Support NeoGAF

[Kinitari]

Did I disagree about a whale and a hippo genetically being related? If they are obvious comparisons, they should go by more than a deduction or hunch based on the observed data. If they are a deduction or hunch, why do I need to make the leap right now? What's the rush? What's the big deal?

Also, major misunderstanding regarding transistional fossils. Transitional fossils are fossils of critters that existed. They could have been on their way to becoming the animals we know and love but they were their own critters as well that existed over thousands or millions of years. I find more interest in the fossil than what it transitions to.

I'm not really pondering it at all & I'm not expecting my beliefs to be held at the same high level of respect of a man's idea. Truthfully, creation is one of the least interesting aspects of religion to me as the focus should be on how it can make us a better person. With that said, I just don't see a need to dismiss it.

I'm not saying I agree with the whale ancestor stuff, but overall you probably pegged it as well as anyone I guess. Again, I'm not asking for proof. I'm saying I would need more proof to no longer believe as I do which really boils down to believing in God. So unless the goal is to change my beliefs then it should be all good right?

I don't quite understand what you are saying here, correct me if I am wrong.

You think that the Scientific explanation (Speciation) is probably right, but you just... I still don't know, maybe I don't understand how your mind works.

You like your belief system the way it is? And that includes creation/excludes speciation. Even if we gave you enough evidence to convince you to that speciation occurs on a regular basis (we totally did) - you'd just change your belief system so it was still compatible with god. But you are in no rush to... learn, or... understand evolution/speciation? I really am not sure to be honest, if you could simplify it, it would probably give me a lot of insight.

My point is - I can't make you do anything, but to me it seems like being willfully ignorant (I'm sorry but that's exactly what you are doing, you don't want to know about speciation 'whats the rush' 'why right now' 'you're probably right' etc) - being willfully ignorant is probably never a good thing to do.

I am not telling you to stop believing in God, I am asking you to adopt your belief system around Science - willful ignorance is one of the most terrible side effects of religion.

 

[JGS]

I don't quite understand what you are saying here, correct me if I am wrong.

You think that the Scientific explanation (Speciation) is probably right, but you just... I still don't know, maybe I don't understand how your mind works.

You like your belief system the way it is? And that includes creation/excludes speciation. Even if we gave you enough evidence to convince you to that speciation occurs on a regular basis (we totally did) - you'd just change your belief system so it was still compatible with god. But you are in no rush to... learn, or... understand evolution/speciation? I really am not sure to be honest, if you could simplify it, it would probably give me a lot of insight.

My point is - I can't make you do anything, but to me it seems like being willfully ignorant (I'm sorry but that's exactly what you are doing, you don't want to know about speciation 'whats the rush' 'why right now' 'you're probably right' etc) - being willfully ignorant is probably never a good thing to do.

I am not telling you to stop believing in God, I am asking you to adopt your belief system around Science - willful ignorance is one of the most terrible side effects of religion.

Uhh, I have. However, you also claim that it is impossible to do so, therefore to adapt my belief around science would be to forgo a large part of that belief to begin with. Easier said than done even for someone with shaky faith- especially when the things you want me to accept haven't been brought to the table in full so can't be accepted in full.

It's not willful ignorance to not believe what isn't proven. Your first statement of confusion seems to indicate a willful denial of facts on my part which is entirely untrue. It's pretty clear that you feel that all speciation is true. I don't. Wouldn't that mean we're done here?

 

[Dever]

Accurate from what viewpoint? Science? This is another Genesis 1-3 is a science book argument?

Yes, from the point of view of science. If the Genesis account is to be taken seriously, it has to be compatible with what we discover in nature through investigation, also known as science. Genesis doesn't have to be a science textbook, but it clearly makes some claims about the order in which nature came about. If those claims are found to be wrong, why should we believe Genesis? You roll your eyes whenever someone demands Genesis to be scientifically accurate, but from the other side of your mouth you proclaim how amazing it is that Genesis got so close to what we have found through science. You can't have it both ways.

The writer of Genesis wouldn't know this and there was no reason for God to explain it in such detail. There was no indication in all of scripture that writers wrote beyond what they knew. There was no reason for them to considering the bible's overall theme which they understood perfectly. Genesis is not in error, it just doesn not look at things from the eyes of scientific observance.

I take it Genesis getting closer than other creation myths implies to you that it is from the actual Creator... But now you're saying this creator didn't actually reveal any knowledge or inspire the people who wrote Genesis? If there is no indication that the authors wrote beyond what they knew, how did they get so 'amazingly' close? Pure chance?

The writer was a man and the focus of the Bible was not scientific observation. He was not there to begin with. God would be fine with people understanding something very basic and very accurate- he created everything.

If that were the case, the text could've just omitted the part about the days of creation and saved a lot of headache from future Christians... not to mention souls, I guess. The way Genesis contradicts what science has found is a pretty big deal to some people, big enough that it severely shakes their faith. A scientifically accurate account of creation would've made the Bible by far the most impressive holy book around, yet God didn't bother. It could've simply stated that God was behind creation, a claim which is impossible to falsify with science. But instead it makes very specific claims about the order in which animals and everything else in nature arose, which can and have been falsified.

 

[Mario]

It's not willful ignorance to not believe what isn't proven.

The existance of God hasn't been proven, yet you believe that He does unwaveringly, to the point where you suggest even receiving proof to a counter view sufficient to meet your standards wouldn't change your belief in Him (see below)

So science will often take the approach of "If this happened in this case then it could happen in this other case and thus it probably did happen in all cases" which I don't adhere to. Honestly I don't have to until all the other cases are proven. However, it still would not change my belief in God one iota, nor should it.

You are willing to dismiss the Theory of Evolution as the explanation for the diversity and complexity of life on this planet despite it being supported by overwhelming amounts of physical evidence and decades of independently verified research across multiple discplines of science, as well as having not been disproven in over 150 years of scrutiny. Yet you accept the existance of God based on... the Bible?

Why do you hold concepts like evolution to such a high burden of proof, and not apply the same rigour at all to God?

 

[Kinitari]

I'll just piggy back off of what Mario is saying here JGS, give you fewer people to reply to.

The existance of God hasn't been proven, yet you believe that He does unwaveringly, to the point where you suggest even receiving proof to a counter view sufficient to meet your standards wouldn't change your belief in Him (see below)



You are willing to dismiss the Theory of Evolution as the explanation for the diversity and complexity of life on this planet despite it being supported by overwhelming amounts of physical evidence and decades of independently verified research across multiple discplines of science, as well as having not been disproven in over 150 years of scrutiny. Yet you accept the existance of God based on... the Bible?

Why do you hold concepts like evolution to such a high burden of proof, and not apply the same rigour at all to God?

I just want to add - you seem to be okay with most of the Theory of Evolution. But speciation in particular you don't like. You do understand that Speciation is a huge cog in the evolution machine. Without it, evolution is meaningless - in fact without it, most of it doesn't make sense.

If I were to ask you just one question, JUST one.

Why is speciation impossible. Why? Any scientific reason? I explained earlier why your 'one species cannot beget another' concept was flawed, I explained in my little otter scenario how it actually ends up happening, by now nothing is stopping you from fully understanding the theory. You should also know by now, 'macro' and 'micro' evolution means something completely different than what most creationist made it out to be, they are entirely unsubstantiated claims.

Let me just say this one thing.

Speciation occurs, it's been Proven. Continual denial of it without an ounce of evidence or logic is, to be completely honest, embarrassing to watch. If you can give me one good reason as to why Speciation is (to use your own word) 'impossible' - I will back off. But it is my opinion you need to come to terms with the fact that your anti-speciation belief system is not compatible with science, it is both illogical and devoid of evidence.

 

[jdogmoney]

You guys!

Jesus Camp is on Netflix instant view!

Watch it and report back.

 

[Slightly Live]

You guys!

Jesus Camp is on Netflix instant view!

Watch it and report back.

Oh come on. I don't think any of the Christians replying here are as extremely loopy as the ones featured in that documentary. Not really fair comparing insane fundamentalists to anyone really.

 

[EzLink]

Just wanted to pop in and say I'm really glad people like JGS are here speaking their mind. Must be tough, but I really respect it (and it makes the thread much more interesting to read)

Fun fact: While I was waiting for OVER A FULL YEAR for my GAF account to be activated, my plan was to come here, Jesus guns blazing, as a Bible literalist to try and convert this heathenistic hell hole :lol

 

[Slightly Live]

Fun fact: While I was waiting for OVER A FULL YEAR for my GAF account to be activated, my plan was to come here, Jesus guns blazing, as a Bible literalist to try and convert this heathenistic hell hole :lol

You are a Bible literalist?

 

[Blergmeister]

I don't think anymore. Earlier in the thread he was talking about becoming an athiest and having a hard time adjusting. Santa Clause aint real and all that.

 

[EzLink]

You are a Bible literalist?

Used to be. Super hardcore about it too

But yeah, agnostic now and like the poster above me said I'm having quite the time adjusting

 

[HawksEye]

Hi everyone! kinda new to the forums and have been very intrigued by the various none gaming-topics discussed by very intelligent individuals on this forum, seeing the very detailed debate about evolution and religions, I felt maybe I can add a little prospective (in link form) of what current muslim scientists have to say about the evolution and the quranic descriptions of creation including humans. (The presentation is very interesting even for non-religious people to read)

http://www.truevolution.net/
NOTE: the link uses a a powerpoint add-on, works best with Internet Explorer (works on Chrome just that some images dont appear, sorry >.<)

 

[Kinitari]

Hi everyone! kinda new to the forums and have been very intrigued by the various none gaming-topics discussed by very intelligent individuals on this forum, seeing the very detailed debate about evolution and religions, I felt maybe I can add a little prospective (in link form) of what current muslim scientists have to say about the evolution and the quranic descriptions of creation including humans. (The presentation is very interesting even for non-religious people to read)

http://www.truevolution.net/
NOTE: the link uses a a powerpoint add-on, works best with Internet Explorer (works on Chrome just that some images dont appear, sorry >.<)

Nice to have you Hawks, just started reading the site - pretty interesting stuff, I was honestly expecting another argument devoid of any Evolutionary knowledge - instead I get a thoughtful understanding of the process. The one criticism I have so far is that there seems to be some literary gymnastics - one example is that Neandrethals were the predecessor to Adam:

And when your Lord said to the angels: “I am placing in the Earth a successor.” They said: “You would place in it who does mischief (harm) in it and sheds blood, and we celebrate Your praises and glorify You!”

What caused the angels to believe that this new successor (Homo sapiens) is a savage who is a source of mischief (harm) and a shedder of blood? And what was it that Allah knew and the angels did not know? The most logical answer to the first question, in light of the discovered fossil remains and DNA evidence, is that the angels presumed that Adam was the like of someone they had encountered before—a predecessor who was from the humankind and looked physically similar to Adam and whose life on Earth was marked by doing harm and shedding blood. The answer to the second question is found in verses 2: 31-33 (next poster). The Arabic word 1’’&#1582;&#1614;&#1604;&#1616;&#1610;&#1601;&#1614;&#1577;&#1611; : &#1582;&#1614;&#1604;&#1614;&#1601; &#1601;&#1615;&#1604;&#1614;&#1575;&#1606; &#1601;&#1615;&#1604;&#1614;&#1575;&#1606;&#1611;&#1575; &#1601;&#1616;&#1610; &#1607;&#1614;&#1584;&#1614;&#1575; &#1575;&#1604;&#1618;&#1571;&#1614;&#1605;&#1618;&#1585; &#1573;&#1584;&#1614;&#1575; &#1602;&#1614;&#1575;&#1605;&#1614; &#1605;&#1614;&#1602;&#1614;&#1575;&#1605;&#1607; &#1601;&#1616;&#1610;&#1607;&#1616; &#1576;&#1614;&#1593;&#1618;&#1583;&#1607;’’ “Khalifah” translated as “successor”2, literally means "one who replaces someone else who left or died and assumes their responsibilities.”

Neanderthal, who became extinct about 30,000 years ago, is thought to be the most recent human species prior to modern man. Archeologists believe that they lived in clans, were territorial and likely practiced female abduction. Many adult Neanderthal fossils have serious injuries, suggesting that their life was extremely dangerous and that they had a war-mongering nature.

This is first of all, a little vague. Are they saying that Adam was a metaphor for humans? Or was Adam still one person?

Secondly, it doesn't include Eve - if this is a metaphor, what does it imply? That Humans as a species lived on as males for a while, and then god introduced females? That's not how the ToE works.

Thirdly, it fails to mention the ancestors of hominids and apes and so on, which to me seems like an odd omission.

This is about as far as I've gotten, but so far what I am reading is taking Science and interpreting Islam around it, but doing this through liberal use of metaphorical language.

 

[jdogmoney]

Oh come on. I don't think any of the Christians replying here are as extremely loopy as the ones featured in that documentary. Not really fair comparing insane fundamentalists to anyone really.

I didn't say that, or anything similar. Honestly, I'm just trying to inject some different discussions in the thread; I feel as though JGS might tire of answering all of our questions.

 

[jdogmoney]

Jesus affirmed a gay couple?

http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/gay_couple.html

This is the first I've heard of this, but it seems to make sense...

 

[FunkyMunkey]

I didn't say that, or anything similar. Honestly, I'm just trying to inject some different discussions in the thread; I feel as though JGS might tire of answering all of our questions.

Honestly, I highly doubt that you're trying to inject good discussion here by referencing Jesus Camp. Even the few hardnosed evangelicals closeby who I've spoken to about that movie consider it disturbing.

My 2 cents:

Science and God are not mutually exclusive. No one will care, but ironically I used to be agnostic until I began studying science/math/engineering. Understanding the order and unity of the universe absolutely bewilders me, whether it's related to chemistry, biology, physics, etc. An Atheist will argue that it's naturally chaos and thrives on entropy and chance, while I would say that it's perfect. Not perfect as in suitable for life, but perfect as in the evolution of matter between the Big Bang (or whatever beginning) and now, has resulted in a splendidly observable and livable world. The beauty that lies in the concept of existence, (at the start: the matter and antimatter canceling at a barely uneven ratio, gravity and spin, electromagnetism, even subatomic particles making atoms, etc), and leading to us in our universe, in our galaxy, in our solar system, on our planet, in this time, is where my faith lies. In science, and also in what science unlocks and opens.

The pure chance of me being able to even type this post, and breathe and live, gives me purpose. I don't believe in an old man with a beard living in orbit but I definitely believe in an indescribably poetic guiding hand of some kind, one that probably doesn't watch us and might not even be there anymore, but was at least there at one time. Not because I need to believe, or to "fall back" on, or to shape my political views (i'm actually pretty hippie-like), but because I've run the calculations through my brain and the results tell me that we aren't mere collections of matter, but that we have souls, consciousness, and a connection to eachother. We're supposedly only a sum of our parts, stardust, but is that all that's there? Personally, I don't think so. I still want human progress/prosperity, sharing, peace, love, scientific achievements, and unity and I'm probably not that different from others here haha.

I just hate all this Science vs God stuff as if they're opposite sides of the same coin. When in actuality they're separate coins on the same table. And bunching those with faith into the same category as those who wish to use theirs to inhibit the progress of others is offensive.

Summary: I believe in God, but not "God". I am no less a man because of it, nor less intelligent.

 

[Dever]

Jesus affirmed a gay couple?

http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.or...ay_couple.html

This is the first I've heard of this, but it seems to make sense...

This is pretty amazing if true.

We're supposedly only a sum of our parts, stardust, but is that all that's there? Personally, I don't think so.

If we need a new topic in this thread, we could totally do dualism. That'd be interesting.

 

[JGS]

My Inception buzz is starting to wear off, so I can speak in more than two sentences again.

The existance of God hasn't been proven, yet you believe that He does unwaveringly, to the point where you suggest even receiving proof to a counter view sufficient to meet your standards wouldn't change your belief in Him (see below)

You're doing what I've been accused up- mixing religion and science. You don't need faith (theoretically) in science, you do with belief. If you don't have it, you're just not religious. However, in science if you don't have proof, you don't have science.

You are willing to dismiss the Theory of Evolution as the explanation for the diversity and complexity of life on this planet despite it being supported by overwhelming amounts of physical evidence and decades of independently verified research across multiple discplines of science, as well as having not been disproven in over 150 years of scrutiny. Yet you accept the existance of God based on... the Bible?

I didn't completely dismiss the theory of evolution. One part not accepted does not demolish all of it, so it is perfectly acceptable for me to do so. Surely, not all scientists are in lock step with how life developed, so why should a non-scientist?

Why do you hold concepts like evolution to such a high burden of proof, and not apply the same rigour at all to God?

I would think science held it to a high burden of proof.

You can't say it's impossible to include God in scientific method and then turn around and say I can't keep the standard that science has set as the standard I use. I've stated a few times now that I'll believe what I can see, but I'm not sure why there's is a sense of urgency to accept what hasn't been seen.

 

[JGS]

Yes, from the point of view of science. If the Genesis account is to be taken seriously, it has to be compatible with what we discover in nature through investigation, also known as science. Genesis doesn't have to be a science textbook, but it clearly makes some claims about the order in which nature came about. If those claims are found to be wrong, why should we believe Genesis? You roll your eyes whenever someone demands Genesis to be scientifically accurate, but from the other side of your mouth you proclaim how amazing it is that Genesis got so close to what we have found through science. You can't have it both ways.

I don't know what you mean by Genesis being taken seriously. As a science book? If you like have at it, but few do.

I've already explained my views on that which were ridiculed pointlessly so I'm not about to entertain that conversation again, but if you think the writer of Genesis, even under divine inspiration, was supposed to know the exact details and timeframes of creation, then go ahead with that high level of scrutiny.

I take it Genesis getting closer than other creation myths implies to you that it is from the actual Creator... But now you're saying this creator didn't actually reveal any knowledge or inspire the people who wrote Genesis? If there is no indication that the authors wrote beyond what they knew, how did they get so 'amazingly' close? Pure chance?

You're confusing my words. I'm saying the creation account was perfectly acceptable for it's purpose. It wasn't wrong so I'm not trying to apologize for it. Genesis explains how we got here from the point of view of a man living over 3,000 years ago. It is amazingly close in contrast to the other creation accounts of the time. If many civiliaztion of the time had similar creation accounts, Genesis tells the best especially since the only real argument so far (because the stars one is not even from a literalist viewpoint), is fish and birds. The reality is it explains it in a reasonble order. Despite the denial here, most people from at least the past 2 centuries understand it.

Science, as is it's job, gives details that shine light on life evolving, something that would have been unknowable and completely unnecessary to the audience the writer was addressing. It's still unnecessary but interesting and entertaining to learn about and satisfies a curiosity.

If that were the case, the text could've just omitted the part about the days of creation and saved a lot of headache from future Christians... not to mention souls, I guess. The way Genesis contradicts what science has found is a pretty big deal to some people, big enough that it severely shakes their faith. A scientifically accurate account of creation would've made the Bible by far the most impressive holy book around, yet God didn't bother. It could've simply stated that God was behind creation, a claim which is impossible to falsify with science. But instead it makes very specific claims about the order in which animals and everything else in nature arose, which can and have been falsified.

Now you're playing book editor. It could have done a lot of things, but it was written as it was. The purpose of writing it was because people have always wanted to know where they come from. It's the reason why evolution is such a big thing to many. It doesn't cause me headaches at all to believe in God and science so not sure why it would cause others that unless, like atheists and creationists, the Genesis account must be interpretted literally.

 

[Dude Abides]

Honestly, I highly doubt that you're trying to inject good discussion here by referencing Jesus Camp. Even the few hardnosed evangelicals closeby who I've spoken to about that movie consider it disturbing.

My 2 cents:

Science and God are not mutually exclusive. No one will care, but ironically I used to be agnostic until I began studying science/math/engineering. Understanding the order and unity of the universe absolutely bewilders me, whether it's related to chemistry, biology, physics, etc. An Atheist will argue that it's naturally chaos and thrives on entropy and chance, while I would say that it's perfect. Not perfect as in suitable for life, but perfect as in the evolution of matter between the Big Bang (or whatever beginning) and now, has resulted in a splendidly observable and livable world. The beauty that lies in the concept of existence, (at the start: the matter and antimatter canceling at a barely uneven ratio, gravity and spin, electromagnetism, even subatomic particles making atoms, etc), and leading to us in our universe, in our galaxy, in our solar system, on our planet, in this time, is where my faith lies. In science, and also in what science unlocks and opens.

The pure chance of me being able to even type this post, and breathe and live, gives me purpose. I don't believe in an old man with a beard living in orbit but I definitely believe in an indescribably poetic guiding hand of some kind, one that probably doesn't watch us and might not even be there anymore, but was at least there at one time. Not because I need to believe, or to "fall back" on, or to shape my political views (i'm actually pretty hippie-like), but because I've run the calculations through my brain and the results tell me that we aren't mere collections of matter, but that we have souls, consciousness, and a connection to eachother. We're supposedly only a sum of our parts, stardust, but is that all that's there? Personally, I don't think so. I still want human progress/prosperity, sharing, peace, love, scientific achievements, and unity and I'm probably not that different from others here haha.

I just hate all this Science vs God stuff as if they're opposite sides of the same coin. When in actuality they're separate coins on the same table. And bunching those with faith into the same category as those who wish to use theirs to inhibit the progress of others is offensive.

Summary: I believe in God, but not "God". I am no less a man because of it, nor less intelligent.

You don't say!

 

[Kinitari]

You're confusing my words. I'm saying the creation account was perfectly acceptable for it's purpose. It wasn't wrong so I'm not trying to apologize for it. Genesis explains how we got here from the point of view of a man living over 3,000 years ago. It is amazingly close in contrast to the other creation accounts of the time. If many civiliaztion of the time had similar creation accounts, Genesis tells the best especially since the only real argument so far (because the stars one is not even from a literalist viewpoint), is fish and birds. The reality is it explains it in a reasonble order. Despite the denial here, most people from at least the past 2 centuries understand it.

Science, as is it's job, gives details that shine light on life evolving, something that would have been unknowable and completely unnecessary to the audience the writer was addressing. It's still unnecessary but interesting and entertaining to learn about and satisfies a curiosity.

Bold 1 - What was the purpose of the creation story other than to explain the actual way we were created - which it does not do accurately?

Underline 1 - It was wrong, so you are trying to apologize for it, you even mention the mistakes it makes 'fish and birds' - and you still are conveniently forgetting it entirely omits evolution.

Bold 2. It is better than most stories of it's time, like an 8 is closer to 100 than 4.

Underline 2. Evolution, Speciation in particular - real arguments that you continue to ignore.

I've stated a few times now that I'll believe what I can see

You use this terrible argument to continue to justify your self-delusion. That and "there is no urgency to understand how it actually happened/it doesn't really matter".

There was gravity 5,000 years ago. Do you believe me?

 

[Slightly Live]

I didn't completely dismiss the theory of evolution. One part not accepted does not demolish all of it, so it is perfectly acceptable for me to do so. Surely, not all scientists are in lock step with how life developed, so why should a non-scientist?

I would think science held it to a high burden of proof.

You can't say it's impossible to include God in scientific method and then turn around and say I can't keep the standard that science has set as the standard I use. I've stated a few times now that I'll believe what I can see, but I'm not sure why there's is a sense of urgency to accept what hasn't been seen.

Oh come on, you must be tired of dodging facts by this point.

You accept evolution but deny speciation. You really must conjuring up your own distorted version of science because you are simply ignoring facts because they aren't convenient,

Not all scientists are in lock step? Find me a bunch that deny speciation like you do. The fact is, speciation a fully accepted aspect of evolution. You aren't in any position to reject it on any acceptable grounds except your own choice. Your views simply don't match up with facts.

Genesis explains how we got here from the point of view of a man living over 3,000 years ago. It is amazingly close in contrast to the other creation accounts of the time. If many civiliaztion of the time had similar creation accounts, Genesis tells the best especially since the only real argument so far (because the stars one is not even from a literalist viewpoint), is fish and birds. The reality is it explains it in a reasonble order. Despite the denial here, most people from at least the past 2 centuries understand it.

Genesis is the best account, out of all of the religions around at the time, about creation?

Nonsense. Even the Hindu account of creation is closer to the actual truth. You are assuming wrongly.

So fish and birds are the only major points of contention in Genesis? No, the talking snake, man being around before animals and the spontaneous appearance of man - created from dirt, are easily much more contentious. Contentious because they are false.

Reasonable order? Far from it.

 

[Kinitari]

I beat you to the punch Dani. Although you said kinda different things

 

[JGS]

Missed this one from way back here http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=22657432&postcount=2518. Evolutionary stuff got in the way but I like the questions so thought I would answer:

That seems like an odd number. You'd think that number would be filled by now since mankind has been around for tens of thousands of years.
Also do you think 1 is true? There are immortals living amongst us?

The number has been filled. They have a memorial celebration every year to commemerate the death of Jesus and there's only a few that artake signifyong they are a part of that heavenly class.

The vast majority of people are expected to be here on Earth. Going with what I said earlier, this makes the most sense to me.

There could be? Why is this not clear? It seems rather important. According to the bible doesn't everyone who accepts god and repents get into heaven? I'm confused.

It's not clear. I don't particularly subscribe to it so can't explain it.

Is that what you hope God is like or what you know god is like? It seems to me you're making a lot of claims about God from your own personal view and not substantiated by anything.

It's how God (or his plan) is described. Acts 24 describes a resurrection of righteous and unrighteous. john 5 describes a time when all will be judged based on the things they did in connection with worship. If they did not know him, how could they be judged with a permanent death? revelation 20 describes a resurrection of all and agian a judgement as well as a period of time to help ones not familiar with God, Jesus, or the Bible. Act 17 describes these ones as being ignorant of the truth about God. All that points to the idea that

Why do you not want to live in heaven by the way?

It's not really a case of not wanting to live there, I just don't feel it. I don't want to die to begin with. I just wouldn't mind the earth being cleaned up a bit. There's nothing wrong with the planet that a llittle Armegeddon can't fix.

Spoiler

I keed, I keed! Sorta

Everything I know about heaven is what's explained to me in the Bible which must by necessity talk about symbolically since no writer has actually been there to actually see it and even if they saw it in vision, like John in Revelation, they could only explain it in terms they could write in or the people could understand- hence the clouds and the pearly gates and whatnot.

It was clear that many of the Christian writers could feel they were going to heaven in contrast to how the writers were in OT who appeared to be Earth focused like me.

What are you now if you are no longer a christian and why? Sorry I'm new to this thread.
Some questions though what was there before god created the universe?

I don't tell my religion since my opinions encompass more than my religious belief and I don't want the two mixed up. For example, I really like the idea Jehovah's Witnesses have about heaven and earth.

What was around before God is unknowable except for what scripture says which is he had no beginning or end.

A few months ago this was brought up in connection with God lying and I basically said it didn't matter from our perspective. I think I connected to Sauron in LOTR somehow!:lol

 

[JGS]

Oh come on, you must be tired of dodging facts by this point.

What do you mean?

You accept evolution but deny speciation. You really must conjuring up your own distorted version of science because you are simply ignoring facts because they aren't convenient,

Not all scientists are in lock step? Find me a bunch that deny speciation like you do. The fact is, speciation a fully accepted aspect of evolution. You aren't in any position to reject it on any acceptable grounds except your own choice. Your views simply don't match up with facts.

I ddn't deny speciation.

Genesis is the best account, out of all of the religions around at the time, about creation?

Nonsense. Even the Hindu account of creation is closer to the actual truth. You are assuming wrongly.

OK

So fish and birds are the only major points of contention in Genesis? No, the talking snake, man being around before animals and the spontaneous appearance of man - created from dirt, are easily much more contentious. Contentious because they are false.

I was speaking about the creative days. Obviously you wouldn't believe any of the stuff that followed so why even discuss it. Are you trying to expand the argment? I will await the foold of copy/pasted verses...again

Reasonable order? Far from it.[/QUOTE]

 

[gerg]

You're doing what I've been accused up- mixing religion and science. You don't need faith (theoretically) in science, you do with belief. If you don't have it, you're just not religious. However, in science if you don't have proof, you don't have science.

Just because theology isn't necessarily an empirically-based discourse doesn't mean that standards of reason and logic can't be applied to it. And, part of that will include epistemology and discussion about how our claims to knowledge are justified. If you believe that we are only justified in believing something if we have a certain, high level of empirical data for it (to the extent that belief in speciation is not granted), then unless you can reasonable prove why an exception should be made belief in other ontological, proposition claims about the universe should also be held to this standard. And, on that basis, belief in God will also demand empirical evidence to the required standard.

 

[JGS]

Bold 1 - What was the purpose of the creation story other than to explain the actual way we were created - which it does not do accurately?

The purpose was to link how we got here with God. It only gets it wrong if you say we weren't created which you would never say since this isn't about God existing right?Right???

Seriously, do you read to read or just read to pick apart things to disagree with. This has been answer dozens of times at this point, so I'm not answering it again.

Underline 1 - It was wrong, so you are trying to apologize for it, you even mention the mistakes it makes 'fish and birds' - and you still are conveniently forgetting it entirely omits evolution.

Ugh.
You are omitting the fact that evolution as a scientific study did not exist back then and was not necessary to know for worship anymore than it's necessary for life right now.

:lol No disrespect although I don't know why I'm so concerned about it at this point, but this has actually gotten to be funny.

The insistence that The Bible MUST match up to something that only been talked about over 3,00 years later is just boggling my mind. So now with my brain completely un Inceptioned I realize that this is actually beyond conversating about anymore. My compulsive need to respond to most things will carry on I guess, but I think requoting myself may be the way to go.

Underline 2. Evolution, Speciation in particular - real arguments that you continue to ignore.

I didn't ignore or dismiss either of those.

Seriously, do you read to read or just read to pick apart things to disagree with. This has been answer dozens of times at this point, so I'm not answering it again.

You use this terrible argument to continue to justify your self-delusion. That and "there is no urgency to understand how it actually happened/it doesn't really matter".

It doesn't matter...at all.

This is what it boils down to- a complete and utter disregard for my beliefs (self-delusion). Even if they clash with yours, there's no reason for the hostility, but you can't help it. You try to fake it, but you can't and so something that has no impact on you whatsoever upsets you to the point of spending days trying to convince me that something unproven = proof. So it's official, I have dismissed all of science in my foolish efforts to worship an imaginary being.

You have now convinced me that your accusations about me are true so guilty as charged! I am a believer in your version of belief. I really do hate science with a passion and everything about it. I freely admit to searching for dragons on my off days and heard reports that a Flying Spaghetti monster was nearby so I may have something new to worship since it's so easy to switch.

Now maybe we can move on since your convictions about me should be firmly fixed in mind (As they were from the first day we disagreed). Anything else is really just telling me what I already know about myself now and we don't want you to waste that kind of time.

 

[Slightly Live]

I beat you to the punch Dani. Although you said kinda different things

You're far better with this subject matter, so I'll leave my case at your feet.

 

[JGS]

Just because theology isn't necessarily an empirically-based discourse doesn't mean that standards of reason and logic can't be applied to it. And, part of that will include epistemology and discussion about how our claims to knowledge are justified. If you believe that we are only justified in believing something if we have a certain, high level of empirical data for it (to the extent that belief in speciation is not granted), then unless you can reasonable prove why an exception should be made belief in other ontological, proposition claims about the universe should also be held to this standard. And, on that basis, belief in God will also demand empirical evidence to the required standard.

Again, I do not have to prove anything regarding my beliefs. If my beoiefs are under some type of assault, the accuser is the one that needs to convince me to think otherwise.

I find logic and reason in the ideas of creation, that doesn't mean the next step is converting you to feel the same.

 

[gerg]

Again, I do not have to prove anything regarding my beliefs. If my beliefs are under some type of assault, the accuser is the one that needs to convince me to think otherwise.

I find logic and reason in the ideas of creation, that doesn't mean the next step is converting you to feel the same.

Ah, I see now that your ultimate response will only ever be "no u".

 

[JGS]

Ah, I see now that your ultimate response will only ever be "no u".

That wasn't my response at all.

 

[Kinitari]

The purpose was to link how we got here with God. It only gets it wrong if you say we weren't created which you would never say since this isn't about God existing right?Right???

Seriously, do you read to read or just read to pick apart things to disagree with. This has been answer dozens of times at this point, so I'm not answering it again.

The problem with this line of thought is that every single creation story then hold the same amount of weight - nothing. They are all stories if they do not have to be based in reality.

Ugh.
You are omitting the fact that evolution as a scientific study did not exist back then and was not necessary to know for worship anymore than it's necessary for life right now.

I am not arguing the necessity of worship, I am not arguing the merits of believing in God. I am simply pointing out contradiction - what the Bible says happened, what you believe happened, what actually happened. God is timeless and all powerful, if he wanted people to know how it really happened, if he divinely inspired the works of creation, there would be no reason to tell it any other way than how it actually happened - I cannot think of a single thing that barred God, or an Angel or some other metaphysical being to say "Hey dude, did you know people came from things that kinda look like apes? Crazy right?".

It doesn't matter...at all.

This is what it boils down to- a complete and utter disregard for my beliefs (self-delusion). Even if they clash with yours, there's no reason for the hostility, but you can't help it. You try to fake it, but you can't and so something that has no impact on you whatsoever upsets you to the point of spending days trying to convince me that something unproven = proof. So it's official, I have dismissed all of science in my foolish efforts to worship an imaginary being.

I won't argue that I have actually been upset by your arguments, at first I assumed you did not understand how speciation worked - so I tried my best to explain it to you. Then you seemed to have doubts about it's validity - where was the evidence and all that? So I showed you. Now your sole arguments have boiled down to "It doesn't matter to me" when it clearly does, if it didn't matter to you, you wouldn't so vehemently shut your eyes to it. I absolutely cannot wrap my head around this mindset, It's like trying to imagine what the world looks like through a chameleons eyes. It drives me bonkers.

You have now convinced me that your accusations about me are true so guilty as charged! I am a believer in your version of belief. I really do hate science with a passion and everything about it. I freely admit to searching for dragons on my off days and heard reports that a Flying Spaghetti monster was nearby so I may have something new to worship since it's so easy to switch.

Why the hyperbole? I don't think you hate Science, in fact what I think is that you want Science to very much be a part of your faith, to validate it. I bet if Science aligned with your belief system you would waste no time pointing it out to us. But it doesn't, but that doesn't mean you don't like Science - you just attempted to try and dismiss that Science as invalid Science. And your hyperbolic strawmen are embarrassing.

Now maybe we can move on since your convictions about me should be firmly fixed in mind (As they were from the first day we disagreed). Anything else is really just telling me what I already know about myself now and we don't want you to waste that kind of time.

Skipping all around the strawmen, I noticed you refused to answer one of the questions I have continuously tried to phrase in a way you would understand, my last attempt in the most simple form imaginable.

Did gravity exist 5000 years ago?

 

[gerg]

That wasn't my response at all.

If you honestly believe that in an intellectual debate over a concept you have no business justifying to any degree the propositions that you argue towards then there is no point, at all, in trying to continue this discussion with you. Yes, those who argue that God does not exist may require some burden of proof on their part. However, that does not mean that you suffer from no burden of proof in proposing your argument. (Even if I were to be kind and suggest that my burden of proof is greater than yours, yours would still exist.) If your beliefs are under some kind of question, it is at least some part of your duty to prove to us that our questions are wrong.

This has got nothing to do with "converting" someone to hold another person's belief, and everything to do with engaging in an interesting and productive discussion. Shrugging this off as an unfair responsibility to be demanded of you is dishonest at best.

 

[Kinitari]

This has got nothing to do with "converting" someone to hold another person's belief, and everything to do with engaging in an interesting and productive discussion.

=/

 

[gerg]

=/

Do you mean to suggest that I'm wrong in asserting that a discussion should be productive, or that I'm being unrealistic to suggest that this discussion could be productive?

 

[Kinitari]

Do you mean to suggest that I'm wrong in asserting that a discussion should be productive, or that I'm being unrealistic to suggest that this discussion could be productive?

I just spent the last few days assuming that JGS both did not understand how Speciation works, nor know there was a plethora of evidence substantiating it. Only to recently realize he just doesn't care/want it in his worldview.

Why discuss/debate anything with anyone who refuses to acknowledge logic, empirical evidence and the shortfalls of argumentative fallacies?

 

[JGS]

If you honestly believe that in an intellectual debate over a concept you have no business justifying to any degree the propositions that you argue towards then there is no point, at all, in trying to continue this discussion with you. Yes, those who argue that God does not exist may require some burden of proof on their part. However, that does not mean that you suffer from no burden of proof in proposing your argument. (Even if I were to be kind and suggest that my burden of proof is greater than yours, yours would still exist.) If your beliefs are under some kind of question, it is at least some part of your duty to prove to us that our questions are wrong.

You're really going to have to dumb that first sentence down for me, but I think I grasp it.

What concept am I trying to justify again?

If it's evolution, I'm not. I am following the rule that many have educated me on inthis very thread.

If it's the Bible, i disagree. There are very few people in this thread, based on their answers and opinions, that show themselves knowledgeable of it at all. I'm no Bible scholar in the slightest and yet I still can read the thing and pick out what's obvious and apparent rather than just pick out.

Burden of proof is a legal term that requires you to prove my beliefs wrong, otherwise you let it go. You failed. It was an uphill battle to begin with. What exactly did I accuse people of here? That's right, I didn't accuse you of anything.:lol

This has got nothing to do with "converting" someone to hold another person's belief, and everything to do with engaging in an interesting and productive discussion. Shrugging this off as an unfair responsibility to be demanded of you is dishonest at best.

This is incorrect. I've tried very reasonable approaches to discussing/debating with 3 pages to prove it when I didn't even want to answer the first time ebecause this is the way it always turns out. A pretending to be curious, a list of links showing me what I already believe, but then using those same links to say I don't believe any of it. A mocking of an ancient text compared to modern ones, and finally a complete breakdown of communication that gets to the root of the matter - my beliefs are stupid. History does indeed repeat itself.

We are both talking about unproveable aspects of our opinion but I'm the one who is always wrong. I have never disputed fact, just assumptions based on that.

The good news is I'm only wrong based on your (collective gaf atheist) opinon or refusal to see mine. I can live with that easily. If you can't be convinced after all the talking I've done so far or if you fail to see the answers given in those responses, then there's no reason to even value a debate/discussion with me.

 

[JGS]

Yadda, yadda, yadda, & then...
Did gravity exist 5000 years ago?

I didn't skip it, I simply linked it to the rest of what you're saying. I'm assuming there's some kind of massive revelation that "contradicts" something written, so let's go with it.

"Yes, there was gravity 5,000 years ago"

 

[JGS]

I just spent the last few days assuming that JGS both did not understand how Speciation works, nor know there was a plethora of evidence substantiating it. Only to recently realize he just doesn't care/want it in his worldview.

Why discuss/debate anything with anyone who refuses to acknowledge logic, empirical evidence and the shortfalls of argumentative fallacies?

This is untrue.

 

[Kinitari]

I didn't skip it, I simply linked it to the rest of what you're saying. I'm assuming there's some kind of massive revelation that "contradicts" something written, so let's go with it.

"Yes, there was gravity 5,000 years ago"

This isn't really all that complicated. Why do you easily believe in the gravity you could not see with your own two eyes from 5000 years ago, but not the speciation that occurred in the past?

This is untrue.

Which part? I can only make assumptions as to how the inner workings of your mind works, if you want to clarify where I misrepresented you, I don't have any sort of problem with that.

 

[JGS]

This isn't really all that complicated. Why do you easily believe in the gravity you could not see with your own two eyes from 5000 years ago, but not the speciation that occurred in the past?

You could say the same thing about God. In fact, that's something used quite frequently to explain why religious people believe something that can't be seen.

To answer your question, I don't need to accept it in it's entirety. Only if you say I do (Which isn't possible) would I reject it outright. It's no different than people who can't or don't want to worship something they can't see.

Which part? I can only make assumptions as to how the inner workings of your mind works, if you want to clarify where I misrepresented you, I don't have any sort of problem with that.

I'm tired of this speciation stuff. You accuse me of not changing my views to the obvious and true yet I have given more than an inch on my views on a lot of things including speciation. The reality is I wasn't disputing much of it to begin with.

You, on the other hand, have not given one iota on your view that I am incorrect. You even still maintain that I look at the Bible as a book of science rather than worship and argue with me on that point which is admittedly confusing since you seem to view it as a book of science!:lol

You can't even change your view on that which is downright sad since you will always be wrong about what I believe if it's contrary to what I tell you. Always.

Unlike you, I don't hold an all or nothing view on the things we've discussed. I can accept some and reject others until further proof is provided. That's why what you say is incorrect. If you got nothing out of all the typing I've done, then stop wasting my time seeking more detail in my answers as I'm obviously a crackpot. Your conversing with me these past few days speaks more about your intelleigence educating/entertaining me than it does to my whackiness which apparently was evident from the start.

At this point, my view is that you're hard headed reagrding your view of me and I can assume others. One can have an open mind and disagree, but you can't seem to do it. Hope I'm wrong about that.

 

[Kinitari]

You could say the same thing about God. In fact, that's something used quite frequently to explain why religious people believe something that can't be seen.

To answer your question, I don't need to accept it in it's entirety. Only if you say I do (Which isn't possible) would I reject it outright. It's no different than people who can't or don't want to worship something they can't see.


I'm tired of this speciation stuff. You accuse me of not changing my views to the obvious and true yet I have given more than an inch on my views on a lot of things including speciation. The reality is I wasn't disputing much of it to begin with.

You, on the other hand, have not given one iota on your view that I am incorrect. You even still maintain that I look at the Bible as a book of science rather than worship and argue with me on that point which is admittedly confusing since you seem to view it as a book of science!:lol

You can't even change your view on that which is downright sad since you will always be wrong about what I believe if it's contrary to what I tell you. Always.

Unlike you, I don't hold an all or nothing view on the things we've discussed. I can accept some and reject others until further proof is provided. That's why what you say is incorrect. If you got nothing out of all the typing I've done, then stop wasting my time seeking more detail in my answers as I'm obviously a crackpot. Your conversing with me these past few days speaks more about your intelleigence educating/entertaining me than it does to my whackiness which apparently was evident from the start.

At this point, my view is that you're hard headed reagrding your view of me and I can assume others. One can have an open mind and disagree, but you can't seem to do it. Hope I'm wrong about that.

The bold is -exactly- why I have continued to discuss this with you for the last few days. You keep saying things like this, consistently, and I take it as a cue to provide that information you seem to desire.

I can't anymore, I am done. I'll probably be back eventually for the same reason as above.

 

[gerg]

What concept am I trying to justify again?

The proposition that you should justify is that your reading of Genesis is at all supported by the text itself, and thus that Genesis can be called an accurate account of creation.

If it's the Bible, i disagree. There are very few people in this thread, based on their answers and opinions, that show themselves knowledgeable of it at all. I'm no Bible scholar in the slightest and yet I still can read the thing and pick out what's obvious and apparent rather than just pick out.

Then justify how your interpretation has a basis in the text itself.

Burden of proof is a legal term that requires you to prove my beliefs wrong, otherwise you let it go. You failed.

"Burden of proof" is also a term within philosophy. And, within philosophy, it's a concept that requires that every propositional claim (outside of "I don't know") be justified to a certain extent. Often this burden will be asymmetrical, but it will still exist.

What exactly did I accuse people of here? That's right, I didn't accuse you of anything.:lol

I never said that people accused you of anything. Don't put words in my mouth.

We are both talking about unproveable aspects of our opinion but I'm the one who is always wrong. I have never disputed fact, just assumptions based on that.

You're simplifying the matter somewhat, at least in relation to my arguments.

The good news is I'm only wrong based on your (collective gaf atheist) opinon or refusal to see mine.

Atheism or theological belief has got nothing to do with. I don't think that your belief in God is necessarily rational, but that belief is far removed from my other belief that your reading of Genesis is arbitrary and unsupported by the text. The latter is more to do with epistemology and standards of justification.

 

[Dever]

I don't know what you mean by Genesis being taken seriously. As a science book? If you like have at it, but few do.

I've already explained my views on that which were ridiculed pointlessly so I'm not about to entertain that conversation again, but if you think the writer of Genesis, even under divine inspiration, was supposed to know the exact details and timeframes of creation, then go ahead with that high level of scrutiny.

Why wouldn't he know? I'm not even asking for exact details. I'm fine with Genesis not being a literal account, I'm fine with it being metaphorical and not being a science book. But I am NOT fine with the supposed omniscient creator of the universe inspiring a text that contains obvious falsehoods. If you take it more literally, there is absolutely nothing in Genesis that lines up with science. If you grant that it's not supposed to be an exact represantation, there is still no reason for it to contain such errors as birds appearing before land animals. I'm pretty tired of your wishy washy "It's not supposed to be exactly accurate" rhetoric. There was every reason in the world for God to make His special book believable, but He chooses not to take such obvious steps as informing his scribes the real order in which animals appeared. I only ask, why? It's utterly baffling to me considering that whether or not we believe the Bible is everything in Christianity. Believing the Bible is what determines your salvation, so wouldn't God, in His omnibenevolence, want to make it as believable as possible? From what you're telling me, I gather that God is a bumbling buffoon who doesn't understand or care that telling people birds appeared before land animals might hurt his credibility somewhat.

Genesis explains how we got here from the point of view of a man living over 3,000 years ago.

Well, I certainly agree with that. Nothing divine about it.

Now you're playing book editor. It could have done a lot of things, but it was written as it was. The purpose of writing it was because people have always wanted to know where they come from. It's the reason why evolution is such a big thing to many. It doesn't cause me headaches at all to believe in God and science so not sure why it would cause others that unless, like atheists and creationists, the Genesis account must be interpretted literally.

But Genesis doesn't actually tell anyone where they came from. Sure, it's an answer, but now we know that it's not true. For example, women didn't come from man's rib. So did God lie? Did God inspire Genesis at all?

JGS, do you care whether your beliefs are true or not?

 

[FunkyMunkey]

You don't say!

 

[EzLink]

Just wanted to pop in here and say that I'm finally manning up and asking the rents for therapy. Will do by the end of the week

I feel like by posting it in here it might somehow keep me accountable if I try to pussy out

 

[jdogmoney]

Just wanted to pop in here and say that I'm finally manning up and asking the rents for therapy. Will do by the end of the week

I feel like by posting it in here it might somehow keep me accountable if I try to pussy out

Right on, dude. We're here for you.

 

[EzLink]

Right on, dude. We're here for you.

<3 my gaf bros

thanks

 

[Mario]

I would think science held it to a high burden of proof.

You can't say it's impossible to include God in scientific method and then turn around and say I can't keep the standard that science has set as the standard I use. I've stated a few times now that I'll believe what I can see, but I'm not sure why there's is a sense of urgency to accept what hasn't been seen.

You didn't answer my question. I'm not asking about the standards of science or myself. I'm asking about you, and why you claim you require evidence you can see to accept scientific theory such as speciation, but appear to have no such personal requirement to support your belief in God. You say you need speciation to be "proven" to accept it (well beyond the standards of science itself), but you require God to be disproven before you would consider stopping believing.

I'll pose the question again, slightly differently -

How can YOU hold concepts like speciation to a higher burden of proof than science itself before you will accept them, and require little to no proof to support your belief in God?


As for your general view on speciation, your comments over the last few pages appear inconsistent to me, and certainly not "clear and unambiguous" as you have claimed. Some quote mining reveals some comments which appear to conflict

I am fine with evolution but evolution does not in any way prove species jumps so the flaw is assuming what you said is fact.

interspecies evolution hasn't either.

I'm dismissing parts of the evolutionary that aren't true and impossible. If it's proven, it would obviously fit my worldview.

Further, I tend toward it being impossible because it can't be duplicated or observed. I am aware of the little fish in the lake and maybe by some miracle a fish became an amphibian over millions of little changes (That haven't been proven), but that would not be repeated over and over again to the tune of millions. It's impossible until it's possible.

I didn't completely dismiss the theory of evolution. One part not accepted does not demolish all of it, so it is perfectly acceptable for me to do so.

I ddn't deny speciation.

I didn't ignore or dismiss either of those.

I'm tired of this speciation stuff. You accuse me of not changing my views to the obvious and true yet I have given more than an inch on my views on a lot of things including speciation. The reality is I wasn't disputing much of it to begin with.

So, let us settle this with a simple question and a one word answer.

Do you believe natural speciation is possible? Yes or no.

 

[kobashi100]

Islam in Japan - An Interview with Professor Hassan Ko Nakata

http://religion.info/english/interviews/article_491.shtml