A case for religion, and against AA.

[sandorski]

You don't understand what that fallacy is.

I understand it just fine

Like whom? Don't make anything up. Secondly, isolated tribes still will worship something...either a god, or the human mind.

I don't make things up. The Piraha are an example. I also note the attempt at moving the goalpost.

So what? The point is, religion is religion. I think you're in denial.

Negative. Not all religion is the same and I am not in denial.

Who knows. You don't...that's for sure. But whatever the reason, we are religious by nature (and I am not referring to the current religions we have today) and I don't think that can be ignored or "explained away" as you're attempting to do.

Anyone interested in human nature would work to understand this. It seems you're too afraid of uncomfortable facts....you're afraid that a god could actually exists...so you've put words into my mouth and your arguments are overflowing with straw.

You're just being defensive here. The problem is that your argument isn't supporting the possibility of a god or gods. It is merely using, again, an appeal to popularity.


lol -- I don't know why I am even talking to you. You're desperately grasping at straws here.

I am not the one grasping at straws, sorry. I am merely using Reason and Evidence to guide my pursuit of Truth, not Dogma, not assertions.

Strawman, as I never said that....and WTF?

Not a strawman, that was your whole argument.

 

[PowerEngineer]

Because...there is "no evidence" for his existence or non-existence, so you end up arguing religion or "poor design" anyway. It always cycles back to the same bullshit.

I pretty much agree that there isn't evidence that can prove god's existence or non-existence.

What becomes problematic is when belief in god is tied to stories about or explanations of the real world that conflict with what science indicates is likely true. For instance, belief held by many in the literal six days of creation contradicts what science has uncovered about the evolution of the universe and of life on this planet. Plenty of evidence (facts) have been discovered that lend credence to current theories of cosmology and evolution over "creation science".

Actually, we need to treat this more delicately. Where in history can we find where man wasn't religious to some degree?

We are a "religious animal", so I think the issue isn't a simple as people inferring a conclusion without some reason to. I think atheists want to skimp over this truth and that's...ignorant really, because dismissing something as innate as religion and worship is hand-waving the nature of man.

No real scientists can look me into the eye and tell me that doesn't matter.

I accept the possibility that we may be "religious animals" in the sense that we are driven (instinctually?) to find patterns and explanations for the things that happen around us. I can see god working out as an "explanation of last resort" for things that we have no other explanation for. That we have a tendency to reach for that supernatural explanation (rather than accepting the alternative that we just don't know) doesn't necessarily make it a good thing IMHO.

Unfortunately too many don't read. Almost like a broken record. Show the evidence, but only on terms they accept.

Of course that's true. If you want someone to understand and accept your point of view, then it behooves you to present arguments that they find persuasive. To do otherwise is really pointless (unless you are trying to convince yourself). And in fairness, this certainly goes both ways in this discussion.

As I've noted before, you didn't come to believe in god because of the evidence you're presenting here. You needed faith first (or simultaneously?) before these proofs (especially the biblical ones) could mean anything to you. It's not surprising, therefore, that those of us without faith are underwhelmed by such evidence.

On the other hand, your faith is unshakable (especially for those believers that claim to have a personal relationship with god). If there's no doubt in your mind that god exists, then trying to convince you that it is unlikely is a fool's errand.

 

[dphantom]

As we have discussed before in this very thread, it is difficult to know what evidence would be convincing. However, if your god exists as you or theists define it, surely that god would know what would convince me or any Atheist.

He does know. You are rejecting it. The fault is not in God but in ourselves for not accepting His existence.

 

[dphantom]

I pretty much agree that there isn't evidence that can prove god's existence or non-existence.

What becomes problematic is when belief in god is tied to stories about or explanations of the real world that conflict with what science indicates is likely true. For instance, belief held by many in the literal six days of creation contradicts what science has uncovered about the evolution of the universe and of life on this planet. Plenty of evidence (facts) have been discovered that lend credence to current theories of cosmology and evolution over "creation science".

Agreed. My personal thought is a "day" for God is unknown to us. I think many of the stories/lessons are allegorical in nature or an attempt by early writers/passers of lore to put into terms they understand the revelation they received.

Of course that's true. If you want someone to understand and accept your point of view, then it behooves you to present arguments that they find persuasive. To do otherwise is really pointless (unless you are trying to convince yourself). And in fairness, this certainly goes both ways in this discussion.

All true. Why I have spent much time in this discussion looking at atheist sites so I understand their argumaents, especially the militant atheists. Can't have a discussion unless you do a deep dive into the others points/arguments.

 

[soulcougher73]

He does know. You are rejecting it. The fault is not in God but in ourselves for not accepting His existence.

No that would totally be gods fault. An all knowing being would know what it would take to convince us.

 

[JEDIYoda]

No that would totally be gods fault. An all knowing being would know what it would take to convince us.

God did know and God provided the means to save us. But according to the we have a responsibility to accept or reject........

There are many scriptures that address this...John 3:16.....etc...

for by grace are ye saved through faith....there is still some conscious effort on your part...

Look at the two thieves on the cross....
The Penitent thief, also known as the Thief on the Cross or the Good Thief, is an unnamed character mentioned in the Gospel of Luke who was crucified alongside Jesus and asked Jesus to remember him in his kingdom, unlike his companion the Impenitent thief. He is traditionally referred to as "St. Dismas".

and....
http://www.hannahscupboard.com/ST-thief-cross.html -- excerpts

You mention one of the great lessons regarding this incident in your question. Jesus extended love and forgiveness to the so called "good thief" even though he was dying himself. Actually, his love and forgiveness were there for the other thief also since Jesus died for the sins of the WHOLE world. The difference is that one chose not to receive it.
Yes, the tender love of God is one lesson but there are others. Jesus also gave us a key to understanding grace when he said to the good thief; "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise." (Luke 23:43) Scripture teaches us that we are saved by grace and not by works and this is a perfect example of that. There was no time left for the thief to do anything in the way of making up for his sins or turning his life around. Yet Jesus told him TODAY he would be with him in paradise. It was the thief's heart condition that gave him instant access to eternity in heaven.

There is one more powerful analogy I see as I look at the three crosses. Jesus is in the middle, at the very center of God's plan for redemption. Who is he? "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me." (John 14:6)

But what is speaking out from either side of him? On the one side is faith; the other side is unbelief. On the one side is humility; on the other is arrogance. Profanity speaks out of one side and reverence speaks out of the other side. These two voices continue to speak from either side of the cross today. The world has always been divided, and always will be divided, with Christ at the center. Maybe God placed a man on each side of Jesus for this reason: one is the voice of the kingdom of this world and the other is the voice of the kingdom of God.

 

[dphantom]

No that would totally be gods fault. An all knowing being would know what it would take to convince us.

It is not God's job to convince you. He has given you everything necessary to come to Him. It is you who are rejecting God for any number of reasons. But that is not God's fault. You have free will to reject Him.

 

[dphantom]

But, the two accounts can't agree on which son of David is the ancestor, or the name of Joseph's father. Or pretty much any other names in between. Clearly there's an error somewhere. Which makes "word of god" harder to believe. A few errors I can understand, but not even knowing the name of Joseph's father makes it almost impossible to believe that anyone could realistically construct an entire lineage from David to Joseph.

Actually, the lineages being described are different. Luke goes through Mary's lineage while Matthew follows Joseph.

 

[soulcougher73]

It is not God's job to convince you. He has given you everything necessary to come to Him. It is you who are rejecting God for any number of reasons. But that is not God's fault. You have free will to reject Him.

Apparently he hasn't otherwise I'd be with him. Or my mind is greater than his. An all knowing being would know exactly what it would take for each person.

 

[soulcougher73]

Actually, the lineages being described are different. Luke goes through Mary's lineage while Matthew follows Joseph.

Poor Joseph. God raped his wife to have his son

 

[JEDIYoda]

Poor Joseph. God raped his wife to have his son

when an Atheist has nothing better to say they revert to the list of Atheist talking points.

 

[soulcougher73]

when an Atheist has nothing better to say they revert to the list of Atheist talking points.

Hey look Captain Copy/Paste had an original thought. Oh wait no.. He just used the atheist talking point schtick again. Or is that a Christian talking point?

 

[sandorski]

He does know. You are rejecting it. The fault is not in God but in ourselves for not accepting His existence.

No. This is silly.

 

[Exophase]

Actually, the lineages being described are different. Luke goes through Mary's lineage while Matthew follows Joseph.

The reason why this is ever brought up at all is because both Matthew and Luke describe a lineage through Joseph.

Matthew 1:16 (NIV):

and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.

Luke 3:23 (NIV):

Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,the son of Heli,

So they disagree on Joseph's father. If Luke was supposed to be describing Mary's lineage then it mistakenly describes Joseph as a son of Mary's father.

There are other oddities with Matthew's lineage, such as missing generations in the Judean kings vs 1 Chronicles (also different spellings, although that's easier to reconcile) and an unusually short 12 generations spanning a period of about 520 years, which while not strictly impossible is highly implausible. Contrast with the much more realistic 21 generations given in Luke.

 

[schmuckley]

What? You want observed instances of speciation?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Observed+speciation

Yep.

Its descendents.


So what? Mammals will always be mammals. Chordates will always be chordates. Amphibians will always be amphibians. Your problem is you think of evolution like a ladder, when it's really a tree. A branch may grow off-shoots of its own, but everything will still be part of the original branch, and every branch will be part of the same trunk.

Everything is always in transition. From past to future.

I'm sorry, but that simply isn't true on our planet.

Oh, please. You're embarrassing yourself.

Tomorrow I'll start a thread, and in it you are going to be cordially invited to debate me on the merits of evolution. Be sure to look for it.

O I will.
Eventually;when I have time
I can't believe someone with your intellect clings so fast to the theory of evolution as it stands.
It's chock full of holes.

 

[sandorski]

O I will.
Eventually;when I have time
I can't believe someone with your intellect clings so fast to the theory of evolution as it stands.
It's chock full of holes.

It's one of the best supported theories in Science.

 

[schmuckley]

It's one of the best supported theories in Science.

Supported by what? Drawn pictures?

 

[Agent11]

It's one of the best supported theories in Science.

We can actually make targeted mutations these days, they do it with algae all the time. The use of mutant gmo algae in bio reactors is going to change the future. The types of chemical reactions these simple organisms do is fascinating, including the stripping of electrons from water. Giant tesla algae anyone? Biology is a pretty well defined science, compared to say, cosmology or quantum mechanics. It's only a matter of time before we understand enough about genes, and how to manipulate organisms to better serve humanity.

 

[sandorski]

Supported by what? Drawn pictures?

Vast collection of fossils
DNA
Ring Species

 

[schmuckley]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=transitional+fossils
Fossils prove The Bible is true
DNA also
not sure what ring species is

 

[sandorski]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=transitional+fossils
Fossils prove The Bible is true
DNA also
not sure what ring species is

You should follow your own link. Just sayin.

 

[soulcougher73]

Supported by what? Drawn pictures?

You should take a science class at like the high school level. You might just learn something and stop looking so inept.

 

[schmuckley]

Show me some from there that aren't fabricated drawings.
and theory and conjecture.
Why are so many clam fossils in the closed position? I used to find them all the time..all closed.
Clams open up when they die;Unless tons of mud are instantly thrown on top of them from a flood or something.
Human skulls are not acceptable..I even saw one with a 90-degree jaw ..no.
People are widely variable.
Show me something where one species is in transition to another;because that's what evolution says happens.
Yet it doesn't.

 

[sandorski]

Show me some from there that aren't fabricated drawings.
and theory and conjecture.
Why are so many clam fossils in the closed position? I used to find them all the time..all closed.
Clams open up when they die;Unless tons of mud are instantly thrown on top of them from a flood or something.
Human skulls are not acceptable..I even saw one with a 90-degree jaw ..no.
People are widely variable.
Show me something where one species is in transition to another;because that's what evolution says happens.

Just follow your link, get your answers.

 

[schmuckley]

Look at the images from that link:Tell me how many are real.
0
Look,It's like this:
God made the world,but people turned from him and pursued wickedness.
So God made a flood to purge the world
It made fossils and wiped some species out
Then life slowly progressed to what we have today;People turning from God,A world ready for another flood.Thx