions based on the same evidence, yes there are disagreements but these disagreements are based on the lack of evidence usually and not the evidence presented.

 

Also, please tell me what you think this evidence was. Futhermore please describe to me what you think "valid evidence" actually is.

 

[MOD EDIT - fixed quotes] 


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Broncosfan wrote: You state

Broncosfan wrote:
You state that "none of what the church was telling me made any sense"..! So your church told that the Bible tells you it's wrong to murder and years later on reflection, you realize that this made no sense to you..???!!! And you think that this makes no sense - that it's OK to go out and murder - or rape - or steal..??? Like I said, I don't think you get it..!!

Strawman.  The church says the only reason it's wrong to murder is because God says so.  That statement is the one that doesn't make sense.  There are lots of good reasons for not murdering people, the majority of them not involving God.

Can we have real arguments please instead of ad absurdem reductions? 

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Broncosfan wrote: Why

Broncosfan wrote:
Why MUST I believe that all people who are not Christian are lost and will burn in Hell..?? Why MUST I believe this..??

John 3:18 (KJV)

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


Broncosfan
Theist
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Textom wrote: broncosfan

Textom wrote:

broncosfan wrote:

You don't get it - that's why you're an atheist.

 

On the contrary, I was raised Southern Baptist, had my conversion experience and was Baptised in the big bathtub at the front of the church.  I got it completely, and used the same excuse that "God must be doing something we don't know about" that you're using now to explain this inconsistency.

It wasn't until after I studied the Bible for years that I began to realize that none of what the church was telling me made any sense unless you use that same kind of excuse--the excuse that *stops* you from using your brain.

When I was a kid, I didn't misbehave because my parents explained to me why things were dangerous/hurtful, not because they bullied or punished me.  Isn't God powerful enough to explain it in a way humans can understand it, instead of making everything inconsistent and obscure?  If it's so much beyond human understanding, then why isn't God capable of changing human brains so that we can understand?  

 

I love you guys with your mantra "it's a strawman" argument.

 In your own words you said  that "I began to realize that none of what the church was telling me made sense unless you use that same kind of excuse - the excuse that stops you from using your brain".

 Those were your EXACT words. 

And I made the comment that the church / Bible teaches us that murdering - and raping and stealing is wrong.

 But your words were "none of what the church was telling me made sense". Therefore, the ONLY conclusion is that if none of what the church is telling you made sense - and the church is telling you that to murder and rape and steal is wrong, then it must not make sense to not murder, to not rape and to not steal. 

Listen, it's OK not to get the Christian /  theist message.  

I don't get the atheist message.

 

 

 


Broncosfan
Theist
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
zntneo wrote: Broncosfan

zntneo wrote:
Broncosfan wrote:

Evidence and arguments are funny things, aren't they..??

Two people, for example, can hear the same arguments / evidence and come to completely different conclusions.

Although I was raised a Catholic, my faith and interest in the Church began to wane in my early teens.

When I was doing my MBA in university, I finally decided to put my "faith" to bed once and for all. So I spoke to alot of very learned people - on both sides of the aisle - and read alot of books on religion / philosophy / etc over a two year period.

A funny thing happened.

Instead of emerging with a new found agnostic / atheistic point of view, my faith was actually strenghtened.

Simply stated, the arguments for Jesus actually being who he said he was / the truth of the resurrection / etc made more sense to me than the arguments against it.

I don't believe for a moment that God NEEDED to send his Son to die a crimnals death. He did so out of love for mankind - not necessity.

And you haven't heard an argument that makes sense - funny, it made alot of sense to me 20 years ago when I was completing my education.

And in 2007, it still does.

Like I said - same evidence - same arguments - two different conclusions.

 

Go figure..!

 

What types of arguments are those for Jesus being who he said he was? What evidence do you have at all, other then supposed eyewitness testamony, that he was who he was? It's not that i came to a different conclusion based on the same evidence. I came to a different conclusion based on a different idea of evidence ,I would bet. Afterall, many people think that faith is a valid way to come to knowledge that doesnt' mean it actually is. Just like because you think something is evidence that doesn't mean it is. You have to provide this evidence for us to determine whether or not it is valid.

Also, if you look within the scientfic community you will see that many people come to the exact same conclusions based on the same evidence, yes there are disagreements but these disagreements are based on the lack of evidence usually and not the evidence presented.

 

Also, please tell me what you think this evidence was. Futhermore please describe to me what you think "valid evidence" actually is.

 

[MOD EDIT - fixed quotes] 

 

I have a young 22 month old son at home, Brandon, who I'm convinced loves me. I'm as sure of it as I'm sure that the sun is going to come up in the morning. 

But if anybody asked me to provide "scientific" evidence of his love for me, what could I say that would satisfy the skeptic that asked me the question:

 

"I can see the love in his eyes - the way he looks at me and acts around me"

"He gives me kisses and hugs me and calls me daddy."

 "He lets me change his diapers" 

Now if I can't provide " scientific evidence" for something as believeable as the love a young boy feels for his father, how could I possibly explain to you - in scientific terms - the reasons for my faith.

A famous Christian writer hundreds of years ago once said " I believe because I understand".

 The above is significantly different that the statement "I understand because I believe". 

My faith is based on the former statement - not the latter..!

 

 

 


zntneo
Superfan
Posts: 565
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Broncosfan wrote:   I

Broncosfan wrote:

 

I have a young 22 month old son at home, Brandon, who I'm convinced loves me. I'm as sure of it as I'm sure that the sun is going to come up in the morning.

But if anybody asked me to provide "scientific" evidence of his love for me, what could I say that would satisfy the skeptic that asked me the question:

 

"I can see the love in his eyes - the way he looks at me and acts around me"

"He gives me kisses and hugs me and calls me daddy."

"He lets me change his diapers"

Now if I can't provide " scientific evidence" for something as believeable as the love a young boy feels for his father, how could I possibly explain to you - in scientific terms - the reasons for my faith.

A famous Christian writer hundreds of years ago once said " I believe because I understand".

The above is significantly different that the statement "I understand because I believe".

My faith is based on the former statement - not the latter..!

 

It only makes sense why your child loves you. It's "programmed" (through evolution) for your  child to love you and to listen to you. It's not "programmed" for you to love some invisiable being, although i must say it has for ages been used as a way to understand the world it is no longer needed. Also, since your child isn't an illogical being but is a human , which a human has feelings, just like us. It only makes sense that it has the ability to love. Whereas, an omnimax been who would have no needs does not make sense to have emotions, needs, or even to be internally coherent.   

 

Also, there's this little thing that you can prove your son's existence that adds a little to it.


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Broncosfan wrote: I love

Broncosfan wrote:

I love you guys with your mantra "it's a strawman" argument.

In your own words you said that "I began to realize that none of what the church was telling me made sense unless you use that same kind of excuse - the excuse that stops you from using your brain".

Those were your EXACT words.

And I made the comment that the church / Bible teaches us that murdering - and raping and stealing is wrong.

But your words were "none of what the church was telling me made sense". Therefore, the ONLY conclusion is that if none of what the church is telling you made sense - and the church is telling you that to murder and rape and steal is wrong, then it must not make sense to not murder, to not rape and to not steal.

Listen, it's OK not to get the Christian / theist message.

I don't get the atheist message.

What is is about this week that everybody's trying to get me into an "I said--you said" argument?  I hate those.

Please allow me to rephrase.

Pretend that I said "much" of what the church was telling me made no sense.  Or better yet, pretend I said, "much of what the church said did not seem consistent with what the bible said or consistent with basic logic."  That's more specific.

Now that we got that out of the way, will you address my actual questions?

Isn't God powerful enough to explain it in a way humans can understand it, instead of making everything inconsistent and obscure?  If it's so much beyond human understanding, then why isn't God capable of changing human brains so that we can understand? 

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


Broncosfan
Theist
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Textom wrote:Broncosfan

Textom wrote:
Broncosfan wrote:

I love you guys with your mantra "it's a strawman" argument.

In your own words you said that "I began to realize that none of what the church was telling me made sense unless you use that same kind of excuse - the excuse that stops you from using your brain".

Those were your EXACT words.

And I made the comment that the church / Bible teaches us that murdering - and raping and stealing is wrong.

But your words were "none of what the church was telling me made sense". Therefore, the ONLY conclusion is that if none of what the church is telling you made sense - and the church is telling you that to murder and rape and steal is wrong, then it must not make sense to not murder, to not rape and to not steal.

Listen, it's OK not to get the Christian / theist message.

I don't get the atheist message.

What is is about this week that everybody's trying to get me into an "I said--you said" argument?  I hate those.

Please allow me to rephrase.

Pretend that I said "much" of what the church was telling me made no sense.  Or better yet, pretend I said, "much of what the church said did not seem consistent with what the bible said or consistent with basic logic."  That's more specific.

Now that we got that out of the way, will you address my actual questions?

Isn't God powerful enough to explain it in a way humans can understand it, instead of making everything inconsistent and obscure?  If it's so much beyond human understanding, then why isn't God capable of changing human brains so that we can understand? 

Thanks for the response - it now makes alot more sense.

My point was that if my church says that it's wrong to rape and murder and steal, I agree with them 100%.

However, if my same church tells me that evolution is a myth and that the earth is not older than 6,000 years, for example, then I'm going to have a serious problem with them, particularily in view of the fact that science has proven to me that the earth is significantly older than 6,000 years.

As for the latter part of your response, I complete agree with you. A "God" is simply too great a concept for the human mind to conceive of.

It's precisely for this reason that I believe Jesus was brought into the picture. While we may not be able to imagine God, we shouldn't have any difficulty understanding the pain and suffering that a flesh and blood Man endured.

Nor is there anything obscure or confusing about the things he said i.e. do unto others as you would have them do unto you / love your neighbour as you would love yourself / The Beatitudes/ forgive them for they know not what they do / etc.

Lastly, I believe that God is perfectly capable of changing the way we think. The way I live my life, for example, and the way I interact with others is based almost exclusively on my desire to live the most moral life I can based on Judeao-Chrsitian concepts / laws.

I believe that tens / hundreds of millions of people around the planet feel exactly the same way.

In my opinion, the message that God / Christ left us 2,000 years ago is crystal clear and as relevant today as it was then..!


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Broncosfan wrote: As for

Broncosfan wrote:
As for the latter part of your response, I complete agree with you. A "God" is simply too great a concept for the human mind to conceive of.

Point of clarification: I didn't intend to argue for this conclusion.  My intended point was to question why God wouldn't just create human minds capable of understanding Him (since he can do anything). 

This is the question that made the first hole in the dam of my Christian belief at the start of my deconversion: why would God give me a brain that asks these questions and then not expect me to use it?

Broncosfan wrote:
 
 Nor is there anything obscure or confusing about the things he said i.e. do unto others as you would have them do unto you / love your neighbour as you would love yourself / The Beatitudes/ forgive them for they know not what they do / etc.

I believe this statement is factually incorrect.  I challenge you to point to the place where Jesus explains (1) the "simple plan of salvation"  and (2) the way in which his sacrifice is an atonement for all human sin. 

In my reading of the Bible, I find that all Jesus's references to these two doctrinal points are incomplete and ambiguous, and contradictory with other things he said, requiring a lot of later clarification and embellishment by later authors.  Which raises the question: if this is the most important information in human history, then why didn't Jesus explain it outright, clearly and in detail?

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


Broncosfan
Theist
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Textom wrote: Broncosfan

Textom wrote:

Broncosfan wrote:
As for the latter part of your response, I complete agree with you. A "God" is simply too great a concept for the human mind to conceive of.

Point of clarification: I didn't intend to argue for this conclusion.  My intended point was to question why God wouldn't just create human minds capable of understanding Him (since he can do anything). 

This is the question that made the first hole in the dam of my Christian belief at the start of my deconversion: why would God give me a brain that asks these questions and then not expect me to use it?

Broncosfan wrote:
 
 Nor is there anything obscure or confusing about the things he said i.e. do unto others as you would have them do unto you / love your neighbour as you would love yourself / The Beatitudes/ forgive them for they know not what they do / etc.

I believe this statement is factually incorrect.  I challenge you to point to the place where Jesus explains (1) the "simple plan of salvation"  and (2) the way in which his sacrifice is an atonement for all human sin. 

In my reading of the Bible, I find that all Jesus's references to these two doctrinal points are incomplete and ambiguous, and contradictory with other things he said, requiring a lot of later clarification and embellishment by later authors.  Which raises the question: if this is the most important information in human history, then why didn't Jesus explain it outright, clearly and in detail?

I'm sorry, but I wouldn't dream of "speaking" for Jesus as to why he talked the way he did ( or why the NT attributes certain quotes to Him).

 Why, for example, did he talk in parables so often to make a point..?

 Perhaps because you have to think about the meaning of the parable and perhaps that's precisely what He wanted his followers to do - to think..!!  

You see, I don't find Jesus' message ambiguous or incomplete at all.

His message about love, forgiveness, compassion  and salvation , for example, is crystal clear to me.I'm not going to provide specific references to certain sections of the NT that confirm the above to you - it's all right there in black and white. 

It's funny, but I don't believe Jesus wants you to believe with JUST your hearts and soul. I believe the He wants your mind to buy into him as well.  

And when I hear about Churches talking about "blind faith" and you MUST believe and their message that evolution is nonsense and the earth is only 6,000 years old, I just shake my head and wonder how the people (theists) can be so naive to buy into this nonsense.

So you think about all of it - the Bible / the stories / Jesus / other religions and hundreds of other factors and at the end of it all, you either emerge as an atheist who thinks it's all nonsense.

Or you emerge with very solid reasons for your faith.

You're solidly in the first category - I'm solidly in the second.

 I guess we'll get our answers when we die.


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
broncosfan wrote: I'm not

broncosfan wrote:
I'm not going to provide specific references to certain sections of the NT that confirm the above to you - it's all right there in black and white.

On the contrary, you're not going to provide specific references because *they're not there.*  Nobody can provide these references because the "simple plan" is built up out of obscure references from all over the NT, most of which were never said by Jesus.

I don't think it's all nonsense; it makes perfect sense to me. Jesus was a Jewish church reformer.  His second generation of followers (after the apostles) syncretized Greek ideas of heaven, hell and eternal life into a new religion that they made up based on some lists of sayings (parables, attributed to Jesus) that were floating around at the time.  It caught on, and most of the current generation of followers hasn't studied enough of their own history or their own texts to see why this explanation makes so much more sense than the convoluted official explanation given by the church.

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


Broncosfan
Theist
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
zntneo wrote: Broncosfan

zntneo wrote:
Broncosfan wrote:

 

I have a young 22 month old son at home, Brandon, who I'm convinced loves me. I'm as sure of it as I'm sure that the sun is going to come up in the morning.

But if anybody asked me to provide "scientific" evidence of his love for me, what could I say that would satisfy the skeptic that asked me the question:

 

"I can see the love in his eyes - the way he looks at me and acts around me"

"He gives me kisses and hugs me and calls me daddy."

"He lets me change his diapers"

Now if I can't provide " scientific evidence" for something as believeable as the love a young boy feels for his father, how could I possibly explain to you - in scientific terms - the reasons for my faith.

A famous Christian writer hundreds of years ago once said " I believe because I understand".

The above is significantly different that the statement "I understand because I believe".

My faith is based on the former statement - not the latter..!

 

It only makes sense why your child loves you. It's "programmed" (through evolution) for your  child to love you and to listen to you. It's not "programmed" for you to love some invisiable being, although i must say it has for ages been used as a way to understand the world it is no longer needed. Also, since your child isn't an illogical being but is a human , which a human has feelings, just like us. It only makes sense that it has the ability to love. Whereas, an omnimax been who would have no needs does not make sense to have emotions, needs, or even to be internally coherent.   

 

Also, there's this little thing that you can prove your son's existence that adds a little to it.

You say he's programmed from birth to love me..??

Prove it..!!!

And is he programmed to love his me because I'm his bological father..??

If so then I guess young babies / children can't love adoptive parents because the programming doesn't work that way..??

How about children who kill their parents - what happens to the programming there..??

Finally, you say that we're not programmed to love an invisible being -prove it.!!

Perhaps that would explain why the vast majority of people do believe in a higher power and only a very small percentage of people don't.

My program is fine, for example, because I'm a believer, but something has gone wrong with yours because you're not a believer.

You've made some bold statements - now prove them not only to me but to the other posters as well..!!

Looking forward to your comments.


Broncosfan
Theist
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Textom wrote: broncosfan

Textom wrote:

broncosfan wrote:
I'm not going to provide specific references to certain sections of the NT that confirm the above to you - it's all right there in black and white.

On the contrary, you're not going to provide specific references because *they're not there.*  Nobody can provide these references because the "simple plan" is built up out of obscure references from all over the NT, most of which were never said by Jesus.

I don't think it's all nonsense; it makes perfect sense to me. Jesus was a Jewish church reformer.  His second generation of followers (after the apostles) syncretized Greek ideas of heaven, hell and eternal life into a new religion that they made up based on some lists of sayings (parables, attributed to Jesus) that were floating around at the time.  It caught on, and most of the current generation of followers hasn't studied enough of their own history or their own texts to see why this explanation makes so much more sense than the convoluted official explanation given by the church.

 

If you wnat to beleive that I'm not going to respond with specific references to the NT because they're not the answers aren't there and / or you think I can't, that's fine. What you believe or disbelieve is not that important to me.

 

Seriously, when I look at some of the posters here who literally have hundreds / thousands of posts to their credit- and in some instances the posts are incredibly long and well researched, I can only shake my head in envy at the amount of free time they must have on their hands. 

You see I have this thing called a job, which devours a good chunk of my day. And then there are these people called a wife and son and friends, who also require attention. Then there are these things called hobbies and sports and responsibilities around the house that take up another portion of the day. Finally, there's sleep.

But occasionally, I get lucky, find myself with 1/2 hour of "free time" where I can actually sit down in front of the PC and log onto sites like this.

 Besides, why don't you just google it- you'll get a far better range of responses to your questions from people alot more knowledgeable about this subject than me.

Good luck..!! 

 

 


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
broncosfan wrote: If you

broncosfan wrote:
If you wnat to beleive that I'm not going to respond with specific references to the NT because they're not the answers aren't there and / or you think I can't, that's fine. What you believe or disbelieve is not that important to me.

This isn't a question of belief or a matter of opinon.  The same Bible is there for everybody to look at and interpret.

The reason why I know those references aren't there is because (1) I read the bible many many times through during my previous life as a Southern Baptist and (2) it's part of my work as an academic in the humanities to read an analyze texts and know what's in the Bible and what isn't. 

 The thing that I find both disturbiing and sad is that someone would believe a church doctrine so wholeheartedly without taking the time to read and understand the texts for himself.  Isn't it part of your calling as a Christian to understand and know why you believe what you believe?  Will you take up the challenge, broncosfan, and use some of your spare time to actually look into the texts and arguments *behind* the beliefs that you apparently accept so uncritically?

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


Broncosfan
Theist
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Textom wrote:broncosfan

Textom wrote:

broncosfan wrote:
If you wnat to beleive that I'm not going to respond with specific references to the NT because they're not the answers aren't there and / or you think I can't, that's fine. What you believe or disbelieve is not that important to me.

This isn't a question of belief or a matter of opinon.  The same Bible is there for everybody to look at and interpret.

The reason why I know those references aren't there is because (1) I read the bible many many times through during my previous life as a Southern Baptist and (2) it's part of my work as an academic in the humanities to read an analyze texts and know what's in the Bible and what isn't. 

 The thing that I find both disturbiing and sad is that someone would believe a church doctrine so wholeheartedly without taking the time to read and understand the texts for himself.  Isn't it part of your calling as a Christian to understand and know why you believe what you believe?  Will you take up the challenge, broncosfan, and use some of your spare time to actually look into the texts and arguments *behind* the beliefs that you apparently accept so uncritically?

I couldn't agree more with many of the comments you've made in your response. 

And I stated in a previous post how I came to the point I'm at now.

I was raised in a modestly Catholic household. In my late teens, I could feel my faith waning. When I was doing my MBA in university in my early 20's, I decided once and for all to put my "faith" to bed - to root out the answers to all of the doubts that had been plaguing me since I began to think for myself (as opposed to just accepting the words of my parents / priest / teachers / etc.

 So over a two year period, I spoke to alot of very learned people - on both sides of the aisle and read more books than 'Heinz has pickles".

 And at the end of this 2 year period, a funny thing happened - my faith was strengthened. Simply stated, the arguments that the "believers" put forward simply made more sense  to me than the arguments the non-believers made.

I  outlined a few of my beliefs in a previous post.

For example, I don't believe that Adam and Eve were real people. Nor do I believe the story of Job deals with a real person who suffered while God and Satan stood on the sidelines wagering. It may be in the Bible, but I don't take the stories literally no more than I would take a comment made by a Sioux warrior in the mid-19th century who states that "the white man speaks with a forked tongue" literally. I believe these stories were written  to convey an important message

But I do, for example, believe that Jesus was a real flesh and blood person who was crucified and on the 3rd day, he rose from the dead. In other words, I believe He was exactly who He said He was.

I'm a theist but I believe in evolution - I believe in the Big Bang theory about the origins of the universe. I don't see why religion and science can't peacefully co-habitate beside each other. I believe in the above - I just don't believe it all happened randomly - I believe the "hand of God" flipped the switch.

I agree with you - I don't believe that you have to turn your mind off to be a theist. Nor do I believe that you should just accept something without taking the time to decide for yourself if it's credible or not. 

My transition took place about 20 years ago - today, I'm 43 years old. I'm a banker and married to a physician who just happens to be an atheist. 

Our differences of opinions / beliefs have a 0.00000000000001 % impact on our lives.

 She's a very bright woman and she came to her conclusions by thinking about them as a young student in medical school.

I'm not in her league in terms of grey matter, but I came to my (different) conclusions the same way - by thinking about them. 

On the points you raised, you and I can fully agree with each other. 


zntneo
Superfan
Posts: 565
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Broncosfan wrote: You say

Broncosfan wrote:
You say he's programmed from birth to love me..?? Prove it..!!! And is he programmed to love his me because I'm his bological father..?? If so then I guess young babies / children can't love adoptive parents because the programming doesn't work that way..?? How about children who kill their parents - what happens to the programming there..?? Finally, you say that we're not programmed to love an invisible being -prove it.!! Perhaps that would explain why the vast majority of people do believe in a higher power and only a very small percentage of people don't. My program is fine, for example, because I'm a believer, but something has gone wrong with yours because you're not a believer. You've made some bold statements - now prove them not only to me but to the other posters as well..!! Looking forward to your comments.

Ok look at it this way, you have 2 children 1 who doesn't love their parents (or caregiver) and 1 who does. The one who does the parent will love them more and take care of them more in return. Thus the one who loves will have more children and pass on their genes on average more then the other one.

We aren't "programmed' to love an invisible been becuase that being is just that, invisible. There is nothing that would provide an evolutionary plus for someone who "loved" a invisable being then someone who did not. Thus there woudln't be any reason for that trait to be pasted on from generation to generation. 


Broncosfan
Theist
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
zntneo wrote: Broncosfan

zntneo wrote:

Broncosfan wrote:
You say he's programmed from birth to love me..?? Prove it..!!! And is he programmed to love his me because I'm his bological father..?? If so then I guess young babies / children can't love adoptive parents because the programming doesn't work that way..?? How about children who kill their parents - what happens to the programming there..?? Finally, you say that we're not programmed to love an invisible being -prove it.!! Perhaps that would explain why the vast majority of people do believe in a higher power and only a very small percentage of people don't. My program is fine, for example, because I'm a believer, but something has gone wrong with yours because you're not a believer. You've made some bold statements - now prove them not only to me but to the other posters as well..!! Looking forward to your comments.

Ok look at it this way, you have 2 children 1 who doesn't love their parents (or caregiver) and 1 who does. The one who does the parent will love them more and take care of them more in return. Thus the one who loves will have more children and pass on their genes on average more then the other one.

We aren't "programmed' to love an invisible been becuase that being is just that, invisible. There is nothing that would provide an evolutionary plus for someone who "loved" a invisable being then someone who did not. Thus there woudln't be any reason for that trait to be pasted on from generation to generation. 

 

Excuse me, but where's the PROOF I asked for - your response is an opinion - it proves NOTHING..!!!!


theotherguy
theotherguy's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Broncosfan wrote:

Broncosfan wrote:
zntneo wrote:

Broncosfan wrote:
You say he's programmed from birth to love me..?? Prove it..!!! And is he programmed to love his me because I'm his bological father..?? If so then I guess young babies / children can't love adoptive parents because the programming doesn't work that way..?? How about children who kill their parents - what happens to the programming there..?? Finally, you say that we're not programmed to love an invisible being -prove it.!! Perhaps that would explain why the vast majority of people do believe in a higher power and only a very small percentage of people don't. My program is fine, for example, because I'm a believer, but something has gone wrong with yours because you're not a believer. You've made some bold statements - now prove them not only to me but to the other posters as well..!! Looking forward to your comments.

Ok look at it this way, you have 2 children 1 who doesn't love their parents (or caregiver) and 1 who does. The one who does the parent will love them more and take care of them more in return. Thus the one who loves will have more children and pass on their genes on average more then the other one.

We aren't "programmed' to love an invisible been becuase that being is just that, invisible. There is nothing that would provide an evolutionary plus for someone who "loved" a invisable being then someone who did not. Thus there woudln't be any reason for that trait to be pasted on from generation to generation.

 

Excuse me, but where's the PROOF I asked for - your response is an opinion - it proves NOTHING..!!!!

 

He provided you with a well reasoned hypothesis. I'll gladly provide you with some scientific papers on the evolutionarily inherited traits of children if you'd like:

http://www.zoo.utoronto.ca/mgross/Gross2005.pdf

 

there you go, a scientific paper explaining parental care. Basically parental instincts (and for that matter the instincts of children) are preprogrammed to provide the greatest benifit to one's genes.

There is no way for a child to know if its caregiver is its biological parent, so the preprogrammed dispositions are not very specific. A child is likely to depend on and "love" its primary caregiver, because that is likely to ensure its survival. Similarly, a parent is predisposed to love and care for any child, because the most likely scenario in the wild would be a parent caring for its own children, and ensuring its genes passing on to the next generation. An excellent example of a "hijacking" of this instinct is the cuckoo bird, which inserts its eggs into the nests of other birds. The cuckoo is genetically programmed to be extremely pleasing to the host birds, and exploit their parental urges to a maximum.

And I would have to disagree that we are not preprogrammed to "love" an invisible sky daddy. On the contrary, humans posess evolutionary traits very favorable to the development of the spiritual. These are the concepts of dualism and assumed intent. With dualism, we assume that our minds are seperate from our bodies. This would have been useful in evolution, because it would have allowed us to empathize with others and evaluate ourselves in a social context, and essentially allowed us to be self-aware, which is a useful trait for a social species. We also assume that all actions in the environment are intentional. It would have been useful for our ancestors to assume this, because it would have made us more wary of predators and rivals.

Together these concepts combine to provide us with a universe that is seemingly made "for us", and events happening for "a reason", and also gave us the concept of the "soul". When merged with rabid speculation and a social dynamic, this results in religion.

So yes, to be atheist we have to abandon these concepts of dualism and assumed intent, because rationally they make no sense. It makes sense to love your father or your child, even without evolutionary context, but it doesn't make sense to love an invisible skygod.

 

 [MOD EDIT - fixed link]


Broncosfan
Theist
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
theotherguy

theotherguy wrote:
Broncosfan wrote:
zntneo wrote:

Broncosfan wrote:
You say he's programmed from birth to love me..?? Prove it..!!! And is he programmed to love his me because I'm his bological father..?? If so then I guess young babies / children can't love adoptive parents because the programming doesn't work that way..?? How about children who kill their parents - what happens to the programming there..?? Finally, you say that we're not programmed to love an invisible being -prove it.!! Perhaps that would explain why the vast majority of people do believe in a higher power and only a very small percentage of people don't. My program is fine, for example, because I'm a believer, but something has gone wrong with yours because you're not a believer. You've made some bold statements - now prove them not only to me but to the other posters as well..!! Looking forward to your comments.

Ok look at it this way, you have 2 children 1 who doesn't love their parents (or caregiver) and 1 who does. The one who does the parent will love them more and take care of them more in return. Thus the one who loves will have more children and pass on their genes on average more then the other one.

We aren't "programmed' to love an invisible been becuase that being is just that, invisible. There is nothing that would provide an evolutionary plus for someone who "loved" a invisable being then someone who did not. Thus there woudln't be any reason for that trait to be pasted on from generation to generation.

Excuse me, but where's the PROOF I asked for - your response is an opinion - it proves NOTHING..!!!!

He provided you with a well reasoned hypothesis. I'll gladly provide you with some scientific papers on the evolutionarily inherited traits of children if you'd like:

 http://www.zoo.utoronto.ca/mgross/Gross2005.pdf

there you go, a scientific paper explaining parental care. Basically parental instincts (and for that matter the instincts of children) are preprogrammed to provide the greatest benifit to one's genes.

 There is no way for a child to know if its caregiver is its biological parent, so the preprogrammed dispositions are not very specific. A child is likely to depend on and "love" its primary caregiver, because that is likely to ensure its survival. Similarly, a parent is predisposed to love and care for any child, because the most likely scenario in the wild would be a parent caring for its own children, and ensuring its genes passing on to the next generation. An excellent example of a "hijacking" of this instinct is the cuckoo bird, which inserts its eggs into the nests of other birds. The cuckoo is genetically programmed to be extremely pleasing to the host birds, and exploit their parental urges to a maximum.

 And I would have to disagree that we are not preprogrammed to "love" an invisible sky daddy. On the contrary, humans posess evolutionary traits very favorable to the development of the spiritual. These are the concepts of dualism and assumed intent. With dualism, we assume that our minds are seperate from our bodies. This would have been useful in evolution, because it would have allowed us to empathize with others and evaluate ourselves in a social context, and essentially allowed us to be self-aware, which is a useful trait for a social species. We also assume that all actions in the environment are intentional. It would have been useful for our ancestors to assume this, because it would have made us more wary of predators and rivals.

Together these concepts combine to provide us with a universe that is seemingly made "for us", and events happening for "a reason", and also gave us the concept of the "soul".  When merged with rabid speculation and a social dynamic, this results in religion.

 So yes, to be atheist we have to abandon these concepts of dualism and assumed intent, because rationally they make no sense. It makes sense to love your father or your child, even without evolutionary context, but it doesn't make sense to love an invisible skygod.

This is absolutely priceless..

In your OWN words, you stated that the poster provided me with a well reasoned hypothesis.

 Hypothesis..!! 

Here's the definition of the word "hypothesis":

A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

  1. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
  2. The antecedent of a conditional statement.

In other words, he provided an assumption  - a tentative explanation.

Do you or the other poster not know the definition of the word proof...???

Let me throw it out again - prove to me we're not "programmed" to believe in God. Prove to me that this isn't the reason why the majority of people on the planet believe in a higher power.

And that perhaps the atheists are really the people whose programs are  thoroughly screwed up - that you're, in fact, the ones that suffer from a "mind disorder". And you merely delude yourself into thinking that your mind disorder is actually rational and enlightened

Now try again ONLY this time,  let's deal with facts and proof - not hypothesis and tentative assumptions - OK..????

 

 

  

1. 

 

 

 


zntneo
Superfan
Posts: 565
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Well, i proved my point. So

Well, i proved my point. So you must prove that we are programming to love god. What evolutionary plus woudl this have? Don't shift the burden of proof onto us to disprove what you said.  


Broncosfan
Theist
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
zntneo wrote:Well, i

zntneo wrote:
Well, i proved my point. So you must prove that we are programming to love god. What evolutionary plus woudl this have? Don't shift the burden of proof onto us to disprove what you said.  

 Yeah, you proved a point all right..!!

It's just not the point you THINK you proved..!!  


theotherguy
theotherguy's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Broncosfan

Broncosfan wrote:
theotherguy wrote:
Broncosfan wrote:
zntneo wrote:

Broncosfan wrote:
You say he's programmed from birth to love me..?? Prove it..!!! And is he programmed to love his me because I'm his bological father..?? If so then I guess young babies / children can't love adoptive parents because the programming doesn't work that way..?? How about children who kill their parents - what happens to the programming there..?? Finally, you say that we're not programmed to love an invisible being -prove it.!! Perhaps that would explain why the vast majority of people do believe in a higher power and only a very small percentage of people don't. My program is fine, for example, because I'm a believer, but something has gone wrong with yours because you're not a believer. You've made some bold statements - now prove them not only to me but to the other posters as well..!! Looking forward to your comments.

Ok look at it this way, you have 2 children 1 who doesn't love their parents (or caregiver) and 1 who does. The one who does the parent will love them more and take care of them more in return. Thus the one who loves will have more children and pass on their genes on average more then the other one.

We aren't "programmed' to love an invisible been becuase that being is just that, invisible. There is nothing that would provide an evolutionary plus for someone who "loved" a invisable being then someone who did not. Thus there woudln't be any reason for that trait to be pasted on from generation to generation.

Excuse me, but where's the PROOF I asked for - your response is an opinion - it proves NOTHING..!!!!

He provided you with a well reasoned hypothesis. I'll gladly provide you with some scientific papers on the evolutionarily inherited traits of children if you'd like:

http://www.zoo.utoronto.ca/mgross/Gross2005.pdf

there you go, a scientific paper explaining parental care. Basically parental instincts (and for that matter the instincts of children) are preprogrammed to provide the greatest benifit to one's genes.

There is no way for a child to know if its caregiver is its biological parent, so the preprogrammed dispositions are not very specific. A child is likely to depend on and "love" its primary caregiver, because that is likely to ensure its survival. Similarly, a parent is predisposed to love and care for any child, because the most likely scenario in the wild would be a parent caring for its own children, and ensuring its genes passing on to the next generation. An excellent example of a "hijacking" of this instinct is the cuckoo bird, which inserts its eggs into the nests of other birds. The cuckoo is genetically programmed to be extremely pleasing to the host birds, and exploit their parental urges to a maximum.

And I would have to disagree that we are not preprogrammed to "love" an invisible sky daddy. On the contrary, humans posess evolutionary traits very favorable to the development of the spiritual. These are the concepts of dualism and assumed intent. With dualism, we assume that our minds are seperate from our bodies. This would have been useful in evolution, because it would have allowed us to empathize with others and evaluate ourselves in a social context, and essentially allowed us to be self-aware, which is a useful trait for a social species. We also assume that all actions in the environment are intentional. It would have been useful for our ancestors to assume this, because it would have made us more wary of predators and rivals.

Together these concepts combine to provide us with a universe that is seemingly made "for us", and events happening for "a reason", and also gave us the concept of the "soul". When merged with rabid speculation and a social dynamic, this results in religion.

So yes, to be atheist we have to abandon these concepts of dualism and assumed intent, because rationally they make no sense. It makes sense to love your father or your child, even without evolutionary context, but it doesn't make sense to love an invisible skygod.

This is absolutely priceless..

In your OWN words, you stated that the poster provided me with a well reasoned hypothesis.

Hypothesis..!!

Here's the definition of the word "hypothesis":

A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

  1. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
  2. The antecedent of a conditional statement.

In other words, he provided an assumption - a tentative explanation.

Do you or the other poster not know the definition of the word proof...???

Let me throw it out again - prove to me we're not "programmed" to believe in God. Prove to me that this isn't the reason why the majority of people on the planet believe in a higher power.

And that perhaps the atheists are really the people whose programs are thoroughly screwed up - that you're, in fact, the ones that suffer from a "mind disorder". And you merely delude yourself into thinking that your mind disorder is actually rational and enlightened

Now try again ONLY this time, let's deal with facts and proof - not hypothesis and tentative assumptions - OK..????

 

 

 

1. 

 

 

 

I just did smartass. And I agree with you that we are genetically predisposed to believe in God and in general the supernatural, I do not dispute that. However, evolution doesn't always favor the best solution, only the solution that favors the genes of the individual who carries it. Our ancestors used a bias towards believing in the supernatural to thwart predators and  assist social interaction.

However, we are also endowed with rational thought, and through this rational thought we can subvert our irrational genetic programming. It doesn't mean that atheists have a mind disorder, it means we used our higher faculties of reason to overcome our primitive, primal urges to believe in nonsense.


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
OK, kids.  This is getting

OK, kids.  This is getting a little out of hand.

This is the Kill 'Em With Kindness forum.

 See the big red letters in the left hand margin reminding you where you are?

Please tone down the attitudes and remember this forum's rules. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


zntneo
Superfan
Posts: 565
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Susan wrote: OK, kids.

Susan wrote:

OK, kids. This is getting a little out of hand.

This is the Kill 'Em With Kindness forum.

See the big red letters in the left hand margin reminding you where you are?

Please tone down the attitudes and remember this forum's rules.

 

Well, it does seem the theist is the one barking insults, imo. 


CrimsonEdge
CrimsonEdge's picture
Posts: 499
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Broncosfan, your definition

Broncosfan, your definition of hypothesis is skewed. A hypothesis, in regards to science, is not a guess. It's a well rounded estimate or idea based on research, evidence, and study.

Also, to help clarify what a theory is, in regards to modern critical thinking, science, and common place in adult situations (I use this term so I don't have to explain the vastness of the word theory in things like law [you know, lawyer stuff and what not], psychology, physics, etc), a general idea that is accepted by many to be as correct as possible.

At one point in time, there was a theory of gravity. Simply because it was a theory does not mean it is wrong or hasn't been proven or is not accepted (which is something many theists when arguing against science, for whatever reason, tend to do), does not mean that it is wrong.

Theories are not a hypothesis. Theories are like the superman of hypothesis while laws are like the Silver Surfer of theories. Or you can replace Silver Surfer with Stan Lee, whichever floats your boat.

Also, why don't you provide us with some facts and proof to back up your claim? 


Broncosfan
Theist
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
CrimsonEdge

CrimsonEdge wrote:

Broncosfan, your definition of hypothesis is skewed. A hypothesis, in regards to science, is not a guess. It's a well rounded estimate or idea based on research, evidence, and study.

Also, to help clarify what a theory is, in regards to modern critical thinking, science, and common place in adult situations (I use this term so I don't have to explain the vastness of the word theory in things like law [you know, lawyer stuff and what not], psychology, physics, etc), a general idea that is accepted by many to be as correct as possible.

At one point in time, there was a theory of gravity. Simply because it was a theory does not mean it is wrong or hasn't been proven or is not accepted (which is something many theists when arguing against science, for whatever reason, tend to do), does not mean that it is wrong.

Theories are not a hypothesis. Theories are like the superman of hypothesis while laws are like the Silver Surfer of theories. Or you can replace Silver Surfer with Stan Lee, whichever floats your boat.

Also, why don't you provide us with some facts and proof to back up your claim? 

Crimson Edge: 

Firstly, the definition of hypothesis was NOT mine - as prefaced in my answer, it came from dictionary.com.  

Secondly, I NEVER said a hypothesis is a guess.

Of course, just because something is a theory / hypothesis doesn't make it wrong - but it doesn't make it right either.

As for my "claims" on this website, I'm not entirely sure I've made any "claims" or confused my opinion(s) with facts. If you can find a specific claim I've made, I'll be happy to address it with you.


zntneo
Superfan
Posts: 565
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
CrimsonEdge

CrimsonEdge wrote:

Broncosfan, your definition of hypothesis is skewed. A hypothesis, in regards to science, is not a guess. It's a well rounded estimate or idea based on research, evidence, and study.

Also, to help clarify what a theory is, in regards to modern critical thinking, science, and common place in adult situations (I use this term so I don't have to explain the vastness of the word theory in things like law [you know, lawyer stuff and what not], psychology, physics, etc), a general idea that is accepted by many to be as correct as possible.

At one point in time, there was a theory of gravity. Simply because it was a theory does not mean it is wrong or hasn't been proven or is not accepted (which is something many theists when arguing against science, for whatever reason, tend to do), does not mean that it is wrong.

Theories are not a hypothesis. Theories are like the superman of hypothesis while laws are like the Silver Surfer of theories. Or you can replace Silver Surfer with Stan Lee, whichever floats your boat.

Also, why don't you provide us with some facts and proof to back up your claim?

 

Actually crimson, you are a little wrong too.Theories don't become laws. Laws are simple , usually mathmatical relationships. Such as F=ma. an example i've heard, laws are like bow and arrows, whereas theories are like machine guns. You can't tweak how a bow and arrow works much, its too simple. Whereas a machine gun has tons of moving parts, they can all be tweaked slightly to make a better machine guns. Also, theories usually are trying to explain laws, they don't become laws. Its a huge huge huge misunderstanding.