Common christian myths

todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Common christian myths

Yes, I know that christianity itself is a myth, but my intention here is to get a good list of common myths christians hold to, concerning their myth, christianity.

What I mean is this, how often do you see the following claims/behaviors by theists on our boards?

1) "I was an atheist until age... 20,21,22, etc."

or

"I examined all the possible religions/worldviews and came to the conclusion that christianity made the most sense"

How is it that EVERY theist who manages to find his or her way to our boards wasn't raised a christian, but instead came to christianity through a long, arduent study of the world? How is it that we are so fortunate to be graced by such scholarly folk?

Research tends to show that such people would be exceedingly rare... most people follow the religion of their parents. Yet all of our theists only became theists after rational inquiry!

What an amazing coincidence! 

 Here's another one

2) "Hi board, I have come to help you all out. Here is an argument for you to consider"

The argument is then.. pascal's wager, or a link to Kent Hovind's site, or Carm, or some other ridiculous nonsense.

Why is it that every theist imagines we haven't heard this before? My sense is that their thought process goes like this "They must not know this, for if they did, they'd be christians..."

So it follows that the fact that there are rational people who have refutations for these arguments is something these theists do not want to consider...

Do any of you have more of these sorts of common 'myths' that christians hold about christians, or christianity? I'd like to make a list.

 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


Truatheist
Truatheist's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:

Truatheist wrote:
You are comparing me to the Judeo-Christian god. This god is said to be omniscient, while I am not. Although I may be responsible for certain aspects of my daughters personality, I am certainly not responsible for each and every one of her biological influences.

So in other words, I must pretend for a second that your god is not all knowing, to comprehend the analogy you put forth? Why do you keep avoiding the fact that your god is all knowing, while I am not. Your failure to address this shows the desperation of your illogical position.

Actually you are making it to where I'm comparing you to God and an omniscient being. I keep trying to tell you I'm not, that I'm comparing you "creator" vs. "creator". This has nothing to do with all knowing or not. I'm hoping you'll get it but it doesn't seem you want to put down your analytical position and turn it down a notch to understand what I'm talking about. Don't make a mountain out of a mole hill please...

Ironically you almost did when you said you are responsible for various aspects of your daughter's development but not all. This is the same with God and us where while he might know what's going to happen (like you know eventually your daughter will be exposed to boys or smoking or drugs) but the choices she makes are the same as to the choices we must make in relation to what can only be called morals that God has instilled. As written, those who do not know God have a "natural law" written on their hearts (conscious perhaps?) and you still know someone by their actions:

Romans 2:14-15 Indeed, when Gentiles (aka atheists), who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.

You are repeatedly committing the fallacy of false analogy.  Suggesting that my knowledge regarding my daughters future, and your god’s  omniscience are even remotely related is the height of dishonesty.

 The shell game required to defend your position is humorous indeed. I honestly feel sorry for you.

Reason, Observation, and Experience -- the Holy Trinity of Science.
Robert G. Ingersoll


Roly1976
Posts: 45
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
What you rarely see on

What you rarely see on here, but I have heard in personal discussion is the Argument from Personal Experience, which is arguably the hardest to counter because often these people are pretty rational.  So a friend of mine had a family member who was on the verge of death and they prayed at his bedside a great deal and he gradually got better, which the Xian claims as a miracle.  Also the 'experience' at these evangelical hooplas of the holy spirit possessing people. Dawkins' example of the devil bird in God Delusion is excellent as well.

Ultimately if someone is convinced they've seen a ghost, or had a near-death experience or whatever, it's pretty impossible to argue them out of it. However maybe they're rarely put on these boards because when written in black and white such an experience does just seem irrational and impossible to believe...


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: Romans

deludedgod wrote:
Romans 2:14-15

As someone who has studied the neuroscience and sociology of morality for a long time I would certianly hope you do not genuinely believe that!

'Splain what you mean Lucy.... 

Truatheist wrote:
You are repeatedly committing the fallacy of false analogy.  Suggesting that my knowledge regarding my daughters future, and your god’s  omniscience are even remotely related is the height of dishonesty.

OK then.  Guess no talking to you on a level in which you won't take it litterly every time...I've asked you several times to understand my point and you refuse to.  Either that means you know I'm right and are avoiding the analogy to avoid the discussion or you just don't understand it and are going to avoid the discussion anyway.  Shame...

Roly1976 wrote:
Ultimately if someone is convinced they've seen a ghost, or had a near-death experience or whatever, it's pretty impossible to argue them out of it. However maybe they're rarely put on these boards because when written in black and white such an experience does just seem irrational and impossible to believe...

If someone says they've had an experience which someone else would call "supernatural", should it be dismissed because it does not follow some kind of science?  We can't prove that there is life on other planets yet that doesn't mean it doesn't exist either.  As with anything else that is unexplainable, until you yourself have experienced it you will not believe, and when it comes to god especially so (and no, growing up under a dogma does not count).

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
As someone who has studied

As someone who has studied the neuroscience and sociology of morality for a long time I would certianly hope you do not genuinely believe that!

You are dismissing baser morality as a God-given attribute when decades of research in fact shows that it is the result of painstaking evolution, the selection of what are known as altruism genes", endocrine balance changes in the brain, not to mention complex neuroplasticity and societel codes. Thus it cannot be an inherent God-given attribute because it can be deliberately altered, thus it retains a degree of plasticity confirmed by neurological research. This is covered (though not extensively) in my essay morality without god

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
AModestProposal wrote: 1.

AModestProposal wrote:

1. Of course Jesus existed, despite lack of evidence, afterall, we know (insert any historical figure whose existence has greater validity here) existed even though there's just as much lack of evidence. (I love this one because it's almost like they're helping to disprove Jesus existed)

Someone pulled this argument on me and I was kind of pissed because I didn't have a lot of knowledge on the historical character in question (and admitted so) and ended spending about 2 hours searching the web and giving myself a mini history lesson.  Regardless, it still doesn't prove that Jesus existed and/or was the son of god, etc., anyway.  Ultimately I bowed out of the debate because obviously I'm not going to argue something that I can't back up with facts. 

If god takes life he's an indian giver


Truatheist
Truatheist's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:

Truatheist wrote:
You are repeatedly committing the fallacy of false analogy. Suggesting that my knowledge regarding my daughters future, and your god’s omniscience are even remotely related is the height of dishonesty.

OK then. Guess no talking to you on a level in which you won't take it litterly every time...I've asked you several times to understand my point and you refuse to.

Either that means you know I'm right and are avoiding the analogy to avoid the discussion or you just don't understand it and are going to avoid the discussion anyway. Shame...

 

You can beg me to accept your false analogy all you want, however; I refuse to participate in such nonsense. It still does not change the fact that you are attempting to equate finite fallible knowledge (man) with infinite infallible knowledge (god).


All you have done here is ignore my questions and create analogies that are illogical, in an attempt to justify your belief in a deity. If you are truly here to learn, I suggest you admit your error and attempt to build your case logically. You are either extremely ignorant or dishonest, I’m leaning toward the former.

Reason, Observation, and Experience -- the Holy Trinity of Science.
Robert G. Ingersoll


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Let's not forget the

Let's not forget the biggest Christian myth:

 

"God exists."


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Truatheist wrote: You can

Truatheist wrote:
You can beg me to accept your false analogy all you want, however; I refuse to participate in such nonsense. It still does not change the fact that you are attempting to equate finite fallible knowledge (man) with infinite infallible knowledge (god).

All you have done here is ignore my questions and create analogies that are illogical, in an attempt to justify your belief in a deity. If you are truly here to learn, I suggest you admit your error and attempt to build your case logically. You are either extremely ignorant or dishonest, I’m leaning toward the former.

I'm not begging you to do anything.  What I was asking you to do is discuss.  I have ignored no questions presented and it is not my fault that you do not wish to accept my answers no matter how fallacious they may seem to you.  Because I cannot explain things to which I regard as spiritual to you since you will not accept them I attempted to relate how God created us as a parent to how you created your daughter as a parent.  It has NOTHING to do with knowledge, just a simple comparison.

I'm not speaking to you as a dishonest person nor do I consider myself to be ignorant.  What I do consider myself to be however is having a good ability to relate complex matters in a much more layman explanation to show a relationship to which you should be able to relate however you have brushed it off as x,y,z.  It was not meant as attempting to debate the topic at hand in any kind of logical manner but rather one to which no science can explain and that is the nurturing actions of a parent to their creation.  If you don't want to participate in that, which comes off as being too good for you, excuse me...

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Truatheist

Truatheist wrote:

razorphreak is providing numerous textbook examples for this thread. 

 

Indeed.

razorphreak wrote:

Vastet wrote:
No, it's gods fault. He made us incapable of not sinning, in your own words. Despite your attempts to suggest the impossible, that something was inheritted.

I'm actually quite curious how you've managed to deduct such odd assumptions by things I never said?

It's quite simple when you apply logic and draw conclusions based on it. There's no assumption about it. Your own claims lead to the inescapable conclusion.
1: God exists.
2: God created us.
3: God knows us and everything we will do.
4: (Your claim, even though impossible)We inheritted sin.
5: (implied)When god created us, he did so in a way to let us inherit the sin of another.
6: God knows we will all sin.
Conclusion: We have no choice but to sin due to inheritance of it, gods knowledge that we will sin, god creating us to inherit the actions of another. God created man knowing the first man would sin, and pass that sin onto the rest of the species. Sin is therefore gods fault, not ours. Simple logic. Inescapable.

razorphreak wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Noah is complete fiction. Even more so than jesus, since there's inarguable evidence against the possibility that there was ever a global flood. You're using fictional characters to support a fictional idea. Perfect example of circular reasoning.

But we aren't discussing the validity in your mind of the bible but rather what the bible says. Don't change the subject now...

Incorrect. We are discussing the immorality and impossiblity of god. Don't change the subject and dodge my refutations now.

razorphreak wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Justice is a term with a definition that your religion has no authority to change.

jus·tice [juhs-tis] noun 1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause.

...Your god is not just. By definition.

I had a feeling you'd go searching for the definition but notice what I wrote: "God being just is not relative to our understanding of what just is all about.

Yes it is. If justice is not what god is, then god is not just. Plain and simple. You can't say the term is relative, it is plainly defined. You just try and redefine the term, which is a typical theist dodge of reality.

razorphreak wrote:
As it stands, you gave the definition of what God IS; righteous and moral.

I have shown repeatedly that your god is not moral.

razorphreak wrote:
I just want to repeat, we are not disucssing if you believe it to be true, only what is written.

Take a look at the topic title again please.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


WillieBop
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Interesting  definition of

Interesting  definition of "myth".  I assume you mean  arguments you don't like.

"God had to give us free will so we could love him."


WillieBop
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Interesting definition of

hmm... a triple post sorry


WillieBop
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Myth??

Sorry for the double post.. I got an error


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
WillieBop

WillieBop wrote:

Interesting  definition of "myth".  I assume you mean  arguments you don't like.

"God had to give us free will so we could love him."

No, we mean myths. By the dictionary definition.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Truatheist
Truatheist's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
This is how you know you've

This is how you know you've been listening to theist bullshit for waaay too long.

Earlier in the thread I gave this example of a christian myth:

Truatheist wrote:

If god wouldn't have created us with free will, we could not CHOOSE Him!

 

Approximately 20 posts later we get this:

 

WillieBop wrote:

"God had to give us free will so we could love him."

Go figure???

Reason, Observation, and Experience -- the Holy Trinity of Science.
Robert G. Ingersoll


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: It's quite

Vastet wrote:
It's quite simple when you apply logic and draw conclusions based on it. There's no assumption about it. Your own claims lead to the inescapable conclusion. 1: God exists. 2: God created us. 3: God knows us and everything we will do. 4: (Your claim, even though impossible)We inheritted sin. 5: (implied)When god created us, he did so in a way to let us inherit the sin of another. 6: God knows we will all sin. Conclusion: We have no choice but to sin due to inheritance of it, gods knowledge that we will sin, god creating us to inherit the actions of another. God created man knowing the first man would sin, and pass that sin onto the rest of the species. Sin is therefore gods fault, not ours. Simple logic. Inescapable.

I think the first problem is you are attempting to explain something like God using Earthy logic.  But I won't go there, I'll just stick to the logic you presented here (starting with point 4): 

 4. We did not inherit sin.  We aquired knowledge that made us aware to what sin is.  I went back and last I checked, I never said we inherit sin, I said we will fall to it however.

5. I think I need help understanding what you mean by "inherit the sin of another" 

6. Of course God knows we all sin however it is not by instinct that we sin.  I say instinct because that would be an inheritable trait.  Because we can choose not "to be bad" if you will, this should have brought you to the conclusion that we do not act sinful but choose to be.  If we had no choice, just as Adam had a choice before he did it, why laws?  But I'm going to stop right there because there is one point that I still personally do not understand because I know it is above me and that's the question "How is it that God knows our choice before we make it?"  I'm not even going to attempt to explain it because I don't understand how that happens even though I know we have the ability to choose... 

Vastet wrote:
Noah is complete fiction. Even more so than jesus, since there's inarguable evidence against the possibility that there was ever a global flood. You're using fictional characters to support a fictional idea. Perfect example of circular reasoning.

If that's your reasoning behind it then I suppose it would be just as fictional as believing at some point an ape became a man.  Such a being has never been found or proven (and don't say Lucy because that skeleton is questionable if it was in fact a "human" or simply just another ape), only many assumptions from skulls to which not a whole lot can be proven about who's skull that really was.  I'm sure you can spout tons of names that would present "evidence" (as I have to you about God) but would it make a difference if I don't believe it to be true because of my own research and experiences?  

Vastet wrote:
If justice is not what god is, then god is not just. Plain and simple. You can't say the term is relative, it is plainly defined. You just try and redefine the term, which is a typical theist dodge of reality.

If I told you that you are short, standing at 6' tall, but I'm 7' tall, then the definition of "short" is relative to us.  It's not a dodge of reality, it's perception. 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


WillieBop
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-03-19
User is offlineOffline
 Huh?? What??? I posted

 Huh?? What??? I posted that as an example of a a bad Theist "Myth" Your response makes no sense.  The " around it should have been a little hint.

 

 

Truatheist wrote:

This is how you know you've been listening to theist bullshit for waaay too long.

Earlier in the thread I gave this example of a christian myth:

Truatheist wrote:

If god wouldn't have created us with free will, we could not CHOOSE Him!

 

Approximately 20 posts later we get this:

 

WillieBop wrote:

"God had to give us free will so we could love him."

Go figure???


Truatheist
Truatheist's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
I apologize willie I

I apologize willie I thought you were a xtian. I assumed you were presenting that statement in an attempt to attack the thread title.

Sorry about thatFoot in mouth

Reason, Observation, and Experience -- the Holy Trinity of Science.
Robert G. Ingersoll


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Vastet

razorphreak wrote:

Vastet wrote:
It's quite simple when you apply logic and draw conclusions based on it. There's no assumption about it. Your own claims lead to the inescapable conclusion. 1: God exists. 2: God created us. 3: God knows us and everything we will do. 4: (Your claim, even though impossible)We inheritted sin. 5: (implied)When god created us, he did so in a way to let us inherit the sin of another. 6: God knows we will all sin. Conclusion: We have no choice but to sin due to inheritance of it, gods knowledge that we will sin, god creating us to inherit the actions of another. God created man knowing the first man would sin, and pass that sin onto the rest of the species. Sin is therefore gods fault, not ours. Simple logic. Inescapable.

I think the first problem is you are attempting to explain something like God using Earthy logic.

I think you are trying to use some kind of mythical logic to dodge your gods immorality.

razorphreak wrote:
  But I won't go there, I'll just stick to the logic you presented here (starting with point 4): 

 4. We did not inherit sin.

My mistake. I'm arguing the same topic in three seperate threads and attributed to you a comment that was made by another. I'll restructure the logic once you explain where sin comes from, and why everyone sins. Whether they want to or not.

razorphreak wrote:
  We aquired knowledge that made us aware to what sin is.  I went back and last I checked, I never said we inherit sin, I said we will fall to it however.

On what grounds?

razorphreak wrote:
5. I think I need help understanding what you mean by "inherit the sin of another"

It would be directly tied to 4, and therefore is inapplicable. I'll restructure it soon enough. 

razorphreak wrote:
6. Of course God knows we all sin however it is not by instinct that we sin.  I say instinct because that would be an inheritable trait.  Because we can choose not "to be bad" if you will, this should have brought you to the conclusion that we do not act sinful but choose to be.

I never chose to be. So why am I automatically sinful?

razorphreak wrote:
  If we had no choice, just as Adam had a choice before he did it, why laws?

Laws are for societal self defense, they have nothing to do with religion.

razorphreak wrote:
  But I'm going to stop right there because there is one point that I still personally do not understand because I know it is above me and that's the question "How is it that God knows our choice before we make it?"  I'm not even going to attempt to explain it because I don't understand how that happens even though I know we have the ability to choose...

You cannot have the ability to choose if the end result of the choice is already known to anything. It is physically and temporally impossible. If any being in all of percievable or unpercievable existance has omniscience, then free will cannot exist. It doesn't even have to be a god that has the knowledge, but it applies as much to a god as anything else.

razorphreak wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Noah is complete fiction. Even more so than jesus, since there's inarguable evidence against the possibility that there was ever a global flood. You're using fictional characters to support a fictional idea. Perfect example of circular reasoning.

If that's your reasoning behind it then I suppose it would be just as fictional as believing at some point an ape became a man.

Certainly would. No ape became a man. A progenetor to apes and men evolved on seperate paths so that man and apes were the result.

razorphreak wrote:
  Such a being has never been found or proven (and don't say Lucy because that skeleton is questionable if it was in fact a "human" or simply just another ape), only many assumptions from skulls to which not a whole lot can be proven about who's skull that really was.  I'm sure you can spout tons of names that would present "evidence" (as I have to you about God) but would it make a difference if I don't believe it to be true because of my own research and experiences?

Standard creationist, you don't even know what evidence of evolution there is. And when taking into context my refutation immediately above, you're going to have to restructure your entire argument or be arguing a strawman. Which by definition automatically makes you lose.

razorphreak wrote:

Vastet wrote:
If justice is not what god is, then god is not just. Plain and simple. You can't say the term is relative, it is plainly defined. You just try and redefine the term, which is a typical theist dodge of reality.
If I told you that you are short, standing at 6' tall, but I'm 7' tall, then the definition of "short" is relative to us.  It's not a dodge of reality, it's perception.

Justice isn't relative. Height can be. Your analogy fails.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


WillieBop
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-03-19
User is offlineOffline
It's cool Tru.  I was just

It's cool Tru.  I was just confused.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
If that's your reasoning

If that's your reasoning behind it then I suppose it would be just as fictional as believing at some point an ape became a man. I must protest your ignorance much as Vastet did!

I do not understand evolution therefore it is wrong is not an argument. Man did not come from monkeys. The Hominidae order which produced a lineage of the Hominid by orthologous divergence around 8 million years ago comes from Pan ie chimps and gorillas. But there are 25 distinct species that have been verified links in this time period that link the Pan and the Homo Sapiens. Thus your statement is ridiculous. Man did not come from monkeys. The two have the same common ancestor (as does all life) which is proven by my short piece called "Creationists ought to be ashamed of themselves which is near the top and you can find yourself.

To state the man came from monkeys is the same as saying that life came from stars. Technically, it is true, because stars create the fusion necessary for the heavy elements of biochemistry, but the logical extreme to which you take back the evolution of the Primates

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Truatheist
Truatheist's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Truatheist wrote: You can


Truatheist wrote:
You can beg me to accept your false analogy all you want, however; I refuse to participate in such nonsense. It still does not change the fact that you are attempting to equate finite fallible knowledge (man) with infinite infallible knowledge (god).

All you have done here is ignore my questions and create analogies that are illogical, in an attempt to justify your belief in a deity. If you are truly here to learn, I suggest you admit your error and attempt to build your case logically. You are either extremely ignorant or dishonest, I’m leaning toward the former.

 

razorphreak wrote:
I'm not begging you to do anything. What I was asking you to do is discuss.

 

To discuss an argument built on an illogical premise?

 

razorphreak wrote:
I have ignored no questions presented and it is not my fault that you do not wish to accept my answers no matter how fallacious they may seem to you.

 

The argument you present IS fallacious.This is not my opinion rather, it is a fact. Suggesting that my limited biological and environmental influence on my daughter even remotely resembles the knowledge and influence of a creator who creates all perameters of existence IS fallacious.

And by the way, you have not answered any of my questions. Go back to my original post and start over.

razorphreak wrote:
Because I cannot explain things to which I regard as spiritual to you

 

Exactly! I applaud your honesty here.

 

 

razorphreak wrote:
It has NOTHING to do with knowledge, just a simple comparison.

 

This is where you are wrong. It has everything to do with knowledge as I did not create every dimension of my daughters existence. Therefore, your analogy fails.

 

razorphreak wrote:
What I do consider myself to be however is having a good ability to relate complex matters in a much more layman explanation to show a relationship to which you should be able to relate however you have brushed it off as x,y,z.

 

I would contend that you do just the opposite. You take a fairly simple concept (omniscience) and attempt to muddle it up with a person who has limited fallible knowledge. You do this as if an analolgy can be made, it cannot.

As I stated earlier, you are either dishonest or ignorant.

 

razorphreak wrote:
It was not meant as attempting to debate the topic at hand in any kind of logical manner but rather one to which no science can explain and that is the nurturing actions of a parent to their creation. If you don't want to participate in that, which comes off as being too good for you, excuse me...

 

Here you are admitting that you are wrong/illogical, while attempting to blame me for it. I'm sorry but I do not see any reason to discuss arguments built on illogical premises. Where NO analogy can be made.

Go back to my first post, and answer the questions.

 

Reason, Observation, and Experience -- the Holy Trinity of Science.
Robert G. Ingersoll


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
I wanted to start off with

I wanted to start off with the nerve I seemed to have touched when I mentioned apes to man.

Vastet wrote:
A progenetor to apes and men evolved on seperate paths so that man and apes were the result.

Standard creationist, you don't even know what evidence of evolution there is. And when taking into context my refutation immediately above, you're going to have to restructure your entire argument or be arguing a strawman.

"Modern humans are actually hybrids created by millennia of interbreeding between early hominids and chimpanzees ... Then, for a million years, the ancestors of the human race "continued to acquire chromosomes from chimps until a second and final break about 5.3 million years ago." - James Mallet and others from This Week

In the scope of what human evolution is defined by, the split from primates will take you back to a point in which an "ape" started walking upright and continued on forward with its own evolution to becoming "homo sapiens" which, from what I understand based on basic research into the topic, is what we are today. Now, what did I miss? I'm sure you guys would just love to get detailed into it but just as you simplify parts of what the bible says, am I that far off from a simplistic point of view on what human evolution is?

Vastet wrote:
I'm arguing the same topic in three seperate threads and attributed to you a comment that was made by another. I'll restructure the logic once you explain where sin comes from, and why everyone sins. Whether they want to or not.

Sin came from the knowledge aquired when Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit. We were not created with this knowledge, we got it when we disobeyed God. Pretty simple point I think from Genesis 3.

Vastet wrote:
razorphreak wrote:
We aquired knowledge that made us aware to what sin is. I went back and last I checked, I never said we inherit sin, I said we will fall to it however.
On what grounds?

I'm not sure what you mean by on what grounds. On what grounds do we sin? On what grounds are we given the influence to sin? On what grounds is sin available for the taking?

Vastet wrote:
razorphreak wrote:
Because we can choose not "to be bad" if you will, this should have brought you to the conclusion that we do not act sinful but choose to be.
I never chose to be. So why am I automatically sinful?

You've never broken the law? You've never done something that you were told not to? You've never cheated? You've never said something remotely offensive to someone? You've never looked at someone (whichever you fancy is) in a purley sexual way? If you say you've never done any of those things, you are the first person in human history to be so pure...

Vastet wrote:
Laws are for societal self defense, they have nothing to do with religion.

Ah...but tell me why would they be necessary if we were not sinners?

Vastet wrote:
You cannot have the ability to choose if the end result of the choice is already known to anything.

Now this is my personal opinion on the matter and one of those those questions that I could ask God directly, I'd love to understand the answer (though I don't think for a minute I have the ability to understand it). I personally do not think that any person has the ability to spiritually choose their destiny. Backed by what it stated in Romans that I previously posted along with the various points from Jesus' words, no person can choose to believe. I wonder however after that, does God really know our choices beyond that? Why give us the choice to pick hamburger over salad for lunch? Does it matter that much? Does it matter at all? I personally tend to think not however it's one of those great mysteries that I don't know and I won't ever know until God tells me...until then I make the choices for my earthly life as if I am in charge of those choices and his word guiding me to go left instead of right.

 As to justice...maybe this will help you understand...

Romans 3:5-8 But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? Someone might argue, "If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?" Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—"Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is deserved.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
  Truatheist wrote: To

 

Truatheist wrote:
To discuss an argument built on an illogical premise?

 OK forget I ever asked you to consider things equal for a second...geez...

 Your original post....

Quote:
Your god couldn’t have created us without sin??? Sounds like a weak god to me.

Your other question involved how the bible explains how we cannot choose...I think I answered that.

As to the question above, well I think I answered it as well within the thread.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: I

razorphreak wrote:

I wanted to start off with the nerve I seemed to have touched when I mentioned apes to man.

Vastet wrote:
A progenetor to apes and men evolved on seperate paths so that man and apes were the result.

Standard creationist, you don't even know what evidence of evolution there is. And when taking into context my refutation immediately above, you're going to have to restructure your entire argument or be arguing a strawman.

"Modern humans are actually hybrids created by millennia of interbreeding between early hominids and chimpanzees ... Then, for a million years, the ancestors of the human race "continued to acquire chromosomes from chimps until a second and final break about 5.3 million years ago." - James Mallet and others from This Week

In the scope of what human evolution is defined by, the split from primates will take you back to a point in which an "ape" started walking upright and continued on forward with its own evolution to becoming "homo sapiens" which, from what I understand based on basic research into the topic, is what we are today. Now, what did I miss? I'm sure you guys would just love to get detailed into it but just as you simplify parts of what the bible says, am I that far off from a simplistic point of view on what human evolution is?

It wasn't an ape. If you need a comphrehensive education on evolution, then read everything this site has to offer: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
Or debate the issue with Deludedgod, if you can understand the terminology. One suspects not since you don't know enough about evolution to accept it's reality.

razorphreak wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I'm arguing the same topic in three seperate threads and attributed to you a comment that was made by another. I'll restructure the logic once you explain where sin comes from, and why everyone sins. Whether they want to or not.

Sin came from the knowledge aquired when Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit. We were not created with this knowledge, we got it when we disobeyed God. Pretty simple point I think from Genesis 3.

So how did it get from Adam and Eve to the rest of us? We never ate that so-called fruit.

razorphreak wrote:

Vastet wrote:
razorphreak wrote:
We aquired knowledge that made us aware to what sin is. I went back and last I checked, I never said we inherit sin, I said we will fall to it however.
On what grounds?

I'm not sure what you mean by on what grounds. On what grounds do we sin? On what grounds are we given the influence to sin? On what grounds is sin available for the taking?

1st question and 2nd question. Third would seem redundant.

razorphreak wrote:

Vastet wrote:
razorphreak wrote:
Because we can choose not "to be bad" if you will, this should have brought you to the conclusion that we do not act sinful but choose to be.
I never chose to be. So why am I automatically sinful?

You've never broken the law?

The law doesn't define sin, the bible does(or the quran, or whatever holy book you happen to be reading). Society defines the law, and breaking it makes you a criminal. Not a sinner.

razorphreak wrote:
You've never done something that you were told not to?

How is not doing something you're told to do sinful? If someone tells me to kill myself and I don't I'm a sinner for it?

razorphreak wrote:
You've never cheated?

Only if cheating is in the rules of the game, which means it's not cheating. So no, I've never cheated.

razorphreak wrote:
You've never said something remotely offensive to someone?

Being offensive isn't sinning. You can be offensive even if you're dead or never existed, so there's no logic behind this comment.

razorphreak wrote:
You've never looked at someone (whichever you fancy is) in a purley sexual way?

Never.

razorphreak wrote:
If you say you've never done any of those things, you are the first person in human history to be so pure...

That would be amusing. The only pure human, an atheist. I'd have to laugh. The trick is, that I've never been presented with a bunch of holy laws to follow. So they are not applicable to me. If I'm ever presented with a set of holy laws to follow, then I'll have to follow them. Not before.

razorphreak wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Laws are for societal self defense, they have nothing to do with religion.

Ah...but tell me why would they be necessary if we were not sinners?

Law has nothing to do with sin. Law has to do with holding society together. There are a great many things that religion terms as a sin yet the law allows. And vice versa. They are incompatible.

razorphreak wrote:

Vastet wrote:
You cannot have the ability to choose if the end result of the choice is already known to anything.

Now this is my personal opinion on the matter and one of those those questions that I could ask God directly, I'd love to understand the answer (though I don't think for a minute I have the ability to understand it).

You're assuming you can't understand it even though it's as simple as 1+1=2. You already understand it. You simply assume that there's something that allows it to be false, and that something is beyond your comprehension.

razorphreak wrote:
I personally do not think that any person has the ability to spiritually choose their destiny. Backed by what it stated in Romans that I previously posted along with the various points from Jesus' words, no person can choose to believe.

Ah. So I was made an atheist, and I'll die an atheist, and I have no hope of salvation. Good thing I don't believe it, that kind of scenario could make one depressed. How fair is it to make someone then punish them for how they're made?

razorphreak wrote:
I wonder however after that, does God really know our choices beyond that? Why give us the choice to pick hamburger over salad for lunch? Does it matter that much? Does it matter at all? I personally tend to think not however it's one of those great mysteries that I don't know and I won't ever know until God tells me...until then I make the choices for my earthly life as if I am in charge of those choices and his word guiding me to go left instead of right.

Any time he wants to speak to me I'm here.

razorphreak wrote:

 As to justice...maybe this will help you understand...

Romans 3:5-8 But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? Someone might argue, "If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?" Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—"Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is deserved.

The term justice cannot be redefined by you or anyone else, no matter how many times you try. Justice is justice.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:

Vastet wrote:
It wasn't an ape. If you need a comphrehensive education on evolution, then read everything this site has to offer: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ Or debate the issue with Deludedgod, if you can understand the terminology. One suspects not since you don't know enough about evolution to accept it's reality.

Primate...ape....chimp....Neanderthal...common ancestor, you say potato, I say banana.

Vastet wrote:
razorphreak wrote:
On what grounds do we sin? On what grounds are we given the influence to sin?

1st question and 2nd question. Third would seem redundant.

 On what grounds? Well, on any grounds that would cause you to hurt anyone else...

When are we given the influence?  Pretty much every minute of every day, otherwise known as temptation...

James 1 12-15: Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him. When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

When you see the desire to buy that plasma tv instead of buying dinner for a homeless person because you judged him to be lazy, that's sin.  When you've decided to have an affair when married, that's sin.  When you've ever told a lie, that's sin.

Vastet wrote:
Society defines the law, and breaking it makes you a criminal. Not a sinner.

The two are related.

Vastet wrote:
How is not doing something you're told to do sinful? If someone tells me to kill myself and I don't I'm a sinner for it?

That's not what I mean and you know it.

Vastet wrote:
Ah. So I was made an atheist, and I'll die an atheist, and I have no hope of salvation.

I never said you have no hope of salvation...you did. If it's God's purpose for you to be an atheist, who am I to say you are not saved.

I am happy about one thing you finally said....and it only took me posting it a few hundred times (exaggeration)...predestination and that you finally understand...

Vastet wrote:
The term justice cannot be redefined by you or anyone else, no matter how many times you try. Justice is justice.

As I said before....relative earthly vs. Godly...

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Vastet

razorphreak wrote:

Vastet wrote:
It wasn't an ape. If you need a comphrehensive education on evolution, then read everything this site has to offer: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ Or debate the issue with Deludedgod, if you can understand the terminology. One suspects not since you don't know enough about evolution to accept it's reality.

Primate...ape....chimp....Neanderthal...common ancestor, you say potato, I say banana.

Typical dodge.

razorphreak wrote:

Vastet wrote:
razorphreak wrote:
On what grounds do we sin? On what grounds are we given the influence to sin?

1st question and 2nd question. Third would seem redundant.

 On what grounds? Well, on any grounds that would cause you to hurt anyone else...

Why would I want to hurt anyone else? I don't tend to want to hurt even those I don't like.

razorphreak wrote:

When are we given the influence?  Pretty much every minute of every day, otherwise known as temptation...

Where does temptation come from?

razorphreak wrote:

James 1 12-15: Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him. When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

When you see the desire to buy that plasma tv instead of buying dinner for a homeless person because you judged him to be lazy, that's sin.  When you've decided to have an affair when married, that's sin.  When you've ever told a lie, that's sin.

Where did desire come from then? And why have we been programmed to sin? Everyone lies. It's not a matter of choice. It's a self defense instinct. If lying is a sin, then god makes us sin by creating us in a way incapable of never lying.

razorphreak wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Society defines the law, and breaking it makes you a criminal. Not a sinner.

The two are related.

The only relation they have at all is that they are rules. There is no other relation. You might as well compare the rules of monopoly to those of the bible.

razorphreak wrote:

Vastet wrote:
How is not doing something you're told to do sinful? If someone tells me to kill myself and I don't I'm a sinner for it?

That's not what I mean and you know it.

No I don't know it. You said doing other than your told is a sin. I gave you a perfect example of not doing what you're told and asked if it was a sin, to which you replied I knew the answer. If I knew the answer I wouldn't have asked the question.

razorphreak wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Ah. So I was made an atheist, and I'll die an atheist, and I have no hope of salvation.

I never said you have no hope of salvation...you did. If it's God's purpose for you to be an atheist, who am I to say you are not saved.

Now this is a new one. I must admit I've never heard a theist claim this. It's a step in the right direction at least. Still a long way to go though.

razorphreak wrote:

I am happy about one thing you finally said....and it only took me posting it a few hundred times (exaggeration)...predestination and that you finally understand...

Could you perhaps be a little more specific? I've said a lot of things. Sticking out tongue

razorphreak wrote:

Vastet wrote:
The term justice cannot be redefined by you or anyone else, no matter how many times you try. Justice is justice.

As I said before....relative earthly vs. Godly...

It cannot be relative. Fair is fair. Justice is justice. It has no context. It is not subjective. It is what it is.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:

Vastet wrote:
razorphreak wrote:
Primate...ape....chimp....Neanderthal...common ancestor, you say potato, I say banana.
Typical dodge.

It's not a dodge...if you can't explain to me what the difference is between a "primate" and an "ape"...well if you do have a different definition for each then I want you to contact Discovery Channel and tell them to rewrite their presentations on evolution...

Vastet wrote:
Why would I want to hurt anyone else? I don't tend to want to hurt even those I don't like.Where does temptation come from?

I didn't mean only physically ya know...

Temptation is evil, and that evil is attributed to Satan. And it's purpose is to draw you away from God's word...

James 3:14-15 But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. Such "wisdom" does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil.

Vastet wrote:
Where did desire come from then? And why have we been programmed to sin? Everyone lies. It's not a matter of choice. It's a self defense instinct. If lying is a sin, then god makes us sin by creating us in a way incapable of never lying.

God did not give us lying, he didn't give us desire, he didn't give us sin. I thought I explained this already...

Vastet wrote:
Now this is a new one. I must admit I've never heard a theist claim this. It's a step in the right direction at least. Still a long way to go though.

Ummm...I've been saying this for the last few months on several threads that I know you've read....in fact I think I posted it here and was rebutted by TrueAtheist. Romans 2:14-15. As I've stated before over and over, I cannot say if one person is damned or one saved because I do not know God's purpose for that person. I can only say that you are here talking to me but I don't know you. I read the things that Hitler did but was it his purpose on earth from God to do such things? If it was, how can I say that Hitler is in hell?

Vastet wrote:
Could you perhaps be a little more specific? I've said a lot of things. Sticking out tongue

I'm talking about understanding that God has a purpose for every person on this earth and if you don't believe, then for me I understand that it's God's purpose for you not to at this time, maybe ever. But if he wants you to know him, you'll know it (read my quote)

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
It's not a dodge...if you

It's not a dodge...if you can't explain to me what the difference is between a "primate" and an "ape"...well if you do have a different definition for each then I want you to contact Discovery Channel and tell them to rewrite their presentations on evolution...

I'm sorry. I must point out how ridiculous that is. You obviously know nothing about scientific classification. The primates are an order which covers a great deal of animals including humans. The apes are a subset of this order, a superfamily known as the Hominodiea

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: I'm

deludedgod wrote:
I'm sorry. I must point out how ridiculous that is. You obviously know nothing about scientific classification. The primates are an order which covers a great deal of animals including humans. The apes are a subset of this order, a superfamily known as the Hominodiea

OK wait a minute.  Is it not expressed that these "orders" inbred?  Is it not expressed that at some point, one of the orders of apes or some "ape-like" changed up and walked upright?  Is it not assumed that this happened at some point?  And you tell me that I sound ridiculous?  How it is that something (since you are just calling it an "order&quotEye-wink just decided to be human if it didn't already posess human qualities but wasn't of the "ape" order?  This is just where I cannot agree with you because I know I am not a decendant of an "order"....

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Vastet

razorphreak wrote:

Vastet wrote:
razorphreak wrote:
Primate...ape....chimp....Neanderthal...common ancestor, you say potato, I say banana.
Typical dodge.

It's not a dodge...if you can't explain to me what the difference is between a "primate" and an "ape"...well if you do have a different definition for each then I want you to contact Discovery Channel and tell them to rewrite their presentations on evolution...

It is a dodge. I posted a link with comprehensive information on evolution, and you ignored it completely to ramble about primate species.

razorphreak wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Why would I want to hurt anyone else? I don't tend to want to hurt even those I don't like.Where does temptation come from?

I didn't mean only physically ya know...

I view hurting people mentally as being as bad as physically.

razorphreak wrote:

Temptation is evil, and that evil is attributed to Satan. And it's purpose is to draw you away from God's word...

Now see this is where things break down. And it's very unfortunate but I'm out of time for the day. I'll respond to this point and the rest tomorrow, but I have to go. I'd not post what I've responded to, but I don't feel like retyping it later either. *Shrug*

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
OK wait a minute.  Is it

OK wait a minute.  Is it not expressed that these "orders" inbred?

The only subsets that can interbreed are species. Now you are just being intellectually lazy.

Is it not expressed that at some point, one of the orders of apes or some "ape-like" changed up and walked upright?

I have absoluletly no idea what you are talking about, and evidently, neither do you. You are making what evolutionists call "the synchronity fallacy", which I have already defeated:

 

Evolution works on individuals not species. This is one so many people don’t understand. For instance, I often hear theists say synchronized random mutations do not exist in nature, then they uphold this as proof of intelligent design/creationism. They do not understand the fundamental axiom of genetic mutation every mutation has a prototype. We’ve been through this already. An organism has an advantageous mutation. It reproduces more than the other organisms because of this. The mutation gets passed to his children, they reproduce more because of it, they pass it to their children…mutations are not synchronized. With each generation, it will become more and more prominent in the pool, until it is universal. This gives the illusion of genetic synchronicity.

Furthermore, it is not assumed, it is demonstratable by an insignificant field known as GENOMICS. Again, I have pre-empted this argument. You are trying to refer to something known as orthologous shift:

Evolution is dependent on homologous sets of genes called orthologs and paralogs. Genes in multiple organisms that obviously descended from the same common ancestor (anyone who bothers should check the amino acid tracking branching tree of hemoglobin evolution as an example) are called orthologs, while genes which occurred as the result of mutation descended from a single gene (thereby producing two or more new genes) are called paralogs. Both of these are called homologs.

The gene flow pump is shut off long before the divergence at order level. How can these groups interchange genetic material when only within a species can organisms breed? Obviously we are not going to see bird-reptiles or anything ridiculous like that. The different paths of evolution go their different ways.

I have also pre-empted this argument here:

Within that 3.5 million years are numerous species and three genus diversions. Because this is relatively recent, we have numerous fossils. In fact, human evolution is far better documented than ancient evolution. Lining up the skulls of fossils of early men, the growth of brain size and changing of mandible structure is obvious even to the untrained eye. On the Order of Primates, the evolution to Homo Sapiens took place among the Hominid Family, which includes chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and as the latest additions, humans. Of the Hominidae, the other family, the Hylobatidae, went extinct, but the Hominids survived. Apes with slight mutations to their vertebrae structure could stand on trees more upright and thus see predators over the horizon and would have a better chance of surviving and passing this gene on. As more these upright apes survived to reproduce, the gene became more prominent in the pool, and thus the upright ape becomes more prominent. This increased survival rate paves way for more possible advantageous mutations, such as brainpower, crucial to these animals, once the most intelligent in the Kingdom before humans. The pan (chimp genus)/hominid split occurred 4 million years ago. The 99% sharing of humans and ape DNA is somewhat of a misnomer, more important to speciation is the karyotype.

Now, if we imagine the new upright hominid, still with a thicker skull, hairier and stouter body than a human ,thicker fingers, and only half the brain size. The Hominid family is special because of its brainpower. It is their advantageous trait, instead of outfighting enemies they outthink them. Thus, the brainpower evolution of the Hominid is crucial, and neurological mutations would have immediate massive advantages. There are over 25 notches of species evolutions from Sahelanthropus to Homo Sapiens occurring over a rather abrupt 4 million years. Lining them up, side by side, with accurate fossils, it is quite impressive. We can see before our eyes changes in brain capacity and facial structure, feet and hands, opposable thumbs and bone structure. We can see, by comparing brain scans of the different links that still exist, the many slow accumulation of advanced neurons and cognitive function development of the Higher cortex from the primitive brain and limbic system.

And you tell me that I sound ridiculous?  How it is that something (since you are just calling it an "order&quotEye-wink just decided to be human if it didn't already posess human qualities but wasn't of the "ape" order?  This is just where I cannot agree with you because I know I am not a decendant of an "order"....

You sound totally ridiculous, you have no idea what you are talking about and the animal does not "decide" it is caused by genetic mutation. Order is an abitary biological term. You are embarassing yourself by posting arguments that were defeated probably before you were born.

 
 

 

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I posted a link with comprehensive information on evolution, and you ignored it completely to ramble about primate species.

Yes I read it. I understand evolution better than you think but because I have read it and understand it does not mean I accept it. I've also read what deluded posted and it seems that you and him want to make some kind of argument over semantics...especially when what he posted included, "the evolution to Homo Sapiens took place among the Hominid Family, which includes chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and as the latest additions, humans", that sure sounds like "came from apes" or perhaps I should write "came from ape family" instead. If you want to call them primates for the sake of being scientifically correct by all means then. It's not an argument I wanted to get into anyway because with you guys, it's one I'll never win nor be able to fully express on a forum.

Vastet wrote:
I view hurting people mentally as being as bad as physically.

Good. Not many others say the same or more so DO however...

Vastet wrote:
Now see this is where things break down. And it's very unfortunate but I'm out of time for the day. I'll respond to this point and the rest tomorrow, but I have to go. I'd not post what I've responded to, but I don't feel like retyping it later either. *Shrug*

I'd like to hear why you say this is where things break down because first you did ask me where I believe evil comes from based on me being a theist.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: You sound totally

Quote:
You sound totally ridiculous, you have no idea what you are talking about and the animal does not "decide" it is caused by genetic mutation. Order is an abitary biological term.

Deludedgod, speaking of which...

I'm really curious how our theist counterpart defines "order", and why he considers that the current world is "in order".

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Rigor_OMortis wrote: I'm

Rigor_OMortis wrote:
I'm really curious how our theist counterpart defines "order", and why he considers that the current world is "in order".

I'm not sure I understand the question.  What is an "order" to me? I can't define that because there are no "orders".  Because I do not believe we evolved from any other species each is a species unto itself. 

Can't say where you got me saying that the world is in order, which is a completely different topic itself...

You know I was curious about one thing, if evolution is so accepted, what does science say is next?  Why is it that I cannot recall in recorded history that we've actually witnessed the evolution of a species and got to see it happen (and I'm not talking about a virus or some other single celled guy because those have been that way from the begining - can't call it evolution if its constantly changing; it's just called change).

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: You know I was

Quote:
You know I was curious about one thing, if evolution is so accepted, what does science say is next?  Why is it that I cannot recall in recorded history that we've actually witnessed the evolution of a species and got to see it happen (and I'm not talking about a virus or some other single celled guy because those have been that way from the begining - can't call it evolution if its constantly changing; it's just called change).

Well, I don't want to disturb your mental gymnastics about not noticing evolution, they're really spectacular, but...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0727_050727_evolution.html

Good morning ! Welcome to the real world.

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Rigor_OMortis wrote: Well,

Rigor_OMortis wrote:
Well, I don't want to disturb your mental gymnastics about not noticing evolution, they're really spectacular, but...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0727_050727_evolution.html

Good morning ! Welcome to the real world.

Oh common....a cross bread fly is a new species?  OK let me get a chihuahua and a great dane and we'll call that a new species too...the great chihua-dane.  This is not evolution (though I'm sure you could tell me why it is), this is procreation.  It's been happening since the beginning.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak, sorry, but

razorphreak, sorry, but ignorance doesn't count for anything.

I'll quote directly, since it's obvious that you haven't taken the time to read the whole article:

Quote:

The fly began as a hybrid. A hybrid is a type of animal that is created from the mating of two other species. Mules, for example, are donkey-horse hybrids, but they can't breed with each other. Hybrids that aren't sterile may have the opportunity to become a full-blown new species. For this to happen, the hybrid requires a distinct niche where it can evolve separately from its two parent species. For the Lonicera fly, the alien honeysuckle plant provided that niche.

As a result, the fly provides the first evidence that two different animal species can interbreed and evolve into a new, distinct animal if their hybrid moves to a new habitat, the study suggests.

I believe that the horse/donkey example has blown away all that you've written in your post. But just in case it didn't, I'm going to ask you what type of evolutive process would you like to view directly? You know, it's not our fault that we don't have a lifespan of thousands of years, to notice it, it's not our fault that science has only recently risen from the dark ages (dark ages because of, yes, you got it, the church) and hasn't expressed interest in evolution until recently. We work with what we've got.

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:
Temptation is evil, and that evil is attributed to Satan. And it's purpose is to draw you away from God's word...

And god created satan, knowing what satan would do after being created. Therefore anything satan does is gods responsibility. That is why it breaks down.

razorphreak wrote:
God did not give us lying, he didn't give us desire, he didn't give us sin. I thought I explained this already...

If satan is responsible for these, and god is responsible for satan, then god gave them all to us.

razorphreak wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Now this is a new one. I must admit I've never heard a theist claim this. It's a step in the right direction at least. Still a long way to go though.

Ummm...I've been saying this for the last few months on several threads that I know you've read....in fact I think I posted it here and was rebutted by TrueAtheist.

I was referring specifically to you suggesting I might recieve salvation even though I don't believe in god. This is not something I've ever heard before coming from a christian. If you've said it before, I missed it.

razorphreak wrote:
As I've stated before over and over, I cannot say if one person is damned or one saved because I do not know God's purpose for that person. I can only say that you are here talking to me but I don't know you. I read the things that Hitler did but was it his purpose on earth from God to do such things? If it was, how can I say that Hitler is in hell?

Twould be nice if all christians shared this view.

razorphreak wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Could you perhaps be a little more specific? I've said a lot of things. Sticking out tongue

I'm talking about understanding that God has a purpose for every person on this earth and if you don't believe, then for me I understand that it's God's purpose for you not to at this time, maybe ever. But if he wants you to know him, you'll know it (read my quote)

This is all on the preposition that god exists however. If it does, then I can reserve judgement on god until I know more about the reasoning, knowing that one day I'll have access to such reasoning. But without belief in a god to give reservation on judgement of that gods attributes, I must condemn the god in all observable forms, seeing as it contradicts my morals and the laws of physics.

razorphreak wrote:
Yes I read it. I understand evolution better than you think but because I have read it and understand it does not mean I accept it.

If you've read it and understand it then it's not a matter of acceptance. These are observed facts, not hypothetical possibilities. Talking about evolution isn't like discussing a black hole.

razorphreak wrote:
I've also read what deluded posted and it seems that you and him want to make some kind of argument over semantics...especially when what he posted included, "the evolution to Homo Sapiens took place among the Hominid Family, which includes chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and as the latest additions, humans", that sure sounds like "came from apes" or perhaps I should write "came from ape family" instead. If you want to call them primates for the sake of being scientifically correct by all means then. It's not an argument I wanted to get into anyway because with you guys, it's one I'll never win nor be able to fully express on a forum.

To be quite honest, to say humans came from anything is misleading the path life takes. Either one or a few animals had offspring that over multiple generations slowly resembled us today more and more from a previous animal that did not resemble us as much. 5000 years from now(assuming we continue to exist) humans won't look exactly like they do now. Their brains won't be the same as they are now. They'll probably still call themselves humans though. Life never stops evolving. It might not evolve as drastically without good reason to, but it will still evolve. Every species only exists as is for a short time.

razorphreak wrote:

You know I was curious about one thing, if evolution is so accepted, what does science say is next? Why is it that I cannot recall in recorded history that we've actually witnessed the evolution of a species and got to see it happen (and I'm not talking about a virus or some other single celled guy because those have been that way from the begining - can't call it evolution if its constantly changing; it's just called change).

We witness evolution all the time. We've watched bacteria begin to digest nylon, a fabricated material that didn't exist in nature until the 20th century. Something that no bacteria could do before the 20th century. As for what will happen next, we can only assume based on natural selection forces at work and likely to stay at work for the next while. The average human desires attractiveness above many other issues these days, so we will likely become more attractive over time. Medical technology is working to cure all our ills, so our immune system will likely weaken correspondingly. Dietary fads could change our teeth and digestive systems if they continue. Keyboards are becoming more and more common, so fingers will likely gain more dexterity and speed. Knowledge and understanding of existance is improving, and our brains will likely evolve to better understand it in correspondance to our knowledge growth. A great number of factors are in play.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
First Vastet, THANK YOU. 

First Vastet, THANK YOU.  This is probably the first time in all the posts that I've done here that someone didn't include an insult my way in their reply.  Thank you for that. 

Vastet wrote:
And god created satan, knowing what satan would do after being created. Therefore anything satan does is gods responsibility. That is why it breaks down.

Actually I've always thought this would be more of a discussion involving the concept of free will and exactly what God allows.  While God created all things, does he allow you to live without him?  Does he allow you to choose to reject him?  I don't know...so saying that God is responsible for Satan being evil because of guilt by association, I don't believe it to be accurate...now that would be my personal opinion on this however because the bible simply does not include much on Satan's start... 

Vastet wrote:
I was referring specifically to you suggesting I might recieve salvation even though I don't believe in god. This is not something I've ever heard before coming from a christian. If you've said it before, I missed it.

And unfortunately you probably won't hear it often either.  Life, especially that in the United States, teaches adversity and personal gain instead of unity. It's all over Jesus' message and to a Christian he is and was the only perfect human to ever exist, and he forgave all and accepted all who would follow his lead...so I would think that the goal if accepting him as your personal savior to sin, that would also mean to follow his example and strive to be like him.  That message is lost in dogma and that's why its rare to hear it.

Vastet wrote:
Twould be nice if all christians shared this view.

Yes it would. 

Vastet wrote:
This is all on the preposition that god exists however. If it does, then I can reserve judgement on god until I know more about the reasoning, knowing that one day I'll have access to such reasoning. But without belief in a god to give reservation on judgement of that gods attributes, I must condemn the god in all observable forms, seeing as it contradicts my morals and the laws of physics.

Why make a judgement on something you do not believe to exist?  Why take a stance of "condemnation" over "dismissal" or even "understanding" if you define morals as how to coexist with others? 

Vastet wrote:
We witness evolution all the time. We've watched bacteria begin to digest nylon, a fabricated material that didn't exist in nature until the 20th century. Something that no bacteria could do before the 20th century. As for what will happen next, we can only assume based on natural selection forces at work and likely to stay at work for the next while. The average human desires attractiveness above many other issues these days, so we will likely become more attractive over time. Medical technology is working to cure all our ills, so our immune system will likely weaken correspondingly. Dietary fads could change our teeth and digestive systems if they continue. Keyboards are becoming more and more common, so fingers will likely gain more dexterity and speed. Knowledge and understanding of existance is improving, and our brains will likely evolve to better understand it in correspondance to our knowledge growth. A great number of factors are in play.

It's funny that you'd include human invention as "evolution".  I can accept that definiton as being evolution, such as if you relase a product and its next version is considered "evolutionary" as this was the logical next step of what the product should do, however where I cannot is when it comes to living organisms that evolve without human intervention.  Going from primates to humans I do not accept because of the assumptions that were made to get there along with what appears to be blind acceptance of observance to what I consider obvious questionable evidence.  Single celled bacteria or viruses have mutated since the begining of time so to call how they change because that is what they were designed to do as "evolution" to me is using the definition incorrectly.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


PillarMyArse
PillarMyArse's picture
Posts: 65
Joined: 2007-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Quote: It's funny that

Quote:
It's funny that you'd include human invention as "evolution". I can accept that definiton as being evolution, such as if you relase a product and its next version is considered "evolutionary" as this was the logical next step of what the product should do, however where I cannot is when it comes to living organisms that evolve without human intervention. Going from primates to humans I do not accept because of the assumptions that were made to get there along with what appears to be blind acceptance of observance to what I consider obvious questionable evidence. Single celled bacteria or viruses have mutated since the begining of time so to call how they change because that is what they were designed to do as "evolution" to me is using the definition incorrectly.

A couple of things here - you seem to accept that humans (being the 'product'?) will change to fit the future environment in the most effective way. This is by definition evolution. If you believe that man did not evolve and was created by god, how can you then accept that he(/she) will adapt in the future? And if they will adapt in the future, why then could they not have adapted from something else in the past?

Also, I'm not a biologist but my understanding of viruses and bacteria is that they are selected by their environment. Mutation plays a part too, but the main agent of change is that the organisms genetically predisposed to survive in an environment (especially if it changes) will survive and breed. Your postulation is that they have been designed to exhibit this behaviour. However (I'm sure that a biologist could enlighten us) the change of environmental circumstances themselves are the trigger for this. Otherwise the organism would be showing an intelligent means of adaptation which can be empirically disproved.

Religion is the ultimate con-job. It cons the conned, and it cons the conner.

Mr.T : "I ain't gettin' on no damn plane [sic]" - environmentalism at it's best


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: First

razorphreak wrote:

First Vastet, THANK YOU.  This is probably the first time in all the posts that I've done here that someone didn't include an insult my way in their reply.  Thank you for that. 

You're welcome. I generally try to do that all the time, but when I percieve myself being insulted I return the favour. In my experience, theists almost always attack with insulting notions as opposed to actual discourse(sometimes without necessarily intending to, though not often, and it can be hard to tell the difference). It therefore can become a knee-jerk reaction to respond in kind.

razorphreak wrote:

Vastet wrote:
And god created satan, knowing what satan would do after being created. Therefore anything satan does is gods responsibility. That is why it breaks down.

Actually I've always thought this would be more of a discussion involving the concept of free will and exactly what God allows.  While God created all things, does he allow you to live without him?  Does he allow you to choose to reject him?  I don't know...so saying that God is responsible for Satan being evil because of guilt by association, I don't believe it to be accurate...now that would be my personal opinion on this however because the bible simply does not include much on Satan's start... 

I would consider it guilt by association only if satan were a god himself, and equal to or at the least completely independant of yahweh. Which would make it more a matter of choosing which heaven you want to occupy than living in heaven or burning in hell. If satan is a creation, then the creator of satan, especially when omniscient, bears the responsibility for satans acts. A suitable metaphor would be a watch malfunctioning right off the assembly line. You can't blame the watch or it's parts for not working properly, you can only blame that which was responsible for assembling them that way.
This doesn't apply to a father and son because while the parents are responsible for the existance of the child, they did not assemble the child and pick and choose what attributes they wanted to see in the child. God supposedly did that with us.

razorphreak wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I was referring specifically to you suggesting I might recieve salvation even though I don't believe in god. This is not something I've ever heard before coming from a christian. If you've said it before, I missed it.

And unfortunately you probably won't hear it often either.  Life, especially that in the United States, teaches adversity and personal gain instead of unity. It's all over Jesus' message and to a Christian he is and was the only perfect human to ever exist, and he forgave all and accepted all who would follow his lead...so I would think that the goal if accepting him as your personal savior to sin, that would also mean to follow his example and strive to be like him.  That message is lost in dogma and that's why its rare to hear it.

Which is why we are here arguing against it. I might not speak for everyone here, but it is my goal to see not theism erradicated, but religion and worship of ideas and things above all others erradicated. They are unhealthy for the believer and those around the believer.

razorphreak wrote:
Why make a judgement on something you do not believe to exist?  Why take a stance of "condemnation" over "dismissal" or even "understanding" if you define morals as how to coexist with others?

In a perfect world I would not. But in order to keep hold of my views I'm forced to defend them. The best defense is a good offense. If my goals are ever realised, then I'll live in a world with a whole bunch of theists and atheists but no such thing as christian, jew, or moslem.

razorphreak wrote:
It's funny that you'd include human invention as "evolution".  I can accept that definiton as being evolution, such as if you relase a product and its next version is considered "evolutionary" as this was the logical next step of what the product should do, however where I cannot is when it comes to living organisms that evolve without human intervention.  Going from primates to humans I do not accept because of the assumptions that were made to get there along with what appears to be blind acceptance of observance to what I consider obvious questionable evidence.  Single celled bacteria or viruses have mutated since the begining of time so to call how they change because that is what they were designed to do as "evolution" to me is using the definition incorrectly.

We are nothing more than a few trillion single celled bacteria, virus', and cells working together to create something greater than the parts. The differences between a man and a bacteria are few and far between. All it takes is time. Lots of time. Which is why I think most creationists have a hard time accepting it. How many creationists sit there for a few hours and just think about what could happen over a thousand years, let alone 13 billion? Many creationists don't even think billions of years have happened, so they wouldn't bother. Mutation through natural selection tends to happen piecemeal. You only get a new species after a great many mutations. And it would be exceptionally rare if not impossible that a great many mutations would not only form at once but would perpetuate as well. If something looks different enough from a species, that species doesn't tend to try and mate with it. Natural selection by definition is slow, and almost unnoticable to those under it's influence.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: I would

Vastet wrote:
I would consider it guilt by association only if satan were a god himself, and equal to or at the least completely independant of yahweh. Which would make it more a matter of choosing which heaven you want to occupy than living in heaven or burning in hell. If satan is a creation, then the creator of satan, especially when omniscient, bears the responsibility for satans acts. A suitable metaphor would be a watch malfunctioning right off the assembly line. You can't blame the watch or it's parts for not working properly, you can only blame that which was responsible for assembling them that way. This doesn't apply to a father and son because while the parents are responsible for the existance of the child, they did not assemble the child and pick and choose what attributes they wanted to see in the child. God supposedly did that with us.

God created us in his image.  It did not say the same with anything else, including the angels.  Satan is not explained as being an angel, he is simply there.  He exists.  Now because in the bible it states that God created all, the assumption is that God created Satan.  It's an assumption that we go with because we don't know either way but we do know that Satan is not equal to God, and the greatest example of this comes from the Book of Job. 

Saying that God is responsible for the actions of Satan is why I called into the thought of free will.  Does he?  Was he?  It's not explained in the bible and I don't think we'll know the answer while on Earth... 

Vastet wrote:
Which is why we are here arguing against it. I might not speak for everyone here, but it is my goal to see not theism erradicated, but religion and worship of ideas and things above all others erradicated. They are unhealthy for the believer and those around the believer.

 I actually think it's the other way around. If following the teachings of Jesus, it would be apparant that understanding and mercy along with acceptance of others is paramount.  

Vastet wrote:
In a perfect world I would not. But in order to keep hold of my views I'm forced to defend them. The best defense is a good offense. If my goals are ever realised, then I'll live in a world with a whole bunch of theists and atheists but no such thing as christian, jew, or moslem.

It's always good to dream...I've had that thought at times myself... 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Vastet

razorphreak wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I would consider it guilt by association only if satan were a god himself, and equal to or at the least completely independant of yahweh. Which would make it more a matter of choosing which heaven you want to occupy than living in heaven or burning in hell. If satan is a creation, then the creator of satan, especially when omniscient, bears the responsibility for satans acts. A suitable metaphor would be a watch malfunctioning right off the assembly line. You can't blame the watch or it's parts for not working properly, you can only blame that which was responsible for assembling them that way. This doesn't apply to a father and son because while the parents are responsible for the existance of the child, they did not assemble the child and pick and choose what attributes they wanted to see in the child. God supposedly did that with us.

God created us in his image.  It did not say the same with anything else, including the angels.  Satan is not explained as being an angel, he is simply there.  He exists.  Now because in the bible it states that God created all, the assumption is that God created Satan.  It's an assumption that we go with because we don't know either way but we do know that Satan is not equal to God, and the greatest example of this comes from the Book of Job. 

The book of job isn't specific enough to prove satans powers or limitations. It suggests that satan can't interfere with humanity without gods permission, which is overturned by the suggestion that all sin is satans fault. Whether satan was created by god or not may be completely irrelevant. Either god allows satan to interfere or god is incapable of stopping it. Which means either god is responsible for it or god is only one power, not The power.
Nowhere in christianity does it conclusively show gods absolution of responsibility for our actions. No matter how I approach the scenario, I get one of two possibilities: god is not GOD, or god is a fundamental hypocrite.

razorphreak wrote:

Saying that God is responsible for the actions of Satan is why I called into the thought of free will.  Does he?  Was he?  It's not explained in the bible and I don't think we'll know the answer while on Earth... 

Well this is too much of a hangup for me to move past without balking.

razorphreak wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Which is why we are here arguing against it. I might not speak for everyone here, but it is my goal to see not theism erradicated, but religion and worship of ideas and things above all others erradicated. They are unhealthy for the believer and those around the believer.

 I actually think it's the other way around. If following the teachings of Jesus, it would be apparant that understanding and mercy along with acceptance of others is paramount.  

Well I'm not the one to argue that. I haven't read enough of the writings of christianity to be able to argue it. I've just read enough to know the overall message of christianity as presented by the bible and the church is incompatible with reality as I percieve it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
I'm going to timidly creep

I'm going to timidly creep back into this discussion and point out that

a) You did not respond to my post in any way. You merely inserted one line about semantics in a response to Vastet when I threw a very large amount of scientific evidence at you

b) Your statement about "decides" is ridiculous in terms of evolution. All changes are made by genetic mutation. There is no concious decision involved. Giraffes evolved from short necked ancestors? Did the evolve because they "decided" to strech their necks and reach higher leaves on trees? No! The ones with mutations that caused longer necks survived

c) I suggest you do a very small amount of study on gene flow pumps and speciative events by geographical seperation, including peripatric, allopatric speciation etc which will better answer your question on human evolution 

d) An order is a direct biological term with a strict meaning. The fact that you are too intellectually lazy to check on basic biological classification is your problem. Life is organized as follows:

Largest subset: DOMAIN

There are three domains of life. The Eukaryota, Archeabacteria and  Eubacteria

Second subset: KINGDOM

In the Eukaryota domain, there are ten domains, such as Flagellates, ciliates, slime mould, entamoeba, and of course, plants and animals

Third Subset: Phylum. There are 35 animal phyla, including the one that humans are in: The Chordata, which are organisms with a dorsal cord (vertebrae)

Fourth Subset: Class

In the Chordata phylum there are multiple classes, like mammals, amphibians, reptiles etc. Humans of course are mammalia

Fifth Subset: ORDER! ORDER! ORDER! GET IT!!

In the Mammalia class, most of the Orders have gone extinct. The humans belong to a specific taxon with most mammals called Eutheria. The Eutheria are classed as ALL PLACENTAL MAMMALS. This answers your question of what a primate is. A PRIMATE IS AN ORDER OF MAMMAL UNDER WHICH MONKEYS, APES, HUMANS, LEMURS AND NUMEROUS OTHERS CLASSED BY GENOTYPE SIMILIARITES ARE CLASSED. 

Sixth Subset: Family. The human family is the Hominidae. Inside the hominidae are the Pan and Homo genus as well as several closely related genus. Thus I have just answered your question again of what the difference between ape and primate is: An ape is a species that falls under the Primate family. 

Seventh Subset: Genus. Second most important classification. The human genus is Homo. This is where the humans split from monkeys and chimps, because they are in the Pan genus. Inside the Homo genus, there are 24 links of an orthologous shift that created the Homo Sapiens. Us. 

Eigth Subset: Species

Ours is Homo Sapiens. 

Sixth Subset: Family

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod, the reason I did

deludedgod, the reason I did not address your post any further is because I'm not sure how else to explain I do not accept this "observation".  An observation is at worst only an opinion and best a stimulating conversation.  If I stood outside a window and watched a doctor perform brain surgery, does that mean I can explain exactly how to do it?  That's observational science but it by no means makes me an expert at it.  The reason I do not accept human evolution (besides the fact that my faith has told me as much) is because the observational science behind it offers only one explanation and does not care to even come close to admitting they may be wrong.  This is why I've used the example of early paleontologists and how they incorrectly identified dinosaurs.  Please do not mistake my objections against your definitions as misunderstanding; it's simply science that I do not accept.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
The only thing you are

The only thing you are demonstrating is that you have no understanding of scientific induction. All science is based on observation, this is only the first step. This is followed by explanation, which is done by experimentation and testing. The testing is in turn corroborated by other fields doing the same thing (when you have time you can check the huge line scheme diagram between

 

There are vast amounts of scientific tests and evaluations that can be done for evolution. We used to stand on shaky ground, but now with genomics, we have proven this beyond doubt. These can be tested and retested over and over. You say you can only observe? this is merely the first step in a very long chain of scientific evalation of evidence. Again, your failure to understand how scientists obtain information (How would you know anything about that anyway?) is not my problem

For instance:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/5465

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: The only

deludedgod wrote:

The only thing you are demonstrating is that you have no understanding of scientific induction. All science is based on observation, this is only the first step. This is followed by explanation, which is done by experimentation and testing. The testing is in turn corroborated by other fields doing the same thing (when you have time you can check the huge line scheme diagram between 

There are vast amounts of scientific tests and evaluations that can be done for evolution. We used to stand on shaky ground, but now with genomics, we have proven this beyond doubt. These can be tested and retested over and over. You say you can only observe? this is merely the first step in a very long chain of scientific evalation of evidence. Again, your failure to understand how scientists obtain information (How would you know anything about that anyway?) is not my problem

For instance:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/5465

And yes I've read that stuff as well however if it began under a false pretense, how can I force myself to accept it? The fact that the science continues to prove in my eyes what God has said from the begining I'm sure is not your "observation" of what genomics is showing or explaining (such as the sharing of the same DNA).

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
And what is that false

And what is that false pretense? How do you exlplain orthologs, xenologs, and paralogs? How do you explain observed speciative events, horizontal transfer, endosymbiosis or anything else?

Furthermore, I explained in full why this is evidence for common descent. Please explain in full what your problem with that is without referring to vague statements. I am a scientist, I require explicit logical definitions. 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Truatheist
Truatheist's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:

 

Truatheist wrote:
To discuss an argument built on an illogical premise?

 OK forget I ever asked you to consider things equal for a second...geez...

 Your original post....

Quote:
Your god couldn’t have created us without sin??? Sounds like a weak god to me.

Your other question involved how the bible explains how we cannot choose...I think I answered that.

As to the question above, well I think I answered it as well within the thread.

You never asked me to "consider" anything, rather you attemted to present a false analogy as fact. When I called you on it, you then fell back to asking me nicely to accept your illogical argument.  Pathetic!

Secondly, you did not answer my questions, you only posed questions that were based on a false analogy as a response.

Also, I NEVER asked for biblical explanations about why people can't choose. I just asked you to explain why people can't choose, and you used the Bible to do this. Which is hilarious considering you are arguing the position that an omniscient god is not responsible for its own creation.

The stupidity of apologetics never ceases to amaze me. 

Reason, Observation, and Experience -- the Holy Trinity of Science.
Robert G. Ingersoll


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
godditit. That settles

godditit.

That settles it.

Razorfreak believes it.

Oh, and the world rests on pillars.

And rabbits chew cud.

And once, two rabbits hopped onto a magic boat so they wouldn't drown.  Luckily, they had their cud to keep them from being hungry. 

I've just about finished bothering with razor, deluded.  He doesn't explain.  He just asserts and denies.  He is a perfect example of why I'm now ok with calling religion a mind disease.

 

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism