Homosexuality and Evolution: God's Will and Human Belief

[james bond]

Untestable.


Never observed in spite of repeated attempts.


First phrase untestable. Second phrase too vague to test.


Untestable.


Untestable.


Contradicted by the evidence.


Tested and shown to be false (assuming a deity exists).



Untestable.


Not a valid test.


Not under controlled circumstances.

Well, since you're a SM going off topic, here's an atheist scientist with his rebuttal.

The God issue: God is a testable hypothesis

Some of which is explained here if one does not have a subscription.

New Scientist Discards Religion, Demands God Prove Himself

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understood, but apparently you did not. Testable does not mean an actual experiment is required, but a method describing how a test or experiment can be done which I provided with a light switch and light in a Faraday cage. We have cases where people, both believers and non-believers, were clinically dead and then came back to life and reported back.

I can easily laugh at Lucy, The Piltdown Man, tiktaalik, birds from dinosaurs tests done from fossils.

Again, this is my final answer to you, SZ, since it's off topic.

I know what testable is. Your model fails.

When you laugh at Lucy you only show your ignorance. When you laugh at Piltdown Man then by your standards Christianity is false. Thinking clearly and logically would make your errors obvious to you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, since you're a SM going off topic, here's an atheist scientist with his rebuttal.

The God issue: God is a testable hypothesis

Some of which is explained here if one does not have a subscription.

New Scientist Discards Religion, Demands God Prove Himself

Some gods are testable. For example a self contradicting god cannot exist. That means that the "God of the Bible" is you take the Bible literally does not exist since the book is loaded with contradictions. One cannot disprove a general "God". Christians often have a hard time understanding this since they tend to think that their God is the only possible God.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, since you're a SM going off topic, here's an atheist scientist with his rebuttal.

The God issue: God is a testable hypothesis

Some of which is explained here if one does not have a subscription.

New Scientist Discards Religion, Demands God Prove Himself

I could only read the second one. What you have is a few people who point out that certain concepts of God are testable (and falsified) because they produce observable results or are self-contradictory.

Because of the evidence, the only resort for God-belief is of a deity that cannot be tested. All others have already been excluded because evidence that *should* exist does not.

 

[BilliardsBall]

If you are a skeptic, you would be forced to admit you have only subjective worth NOW. One of the great arguments against atheism, besides its irrationality and special (omniscient) knowledge, is that the atheist's glass is ALWAYS half full:

Atheist: Why is there so much suffering in this world?

Christian: Why did the Christ suffer to take me from this world to a better one?

How is atheism irrational? Are you sure you are not projecting your irrational beliefs upon others? And your two questions are not comparable. The atheist does not ask that question. But if he did that would be a rational question. The Christian question is not. It has a false assumption built within it. It could be phrased better and then you might have an interesting question. The question is do you see the flaw in your second question?

Yes, I'm sure. It's irrational to affirm X doesn't possibly exist when one lacks omniscience AND belief in a god is MORE than reasonable. It's irrational of you.

The atheist does not ask, "Why is there so much suffering in this world?" when positing a benevolent god? Are you joking?!

There is no flaw in my second question if you know the purpose of a gedanken.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Sorry, but when you bring eugenics into the discussion you bring racism into the discussion. Eugenics is not based upon the theory of evolution, it is based upon racism and it tries to abuse the theory of evolution to support their racism. Second abortion has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. And the neither the theory of evolution nor the fact of evolution says that homosexuals are "wrong". Where did you get that idea from?

By the way, I would hope that you know the difference between the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution. Evolution has been proven far beyond a reasonable doubt to be a fact. That you are the product of evolution is undeniable for a rational person. Just as the theory of gravity explains the fact of gravity, the theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution. The rather lose use of terminology indicates that you may not understand this.

I agree evolution is proven truth, the problem is mindless, mechanistic, non-theistic evolution, used as an underpinning for racism, eugenics, abortion and voting for either Clinton.

I got the "idea" that you think homosexuals are "wrong" or "off" because you subscribe to the understanding that mindless processes dictated that persons made in God's image are rather animals meant to die without propagating. And just because you may hold a double standard of "homosexuals are great, but they are destined to die out as genetic purges complete" doesn't excuse the fact that you would of necessity agree with Hitler that lesser races are meant for destruction.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Here's what you posted:

Social Darwinism is a racist interpretation of the primitive biology of Darwin. Darwin was undeniably a huge racist, just like most 19th century EuroChristian people were.
Tom

Nice try, but RACE isn't a biblical concept or word but straight from Darwinists of yesterday and TODAY. SHAME!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Worth is something that people assign. If there were no people, it would be a meaningless word.


I'm not sure what knowledge you think is so special. I look at the available evidence and determine what I am convinced by. It is a completely rational activity.



Well, this begs the question of *whether* Christ did so and whether he was effective in this.

I see atheism and the acknowledgement that the universe doesn't give two pence for human suffering as being realistic. It means we have to take care of human suffering ourselves because *we* think it is important. We don't get to imagine some utopian future. We have to work to do what is required.

The special knowledge is your infinite, omniscient knowledge that nowhere in time space has any outside higher being affected the creatures of Earth. Neil deGrasse Tyson understands the possibilities, but you don't?

If we, not Jesus on the cross, have to work to build a utopia, why do we constantly fail to build it? Our moral failings, which necessitate the cross of Christ.

 

[columbus]

Nice try, but RACE isn't a biblical concept or word but straight from Darwinists of yesterday and TODAY. SHAME!

Nonsense.
Darwin didn't invent the concept of race or racism. And it's the scientific folks who followed him who demonstrated how superficial the concept of race really is.
Christianity teaches about God's Chosen People and such. Science is where "We're all God's children" comes from.
Tom

 

[BilliardsBall]

Here's the biggest difference between the atheist and the Christian.
The suffering clearly exists. Lots of empirical evidence. People who care about that try to alleviate it, using scientific methods to figure out how to do so. As a result, we have modern medicine and such. And modern ethics, generally known as "secular humanism".

Christians tend to get stuck in the primitive science and ethics of 2000+ years ago. Because they base their beliefs on what humans tell them to believe, rather than what Reality shows them right now in the real world.
So you base your beliefs on what people tell you to believe about the Bible and Muslim UK bases his on the equally human authorities telling him about the Quran, etc. etc. While secular scientists go on actually finding ways to alleviate the suffering.
Tom

You may be confusing temporary aids to the human condition with permanent ones.

 

[columbus]

You may be confusing temporary aids to the human condition with permanent ones.

I am not, however, confusing demonstrable aids with theoretical abstract imagining, that most people don't get or believe exist.
Tom

 

[SkepticThinker]

Wrong again.

Anyway, this will be it from me as we're getting off topic again.

I think this was from the deceased atheist scientist Victor Stenger files:

The Scientific God Model
1. God is the creator and preserver of the universe.

1. God is the architect of the structure of universe and the author of the laws of nature.

3. God steps in whenever he wishes to change the course of events, which may include violating his own laws as, for example, in response to human entreaties.

4. God is the creator and preserver of life and humanity, where human beings are special in relation to other life forms.

5. God has endowed humans with immaterial, eternal souls that exist independent of their bodies and carry the essence of a person's character and selfhood.

6. God is the source of morality and other human values such as freedom, justice, and democracy.

7. God has revealed truths in scriptures and by communicating directly to select individuals throughout history.

8. God does not deliberately hide from any human being who is open to finding evidence for his presence.


Note that the "3O" attributes�omniscience, omnibenevolence, and omnipotence�are not in general assumed.

5. One of the tests is to die, but the person who dies has to be able to report back from wherever they are. Maybe we have a light and switch inside a Faraday cage in a locked and secret place and the person has to turn on the light to signal yes or no.

7. This has been done.

Can you explain how any of this is actually testable?

Can you demonstrate that some god exists? And can you demonstrate that it's the specific God you believe in?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I understood, but apparently you did not. Testable does not mean an actual experiment is required, but a method describing how a test or experiment can be done which I provided with a light switch and light in a Faraday cage. We have cases where people, both believers and non-believers, were clinically dead and then came back to life and reported back.

I can easily laugh at Lucy, The Piltdown Man, tiktaalik, birds from dinosaurs tests done from fossils.

Again, this is my final answer to you, SZ, since it's off topic.

What's funny about Lucy?

 

[Darkstorn]

Yes, I'm sure. It's irrational to affirm X doesn't possibly exist when one lacks omniscience AND belief in a god is MORE than reasonable. It's irrational of you.

No offence but that doesn't sound very rational. Almost makes it seem like you don't understand what "irrational" means.

I notice you also used the Hitler card in a hilarious context for the sake of whatever point you're trying to make. Bravo, 8/10 I laughed.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Wrong again.

Anyway, this will be it from me as we're getting off topic again.

I think this was from the deceased atheist scientist Victor Stenger files:

The Scientific God Model
1. God is the creator and preserver of the universe.

1. God is the architect of the structure of universe and the author of the laws of nature.

3. God steps in whenever he wishes to change the course of events, which may include violating his own laws as, for example, in response to human entreaties.

4. God is the creator and preserver of life and humanity, where human beings are special in relation to other life forms.

5. God has endowed humans with immaterial, eternal souls that exist independent of their bodies and carry the essence of a person's character and selfhood.

6. God is the source of morality and other human values such as freedom, justice, and democracy.

7. God has revealed truths in scriptures and by communicating directly to select individuals throughout history.

8. God does not deliberately hide from any human being who is open to finding evidence for his presence.


Note that the "3O" attributes�omniscience, omnibenevolence, and omnipotence�are not in general assumed.

5. One of the tests is to die, but the person who dies has to be able to report back from wherever they are. Maybe we have a light and switch inside a Faraday cage in a locked and secret place and the person has to turn on the light to signal yes or no.

7. This has been done.

I think the existence of natural laws falsifies your claim #3. If your claim were accurate, we would have chaos, rather than the predictable, natural laws that we see. If God just intervenes and changes things whenever "he" wants, then we could just expect anything to happen at any given moment. Maybe the sun won't come up tomorrow, or maybe gravity will be suspended for 10 minutes this afternoon while God is working on something. But we don't see anything like that.

 

[columbus]

I think the existence of natural laws falsifies your claim #3. If your claim were accurate, we would have chaos, rather than the predictable, natural laws that we see. If God just intervenes and changes things whenever "he" wants, then we could just expect anything to happen at any given moment. Maybe the sun won't come up tomorrow, or maybe gravity will be suspended for 10 minutes this afternoon while God is working on something. But we don't see anything like that.

This is something I can't often get religionists to discuss.

Many of the claims that they make are unevidenced. There's no evidence either way. But if the claims are true, there's evidence that should be found. But it isn't.
From evidence for the Flood to a way to distinguish between true prophets and false prophets. But none of that exists.
Tom

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you are a skeptic, you would be forced to admit you have only subjective worth NOW. One of the great arguments against atheism, besides its irrationality and special (omniscient) knowledge, is that the atheist's glass is ALWAYS half full:

Sorry, that is a nonsensical argument against atheism. You claimed that atheism is irrational. You still have not shown that at all;

Atheist: Why is there so much suffering in this world?

Christian: Why did the Christ suffer to take me from this world to a better one?

Do you not understand how both of these questions are bogus? A person that could think rationally would see this immediately.

Yes, I'm sure. It's irrational to affirm X doesn't possibly exist when one lacks omniscience AND belief in a god is MORE than reasonable. It's irrational of you.

So you don't even know what you are arguing against. That explain your inability to reason rationally.

The atheist does not ask, "Why is there so much suffering in this world?" when positing a benevolent god? Are you joking?!

You did not have that in your first question. You changed it, showing that you now see that it was flawed. Yes, if there is a beneficial god then the suffering in the world does not make any sense. By the way, by changing your question you tacitly admitted that it was wrong.

There is no flaw in my second question if you know the purpose of a gedanken.

Yes, there is. You did not form your question that way. You made your first one into a gedanken, now you need to do the same with the second one. Once again, you admit that your question was poorly asked.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This is something I can't often get religionists to discuss.

I never seem to get a response when I bring it up either. It's disappointing.

Many of the claims that they make are unevidenced. There's no evidence either way. But if the claims are true, there's evidence that should be found. But it isn't.
From evidence for the Flood to a way to distinguish between true prophets and false prophets. But none of that exists.
Tom

Yes, exactly!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree evolution is proven truth, the problem is mindless, mechanistic, non-theistic evolution, used as an underpinning for racism, eugenics, abortion and voting for either Clinton.

Sorry, but that is only your strawman version of evolution. Evolution does not support any of those social issues. I know that you want someone to blame, but blaming it on reality is rather futile.

I got the "idea" that you think homosexuals are "wrong" or "off" because you subscribe to the understanding that mindless processes dictated that persons made in God's image are rather animals meant to die without propagating. And just because you may hold a double standard of "homosexuals are great, but they are destined to die out as genetic purges complete" doesn't excuse the fact that you would of necessity agree with Hitler that lesser races are meant for destruction.

Again you make an extremely gross error, actually more than one. You not only assume that there is a God but the God that exists is yours. And I have no double standard. One more time, practice reasoning rationally.

 

[Polymath257]

The special knowledge is your infinite, omniscient knowledge that nowhere in time space has any outside higher being affected the creatures of Earth. Neil deGrasse Tyson understands the possibilities, but you don't?

No, my finite, ordinary knowledge is that we have no evidence of such intervention nor reason to believe there was such.

If we, not Jesus on the cross, have to work to build a utopia, why do we constantly fail to build it? Our moral failings, which necessitate the cross of Christ.

We fail primarily because we don't seem to agree on what properties a utopia should have. We usually find that our imaginations don't correspond with reality. People have 'faith' in certain political ideas and are misled by that faith into creating horrors. The same happens with faith in religious ideas.