God is Love

Peppermint42
atheistSuperfan
Peppermint42's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-11-15
User is offlineOffline
God is Love

So this thought occurred to me while I was posting in another thread.  I had asked a theist if he only loved his family because God made him love them, and that kind of set off a spark in my brain.  So my question to theists is this:

 

If God is Love, then without him would we all be indifferent to those who currently mean the most to us?  Or worse, would we be actively harming them?

 

Think about it.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Applicable: 

Applicable:

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Karma is a

mellestad wrote:

Karma is a supernatural idea, and I do have a problem with it.  Reality is that 'bad', selfish actions are often rewarded and 'good' unselfish actions are often punished.  It often goes the other way as well, but tying it to the idea of Karma is naive.  Nature is what it is, ideas like Karma assign purpose and motive where none exist.

The idea that God creates humans from nothing with many desires and instincts built in, then forbids them to follow their own nature, with threat of eternal suffering doesn't make any sense.  It never made any sense.  If God were real he would either be a mean, whimsical and evil bastard or an idiot.  Your analogy is flawed.  A true analogy would be a parent who lovingly addicts their kids to heroin, then puts them in a room full of drugs and tells them if they ever touch it they'll be tortured.  Forever.  Only it is more arbitrary than that, because God never tells you face to face, and many 'sins' are not even harmful.

Fortunately, if you remove the idea of God from the equations everything *actually makes sense*, like happiness, suffering, our humanity, our religions, our morality, beauty and love, good and evil...the philosophical problems of theism simply evaporate.  The only unanswerable question that remains is 'where did it all come from', and theism doesn't give an answer any more than Stephen Hawking guessing from his wheelchair.  Every other question in the universe suddenly becomes answerable, even if currently mysterious.  The concept of God raises so many questions and answers nothing beyond a desire for immortality and purpose, and even those answers only work if you are willing to operate in willful ignorance.  Theists have to create entire fields of study just to defend the blatant contradictions and irrational precepts embodied in the core dogma...it is incredible.  Thousands of years of cover your ass for a lie who's only benefit has been to inspire order based on fear.

I appreciate that many theists find contentment in religion, but I think you find true wonder by taking the rose colored glasses off and seeing reality for what it is.  Beautiful, terrible, warm, cold, nurturing, uncaring, mercurial and unchanging.

 

"The idea that God creates humans from nothing with many desires and instincts built in, then forbids them to follow their own nature, with threat of eternal suffering doesn't make any sense."

Of course this idea doesn't make sense. Such a system would be an abomination. It is also not what scripture teaches.

 

The Bible teaches that man and woman were made in the image of God, to live at His side (see Genesis). We were created to be completely loved, unconditionally accepted, wonderfully alive in the fullest sense of the word. This is our nature, and this is what our hearts crave... the existance that we were created for.

We succumbed to a lie though, because to be fully alive, God also gave us the ability to choose, and in our imperfection we chose poorly.

We, and this world we live in, are 'fallen' and broken. What is beautiful, warm and nurturing are pale echoes of what was, and what is terrible, cold, and uncaring reflect the effects of our actions. This world was created by God, but is now twisted and waiting in anticipation of healing. The 'prince of this world' in scripture is Satan, and it is he that is at work in the nations since the fall. Note how Satan offers the kingdoms of the world to Jesus to tempt him... because they all belong to him (Satan).

I didn't come to Christ because I saw the world with rose coloured glasses. I came to Christ Jesus because I saw the world in reality, and that reality was best explained by scripture.   


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:The Bible

Dragoon wrote:

The Bible teaches that man and woman were made in the image of God, to live at His side (see Genesis). We were created to be completely loved, unconditionally accepted, wonderfully alive in the fullest sense of the word. This is our nature, and this is what our hearts crave... the existance that we were created for.

We succumbed to a lie though, because to be fully alive, God also gave us the ability to choose, and in our imperfection we chose poorly.

We, and this world we live in, are 'fallen' and broken. What is beautiful, warm and nurturing are pale echoes of what was, and what is terrible, cold, and uncaring reflect the effects of our actions. This world was created by God, but is now twisted and waiting in anticipation of healing. The 'prince of this world' in scripture is Satan, and it is he that is at work in the nations since the fall. Note how Satan offers the kingdoms of the world to Jesus to tempt him... because they all belong to him (Satan).

This doesn't make any sense...you are just making stuff up purely to give yourself comfort.  If that works for you, great, but at least be honest.

 

Every sentance you wrote in pure speculation with zero basis in observable reality.  To even discuss this with you I would have to agree that Genesis is something more than a creation story by a tribe of goat herders.  It is not.

 

Do you even see the inconsistency in what you wrote?  God gives man free will, makes them fallible, then sets up an artificial circumstance to test them and punishes them harshly for following their nature.  Then you claim God is the offended party?  Dude...this is what frustrates me about debating theology.  Your house is built upon sand.

 

Now I'm riled up again Sad

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Part of this is caused by

Part of this is caused by the central idea in your dogma that God is perfect.  If you are using the Bible and humanity as evidence for God, there are many places where that being is obviously not perfect...so you blame people for God's mistakes.  Christian guilt, and all that.  The garden of eden is a solid example...God fucked up in his created, but we get the shaft because we are 'bad' and need to be 'saved'.

 

I remember thinking I was a piece of poo every time I did something 'wrong' back in my theism days.  And being tought that I was weak and pathetic every single day.  Yuck.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote: I didn't

Dragoon wrote:

 

I didn't come to Christ because I saw the world with rose coloured glasses. I came to Christ Jesus because I saw the world in reality, and that reality was best explained by scripture.   

Ditto


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote:Dragoon

scuppers wrote:

Dragoon wrote:

 

I didn't come to Christ because I saw the world with rose coloured glasses. I came to Christ Jesus because I saw the world in reality, and that reality was best explained by scripture.   

Ditto

 

Ok, let's nail this down.  Please pick the *best* example of what scripture explains about reality, and we can discuss it.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level Moderator
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1711
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Ask them

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Ask them if God told them to kill their families if they would.

 They'll answer "no" . I's as if interputation of religion is based on personality. And it's as if religion can't override that.....

 

 

The story of Abraham shows they must kill their families if God tells them too. Jesus said you have to hate your mother, father and all your relatives more than Him. Do what God tells you do is more important than following your human conscience and moral values. Quite cultish and that is why it spawns such things.

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote: Ok, let's

mellestad wrote:

 

Ok, let's nail this down.  Please pick the *best* example of what scripture explains about reality, and we can discuss it.

For me Romans 1: 19-30 is particularly relevant for today (especially 1:22-25)


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote:mellestad

scuppers wrote:

mellestad wrote:

 

Ok, let's nail this down.  Please pick the *best* example of what scripture explains about reality, and we can discuss it.

For me Romans 1: 19-30 is particularly relevant for today (especially 1:22-25)

That is not an answer to the question I asked.  That passage explains nothing about reality, it talks about how God abandons sinners.  You need to give some meaning to that, explain why you think it explains reality in some way.  I didn't ask you to quote a Bible verse that you like.

Let's try again.  Please pick the *best* example of what scripture explains about reality, and we can discuss it.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:scuppers

mellestad wrote:

scuppers wrote:

mellestad wrote:

 

Ok, let's nail this down.  Please pick the *best* example of what scripture explains about reality, and we can discuss it.

For me Romans 1: 19-30 is particularly relevant for today (especially 1:22-25)

That is not an answer to the question I asked.  That passage explains nothing about reality, it talks about how God abandons sinners.  You need to give some meaning to that, explain why you think it explains reality in some way.  I didn't ask you to quote a Bible verse that you like.

Let's try again.  Please pick the *best* example of what scripture explains about reality, and we can discuss it.

It says belief in the Creator should be evident because we can't (and never will) answer all questions of creation. This is what is clear. It says people, in their bloated sense of themselves, will fool themselves in explaining or attempting to explain all the answers of creation and will change any notion of God creating humanity. It says man will explain his existence as deriving from corruptible man (primates?), birds, beasts, and all the way back to creeping things (LCA of all life). This in turn frees us to engage in whatever we desire because judgement is ignored or believed non-existent. It then gives the examples of what this leads to. Those descriptors can be found throughout history among Christians, atheists, or humanity in general, of course, but when God is eliminated completely or almost completely from human thought then what is wrong or unnatural becomes acceptable and natural. It even says Christians will be tempted by the pleasure offered in such thought and will abandon God to partake.

I'm not a theologian by any means, nor do I belong to any denomination. Its just my interpretation from what I see in the world and how this particular piece of scripture relates. 


NoDeity
Bronze Member
NoDeity's picture
Posts: 268
Joined: 2009-10-13
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote: It says

scuppers wrote:
It says belief in the Creator should be evident because we can't (and never will) answer all questions of creation.

Argument from ignorance.  "I don't know, therefore God."  Kinda silly, really.

Reality is the graveyard of the gods.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote:mellestad

scuppers wrote:

mellestad wrote:

scuppers wrote:

mellestad wrote:

 

Ok, let's nail this down.  Please pick the *best* example of what scripture explains about reality, and we can discuss it.

For me Romans 1: 19-30 is particularly relevant for today (especially 1:22-25)

That is not an answer to the question I asked.  That passage explains nothing about reality, it talks about how God abandons sinners.  You need to give some meaning to that, explain why you think it explains reality in some way.  I didn't ask you to quote a Bible verse that you like.

Let's try again.  Please pick the *best* example of what scripture explains about reality, and we can discuss it.

It says belief in the Creator should be evident because we can't (and never will) answer all questions of creation. This is what is clear. It says people, in their bloated sense of themselves, will fool themselves in explaining or attempting to explain all the answers of creation and will change any notion of God creating humanity. It says man will explain his existence as deriving from corruptible man (primates?), birds, beasts, and all the way back to creeping things (LCA of all life). This in turn frees us to engage in whatever we desire because judgement is ignored or believed non-existent. It then gives the examples of what this leads to. Those descriptors can be found throughout history among Christians, atheists, or humanity in general, of course, but when God is eliminated completely or almost completely from human thought then what is wrong or unnatural becomes acceptable and natural. It even says Christians will be tempted by the pleasure offered in such thought and will abandon God to partake.

I'm not a theologian by any means, nor do I belong to any denomination. Its just my interpretation from what I see in the world and how this particular piece of scripture relates. 

 

So, because humans won't ever understand the entire universe there *must* be magic?  That is your big hypothesis based on the Bible?  Then you take a passage about idolatry and make a tenuous link with evolution?

Your example of the results would be fine if you could demonstrate a strong correlation, but you cannot.  If you could the Japanese would all be miserable, and believers who believed what you do would all be happy, but it doesn't work that way.

Honestly, when I asked that question I was expecting something better than, "The Bible says we're sinful and doomed!" and, "Evolution makes us eat babies!".  Next thing I know you'll be quoting Pat Robertson and telling me why gays are responsible for a volcano erupting.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
I guess I assumed you were

I guess I assumed you were not a fundamentalist, that is my mistake.  I was raised with the kind of religion you seem to be releasing here, so I am familiar with the concepts.  I'm disappointed now.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


JonathanBC
Posts: 139
Joined: 2010-01-28
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:I guess I

mellestad wrote:

I guess I assumed you were not a fundamentalist, that is my mistake.  I was raised with the kind of religion you seem to be releasing here, so I am familiar with the concepts.  I'm disappointed now.

I am also disappointed. Scuppers did everything short of citing Vox Day when the topic became political/historical earlier, and that was sadly his "strongest" argument, which was still paper thin. When I took him on line by line, he folded and said the conversation "moved off the particulars." I gave up right then, pursuing the conversation is pointless.


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 jonathan and melestad, I

 jonathan and melestad, I apologize if I upset you guys in anyway. I'm leaving this site for good. I wrote an intro and resignation explaining myself if you guys are interested. Good bye and best wishes to all.


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Dragoon

mellestad wrote:

Dragoon wrote:

The Bible teaches that man and woman were made in the image of God, to live at His side (see Genesis). We were created to be completely loved, unconditionally accepted, wonderfully alive in the fullest sense of the word. This is our nature, and this is what our hearts crave... the existance that we were created for.

We succumbed to a lie though, because to be fully alive, God also gave us the ability to choose, and in our imperfection we chose poorly.

We, and this world we live in, are 'fallen' and broken. What is beautiful, warm and nurturing are pale echoes of what was, and what is terrible, cold, and uncaring reflect the effects of our actions. This world was created by God, but is now twisted and waiting in anticipation of healing. The 'prince of this world' in scripture is Satan, and it is he that is at work in the nations since the fall. Note how Satan offers the kingdoms of the world to Jesus to tempt him... because they all belong to him (Satan).

This doesn't make any sense...you are just making stuff up purely to give yourself comfort.  If that works for you, great, but at least be honest.

 

Every sentance you wrote in pure speculation with zero basis in observable reality.  To even discuss this with you I would have to agree that Genesis is something more than a creation story by a tribe of goat herders.  It is not.

 

 

I'm not 'making stuff up'... I'm simply paraphrasing parts of the Bible for you (just in case you haven't read them).

This is not 'speculation' therefor, but rather a summation of Biblical Christian belief. Its really up to each of us to test whether what is in any 'holy book' conforms to what we see in reality, and this in itself is one of the tests that we all go through in evaluating the truth claims of any religion.

mellestad wrote:
Do you even see the inconsistency in what you wrote?  God gives man free will, makes them fallible, then sets up an artificial circumstance to test them and punishes them harshly for following their nature.  Then you claim God is the offended party?  Dude...this is what frustrates me about debating theology.  Your house is built upon sand.

 

Now I'm riled up again Sad 

Is the inconsistancy in what I see, or in how you see it? You're making several preconceptions about the nature of both man and God which cause you to perceive an inconsistency. I would suggest that the inconsistency is between your own view of God anf human nature and the Biblical one.

I'm not here to 'debate' anything actually, but rather to help clear up any misconceptions which people may hold about the Biblical viewpoint. You're entirely free to reject the Bible and what it teaches... I merely ask that you base your decision on what it actually says.

Hope that doesn't rile you too much Eye-wink

 

Oh... I just spent some of the last few weeks on some white sand beaches. Fascinating how that beautiful white sand is the weathered remains of coral life.

 


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Part of this

mellestad wrote:

Part of this is caused by the central idea in your dogma that God is perfect.  If you are using the Bible and humanity as evidence for God, there are many places where that being is obviously not perfect...so you blame people for God's mistakes.  Christian guilt, and all that.  The garden of eden is a solid example...God fucked up in his created, but we get the shaft because we are 'bad' and need to be 'saved'.

 

I remember thinking I was a piece of poo every time I did something 'wrong' back in my theism days.  And being tought that I was weak and pathetic every single day.  Yuck.

How are you defining 'perfect'? What do you think it means, and what evidence do you see pointing to His imperfection?

Perhaps what you see as imperfection is merely the perfect path to a perfect end... yet one which is not easy?

 


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Is your argument simply that

Is your argument simply that God is perfect and the Bible is perfect, and any flaws, however obvious, are human error and not the error of God or His book?

The problem is if you do that you are refusing debate.  You are just saying your position is unassailable and unfalsifiable.  Why bother talking if the other side just chants, "I'm right"?

 

Maybe God should issue a revised version of the Bible, and send a new Jesus.  That might be handy, that way we don't have to be confused by 4000 year old prophecy and 2000 year old claims of necromantic savior-gods.

Or maybe there is a simpler explanation.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4298
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Karma is a

mellestad wrote:

Karma is a supernatural idea, and I do have a problem with it.  Reality is that 'bad', selfish actions are often rewarded and 'good' unselfish actions are often punished.  It often goes the other way as well, but tying it to the idea of Karma is naive.  Nature is what it is, ideas like Karma assign purpose and motive where none exist.

 

sorry this is very late--i just noticed this--but i feel i have to step in and say that's not quite what karma is.  karma is not about reward or punishment.  it isn't "dealt out" by any kind of "higher being."  karma is, quite simply, the natural results of our actions, no more.  the supernatural element enters with reincarnation, in that karma, according to most of orthodox hinduism, is what ties us to the world.  in this way it's a bit analogous to the tanha of buddhism.  technically, one must continue to return as long as one has karma to work out, be it pleasant ("good" karma) or unpleasant ("bad" karma).  in this way, all karma is "bad."  however, by attaining moksha through one of the yogas, one can nullify one's karma and never return.  to the hindu, this is all part of the natural order.  there is no dualism between a "physical" and "spiritual" realm in hinduism, recall.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:Perhaps what

Dragoon wrote:
Perhaps what you see as imperfection is merely the perfect path to a perfect end... yet one which is not easy?

Lol, passive aggressive implicit red herring ad hominem. 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote:It says

scuppers wrote:
It says belief in the Creator should be evident because we can't (and never will) answer all questions of creation.

Lol, argument from ignorance non sequitur.

scuppers wrote:
It then gives the examples of what this leads to.

Modern civilization? 

scuppers wrote:
Those descriptors can be found throughout history among Christians, atheists, or humanity in general, of course, but when God is eliminated completely or almost completely from human thought

Europe?

scuppers wrote:
then what is wrong or unnatural becomes acceptable and natural.

Unnatural? Natural? 

I don't think those words mean what you think they mean. Or, you're ignorant about what is natural or unnatural. Or both.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


JonathanBC
Posts: 139
Joined: 2010-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:How are you

Dragoon wrote:

How are you defining 'perfect'? What do you think it means, and what evidence do you see pointing to His imperfection?

Perhaps what you see as imperfection is merely the perfect path to a perfect end... yet one which is not easy?

In biology alone, I can name plenty of imperfections. I'll let somebody else debate the definition of perfection. As I've said over and over elsewhere, I don't like debating definitions. For the sake of this post, I'm using OED's third and fourth definitions, which boil down to having everything necessary and no more. No flaws.

The human appendix. Male nipples. Blind spot in the human eye. Wisdom teeth. Human tailbone. The wings of flightless birds. Eyes of Astyanax Mexicanus. Whale leg bones. Snake pelvis.


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Is your

mellestad wrote:

Is your argument simply that God is perfect and the Bible is perfect, and any flaws, however obvious, are human error and not the error of God or His book?

The problem is if you do that you are refusing debate.  You are just saying your position is unassailable and unfalsifiable.  Why bother talking if the other side just chants, "I'm right"?

 

Maybe God should issue a revised version of the Bible, and send a new Jesus.  That might be handy, that way we don't have to be confused by 4000 year old prophecy and 2000 year old claims of necromantic savior-gods.

Or maybe there is a simpler explanation.

No. I'm simply saying that your seeing inconsistencies in this area are from trying to reconcile a non-Biblical idea of God and human nature with the Biblical one. Of course there are going to be inconsistencies in such a comparison.

As to debate.... of course I refuse to get into a pointless 'who can spit further' contest. I'm happy to discuss (and listen) to any differences we may have, and to ask and answer questions where those are appropriate, but I'm not really interested in 'proving' you wrong. If there are any inconsistencies in your own reasoning, I simply trust that you will see thm under God's grace.

Similarly, I do listen and consider your ideas... but that doesn't mean I will agree with them.

 

Maybe God will do something completely unexpected. He certainly has a way of surprising what 'holy' people expect. It'd be lovely to see.


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
JonathanBC wrote:Dragoon

JonathanBC wrote:

Dragoon wrote:

How are you defining 'perfect'? What do you think it means, and what evidence do you see pointing to His imperfection?

Perhaps what you see as imperfection is merely the perfect path to a perfect end... yet one which is not easy?

In biology alone, I can name plenty of imperfections. I'll let somebody else debate the definition of perfection. As I've said over and over elsewhere, I don't like debating definitions. For the sake of this post, I'm using OED's third and fourth definitions, which boil down to having everything necessary and no more. No flaws.

The human appendix. Male nipples. Blind spot in the human eye. Wisdom teeth. Human tailbone. The wings of flightless birds. Eyes of Astyanax Mexicanus. Whale leg bones. Snake pelvis.

Those things are 'imperfect' or 'flawed' how? Most appear to be the remnants of evolutionary proccesses.

When an athlete is training for the Olympics, the changes in physiology is not 'imperfection'... they are merely changes towards an end.

You're also pre-supposing that 'perfection' is purely physical. Unless one knows the end/objective to which something is leading, it would be difficult to argue about 'perfection' in the sense you are.


JonathanBC
Posts: 139
Joined: 2010-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:Those things

Dragoon wrote:

Those things are 'imperfect' or 'flawed' how? Most appear to be the remnants of evolutionary proccesses.

When an athlete is training for the Olympics, the changes in physiology is not 'imperfection'... they are merely changes towards an end.

You're also pre-supposing that 'perfection' is purely physical. Unless one knows the end/objective to which something is leading, it would be difficult to argue about 'perfection' in the sense you are.

I was under the impression you denied evolution. If I'm wrong, I sincerely apologize. But they are still flaws. Human appendixes, as I'm sure you know, can cause serious health problems. Wouldn't a perfect God get rid of them for us? Or in the case of the whale or snake, they are imperfections because they still require a portion of the nutrients digested to develop. Calcium, I believe, among others. Regardless, it's waste.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:mellestad

iwbiek wrote:

mellestad wrote:

Karma is a supernatural idea, and I do have a problem with it.  Reality is that 'bad', selfish actions are often rewarded and 'good' unselfish actions are often punished.  It often goes the other way as well, but tying it to the idea of Karma is naive.  Nature is what it is, ideas like Karma assign purpose and motive where none exist.

 

sorry this is very late--i just noticed this--but i feel i have to step in and say that's not quite what karma is.  karma is not about reward or punishment.  it isn't "dealt out" by any kind of "higher being."  karma is, quite simply, the natural results of our actions, no more.  the supernatural element enters with reincarnation, in that karma, according to most of orthodox hinduism, is what ties us to the world.  in this way it's a bit analogous to the tanha of buddhism.  technically, one must continue to return as long as one has karma to work out, be it pleasant ("good" karma) or unpleasant ("bad" karma).  in this way, all karma is "bad."  however, by attaining moksha through one of the yogas, one can nullify one's karma and never return.  to the hindu, this is all part of the natural order.  there is no dualism between a "physical" and "spiritual" realm in hinduism, recall.

 

I get what you are saying, but there are traditions that imply a supernatural judgement involved with karma, and the typical American view of karma is supernatural.

I do agree though, many traditions do not view karma as a supernatural idea.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4298
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:iwbiek

mellestad wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

mellestad wrote:

Karma is a supernatural idea, and I do have a problem with it.  Reality is that 'bad', selfish actions are often rewarded and 'good' unselfish actions are often punished.  It often goes the other way as well, but tying it to the idea of Karma is naive.  Nature is what it is, ideas like Karma assign purpose and motive where none exist.

 

sorry this is very late--i just noticed this--but i feel i have to step in and say that's not quite what karma is.  karma is not about reward or punishment.  it isn't "dealt out" by any kind of "higher being."  karma is, quite simply, the natural results of our actions, no more.  the supernatural element enters with reincarnation, in that karma, according to most of orthodox hinduism, is what ties us to the world.  in this way it's a bit analogous to the tanha of buddhism.  technically, one must continue to return as long as one has karma to work out, be it pleasant ("good" karma) or unpleasant ("bad" karma).  in this way, all karma is "bad."  however, by attaining moksha through one of the yogas, one can nullify one's karma and never return.  to the hindu, this is all part of the natural order.  there is no dualism between a "physical" and "spiritual" realm in hinduism, recall.

 

I get what you are saying, but there are traditions that imply a supernatural judgement involved with karma, and the typical American view of karma is supernatural.

I do agree though, many traditions do not view karma as a supernatural idea.

 

i agree about the american view.  i'm unaware of any mainstream hindu traditions that view karma as a conscious supernatural judgment.  i'm sure there are some sects out there that do (hinduism has probably spawned more sects and cults than any other religious tradition, including christianity), but to my knowledge none of the vedas teach this, nor have any of the gurus historically accepted by the majority of hindus.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
JonathanBC wrote:Dragoon

JonathanBC wrote:

Dragoon wrote:

Those things are 'imperfect' or 'flawed' how? Most appear to be the remnants of evolutionary proccesses.

When an athlete is training for the Olympics, the changes in physiology is not 'imperfection'... they are merely changes towards an end.

You're also pre-supposing that 'perfection' is purely physical. Unless one knows the end/objective to which something is leading, it would be difficult to argue about 'perfection' in the sense you are.

I was under the impression you denied evolution. If I'm wrong, I sincerely apologize. But they are still flaws. Human appendixes, as I'm sure you know, can cause serious health problems. Wouldn't a perfect God get rid of them for us? Or in the case of the whale or snake, they are imperfections because they still require a portion of the nutrients digested to develop. Calcium, I believe, among others. Regardless, it's waste.

I have no problem with evolution as a mechanism for change within living organisms. Evolution simply describes 'how' things occur... it does not address whether there is 'intelligence' behind it (though it allows for change without a 'god').

I would ask again though... what criteria are you using for 'perfection'? Unless we are aware of the 'end', we cannot adequetely judge whether any route is the ideal/perfect route.

 

I should also point out that the Biblical world view does not say that this world is perfect.

Biblically, this world was created perfect, but has fallen into sin. The 'prince' of this world is not God... it's Satan.

Essentially, God has allowed temporary 'imperfection' to reach a goal that is for our end good... which I would argue still makes this worls 'perfect' in a sense, because it is the best path to the end objective.


JonathanBC
Posts: 139
Joined: 2010-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I would ask again

Quote:

I would ask again though... what criteria are you using for 'perfection'? Unless we are aware of the 'end', we cannot adequetely judge whether any route is the ideal/perfect route.

Asked and answered. I'm not interested in vocabulary masturbation with you or anyone else. I've mentioned many times in various threads my feelings and thoughts on wordplay. When possible and applicable, I defer to the second edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. The first two listings are essentially "to make perfect" which is a tautology in this instance.

The third listing is where it gets interesting. 3. The condition, state, or quality of being perfect or free from all defect; supreme excellence; flawlessness, faultlessness. But often treated as a matter of degree: Comparative excellence.

If you want a definition of perfect, I again go to the third listing. The first doesn't apply to this, nor the second. 3. a. In the state proper to anything when completed; complete; having all the essential elements, qualities, or characteristics; not deficient in any particular.

I've already explained why these criteria are not met. The appendix is a defect. At this stage of human evolution, it serves no purpose and presents considerable harm in many cases. It is vestigial. Please explain why an intelligent creator would leave the appendix, whale leg bones, and snake pelvis intact if he had any control over the matter at all.

Quote:

Essentially, God has allowed temporary 'imperfection' to reach a goal that is for our end good... which I would argue still makes this worls 'perfect' in a sense, because it is the best path to the end objective.

Can you show me where the Bible says this or are you making shit up? If God were omnipotent and omnibenevolent, wouldn't the path be better without suffering? We're back to square one.


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
JonathanBC wrote:Quote:I

JonathanBC wrote:

Quote:

I would ask again though... what criteria are you using for 'perfection'? Unless we are aware of the 'end', we cannot adequetely judge whether any route is the ideal/perfect route.

Asked and answered. I'm not interested in vocabulary masturbation with you or anyone else. I've mentioned many times in various threads my feelings and thoughts on wordplay. When possible and applicable, I defer to the second edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. The first two listings are essentially "to make perfect" which is a tautology in this instance.

The third listing is where it gets interesting. 3. The condition, state, or quality of being perfect or free from all defect; supreme excellence; flawlessness, faultlessness. But often treated as a matter of degree: Comparative excellence.

If you want a definition of perfect, I again go to the third listing. The first doesn't apply to this, nor the second. 3. a. In the state proper to anything when completed; complete; having all the essential elements, qualities, or characteristics; not deficient in any particular.

I've already explained why these criteria are not met. The appendix is a defect. At this stage of human evolution, it serves no purpose and presents considerable harm in many cases. It is vestigial. Please explain why an intelligent creator would leave the appendix, whale leg bones, and snake pelvis intact if he had any control over the matter at all.

Quote:

Essentially, God has allowed temporary 'imperfection' to reach a goal that is for our end good... which I would argue still makes this worls 'perfect' in a sense, because it is the best path to the end objective.

Can you show me where the Bible says this or are you making shit up? If God were omnipotent and omnibenevolent, wouldn't the path be better without suffering? We're back to square one.

Re; perfection-

I'm not asking for any type of masturbation, but thanks for for the analogy anyway. Part of the difficulty in any conversation is making sure people are talking about the same 'concept'. Words, and especially words over the internet, can be interpreted myriad ways.

As to the appendix, whale bones, etc, my question would be essentially... why do you think  they are important? Perhaps they're there simply because God does not 'change' things in supernatural jumps, but rather allows the mechanisms he has created to work at their own speed. God does not change like shifting shadows... he's the same yesterday, today and forever.  The exceptions we often term 'miracles'.

---

re: temporary imperfection

The phrasing is entirely my own. I base it on scripture like the following;

As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. (Eph 2:2-3)

Then Jesus told them, "You are going to have the light just a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, before darkness overtakes you. The man who walks in the dark does not know where he is going. Put your trust in the light while you have it, so that you may become sons of light." When he had finished speaking, Jesus left and hid himself from them. (John 12:35-36)

Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade--kept in heaven for you, who through faith are shielded by God's power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time.

In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials. These have come so that your faith--of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire--may be proved genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed. (1 Peter 1:3-7)

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. (Ro 8:28)

 

There's a lot more similar scripture, but this is a rather basic teaching of Christianity. Essentially, we were created in God's image, but this world is fallen. Christ reconciles those who love him to God, but we will have to suffer through the brokeness of this world for a time as we await the penultimate reurn of Christ.


OLEG DEI (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
RELIGION

Here is what I don't understand: theists always state that God is love! Where do they get this from?

According to the Bible, God is a bloodthirsty killer. As per WWW.SCIENCECLUBOFLONGISLAND.COM

1. God drowns the whole earth.

In Genesis 7:21–23, God drowns the entire population of the earth: men, women, children, and fetuses. Only a single family survives. In Matthew 24:37–42, the evil

Jesus approves of this genocide and plans to repeat it when he returns.

 

2. God kills half a million people.

In 2 Chronicles 13:15–18, God helps the men of Judah kill 500,000 of their fellow Israelites.

 

3. God slaughters all Egyptian firstborn.

In Exodus 12:29, God kills all Egyptian firstborn children and cattle because their king was stubborn.

 

4. God kills 14,000 people for complaining that God keeps killing them.

In Numbers 16:41–49, the Israelites complain that God is killing too many of them. So, God sends a plague that kills 14,000 more of them.

 

5. Genocide after genocide after genocide.

In Joshua 6:20–21, God helps the Israelites destroy Jericho, killing “men and

women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.” In Deuteronomy 2:32–35, God has the Israelites kill everyone in Heshbon, including children, and plunder the country.

 

 In Deuteronomy 3:3–7, God has the Israelites do the same to the people of

Bashan. In Numbers 31:7–18, the Israelites kill all the Midianites except for the virgins, whom they take as spoils of war. In 1 Samuel 15:1–9, God tells the Israelites to kill all the Amalekites—men, women, children, infants, and their cattle—for something the Amalekites' ancestors had done 400 years ago.

 

6. God kills 50,000 people for curiosity.

In 1 Samuel 6:19, God kills 50,000 men for peeking into the ark of the covenant.

 

7. 3,000 Israelites killed for inventing a god.

In Exodus 32, Moses has climbed Mount Sinai to get the Ten Commandments. The Israelites are bored, so they invent a golden calf god. Moses comes back and God commands him: “Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.”

About 3,000 people died.

WHO WANTS TO WORSHIP THIS TRASH?

 

 


JonathanBC
Posts: 139
Joined: 2010-01-28
User is offlineOffline
I completely understand,

I completely understand, that's why I don't have a problem using a dictionary. I find that in theological debates, when theists ask an atheist to define something, it leads to a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. The theist will claim the atheist is now making a straw man argument, and sometimes it is true. But as soon as someone says "that isn't what I believe! No true Christian would interpret x that way" the conversation breaks down. So to me, the logical fix is a dictionary. I happen to like the OED despite its occasionally over literary examples. I don't mean to accuse you of the situation above, I actually like you. Debating theists offline for years has made me cynical, I accept it is my fault to assume I know where you're going.

As to why things such as whale leg bones don't meet the given definition of perfection, it's a matter of the economy that goes on within biology of advanced life. I'd like to point out a few specific situations, then explain the correlation to the imperfections I've brought up in whales, et al.

If the strongest and fittest survive, and being larger allows for more strength, why aren't we ten stories tall? Because you must consume to gain energy, and food is finite. If you're larger and larger, you must consume more and more to sustain yourself. We need energy. We need iron for our blood, calcium for teeth and bones, fiber for various things, and so on. Of course evolution never stops, but most species are about where they need to be in the bioeconomy, and when they aren't, it doesn't take long to regulate itself.

Point is, we need stuff. Food stuff. Stuff like vitamins. We take stuff and our body follows its DNA blueprints to make other stuff, like organs. When we don't get enough stuff, we have to cut back in areas of lesser importance. For example, I recently watched a documentary on North Korea which claimed the average lower class 12 year old North Korean is six inches shorter than the average South Korean, because of the rations not being sufficiently nutritious. This all makes sense. Our bodies compensate rather intelligently. When near death, unnecessary functions such as holding the bowels are sacrificed to conserve energy. I don't think you'll disagree with anything I've said so far, it has mostly been basic facts about biology. Now I'll just tie this in with the original point I wanted to make.

I'm not a whale dietary nutritionist, but I know they have to ingest stuff to make stuff like we do. A portion of "bone stuff" which I imagine would be calcium, must be used to form these unnecessary bone structures. Over time, evolution will take care of this. Mutations which direct the calcium to reinforcing useful structures such as the jaw or spine will win out. Eventually, given that future circumstances will be similar to current circumstances, whales won't have leg bones anymore. Of course, I don't know that whales won't be extinct before that happens, but if whale life stays somewhat like it is now, evolution will remove waste.

The same applies to pythons and boas, to an even greater degree. To avoid you thinking I'm being selective, I'd like you to do your own image search for a python pelvic spur. It protrudes to the outer scale area of the snake. The bone is not attached to the spine. It is entirely vestigial, and can actually pose a danger to the snake in the form of infection, since it creates two holes in the underside. The economic argument also still applies.

I don't feel the need to go in depth on the human appendix except to say it takes a further step in the direction of actually being dangerous. You should know the unnecessary health risks.

Now, I'd like to provide citation in two forms. First I'll give you an example of this biological economy in action, then the actual book the example is from in case you doubt it. The obvious response is "yeah but there are still whales and pythons and people, it can't be too bad." Here comes something I brought up long ago. Astyanax Mexicanus. The cave dwelling variety, in particular. These little guys could nearly prove evolution by themselves, nothing else needed. These fish, though the same species, are separated into two distinct but nearby environments.

The first is a normal freshwater setting, and the second is in caves. Caves are dark. Sight, or vision, is largely a waste in the dark. You'll see that most cave dwellers have evolved an alternative fashion of getting to know one's surroundings. Bats, or cave salamander come to mind. Astyanax Mexicanus can adapt faster than whales because of their small size and shorter life span. Nature has also "blessed us" by splitting these fish apart and allowing us to see the differences after they found their way to caves.

The cave variety have no pigmentation and no eyes. Because they don't have to use the nutrients to form ocular organs, they've developed taste buds all around the head, and they can store four times the energy of their sighted neighbors.

(Helfman G., Collette B., & Facey D.: The Diversity of Fishes, Blackwell Publishing, p 315)

I'd love to go on and give more specifics, but it must wait. I haven't slept.

 


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
JonathanBC wrote:I

JonathanBC wrote:

I completely understand, that's why I don't have a problem using a dictionary. I find that in theological debates, when theists ask an atheist to define something, it leads to a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. The theist will claim the atheist is now making a straw man argument, and sometimes it is true. But as soon as someone says "that isn't what I believe! No true Christian would interpret x that way" the conversation breaks down. So to me, the logical fix is a dictionary. I happen to like the OED despite its occasionally over literary examples. I don't mean to accuse you of the situation above, I actually like you. Debating theists offline for years has made me cynical, I accept it is my fault to assume I know where you're going...

Part of the difficulty lies in the question, "What is a Christian." There is not a global authority which grants rights to the name, and which establishes criteria for acceptance. Any person may call themselves a 'Christian', which quite honestly is why I find the term virtually meaningless.

I would contend that the only source for 'true' Christian (the term 'theist' here is misleading, as we really only are talking about Christians) belief is the Bible. Within this context, there is certainly room for discussion on what comprises more valid interpretation of less clear biblical teachings. Such discussions rarely change the main participants opinions, but they are useful to allow others to better form sound views on what they themselves hold true.

'Christian' arguments that are based upon the inaccuracy or fallacy of the Bible are flawed in very nature, as such arguments come from a non-Biblical world view. This does NOT mean that we shouldn't discuss these, as they are important for answering and providing context for people who are unsure of Chistianity. Rather I am saying that such arguments are flawed if we are looking at what followers of Christ believe.


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
OLEG DEI wrote:  Here is

OLEG DEI wrote:

 

 

Here is what I don't understand: theists always state that God is love! Where do they get this from?

According to the Bible, God is a bloodthirsty killer. As per WWW.SCIENCECLUBOFLONGISLAND.COM

1. God drowns the whole earth.

In Genesis 7:21–23, God drowns the entire population of the earth: men, women, children, and fetuses. Only a single family survives. In Matthew 24:37–42, the evil

Jesus approves of this genocide and plans to repeat it when he returns.

 

2. God kills half a million people.

In 2 Chronicles 13:15–18, God helps the men of Judah kill 500,000 of their fellow Israelites.

 

3. God slaughters all Egyptian firstborn.

In Exodus 12:29, God kills all Egyptian firstborn children and cattle because their king was stubborn.

 

4. God kills 14,000 people for complaining that God keeps killing them.

In Numbers 16:41–49, the Israelites complain that God is killing too many of them. So, God sends a plague that kills 14,000 more of them.

 

5. Genocide after genocide after genocide.

In Joshua 6:20–21, God helps the Israelites destroy Jericho, killing “men and

women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.” In Deuteronomy 2:32–35, God has the Israelites kill everyone in Heshbon, including children, and plunder the country.

 

 In Deuteronomy 3:3–7, God has the Israelites do the same to the people of

Bashan. In Numbers 31:7–18, the Israelites kill all the Midianites except for the virgins, whom they take as spoils of war. In 1 Samuel 15:1–9, God tells the Israelites to kill all the Amalekites—men, women, children, infants, and their cattle—for something the Amalekites' ancestors had done 400 years ago.

 

6. God kills 50,000 people for curiosity.

In 1 Samuel 6:19, God kills 50,000 men for peeking into the ark of the covenant.

 

7. 3,000 Israelites killed for inventing a god.

In Exodus 32, Moses has climbed Mount Sinai to get the Ten Commandments. The Israelites are bored, so they invent a golden calf god. Moses comes back and God commands him: “Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.”

About 3,000 people died.

WHO WANTS TO WORSHIP THIS TRASH?

 

 

Perhaps real love involves teaching of what is 'right' and 'wrong'... and at some point there will be consequences for our actions.

 

 

 


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Dragoon wrote:

OLEG DEI wrote:

 

 

Here is what I don't understand: theists always state that God is love! Where do they get this from?

According to the Bible, God is a bloodthirsty killer. As per WWW.SCIENCECLUBOFLONGISLAND.COM

1. God drowns the whole earth.

In Genesis 7:21–23, God drowns the entire population of the earth: men, women, children, and fetuses. Only a single family survives. In Matthew 24:37–42, the evil

Jesus approves of this genocide and plans to repeat it when he returns.

 

2. God kills half a million people.

In 2 Chronicles 13:15–18, God helps the men of Judah kill 500,000 of their fellow Israelites.

 

3. God slaughters all Egyptian firstborn.

In Exodus 12:29, God kills all Egyptian firstborn children and cattle because their king was stubborn.

 

4. God kills 14,000 people for complaining that God keeps killing them.

In Numbers 16:41–49, the Israelites complain that God is killing too many of them. So, God sends a plague that kills 14,000 more of them.

 

5. Genocide after genocide after genocide.

In Joshua 6:20–21, God helps the Israelites destroy Jericho, killing “men and

women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.” In Deuteronomy 2:32–35, God has the Israelites kill everyone in Heshbon, including children, and plunder the country.

 

 In Deuteronomy 3:3–7, God has the Israelites do the same to the people of

Bashan. In Numbers 31:7–18, the Israelites kill all the Midianites except for the virgins, whom they take as spoils of war. In 1 Samuel 15:1–9, God tells the Israelites to kill all the Amalekites—men, women, children, infants, and their cattle—for something the Amalekites' ancestors had done 400 years ago.

 

6. God kills 50,000 people for curiosity.

In 1 Samuel 6:19, God kills 50,000 men for peeking into the ark of the covenant.

 

7. 3,000 Israelites killed for inventing a god.

In Exodus 32, Moses has climbed Mount Sinai to get the Ten Commandments. The Israelites are bored, so they invent a golden calf god. Moses comes back and God commands him: “Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.”

About 3,000 people died.

WHO WANTS TO WORSHIP THIS TRASH?

 

 

 

Perhaps real love involves teaching of what is 'right' and 'wrong'... and at some point there will be consequences for our actions.

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe your biblical Job knew what your biblical god meant by "real love". Maybe real love is torture? Is waterboarding love?

 

 

Or maybe mass slaughter and genocide are your god's love? He's really into that. What big lovable guy.

 

 

Or what about his obsession with reproductive organs? Now we ALL know he loves penis. Your god even wanted a donation from every penis in the tribe. Couldn't get enough cock, maybe.

 

 

Hard to say. This is all just speculation after all.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


JonathanBC
Posts: 139
Joined: 2010-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon, congratulations.

Dragoon, congratulations. I'm amazed how you just managed to ignore my entire post and all of the evidence I gave you. Instead you focused on one short aside, only there to explain why I snapped at you for asking for a definition I'd already given.


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
JonathanBC wrote:Dragoon,

JonathanBC wrote:

Dragoon, congratulations. I'm amazed how you just managed to ignore my entire post and all of the evidence I gave you. Instead you focused on one short aside, only there to explain why I snapped at you for asking for a definition I'd already given.

Nah.... I just thought your aside was the most interesting part Eye-wink

 

I've also been away awhile and was catching up on both this thread and a few others. I'll give the rest of your post the time it deserves after I've had some time to digest and consider it. 

You may want to check up on the human appendix though. If I recall correctly, there were some recent studies that suggest possible uses for the appendix as a repository for certain organisms related to the immune system.


JonathanBC
Posts: 139
Joined: 2010-01-28
User is offlineOffline
No problem, I understand.

No problem, I understand. I'm going to bed now, but I'll look for that study when I wake up. I don't think I necessarily need the appendix. My argument doesn't hinge on it, there are other vestigial organs that I could make the same point about. I never even touched on flightless birds, which is a really interesting subject in itself.

One more aside, since you love my asides. I realized that throughout the thread, I've referred to Astyanax Mexicanus by its Latin, scientific name. I learned that before I learned the common name. It's probably going to forever be in my head that way, now. If you care to look up the fish, or just want to see a fish without eyes, it's easier to find under the name "Mexican tetra." My apologies.


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
JonathanBC wrote:No problem,

JonathanBC wrote:

No problem, I understand. I'm going to bed now, but I'll look for that study when I wake up. I don't think I necessarily need the appendix. My argument doesn't hinge on it, there are other vestigial organs that I could make the same point about. I never even touched on flightless birds, which is a really interesting subject in itself.

One more aside, since you love my asides. I realized that throughout the thread, I've referred to Astyanax Mexicanus by its Latin, scientific name. I learned that before I learned the common name. It's probably going to forever be in my head that way, now. If you care to look up the fish, or just want to see a fish without eyes, it's easier to find under the name "Mexican tetra." My apologies.

 

Sorry for the long delay. My nice VISTA operating system has again decided to lose bootmgr, and this time has been refusing to accept recovery disks as well. It has been a frustrating computer period Smiling

 

Looking over your post, I'm confused by a couple of points.

You mention 'proving evolution', and I agree that the evidence you provide offers good support for evolutionary change. The problem is, I thought I made it plain in earlier posts that I don't disagree with evolution as a means of species adaptation/change. I think it doesn't explain creation of life though, but basically the theory of evolution does not 'disprove' God... though it does not require Him.

In regards to your post overall, I'm afraid I don't see how these things are 'imperfect'. They are merely transitional changes as species adapt to their environments.

 

If I've misunderstood anything, please let me know. My computer is still a bust, so until I get it repaired, I may be on very rarely.


JonathanBC
Posts: 139
Joined: 2010-01-28
User is offlineOffline
I'm dealing with a bout of

I'm dealing with a bout of pneumonia at the moment, which is quite frustrating. I'm in pain when I inhale, as I'm accustomed to doing, so anything I say could probably be attributed to the poor mood I'm in. That being said, I think you're full of shit.

To start, I've made no claims in this thread regarding the origin of life. I'm not sure how relevant it is to the discussion. I'm not bothered you brought it up though. As I've stated elsewhere, there are many very intelligent people here. The best part is the variety of expertise. There are history buffs, physics buffs, biologists, and so on. If I bring anything new to the table that is RRS, it would be the field of abiogenesis. If I'm an expert at anything, though I've never claimed to be, I'm an expert on the origin of life. I'd be more than happy to go down that path. I've studied it in detail.

In an attempt to go somewhat in order, let me address the issue of evolution as only a "means of species adaptation." I think you're making a straw man argument, or you just don't understand evolution. There's a general theist battle cry of "show me your intermediates!" or "where is the missing link?" and the truth is every single generation is a missing link, in some sense. If you ask any somewhat educated person "what species came between homo neandertalensis and homo floresiensis?" the answer you'll get is homo rhodesiensis. That's how we classify things.

If you rephrase the question very slightly to "how many links are between" the more accurate answer would be tens of thousands. You're a homo sapiens. You're a link between floresiensis and whatever comes next, in terms of distinct species. On the other hand, a species is an entirely subjective human concept. You're really only a link between your parents and your offspring, if you have any. You can scale it however you choose.

So when you refer to species adapting to their environment from their ancestors, and at some point you stop and say essentially 'God made stuff starting here' you're being silly. For one thing, if God made life in some form, why not make it perfect to start? It sounds like you believe we're God's science experiment gone awry, that he planted some seeds and they evolved out of control. When you say you believe in evolution and God, you're not really saying anything. You're not offering any insight as to how you're making these two ideas compatible. Evolution doesn't need God, and God doesn't need evolution.

I'm going to wrap this up so that I can rest, I hope you get my point though. I don't understand at all what you believe except it isn't in the Bible and it isn't in any science book. But you must not have understood my point about imperfection. Let me simplify. DNA is a series of instructions. Whale DNA gives instructions on how to build a whale. Some of those instructions include directing calcium and other finite resources to the construction of leg bones. If I could change that instruction to instead fortifying the rib cage or spine or practically anything except leg bones, it would be better off. It would be more perfect. Not perfect, but much closer. The whale would be less injury prone and less vulnerable to attack, living a longer and more perfect life.