philh

"Here's a an anology, My Wife knows I like coffee and vegemite toast in the mornings. So this morning she was awake before me and made me a cup of coffee and some toast and left it on the kitchen table, knowing that when I walked in I would drink the coffee and eat the toast. So in I walk and see the coffee and toast, I drink the coffee and eat the toast. Did my wife preordain this, or I choose freely??? " --------- Here is the difference between your analogy and the Chrisitian theology of prophesy. In your analogy your wife is aking a prediction based upon observed behaviour. These prediction can often be very accurate, but as long its possible that you might behave differently we cannot say her prediction is an infallible prophesy. In Christian theology the prophecies are considered inflallibl, there is no possibility allowed for god to be wrong; now if that is true then there is no such thing as freewill becuase no one could have acted differently to what they do.

"My original point still stands. Questioning truths about God tends to move us closer to him not farther away. " That may be true for you it certainly wasnt for me. I was quiet religious. I went to hebrew school between 3 and 5 times a week. The more I questioned the more I became convinced the whole things was BS. Of course my anecdote and your anecdotes dont really add up to a whole lot. Do you have any actual evidence to support your claim or is it just pure conjecture?

" painting is empirical evidence that there was a painter. A building is evidence that there was a builder. The irreducible complexity of Creation is 100% proof that there was a Creator. It doesn't take religion or faith to see that. Just eyes that can see and a brain that works. " well I can c you are well versed in those great intellectuals Kirk Cameron and the other guy. The argument you(I mean they) present was utterly demolished hundreds of years ago by David Hume. He clearly pointed out that one can only make that argument because we have prior knowledge of the way paitings are made. we see paintings being made by painters and so when we see another painting we assume the method we have observed repeadetdly is the same method. However we cannot do this with lets say the origin of life or the origin of the universe . We have not observed many many universes being created or life originating and so we cannot use the same reasoning. David Humes defeat of the design argument of course was before Darwn. DArwin adds another nail in the coffin. He showed (restated in the modern version) that if you have random mutation combined with non random selection on organisms that reporoduce you can have increasing complecxiity. The example given by Cameron et al do not work becuase a paiting does not reproduce itself, even if it diid it would not have random mutation , even if it had mutation and reproduction it would not have selection pressure. If somehow paintings could reproduce themselves be subject to selection and have mutation then we would not be able to conclude there was a painting repsonsible. Of course paitnings dont have this and so the analogy fails. Its clear cameron et al are ignorant of both the history of philosophy and the science of biology. Can I suggest get yourself an education?

"Don't have sex before marriage - how many people are dying from HIV/AIDS because they do not obide by this. " The risk of STD's is easly aviodable by using condoms. However it is Christians insitutions that are the most vocal in condenming them. Telling people to try and avoid their most basic instincts is asking for trouble. " The Bible tells you you're unclean if you touch blood - we know today that so many diseases can spread through blood." Actaulyl the bible says its unclean to touch a woman whilst she is on her preriod. There is no basis for this silly supersition. "I placed the post for people who might be searching for something, something they might not even know they're looking for. " and your views will be rightly criticised because thje search for supersition has a very negative impact on all of us.

"In other words, they interpret a difficult text in its own light instead of interpreting it in the light of JC's clear teachings on a particular subject" Isnt the concept of JC's "clear teachings" just an unjustified assumption? I have heard so many Christian passionatley tell us that the "god hates fags" whilst others say god loves us all. With what justification do you say that the problem is caused by people "misusing " the quotes as opposed to the problem being with the quotes themselves?

I would love to know what doubt you have presently? I heard another Christian ( as i recall the Presdient of Liberty University) saying he had serious doubts about the bible but at the same time he thinks its the inerant word of god. I wonder if he was just trying to appear open minded. i think the real question is not whether someone has doubts but what they are prepared to do to resolve them. A real system of knowledge like science test claims when they are doubted (and even when they are not) , a lame system of knowledge like religion does not.

Paj It appears to me you have very little understanding of science. All scientifc statements are contingent. They are statemtns based upon the evidence as we have it. The superiority of science as a method of understanding the unvierse is that it can change its conclusions if the evidence demands it. That way scientific conclusions are more likely to be correct than any other forms of inquiry eg religion, which do not change their views when the evidence demands it. If new evidence shows a change in our understanding of the lineage of homo erectus and homo hablis, so what? This does not in any way dispute the evolution occured, merely the path that it took. If i beleved I was descended from those I believe to be my mother and father and then it turns out I was wrong and I was adopted does that deny the idea that i was descended from someone else ? Of course it doesnt. there are things that could disprove the idea of hominid evolution. One example ,would be the lack of a fused chromosone in the human genome , but it turn out we do have one, so youll have to do better than your misguided misunderstanding of science.

So your only evidence is your own personal experience. Are you familiar with temporal lobe epilepsy? This is a condition which can generate fervent religious feeling, the sense of a presence in a room with only you in it etc. These states can be induced in a lab quite easily for many people . Watch this vidoe and you will see one reason why you cant trust your experience: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCVzz96zKA0 dont you thin its funny that those brought up in a Muslim culture have a perosnal exerience of Allah but not Jesus and thsoe in a chrstin culture have a perosnal experience of Jesus but not Allah? I think its a good bet the 9/11 hijackers felt they had such a personal experience. What do you thin that means for the validity of your personal experience?

"philh you have put a lot of thought and energy into this topic, I AM IMPRESSED" thanks you very much for your kind words. "One of the strangest paradoxes I have seen regarding Spirituality is that truly good people and truly evil people participate; and sometimes it is very difficult to tell the difference." Why is that a paradox? I dont know if you know much about science. But let me try and explain a key point. Lets assume you want to know if x causes y. You observe x going up and you observe y going up. You might conclude x is causing y to go up, but to be confident you might be able to do this experiment. If you can force x to go down you should observe y to go down if x is really causing y. But if you move x down and there is no change in the movement of y you can be pretty confident that x is not the cause of y. What is the relevance of all this to your quote? It should be very obviosu that if spirtuality/belief in god leads some poeple to good and some to evil then our sense of right and wrong has nothing to do with spirtuality or belief in god. The often quoted argument that wihtout god one has no morality is debunked. "And why do people get so upset about the possibility that every one might not go to heaven? I don't hear a clamor concerning how few sea turtles make it to maturity and a happy productive life." Well it depends on who you are reffering to getting upset. As an atheist I find that the Christian system of justicce - that those that dont believe in jesus are tortured in hell for all eternity - utterly awful. This belief is also very dangerous as it provides a rational for almost any attroicty; after all, what harm is it to kill a few people if it avoids ever lasting torture for the rest of us? Of course we are upset by the belief and its consequences, its not the reality that upsets as we deny that. As for the turtles I visited a turtle sanctuarty in Borneo and saw turtles being launched into the sea. It did upset me that most of them would die. It seemed very cruel, but th bioligcal world can be very cruel. Since I dont believe biological forces are directed by a perosnal agent I dont shout about it. But if one belives that god directs evolution then one must concead that god is very cruel, anyone who has seen an animal getting eaten alive can possibly sympathsie with that. if human being suffer becasue of sin thats one thing, but how can you justify animal suffering if you believe in god? Did they sin as well?

"They exist because they are part of the big picture that is far beyond our finite, human control. " How do you know that?

"The fact that God exists in peoples heart and has since the dawn of time is evidence enough" No thats not evidence at all. That only evidence that people believ he exists, not that he does exist. "You can no further prove a God does not exist then a believer could prove he does. The only way to get proof is to die. " Replace the word god in that sentence with santa claus or the flying spagehtti monster, invisble unicorns etc and you will see how meanigful it really is. Of ocurse it is impossible to prove somehting does not exist, prove that my invisble reincarnation of Napoleon doesnt exist; you cant. One can only oserve the huge lack of evidence of existence as you yourself said the only way to get proof is to dei, how very convenient. "I know it states to love your enemies and bless those who curse you. I choose to think thats a better way to live then to stone someone. " Im glad that you dislike stoning people. The problem is that the bible says to stone unbelivers to death in the oT and to burn them for eternity in the nT. So you can see thhe problem is the bible itself.

Ive never seen a threat on this forum, perhpas you could point one out?

Well Im glad you have doubts I wish more religious people would express them. "As far as evidence of a God or Gods or lack there of, I would like to point out that what one would accept as evidence would not always be enough "evidence" for another. " That maybe the case but with god there is no evidence at all. "I have seen pictures that prove the earth is frisbee shaped and flat, and I have seen computer models that show it as round. I have seen more proof that the earth is flat, yet I believe its round. " i dont knwo what picutres you have been looking at but the Earth is certainly not a frisbee and its no round, its a spheriod (an oblate one at that). A disc is round and its believed by many that Mespotanian cosmology which the bible was possibly based upon inherited that disc like view. If you have seen more "proof" that the world is flat then you should believe it. "What I dont understand is how someone can state they are a Christian and then speak as if they are full of intolerence to what they feel is a non-believer when everyone knows that the bible would consider that a downright sin. " problem is not everyone agrees with your intepretation of the bible. Many people believe it preaches intolerance and there are textual refercnes to back that view up: the bible commands non belivers to be stoend to death in the Ot and burnt in an eternal fire in the NT. The inotlerance you so despise has its roots (at least partially) in the bible itself.

"And why is it delusion to believe in something" It is not a delusion to believe in something. But it is a delusion to have the sort of unshakable belief that many theists have without any shred of evdience whatsoever.

Well I didnt see any other text in your response except a link to old reply of yours. Can I suggest responding to the point beind made if you dont want your sig lines mistaken for repsonses?

"You may be young in years but the heart that beats beneath your bosom is as shriveled as an old maid's, your soul as dry as the pages of the books to which you so desperately cleave " Is this supposed to be an argument? Perhaps you should try some evidence and logic and leave the personal insults at the door?

"As Billvon pointed out in another thread, there is a great difference in the message of the Old Testament vs. the message of the New Testament. Perhaps YOU may wish to do a bit of further reading... " Last tiime I looked most bibles came packaged together OT and NT all in one book. If the OT laws are to be discarded why would jesus say "“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.” As to the comparative morality of the two. the Ot punishes the non believer by stoning them to death. For lovely peacful Jesus thats not enough; he wants an ever lasting torture for those that doubt him. Not sure how thats a preferable moral message.

"Do you really think that the bible actually shows exact quotes from some guy???????? " No of course not. I'm critiquing the bible as it is presented. Im making no assumption on whether the characters in it are real or fiction. They may be based on a real person, they might not be, I have no idea. You are still assuming the main message is be nice to each other. I think thats an innacuarte description. The character of Jesus in the bible ( which may or may not desribe a real person) says some nice stuff like the golden rule and he says some horrid stuff like dont believe in me and youll be burnt.

"God is a God of love, not one who hurts. So your example isn't very rational. " Your response makes me question if you have even read the bible. God certainly does hurt, he even targets the innocent for special suffering. Take for example the Exodus story. God hardened Pharos heart to show his glory, he sent ten plagues including the death of every first born when he could have just softened Pharohs heart instead. Anyone who can say something like your comment above either hasnt read the bible or is so brainwashed they cant see its cruelty.

"I don't know about ya'all, but theories don't do a whole lot for me. Until they come up with the grand unified theory or find the Higgs bozon I don't get real excited. " That would be a valid point if and only if creation by god had some emperical evidence for it. It has none. At best one has an argument for god but no actual evidence for god. Now if there are no other arguments then perhaps we could lead towards the god hypothesis. If there are other arguments for our orgins (and there are) then we have no reason to conclude the god hypothesis is correct. The big difference between scienitsts and theists is that when a hypothesis is suggested in science that makes sense,like the vacuum fluctuation theory of the origin of the universe,we do not automatically assume its true and base our lives around it. Theists do do that. For the god hypothesis to be taken seriously without any evidence there at least has to be no alternatives. As long as there are alternatives we have no reson to treat the god hypothesis in any prefferred way. "Do you want to know why the Bible is still around after all these years? It is real easy. IT WORKS! It gives love to the despondent, incite to the discouraged, direction to the purposeless , joy to the wretched, peace to the afflicted, self control to the hedonist, wisdom to the foolish, and most importantly PROVIDES A MEANS OF FORGIVENESS OF SINS AND SALVATION TO THE HOPELESS. " Lets assume we agree it works. That would have no connection whatsoever as to whether it is true. If a doctor tells his patient he is fine when in fact he has a terminal disease we might say it works because the patient walks away happier but that does not make the doctors statement true. I wont deny that religion is very good at spreading and replciating itself. It promsies ever lasting life and people find that tempting to believe in. Of course they cannot find out if its true until after they die and then its too late. This makes religion a very succesful idea, especially amongst those not educated in critical thinking and the scientific method. But again that does not make it true. Islam "works" for over a billion people does that make it true? Let me address the point you state is most important that it "provdies a means of forgiveness of sins and salvation". Well this really is ridiculous. First off, its forgiving you of a sin that it itself has created. In Christianity there is the belief that we somehow inherit the sins of two mythical people and that we are guilty of their actions just by being borne. It then provides the means of forgiveness. Well im sorry i dont need forgiveness of a crime I didnt commit. Even if we accept the story of Adam and Eve is true (and I see no reason to do so) why should I be responsible for their actions? Should we hold the current generation of Germans children responsible for the crimes of the Nazis? Are the curent generation of American children reposnsible for the crimes of slavery? of course not, such an idea is a riduclous concept of justice. As to the whole concept of "it works" this is a very well known logical fallacy known as the pragmatic fallacy. Im very suprised to see someone as intelligent as Bilvon not see through this. To demosntrate the pragmatic fallacy I will give an example. Let us suppose someone gets ill and the body can fight the illness in 4 weeks by itself. Within one week the patient goes to see a pyshcic healer and a week later they are not better; they conclude the pyshcic healer does not work. Three weeks into their disease they go and see a Christian faith healer and a week later they are better. They might conclude that it was the Chrisitian faith healer that cured them; it works, they will say. Of course it didnt really work, the body would have healed itself within 4 weeks no matter what. The patient has fallen victim of the pragmatic fallacy. This is a dangerous fallacy to fall into. Lets suppose they now get a disease that the body cannot fight off, such as Aids. They could go back to the faith healer thinking it works and what will happen? They are very likely to die as a result. This is an importnnat lesson for humanity. When buebonic plague almost wiped out the population of Europe they didnt investigate the nature of the disease, they sought the pragmatic fallacy of prayer and it failed them dramatically. Do we want to do the same? Should we use science to try and combat the spread of Aids or should we assume its a punishment for our sins and sue prayer? Religion has caused untold wars, suffering and oppresion. Should we consider that as "working" . National socialism in Germany caused wars, suffering and oppression. National Socialism also gave hope, gave jobs, provided a scapegoat for past problems. I would not be suprised if the Germans of the 1930's and early 1940's would have said "it works for us". That would have been no reason for others not to condenm it in the strongest possible terms.

here is the abstract form the paper that appeared in Nature. Im sure you are familair with Nature as the most prestigousa scientic peer review journaled in the world. Now if you have some peer reviewed papers that destroy this argument please present them otherwise you dont have a leg to stand on. What you have presented is one scientists personal opinion. Bt as you have corectly shown other scienists do not agree. But science does not move forward by opinion it moves forward by publishing papers in peer reviewed journals. So if you dont have that you dont have anything. Nature 246, 396 - 397 (14 December 1973); doi:10.1038/246396a0 Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation? EDWARD P. TRYON Department of Physics and Astronomy, Hunter College of the City University of New York, New York, New York 10021 The author proposes a big bang model in which our Universe is a fluctuation of the vacuum, in the sense of quantum field theory. The model predicts a Universe which is homogeneous, isotropic and closed, and consists equally of matter and anti-matter. All these predictions are supported by, or consistent with, present observations.

I think its Christians that like to pik and chose. Ive never denied that Jesus (in the bible) said some great stuff. He also said some nasty stuff. Its far more common ( as you yourself did) for people to pretend he only said nice stuff than the opposite, so I feel obliged to point out the relaity of the Christian texts. Were the statements written later on? Oh thats very possible. But no one knows who wrote the gospels or when they were written, so to be honest thats all speculation. We dont know what jesus really said if he even existed at all.

Jackc is right somehting can come form nothing. but I htink its more precise to say that quantum vacuum fluctuations are causeless events where a particle pops into existence and then disapeears out of existence very quickly. the amount of time it can exist for is a function of Hesinbergs uncertainty equation and therefore the more energy it has the less time it can exist for. Now the universe is estimated to have 0 net energy becuase the positive mass energy is balanced by negative gratitaional energy. So its perfectly consistent with the laws of phhysics for the universe to pop into existence without a cause and exist forever. the casimir effect is a consequence of these vacuum flucuations. Its really tiresome to hear theists say nothign can come form nothing. they are wrong and even if they were right it wouldnt prove their god . After all why can god can from nothign but the inverse cant? Its so silly.

Not sure one can summairse the teachings of jesus as described in the NT as saying we should all be nice to each other. After all he did say those that didnt support him should have ever lasting torture. Hows that for being nice to each other? "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned." jesus in John 15.6

my reason for not believing in Christianity is .. no evidence, end of.