Life From Dirt?

[YoursTrue]

Nope, Homer doesn't say that Zeus (or any other god or goddess) spoke to him. But neither does any Bible author. And contrary to Homer almost all authors of the bible are anonymous and don't reveal how they came to their knowledge. A tradition that is also seen in other religions and denominations. Mohammed was allegedly visited by the angel Gabriel and had a scribe put it down as the Qur'an (that's now fourth hand information if you read the Qur'an in Arabic), similarly Joseph Smith was visited by the angel Moroni.

I believe the Bible says that God spoke to certain ones. No Mohammed couldn't read or write. So someone else, yes, had to put his words down. Joseph Smith says he was visited by an angel.

 

[YoursTrue]

Have you watched the video? What Shermer identifies as superstition (agenticity) is clearly seen in the behaviour of animals, e.g. when they react to machines as if they were living beings.

Can you tell me what minute the things appear you're talking about because so far it's a lot of words and this is what they saw, etc. I will say the brain is a fantastic instrument and can convey messages to the person, right or wrong perception. That is not my point though. My point is, and I'm sticking to it right now until I believe different, cats and dogs and gorillas do not write down history of their experiences with spirits, I don't care if they jump up or not. That experience of retelling experiences ois unique to humans.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But you don't know so it is a belief that no gods or pixies did it. It's a belief that it just happened naturally.

Why do you insist on using strawman arguments? Is it because you understand faith to be a weakness and not plus that you try to accuse others of having faith when they do not? You are also using false dichotomies due to your position. You forget that there is a third possibility. One can believe that something exists. One can believe that something does not exist. You live in those two worlds because your belief in God forces you to believe that other supernatural beings such as pixies and leprechauns do not exist. Or, and you need to pay attention and try to understand this, one can have a lack of belief about the existence of an item. Having a lack of belief is often the superior stance to take. One can act as if the thing exists or does not exist depending upon the evidence and if there is a good reason to hold such a belief or not, but if evidence arrives that shows that one or the other beliefs is correct one can easily adopt what one can now reasonable believe without faith. I know that you do not like it, but the Christian God is on the same level of beliefs as a belief in pixies and leprechauns. It is even worse in some ways due to the various contradictory views many Christians have.

So right now I lean strongly towards everything being natural since that is where the evidence lies. Could a god be involved in the unanswered questions? Yes, but since those unanswered questions keep being answered it does not look very good for God.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Odd example that would be humorous unless you take it serious, and actually you missed the point of my post in a rather ridiculous manner.

Yeah, the post was more in humor, but the real problem is about evil in humans, the funny idea of free will, etc.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yeah, the post was more in humor, but the real problem is about evil in humans, the funny idea of free will, etc.

Yes these are real problems based on ancient tribal religious beliefs.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why do you insist on using strawman arguments? Is it because you understand faith to be a weakness and not plus that you try to accuse others of having faith when they do not? You are also using false dichotomies due to your position. You forget that there is a third possibility. One can believe that something exists. One can believe that something does not exist. You live in those two worlds because your belief in God forces you to believe that other supernatural beings such as pixies and leprechauns do not exist. Or, and you need to pay attention and try to understand this, one can have a lack of belief about the existence of an item. Having a lack of belief is often the superior stance to take. One can act as if the thing exists or does not exist depending upon the evidence and if there is a good reason to hold such a belief or not, but if evidence arrives that shows that one or the other beliefs is correct one can easily adopt what one can now reasonable believe without faith. I know that you do not like it, but the Christian God is on the same level of beliefs as a belief in pixies and leprechauns. It is even worse in some ways due to the various contradictory views many Christians have.

So right now I lean strongly towards everything being natural since that is where the evidence lies. Could a god be involved in the unanswered questions? Yes, but since those unanswered questions keep being answered it does not look very good for God.

Not sure really now what you mean by everything being natural. Before I say anything jarring, just leaving you with that thought, that you are possibly leaning towards the idea that everything is natural. Now I have to ask, what IS natural?

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes these are real problems based on ancient tribal religious beliefs.

Huh? You mean there is no evil?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Huh? You mean there is no evil?

Sure there is evil. But one does not need, or in many cases even want, to use a Bible to tell what is good and what is evil. I need to remind you that the Bible supports chattel slavery which almost everyone believes to be evil today.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sure there is evil. But one does not need, or in many cases even want, to use a Bible to tell what is good and what is evil. I need to remind you that the Bible supports chattel slavery which almost everyone believes to be evil today.

At those times I don't THINK there was democracy without slavery anyway. Maybe there was and I don't know about it. It's almost like medicine and science and the Bible.
So thinking as to how justice is meted out these days, it depends what government you're living in, right? Obviously justice can be skewed, but that is not the point. The point is what IS justice? There are different forms of slavery, even today. You might as well look at life today, or -- evolution.
The slavery was not the oppressive kind of slavery that has been common in many lands through time. Leviticus 25:39, 40 says, “In case your brother grows poor alongside you and he has to sell himself to you, you must not use him as a worker in slavish service. He should prove to be with you like a hired laborer, like a settler.” This was a loving provision to care for Israel’s poorest. Harsh treatment was not approved or prescribed.
Looking at the news and the homeless here, can you say the poor are being well taken care of? Many are on drugs, addicted to alcohol, can't work, won't work, steal from people, have tough time in jail, and more. These persons have "sold themselves" to the elements -- steal -- kill -- the governments are not taking care of them...children and women are sold into slavery.

 

[Subduction Zone]

At those times I don't THINK there was democracy without slavery anyway. Maybe there was and I don't know about it. It's almost like medicine and science and the Bible.
So thinking as to how justice is meted out these days, it depends what government you're living in, right? Obviously justice can be skewed, but that is not the point. The point is what IS justice? There are different forms of slavery, even today. You might as well look at life today, or -- evolution.
The slavery was not the oppressive kind of slavery that has been common in many lands through time. Leviticus 25:39, 40 says, “In case your brother grows poor alongside you and he has to sell himself to you, you must not use him as a worker in slavish service. He should prove to be with you like a hired laborer, like a settler.” This was a loving provision to care for Israel’s poorest. Harsh treatment was not approved or prescribed.
Looking at the news and the homeless here, can you say the poor are being well taken care of? Many are on drugs, addicted to alcohol, can't work, won't work, steal from people, have tough time in jail, and more. These persons have "sold themselves" to the elements -- steal -- kill -- the governments are not taking care of them...children and women are sold into slavery.

So what? God is supposedly all powerful. Why couldn't he have banned slavery. Ordered humane treatment of others and supported Israel when they did so? There are all sorts of tales of God supporting Israel through enormous odds when they followed his far less moral rules? Why couldn't God make an actual moral rule and support Israel when they obeyed it?

 

[YoursTrue]

s

So what? God is supposedly all powerful. Why couldn't he have banned slavery. Ordered humane treatment of others and supported Israel when they did so? There are all sorts of tales of God supporting Israel through enormous odds when they followed his far less moral rules? Why couldn't God make an actual moral rule and support Israel when they obeyed it?

Why can't evolved peoples ban slavery or cruelty now?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why can't evolved peoples ban slavery or cruelty now?

Evolution does not teach us morals. Why should it? But evolution did give us the ability to reason and as we learn more and more there is less injustice. Compare the world of today to the world of 150 years ago. American Christians quite often used the Bible to defend slavery. One cannot defend it with secular humanism.

 

[Heyo]

I believe the Bible says that God spoke to certain ones.

Just like the Illiad. But no Bible author claims to have had direct input from god. Neither does any other religious founder I know of. The closest are those who claim angelic visitation. That's called plausible deniability.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Is that really a fair description…

If you’ll notice his previous thread, that’s what he said about me.

Did you question him about it? I don’t believe you did.

Is that really a fair description of somebody who has heard the claims, considered the offered evidence in their support, and decided that they aren't sufficiently supported? The ones with their heads in the sand are the men I quoted above.

Well, when I hear a claim, I don’t just consider what is being said (although that makes up a huge part of what convinces me).
I also consider who it is that is giving me the information, ie., the source.

That is why, with the men you quoted above? I would have a hard time accepting anything they say.

But with @Sgt. Pepper , she has no vested interest, ie., gets no money fame or power, in posting her experiences. In fact — as I said before — it leaves her open to derision & scoffing. Why would she do that, if these weren’t genuine encounters?

Now, discussing these entities on a broader level….why I said “I would have a hard time accepting anything they [the religious men you quoted above] say”…… these entities that many people engage with, have corrupted spiritual truths.

Jesus prophesied about some professed followers, “Many will say to me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ And yet I [Jesus] will say to them, ‘I never knew you! Get away from Me, you evildoers!’ ” (Matthew 7:22,23)

Now these men, telling Jesus this, must have really been performing these powerful works; but obviously, it wasn’t Jesus backing them!

Jesus was prophesying there would be other forces at work! Within His own organization! Or at least, claiming to be!

Another line of evidence revealing these entities’ influence, is infant sacrifice practiced among ancient cultures…..
I know people are capable of their own crazy ideas, but the idea of killing your own children, to please a god….

What kind of fear would have to be instilled, or threatened with, to have such a heinous act become a fixed rite in a culture?

Ancestor worship, especially in tribal lands of countries like Papua New Guinea & others…. The main emotions that characterize such worship, are fear & anxiety… why should these believers fear their grandparents or other dead loved ones? (Would not their dead loved ones, love them?) It makes no sense….unless there is something evil connected to it…

You believe the dead are dead, right? So do I. Then what’s going on?

I'm sorry you were put on the spot like that, my friend. I think you handled it well. And thank you for tagging me. I appreciate it.

If I meant to ‘put her on the spot’, I would have tagged you.
I was trying to be considerate of the both of you: I thought you would have been upset with her, saying what she did, and she’d be embarrassed. I didn’t want to get you mad, either.

I’ll tag you from now on.

 

[Heyo]

Can you tell me what minute the things appear you're talking about because so far it's a lot of words and this is what they saw, etc. I will say the brain is a fantastic instrument and can convey messages to the person, right or wrong perception.

At 2:50 Shermer describes the experiment Skinner made which shows that pigeons are superstitious, in that case superstition because of patternicity, not agenticity.

That is not my point though. My point is, and I'm sticking to it right now until I believe different, cats and dogs and gorillas do not write down history of their experiences with spirits, I don't care if they jump up or not. That experience of retelling experiences ois unique to humans.

Have you ever shared your experiences with spirits with a gorilla? Are you sure he understood what you were saying? Animals haven't shared their experiences with us, mostly due to a language barrier. Currently we can't say that they have spiritual experiences or that they don't.

 

[Brian2]

Do you understand the difference between subjective 'faith' and science based on objective verifiable evidence.

I detect a severe problem of English comprehension.

So you are talking the language of science and I'm talking the language of religion. Maybe you are on the wrong forum.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You don’t adhere to any a priori beliefs? Riiight.

I don't "need" anything, because unlike you, I don't have any emotional investment into any a priori belief.

You say you don't have any emotional investment in this….
Yet your replies drip with sarcasm and sometimes vehemence. (In fact, when I read them many times, I picture you yelling.)

Which is why no amount of "documented supernatural encounters" with thor or allah will convince you of the truth of viking theology or islam.
The only ones you will accept, are those that fit your a priori world view. And your strongest "evidence" will be "it fits my a priori views".

Huh? “…no amount of "documented supernatural encounters" with thor or allah will convince you of the truth of viking theology or islam.” ??
Actually, everything I have observed in this world, all empirical knowledge I’ve come across so far, ie., reality (and some of what I’ve been trained to reason on & deduce), supports my POV. I’ve even adjusted my understanding to fit it…. And it fits nicely. (I’ve willingly accepted some help, too.) I try not to ignore anything, either. Read on….

Actual evidence doesn't matter to you. Your beliefs matter.
This is why you don't believe in evolution - because your a priori beliefs require to believe in a supernatural creation.
It has nothing to do with evidence.

If you cared about evidence, you'ld accept evolution. And you wouldn't accept any mere anecdotal claims of extra-ordinary events that can't be verified.

And here is where you are wrong. I accept evolution….to a point.

If it didn’t occur, there’d be no MRSA, or LTEE or Drosophila experiments, or new species arising.

I understand that you support science to the hilt.
Well, be informed that when scientists resort to explanations that employ suppositional language, like “probably”, or “likely”, or “could have been”… that’s belief / philosophy; and until it’s either proven or superseded / recanted, to portray these explanations as factual, is not exactly truthful, is it?

 

[Brian2]

Translation: "in an attempt to completely dodge every point you just made which exposed my dishonest debate tactics, let's try and talk about something else"

Nice dodge.

No. It's a statement of fact. We can observe the earth making all kinds of environments and chemicals all the time. Environments that are both good as well as bad for living things. Chemicals that are both organic as well as inorganic.

No gods or unicorns required. Just physics and chemistry does the trick.

So you are speaking the language of science and I'm talking the language of religion.
The truth is however that science cannot say that God is not involved and so to say that gods are not required is speaking faith.

Exactly. And I did that to make a very specific point about a very specific error you made.
But as usual, you seem to be doing your very best to avoid addressing said error.

I was making a point about a specific error @Subduction Zone made, but you seem to be making the same error since you also say that gods are not needed, a statement of faith.

It helps my case a lot, if you could bring yourself to approach the point with intellectual honesty - and without strawmen.
Do you feel like you need "faith" to believe magical extra-dimensional unicorns don't exist?
If your answer is yes, would say you need the same amount of "faith", MORE "faith" or less "faith" to believe such unicorns DO exist?

Be very honest in your answer and then try to motivate your answer. WHY do you feel like you need the same amount / more / less faith to believe such unicorns DO exist as opposed to them not existing?

Yes I need faith to say magical extra-dimensional unicorns don't exist.
I would need more faith to say they do exist because there is no evidence for them.

Here's another question: how many times have you caught yourself saying "X doesn't exist" while nobody before that brought up X or claimed X was real?
Assuming your answer is "never", what do you think is the significance of that? And what does that say about the initial position of the burden of proof?

So you are saying that the initial position of the burden of proof is on me, but even though there is evidence for God it is a subjective belief and it cannot be proven imo. The evidence is there for those who see it or who want to see it.

Nope. In this particular case ("earth creates those environments") it is a statement of fact that no gods are needed.
That doesn't mean that no gods can be part of it. It just means that they aren't needed. And they aren't.

We factually see earth creating environments and chemicals all the time. And we require no more then physics and chemistry to explain the process by which such occurs. Hence, no additional entities (like gods, unicorns, what-have-you) are needed.

What is really meant by "no gods are needed" is that if science has found a mechanism for anything then that gap has been closed and god/s can be eliminated from that gap. So you are using the falso argument of the "God of the gaps", in reverse, to say that God/s don't exist. But the argument is just as bad in reverse as it was in the forward direction. Finding a physical mechanism does not eliminate the need for god/s.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You don’t adhere to any a priori beliefs? Riiight.

You say you don't have any emotional investment in this….
Yet your replies drip with sarcasm and sometimes vehemence. (In fact, when I read them many times, I picture you yelling.)

Your perception is incorrect.

Huh? “…no amount of "documented supernatural encounters" with thor or allah will convince you of the truth of viking theology or islam.” ??

Indeed. Is it wrong?
Do "documented supernatural encounters" from muslims convince you of islam? Why aren't you a muslim then?
Surely you are aware of such claims...

Actually, everything I have observed in this world, all empirical knowledge I’ve come across so far, ie., reality (and some of what I’ve been trained to reason on & deduce), supports my POV. I’ve even adjusted my understanding to fit it…. And it fits nicely. (I’ve willingly accepted some help, too.) I try not to ignore anything, either. Read on….

The evidence all over the forum doesn't fit this statement.
For example, many a times have your statements about biology been shown to be incorrect, yet you refuse to let them go.
You continue doubling down on those same errors.
So what's that about?

And here is where you are wrong. I accept evolution….to a point.

IOW: you don't accept evolution.
You only accept it selectively to the point where it doesn't contradict your a priori religious beliefs.
The second it starts to not fit your a priori belief, you dismiss it (for the sole reason of it contradicting your a priori beliefs).

Take a step back and take an honest look at it. You'll see that I'm right.

If it didn’t occur, there’d be no MRSA, or LTEE or Drosophila experiments, or new species arising.

So you accept that all mammals, for example, share ancestry?
No, right?

You draw an arbitrary line. In your mind, evolution stops where your religion begins.

I understand that you support science to the hilt.

I accept evidence. And I realize that when the evidence of reality contradicts my beliefs, it's not reality that is incorrect.

Well, be informed that when scientists resort to explanations that employ suppositional language, like “probably”, or “likely”, or “could have been”

IOW, ALL OF SCIENCE.

See? This is one of these errors you double down on that I was referring to earlier.
Every single scientific paper on any subject will use such language.
It's called intellectual honesty.

Such language is used because science never deals in certainties.
This is why explanations are called "theories" and not "facts", regardless of how strongly supported they are.

… that’s belief / philosophy;

No.

and until it’s either proven or superseded / recanted, to portray these explanations as factual, is not exactly truthful, is it?

So you reject all of science?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

How do you get from energy is eternal to gods existing?

My post was not stating the reality of God’s existence, but rather, how He didn’t need a beginning. That was the gist.

Is a god synonymous with energy to you?

Yes, you could probably say that.


But really, isn’t everything, energy?

With Jehovah, even more so…He is the source of it: He can harness it, & manipulate the known laws of physics.

Same with these invisible intelligent entities, to a lesser degree.

Energy is always in flux and transformation.

Could be, but we haven’t discovered every form of energy there is, have we? @Sgt. Pepper registers some form of energy on her devices, but those devices apparently can’t seem to detect every instance when they are near. If I’m wrong, correct me, Sgt.Pepper.

What forces arranged this energy into a potent, volitional, sentient mind? What forces keep it structured such that it is the same god forever?

“What forces arranged this energy into a potent, volitional, sentient mind?”
‘Forces arranged it’?! Other way around.

“What forces keep it structured such that it is the same god forever?”
Again, more to learn.
What forces keep us structured? The forces of cohesion, etc.
And about every seven years, the atoms in our body - our cells - are changed, but we remain the same person. (Someday, that process will apparently never stop, it will continue for everyone. IMO.)