Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I wonder what the probability is that the universe was created?None I doubt!
Does that mean that evolution is a weak theory, or does it mean that creationists are on the attack because they are threatened? Admittedly, it is probably more the second.
Just so you know my position, I tend to believe in evolution, just doubtful about the naturalistic interpretation of it. To me the probabilities of abiogenesis, not to mention some of the transitional states of evolving species are so improbable, it makes the inclusion of divine creativity fit nicely.
Rather convenient for creationists, isn't it?
None I doubt!
To me the probabilities of abiogenesis, not to mention some of the transitional states of evolving species are so improbable, it makes the inclusion of divine creativity fit nicely.
Yet creationists have no problems coming up with the odds of evolution.
How is that logically inconsistent?
Because they want to hide the fact that it's really a question of relative probabilites, not absolute ones.
So... to re-use an analogy, the Creationist argument basically boils down to, " I think you're pretty slow - I bet that a bear could catch you. Uhh... I don't know how fast I run"
No, on the contrary. They are scientifically motivated.
Although there are maybe at the most ten biologists who reject ToE, you could not conclude that from this list, which is a list of academics in various fields who urge careful consideration of the evidence.
No it's not, and you might want to read up on your fallacies. It's the common-sense and correct idea that the burden of proof for someone asserting the existence of an entity lies with that person. Your 5-year older would be a firm believing in the FSM, had he been taken to Sunday school every week to have been indoctrinated into worshipping Him. But what of Amun, Yemaja, Ganesh and Zeus, do you believe in them, or do you have evidence to show that they do NOT exist?
The terms are not exclusive. Agnosticism means that you believe it is not possible to know whether God(s) exist(s). It sounds like you may be agnostic. Atheism means that you believe that God(s) do(es)not exist. It is possible to an atheist agnostic, meaning that you don't think it's possible to know for sure, but you believe there is no God. It is even possible to be an agnostic theist, which means you don't think we can know whether there is a God, but you believe there is.
Why ridiculous? Because God doesn't command His followers to kill people? Well, yes He does. God makes it clear that you can't kill babies? Really? Where does the Bible explain that the world "murder" means "kill babies?" What if God commands you to kill a baby, then doesn't your ethics allow, even mandate you to do so? Revelation to a Christian? According to the Bible, God stops giving revelations right around the time Christianity comes into existence. So, while the Bible doesn't have God commanding Christians to do this, nor does it have him commanding them to do anything else. It's not about my opinion of the Bible, it's about the actual Bible, the one in which God commands his followers to kill thousands of babies. So my question, which you are crudely evading is, if God commands you to kill my children, is it moral for you to do so? Do you do it?
And here I thought you followed the Bible. You think the reason that I think that many Christians think homosexuality is an abomination is my strange view?
National Association of Evangelicals.
Well I'm sorry you don't appreciate my sense of humor, but the point here is not my posting style, it's whether what I'm saying is correct or not. Apparently, since you cannot refute anything I say, you prefer to focus on my way of saying it. For example, if you believe the Bible, then you do believe that He who set the stars in the sky only ever talked to one group of people, failed to mention what is "murder" and what is permissible killing, but did in fact think to describe a very obscure wrestling rule indeed, one subject to capital punishment by the way. I mean, if your entire defense of your religion is that it makes sense, then you've got some 'splaining to do Lucy, because it sure doesn't make sense to me!
I'm not suggesting that you need to know everything or anything about God, I'm asking you to defend your assertion that your religion makes sense. After all, that's your only reason for believing it, so it should make a great deal of sense to you. It doesn't, and you retreat behind the ever-popular "God's ways are mysteries to us" defense that covers all the ways that it makes no sense at all. So, in effect, it makes sense to you that your religion doesn't make sense! Kinda nifty, that. I don't "believe in" quantum physics, I don't even understand it. I just figure those physicists probably know more about what they're talking about than I do, don't have time or ability to get a Ph.d in that subject, so take their word for it. If in ten years the physicists as a group have changed their minds completely about their understanding of subatomic particles, then I'll probably take their word for that as well.
First of all, there are many more choices than Christianity and atheism. There are thousands of religions, any one of which may make more sense than yours. Also, why shouldn't there be pain and suffering? ToE would say that creatures that can feel pain better learn how to avoid danger and injury; people without this capacity are at tremendous risk for constant injury. Finally, the fact that a story provides an explanation for something does not make it correct.
Do you ever respond to anyone's points at all? It is a basic feature of Christian theology that every baby is born evil, totally depraved as Calvin puts it, because of something their ancestor did, and must be saved through faith in Jesus Christ. I find this theology both sickening and nonsensical. Furthermore, you're not really responsible for your sins, are you? Just repent and confess faith in Jesus, and you're good to go. That's why Jeffrey Dahmer is sitting on the right hand of God right now. This is something else that you dodged earlier, probably because it makes no sense.
And other sins have no effect whatsoever on anyone, such as masturbation.
I'm not talking about effects, and haven't even brought up that silly story. I'm talking about guilt. According to your theology, you were born guilty because of something that someone allegedly did thousands of years ago. The concept is so obviously primitive and crazy, I can't understand why anyone buys it, except that our brains really haven't changed very much, and still operate quite well at this primitive and crazy level.
Actually, from the point of view of my murdered ancestors, it's pretty awful either way.
Oh no, you're right. Under your theology, you do in fact worship and obey a genocidal, jealous, petty, vindictive tyrant, who frequently does things and commands us to do things that, without His authority, would be evil, the most evil acts we can imagine. And that's just one more reason why your theology is non-sense. It's not only crazy; it's evil. That's why I spend time on the internet arguing against it; I'm tired of people slaughtering other people in the name of God.
Exactly. So let's stop assuming that, so we don't have people doing immoral things and calling it God.
Well, you seem to be having trouble keeping up with this one. Maybe later.
And I'm happy you enjoy making things up and jumping to conclusions. Because I have opinions doesn't mean they are based on faith or intuition. If you want me to explain my reasoning behind this opinion, and I'm sure by now you would guess that I have one, it would require another thread for that.
Please try to think, Nick. That's my point. They have just as good a reason for their faith and their actions as you do. In fact, their reasons are the same as yours. We've already established over and over that you have no way, no way at all, to tell which Gods are authentic and which commands are authentic. You believe yours because you were born here and brought up Christian, had a Christian grandmother and your "intuition" (a combination of cultural upbringing and evolutionary psychology) accepts it. He believes his for the same reasons, just fill in "Muslim" for "Christian." His God, like yours, is a violent tyrant who rewards His followers for killing non-believers. You have no basis whatsoever to tell him he's wrong. Doesn't that trouble you? In fact, you agree with him that if God commands it; it's right. Right? Your only disagreement with him is the name of God. But I doubt that you've even studied his religion enough to know whether it makes more or less sense than yours--am I right?
O.K., from your point of view as a believer, I guess your God is even more evil than I have portrayed. From my point of view as a non-believer, there's a big difference. The one is natural and fairly unavoidable. The other is man-made and very avoidable. I oppose belief in Gods that contribute to genocide, because I think it's wrong.
All the Christians I ask are not pacifists, and do believe the Bible prohibits only murder, and not all killing. Otherwise all the genocide in the OT would be prohibited, which would be odd since it is also commanded. That would make the whole thing self-contradictory, which I believe is about the opposite of making sense.
Because they don't have enough knowledge to be responsible for their actions. I think the very idea that a newborn baby is evil is disgusting, as well as non-sensical. That may be because I'm not Christian.
Because it was a pointed and relevant question. Right, I understand why, in your myth system, Jeffrey Dahmer now sits on the right hand of God, (assuming his repentance and acceptance of Jesus was sincere) and Gandhi and Jefferson are burning in eternal torment. And I understand why you would not want to comment on this situation, because its injustice is so obvious.
Right. Please explain how, if in the privacy of your own room, you masturbate, that hurts someone else. I'm looking forward to it.
Non-responsive non sequitor. No, it's because substitutive guilt and atonement make no sense to me. They're vestigial primitive notions that I find have no relevance to an effective morality.
Oh well then, since the last genocidal episode was a few hundred years ago, that doesn't really count then, does it. So we won't consider the pogroms just a century ago, after all, those were only Jews, so who cares? And actually, it does. That's my point. In your Bible, your Lord and Savior, in the person of the Father, commands it repeatedly. Please review the thread, as I do not want to dig up the many passages again. You may enjoy reading Jesus' words about love better than His Father's words about killing, but they all form part of your holy book.
No. I do not consider the fact that you have not yet succeeded in your ongoing efforts to exterminate us to be a miracle.