A case for religion, and against AA.

[Retro Rob]

I'm saying that there are functions in our brain that causes us to imagine things.

No stuff, Sherlock.

I'm only assuming God is made up because there is no proof of God's existence.

There is nothing to show God doesn't exists, either. We're basically at a cross-roads of simply choosing what we will believe, or lack belief in.

Throughout all the thousands of years mankind has worshiped Gods, never ever ever has there been an inkling of evidence of their existence.

How can you know for sure? What you're doing is stating a universal negative.

I hope you understand that.

 

[PingviN]

There is nothing to show God doesn't exists, either. We're basically at a cross-roads of simply choosing what we will believe, or lack belief in.

That is not true, not even a little. If we take your God, the Christian one, and we look at his holy book and then compare that to what we know is true now we'll see that a lot of the stuff that's in there isn't true.
God did not made man out of clay a couple of thousand years ago, man evolved over millions of years. We know that for as close to a fact as can be without getting trapped in the 100% certainty of a dogmatic mind.
We know that Noah didn't build an ark that held two of every animals on earth. We know that there wasn't a global flood 5000 years ago.

There are of course many more examples of things that are complete make-believe that's in this book, supposedly, containing the word of your God. If a lot of it simply isn't true we have a reason to doubt everything.

The same goes for every other religion, current or not. And with all the religions not worshiping the same god or gods, we can assume that most of them are wrong. But you can't really stop there, if every other religion is wrong, then chances are yours is too.


NOW, if you skip the ridiculous notion of a personal theistic god that created mankind out of clay and then threw him out of Paradise for eating an apple and instead argue the existence of a deistic god that created the universe and the laws that it obeys, that's a different story. Or a god that is everything. Or call the laws of the universe God.

How can you know for sure? What you're doing is stating a universal negative.

I hope you understand that.

I don't deal in absolutes, that's for religious folks. I take the evidence we have and I compare it to the dogma of religions. If they don't match, then that religion gets discarded.
If the Abrahamic religions claim man did not evolve but was created by God out of clay, then I discard that as nonsense.
If they say the Earth was flooded 5000 years ago and we can't find evidence that the Earth was flooded, then I discard it as nonsense.
Add together enough nonsense and I have no reason to believe any of the stories. Prove that the stories are true and you have a case. The Testaments are not a reliable source and does not hold up as evidence for the stories in them. Just because they are written do not make them true.

 

[alzan]

Some of the strongest evidence for the existence of God is right in this statement and the article linked.

Because we're all individuals, we tend to create many gods for ourselves. This doesn't mean one God doesn't exists -- this just shows how deeply the Creator ingrained spirituality within us.

That depends on the framework from which one interprets and comprehends the article. A theist already is predisposed to think in terms of the existence of a deity, an atheist the opposite.

Myself as an agnostic does not approach the article with a predetermined bias and sees the two hypotheses presented as evolutionarily advantageous to both the individual and to tribal and societal living. The ability to believe in a G-d or G-ds is completely and utterly separate from evidence for it's/their existence.

 

[witeken]

That depends on the framework from which one interprets and comprehends the article. A theist already is predisposed to think in terms of the existence of a deity, an atheist the opposite.

Not true.

 

[alzan]

Not true.

Semantically maybe, but:

Theism - in a broad sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists

Atheism - in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities

 

[Retro Rob]

We know that Noah didn't build an ark that held two of every animals on earth. We know that there wasn't a global flood 5000 years ago.

Actually, the ark was 437 feet long, 44 feet high, and Noah had about 50 years to do it. You can fit plenty of things on it. So you don't "know" he didn't; you likely don't like that it did happen because it doesn't jibe with evolutionary orthodoxy.

Secondly, why were whale skeletons found on the top of the Andes? According to one theory, the mountain rose and carried carcasses from the waters and they stayed on the mountain. It's plausible, but it's also plausible they were deposited up there by a flood. It's also very plausible that the weight from the flood waters excreted extreme pressure on the land to give rise to the mountains.

Really, this boils down to explaining things in light of modern thinking, and not what could actually be true. The Flood is unfashionable. You're simply going with the times.

NOW, if you skip the ridiculous notion of a personal theistic god that created mankind out of clay and then threw him out of Paradise for eating an apple

Where does it say they are an apple? Secondly, it's because of disobedience, not the eating of an unspecified fruit.

You don't even understand the basics, yet you're willing to dismiss it?

I don't deal in absolutes..

Did you not say that there has never been any evidence of Gods existence? That's an absolute claim, so you are dealing in absolutes.

If they say the Earth was flooded 5000 years ago and we can't find evidence that the Earth was flooded, then I discard it as nonsense.

The earth is still flooded, to the tune of 70 percent. The waters are still here.

This has been interesting, as I am now looking into more confirming flood evidence.

Thanks!

 

[PingviN]

Actually, the ark was 437 feet long, 44 feet high, and Noah had about 50 years to do it. You can fit plenty of things on it. So you don't "know" he didn't; you likely don't like that it did happen because it doesn't jibe with evolutionary orthodoxy.

Do you have any idea how many different species we have on Earth? Where did he store all the food? All the water?

Secondly, why were whale skeletons found on the top of the Andes? According to one theory, the mountain rose and carried carcasses from the waters and they stayed on the mountain. It's plausible, but it's also plausible they were deposited up there by a flood. It's also very plausible that the weight from the flood waters excreted extreme pressure on the land to give rise to the mountains.

It's not very plausible that they were deposited there by a flood. They found oyster beds in the sediments, indicating that it was under water for some time. They also have fossils dated over a period of 10.000 years in 4 very clear levels. Not a single flood wave. Not roughly a year of flooding.

The Andes has been rising for millions of years.

Really, this boils down to explaining things in light of modern thinking, and not what could actually be true. The Flood is unfashionable. You're simply going with the times.

No, it really boils down to rationality. The Flood is irrational. The story is absurd.

Where does it say they are an apple? Secondly, it's because of disobedience, not the eating of an unspecified fruit.

Oh, I'm sorry. The fruit.

You don't even understand the basics, yet you're willing to dismiss it?

When it comes to biblical stories, yes. I also dismiss the idea of trolls despite not knowing a whole lot about what storybooks say about trolls.

Did you say that there has never been any evidence of Gods existence? That's an absolute claim, so you are dealing in absolutes.

There hasn't. That's not me dealing in absolutes. Saying that there never will be is an absolute. Saying god definitively does not exist is an absolute.

The earth is still flooded, to the tune of 70 percent. The waters are still here.

And has been for billions of years. The Earth was not flooded 5000 years ago. And by flooded I don't mean seas and lakes that has been there for eons, as I'm sure you are well aware.

This has been interesting, as I am now looking into more confirming flood evidence.

Please do, I'm sure it will be entertaining.

 

[alzan]

Where does it say they are an apple? Secondly, it's because of disobedience, not the eating of an unspecified fruit.

The earth is still flooded, to the tune of 70 percent. The waters are still here.

This has been interesting, as I am now looking into more confirming flood evidence.

Thanks!

That statement speaks to the allegorical and not literal nature of stories in the Bible; many more examples can and have been found. Thanks for your assistance.

 

[Retro Rob]

EDIT: NVM...I told myself I wouldn't argue over the reality of the Flood anymore.

Pretty sure you quoted me. Carry on, PingVin.

 

[Retro Rob]

That depends on the framework from which one interprets and comprehends the article. A theist already is predisposed to think in terms of the existence of a deity, an atheist the opposite.

This is probably the best point I've read here. What you already believe determines how you interpret the information.

If you believe that there's an evolutionary answer to things before you even investigate them, you can basically kiss objectivity goodbye. Same things with theists.

I look at "evolution did it" the same as "God did it" in the sense that we've answered the question before investigating it.

So we're left with a bunch of claims (no based on sheer facts), but predetermined biases and conclusions.

 

[alzan]

This is probably the best point I've read here. What you already believe determines how you interpret the information.

If you believe that there's an evolutionary answer to things before you even investigate them, you can basically kiss objectivity goodbye. Same things with theists.

I look at "evolution did it" the same as "God did it" in the sense that we've answered the question before investigating it.

So we're left with a bunch of claims (no based on sheer facts), but predetermined biases and conclusions.

The only trouble with that is that an evolutionary view is religion and belief neutral; some of the very scientists you like to reference from the Tyson quote are theists, yet they do their evolutionary research by dismissing (temporarily) their personal beliefs.

Then you don't understand the meaning of a scientific theory, specifically evolution.

 

[sandorski]

This is probably the best point I've read here. What you already believe determines how you interpret the information.

If you believe that there's an evolutionary answer to things before you even investigate them, you can basically kiss objectivity goodbye. Same things with theists.

I look at "evolution did it" the same as "God did it" in the sense that we've answered the question before investigating it.

So we're left with a bunch of claims (no based on sheer facts), but predetermined biases and conclusions.

We can see Evolution at work, both in the Lab and through Fossil Evidence. We don't see anything that is Evidence of Creation, nothing.

 

[Retro Rob]

That statement speaks to the allegorical and not literal nature of stories in the Bible; many more examples can and have been found. Thanks for your assistance.

Lol -- I didn't say that the fruit was a symbol of disobedience.

Much like if your mother told you to not eat her cake, the fact it was chocolate doesn't matter -- you disobeyed a clear prohibition. That doesn't mean that she gave you a symbolic rule.

Reading comprehension, much?

 

[Retro Rob]

We can see Evolution at work, both in the Lab and through Fossil Evidence. We don't see anything that is Evidence of Creation, nothing.

LOL -- apple designed and built my iPhone. That intelligence making things. We see a form of matter manipulation at work. We just take that fact and apply it to the physical universe.

No other theories needed.

 

[Retro Rob]

The only trouble with that is that an evolutionary view is religion and belief neutral; some of the very scientists you like to reference from the Tyson quote are theists, yet they do their evolutionary research by dismissing (temporarily) their personal beliefs.

Then you don't understand the meaning of a scientific theory, specifically evolution.

I don't think they arbitrarily "dismiss" their personal beliefs. When I'm at work, I don't stop believing God exists "temporarily"...my work simply has nothing to do with my religion.

My point is that you employ your personal beliefs depending upon how much your job requires them.

 

[sandorski]

LOL -- apple designed and built my iPhone. That intelligence making things. We see a form of matter manipulation at work. We just take that fact and apply it to the physical universe.

No other theories needed.

That is meaningless, anyone could do that with anything being the "Designer".

 

[alzan]

Lol -- I didn't say that the fruit was a symbol of disobedience.

Much like if your mother told you to not eat her cake, the fact it was chocolate doesn't matter -- you disobeyed a clear prohibition. That doesn't mean that she gave you a symbolic rule.

Reading comprehension, much?

Sigh... PingviN originally said:

NOW, if you skip the ridiculous notion of a personal theistic god that created mankind out of clay and then threw him out of Paradise for eating an apple

then you replied:

Where does it say they are an apple? Secondly, it's because of disobedience, not the eating of an unspecified fruit.

You don't even understand the basics, yet you're willing to dismiss it?

then I replied:

That statement speaks to the allegorical and not literal nature of stories in the Bible; many more examples can and have been found. Thanks for your assistance.

I correctly deduced that you were saying that the story of Adam & Eve getting thrown out of Paradise was about disobedience, not about "Lol -- I didn't say that the fruit was a symbol of disobedience".

Can you not even follow your own (somewhat tortured) chain of thought?

 

[alzan]

I don't think they arbitrarily "dismiss" their personal beliefs. When I'm at work, I don't stop believing God exists "temporarily"...my work simply has nothing to do with my religion.

My point is that you employ your personal beliefs depending upon how much your job requires them.

You should probably ask some of them; I have and they confirm what I said. Also, you should stay away from the researchers at the Discovery Institute or answersingenesis.org or various other creation "scientists", their answer might just be biased.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Can you not even follow your own (somewhat tortured) chain of thought?

Don't you realize who you're speaking with?

 

[PingviN]

LOL -- apple designed and built my iPhone. That intelligence making things. We see a form of matter manipulation at work. We just take that fact and apply it to the physical universe.

No other theories needed.

If the only way to create something was by design, then I'd agree. But we're not talking about that, because evolution takes place over millions of years. It's not by design, but it's not random either. You're dismissing it either because your blind faith is clouding your ability to have a rational thought or because you don't understand evolution and is unwilling to learn.

The theory of evolution through natural selection rules supreme. It has been refined over the years, but at heart it's still unchanged. That's more than 150 years of scientist agreeing it's the only theory that has any merits. It's still not perfect and it's still being worked on, but it's as close to a truth as you will get.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

LOL -- apple designed and built my iPhone. That intelligence making things. We see a form of matter manipulation at work. We just take that fact and apply it to the physical universe.

No other theories needed.

Apple did not create your iPhone. It reconfigured pre-existing matter into what you call an "iPhone." There's nothing there that didn't already exist.

Now, we should "just take that fact and apply it to the physical universe," right?

 

[Exophase]

8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

21 The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.

So there was this fruit on a tree called "knowledge of good and evil", which Adam and Eve ate from, because the serpent said it'd give them knowledge of good and evil. Then God said they can't be allowed in the garden anymore because they became like "us", knowing good and evil. A straightforward reading of the verse would certainly suggest that the fruit directly altered their nature and they were banished for that reason, instead of merely for disobeying God.

(and that they no longer lived forever because they were no longer able to eat from the tree of "life")

 

[Retro Rob]

You should probably ask some of them; I have and they confirm what I said.

I don't have to. And "some" is only more than 1, so of the millions of scientists in the world, you probably asked hardly any...comparatively.

But I'd just like to say that its really unrealistic to hold that humans completely suspend belief when they want to. A lot of what we do is personal (if we take it seriously, we take it personal), and how we interpret information depends on our personal beliefs.

For instance, a person who believes in a personal Creator God, would look at DNA as a robust instructions that shows the supreme intelligence of his Creator, who used evolution as a tool or not. OTHO, a non-believer would see this as telling him something about how we're all related with no recourse to God.

I think personal beliefs have a tremendous influence on how we interpret and present data, how we view the world, and how we live our lives. Our personal beliefs basically shape us as individuals. There is no way that gets completely suspended when doing lab work.

We're humans, not machines. I know that people like to view science as this unblemished pursuit of knowledge, clean, uncorrupted, but some recent findings show otherwise:

The 85-page report details instances in which Hauser changed data so that it would show a desired effect. It shows that he more than once rebuffed or downplayed questions and concerns from people in his laboratory about how a result was obtained.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/05/29/internal-harvard-report-shines-light-misconduct-star-psychology-researcher-marc-hauser/maSUowPqL4clXrOgj44aKP/story.html

The scientific fraud committed by Diederik Stapel, which came to light in Tilburg in early September 2011,
sent shock waves across the academic world in the Netherlands and internationally

https://www.commissielevelt.nl/

...and we all remember Piltdown Man.

Now, I am NOT saying that science is fraudulent...don't get me wrong. Peer review helps correct wrongs. But science and scientists aren't above suspicion as many people like to portray it as being. Its has it share.

 

[jackstar7]

Now, I am NOT saying that science is fraudulent...don't get me wrong. Peer review helps correct wrongs. But science and scientists aren't above suspicion as many people like to portray it as being. Its has it share.

Above suspicion? What? The whole of science is to question AND keep questioning. Nothing is able to rest because even things that may be determined to be laws of the universe may yet be found to not be. The key is questioning and testing.

No religion can withstand questioning and testing. In fact, Jesus is indignant at Thomas for needing proof, demonstrating how the judeo-christian mythology values faith and obedience over belief founded in questioning and testing.

 

[PingviN]

For instance, a person who believes in a personal Creator God, would look at DNA as a robust instructions that shows the supreme intelligence of his Creator, who used evolution as a tool or not. OTHO, a non-believer would see this as telling him something about how we're all related with no recourse to God.

The difference being that the theist inserts an unknown (God) into the equation for no rational reason and the non-theist doesn't add an unknown. They are not even remotely the same.