Adam & Eve And Evolution

[rusra02]

Rusra, it doesn't matter whether we are good or bad. We all die. Belief in a deity will not confer immortality on us, but perhaps the belief helps some of us to cope better with the frustrations and obstacles that life all too often imposes on us. Those who made up and disseminated religious beliefs in ancient times found religion useful as a coping mechanism, and a great many still do in modern times, despite all the reasons to discard such ancient belief systems as hopelessly ill-informed.

You believe that, I do not. So be it.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Rusra, it doesn't matter whether we are good or bad. We all die. Belief in a deity will not confer immortality on us, but perhaps the belief helps some of us to cope better with the frustrations and obstacles that life all too often imposes on us. Those who made up and disseminated religious beliefs in ancient times found religion useful as a coping mechanism, and a great many still do in modern times, despite all the reasons to discard such ancient belief systems as hopelessly ill-informed.

If we could stop sinning we would not die.
'death' is the price or wages that sin pays. [Romans 6 vs 23,7]
Adam was never offered immortality.
Adam was offered everlasting life IF obedient.
The immortal are death proof. [can not die]
Mortal Adam died because he sinned.
We inherited Adam's imperfection of leaning towards a sinful nature.

Christians do Not believe Jesus was hopelessly ill-informed.
We can not resurrect oneself or another. We need someone to do that for us.
Jesus showed he can. Can and he will.
Yes, resurrection is a coping mechanism, or as 1st Cor. [15 v 14] brings out that without the resurrection our faith is in vain.

What many reasons are there for discarding the resurrection ?

 

[Copernicus]

What many reasons are there for discarding the resurrection ?

1. Mental activity depends on a physically functional brain. Brain death is permanent for everyone.
2. The stories of miracles in the New Testament almost certainly never happened. There is no archeological evidence to support them, and they are little different from religious fables and myths from other religions that believers reject.
3. Original sin, which depends on inheritable guilt, makes no sense. We no longer blame people for the behavior of their ancestors, yet the Bible promotes such nonsense.
4. The resurrection--basically a tale of human sacrifice--makes no sense. Why would the torture-death of a god-man lead God to forgive anyone for their sins? Is God simply insane?
5. Human beings have clearly worshiped many false gods in the past, and there is no reason to believe that the Christian god is more real than all the false gods.
6. Christians have faked evidence of Christ's existence for centuries--e.g. the Shroud of Turin--for centuries, so there is some reason to doubt that any of the historical tales are true. At best, one can argue that a historical person started the Jesus legend, but even that is questionable.
7. Tales of the resurrection contain inconsistent details.
8. No independent evidence (i.e. a non-Christian corroborating source) exists to support the claim that an executed Jew actually came back to life after the execution.

Those are just some of the reasons that occur to me immediately, but I am not the only one to have made such points in the past. There are many reasons to reject belief in the resurrection, not to mention many other stories surrounding the legendary Jesus.

 

[Thief]

1. Mental activity depends on a physically functional brain. Brain death is permanent for everyone.
2. The stories of miracles in the New Testament almost certainly never happened. There is no archeological evidence to support them, and they are little different from religious fables and myths from other religions that believers reject.
3. Original sin, which depends on inheritable guilt, makes no sense. We no longer blame people for the behavior of their ancestors, yet the Bible promotes such nonsense.
4. The resurrection--basically a tale of human sacrifice--makes no sense. Why would the torture-death of a god-man lead God to forgive anyone for their sins? Is God simply insane?
5. Human beings have clearly worshiped many false gods in the past, and there is no reason to believe that the Christian god is more real than all the false gods.
6. Christians have faked evidence of Christ's existence for centuries--e.g. the Shroud of Turin--for centuries, so there is some reason to doubt that any of the historical tales are true. At best, one can argue that a historical person started the Jesus legend, but even that is questionable.
7. Tales of the resurrection contain inconsistent details.
8. No independent evidence (i.e. a non-Christian corroborating source) exists to support the claim that an executed Jew actually came back to life after the execution.

Those are just some of the reasons that occur to me immediately, but I am not the only one to have made such points in the past. There are many reasons to reject belief in the resurrection, not to mention many other stories surrounding the legendary Jesus.

This would include a lack of belief in afterlife?

If Someone of His ability should fail to 'live on'....
then the rest of us don't stand a chance.

 

[paarsurrey]

This is mostly an educational thread, which is why i didn't put it in the Evolution Vs. Creationism forum. Basically i'm pretty ignorant regarding evolution, but understand some very little basic ideas, and generally accept it, based on that limited understanding (as i have no reason or ground based upon which i would choose to not accept it, or treat it any differently).

My question here is regarding the idea which i've seen proposed as a fact in many threads, regarding evolution negating the possibility for the Adam and Eve story. The reason i'm wording it that way ("proposed as a fact") is that i haven't actually yet read or seen the basis or justification behind it. So what i'm trying to know here, is the basis for that statement, whether or not its really a fact, and whether or not any aspect of the issue is debatable. Feel free to post relevant links, explain in your own words or a combination of both. The one thing i would ask to put in mind is what i said above, that i'm pretty ignorant about the issue, so i guess put that in mind please while explaining or sharing links.

Finally, please also take care that i'm not addressing the story from one particular theology, but as a general idea (since it varies a little bit between the religious scriptures that contain the story). I'm also not addressing it based on simplistic ideas such as god 'just putting them here on earth' or things along those lines. I'm essentially asking what is the other supposed scenario that negates the one where its two people in the beginning. IOW, i'm not trying to see whether or not the literal understanding of a certain scripture can work, as much as i'm curious about the alternate scenario, and in what way it supposedly negates one along the lines of Adam and Eve.

Thanks in advance.

Adam – first man with whom the Creator God conversed directly; not the first man born ever

We Ahmadi peaceful Muslims don’t think that Adam was the first man created; rather he was the first person with whom the Creator God conversed directly.
Man evolved in millions/billions of years in many tribes and perhaps in different parts of the world until man was thought by God Allah YHWH to be responsible enough/mature enough to receive Word of Revelation from Him and man was named Adam by Him. In a way man’s previous stage was of innocence until he was born into the new era of responsibilities.
I hear a child travels into all the physical forms/stages he has come through, in the womb of its mother. The film ‘evolution’ moves rapidly in the darkness of the mother’s womb; when it finishes the child is born into the light of the ‘Modern Era’ whichever it is.
I would like to share with my friends here some verses from Quran in this connection:
The Holy Quran: Chapter 76: Al-Dahr
[76:1] In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[76:2] There has, certainly, come upon man a period of time when he was not a thing worth mentioning.
[76:3] We have created man from a mingled sperm-drop that We might try him; so We made him hearing, seeing.
[76:4] We have shown him the way, whether he be grateful or ungrateful.
http://www3.alislam.org/showChapter.jsp?ch=76


I think it helps

 

[Copernicus]

This would include a lack of belief in afterlife?

If Someone of His ability should fail to 'live on'....
then the rest of us don't stand a chance.

Yes, Thief, the rest of us don't stand a chance of living beyond our natural lives. Belief in immortality may be a pleasant delusion, but it is still a delusion. As long as you don't believe that the quality of your afterlife depends on harming other people--as, say, religious terrorists do--then it is probably a harmless delusion.

 

[Thief]

Yes, Thief, the rest of us don't stand a chance of living beyond our natural lives. Belief in immortality may be a pleasant delusion, but it is still a delusion. As long as you don't believe that the quality of your afterlife depends on harming other people--as, say, religious terrorists do--then it is probably a harmless delusion.

Life after death is a serious possibility.

6billion copies of a learning device and all fail to survive dying?
Not a chance of an after life?
No point then to Man on earth.....is there?

 

[Looncall]

Life after death is a serious possibility.

6billion copies of a learning device and all fail to survive dying?
Not a chance of an after life?
No point then to Man on earth.....is there?

non-sequitur!

 

[Copernicus]

Life after death is a serious possibility.

It is a possibility, but not a serious one. For that, you need evidence. Seen any ghosts lately?

6billion copies of a learning device and all fail to survive dying?
Not a chance of an after life?
No point then to Man on earth.....is there?

All life forms die. We are no exception. The point of our existence is what we make it. I would say that there is no point in devoting your one and only life to the worship of a false god. That's a lot of wasted heartbeats.

 

[Thief]

It is a possibility, but not a serious one. For that, you need evidence. Seen any ghosts lately?


All life forms die. We are no exception. The point of our existence is what we make it. I would say that there is no point in devoting your one and only life to the worship of a false god. That's a lot of wasted heartbeats.

So...as an atheist...you make denial of life after death.
And the possibility of surviving your death....won't work for you?

And you would count yourself out for...'lack of evidence'?
All the while knowing faith needs no proving.

The only thing holding you back (it appears), is having to believe in Someone greater than yourself.

Oh...but there's that 'evidence problem'.

 

[Copernicus]

So...as an atheist...you make denial of life after death.
And the possibility of surviving your death....won't work for you?

Look, a billion dollars right now would work for me just fine. I don't happen to have a billion dollars, so convincing myself that I do--having faith that I am mega-wealthy--is nothing short of delusional.

And you would count yourself out for...'lack of evidence'?
All the while knowing faith needs no proving.

Why would you assume that faith needs no proving? I certainly don't.

The only thing holding you back (it appears), is having to believe in Someone greater than yourself.

I've explained to you what is holding me back--evidence that all mental function ceases with brain death. You can deny the evidence all you want, but it is staring you in the face. Your continued existence depends on the healthy functioning of your brain. Irrational belief in a deity will not make the evidence go away. There is a reason why people who suffer severe brain trauma lose consciousness. The brain is what generates consciousness.

Oh...but there's that 'evidence problem'.

Indeed there is--for those of us who are unable to deny it. Religious faith is an antidote to reality. It gives you the ability to blithely deny reality.

 

[Thief]

Look, a billion dollars right now would work for me just fine. I don't happen to have a billion dollars, so convincing myself that I do--having faith that I am mega-wealthy--is nothing short of delusional.

I'm not discussing physical wealth...a poor comparison.

Why would you assume that faith needs no proving? I certainly don't.

Please see Webster's.

I've explained to you what is holding me back--evidence that all mental function ceases with brain death. You can deny the evidence all you want, but it is staring you in the face. Your continued existence depends on the healthy functioning of your brain. Irrational belief in a deity will not make the evidence go away. There is a reason why people who suffer severe brain trauma lose consciousness. The brain is what generates consciousness.

Indeed there is--for those of us who are unable to deny it. Religious faith is an antidote to reality. It gives you the ability to blithely deny reality.

I've been blind seven days....I did not stop 'seeing'.
I've known my arms to be numb and unresponsive....I did not stop 'feeling'.

I think you are confusing your connection to this world with your spiritual self.

Think of your brain (you brought it up) as that point of connection to this world.
That connection will fail.....it doesn't mean your spirit fails also.

Death of the body is not death of the spirit.

And if you check that Webster's...you'll see your constant call for evidence is without merit.

 

[Copernicus]

Look, a billion dollars right now would work for me just fine. I don't happen to have a billion dollars, so convincing myself that I do--having faith that I am mega-wealthy--is nothing short of delusional.

I'm not discussing physical wealth...a poor comparison.

No, faith in one's personal wealth is a perfectly good comparison to faith in the afterlife. I could have an irrational belief that I was a billionaire. As long as I didn't try to spend the money, it would probably improve my outlook on life--give me "hope", as you might put it. If I were to become accustomed to such a delusional belief, the idea that I didn't have all that money could be personally devastating. If I didn't have such a belief, then learning that I wasn't really a billionaire would not be devastating to me. I understand where you are coming from.

Why would you assume that faith needs no proving? I certainly don't.

Please see Webster's.

You can define faith as belief in the absence of proof, but that does not mean that it needs no proving. For example, belief that I am a billionaire without some good reason to validate the belief is potentially harmful.

I've been blind seven days....I did not stop 'seeing'.
I've known my arms to be numb and unresponsive....I did not stop 'feeling'.

If you are speaking metaphorically, I understand what you are trying to say. You are changing the meaning of "see" and "feel". If you are speaking literally, then you are just contradicting yourself.

I think you are confusing your connection to this world with your spiritual self.

No, I am equating spirit with mind, and I am saying that minds depend on physical, functioning brains for their existence.

Think of your brain (you brought it up) as that point of connection to this world.
That connection will fail.....it doesn't mean your spirit fails also.

On the contrary, all evidence of the tight connection between brain and mental function suggests that consciousness, self-identity, and thought fail when the brain is damaged beyond repair. We can see the effects of brain damage while people still live, and we can correlate loss of specific mental functions with specific structures in the brain. That is very strong evidence that minds depend on brain function for their existence.

Death of the body is not death of the spirit.

There is every reason to believe that it is, however much you might wish not to believe it.

And if you check that Webster's...you'll see your constant call for evidence is without merit.

You misunderstand the function of a dictionary. It helps you to understand how words are used. It does not endorse the ideas or beliefs that people have when they use words.

 

[Thief]

No, faith in one's personal wealth is a perfectly good comparison to faith in the afterlife. I could have an irrational belief that I was a billionaire. As long as I didn't try to spend the money, it would probably improve my outlook on life--give me "hope", as you might put it. If I were to become accustomed to such a delusional belief, the idea that I didn't have all that money could be personally devastating. If I didn't have such a belief, then learning that I wasn't really a billionaire would not be devastating to me. I understand where you are coming from.

You create a delusional situation and impose that on faith.


You can define faith as belief in the absence of proof, but that does not mean that it needs no proving. For example, belief that I am a billionaire without some good reason to validate the belief is potentially harmful.

There you go again!

If you are speaking metaphorically, I understand what you are trying to say. You are changing the meaning of "see" and "feel". If you are speaking literally, then you are just contradicting yourself.

Not at all....I understand the difference.

No, I am equating spirit with mind, and I am saying that minds depend on physical, functioning brains for their existence.

Nay...the body allows interaction with this world.
The spirit is not dependent upon it.

On the contrary, all evidence of the tight connection between brain and mental function suggests that consciousness, self-identity, and thought fail when the brain is damaged beyond repair. We can see the effects of brain damage while people still live, and we can correlate loss of specific mental functions with specific structures in the brain. That is very strong evidence that minds depend on brain function for their existence.

Brain damage is evidence of damage. Not evidence there is not after life.

You misunderstand the function of a dictionary. It helps you to understand how words are used. It does not endorse the ideas or beliefs that people have when they use words.

I'm sorry...your last line really goes too far.
See Webster's....see 'faith'...sit and think about it.

 

[Copernicus]

If you are speaking metaphorically, I understand what you are trying to say. You are changing the meaning of "see" and "feel". If you are speaking literally, then you are just contradicting yourself.

Not at all....I understand the difference.

OK, so which is it? Are you changing the meaning of "see" and "feel" or just contradicting yourself?

Nay...the body allows interaction with this world.
The spirit is not dependent upon it.

Then the spirit cannot interact with the body, which is of this world.

Brain damage is evidence of damage. Not evidence there is not after life.

Brain damage is evidence of damage to mental function that would be necessary to an afterlife.

You misunderstand the function of a dictionary. It helps you to understand how words are used. It does not endorse the ideas or beliefs that people have when they use words.

I'm sorry...your last line really goes too far.
You have lost your mind.
See Webster's....see 'faith'...sit and think about it.

I'm afraid that you are the one who misunderstands. Dictionaries only define what words like 'faith' mean. They do not tell us that it is correct or incorrect to have faith. It is possible to know what faith is without believing that faith is justified. For example, having a delusion that I am wealthy does not mean that my faith requires no proof.

 

[Thief]

OK, so which is it? Are you changing the meaning of "see" and "feel" or just contradicting yourself?


Then the spirit cannot interact with the body, which is of this world.


Brain damage is evidence of damage to mental function that would be necessary to an afterlife.



I'm afraid that you are the one who misunderstands. Dictionaries only define what words like 'faith' mean. They do not tell us that it is correct or incorrect to have faith. It is possible to know what faith is without believing that faith is justified. For example, having a delusion that I am wealthy does not mean that my faith requires no proof.

You keep falling back to that poor analogy of money.
Apparently you do not understand.

Faith can be founded upon reason.
I don't use dogma.
Note my banner and signature.

Faith without 'proof'....yeah.
I have faith for cause and reason....yeah.

That you keep harping with a money metaphor shows clearly....
you don't get it.

 

[Copernicus]

You keep falling back to that poor analogy of money. Apparently you do not understand.

I keep returning to the analogy, because it is completely appropriate, and you have given me no reason to think it inappropriate. Unfounded belief that you are extremely wealthy is like unfounded belief that you are going to survive the death of your brain. In both cases, people can point you to evidence that the belief is unfounded, and in both cases you can ignore the evidence that is staring you in the face. Show me that you have some good reason to believe that minds can survive death. Then I will agree with you that the analogy is inappropriate.

Faith can be founded upon reason. I don't use dogma. Note my banner and signature.

Your banner signature does not suggest that you base your religious faith on freedom or avoid dogma. Anyone can put anything they want in their banner signature.

Faith without 'proof'....yeah. I have faith for cause and reason....yeah.

If you feel that you have cause and reason to back your faith, then please provide it. I have not seen you do that yet.

That you keep harping with a money metaphor shows clearly.... you don't get it.

The fact that you keep rejecting the metaphor without any attempt to show the relevant dissimilarities shows that you don't get it. It seems clear that I can present you with all kinds of evidence that minds depend on brains for their existence, and your response will simply be to deny it without giving any reasoned refutation. That is dogmatic behavior.

 

[Thief]

I keep returning to the analogy, because it is completely appropriate, and you have given me no reason to think it inappropriate. Unfounded belief that you are extremely wealthy is like unfounded belief that you are going to survive the death of your brain. In both cases, people can point you to evidence that the belief is unfounded, and in both cases you can ignore the evidence that is staring you in the face. Show me that you have some good reason to believe that minds can survive death. Then I will agree with you that the analogy is inappropriate.


Your banner signature does not suggest that you base your religious faith on freedom or avoid dogma. Anyone can put anything they want in their banner signature.


If you feel that you have cause and reason to back your faith, then please provide it. I have not seen you do that yet.


The fact that you keep rejecting the metaphor without any attempt to show the relevant dissimilarities shows that you don't get it. It seems clear that I can present you with all kinds of evidence that minds depend on brains for their existence, and your response will simply be to deny it without giving any reasoned refutation. That is dogmatic behavior.

Comparing the delusion of monetary wealth to spiritual beliefs.......
and you think this works?!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And we've had so many discussion of belief in this forum.
You know by now, how it works.

I have a thread by that title...'how it works'....check it out.

Back to topic now?

 

[paarsurrey]

I agree that truthful religion or faith is not blind; it is reasonable to have faith than doubt.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I agree that truthful religion or faith is not blind

Nonsense...!

Adherents to Judaism have faith their religion is truthful.

Adherents to Islam have faith their religion is truthful

Adherents to Christianity have faith their religion is truthful...

Yet each of these religions are strikingly different and professing different messages.

it is reasonable to have faith than doubt.

Nonsense...!

I'm so glad you're not a scientist.

Personally you should trust nothing and question everything.