Evolution
Options
Replies
-
Evolution exists, visibly, all around us, and I don't think anyone here has even attempted to deny that, although some in the wider public sphere hold very strong views and refuse to acknowledge this on religious grounds. They are not commenting on this thread, as far as I can see. What I am trying to suggest, and I think others are essentially on the same track, though I can't speak for them, is that the theory of evolution as applied to life on this planet does not automatically remove the possibility of God from the equation. But yes, we have rather veered off-topic - perhaps we should rename the thread Science v. Religion - can they coexist?
Like!0 -
And once again, for all the wordiness and big words, I just keep hearing that if science has yet to prove it, it must be God. That's not how it works. And lets just keep this to science and evolution. If we are going to go off the deepend and talk about morality and values, we might as well start another thread.
Science has already discovered or proven many things that can also, simultaneously, be attributed to a divine creator, by those who hold this belief, with no inherent contradiction. The existence of one facet does not necessarily cancel out the other. That is the point I am trying to make, though I can't speak for others. The same applies to evolution, which is where we began this subject.
Evolution exists, visibly, all around us, and I don't think anyone here has even attempted to deny that, although some in the wider public sphere hold very strong views and refuse to acknowledge this on religious grounds. They are not commenting on this thread, as far as I can see. What I am trying to suggest, and I think others are essentially on the same track, though I can't speak for them, is that the theory of evolution as applied to life on this planet does not automatically remove the possibility of God from the equation. But yes, we have rather veered off-topic - perhaps we should rename the thread Science v. Religion - can they coexist?!
Good point. I don't think that proving Evolution as an absolute fact would disprove God. I am not a believer, I think that much is apparent. But being of an open mind, the possibility that Genesis and the biblical creation story might very well have been the quick and dirty version God told the first people because they were incapable of understanding DNA, evolution, ect.0 -
1. If humans were ultimately made by God and are the result of God's providential guidance of an evolutionary process, by leaving out religious answers you can't help but have an inaccurate and incomplete understanding of human beings. Religion, by definition, has no place in "secular" humans seeking for human origins but if secular humans have defined their search too narrowly they will not be open to dimensions of human nature that are essential to the true story.
Until you can prove God exists, then how do you know they're leaving anything out?2. Atheism might "work" on the subjective level for some people but it is a necessarily incomplete and unsatisfactory account of things for most human beings and it is also objectively incapable of answering questions that most humans find crucial to life in this world. Morality, for example, cannot be adequately grounded in an atheistic view of the world. More on that later. There are many other features of human experience that atheism cannot take seriously or must simply assume without explanation or grounding (i.e., the moral sense, mystical experience, transcendent principles of logic, the longing for unending love, etc.).
Christianity might "work" on the subjective level for some people but it is a necessarily incomplete and unsatisfactory account of things for most human beings and it is also objectively incapable of answering questions that most humans find crucial to life in this world.
Works both ways.
Morality can actually be adequately grounded in a atheistic view of the world. That's really arrogant of you to assume that atheists cannot have morals, or that their morals aren't as "grounded" as a religious person's. If that's not what you meant, I apologize. As for explaining things like mystical experience...I know I personally never believed in that growing up. None of my atheist friends (most of my friends are atheist) don't believe in those, either. That's all I can bring to the table on that. :laugh: The other stuff, I don't know enough about to speak on it.3. I've already given good reason to believe in God that you haven't answered.
No, you haven't. No one has. Not to me. And apparently not to a lot of atheist people out there, either.Concerning the Bible, you well know that asking me to prove everything in the Bible in an email is unfair (since we could go from point to point forever).
How is it unfair to ask someone for proof of what they're saying, before they state it as fact? Or even be taken on good faith by their audience?Let's stick with Jesus. Jesus claimed to be the Son of God and Savior of the world.
He saved the world?He rose from the dead to prove it.
So they say.The evidence for heaven is that we all long for unending love and union; this world doesn't satisfy for what we most deeply desire; therefore we are made for something that we can only have beyond this life.
So Heaven is real, because people wish it to be? Also, not all people wish it to be. Does that mean Heaven is only real for those who believe in it? Also, can't be proven.Hell is a consequence of human freedom. If God's invitation to uneding love and union is a call for a free response, we can say "no" and the consequence is to exist without hope of achieving final loving union with God. I think all of this is reasonable to persons "open" to it. It will obviously not persuade those who don't want to be open to it but that only proves human freedom. Most humans are and have been open to these ideas.
Same as what I said about Heaven, except I'm sure people don't WANT to go to Hell.4. I think you are reading Lewis in an uncharitable way. You didn't directly reply to my question. Do you think it is morally "good" to envy others and think you should always be the center of attention?
No, I wanted to read Lewis and like what he had to say, since I love the Narnia series. I simply don't like his non-fiction writings, after reading some of them. No, I can't say I hate ALL of his non-fiction, since I've never read ALL of it. What I have read, I dislike and disagree with. I read him with an open mind, and of course, now I'm biased, but if I were to read something of his that I liked and agreed with, I wouldn't say "oh he still sucks! I hate everything about him!" because that wouldn't be true. I already answered your question directly. I said that no, I don't think it's good. But that's on a personal level. If someone wants to be the center of attention, they can go right ahead. Are they hurting anyone by wanting to be the center of attention? So hmm...I guess...no, it's not morally wrong, if they aren't hurting anyone by it.5. You are still missing my point about science. I am specifically talking about the rise of modern science, not specific, individual scientific discoveries. Every historian of science I know of distinguishes between modern science and other ancient attempts at science. None of the others discovered a systematic method for understanding the world in a scientific way and that is why the modern explosion of scientific discoveries never happened before. The modern method was based on an understanding of nature that allowed for science while the other more ancient views were hindered by presuppositions that were at odds with it.
I don't know enough about science to refute that, but I didn't want you to think I'm ignoring it.6. I find your comments on morality interesting. Most interesting is your admission that you don't know how things became ingrained in us, how human life started, etc. Wow. That's essentially what I've been arguing all along; science has not provided answers to these most basic questions. I'm claiming it has not because it cannot;
Who's to say that they won't be able to provide the answers in the future? If we're going based on assumptions, then I'd say scientists might be able to.Your comments about "right to life" are simply unconvincing. You think that the fact that you exist is sufficient to justify a "right" to exist?
Yes.Can you say that about an ant or a blade of grass?
That's something I personally struggle with, philosophically. The ant, anyway. Not the grass. Personally, yes, I kill ants if they bite me, and I keep ant poison traps in my house. To be honest, the line of thinking you're going towards is something I like to ponder, but, as I said, I struggle with it, because I can never come to a certain answer, so I can't answer that honestly.Since your scientific method is based on empirical/factual observation alone and consciously abstracts away from introspective, interior "evidence", you are left to decide what is right and wrong based on empirical observation alone.
Unless I state something like "I'm speaking on a personal level" or "personally..." or "In my opinion," etc., then whatever else I say may or may not be a part of how I feel on an issue personally. So please don't assume that I have some mysterious inner scientific method I'm sharing with everyone, because I don't. The way I feel things PERSONALLY should work contradict a lot of what I say, but the way I feel things SHOULD be aren't how everyone else feels, so I'm keeping it as objective as I can. I'm trying to think of the future and a bigger picture. I'm probably not writing it as well as it sounds in my head, though.7. On the final point, I certainly don't think you see the point yet. Science cannot exist without the power to rationally know and understand the world around us. That power to know includes logical powers and sensory powers that give us access to the world and enable us to think about it. Science assumes these powers are accurate but cannot even question these powers without using them. They are more fundamental than science. This point demonstrates that your claim that science proves everything and has no presuppositions is absolutely false.
And I don't think YOU see my point, yet. I have never once said that science proves everything. I have said that religion can not prove anything, and that science strives to offer the truth, evidence, and facts. Can it be proven wrong? Of course. And some things have been proven wrong. You feel that because I don't accept religion, that I'm wrong, because I can't otherwise explain the more mysterious things about life and our existence, is how I'm taking it. But religion cannot prove anything. It can't even prove itself. But we can break down scientific evidence, to see how it works. Even if all of it cannot be explained, there is hope for an answer to be found. I'm sorry, but I don't see that in religion, and I never have, no matter how much I'd like to.0 -
And once again, for all the wordiness and big words, I just keep hearing that if science has yet to prove it, it must be God. That's not how it works. And lets just keep this to science and evolution. If we are going to go off the deepend and talk about morality and values, we might as well start another thread.
Science has already discovered or proven many things that can also, simultaneously, be attributed to a divine creator, by those who hold this belief, with no inherent contradiction. The existence of one facet does not necessarily cancel out the other. That is the point I am trying to make, though I can't speak for others. The same applies to evolution, which is where we began this subject.
Evolution exists, visibly, all around us, and I don't think anyone here has even attempted to deny that, although some in the wider public sphere hold very strong views and refuse to acknowledge this on religious grounds. They are not commenting on this thread, as far as I can see. What I am trying to suggest, and I think others are essentially on the same track, though I can't speak for them, is that the theory of evolution as applied to life on this planet does not automatically remove the possibility of God from the equation. But yes, we have rather veered off-topic - perhaps we should rename the thread Science v. Religion - can they coexist?!
Good point. I don't think that proving Evolution as an absolute fact would disprove God. I am not a believer, I think that much is apparent. But being of an open mind, the possibility that Genesis and the biblical creation story might very well have been the quick and dirty version God told the first people because they were incapable of understanding DNA, evolution, ect.
My boyfriend says that.
At least, he used to. He's not a "believer" anymore. But when he was, he thought that, as well (biblical creation stories being the quick and dirty version, I mean). He stopped believing when he couldn't find dinosaurs in there, haha. 0 -
1. If humans were ultimately made by God and are the result of God's providential guidance of an evolutionary process, by leaving out religious answers you can't help but have an inaccurate and incomplete understanding of human beings. Religion, by definition, has no place in "secular" humans seeking for human origins but if secular humans have defined their search too narrowly they will not be open to dimensions of human nature that are essential to the true story.
Until you can prove God exists, then how do you know they're leaving anything out?2. Atheism might "work" on the subjective level for some people but it is a necessarily incomplete and unsatisfactory account of things for most human beings and it is also objectively incapable of answering questions that most humans find crucial to life in this world. Morality, for example, cannot be adequately grounded in an atheistic view of the world. More on that later. There are many other features of human experience that atheism cannot take seriously or must simply assume without explanation or grounding (i.e., the moral sense, mystical experience, transcendent principles of logic, the longing for unending love, etc.).
Christianity might "work" on the subjective level for some people but it is a necessarily incomplete and unsatisfactory account of things for most human beings and it is also objectively incapable of answering questions that most humans find crucial to life in this world.
Works both ways.
Morality can actually be adequately grounded in a atheistic view of the world. That's really arrogant of you to assume that atheists cannot have morals, or that their morals aren't as "grounded" as a religious person's. If that's not what you meant, I apologize. As for explaining things like mystical experience...I know I personally never believed in that growing up. None of my atheist friends (most of my friends are atheist) don't believe in those, either. That's all I can bring to the table on that. :laugh: The other stuff, I don't know enough about to speak on it.3. I've already given good reason to believe in God that you haven't answered.
No, you haven't. No one has. Not to me. And apparently not to a lot of atheist people out there, either.Concerning the Bible, you well know that asking me to prove everything in the Bible in an email is unfair (since we could go from point to point forever).
How is it unfair to ask someone for proof of what they're saying, before they state it as fact? Or even be taken on good faith by their audience?Let's stick with Jesus. Jesus claimed to be the Son of God and Savior of the world.
He saved the world?He rose from the dead to prove it.
So they say.The evidence for heaven is that we all long for unending love and union; this world doesn't satisfy for what we most deeply desire; therefore we are made for something that we can only have beyond this life.
So Heaven is real, because people wish it to be? Also, not all people wish it to be. Does that mean Heaven is only real for those who believe in it? Also, can't be proven.Hell is a consequence of human freedom. If God's invitation to uneding love and union is a call for a free response, we can say "no" and the consequence is to exist without hope of achieving final loving union with God. I think all of this is reasonable to persons "open" to it. It will obviously not persuade those who don't want to be open to it but that only proves human freedom. Most humans are and have been open to these ideas.
Same as what I said about Heaven, except I'm sure people don't WANT to go to Hell.4. I think you are reading Lewis in an uncharitable way. You didn't directly reply to my question. Do you think it is morally "good" to envy others and think you should always be the center of attention?
No, I wanted to read Lewis and like what he had to say, since I love the Narnia series. I simply don't like his non-fiction writings, after reading some of them. No, I can't say I hate ALL of his non-fiction, since I've never read ALL of it. What I have read, I dislike and disagree with. I read him with an open mind, and of course, now I'm biased, but if I were to read something of his that I liked and agreed with, I wouldn't say "oh he still sucks! I hate everything about him!" because that wouldn't be true. I already answered your question directly. I said that no, I don't think it's good. But that's on a personal level. If someone wants to be the center of attention, they can go right ahead. Are they hurting anyone by wanting to be the center of attention? So hmm...I guess...no, it's not morally wrong, if they aren't hurting anyone by it.5. You are still missing my point about science. I am specifically talking about the rise of modern science, not specific, individual scientific discoveries. Every historian of science I know of distinguishes between modern science and other ancient attempts at science. None of the others discovered a systematic method for understanding the world in a scientific way and that is why the modern explosion of scientific discoveries never happened before. The modern method was based on an understanding of nature that allowed for science while the other more ancient views were hindered by presuppositions that were at odds with it.
I don't know enough about science to refute that, but I didn't want you to think I'm ignoring it.6. I find your comments on morality interesting. Most interesting is your admission that you don't know how things became ingrained in us, how human life started, etc. Wow. That's essentially what I've been arguing all along; science has not provided answers to these most basic questions. I'm claiming it has not because it cannot;
Who's to say that they won't be able to provide the answers in the future? If we're going based on assumptions, then I'd say scientists might be able to.Your comments about "right to life" are simply unconvincing. You think that the fact that you exist is sufficient to justify a "right" to exist?
Yes.Can you say that about an ant or a blade of grass?
That's something I personally struggle with, philosophically. The ant, anyway. Not the grass. Personally, yes, I kill ants if they bite me, and I keep ant poison traps in my house. To be honest, the line of thinking you're going towards is something I like to ponder, but, as I said, I struggle with it, because I can never come to a certain answer, so I can't answer that honestly.Since your scientific method is based on empirical/factual observation alone and consciously abstracts away from introspective, interior "evidence", you are left to decide what is right and wrong based on empirical observation alone.
Unless I state something like "I'm speaking on a personal level" or "personally..." or "In my opinion," etc., then whatever else I say may or may not be a part of how I feel on an issue personally. So please don't assume that I have some mysterious inner scientific method I'm sharing with everyone, because I don't. The way I feel things PERSONALLY should work contradict a lot of what I say, but the way I feel things SHOULD be aren't how everyone else feels, so I'm keeping it as objective as I can. I'm trying to think of the future and a bigger picture. I'm probably not writing it as well as it sounds in my head, though.7. On the final point, I certainly don't think you see the point yet. Science cannot exist without the power to rationally know and understand the world around us. That power to know includes logical powers and sensory powers that give us access to the world and enable us to think about it. Science assumes these powers are accurate but cannot even question these powers without using them. They are more fundamental than science. This point demonstrates that your claim that science proves everything and has no presuppositions is absolutely false.
And I don't think YOU see my point, yet. I have never once said that science proves everything. I have said that religion can not prove anything, and that science strives to offer the truth, evidence, and facts. Can it be proven wrong? Of course. And some things have been proven wrong. You feel that because I don't accept religion, that I'm wrong, because I can't otherwise explain the more mysterious things about life and our existence, is how I'm taking it. But religion cannot prove anything. It can't even prove itself. But we can break down scientific evidence, to see how it works. Even if all of it cannot be explained, there is hope for an answer to be found. I'm sorry, but I don't see that in religion, and I never have, no matter how much I'd like to.
Forgive the lack of removing comments and cutting and pasting. This reply is just another attempt to explain my previous comments and address yours above. For what it's worth, I am enjoying this debate!
1. I gave you an argument for God's existence that you haven't replied to. I can give many others. Since God is not the sort of reality that light or sound bounces off of, it follows that God would be "proven" by effects of God rather than by immediate sensory perception. Take gravity, for instance. We don't directly see gravity but we infer it from the behavior of material things. We may know the existence of God by reflecting on the world made by God. My earlier argument was based on the governance of the world. In other words, the world follows rationally knowable laws and that implies a source of rational governance in contrast to random, undirected processes. I also gave you the moral argument for God's existence or at least I've been hinting at it. I might also add the Cosmological argument. Presumably you grant that the universe exists. If so, there must be something that has always existed. The alternative is that what is came to be from absolutely nothing. Since that option is absurd and meaningless, I won't waste time on it. If something has always been, it follows that something possesses the power of existence within itself; something must always be and has the reason for its being within itself. An atheist would say the universe is that which has the power of being in itself but most people find that unpersuasive. The obvious reason for this is that nothing we see or focus on in this world accounts for itself. The "story" of your being, for instance, requires that we leave you and locate the reasons for your existence in other causes (parents, air you breathe, etc.). As long as we are focusing on things that are effects of other things, we are not satisfied. We are only intellectually satisfied when we arrive at a self-explained being that transcends all change but is the ground of change. We call that God.
2. About half the world adheres to some form of Christianity. Most of the world adheres to some form of religious explanation of the world. A very small fraction of people historically have found atheism satisfactory. Atheism only thrives when religion appears to be hypocritical or inconsistent with its principles. I highly recommend a book by Alister McGrath on the modern history of atheism: "The Twilight of Atheism." He argues that atheism (in its modern, organized forms) is a protest movement but has no power in itself to truly satisfy the human spirit and therefore will die as a strong force when religion reforms and renews itself.
I didn't say atheists can't have morals. I said atheism cannot adequately ground a morality. Your replies have proven this point. You simply assert moral principles but can't provide a basis for them. What makes your life more valuable than a blade of grass? How does the fact that you are alive lead to the conclusion that others should respect your life and not destroy it? How would you answer the atheistic regimes of Soviet Russia or North Korea when they killed the opponents of Communism? Millions of people were killed in the name of atheism. If this world is ultimately an undirected, random collection of motions that is going nowhere (in any objective, purposeful sense), where in the world do you get a source of objective value for anything? You can say you don't like the idea of people killing other people but how is this different from one person not liking vanilla ice cream and another liking it? If morality is nothing but feelings-based, you can't say that anyone "ought" to do anything (except what makes them feel good, I suppose). You certainly can't say that if someone feels good doing something that it is "wrong."
I recommed you do some reading on mystical experience as a persistent feature of human experience. Otto's classic, "The Idea of the Holy," might be a good place to start.
3. I gave you an argument for God's existence in two or three of my past emails and you've never directly replied to it (as far as I remember). I gave another one above (#1).
4. It is unfair in a brief email exchange to ask someone to prove every detail of the Bible is true. The limits of the format make that unfair. If you have specific questions those may be addressed. An open-ended question like that is impossible.
5. Through the self-sacrifice of Jesus, God's perfect holiness was satisfied and humans may be forgiven of sins without compromising God's perfect justice. Christ saves the "world" inasmuch as salvation is available to all who respond to God's invitation to forgiveness and salvation.
6. Yes, they said Jesus rose from the dead and died continuing to make the same claim. Christianity is an historical effect of that claim. The fact that we are carrying on this conversation is proof of the power and enduring force of that claim.
7. Heaven is an objective reality, not a reality only for those who wish it is so. The human experience of hunger is a sign that there is a reality can satisfy our hunger: food. Our thirsting is a sign that there is such a thing as drink. The human longing for unending love is a sign that there is a reality that can satisfy this longing. When humans desire fulfillment and happiness, they may think certain things can satisfy these desires only to later find out they really don't (like when a person buys a car or has a child and then later realizes they still have a restless desire for something more and deeper in life). Our desire for happiness and love reaches beyond any experience we have in this world and that implies that we are made for a transcendent union/love; this alone can quench our interior longings. Since this desire is an essential part of human desires and longings, like food and drink and other such desires, I conclude that the basic desire itself implies the reality that can satisfy it. We call that reality that can bring this satisfaction God.
8. No, people don't want to go to hell but they often want to turn from God to seek their own source of happiness.
9. Where do you get your definition of morality: "it is good if it doesn't hurt anybody"? Who decided that this is the limit of morality? Further, don't you think it hurts a person's ability to mature as a moral human being when they persist in wanting to be the center of attention? Doesn't this sound like a spoiled child? You agree this is "bad" but you go on to say if someone wants to be like that your evaluation in purely personal and that, since it doesn't hurt anyone, it is not objectively bad. This whole way of analyzing morality is purely arbitrary. I have no idea where you got such notions except from your culture. There is no objective source of this moral theory; it is pure subjectivism and is certainly not based on science.
10. "Whose to say" science won't one day answer the questions you admitted you do not have answers to? Well, you have a very deep faith in science. I'm afraid your faith in science is deeply misguided since any fair look at the scientific method shows that it is inherently and self-consciously limited to certain kinds of questions. It simply can't answer the kinds of questions we are posing. Like I said, the physicist or biologist will laugh when asked to answer moral questions. Their discipline is focused on explaining certain facts about the world, not the source of moral value.
11. Do you think human life is worth more than a blade of grass or an ant? Why? Also, how do you get a moral command ("you should not murder/kill") from the fact of life? Where do you get moral command? How does what IS lead to a moral duty ("OUGHT")?
12. I simply don't understand your next-to-the-last paragraph.
13. Christian religion explains, in broad terms, everything. For example, I have the experience of wanting to know the ultimate reason why this world exists. Christianity tells me God brought the world into being. I have the experience of wanting to know why I'm so different from all the other animals in the world. Christianity tells me that I am made in God's likeness and therefore have the capacity to know, question, and love. I have the experience of sensing that something has gone wrong within my nature. I sin and do things I know I shouldn't. Christianity tells me this is because the human family has turned away from God and has lost its way. I have the experience of wanting to know if life has a meaning/purpose and if God loves me. Christianity tells me that God showed his love and the purpose of life in and through Jesus Christ. I find that Christianity explains all of life on the deepest level. What proof do I have this is true? The proof I have is that Christianity provides deep and compelling answers to the questions that are fundamental to human existence. Since Christianity is ultimately an invitation to a relationship with God, we ultimately accept God's invitation by faith. All personal relationships require trust. A child trusts that his parent loves him because of various signs of love but certainly not because he directly sees "love." Love, as such, cannot be seen. I am a Christian because I find Christian faith provides a framework for understanding that works, makes sense, and is confirmed by various signs (e.g., resurrection of Jesus), including my own experience of God's love and grace each day. If you mean by "proof" some arbitrary set of standards for proof (like the scientific method), what I've said obviously doesn't qualify. We must think of proof, however, in relationship to what we are trying to prove. What is the 'proof' that a man loves his wife? It will certainly not be the same kind of thing a biologist would consider proof in a laboratory. The proof of Christianity is its power to explain the human experience of reality and to complete human nature. On an even deeper level, Christianity proves itself by providing a satisfying and life-changing path to true human fulfillment and loving union with God and other human persons.0 -
Not only can a human achieve morality indepently from the bible, they can achieve it in spite of it. I have heard the argument before, how do we know what morality is without Jesus, God or the Bible. Simple. I know rape and slavery are wrong. How, because there is no laws against that according to the Judeo Christian God. Slavery is mentioned and even approved of in the ten commandments and Christ never amends that. Also, God tells Moses and his men to slaughter the Caananites, man, woman and child. But he also commands Moses to keep the virgin girls alive for his hebrew soldiers (war crime, rape). So, there are two huge huge moral judgments that I and most of society have made without God.0
-
If morality is nothing but feelings-based, you can't say that anyone "ought" to do anything (except what makes them feel good, I suppose). You certainly can't say that if someone feels good doing something that it is "wrong."
**********if God gave us free will, why would there be any "wrong" choices?
they said Jesus rose from the dead and died continuing to make the same claim. Christianity is an historical effect of that claim. The fact that we are carrying on this conversation is proof of the power and enduring force of that claim.
**********Just because a religion continues to exist does not prove its validity. Buddhism has existed for roughly the same amount of time Christianity has.
The human longing for unending love is a sign that there is a reality that can satisfy this longing. ......., I conclude that the basic desire itself implies the reality that can satisfy it. We call that reality that can bring this satisfaction God.
**********Just because a desire exists doesn't mean it can be fulfilled. It is a very very common desire for people to fly (unaided, as a bird) Just because something is desired doesn't mean it can be fulfilled.
8. No, people don't want to go to hell but they often want to turn from God to seek their own source of happiness.
**********speaking of Hell, why would God have need of such a place? Unless he knew the "Devil" was going to defect from Heaven....and if he did know it and proceed anyway.......hmmm that's a big problem for me.
9. I have no idea where you got such notions except from your culture. There is no objective source of this moral theory; it is pure subjectivism and is certainly not based on science.
**********Yet it is still a source of moral values, regardless of religion. Morality based on the desire to do what is "right" is a plenty good enough reason for me.
The proof I have is that Christianity provides deep and compelling answers to the questions that are fundamental to human existence.
**********************This logic, "It must be true because I think it is" is faulty. Millions of other satisfied members of the world's other religions are just as pleased about their choice. Islam provides answers to its members, as bdoes Buddhism, Wicca, Judaism, and the list goes on.
MacPatti's words are quoted in part to be brief, and so that you can tell which part I'm responding to. The rest was eliminated for brevity, not to dismantle her arguments. My replies are preceded by *****************0 -
I can make up a story that 'explains' everything too. Doesn't mean it's true.
Just because a story explains things for people that they otherwise don't understand and 'fills in the gaps' for their brains doesn't necessarily mean that it's fact.
Occam's Razor.0 -
I can make up a story that 'explains' everything too. Doesn't mean it's true.
Again, this goes back to history, the Bible, and the existence of God. For me, to deny the Bible is like denying history books. Without even delving more into theology and philosophy (which many have probably found quite boring), I'll keep it very simple by saying it's just not easy for me to deny eye witness accounts of the life of Jesus. The Bible is absolutely written with poetry, hyperbole, and parables, but that doesn't discount what people actually saw and heard. People can choose to deny the history of Christianity, I suppose just as some people are trying to claim the Holocaust never existed. I don't believe the Bible is nothing more than a "made up story".0 -
I can make up a story that 'explains' everything too. Doesn't mean it's true.
Again, this goes back to history, the Bible, and the existence of God. For me, to deny the Bible is like denying history books. Without even delving more into theology and philosophy (which many have probably found quite boring), I'll keep it very simple by saying it's just not easy for me to deny eye witness accounts of the life of Jesus. The Bible is absolutely written with poetry, hyperbole, and parables, but that doesn't discount what people actually saw and heard. People can choose to deny the history of Christianity, I suppose just as some people are trying to claim the Holocaust never existed. I don't believe the Bible is nothing more than a "made up story".
Not many people I know deny that the places and some of the people in the bible exist, but that the miracles actually happened.0 -
I don't think people deny the history of Christianity. I think they deny the truth it claims to represent, God, etc. At least, that's how it is for me.0
-
Love me some George Carlin:
"Religion easily has the greatest bullsh*t story ever told. Think about it, religion has actually convinced people that there's an INVISIBLE MAN...LIVING IN THE SKY...who watches every thing you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten special things that he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish where he will send to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry for ever and ever 'til the end of time...but he loves you."0 -
Love me some George Carlin:
"Religion easily has the greatest bullsh*t story ever told. Think about it, religion has actually convinced people that there's an INVISIBLE MAN...LIVING IN THE SKY...who watches every thing you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten special things that he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish where he will send to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry for ever and ever 'til the end of time...but he loves you."
....and with that, I'm out.0 -
Love me some George Carlin:
"Religion easily has the greatest bullsh*t story ever told. Think about it, religion has actually convinced people that there's an INVISIBLE MAN...LIVING IN THE SKY...who watches every thing you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten special things that he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish where he will send to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry for ever and ever 'til the end of time...but he loves you."
:laugh: I LOVE George Carlin!! I seriously need to get his books again.0 -
Love me some George Carlin:
"Religion easily has the greatest bullsh*t story ever told. Think about it, religion has actually convinced people that there's an INVISIBLE MAN...LIVING IN THE SKY...who watches every thing you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten special things that he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish where he will send to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry for ever and ever 'til the end of time...but he loves you."
....and with that, I'm out.
You don't find it a bit strange that people are told all the time about how much god loves them, but that god will then send them to burn for an eternity in a fiery pit if they don't worship him?0 -
My issue with Christianity is when they say God is all knowing, all powerful, and all loving. He cannot possibly be all 3.0
-
I can make up a story that 'explains' everything too. Doesn't mean it's true.
Again, this goes back to history, the Bible, and the existence of God. For me, to deny the Bible is like denying history books. Without even delving more into theology and philosophy (which many have probably found quite boring), I'll keep it very simple by saying it's just not easy for me to deny eye witness accounts of the life of Jesus. The Bible is absolutely written with poetry, hyperbole, and parables, but that doesn't discount what people actually saw and heard. People can choose to deny the history of Christianity, I suppose just as some people are trying to claim the Holocaust never existed. I don't believe the Bible is nothing more than a "made up story".
I just read the entire 6 pages of this. Seriously, did no one catch the reference to LOR that Patti made?? Epic.
I believe a good portion of the Bible to be true. I believe they are stories written by man, translated hundreds or thousands of times over 2000 years. While I have questions/doubts myself about one God, the Christian God, that doesn't prevent me from believing the STORIES from the bible. I actually appreciated Patti's comments very much. She seems strong in her faith yet acknowledges that everything shouldn't be taken literally.
I have nothing to add to the evolution argument, just wanted to chime in b/c I was actually surprised I agreed with so much of what she wrote. :flowerforyou:0 -
My issue with Christianity is when they say God is all knowing, all powerful, and all loving. He cannot possibly be all 3.
If God was all-loving, then people wouldn't be sent to hell for not believing in him.
Additionally, if God is in control of everything and 'has a plan' then free will does not exist. You may THINK you have free will ,but if there is a God and things all happen because of his divine 'plan' then your perceived free will is nothing more than a puppet on a string, you just don't know about it.
Building that, if God already knows what's going to happen because it's his decision, then prayer doesn't do a damn thing except make someone feel better.
And honestly, if everything is part of God's plan, then I think his plan pretty much sucks. If his plan is to have the world at war with itself, millions living in poverty and dying from starvation, disease, etc, then I am not impressed.0 -
Love me some George Carlin:
"Religion easily has the greatest bullsh*t story ever told. Think about it, religion has actually convinced people that there's an INVISIBLE MAN...LIVING IN THE SKY...who watches every thing you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten special things that he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish where he will send to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry for ever and ever 'til the end of time...but he loves you."
....and with that, I'm out.
You don't find it a bit strange that people are told all the time about how much god loves them, but that god will then send them to burn for an eternity in a fiery pit if they don't worship him?
Nothing like a little George Carlin to lighten the mood.0 -
Don't believe it. I think it's too unlikely to have all happened this way by accident.0
