INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[1robin]

Well, if someone is going to assert that aliens built the pyramids, lizards inhabit Congress or that Atlantis is a real place, sorry, but I’m going to need some empirical evidence before I even begin to consider such things to be true.

And I say the same thing for abiogenesis, multiverses, oscillating universes, and cows becoming whales or vice versa. You can find entire web sites with evidence claim after claim for aliens and Pyramids for example that are far better but no more convincing than sciences claims for the issues above.

There’s no way I’m going on someone’s experience, philosophical arguments, moral evidence or whatever else. People used to think gods bombarded them with lightning when they disobeyed or that they had to sacrifice a human being so that the sun would come up the next day.

And we currently think killing babies buy the millions, obscuring morality to the point of uselessness, and the right to kill other ourselves and others by practicing things that transmit STDs at a very accelerated rate are moral rights today. That is not progress.

In other words, anybody can claim or believe anything they like. I need evidence. The scientific method is an excellent way to go about gathering evidence. In fact, it’s the best and most reliable method we’ve got. Logic, reason and rationality are all great things, of course, and they can go hand in hand with science.

The exact same things is needed for any claims that contradict the Bible from science and it is lacking even worse than in my examples. At least aliens building the pyramids has interesting and sophisticated reasons it is claimed though I do not buy them.

I’ve seen many shows discussing the types of examples you’ve given, and I’m sorry, but those guys may claim they have a ton of evidence, but all it really amounts to, as far as I can tell, is wishful thinking, guesswork, supposition and argument from ignorance fallacies.

I agree but it is still better than for the issues science claims against the Bible.

I once read a book by Erich von Daniken (I think) where he claimed that aliens made us and seeded earth with us and the evidence for that is … there is no evidence! Obviously the aliens would have been clever enough to remove all evidence so that we’d never know they were here!

Daniken is an idiot.

That’s your opinion. Which is why I suggested you read or watch Lawrence Krause’s, A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing.

I will watch it if you will promise me it is not an explanation for how nothing can create anything, (nothing has zero causal potential), and if you will watch a video I recommend.

Why do you think universes can’t come from nothing

That is to self-explanatory to need explanation.

but that either your god can created universes from nothing

If I have God I have the very opposite of nothing.

or that you god could have come from nothing?

My God did not come from anything or at all. I am only responsible for God as the Bible records him. I am not going to explain some other God that appeared at some point. BTW if you have something (anything) the chain of causation must end with an uncaused first cause. If it did not you would have nothing. If you need an explanation then just ask.

Are you sure I’m the one operating under a double standard here?

I do not get the question.

Sure, it’s possible that aliens built the pyramids – anything is possible. But is it likely, is the question.

Is it more likely that nothing created everything or something did? Is it more likely that non-intelligence produced intelligence or intelligence did, unconsciousness produced consciousness or consciousness did, the non-moral created morality or a moral being did, unintentional chaos produced the most complex arrangement of matter in the universe (the brain) or an intentional agent did? You are selectively going with what is more likely when it suits your world view in spite of every single observable example of any of those being on the opposite side.

If we know that it is quite possible for humans to have built the pyramids without any help from extraterrestrials (and we do) then why bother positing such a thing at all?

Well it is quite impossible nothing produced everything and chance produced extremely complex information but that is what you believe.

What separate standard are you talking about?

See the bolded sections above.

 

[Sha'irullah]

You may think I am unreasonable as I do about most atheists but I attempt to be as honest with myself and others as possible. You made a good case for that specific issue and I buy it. A faith based on rejection of fact is of no eternal use to anyone. Fortunately most of non-theists claims are not fact and most Biblical ones are or at least very likely facts.

By this rationality you are using the Bible for a fact sheet instead of natural observation. Doesn't this make you no different than the other part?
An Atheist scientist relies on nothing to come to a conclusion except his own logic and visual/understood evidence.
So is it not odd that the Bible says man came from two human beings who populated the earth? Is it not also weird that if the book of Jubilees was correct that Cain married his own sister and begot children along with the other sons and daughters of Adam and Eve? If this is true mankind would be in a constant state of degeneration. Genetically this would imply utter chaos.

 

[1robin]

First of all, I have already explained murder many, many times. And I think in the process, I’ve also shown that morality is not absolute in the sense you’re discussing, since in some cases such as in self-defense, murder can be justifiable, thus reinforcing what I said about morality being dependent on the situation, in many cases.

I do no remember any attempt to show murder wrong by you. I am sure you put some words that included murder together at some point but you have never shown that ANY instance of Murder is actually wrong without God. You may show it is not popular, not preferred, sad, or against someone’s opinion but it is impossible to show it actually wrong without the transcendent. Self-defense is not murder but that is beside the point. Prove any murder wrong. Prove that killing all life in existence for no reason is actually wrong.

Secondly, again, it is possible that reality came into existence 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age, but is it likely, in light of the evidence? Not really. And if it is indeed the case that existence was created 5 minutes ago, why is your god playing games with us?

What evidence. This is a paradox that has been studied quite a bit always winds up being assumed. The only thing absolutely knowable (maybe) is that we think. My God has nothing to do with the question and I have no problem admitting faith, it is your side who relies on it so much but will not admit it.

Thirdly, life has whatever meaning you give it.

Where do you keep this meaning you give to it. We do not have it to give. Either God gives it absolute meaning or we invent transitory and futile meaning usually founded in pleasure. We can find the lesser meaning with or without God, but God gives ultimate meaning. As usual there is only gain with the God you resist.

You don’t need a Christian god to give it meaning.

The evidence for this comes from atheists, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. who all lead what I bet they would tell you are meaningful lives.

First of all many of those have a God (in theory anyway). My point was about a God in general. Second I think you misunderstand. I am not asking what we find in life to be meaningful to us. I mean what meaning our lives actually have. Two flies that exist for 24 hours have very little meaning. Our lives are just as temporary and on a geological scale just as finite. Biological accidents with a cosmic blink of existence are infinitely less meaningful than a child of an all powerful God carrying out his purposes and who will live eternally with the impact of the deeds he has done.

Fourthly, I don’t know how anyone can get off saying that the universe is fine tuned for life, given that as far as we know, life only exists on this one tiny planet in the vastness of the universe, and even on earth there are many areas that are not habitable at all.

The things you must deny to save your worldview are astonishing. Forget life, to even have a universe of structure at all, conditions had to be balanced on a knife edge. The chances of a universe containing only one example of life are trillions of trillions of trillions etc... (literally) less probable than a universe that can't possibly support life of any kind that even those dreamers can think of. (That comes from secular science by the way). It is resistance to obvious facts like this that do more to justify my suspicions than any other.

So where’s the fine-tuning? Also, on this point I would direct you to the example of the puddle imagining that the hole it sits inside of was created for the puddle because it fits just so into that hole.

I do not get nor see the application for either of these statements.

Fifthly, the scientific method has shown us that it’s possible at least, that life could come from non-life, given the right conditions.

That is exactly what you said for aliens but in that case you rejected them but bought into this. I wonder why? I have never said that abiogenesis is impossible, only extremely unlikely, and currently unproven at any level.

If, as you say, science had utterly failed in this regard, experiments should have produced NOTHING rather than the amino acids

Amino acids were not the goal. Hence failure. I would have predicted they would have produced more than amino acids. In fact it is a virtual certainty that nature can. But eggs and butter (not that they got these either) an omelet restaurant franchise do not make.

Yes. Is it likely that this is how life could have arisen? It’s looking more and more like it.

No, it's looking exactly like it always has. Nature can make low equilibrium complexity but will fail at high levels every single time, and all experiments have shown that. They have done exactly what I would have said they would have and not done exactly what I would have said they couldn't. The difference between amino acids and life is far more extreme that producing iron and sand (which nature does) and claiming New York is a natural structure. Why do you then say, well sand and iron proves cities are natural. What in the world is it you think allows that claim?

That’s what Francis Collins does. And just like any other good scientist, only to the extent that it doesn’t interfere with their academic honesty.

First how do you know this? Do you have an equivalent statement by him that states this? If so then I do not agree that even he should be doing it either. Find me one claim that he made where he resisted any scientific truth as a scholar because of faith. Again that would be a scientific failure but I do not think the situations equal. I will think on that. The Catholic Church put dogma (false dogma) in front of science and I condemn them for it. Why could you not do the same for your side?

Evidence overtook preference.

Preference has no place in science. End of story. What if the evidence (assuming that is what won the day) was not as strong then it is very easy to see that at some point preference exceeds evidence and produces crap under the same label as it's good conclusions.

You’re making a mountain out of a mole hill, based on a small portion of a Wiki entry.

I would have dropped this weeks ago if you would have just admitted they are perfect or even said they are the exception, but no you rabidly refuse to concede the most obviously lost ground imaginable. I should have the more dogmatic position but if you look back I am the only one that has shown any ability to concede obvious facts. Preference is the arch enemy of fact and has no place in science yet still does and in some cases overcomes other legitimate concerns. That is an absolute fact, if you can concede a fact then do so and it will be dropped. I have several times and I believe my case by far the stronger. In fact my willingness to concede any obvious point is evidence that is is the stronger or at least I am more secure with my claims.

And I further submit that big bang theory isn’t automatically evidence for a Christian god, which appears to be your assumption.

I nor any human on Earth has a likely candidate other than God however what you stated is not what I claim. The Big Bang is the most consistent with God of any of the cosmological concepts that have been put forth. God may not be the cause but there are no other likely candidates outside science fiction or fantasy. That is exactly why preference reared it's head in science with this conclusion.

I was just throwing your own quote back at you.

I attempted to render that effort null but am so forgetful I can't remember if I did so effectively.

If this is your contention then why do you not have a problem with “creationist scientists” who absolutely use personal preference and bias (as many will readily admit!) in interpretation of the evidence? If you’re going to keep throwing around this double standard business, then go take a look in a mirror.

Well that backfired on you. I do condemn most creation based science. There is maybe 20% of it that is very very good and is founded on much better foundations than much of secular science, much of the other 80% is garbage and I do condemn it. I even believe I have said this very thing many times before. I do not get my information from the Hovinds of the world I get it from the Sandages, Eddingtons, Newtons, and Wilders. I wish your side was as critical of their sources.

 

[Skeptisch]

I have no use for your false evaluations and you unfortunately have forced me to put you on ignore.

You promised that before, hopefully you finally keep your word.

Originally Posted by 1robin
Dawkins said he did not have anything in his own moral system capable of declaring the worst acts in human history wrong.

Dawkins never said the above :redcard:he did however say this:
The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.:bible:

 

[1robin]

You promised that before, hopefully you finally keep your word.

It will be done with this post.

Dawkins never said the above :redcard:he did however say this:

I gues paraphrasing which exists everywhere else does not do so in athesit bizarro world.

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

:bible:

Clearly this man is a disspationed logical pursuer of truth and not preference. He will clearly stay within his bands of expertise and not use a credibility that is possibly gained in one area to sell books in another. He clearly is not biased towards faith but since he is recognized as creating the worst theological arguments in the history of western thought at times, I do not feel too threatened. Anyone that shoots from the hip this bad would be fun to debate, unfortunately the unfounded, dishonorable, and just plain wrong accusations and color commentary render it not worth the effort. I will leave you to it.

 

[1robin]

By this rationality you are using the Bible for a fact sheet instead of natural observation. Doesn't this make you no different than the other part?

I fail to see even a hint of what you get from my statement. In fact it was created to say the exact opposite. Look at it again:

You may think I am unreasonable as I do about most atheists but I attempt to be as honest with myself and others as possible. You made a good case for that specific issue and I buy it. A faith based on rejection of fact is of no eternal use to anyone. Fortunately most of non-theists claims are not fact and most Biblical ones are or at least very likely facts.

An Atheist scientist relies on nothing to come to a conclusion except his own logic and visual/understood evidence.

Which one of those produced the claims that life came from non-life when every single observation denies this and the odds against it are trillions and trillions to one? Which one produced multiverse theory, when there is not even a potentiality for even future evidence? There is just as much faith and many times more so given less evidence in science especially theoretical science than the Bible requires. How many dinosaurs were observed changing into birds? Has the speed of light been observed in all places? How many times has it been observed that the unconscious produced the conscious, the non-intentional produced rationality, the chaotic produced extreme complexity, and that the amoral produced morality? Never, faith is alive and well in science and no science ever done was devoid of some level of faith.

So is it not odd that the Bible says man came from two human beings who populated the earth?

You seem to know that the story is literal. How?

Is it not also weird that if the book of Jubilees was correct that Cain married his own sister and begot children along with the other sons and daughters of Adam and Eve?

I have never even heard of that book and that says something. I certainly do not believe it inspired and have no need to defend or condemn it. How do you know it was correct? Even if it was what is your claim against it?
[/quote]If this is true mankind would be in a constant state of degeneration. Genetically this would imply utter chaos.[/quote] It can be argued we are but I do not claim that. If the genes were pure as they would have been at the beginning then there would be little risk and if God is involved there is potentially no risk. You can't grant that God may have created the universe and simultaneously claim he could not regulate gene corruption. You make some of the most unorthodox arguments I have seen. It is kind of refreshing but not very convincing

 

[SkepticThinker]

This is silly. He looked at the most extreme case of immorality known to modern man and said he could not even declare it wrong within atheism or evolution. That is in no way a claim about minor ambiguity of moral truths. It is an abject surrender of a world view in the face of the most obvious example of moral insanity on record. Not you so much but your color commentary buddy (Skeptish) claim I am not being rational but it is these types of obfuscation in the face of the most obvious failures of atheism that are deserving of the irrationality title. Dawkins said he did not have anything in his own moral system capable of declaring the worst acts in human history wrong. In no way is that equivalent to moral are complex issue. GimME a break.

AGAIN, atheism and evolution aren't world views. Atheism isn't even a claim - it's the rejection of a claim. Evolution is merely an explanation for the diversity of life on earth. While evolution can account for certain behaviors found in the organisms inhabiting our planet, it's not a world view of any sort. Neither of them are world views. The fact that many Christians accept evolution and that atheists can be conservative, liberal, nihilistic, humanistic, and practically anything else, attest to that.

Dawkins did NOT say there is nothing in his worldview/moral system capable of declaring the worst acts in human history wrong. He simply said they're complex issues, and that our morality certainly does not come from the Bible. For further illustration on that, read the following quote:

“I don’t think I want an absolute [religiously-based] morality. I think I want a morality that is thought out, reasoned, argued, discussed, and based upon, you could almost say, intelligent design. Can we not design our society which has the sort of morality, the sort of society that we want to live in? If you actually look at the moralities that are accepted among modern people, among twenty-first century people, we don’t believe in slavery anymore, we believe in equality of women, we believe in being gentle, we believe in being kind to animals. These are all things which are entirely reasoned. They have very little basis in Biblical or Koranic scripture, they are things that have developed over historical time, through a consensus of reasoning, sober discussion, argument , legal theory, political and moral philosophy. These do not come from religion. To the extent that you can find the good bits in religious scriptures, you have to cherry pick. You search your way through the Bible and the Koran and you find the occasional verse that is an acceptable profession of morality, and say, ‘Look at that! That’s religion!’ And you leave out all the horrible bits and you say, ‘Oh, we don’t believe that anymore. We’ve grown out of it.’ Well of course we’ve grown out of religion! We’ve grown out of it because of secular, moral philosophy and rational discussion.”
-Richard Dawkins
[youtube]VgHoyTvyh4o[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgHoyTvyh4o

Not one of those OT laws was ever in effect for non-Jewish people and have not been in effect for anyone in over 2000 years (and are valid moral codes given the context God and his purposes come with). I have addressed them in the sense of fair play but I do not live under a covenant that requires anything like this and have defended practices specific to a certain culture for a certain time frame, and for specific reason long enough. My attempting to explain rules governing people who lived that long ago are only exceeded in futility by your attempts to refute a deity that only with his existence could any moral act be condemned in a meaningful way. It is an inapplicable self-defeating argument and if its the best you have then you must have one weak bench.

So? They are contained within the Bible, which you tell us contains moral dictates from god.
In pointing this out and in defending particular practices specific to particular cultures you are making Dawkins’ point for him! Therefore, morality is not absolute. And you seem to agree.
Morality can, and does, exist without your god.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I was not arguing with his claims about evolution and morality though I believe they are inaccurate as well. I was saying that he did not do anything to make Dawkin's claims any different than what I claimed. I was trying to show that within atheism there does not exist any framework that allows Dawkin's claim to be denied. You literally have nothing to condemn Hitler with beyond preference without God.

But it did. He explained where he thinks morality actually comes from and that we are actually capable of making moral decisions.

Atheism isn’t a world view. It speaks to one point about one thing only – the existence of god(s). All it does is reject that claim. There is nothing more. You are an atheist in that you reject all gods but the one you believe in. We just go one step further. You wouldn’t say your world view is based on your rejection of Hinduism, would you?

I am perfectly capable of condemning Hitler every which way. And I do.

I will not attempt to explain why teh Nazi's did all that they did , nor should you claim they were consistent. Hitler used evolution many times to support his actions. As I have said his actions were taken for greed and profit, they were justified by evolution, and attempted to be legitimized by theology. I imagine they burned books on all subjects. That does not make Hitler's nor his henchman’s statements go away.

Hitler shared Herbert Spencer’s views on social Darwinism, which had little to do with biological evolution.

Nature if used as a paradigm appears to legitimize tribal violence. If my tribes survival is the primary concern and motivation that destroying all other tribes that compete with mine for resources that do not contribute to my tribes survival should be destroyed. Keep in mind it was not used as a motivation but as a justification. The burdens are different. Racism, genocide, infanticide, killing the infirm or elderly and all manner of evil can be JUSTIFIED by evolution.

Evolution is a description of the mechanisms found in nature. It’s not a world view.

Suppose you discover that if you band together with a neighbouring tribe, you find that you have more people to accumulate the resources that you need for survival. You have more people with which you can reproduce. You realize that if you help another person, that other people are more likely to help you in return, when you need it. You discover that if you murder someone’s family, that they will come after you and murder your family. And you don’t like that too much so you decide to work together instead. Maybe later you find that if you rape people and take their stuff, that other people don’t like that too much and decide they don’t want you living among them, thus decreasing your own chances for survival, so instead you all decide that you’re not going to murder each other and take each other’s stuff. You realize that other people are just like you, and want and need the same things you do, so you develop compassion and understanding for the plight of others.

It’s pretty simple really. Why is this all so implausible, in your mind?

Racism, genocide, infanticide, killing the infirm or elderly, etc., can all be justified (and have been) by a religion that condones such things within its own holy text on the charge of absolutely authority and obedience to your god whom you judge on your own to be perfect and good. Why? Well because the book says so! Never mind that “he” commands us to do all these things in our holy book. I assert that this is NOT how human beings have come by morality.

Why is an allowance for SERVITUDE allowed in a single culture over 2000 years ago and no longer allowed for any reason, justification for your statement.

Where does the Bible say it’s not allowed?

The justification for my statement is inherent in the fact that the Bible condones such things.

As I have illustrated it was Christianity not Darwinism or atheism that ended Chattel slavery in it's most familiar form.

I already countered this, but I would add, IT WAS ABOUT TIME. After how many years of condoning and accepting it based on scripture?

Atheism nor evolution have even the potential to justify the ending of any of those evils I listed. Christianity has many and by far the best and here is a single example:

Evolution is a description of biological mechanisms. It is not a world view. Atheism is a rejection of god claims. It is not a world view. I’m going to keep repeating that until you understand it.

New International Version (©2011)
"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free,

And … ?

Can you provide a equally valid statement within atheism to challenge the practice of any of those issues, Dawkins couldn't. Who is it that is not skeptical?

Dawkins could, and did.

And I would go along with those explanations. Almost all the places where God is inserted by the Bible into reality these explanations do not work.

Okay, so why look for supernatural explanations when we don’t need them?

I got that from a show I saw a long time ago. I have since then looked up what was going on back then and the show was accurate with the exception of a few minor details. If you will except this as a fact or give me the criteria for doing so then I will consider providing the Who you ask for. Continued below:

I just want to who it is that you say was doing this including more details as to what it is that you’re talking about.

 

[Rev Hydrogen]

Hi, According to the math and physics as we now know, all the energy in the universe equals zero! IE all matter plus all antimatter equals zero.
or 1 + -1 =0
The antimatter being housed in the black holes.
a point of singularity rather, became divided into positive and negative energy. The positive unstable radiation then becoming the hydrogen precursors to matter we see today...space dust, planets, suns, life.
We know the events in detail throughout the seconds after the BB
and the 14 odd billion years after that, but even science will admit
any assumption about things before the BB is Imagination.

Psychologists would call wisdom of say torah creation events as
'illusions of knowledge'., continuing strongly today.
Where a religious/mystic group of poets and philosophers have hit upon the perfect combination of prophet and sage to establish an
"Order of Truth". Where no other proof or intervention is required
for completion (guaranteed? encounter of spirit with deity) -a common theme.

This is what happened when Copernicus tried to point out to to the theologians they were (and still are) quite wrong. He spent the rest of his life under house arrest for exposing the poets for what they were...Poets and early philosophers having an attempt with many hands in the pie
at describing a non physical world for profit and fun., and not truth knowing mystics or prophets
as purported! Bible (creation at least) truth only lasted as long as it took man to build a 20x lens. The first revolution in physics, and it should have been all over for the bible. But for the
power of Omnipotence, where a tricky God carries the worlds personal human affairs on little strings. If you can do that?, well, what more proof of power over matter do you need?

While a need exists in many to tidy up matters related to our knowledge of our upcoming death, so that for
now such an unsavory event has been attended. I'm OK! I have fused with the eternal spirit
in an unconditional contract of loyalty. This is the booty of not addressing reason.

Point is ...No creator is needed for life to form on earth in the
strict methodology of science, where the default
negative must apply in order for us to learn what is
reason and what is imagination (or higher 'self' knowledge).

And if you are going to take the word of ancient poets, that their poetry was based on
great philosophy to withstand any future challenge by metaphysicians who want to know
everything about everything and scientists alike in the physical realm.

Put simply, If you are going to go about describing god, best to describe God "as he is"
-then your poetry will last eternity.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You suggest that since science eventually corrects it's mistakes it is somehow off the hook. When I am thinking only of the civil war I say thousands or tens of thousands. When I am thinking of medicine in general it is millions.

Where are you coming up with these numbers? That’s what I want to know. Because it appears to me that you’re simply pulling them out of thin air.

What I am saying again and again, is that the scientific method is the most reliable and consistent tool we have for discovering truth and reality. It works every time. All of our great discoveries and advancements have been thanks to the scientific method. The crap gets weeded out and the evidence remains.

Can you think of a more reliable method?

The point is that is science is swallowed whole and it is wrong in these areas where it contends with faith then just like the millions it killed on the operating table it will send millions to Hell and claiming it has adjusted later on will not help either. Since we wager our souls on what is "true" people should be much more skeptical of sciences claims.

Science will send millions to hell? People should be more skeptical of science claims than faith claims? What are you talking about?

I’m not wagering my soul on anything. I want to know what is true, and I’m baffled by people who don’t.

Being in a war zone does not mean that simply washing the hands and instruments could not have been done. It was not opportunity it was knowledge alone that killed tens of thousands by non-sanitized surgery. Everything they needed was already on hand except the knowledge to use it.

Knowledge alone killed tens of thousands? What does that mean?

It appears you may be exaggerating slightly. Antiseptics and sanitation were not unknown to Civil War doctors and surgeons:
http://civilwarscholars.com/2011/10/myths-about-antiseptics-and-camp-life-george-wunderlich/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3046560
http://encyclopediavirginia.org/Medicine_in_Virginia_During_the_Civil_War#start_entry

This is getting a little ridiculous. I will illustrate my claim one last time.
1. The ancient Hebrews knew to wash before eating, medical practices, and after touching the dead etc... You say it is because of common sense and I say it was because of divine instruction. In this case it does not matter which.

What I wonder is, how and why you think it came from divine instruction, when the most obvious explanation would be that they figured it out from basic observation and learning, like the rest of us. What medical practices were they performing that could only have come from divine instruction?

Were the ancient Greeks and Romans divinely instructed by Zeus?

2. I never said nor thought nor even hinted that they were building rockets or computers and have no idea why you think that relevant.

I don’t think I said you did. But I do think that would lend a lot more credence to your argument. Perhaps if they were doing things far beyond what we would expect of Bronze Age desert dwellers, you may have a much better point.

3. I said, as an indication of just how costly and prolific scientific ignorance can be many times that the fact the still had not learned in the interim 4000 years to wash between surgeries is a good example of where science lacks of the integrity and competence it claims for its self has cost tens of thousands their lives. The same is true with souls in our time.

I see. So how is it that 19th, 20th and 21st century human beings know about germs, I ask you.

I do not think sanitation was one but even if so why wasn't it relearned in the hundreds of years since then until 1863? I will agree that Catholics to a large degree are responsible for what was lost during the dark ages.

You don’t think sanitation was one of them? That contradicts your statement right above this one.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ok then let's examine the most important questions of life.
1. What is the meaning of life? Science does not have a clue, the Bible does.
2. What is the purpose of life? Science does not have a clue, the Bible does.
3. What created the universe? Science has a few fantasies, the Bible has a comprehensive explanation?
4. What happens when we die? Science does not have a clue, the Bible does.
5. What is wrong with man? Science does not have a clue, the Bible does.
6. What is the fix for the problem? Science does not have a clue but usually insists it does and makes things worse, the Bible actually does.
7. What is morality or moral? Science does not have a clue but usually insists it does and makes things worse, the Bible actually does.

Okay, so you concede the point that science has an amazing track record? Everything we know about the earth and the universe comes from scientific investigation. Everything we know about the human body comes from scientific investigation. Everything we know about the composition of the earth, the stars, the moon, and organic matter comes from scientific investigation. Everything we know about medicine comes from scientific investigation.

1. Meaning is whatever you make it. We don’t need science for that one. And I don’t agree with the meanings described in the Bible. Both this and 2. are the interpretations of these questions by ancient desert dwellers. Maybe there is no grander meaning.
2. Same as above. I don’t see why or how our purpose is to worship an invisible god despite the fact that that may have been what the ancient Hebrews imagined. Maybe there is no grand purpose.
3. I’d love to know how the universe was created. But the Bible again is simply the result of ancient peoples simply trying to understand the world around them, just as we do. What they came up with was Yahweh. The ancient Greeks came up with Zeus and Hera, and the Muslims came up with Allah. So what exactly is the answer? Who knows.
4. As far as I can tell, when we die, we cease living and our body decomposes. Those are the only real answers we have at the moment.
5. Why is this one of the most important questions of life? Who says there is something wrong with man?
6. I think a better question would be, how do we minimize suffering?
7. Now that is a good question. The Bible’s answer is to do what you’re told. I think we decide this the way we have always, and that is the way Richard Dawkins describes it (see my last post).

None of us truly knows the answer to most of these things. But just claiming an ancient book has the answers and leaving it at that, I think, doesn’t really help us answer them. Just to start off with, whose book do we use? Why do we assume the Bible is the one with all the answers? Why should we assume that people living 4000 years ago knew all the answers to everything everybody will ever need to know?

This is not a competition but it does seem the more profound the issue the less science is applicable and the more that the Bible is.

It doesn’t seem that way to me.

I agree that science certainly has an important role but I do not care about debating science. I care about debating God, the Bible, and faith and only the science that applies (or is claimed to) is relevant to me. You may enjoy debating whether Boolean differential calculus can be used to model dynamic circuits, however I have taken Boolean algebra and even advanced calculus and could not care less. It will not get me to heaven.

Trust me, I have no interest in debating Boolean differential calculus at all!

I don’t think anything will get me into heaven because I don’t think heaven exists in the first place.

Again my claims are:
1. Science is great but as fallible as every other human endeavor. I do science every day and went to school for it. I however do not enjoy debating it as it is tedious and in this context almost meaningless. None of life’s greatest questions are even open to science.
2. There exists nothing KNOWN to science that makes the Bible any less reliable. There exists in science many things that are very unreliable and based on little or no evidence used to challenge the Bible.

1. I guess we differ on what we think life’s greatest questions are then.
2. Science isn’t done to challenge the Bible. It’s done to learn things.
I really have no idea what and why you think the Bible is so reliable about. Especially in comparison to the scientific method’s ability to reveal the truths of reality to us.

 

[1robin]

AGAIN, atheism and evolution aren't world views. Atheism isn't even a claim - it's the rejection of a claim.

Atheism in clinical definition is a far cry from what it is claimed it can actually do. Atheism is elastic and is capable of great deeds when convenient but is however devoid of any negative aspect. What a wonderful and convenient concept. The semantic properties of the word are hardly meaningful in this context. Atheism is a world view in that is contains a decision about a concept that affects the entire world and universe in every conceivable way. If I was anti-carbonist it would affect how steel was made would it not. Atheism denies the very concept that justifies true morality. Is that alone not enough to make it a world view?

Worldview def: A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/worldview
If atheism isn't a worldview there aren't any.

Atheism: The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheism
Atheism is also not the rejection of a claim alone. Classic atheism is the positive claim that God does not exist. There are flavors but that is the classic definition.

Evolution is merely an explanation for the diversity of life on earth. While evolution can account for certain behaviors found in the organisms inhabiting our planet, it's not a world view of any sort.

Lets re-examine def one:
Worldview def: A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/worldview

It is the positive claim that life changes based only on mutation and natural selection. Evolution is also quite elastic. I have seen it claimed to have constructed every moral we hold dear and to have nothing what so ever to do with morality and all points in between. It is my view that evolution (without God) or at the very least natural selection is a great contributor to behavior (or would be). I have never heard an argument against that view worthy of mention. Behavior has survival value or even more so than a biological adaptation and would be selected in the exact same way. I thought behavior (mind) was all material in your view anyway.

Neither of them are world views.

Both are but why in the world do you find it merits debate in the first place? What difference does it make?

The fact that many Christians accept evolution and that atheists can be conservative, liberal, nihilistic, humanistic, and practically anything else, attest to that.

I do not follow that. I do not have to swallow every aspect of a single view to still have a universal (world) view on issues. This is the stage of debate with the atheist I like the least. Hyper-semantics for no discernible reason.

Dawkins did NOT say there is nothing in his worldview/moral system capable of declaring the worst acts in human history wrong. He simply said they're complex issues, and that our morality certainly does not come from the Bible. For further illustration on that, read the following quote:

Did you go through all of those semanticall gymnastics to argue with a word I used in a paraphrase? Let me restate to avoid this in the future. Dawkins looked at one of if not the most universally recognized evil men in history and said whatever he uses for morals did not allow him to declare his actions wrong. Even if he was saying that (his) morality is too complex to judge Hitler is that any better? That is the kind of moral ambiguity the loss of God produces. Men who can't act or decide or when they do uncoupled from any sufficient moral justification, act in the most diabolical and evil ways imaginable and will never admit it. What more extreme and damning evidence for this is even possible that the modern secular moral ambiguity that allows Babies to be killed by the millions? Countless mothers who were persuaded it was their right to kill a baby have lifelong psychiatric conditions that reflect the objective absurdity of even thinking these acts are morally acceptable. Even when nature, common sense, stats, and the obvious cost in lives and money proves in no uncertain terms the direct failure a viewpoint is headed in the direction of. Not only is the act and many like it defended as a sacred right that does not exist but the actual God that provides the sacred right to life is called evil. Things do not get any more wrong.

“I don’t think I want an absolute [religiously-based] morality. I think I want a morality that is thought out, reasoned, argued, discussed, and based upon, you could almost say, intelligent design. Can we not design our society which has the sort of morality, the sort of society that we want to live in? If you actually look at the moralities that are accepted among modern people, among twenty-first century people, we don’t believe in slavery anymore, we believe in equality of women, we believe in being gentle, we believe in being kind to animals. These are all things which are entirely reasoned. They have very little basis in Biblical or Koranic scripture, they are things that have developed over historical time, through a consensus of reasoning, sober discussion, argument, legal theory, political and moral philosophy. These do not come from religion. To the extent that you can find the good bits in religious scriptures, you have to cherry pick. You search your way through the Bible and the Koran and you find the occasional verse that is an acceptable profession of morality, and say, ‘Look at that! That’s religion!’ And you leave out all the horrible bits and you say, ‘Oh, we don’t believe that anymore. We’ve grown out of it.’ Well of course we’ve grown out of religion! We’ve grown out of it because of secular, moral philosophy and rational discussion.”
-Richard Dawkins
[youtube]VgHoyTvyh4o[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgHoyTvyh4o

This is wrong. BTW I can't watch videos on a DOD server. We also (he neglected to mention) have developed enough weaponry to annihilate life as we know it several times over and the moral insanity to almost do so at least twice. We kill babies be the millions and school shootings, teen pregnancy, one parent families, drug abuse, gang activity, and thousands of other issues that have perfectly coincided with the moral insanity that has characterized modern secular intrusion are rising at unheard of levels. Not to mention the enshrinement of homosexuality in spite of natures or God's abhorrence through the millions that die of diseases spread through the practice and the billions spent by people who do not even practice it to treat victims of the brave new world Dawkins wants. Nor to illustrate the tens of millions that have died at the hands of tyrants trying to invent atheistic utopias in just the last century. The list is far longer than the depression caused by creating it will allow me to include, this is only the tip of the ice burg. As I said, almost any cost stats (physical or monetary) for just a single decade for any one of those (secular problems) exceeds all the misery caused by Biblical faith that is even claimed. There are few things as crystal clear as the moral bankruptcy the denial of faith has caused.

So? They are contained within the Bible, which you tell us contains moral dictates from god.

What is they?

In pointing this out and in defending particular practices specific to particular cultures you are making Dawkins’ point for him! Therefore, morality is not absolute. And you seem to agree.

Morality can, and does, exist without your god.

I do not remember making a claim in this context at all. However unlike even with the obvious failures in secular morality I can admit it is possible I am wrong and did so. However you will have to remind me what I said, if so. I have since figured out where you got this and will respond. Using Dawkins in a theological discussion is like climbing on the Titanic after it hit the ice burg.

 

[1robin]

FROM 1 ROBIN
Not one of those OT laws was ever in effect for non-Jewish people and have not been in effect for anyone in over 2000 years (and are valid moral codes given the context God and his purposes come with). I have addressed them in the sense of fair play but I do not live under a covenant that requires anything like this and have defended practices specific to a certain culture for a certain time frame, and for specific reason long enough. My attempting to explain rules governing people who lived that long ago are only exceeded in futility by your attempts to refute a deity that only with his existence could any moral act be condemned in a meaningful way. It is an inapplicable self-defeating argument and if its the best you have then you must have one weak bench.

FROM SKEPTICAL THINKER
So? They are contained within the Bible, which you tell us contains moral dictates from god.
In pointing this out and in defending particular practices specific to particular cultures you are making Dawkins’ point for him! Therefore, morality is not absolute. And you seem to agree.
Morality can, and does, exist without your god.

Now that I can see what you were saying I will clarify.

God searched the world according to the Bible to find someone who would follow him. He intended to make a nation of those people and reveal himself most prolifically and clearly through them and eventually bring about the messiah through them (all of which came true hundreds of years later in exact detail). It does not say how many refused but finally Abraham agreed. His children eventually became the famous Hebrews of Israel. God as promised dealt far more with them than any other. He gave them the law. This had approx. 613 or so commands within it. Just guessing maybe 500 were not primarily moral issues and dealt with issues of state, ceremony, and revelation. The primary moral codes were the Ten Commandments and maybe a hundred or so others. However as regards others God also said he gave every single human a moral conscience. The more he heeded it the more attuned to it anyone would become Hebrew or not. The more resistant and the less aware people became of it. The only difference between the Hebrews and the others was.

1. The Hebrews had the law in writing in addition to their heart.
2. God demanded far more from the Hebrews than others because they were to reveal him more conspicuously than by any other culture. Before you yell unfair (another concept that means little without God) he was also far more demanding. IMO he was far more demanding than considerate of them.
3. Everyone had access to God's moral requirements and there are many in the Bible God was pleased with outside of Israel. In fact at times he was more pleased with them than Israel.
I hope that fixed whatever you found in my claims to complain of.

All the primary moral precepts were the same for all people.

 

[1robin]

But it did. He explained where he thinks morality actually comes from and that we are actually capable of making moral decisions.

Let me explain something I have been meaning to for some time. You are posting so much "stuff" that I usually can't respond to every post in one attempt. By the time I get back to the forum you have already answered the half I got to with more stuff that I can only get some of answered. Very soon we are so far along I can't go back. I will leave the solution to you but it is impossible for me to answer this much "stuff" in the time I have.
I disagree with your analysis: There were two basic claims he stated or were obvious. 1. Hitler is probably the most universally morally condemned person in human history. 2. (Whatever Dawkins uses for morality or invents) is so impotent that it does not even allow condemnation of the most evil actions of history. No context can change this.

Atheism isn’t a world view. It speaks to one point about one thing only – the existence of god(s).

I have already addressed this and why it is inaccurate.

I am perfectly capable of condemning Hitler every which way. And I do.

Please illustrate. Let me clarify first. I have no doubt you do condemn him but I also doubt you can sufficiently ground that condemnation. The ontology verses epistemology thing again.

Hitler shared Herbert Spencer’s views on social Darwinism, which had little to do with biological evolution.

In the interest of time if you find the accuracy of Hitler’s claims important bring them up again and I will respond.

Evolution is a description of the mechanisms found in nature. It’s not a world view.

Nature selects behavior exactly the same as physical attributes. On your side mind is all matter anyway so where is the conflict unless this is only more hyper semantics.

Suppose you discover that if you band together with a neighboring tribe, you find that you have more people to accumulate the resources that you need for survival. You have more people with which you can reproduce. You realize that if you help another person, that other people are more likely to help you in return, when you need it. You discover that if you murder someone’s family, that they will come after you and murder your family. And you don’t like that too much so you decide to work together instead. Maybe later you find that if you rape people and take their stuff, that other people don’t like that too much and decide they don’t want you living among them, thus decreasing your own chances for survival, so instead you all decide that you’re not going to murder each other and take each other’s stuff. You realize that other people are just like you, and want and need the same things you do, so you develop compassion and understanding for the plight of others.

So I see as I have stated many times that evolution can produce or select behavior but only good behavior. If it produces good it also produces bad behavior and I can show it will produce more bad than good if necessary but first make up your mind: evolution produces moral behavior or not?
It’s pretty simple really. Why is this all so implausible, in your mind?

Racism, genocide, infanticide, killing the infirm or elderly, etc., can all be justified (and have been) by a religion that condones such things within its own holy text on the charge of absolutely authority and obedience to your god whom you judge on your own to be perfect and good. Why? Well because the book says so! Never mind that “he” commands us to do all these things in our holy book. I assert that this is NOT how human beings have come by morality.

Post the numbers killed by every single one of those issues above that are even claimed (reasonably) for the Bible including the flood and triple them. Do you believe they are more than just the numbers for abortion in the last century or not? or for just the last two big atheistic utopias of the last century? Not for a second buying what you claim but even if true what is your answer.

Where does the Bible say it’s not allowed?

New International Version (©2011)
"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free,
Let me go even bigger. You have claimed that God likes some bad form of slavery even though I gave the most comprehensive example that that is false within the civil war. You seem to be stuck on the issue and apparently it is so important to you that page after page quantifying, giving examples, and explaining verse after verse has no effect. One last simple statement and I am done with this issue for quite a while. Is this command consistent with your claim that God likes a very bad form of slavery?
Deuteronomy 23:15-16 ESV / 15 helpful votes
“You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him.
There is no possibility and being that likes the slavery you suggest would ever say this or free the Hebrews from slavery, nor the Africans from slavery at the cost of teh lives of 300,000 of his people and the misery of millions more of them.
That is it I am done with this broken record.

I already countered this, but I would add, IT WAS ABOUT TIME. After how many years of condoning and accepting it based on scripture?

There is apparently no escape but after this post I will no longer address this worn out issue.
1. At least God did free them. Atheism is probably still trying to figure out if it was actually wrong to begin with.
2. God has countless other reasons involved in doing things that in our finite and faulty capacity have no access to. Many of the things we think are right, like for instance denying the Christian Churchill’s request to kill Hitler in 37, do not turn out to be right after all.
3. God also has purposes that supersede yours.
4. God is also on his time table not yours.

Evolution is a description of biological mechanisms. It is not a world view. Atheism is a rejection of god claims. It is not a world view. I’m going to keep repeating that until you understand it.

Semantics.

And … ?

Whatever being produced that statement does not value oppression of captivity in any of it's diabolical forms and HE not Dawkins, Atheism, or evolution has ended time and agina throughout history.

Dawkins could, and did.

Only in Atheist bizarro world is: "What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question.
proof that Dawkins has an answer. There exists no actual answer in anything but God to end slavery. However liberal thinkers have transferred slavery from the field to monetary dependence. That is a little better, but as the motivation was buying votes by bankrupting the country and we now have 30 million instead of 9 million slaves, a hollow effort. That might be a Dawkins consistent effort if one exists.

Okay, so why look for supernatural explanations when we don’t need them?

I don't.

I just want to who it is that you say was doing this including more details as to what it is that you’re talking about.

I think in this case that might be impossible. That show was almost ten years ago. Are you suggesting there were not quite a few climatologists who claimed there was serious cooling events in the 80's? That is easy to prove.

 

[1robin]

Where are you coming up with these numbers? That’s what I want to know. Because it appears to me that you’re simply pulling them out of thin air.

You have really started to argue with the arguments not the claims within them lately. This is the very common and long awaited semantic phase I abhor so much.

1. Civil war casualties, Union only: 364,000 deaths. There were 2 disease deaths for every 1 battle death. (lack of science killed twice as many as bullets designed to do so).

Twice as many men died of disease than of gunshot wounds in the Civil War. Dysentery, measles, small pox, pneumonia, and malaria were the soldier's greatest enemy. The overall poor hygiene in camp, the lack of adequate sanitation facilities, the cold and lack of shelter and suitable clothing, the poor quality of food and water, and the crowded condition of the camps made the typical camp a literal breeding ground for disease. Conditions, and resulting disease, were even worse for Civil War prisoners, who were held in the most miserable of conditions.
Civil War Medicine

364,000 total divided 66% = 240,000 (in fact 240,540 is the official number) Civil War Statistics

That is far more than the tens of thousands I had claimed but since I mistakenly included surgery deaths for no apparent reason lets pair it down further.
240,000
- 45,000 Dysentery
- 35,000 Typhoid
- 20,000 Pneumonia
- 11,000 Measles
- 14,000 Tuberculosis
- 30,000 Malaria
- 10,000 All others
---------------------------
75,000 killed by disease that was not contracted by non-surgical means. That is being very generous with the numbers. For example probably half the Pneumonia cases contracted it from surgery etc...
Civil War Diseases, Civil War Medicine, Civil War Nurses

Tens of thousands was a very conservative claim on my part. Since millions claimed by me from 4000 years until 1863 is very very safe I am not going through the numbers concerning it as well.

I will split this up as I may not get too much further today. Some advice, stick to my weak suite (semantics) as the civil war is a life long hobby.

 

[1robin]

What I am saying again and again, is that the scientific method is the most reliable and consistent tool we have for discovering truth and reality.

Why are you saying this? By the way post me what you claim is the "official" scientific method.

It works every time. All of our great discoveries and advancements have been thanks to the scientific method. The crap gets weeded out and the evidence remains.

That is true in general in every aspect of study and needs no special method and in fact does not have one. History corrects it's self over time without benefit of the great method. So do our check book computations, our personal conversations, our driving, however not our politics and not our recent morality.

Can you think of a more reliable method?

No nor do I think it exclusive or invented by science. It is simply comon sense put into fansy words. However mush of what we hold to be true is not subject to the method. Again what is the point?

Science will send millions to hell? People should be more skeptical of science claims than faith claims? What are you talking about?

I will just give one personal example among thousands of similar ones. A Chrsitian child raised in a lame Church is raised to have faith but it is superficial not born again faith and he eventually graduates and ventures beyond the small town he gre up in. He goes away to the Big school (Berkley maybe) where his pure scientific teachers brow beat faith out of him every class. (This one I have lived and there are horror stories by the thousand from everywhere). He is told Genesis is all wrong and life has been shown to be able to arrise on it's own and a thousand similar and absolutekly false claims. He thinks his ignorant parents dooped him and resents them, the faith they tried to give him, and the God that is associated with it. He is on his way home and dies in flight and wakes up in Hell. Thanks again garbage claimed to be science. Rinse and rtepeat about a million times at the very least. The no 1 issue that corrupts superficial faith is college professors and their preference based lessons. I even had one tell me on day one we could not discuss theology, then on about day four I heard him tell a student he wished to drive faith out of science, then later on he brought up some stupid claims against the Bible and I challenged him, he said we could not discuss the subject he brought up and I dropped him. The professors I have had that are most likely to mention God are atheists and claim to not allow faith to be discussed in class and that is from very conservative universities. Again this is the number 1 challenge to weak or superficial faith. The second is the problem of evil. Those claims are statistically true and both illegitimate issues.

I’m not wagering my soul on anything. I want to know what is true, and I’m baffled by people who don’t.

That is a hard thing to say to an atheist. Can you grant that your conclusion regarding God potentially affects your souls destination? That is about all I can expect.

Knowledge alone killed tens of thousands? What does that mean?

I lacked the word "lack of" before Knowledge in one case where I mentioned knowledge. I meant the facilities to wash up existed most times but it was the lack of Knowledge that prevented it and killed all those poor men.

It appears you may be exaggerating slightly. Antiseptics and sanitation were not unknown to Civil War doctors and surgeons:

Not hardly. I never mentioned their existence or nonexistence. I also almost always quantify that claim with the date of 1862 or 63 when the great "sanitary awakening occurred". The civil war is the war where barbaric medical science finally gave way to more update methods. However during this time even when these issues were known and being adopted they still died from simple diseases that basic sanitation could have stopped. The numbers are facts but if you wish to debate the phases of sanitation within the war for an unknown reason I can oblige you. I heard the other day a cure for some types of aids was finally found but people will still be dying from ignorance of it for many many years.

What I wonder is, how and why you think it came from divine instruction, when the most obvious explanation would be that they figured it out from basic observation and learning, like the rest of us. What medical practices were they performing that could only have come from divine instruction?

I thought I had eliminated the need by saying it does not matter and acting as if it did not. Why bother if the point is the same either way? You are ever far more argumentative of anything related or not than I am many times over and that is saying something.

Were the ancient Greeks and Romans divinely instructed by Zeus?

Is Zeus recorded by the Romans and the Greeks as giving them these instructions? If I discovered a can of dark matter I am not going to say God did it.

I don’t think I said you did. But I do think that would lend a lot more credence to your argument. Perhaps if they were doing things far beyond what we would expect of Bronze Age desert dwellers, you may have a much better point.

No other contemporary society had a fraction of the sanitation mandates Israel did. People in the region thought them very odd. Even Israel did not like many of the extreme requirements. I showed how they were unique in all the ancient world in their ethical instructions for servants with examples and that did not help. Why would it here?

I see. So how is it that 19th, 20th and 21st century human beings know about germs, I ask you.

By extremely slow and costly trial and error apparently. Something the Hebrews were spared to a great extent. I guess when patients keep dying by the millions then millions of causes can be eliminated and by dumb luck eventually the right one is found. Or they could wait for a Christian to invent the microscope.

1. "Credit for the first microscope is generally given to Zacharias Janssen in Middleburg, Holland, around the year 1595." "Based on the letters of William Boreel ( the Dutch envoy to the Court of France) the father and son team of Hans and Zacharias Jansen are the inventors of the microscope. At least they are the first to have any documentation that substantiates such a claim. Their microscope design was somewhat limited. It could only be used for opaque objects [and] had a magnification of about 20X." he has been listed as one of the inventors of the Reformation "Conquoring previously unthought of areas for Christ via God's Law-Word".[2]

Available at "History of the Microscope".
Available at "Love to Learn Place"
That or pray. Do you want to examine Christianity’s contribution to medicine? It is all together astounding.

You don’t think sanitation was one of them? That contradicts your statement right above this one.

I was discussing scientific progress you were discussing what the Catholics cost us by the dark ages, two different things. I also will withdraw my claims about sanitation in the dark ages. It was forgotten in large part. I think you have been wrong many times and I know you have a few times yet I am the only one I can remember ever revising, agreeing, or correcting a statement. Why is that do you suppose?

 

[SkepticThinker]

You mean if anyone tells a person to stop a behavior that kills or harms others like homosexuality that not only do they have the right to do it anyway but the person is wrong for even suggesting the behavior be stopped. Now that is some bad propaganda and even worse logic.

What? No. I’m saying “it’s tradition” isn’t a valid argument. Lots of “traditional” things have been done away with, and should be, as civilizations progress. And civilizations do progress.

How are you personally affected by someone else partaking in a same sex relationship?

There is little in the Bible to stop women from voting. In fact the Bible gives many clear instructions concerning the women’s vast importance in society.

Except that they’re considered chattel, like in the 10 commandments.

Women have been considered chattel for most of human history, right up until the early 20th century. So traditionally, women should still be considered chattel. That’s if we’re using your tradition argument.

First are you saying to practice sex as a teen is not a shameful act. Your side has outlawed shame, accountability, and responsibility and then makes claims of moral superiority. First it was in many cases and still is the Church that takes in what secular society condemns. I worked on the sound system in a 7th day adv Church. I do not agree with them but during the weak I was there I must have seen 10 people come in to borrow money from the Church because no secular charity or institution would help. At least 5 of them did not even go to that Church. Shame has a purpose, it is a preventative and since outlawed by secularist’s teen pregnancy has sky rocketed. Say whatever you need to, but when God was in schools fewer teens were hurt by pregnancy because shame existed, than when shame and God were kicked out, by far. Shame is natural and has caused me to mature as much as anything else and is hardly an unjust price to keep 10,000 kids from being aborted or living with a non-educated delinquent mother of 17.

Practicing safe sex at any age is not a shameful act. It’s an act of personal responsibility, whether you’re 18 or 95. Like I said earlier, if you want to know why teen pregnancy has skyrocketed in the US, look at the programs that have been instituted, like abstinence-only education which denies the fact that people will ever have sex at all. Given that the vast majority of human beings will indeed have sex at some point in life, it only makes sense to educate them on how to do it safely and responsibly. There is no removal of personal responsibility being done by my side. Quite the opposite. Your side just imagines that people will never have sex if you just tell them not to or that god is watching them, I guess.

Why do you think teen pregnancies in the US are the highest in the developing world, especially compared to say, the more secular and more sexually expressive Europe which have very high birth control use and very good sex education? Or how about the fact that teen pregnancy rates in underdeveloped countries that have absolutely no sex education whatsoever are astronomically high?

It has nothing to do with shaming people into not doing it and everything to do with comprehensive education. And again, if you want to lower abortion rates you need to support sex education and birth control and the institutions that provide such things. Simply telling people not to have sex and then shaming them and their child for their entire lives aren’t going to cut it. We need practical solutions.

Again shame is natural and merited for certain acts. Forgetting theology homosexuality kills millions that would have lived without it, and costs billions. Is that just recompense for not having to endure the shame an act deserves/
.

Sure, shame is merited for certain acts, like rape or murder or lying. I don’t think it’s fair to shame someone for being who they are, and in fact, I’d say you’re hurting them much more than you’re helping them. Why do you think young gay people commit suicide at such high rates? Is that your goal, in shaming them?

And you keep saying, “oh gay people kill millions and cost us billions” which again, you appear to just be making up out of thin air. I hate to tell you this but HIV/AIDS isn’t a gay disease and you seem to be assuming that all gay people are passing this around simply by virtue of their existence. Say there are two gay men living together, building a life together, loving each other and not affecting anyone else in any way at all. What is your objection to that?

Not to mention the fact that all of your “they spread disease and kill millions” talk completely ignores the existence of lesbians. You seem to only be referring to gay men in your arguments. How are my lesbian cousin, her wife and child negatively affecting anybody? I’ve never seen my cousin happier in her entire life, now that she’s being who she is.

What? I have seen those women come to shelters run by Churches by the hundreds. Churches actually have programs for them specifically

I have talked to many of these women who tell me that their priests tell them to go home to their husbands because divorce is an abomination in the eyes of god. Real sick stuff.

That is another stupid Catholic invention and does not exist in the Bible. If you will recall it is the Bible not Catholics I defend.

It was an American custom until the Supreme Court decided sometime in the 1960s that it was okay for married couples to use birth control which I can’t even believe was forbidden in the first place. How does the state have the right to tell anyone that??

Were you not defending Catholics in regards to the withholding of condoms from poor people living in places around the world where AIDS is most prevalent?

It wouldn't help you.

It appears to be helping me.

Is that why the 40's are referred to as the greatest generation, and now millions are asking what happened to the once strong and moral west since secularism took over? Abortion alone outnumbers all Christian wrongs ever committed even though most of them were are not allowed by the Bible. Not to mention STD's, secular gangs in Africa stealing the Christian aid sent to starving people, the Stalin’s, Pol Pot's, Mao's, or a hundred other secular genocidal maniacs. It is not even a comparison. It is complaining it is too hot in LA, from the sun.

I’ve always been under the impression that they’re referred to as the greatest generation because they fought and won World War II and beat the Nazis for us. I don’t know what the rest of this has to do with 1950 versus 2013 in terms of the moral landscape. The 1950’s may have been the best time in the US if you were a white male, but that’s about it.

There has never been a completely secular society in the history of the world, as far as I can tell. The founding of the US is the closest thing to it that I know of. So you want me to believe that secularism took over in your country sometime in the 1960’s. Okay, so how many atheistic members of Congress have there been since then, and how many are there now?

 

[SkepticThinker]

If you actually don't then there is not much hope for secularism or the world it is polluting.

I think your “tradition” argument doesn’t hold up. Societies progress; always have, always will. As the saying goes, the only thing that stays the same is change.

You post the number of homosexuals ever even claimed to be physically harmed by Christian's and Jewish people in the entire history of humanity and I will bet the number that actually died because of homosexuality is ten times as high within a single decade.

How in the world is anyone supposed to do that?

And FYI: Nobody dies from being homosexual.

You are arguing for their right to kill each other and even people who are not gay, and then calling God immoral? Why can't you see the absurd disparity in numbers even with vastly unequal comparisons like this? Your are basically Nazi Germany calling the Cherokee savages. No, I am not saying you are a Nazi.

I’m arguing for the right of human beings to be treated with dignity. I don’t care what your ancient holy book says, I think gay people are human beings like you and I, and should be treated as such. And yeah, I’d say god is immoral for creating gay people in the first place and then condemning them as an abomination and encouraging “his” followers to do the same.

How are gay people killing non-gay people? What are you talking about? You speak as though they’re walking around with machine guns murdering people in the streets.

This is not a theological problem. There is no way possible two men can raise a girl as well as a house with a women as mother.

On what basis you do make this claim?

Yes, but it isn't the same. There have been untold problems of single parent homes and they are obvious. African Americans are both disproportionately incarcerated and disproportionate from single parent homes. The correlation is obvious. Divorce is wrong but because of our faultiness tolerated by God. That does not make it right and it is harmful in countless cases. Also incarceration is now increasing faster than population growth. Thanks again secularism.

I’m not so sure that it’s as clear cut as that, and I would say poverty rates have a lot to with it as well.

What does this have to do with secularism?

I do not have any need to answer the question given what I am defending. God's desire is one man and one women to raise a child and that is better than any alternative. You are getting what I am defending all mixed up. If God mandated all children be raised in an orphanage then this question would apply. You are speaking about relative value not God. Murder may be better than torture but why would I have to evaluate them?

So why did you bother answering the above question? Don’t cop out now.

Polygamy seems to be okay with your god. Why don’t you promote that too?

How about we promote what is good for human beings, and forget about interpretations of dusty old texts written by people who claimed to be speaking on behalf of god?

I believe the act wrong, but the damage may mitigated depending on her. I am discussing what in general is the best solution.

Do you consider it wrong simply because you think god thinks it’s wrong?
I have a hard time imagining how a loving god would think that two of the sweetest, kindest, most loving people you could ever meet raising a child under those conditions could be considered something terrible. I would consider that child to be extremely lucky.

I have never said that Al Capone and Lizzy Borden could raise a child better than a gay Mother Theresa and a gay Margaret Thatcher (how many chances does anyone get to say that). I am saying that the traditional family is the best system to raise kids in by far.

Well, that’s comforting at least.

I would say that any situation in which a child is raised in a loving, supportive and nurturing environment is optimal. Psychology has taught us a lot about this kind of thing.

Yes and about a thousand other bad things that were not held as sacred rights when I was young. When I was in school, we said the pledge of allegiance and quoted scripture every day, were whipped as standard punishment, and said yes sir and no sir. I never heard of any one on anything. No gang activity, almost no teen pregnancy, no shootings, no condoms getting passed out, no resource officers necessary, no teachers getting beat up, none of the modern crap. Now we have all of it and kids are doped up at an alarming rate, shooting each other, gangs run many schools, and teen pregnancy is through the roof, you can't paddle a kid in many places, and while spending way more than any other nation per person we have went from 1 or 2 to 9 or 10 in the world in test scores. I hope that was clear. Compare leave it to beaver and Gun smoke with SAW and desperate housewives of anywhere. The television is a good moral marker of a society and it went from innocence and humor in the 50s to violence and shows where immorality is the hero of the plot today

I think I’m going to have to ask you to back that one up. How are you attributing the doping of children to being raised in gay households?? I attribute it to laziness on the part of parents (gay or straight) and psychiatrists.
I do not in any way, shape or form condone the beating of children, and I must say, I’m quite surprised that you do. Beating kids doesn’t teach them anything but fear, which many people mistake for respect. We now know that there are much healthier and more effective ways to raise and/or punish children that don’t include smacking them around for indiscretions. What that teaches them is that we deal with our problems with violence instead of teaching them what they did wrong and how to correct it.
I don’t know … have you ever watched the Honeymooners? Ralph Kramden was constantly threatening his wife with violence. How about the bigotry of Archie Bunker in All in the Family? What’s so great about that? I’ll agree that Desperate Housewives and the like is a load of garbage and I can’t even watch the Saw movies, but this “good old days” thing only seems to apply if you’re looking through rose-colored glasses.
As to teen pregnancy rates, they actually appear to have been quite high in the 1950’s and have been slowly declining ever since (though the US still has one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the industrialized world). Numbers from the Guttmacher Institute show that teen pregnancy rates were the highest in 1957 at 96 births per 1,000 women aged 15-19 (compared to 49 per 1,000 births in 2000). Numbers from the National Vital Statistics Report give a rate of 81.6 per 1000 teens aged 15-19 years in 1950 and 42.5 per 1000 teens aged 15-19 years for 2007. So while you may not have heard much about teen pregnancy in the 1950’s, it was happening a lot, apparently. This was, according to you, before secularism took over your country back in the “good old days.”

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/05/1/gr050107.html
http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/resources/pdf/TBR_1940-2006.pdf

 

[McBell]

over a thousand posts and still not a single indisputable rational proof to be seen...

 

[SkepticThinker]

And I say the same thing for abiogenesis, multiverses, oscillating universes, and cows becoming whales or vice versa. You can find entire web sites with evidence claim after claim for aliens and Pyramids for example that are far better but no more convincing than sciences claims for the issues above.

You can find entire websites with “evidence” claiming that the holocaust never happened too. So what? Anyone can write whatever they want on the internet. When these people allow their evidence to be subjected to actual scientific inquiry, then get back to me.

Evolution is an observable, demonstrable fact. Biology doesn’t work without it. Macroevolution is a fact (and nobody but creationists really distinguish it from microevolution).

There is scientific evidence for abiogenesis and multiverses, but these are not considered facts as of yet. They require further research. I wish you would acknowledge that.

And we currently think killing babies buy the millions, obscuring morality to the point of uselessness, and the right to kill other ourselves and others by practicing things that transmit STDs at a very accelerated rate are moral rights today. That is not progress.

What does this have to do with what I said?

The exact same things is needed for any claims that contradict the Bible from science and it is lacking even worse than in my examples. At least aliens building the pyramids has interesting and sophisticated reasons it is claimed though I do not buy them.

You want scientific evidence for claims that contradict the Bible?

I agree but it is still better than for the issues science claims against the Bible.

Like what?

Daniken is an idiot.

Agreed. It was very amusing to read his book though.

I will watch it if you will promise me it is not an explanation for how nothing can create anything, (nothing has zero causal potential), and if you will watch a video I recommend.

I don’t really want to attempt to explain it because I’ll probably mess it up. He does claim that nothing is not actually nothing because he says that “nothing” can be weighed. I’d rather you just watch it yourself though.

What would you like me to watch?

That is to self-explanatory to need explanation. If I have God I have the very opposite of nothing.

Okay, what do you define as “nothing?”

Where did god come from and what did “he” use to create the universe? And how can you possibly claim to know this?

My God did not come from anything or at all. I am only responsible for God as the Bible records him. I am not going to explain some other God that appeared at some point. BTW if you have something (anything) the chain of causation must end with an uncaused first cause. If it did not you would have nothing. If you need an explanation then just ask.
I do not get the question.

If everything needs a cause then your god needs a cause or your argument is a meaningless logical fallacy (special pleading).

Is it more likely that nothing created everything or something did?

I don’t know. See Lawrence Krause. This one is pretty complex.

Is it more likely that non-intelligence produced intelligence or intelligence did,

I don’t see why intelligence couldn’t have arisen from non-intelligence. How intelligent is bacteria?

unconsciousness produced consciousness or consciousness did,

I’m not sure what this means.

the non-moral created morality or a moral being did,

I’m not sure what this means either.

unintentional chaos produced the most complex arrangement of matter in the universe (the brain) or an intentional agent did?

Given what we know about the make-up of the brain (human and nonhuman), it’s quite obvious to me that it is a product of evolution.

You are selectively going with what is more likely when it suits your world view in spite of every single observable example of any of those being on the opposite side.
Well it is quite impossible nothing produced everything and chance produced extremely complex information but that is what you believe.
See the bolded sections above.

I’m trying to figure out what is more likely given the available evidence. And yeah, I’m probably not going to jump to supernatural explanations right of the bat given that there’s no evidence for the supernatural and there IS evidence of the natural.


(Natural selection isn’t “chance.” It’s a selection process. )