Posting:

Due to the current troll infestation we will be requiring you to sign in to leave a comment. Also, please note that we will be very nice in the regular posts, but we will not be gentle in the Sunday Blaspheme posts. You will be expected to back up any ideas with facts.

I am always happy to answer any questions I can:)

New Rule! Staff reserves the right to cuss you out and post your correspondence if you send us annoying emails.

Best!

Brett

Sunday, January 22, 2012

This Sunday, Why religion is bad, Muhammad and your little Allah too.

This is so appalling I'm not even going to try and comment on it directly. But if you can't see why ANY religion can be bad, and most usually are, you need to take a good long look in the mirror.

I've very, very tired of the 'I just hate god' BS. I don't I hate Allah, or Jesus or whomever. I hate what your religion has done to you, a religion made by man (because even if you believe in your god, others believe in their god, and since only your is real then they just made there up.) I see no difference between the different types, with the exception that some of the religions make people violent. While the Christians seem to have grown out of MOST of there violent ways (we'll not talk about Africa today,) the Islamists are still in the dark ages (well most of them unfortunately.) If you read about Muhammad, you can see it's bat shot insane. It's just as bad as what John Smith does. Muhammad wants something so Allah just happens to agree with him on everything. WOW. And people can't see this is false?!??!

But don't you see? That's the trick of religion, to get you to not see what it's really trying to do. It's getting you to not think, to simply accept what it says at face value. It's teaching you to be double plus good. It's teaching you to NOT question it while telling you it's OK to question, but the answers it gives you are not answers, they are simply more tricks. I've asked questions here on the blog but half the time I get something that has nothing to do with what I asked. THAT is what it's doing to you, tricking you into thinking that IS an answer when it's not.

No I don't hate your god. I feel sorry for the people who have been duped into following him, whatever one he happens to be. To see people wasting there limited time and resources on something so painfully false is really depressing. There is a local commercial here, telling people to go to church because people who are religious are more happy than people who are not. This may very well be true, as ignorance is bliss, but I'd rather be slightly less happy that ignorant and easy to fool.

Best,

Brett

58 comments:

steve said...

So as always, yes Christians are stupid and uninformed, and now mostly evil.

Hey Brett would you like to research or have an informed opinion? Would you like to put your money where your mouth is? You can’t say Christianity shuts down thinking and then say, “Oh, and I am unwilling to think or research it because I’m an atheist.” You’ve just shown atheism apparently shuts down thinking.

At some point doesn’t the irony get to you?

So let’s see Christians are taught to research, are responsible for medical and scientific world changing discoveries, based off of research, but oh yeah-their idiots. The Christians who routinely win philosophical debates, yeah their idiots too. The fact over 85% of all charities are run and funded by Christians. Yeah-that makes Christians mean and hateful. Just look at those mean Christians feeding the hungry and providing clean drinking water. They are so hateful. Oh look, a natural disaster and the Christians again run in first and give the most time, money, and manpower. Doesn’t that just anger you? How can they be so evil and mean by helping the hurting and the starving?

But as always, actual facts refute you, but as long as you refuse to look you can convientently believe whatever nonsense you want all the while saying religious folks refuse to think and are out of touch.

Brett said...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Steve, why should I waste MORE time looking into something that is false? WHY? I looked into it, was raised into it. I'm not going to spend MORE time 'researching' as you do with your bible study. Rereading the bible isn't curing cancer or ending world huger is it? Maybe you should try praying again, that always seems to work!

And again you miss the point and can only react not learn.

And how are those mean Christians getting that clean drinking water Steve? Huh that would be science. The same science that refutes your religion. The same science you ignore when it suits you or mis represent when you can. That some Christians and Muslims use the tool of science doesn't mean they can't still be completely wrong about religion. It just means they can use a tool.

And Steve, it's not only christians who donate time and money so get off your incredibly high horse. You are not the only people in the world who do good. I don't bring up all those good ass christians in jail do I? Cause you know all them atheists are just over crowing the prison system. Or all those loving Christians who kill them evil bad child witches in Africa. Your are simply showing your ignorance by once again lashing out and ignoring the problem. The problem being how religion teaches people to hate and exclude people who don't agree with them by tricking you into not learning.

Thanks for proving my point! See how you are arguing and not even trying to see that religion can be bad? BRAINWASHING.

Best,

Brett

Brian said...

I am so sick of hearing that I "hate" or "am angry with" God.

I don't waste time hating or being angry with fictional characters. Or, if I do, I spend it on ones that haven't been the direct cause of wars and murders for centuries.

Zardra said...

I felt like writing a really long comment here, but I would just be agreeing with you. So I'll just link you to this and agree with you: http://naurunappula.com/z/858415
(sorry, the site is Finnish, but that picture is in english).

M.O.R said...

I feel like crying, as Chris Isaak once said, or sang as the case may be.

I agree with you Brett, and I say this as someone who does believe.

Now, pretty much everyone does something good for their own selfish reasons. For example, the believer does it to go to heaven/ nirvana/ etc, or to get money for the new car, or to get tickets to a concert. The atheist/ agnostic does things, bar the heaven/ nirvana/ etc, for pretty much the same reason. The little serotonin boost we get, ie do good, make yourself feel good, is the drug.

But then you have the whack-os, as in they will have you whacked if you do or don't do what they tell you. The people who will gladly shoot one until they hear the voice of God telling them not to. The voice never turns up, or at least, not in the way they think it will (big booming voice, clouds split open etc).

I have to commend you for criticising the barbarism of extremist Islamists, as too often we expose the barbarism of other religions, but not of the the extreme islamists. Mainly out of fear. Religion, like anything, should be discussed, debated and even denounced when they feel they are free to ignore the laws of the land. Especially when they believe they are right to.

I have met, and will continue to meet jerks of all beliefs. But I hate them not because of their beliefs, but because of them.

I truly believe, sadly, that if the word of God was taken down, as said, thousands of years ago, it has been lost forever. People took it, edited and changed it for their own needs. A great play, written by Phillip Marlowe, called Tamburlaine challenged religion, and society, hundreds of years ago. It plainly says, why wait for rewards in the after life, when you can enjoy the life you have now.
Even then, it caused ructions. Marlowe was killed in a 'random' act of violence, no doubt planned to quell dissent.

Nobody knows exactly what happens next, even if they believe they do.
Take care, Brett and all.

heffison said...

Wikipedia confirms that "Tamburlaine" was written not by Phillip Marlowe, but Christopher Marlowe. I had not heard of this work before, but apparently it was historically significant for a number of reasons, including its willingness to address man's urge to put himself before God.

Seems odd that I never heard of this, in all the English classes that I sat through.

heffison said...

Oh, yeah, on the actual topic: That story about not being able to discuss Sharia law in public is definitely scary. The fact that authorities were so unwilling to blame the offender and protect the already legal right of free speech is just pathetic. And you know that if this had been threats to someone discussing writing Christianity into the law, the response would have been different.

I have no problem with people having beliefs that I do not share, or do not see as justified, but when they decide that I must live as though I shared those beliefs, they will be opposed, no matter what beliefs they represent.

Sometimes it is hard not to blame an entire group for the actions and rants of their extremists. Still, it is worth the effort to try, as we expect others to do for us, no matter what group we are attached to.

M.O.R said...

True words Heffison.

Btw, Tamburlaine is on project gutenberg's website. Really cool, play, and I say this as someone who dislikes Shakespeare. Sorry bout the first name, but the second name I was sure about.
Tamburlaine comes in two parts, and the second is set decades after the first. Think of how Oedipus is structured.
It's notable been 'historically retconned' by most, possibly because it leads to one examining and questioning everything about society, including government, royalty and church and state.
AS you can imagine, folks in power, at the time, were none too happy about the idea of people questioning their power, so Tamburlaine was denounced from the higher ups, and Marlowe met a rather unfortunate end, killed in a pub fight, that more than likely was a set up to have Marlowe 'taken out'. He had also been put in jail for saying there was no God, at a time when heresy was a crime.

I'd be fairly surprised if his death were not pre-planned by exterior parties.

dhr said...

Brett, you're probably lucky enough to live (literally) "in the wilderness." Otherwise we should feel deeply apprehensive about your life.

Sarah J. said...

Can I just point out that Islam has, like Christianity, gone fundamentalist in the last 100 years or so. Before that it was actually very far out of the "dark ages", with a far more advanced view on the rights of women in divorce, and the ethics of business, for instance. I mean, whatever man, I respect your pov (I myself do not believe in religion and I'm undecided about a god) but I think it's misguided to say that Christians are mostly "waking up" to the bad-side of their religion, and Muslims are still where they were at the start. It's a misguided, and uninformed comment to make which really only exposes your ignorance of the History of Islam. It's less that they're *still* in the dark ages, than they chose to go back there. Rightly, or wrongly, many Muslims in the world right now feel that at some point they lost their way and a back-to-basics approach was necessary. Sadly for those of us who give a crap, those "basics" were translated into the written word over 1000 years ago, when forensic evidence didn't exist, and women were almost whole-sale-ly considered to be worth 1/2 of a man in her opinions wherever you were in the world.
Anyway, sorry, I just always feel like people need to keep an open mind about these sort of things and not just box people up into sweeping, generalised statements. Especially when insinuating that an entire religion, or an entire people are so obviously... hmm how can I put it, "behind"?
But as this post was clearly generated out of frustration, (and that Christian advert sounded a joy! (not),) I'm just gonna say - breathe man, breathe.

steve said...

Thanks for everyone sharing their opinions, does anyone have evidence or collaborating facts? Do you want us just to believe you at face value? Are you trying to start your own religion based off of blind faith?

The people funding the clean drinking water programs? Christians. The scientists doing the research? A mix of Christians and non-Christians. The People on the front line of implementing the most clean water programs? Christians.

Again don’t believe me, research it for yourself. Put in “clean water program” in Google and see what you get. Ah poop, looks like this Steve guy is right. Better ignore the facts and scoff a bit louder. See? We support free thinking and being informed.

Brett’s response. Science disproves Christianity. Your particular view of science does not allow for the supernatural. You support materialism, that isn’t the definition of science. What you mean when you say “disproves” is that by definition a philosophical materialistic world view does not allow for the existence of a super natural deity. You accept this without proof as a fact of life even though your own view of science points toward a first cause.

Natural Science is not in conflict with Christianity, nor the super natural-it can neither verify nor deny non material causes. It cannot comment on the existence of God. Historical and philosophical evidence exists for Christianity. There is room for disagreement, but that is not disproving something.

High horse? Not really. Christianity like every religion is imperfect from the man side of the equation. Christians should do better, but we fail. We should be morally upright at all times, but we fail. We screw up worse than non-Christians. Christians know Jesus and still sin, this is shameful. But God is still good, Christianity is both God reaching down to us and his followers responding back to Him. God gets his side right every time. We fail every time to some degree. Still we keep trying because God loves us perfectly we try to live up to the grace he has shown to us.

Brett is right in condemning religion. All religions fail, they either make proud morally superior bloated prudes or weak willed compliant followers. Since Christianity is not a system, a moral path, a set of rules, a balance beam between good and evil, but rather a relationship based off of love and forgiveness it offers a chance at real change. Christians come in all shapes, sizes, IQ’s, temperaments, etc. (oh and Scientists too!)

Christians change by entering into a relationship with Jesus. Anyone can do it, and no particular group, color, or culture is excluded.

Brett had a minor cultural Catholic upbringing. Being forced to go to church and being bored in Sunday School can hardly be confused for honest intellectual academic research. Still as Brett says, “Why research something I already know is false?” –How exactly does that work. Seriously, how? Don’t you have to actually research something? Do you use this method of study for science? You know everything without learning or study? Really? I guess you might want to consider the importance of facts, knowledge, books, and the scientific method of researching data.

Brett, what you do is scoff. You state your opinion, without taking time to learn the other side.

steve said...

I forgot to ask Brett you said the science of cleaning water disproves God.

Is that a correct quote?

Please explain to me how cleaning water disproves God.

I admit, I don't readily make the connection. I've known Christian Biologists who do research at Ohio State specializing in hydrating plants, specifically lettuce varieties. I guess they aren't as educated as you? Are they stupid? Do you want their grants taken away because of their beliefs? How does praying and reading the Bible distort their data?

Brett said...

dhr,

Maybe, I've been an 'out' Atheist since I was 26 and I'm almost 40 now. I've only lived here for 8 years so there was a time I wasn't 'out' here but 'out' in the bible belt of Florida. 1 county over they officially banned Satan... it was even on the Daily Show:)

M.O.R.

There always seem to have some people who take things to the extremes. That might actually be the real issue here. While I dislike people spouting falsehoods I understand they have the right to do it. What bothers me is those same people forcing those falsehoods on others through the government. I'm not trying to make people stop being religious, only they can do that. I'm trying to get them to understand that they aren't the only ones who live here and that the laws of the land need to reflect that. Pissing off Steve is just a bonus;P

Right now the most barbaric that I know of are the Muslim extremists and the Christians in Africa. We're lucky we don't have any blasphemy laws here, so I can say what needs to be said. But really questioning religion isn't blasphemy, they just call it that when we don't agree with them. I mostly focus on Christians cause they are the dominant religion in the States.

Sarah J.

That's not entirely true. After Muhammud... I'm gonna say 'left.' The more open minded and scholarly Muslims took over, they made a sort of golden age for the religion. I was only after the crusades and the Christians came about and fucked things up that things went south and into there current more strick form. They 'chose' to get more extreme as a way of reuniting the sultans after the crusades.

And I love your open mind line! It is open, which is why I call out the extremists for what they are. You are still shackled to the idea that religion is good... any religion. And please don't give me a history lesson when you know not what you speak of. Islam didn't exist over a thousand years ago.

Again Steve, clean drinking programs are also funded by people of other religions using SCIENCE to fix a problem. I've sent money to groups like that myself. You insistance that only Christians do this kind of thing is a lie. And again proves my point. Ignore all the bad and focus on the good... that's why little boys get raped, of course those Catholics aren't Christians... unless you need to fall back on your argument from numbers.

I never said using science to clean water disproves god. I've said OVER and OVER again that science disproves any god on the earth. It' proves the bible is false or at least parts of it. That you keep misreading things is your problem not mine.

As long as they don't let there religion interfere with the science I don't really care. But if they start claiming that tiny angles are cleaning it with scrub brushes then I'd have a problem with them. As would the scientific community. Lots of people can differenciate between what is science and what is religion, that you can't is more telling about you.

You seem to think that the only good in the world is done by christians. This is a flat out lie, and by going there you have proved you have swallowed the kool-aid, hook line and sinker. That you refuse to admit that even YOUR religion can be used to justify horrible acts means you are unwilling to examine anything religious based with an open mind and your opinions can't be trusted in regards to religion.

Best,

Brett

steve said...

Again, Brett read my actual post. Don't distort it. I didn't say only, I said the majority; big difference. My actual wording is true, I would not agree with the way you put it. It of course would be impossible to know the faith of every person. Look at the trend, the numbers and the giving. Read it as it is, do not try to distort to make yourself look correct.

So from your new response, science and religion as they exist are not in disagreement. They are not in conflict. Religion supports scientific research, doesn't contradict it.

Why do you make points which support my statement but retreat back to your inaccurate conclusion?

There is no logic to it at all.

Science is incapable of commenting on anything outside of the natural order. Correct?

Religion does not teach science. Correct?

Two different areas of study. Now a scientist could misuse science and say there is no God because of science. That would be a misuse of science, not a problem with science.

A Priest could say God disproves science, but again, that would be a misuse.

As they actually exist and when practiced correctly they aren't in open conflict.

Why do you constantly make the false statement they are?

Any proof at all? Any? Really, quit saying I'm wrong and actually show some evidence?

Remember, I'm not so good at exercising blind faith.

steve said...

Remember Brett and I are friends. If you read our interaction on here and think we hate each other or are always at each other’s throats you are wrong. We get along pretty well on every other topic, religion and gangster films are the two things we disagree on. We aren’t enemies just because we strongly disagree. You probably don’t want to insult Brett’s friends on his blog; just saying don’t assume because there is disagreement there is also hostility or hatred. Brett and I argue, but we also respect and like each other as friends.

Brett is super smart and a dynamic thinker when he wants to be. He will spend hours studying the musculature of a new dinosaur variety so he can get it exactly right. He is a bigger detail hound than me. He exercises care in most intellectual pursuits.

Religious topics he uses a totally different approach. Brett dropped out of the Catholic Church as a teen. He sort of learned what they taught but never embraced it. Catholicism can be either good or bad, it can be either Christian or anti-Christian; depending on how you practice it.

If you read the Bible you see God distinguishes between saved and unsaved people; people who know God and those who don’t. The Bible is shocking because it says the major dividing line is not between those who go to church and those who don’t; in fact its harshest criticism is for those who go to church, who are religious, who practice a form of self-justification in God’s name. The Bible teaches you can go to church, call yourself a Christian and actually be lost. This is a shocking revelation and central to much of Jesus’ teaching. When discussing Christianity you have to understand that it says there are many false religious people who don’t actually know God at all. It’s in our book, so that has to be taken into consideration and weighed when discussing the legitimacy of someone’s spiritual claims.

Brett tends to ignore this central truth. He treats all Christians as the same. Or on some occasions he states because there is the possibility of a false Christianity there is no way of knowing the correct right form of Christianity. The remedy for both of Brett’s false accusations is the same; actually study and learn what Christians believe, and what the Bible actually says. Knowing and believing are two different things. Your atheist friends won’t make fun of you for knowing what the Bible teaches. Heck, you can probably use the information to make stronger counter points.

steve said...

So why do I bicker with Brett so much? To have an honest discussion you both ask and answer questions. Brett seldom answers questions. He does respond, but what I’m looking for is a logically reasoned interaction, not the silly arguments which can be copied and pasted. Think and respond. Not scoff and ridicule. I do like occasionally poking fun and you’ve got to know by now I have a sarcastic wit, but I try to use it to steer the conversation into deeper waters not as empty rhetoric, I hope that comes through in my posts.

I don’t agree with Brett’s view of science, materialistic naturalism, but I have studied it. I know its strengths and weaknesses. I could argue for it or against it. That is the way you have a respectful dialogue, you care enough to discuss the facts, you consider the other side’s view, you learn it, and then once you have weighed it you respond to it. Then the dialogue becomes more refined, generalizations are left in the dust as deeper truths are looked for. That is a debate, a dialogue, an interaction.

Mis-characterizations, caricatures, name calling, defamatory remarks, and demonizing another’s view are out of place. Respect is shown by investing time in consideration and responding. I’ll admit; I’m way more sardonic with Brett than in most debates I take part in. Because we never actually get to the discussion part. Brett never takes the time to understand what he is arguing against. It is such a shallow and erroneous take on Christianity that there is very little meat to chew on or digest.

I have no idea how someone can hate something so strongly they understand so poorly.

Why bother posting so many negative posts about something you’ve never taken the time to research? I know, I know you were a Catholic as a small child. Well, I took biology in high school, but I don’t believe that was more than a cursorily look at general topics, not to mention but many of the facts have been proven wrong or updated. The point, take a fresh look with an adult’s discernment. Catholicism is not always equivalent to actual Christianity. A teen’s superficial experience twenty years ago does not make you an expert or even give you reputable underpinnings to discuss the relevant points today.

If you actually learn something and still disagree that is an informed opinion.

Then you can say, “Yes but you believe this don’t you? This is why I disagree with you.”

Right now we are kind of stuck on Brett saying, “I don’t like this, it is stupid, false and evil.”

I respond, “Well actually that isn’t what we believe at all, would you like to know the truth of what we believe?”

Brett’s response, “No, because it is stupid and false and evil. Why should I learn about it?”

Then I say, “But don’t you want the facts? An informed opinion? Don’t you want to learn?”

Brett replies, “No I don’t want an informed opinion, because your way of thinking shuts down learning.”

At some point I think the humor and irony may get through, but until then the ridicule will continue. I guess you find it entertaining? Throw me a bone, what is the draw?

M.O.R said...

Hey Brett,

I personally feel that no religion, none, should be off limits. None. Why? Simple, because the more we ignore one group, the greater the chance they have of growing and superceding the laws.

People focused so much on the extreme Christians, that they ignored the extreme Muslims until they frikking started causing trouble in their neighbourhood. The taliban and Sharia law were prevalent for years, yet were practically ignored until they committed a wrong, against the states. Then they took notice.

Just look at the Tea baggers, they were initially a 'minority'and then they just multiplied.
Now we have situations like the video below,which left me disgusted and saddened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jlCEhL2dpc

steve said...

Rereading my post and I had an epiphany, a better way to put it.

Science and Religion do not contradict each other, but a scientist and a religious person can. That means, the two areas of study when done correctly co-exist peacefully. Misuse results in conflict; it is the product of individuals not the fields of study.

For instance I believe in an Intelligent Designer, but I don’t know exactly how God did it. I look to science for clues. Lots of good pieces, lots of big holes. Various ideas on how God did it, but because God wants people to be curious and learn, he doesn’t tell us everything. He teaches us about Himself, His will, and His character and then says enjoy your planet, enjoy your universe, enjoy life. Our world is a big gift to be explored and studied; He created man to discover and study because God wants us to enjoy the thrill of discovery. Religion is the study of God and His ways, but it believes we will always be limited to what He reveals about Himself. When it comes to the natural world, it makes no restrictions on figuring things out. Religion deals more with the application of science; does it line up with morality. Science makes a gun, morality says don’t shoot another person with it because murder is bad.

Brett believes in Evolution, Brett doesn’t believe God had anything to do with Creation. Evolution does not have an answer for how it did happen, but they are looking into various ideas. Lots of good pieces, lots of big holes, still looking for a verifiable agent which actually fits the natural evidence. Scientists love to discover and learn. They too, love the thrill of learning. Science is the ongoing study of our world, based on the accepted truth: We don’t know everything yet. Science doesn’t make morality statements, it can’t. Science makes a gun, it says this is how it works, not what to do with it.

Both camps say, we know somethings, but we don’t know everything, and frankly we have some pretty big honking holes. Let’s be kind to each other and admit there is room for all of us and maybe some of your facts fill in some of our holes.

Misuse results in one camp saying they get exclusive rights to knowledge and the other side is a bunch of stupid poopy-heads. There is a natural overlap and interaction-not conflict.

So maybe that helps? Maybe we can agree science and religion are friends and work with each other quite well? Maybe we can start to say the problem isn’t religion or science, but the misuse by people who are trying to use it as authority to control others for selfish purposes?

MOR- I also reread your post. You do understand Christianity is not doing good to achieve God’s good favor, correct? The reward for a Christian is God, not favorable treatment, salvation, heaven, or for people to think well of them. That is kind of what the whole reformation period in Christian history addressed. It wanted to correct this false understanding of God’s grace.

You stated,
“Now, pretty much everyone does something good for their own selfish reasons. For example, the believer does it to go to heaven/ nirvana/ etc, or to get money for the new car, or to get tickets to a concert.”

That is the opposite of Christianity, but it is a common misconception. Just want to make sure I’m understanding you correctly.

Brett said...

Steve, until you are willing to see that any religion can be bad including yours you are simply willfully ignoring things.

Your religion says that the the word of god is infallible. The bible is the word of god. Science shows that things like Adam and Eve and the Flood never happened. So there for the bible is wrong. Science shows that the bible is indeed fallible so this disproves the god of the bible. It does not disprove this new amorphous god everyone has since they don't really use the bible anymore.

How is religions are bad inaccurate? How? Just because you don't want to hear it doesn't make it wrong.

If religion doesn't teach science than why are you INSISTING that it does with ID or creationism? Because that's what they are religion pretending to be science.

HOw could you know the strength and weakness of the natural sciences when you plainly get most of it wrong? Yes you have studied it, but it appears only from an ID perspective.

I do provide you with answers, you just ignore them. Like the whale legs, Why on earth would they need them if they were created by god for living in the sea? But the POINT is to get you to question things and you can not question your religion it's been programmed out of you.

I tell you why I think things are wrong or evil or bad, you simply refuse to hear the answers because to you yuor religion is ALWAYS right. The fact that the first thing you did was say how great it is is a perfect example of this. Until you can accept the good with the bad you can't understand any of this.

Science is a tool and it can be used for great gains, like modern medicine, planes, space travel. But it can also be used to destroy. It's a double edges sword and until you can see that in your religion you can not examine it critically. SO make up whatever you need to say about what I think or say but for your own sake, stop pretending your religion is all smiles and realize there are lots of assholes in it as well.

Best,

Brett

Brett said...

One last thing, then I need to get some work done.

Why should I invest more time into (and because this is the only religion that Steve wants me to look into to) your religion? I have wasted enough time there. It has been proven false, myths and legends, if I need something from it I will look it up, it is treated like all other religion. But because you think it's special that's not good enough for you is it? You think I'll have some sort of revelation don't you? Well, when they get some new material or something that's actually relavent to the modern world I'll look into it. Until then there is no point, there is no new information to explore than there was 20 years ago, or 100 years ago. It's been looked into already by people far smarter than you or I. So why would my position change after almost 20 years if you have nothing new to contribute? That's the epitome of a waste of time. Id rather spend my time looking into things I don't already know or have already read about.

Your might not understand that, and that is why you can't see past your religion's facade.

Best,

Brett

dhr said...

>there was a time I wasn't 'out' here but 'out' in the bible belt of Florida

I was referring to the Koran belt...

Brett said...

dhr,

LOL! No we don't have one in the US, more like pockets;) So the US is pretty safe for free speech still. The UK, not so much. They went so far out of there way to be nice that it's bit them on there collective arse.

Best,

Brett

steve said...

Awesome, Brett now you are getting it. Science says Whales sometimes have bones unconnected in the pelvis area. Here is a good pro-evolution site with pics:

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/mpm/mpm_whale_limb.html

So science says there are bones. An evolutionist (a person) says they are proof the animal evolved from an animal with legs. Of course most evolutionists forget to mention this is the opposite of evolution, the belief new traits evolved upward; if they actually were legs it is devolution-losing legs. To get around this they say it is simply change. So okay, right there not Evolution, but that is getting off track-back to the actual facts.

Scientists now try plugging the actual fact, bones in whales into an evolutionary model to see if it fits.

The bones do not come with labels which say “Hi, I’m a femur.”

If it was a femur remnant you would expect to find femur type muscle attachment remnants. If it was a flipper you would expect different muscle attachment sites. Unfortunately we get neither. You have some IDists saying it is used in reproduction.

If it is Evolution does it fit other recorded data? The timeline for whales to evolve is…er evolving.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44867222/ns/technology_and_science-science/#.TyBrPIGVH74

So science doesn’t say they are evolutionary leg bones. The fact is natural science shows only for a fact some sort of bone. A person who believes evolution to be true says it is a leg, no real way of knowing-not with the data we currently have. NOW an evolutionist could try to overreach the data and cry loudly, but it is, it is a leg bone I tell you! But that is a person making a scientific claim, the actual science is the facts. People order the facts, and the facts get switched around all the time.

Now here is the other thing. Maybe whales did have legs, maybe they liked to ride bikes to the beach and then go for a swim. Maybe they did evolve from some sort of drunken bear which fell into the water and then poof no more legs. That doesn’t in any way rule out God orchestrated the event.

So a scientist can order the facts into an evolutionary model, though that model is not found in nature. It is a best guess, and then the same person could say they are legs, but again a guess. But here is the main point: Even if it was true, it would not disprove God. Whales could wear cross trainers and God still can exist-those facts don’t contradict each other.

What happens is someone says I want to disprove God. I believe evolution disproves God. You want proof there is no God? Whale legs, I tell you-whale legs disprove God.

The Christian is left scratching their head, “Uhm whale bones are hardly universally accepted as remnants of legs. And legs aren’t proof of evolution. And evolution doesn’t disprove God.”

dhr said...

hmm

forewarned is four-armed (like a Teen Titan)

steve said...

What sort of time machine are you using there chief?

Science can’t show Adam and Eve never existed.

See again, that isn’t a contradiction, a scientist could try to say they didn’t exist-but that is an unscientific claim. You have a scientist making a religious statement. Science can’t prove any particular person did or did not exist. That is just crazy talk.

History and historical records are a better discipline for studying a one time event; any scientist will tell you that.

Remember our previous discussion about Adam and Eve? That is what is so odd. You raise a point, I disprove it, and then you raise it again as if nothing ever happened. CS Lewis was a Christian, did not believe in a literal Adam and Eve. Okay, that is an easy one.

You can be a Christian and not believe in a literal Adam and Eve, as CS Lewis did. I find this concept problematic, to be sure. And there are whole books by Christian people who hold this position.

Science can also go on its marry way if Adams and Eve did exist, they don’t contradict each other. Now an evolutionist may try to make contradictory claims, and order the natural evidence in a way which discounts the possibility of Adam and Eve. Sure they can try that, but that is not natural science- that is applied science-which is a lot less concrete.

Maybe that is your confusion, maybe you view the natural sciences and applied sciences as being the same thing? Does that shed any light? That is why we usually agree on things like medicine, space travel, and engineering; those are applied science. It is using science to do something not just say something. Does that make sense? That actually is a pretty good point you’ve brought up.

The flood, I’ve mentioned is my Achilles heel. I struggle with what science says and what the Bible says. I can’t get them to fit. I don’t like the explanations given currently, or I haven’t come across one which lines up all the facts to my satisfaction. We do know there was most likely a massive flood-too much historical evidence for some sort of massive flood event, but the data doesn’t fit neatly with the Genesis account of being the whole world for my tastes. Of course I could whip out the old miracle excuse, and I’m sure God could do it that way-but again doesn’t seem to fit with His character or the narrative as I understand it. So yeah-I’ll give you the Flood is problematic. Doesn’t disprove Christianity, but is a real problem for me.

So you can be a Christian and still believe in evolution, not believe in a literal Adam and Eve, believe whales had legs, and have difficulty with the Flood account. Christianity is about Jesus first. Christianity is fundamentally about who you say Jesus is and what that means to you.

heffison said...

Devo Whales! I love that.

Steve, you mentioned that Adam and Eve, as well as the account of the Flood, are problematic. Some people might take that as the first step to wondering if the rest of the Bible might be questionable as well. So, what balances the scale for you, to lead you to trust in the veracity of the Bible overall?

M.O.R said...

Steve, God should not be a reward. Far from it.

What I am saying is that we all do something for a selfish reason, and even if monetary rewards are not part of it, there is still the old 'serotonin'rush we get when we do something good, the selfish little 'I'm a good person, pat myself on the back'. The feeling we get that makes us feel like we are better people.

But that is just human, nothing sinister about it. And all of us suffer from it.

Brett, regarding free speech. Britain is alot more open minded than you think, and the US is sadly more backwards than you think. For example, out of all the insults Ricky Gervais said last year at the Globes, the one that got him in trouble with the US commentators was 'Thank God he made me an Atheist'.
While there was some hullabaloo about the 'There is no God' busses in the UK, nobody said they should not say it. Would such a bus thing happen in the states? Not without heavy vandalism, at best.
I mean, the US is so scared of the the Big Bang theory, that Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang, had to change it's name in the states.

The movie 'Creation' starring Paul Bethany, about the life of Charles Darwin, sank like a stone in the USA, and was shown on approximately 12 screens. It got national distribution in the UK and Ireland, yet one mention of Darwin and people seem to freak out in the good ole US.

And I say this not to attack the USA, which I most definitely am not trying to do, but instead to show areas where free speech are being curbed, or stopped outright by the bible belters of the US.

M.O.R said...

Forgot to mention that Big Bang Theory probably got by the problem Nanny McPhee had by including the word 'theory'.

Fatboy73 said...

Steve for someone who knows that good work can't get you into heaven, you sure spend a lot of time spouting off about all the good works Christians do.
I really don't give a damn how many good work Christian organizations do or that more are doing them, because the big picture is always tainted by the bottom line...conversion!
It all comes down to proselytisation and the Christian conversion agenda.

You also can't seem to grasp that Brett, me and most other atheist are saying that the core message of Christianity is well known. Everything we need to know about Christianity,
most other religions and a relationship with "god" we know and have rejected. That is in no way shape or form saying we "know it all" but simply stating that religion and gods
are all transparent enough to obviously see the big vat of poison they ultimately derive from. You keep stating that we don't have the same understanding as you, that our dismissal
of Gods come simply from a fundamental lack of knowledge and understanding of Gods true purpose and message. Your also VERY fond of spouting the "No true Scottsman" fallacy which is
completely unacceptable coming from some one as intelligent as you. I tell you this, looking up specific details and bible verses we may have forgotten, Sure. Delving back in to
re-read/relearn all the the fundamental "truths" of Christianity we already know better than you do, and having a head slapping, this changes my whole belief system epiphany is about
as unlikely as re-reading Green eggs and Ham and finding the secret hidden message that SAM I Am indeed does not actually like them regardless of the books insistence that he does.

Fatboy73 said...

Cont.
People love to make statements like "If people want to believe in Gods or a religion, just let them and leave it alone. What's it hurting?" or "So you don't believe in God, great.
so why don't you just sit down and shut up about it already." And what they are really doing is treating religion and faith like it's this harmless little insignificant thing.
Completely ignoring the earth and mind shattering effect it has on people, the pure and raw power it possesses. Religion and faith in Gods are dangerous mind altering drugs that
completely affect peoples perception of reality. With out faith in God you have a man who doesn't particularly like Jews and sees them as the root of a lot of problems going on
around him. But with faith in god you have a morally superior, genocidal maniac who believes he has a divine purpose. Without God you have the slightly creepy old woman, who mumbles
to herself a lot and and makes those smelly potions that made your stomach feel better or kept the wound on your leg from becoming infected and gangrenous. With Religion and
faith in god you have a Witch in league with Satan who needs to be tortured till she confesses and burned alive to cleanse her spirit and set her free.
Humans are capable of horrendous atrocities, simply because they are Human. But when you mix that with divine right it elevates those atrocities to new heights of zealous cruelty.
Women and people of different ethnic backgrounds and sexual orientations are treated like second class citizens who's rights are on the verge of or have already been denied them.
Death threats and promises of eternal torment,rape,sexual degradation and bodily harm are justified to CHILDREN for simply having the courage to stand up for the separation of
church and state. Good people with families and significant, meaningful lives here on earth sacrifice their lives in a hollow, wasteful gesture hoping to gain some trivial reward
in a comfortable afterlife.

The list goes on and on for as long as humankind can remember of horrendous acts committed because someone believed they had a Gods divine authority backing them. The Bible even
verifies this. How many times have you been told that "faith the size of a mustard seed can move mountains." Unfortunately "God" just so happened to tell you to place that mountain
right on top of the individual or groups that conflict with ideals you believe god wants. Sorry for the bad luck!! So go right on telling me that religion and faith in God is harmless,
even altruistic and we will happily keep pointing out the daily horrors that occur because someone had faith.
You did hit one nail right on the head though Steve, Religion and science have nothing to do with each other and it should stay that way and Science has nothing to do with morality.
So with all respect to Brett, you and he can argue fossils and Evolution till the cows come home. But as long as you insist on telling me that my moral compass needs to come from a
collection of thousands of years old texts, written by a random group of over 40 authors and compiled into a somewhat readable mess by men who swear it's the holy word of an
omnipotent, omniscient, totally out of our realm of understanding alien being who, even being alien just so happens to be the just, lawful source of of all human love and compassion,
but apparently acts in a completely contradictory manner. I will gladly tell you where you can stick that moral compass.

I'm sure I missed lots of points but hey, turns out I'm only human.

Brett said...

Steve,

That thing you said about the whale legs makes no sense. Sure things pop up but they usually are related to something the fetus either goes through during gestation or they are a throw back. Changing a limb to do something else requires it to be doing something else. Whales can't move about on land with there front legs, so they would never evolve a back leg… especially one with a knee joint.. If water levels suddenly dropped and whales were forced to move on land they would go extinct. And no, evolution is not an 'upward' trend, that is eugenics thinking from the 1800 that has been completely disproven. Evolution is CHANGE over time. CHANGE to fit a niche or a different environment. There is a VERY clear line of whale evolution. But this is completely besides the point. And you seem to not understand what you are reading in regards to evolution as bones do say I'm a femur or a radius or an ulna or a scapula ect. It's how we can fit them together to make skeletons when the bones are all jumbled up.

And I never said a god didn't orchestrate it, just that YOUR god didn't orchestrate it. We don't know all the mechanisms for evolution yet. So it is possible (however slim and there is no evidence for it) that a god like being is behind it. It's also possible it's aliens. But it is not possible that the god of the bible did it because he doesn't exist. Since there is no evidence of outside supernatural forces we must look at natural ones. We know it happens, we know some of the whys and some of the hows. None of which requires outside help. So I take the null position that if they need no outside help and there is no evidence for outside help then there is no outside help.

A model is found in nature, it's a very clear model, simple to complex, evolve to fill niches exploit resources and reproduce. That's ALL it is, simple, yet complex.

Steve I know you can be a Christian, and not believe in Adam and Eve, or the Flood and can believe in evolution. They are called Catholics!

Yes, Steve science can show that there were NEVER ONLY 2 people on the planet. They use genetics and DNA to show this. It's quite conclusive as if there were only 2 people we most likely would have died out due to inbreeding after 10 generations. First you get sickly, then you loose fertility. It happens in dog breeding all the time, that's why you outcross, unfortunately there is no outcrossing to a different line if there are only 2 to begin with. Its also called a genetic bottleneck. It disproves Adam and Eve.

Maybe this will help you understand… You come at science with a preconceived notion that god exists and you look for evidence to support that. Tossing out anything that doesn't agree with that.

I come at it from a neutral position. What is the idea? That god exists. What is the evidence that supports it, what is the evidence that doesn't support it. The more compelling evidence wins. I do the same thing with EVERYTHING. Someone tells me spinosaurus has short legs, I ask how, they show me, it's either conclusive or it's not.

Doing what you do is the opposite of science. It's the opposite of what I do and how I think. It's why religion doesn't work for me because there isn't any good evidence for me to believe in or trust. I trust science, it's works, time and again. Religion doesn't.

Oy!

Brett said...

dhr,

LOL!

heffison,

I agree with you. You can't say this is the word of an infallible god when parts are clearly not true and in the case of the flood based on another religions myths. Now if you own up to the myths then you can get around that, but the new testament becomes a problem. Because the old testament was all myths then why is the new one not as well? It got me questioning it.

M.O.R.

5 years ago I would have totally agreed with you! But after they passed those blasphemy laws you lost free speech. If you can be imprisoned for criticizing anothers religion (and the fundies regardless of brand get all pissy if you say ANYTHING bad about there ideas) you have a problem.

And yes the US might not be hospitable to religious criticism, but they don't toss you in jail, or they can't legally do it, I'm sure some corrupt cop or judge has done it in the past. Being poopooed on by Fox news idiots isn't the same thing as facing legal action or prison.

Again Fatboy, I get caught up in the details while you see the bigger picture! Kudos!

Best,

Brett

steve said...

Okay much better interaction. Thanks guys for digging in and putting on the old thinking caps. I was afraid I might have been a bit too pushy in trying to get a bunch of info out.

Fatboy, I constantly enjoy your thought process. You seem to understand the big picture. You get the implications of “world views.” I really enjoy all of your insights.

Christians do good works as proof they are thankful for what Jesus has done for them. They’ve received apart from merit so they are generous and giving to others apart from merit. Most religions try to do good for selfish reasons, Karma, promise of paradise, etc. Christianity does offer Heaven, a new life, forgiveness, etc.-it does offer many good “rewards,” but those are all secondary items-they are not the motivating factor. Christians are motivated by who Jesus is, not what he gives. So a Christian does good deeds because they are accepted, not to earn acceptance. Christianity will always argue against trying to earn God’s favor so an individual gets preferable treatment. Love is other centered, outward focused. Fatboy, you state you know the principles of Christianity better than I, do you know this central foundational principle? As you reread your disagreement is this really what you are arguing against?

You seem to believe there is core of evil to Christianity? That all good work is done to proselytize. Remember Christ’s command to “love your enemy”? Much of Christianity is to do good regardless if people ever believe your message or not. True we are taught to share, to be witnesses, but we don’t convert. Look at the difference in proselytization techniques of the various faiths. Remember a materialistic naturalistic closed view of the world is one more “faith.” We are all selling something, you are, Brett is, I am. And you are right we all think we have the “truth.”

Ideas have consequences. So remember, Christianity never says all religions are good, religion can’t be misused, nor sinful men won’t misuse religion. Christianity says there is a God, there is a way to know Him, and there is a proper way to live.

So for instance Fatboy you mentioned a witch being burned. What were you referring to? I hope it was Salem, because there you get both a clear picture of the misuse of religion and the good use of religion. Those who hung accused witches (not burned-I’m pretty sure) misused religion to murder. When you actually research it you find about twenty people were actually killed. Ten of them were Christians, the trials and executions were done totally against any Biblical method which demanded eye witnesses, and in fact it was Christians who eventually stopped the Salem witch trials. So sometimes someone argues and says Christianity leads to things like the Salem witch trials, but actual facts show Christianity would have prevented them if it was the governing authority, those who did eventually stop it were Christians, and those who were hurt by the misuse were Christians. Does this sync up with your understanding?

steve said...

Evolution is CHANGE over time. CHANGE to fit a niche or a different environment. There is a VERY clear line of whale evolution.

Brett, remember environmental adaptation has been on the books since Socrates. That is adaptation. Evolution is not change over time, which was previously known as adaptation. Evolution is not a complex form becomes less complex but different. Evolution is an upward trend. No one argues that animals can lose triats. No one disagrees a leg could disappear.

That isn’t what Evolution teaches, and it is moving the finish line. It is where the controversy is. No one argues against the natural facts, it is what they point to or imply.

If you want to say Whales had rear legs and they disappeared, which I don’t think the fossils conclusively show, then we really have no argument. Everyone believes a trait can disappear. Adaptation can happen. Evolution is these changes result in a totally new type of animal, that there is a branching effect of animals turning from simple forms in a general upward progression to more complex forms by natural means. You would expect to see both an upward and downward change, or even a sidewards change, if Evolution was true, but a downward or sideways change simplifying would not support the thesis that Evolution creates newer more complex species.

Evolution has to bring new material to the table. It doesn’t get to take adaptation or what is known about non-evolutionary genetic breeding and apply it as the engine for Evolution. Evolution can’t grandfather its new claims in under the guise of non-controversial pre-existing information systems. Evolution seeks to go beyond previously known truths and argue for something totally different, that is how science works. You want to prove a new theory, you can’t create a new larger theory like Evolution and use preexisting facts from old theories which also explain the data without conflict or the need for a newer larger theory.

So adaptation or favorable genetic traits do fit inside the Evolutionary model, but they don’t prove it.

What Evolution brings to the table has to be specific to the theory it is trying to prove. This is what Darwin started with, but overtime the theory was accepted as fact and when the actual evidence didn’t fit the theory, the theory was dumbed down to “change over time.” But Brett, you hold to change over time, so explain to me how you differentiate between non-Evolutionary adaptation and non-Evolutionary genetics? How can you tell the difference between an animal changing within the known adaption/genetic limits and it has made an upward move?

The old chair to stool analogy comes to mind. Everyone agrees nature could turn a chair into a stool, it removes something. What evolutions states is it can turn a stool into a chair, not just a different type of stool, not a bigger stool, not a stool of a different color. And eventually that chair will turn into a couch, and the couch a dinette set.

Brett you also mentioned there is a clear pathway in Whale evolution. I only know of the Mesonchyds to Odoncotes series, as you know the fossil record and timeline aren’t easily squeezed into that model, but I was under the notion that is what Evolutionists were shooting for. Could you please share with me the known clear model you are talking about? Remember talkorigins.org can’t help you on this one, they are using the outdated problematic model I refer to. I love learning so I can't wait to see what the new model looks like and how it better fits with the latest fossil for archaeocete jawbone found in February in Anartica.

Brett said...

Steve,

Religion, makes you clannish, xenophobic and willing to accept superstition to the exclusion of logic and reason. It seeks to control you, your thoughts and your actions. To me, that's bad. That's evil.

I guess those republicans forgot to love their enemy when they attack Iraq. And when those loving Christian KKK members killed and terrorized people. And all those loving Christians in Africa who ARE burning 'witches' and gays. Why are they doing these things? Because your bible, your religion tells them it's OK. You god shows his contempt for life when he willy nilly snuffs it out. If he created all of it and loves all of it, why is he always destroying it? Why is he having people kill men women and children? You can back peddle all you want but it's in your book.

It's appalling that people think this is a good thing.

Rick Santorum, now wants to cut higher learning if elected. He knows what more education leads to, less religion so to try and CONTROL people he wants to make them stupid. That's the legacy of religion.

Best,

Brett

steve said...

"And I never said a god didn't orchestrate it, just that YOUR god didn't orchestrate it. We don't know all the mechanisms for evolution yet. So it is possible (however slim and there is no evidence for it) that a god like being is behind it. It's also possible it's aliens. But it is not possible that the god of the bible did it because he doesn't exist."

This is interesting Brett. But is a very clear claim, which if to be believed you must have pretty strong evidence for. You as yet have to share it. Is this a foundational proof you can prove, or is it something you accept on faith?

The Christian God is unknowable unless he reveals Himself. That is, all we know about God would have to be revealed by Him in a way we could understand. We aren't going to figure out what He is like on our own. We can't reach up to God unless He first reaches down to us.

Most philosophers recognize this and so are very careful to never make an absolute statement like "This particular view of your God, Yahweh, can't exist." Because that would be by definition improvable and anyone who held to that would be operating from the get go with a faulty logic path; any conclusion they made would be discarded in toto.

steve said...

"Religion, makes you clannish, xenophobic and willing to accept superstition to the exclusion of logic and reason. It seeks to control you, your thoughts and your actions. To me, that's bad. That's evil.

I guess those republicans forgot to love their enemy when they attack Iraq. And when those loving Christian KKK members killed and terrorized people. And all those loving Christians in Africa who ARE burning 'witches' and gays. Why are they doing these things? Because your bible, your religion tells them it's OK. You god shows his contempt for life when he willy nilly snuffs it out. If he created all of it and loves all of it, why is he always destroying it? Why is he having people kill men women and children? You can back peddle all you want but it's in your book.

It's appalling that people think this is a good thing.

Rick Santorum, now wants to cut higher learning if elected. He knows what more education leads to, less religion so to try and CONTROL people he wants to make them stupid. That's the legacy of religion."


Brett your post in its entirety disagrees with nothing at all I am implying. Nothing. It actually supports everything I said.

Are you now agreeing with me or can you not form a counter argument?

Maybe you are realizing we disagree, but that doesn't make my beliefs stupid, foolish, logically wrong, or the product of brainwashing.

I'm all for understanding and disagreement. It is better than misunderstanding and disagreement. I'd prefer for understanding and agreement, but that isn't something I alone can accomplish. Just kind and fair treatment.

Brett said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
M.O.R said...

Yeah, the blasphemy laws...similar thing here in Ireland too, albeit in the form of a financial fine.

The thing about those laws were that they came into fruition out of fear. Remember the Mohammed cartoons? The one with the bomb turban? Well the UK and IReland, and a few others, I imagine, got a little nervous about psychopaths blowing places the hell up. Have to remember, however, that Britain and Ireland have a long, long history with the IRA/ UVF, and religious terrorists. They remember stuff being blown up in the name of a so-called 'United IReland/ Part of the UK/ Independent Northern IReland'. Well too many lives were lost then, and so the government implemented that law.
Now, we know that no sane individual will use that law, nor will any insane individual. They much rather brush it off, or blow it up, respectively.

Very sad.

But in the eyes of those in charge, they thought that people may react and say,'Well, he insulted Mohammed, I'm suing the person/ organisation' and instead of using a bomb, they can use a lawyer.

Fatboy73 said...

Christians do good works as proof they are thankful for what Jesus has done for them. They’ve received apart from merit so they are generous and giving to others apart from merit. Most religions try to do good for selfish reasons, Karma, promise of paradise, etc. Christianity does offer Heaven, a new life, forgiveness, etc.-it does offer many good “rewards,” but those are all secondary items-they are not the motivating factor. Christians are motivated by who Jesus is, not what he gives. So a Christian does good deeds because they are accepted, not to earn acceptance. Christianity will always argue against trying to earn God’s favor so an individual gets preferable treatment. Love is other centered, outward focused

Steve...come on, really? These are mostly BS assertions and you putting your own spin on what your ideal of Christianity is. The meat and potatoes of Christianity is accept Jesus as your savior, your sins are forgiven and you don't burn in hell for all of eternity. Everything else is presentation and seasoning with a little wine thrown in to get you drunk so you don't realize what you're eating is really roadkill skunk with rotten moldy potatoes.
Your assertion that Christians are motivated by who Christ is not what he gives is really laughable. It is a well proven fact that Christianity targets susceptible children because past a certain age the BS detectors get better and those kids are less likely to accept fairy tales at face value. And the main motivating factor for those kids is a fear of hell. Once you have them afraid of eternal damnation as a child,and every adult in their lives telling them the same thing you usually have them for life.
Think about it Steve if as you grew up and every adult around you still believed in Santa Claus and most of their life was based around believing in Santa and proving that he existed you most likely would be a devout believer in Santa.
I went to many a national Christian convention in my youth and no matter what else was being spouted, it ALL came back to eternal damnation and hell. And here is where you insert "I'm sorry you had to go through that...BUT that's not what Christianity is really about."

Brett said...

Ok, I'm not going to get roped into another evolution discussion mainly because I'm tired of explaining how it works and you simply ignoring that and then pulling some crazy old science out of your butt. I mean evolving upwards (!?!) you claim you can argue both sides but that's simply not true. Adaption is a part of evolution. Adapting to survive is evolution on a small scale.

And to use your ridiculous stool analogy. Sure if you remove a leg it's still a stool but now it's a special stool used to milc cows! But if you add a back to that first stool it's now a Chair! Or if you double the seat it's now a bench! You grow the legs a bit it's a table.! Grow it a bit more and you have a gazebo. Add some walls and you have a room! Double that and you have a building!

But using man mad things, inanimate objects that can be shaped easily by us to explaining a living system is simply ridiculous. You seem to be falling into all the same old habits as your fellow creationists do. Try to tear down but never actually offer anything to prove your point. Evolution has been proven and used to test ideas, medicines and the smartest people on the planet have accepted it as fact. Those are some excellent credentials. You have stories written by sheep herders 4-2 thousand years ago. Sorry man but even on the surface that stinks.

You are so concerned with this stopping and starting that you miss what and how it actually works. A slow process of adding and subtracting gene mutation, and luck.

But again you miss the big picture, that your religion has programed you to not think about it, not criticize it and simply do as it says. You don't even realize you're doing it and you've done it 3 times in this thread already.

Best,

Brett

Brett said...

M.O.R.

It is sad and I wish fear wouldn't make people do such foolish things but that is the folly of humans:(

I just got told I think most muslims are violent on the twitter! I guess Dark Ages mean different things to different people. To me it's oppression of knowledge and science and strict enforcement of religion by the Church. Sure it can lead to violence, that's the problem religion brings to the table and why I could never worship any god on the planet if they existed. If they are higher beings worthy of our worship they wouldn't want it!

Best,

Brett

Fatboy73 said...

Cont.
You seem to believe there is core of evil to Christianity? That all good work is done to proselytize.

I don't believe their is a core of evil to Christianity. I believe that being able to state "I know what God's will is and if you don't listen to it you will be horribly punished, possibly for all of eternity" is too powerful a tool for ANY human to use. Mankind at it's core will always try to exert some sort of control over one another and for the majority of people who grew up superstitious,believing in gods and the supernatural, that is card that can not be trumped.
proselytization on the other hand is absolutely the underlying factor in any good deed a christian does. I'm not saying it's the only factor, just the main one. One of the other tenets of Christianity is to spread the good news. As a Christian you must be on fire for the lord and spread the gospel, for if you are merely lukewarm God will spit you out. So we have another reason God will reject you, and we all know that rejection from god = Hell. So not only are Christians afraid of you going to hell for not being a Christian but also fearful that if they don't try their damnedest to keep you out of hell, they're going there too. Soooo tell me again how proselytization isn't a main motivating factor?

As far as a witch being tortured and/or burned, I wasn't specifically referring to Salem. There are many more example of this and it still happens today in other countries. Tell me again how scripture doesn't say though shall not suffer a witch to live. I'm not saying all Christians or even most would do such a thing, but the simple fact that the sentence is in a book Christians claim to be the Holy word of God( that better be obeyed or else)not only gives people the opportunity but practically begs people to abuse it.

M.O.R said...

I agree with you Brett.

Totally. That is probably why so many folks turned towards Buddhism. Buddha also rejected the idea of worshipping a God, saying the same thing.

I mean, most of us, when it comes to our parents, don't worship them and build temples to them.
We do take a heck of a lot of pictures of them, however, and we do hope they are happy and healthy.
Such as we are.
We protect our loved ones too, but only against physical attack.

If someone mocks God/ Jesus/ or anything to do with any other religion. I much rather protect those who would protect me.

M.O.R said...

Sorry. Double post.

Please delete one of your choosing Brett.

Brett said...

M.O.R.

Deleted!

There is an Atheist ... who what's to build an Atheist temple in London! It's appalling to me but he wants to take the things he thinks work about church and just remove god... He already has half the money.. it will be interesting to see if what else he pulls and what works and what doesn't... but I'm worried he's setting himself up as a David Koresh kind of guy.

It's a mad, mad world!

Best,

Brett

TheORKINMan said...

Brett,

Firstly I'd just like to say that there are many scientific studies which indicate that religious people donate more to charity and are more inclined to perform good works then those who are not as religious or atheist. I'd be happy to cite sources if you'd like. (Studies also show that Americans do these things WAY WAY WAY more then Europeans)

Personally I find it rather tiresome that in the quest to assign blame for bad acts people tend to blame someTHING rather then someONE. Why is it always some institutional -ism that causes people to do bad things? Bad people will do horrible things regardless of the existence of anything (a point Matt Stone and Trey Parker, who are atheists, tried to hammer home on the episode of South Park relating to atheism) They will find or invent a way to do it.

As far as Christian or Muslim laws or their viewpoints being reflected in laws that's just the way Democracy works. If a devout Christian believes in something you cannot ask him not to vote for a politician or for a referendum that does not reflect their views. The Constitution protects against what is referred to as the "tyrrany of the majority" but it does not mean the majority doesn't get their way most of the time. (My first degree was in political science and I have debated this subject many many times :P)

Finally I know I've said this before but there is nothing, zero, zilch that disproves the Christian God under the definition of a scientific proof. Rather then encourage you to study up on the Bible I'd encourage you to do some studying on Discrete Mathematics as that is the standard of what constitutes "proof" in a scientific sense.

Brett said...

ORKINMan,

Again, you are falling prey to what Steve is. NO ONE is saying that Christians don't give. Or if they give more (might be money or time but other people might consider donating time and money to scientific research, which I do charity.) Those papers don't site the time professors give to there students and are not paid for it, or teachers who buy things for there students. All of which has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS DISCUSSION!!!! So stop bringing it up!

You were told your religion (or any, I was not specific) was bad so instead of looking at it, as someone else might you IMMEDIATELY went on the attack to show it was good while not even bothering to address the evils it has done or is doing. It has conditioned you to give it a pass no matter what . Its like the Great and Powerful OZ! Pay no attention to what's behind the curtain!

FInd it tiresome all you want, I find it tiresome that I have to keep explaining the same thing to Steve OVER and OVER again, he does not understand how the science of evolution works. I'm tired of people overreacting because someone doesn't agree with their religion or that there religion doesn't get a pass because they are the majority. Again, besides the point. By becoming such a large entity, religion takes on it's own persona. People can and will use it do bad, but by the rest of the religion agreeing with them and helping them, the whole thing becomes corrupt. The phrase and entity unto itself applies. If there was no entity then people would kill others in the name of said religion. And you have to admit, there are some pretty horrible things in you bible that are allowed. That's not a person's fault it's your RELIGIONS fault.

Matt and Trey (I do not know if they are Atheists or not) mad a mistake, they assumed that in the absence of religion the Atheists would form there own sort of quasi religion. This sort of thing goes against what most of us think, so its doubtful. It might even be more of a play on humans will always fight about something. It's really just a play on the lIfe of Brian's Popular Peoples Front and the People's Front of Judea. BUT there is a difference when 2 people have a problem and when 2 billion have a problem. One might wind up with the death of 1 or 2, the other... well you do the math.

I'm sorry, but the US is a REPUBLIC. So certain things are not able to be changed democratically, like loss of rights. And if you can't put your ideology aside and vote for something that benefits EVERYONE then should you really be in office? I'm not saying that this is what happens it's what SHOULD happen. I will not vote for laws banning your religion or any religion. But that doesn't mean those religions should have control of the government and the people should realize that there is a clear separation of Church and State. If you can't honor that, then you should be able to vote or hold office. That doesn't happen and it's the reason our system is as bad as it is now.

Finally, LOLLOLOLOLOLOL! Basic, BASIC geology disproves the god of the bible, no flood. DNA disproves Adam and Eve. We do not descend from 2 people. And with no Adam and Ave, then there was no Garden of Eden, and with no garden of Eden, no snake, no fruit, NO original sin. Therefore, no need for a Jesus. Check and Mate;) Usually I just go for old T but today I figured I bring down the whole house!

Thank you, thank you! I'll be here all week!

Best,

Brett

TheORKINMan said...

I'm sorry, but the US is a REPUBLIC. So certain things are not able to be changed democratically, like loss of rights.

Yes you can. Anything including rights can be changed via Constitutional amendment by a supermajority.

You were told your religion (or any, I was not specific) was bad so instead of looking at it, as someone else might you IMMEDIATELY went on the attack to show it was good while not even bothering to address the evils it has done or is doing.

Because I do not assign blame to institutions. I assign blame to people. Everyone has a choice and you are proof that one does not need to accept what they were brought up in. I do not blame Islam for the Sept 11th attacks or any other bad thing done in it's name because ANYTHING's name can be hijacked for whatever nefarious purpose a bad person has in mind. Atheists in China did this too when they killed anyone who would not reject their religion and accept atheism. That doesn't make atheism bad or destructive, it makes the people who commit those acts criminals who skew atheism to suit their purposes.

Finally, LOLLOLOLOLOLOL! Basic, BASIC geology disproves the god of the bible, no flood.

There actually have been several massive catastrophic floods near the region of the world where the Garden of Eden is purported to be from. The Black Sea deluge which is agreed to have happened but of which there is not consensus as to how it happened is one such instance. The Zanclean flood is another although much much older. These would encompass "the world" as the people in Biblical times knew it. Granted I am not one who believes the Bible is meant to be a scientific manual taken at face value so that "the world" really means "the entirety of planet Earth". So this debate may be pointless without a fundamentalist to juxtapose the science to :P

Brett said...

OM,

Not everything. And in doing so aren't you becoming the bad guy? What about your unalienable rights? You can't change those.

Blame people all you want, but sometimes, like the case of religion, it's the institutions that give them the power to do those bad things. If you think your god telling you it's OK to kill a witch or kill gay people is not your religion telling you to do bad things, you need a refresher course.

Yes, flood have happened. Big on around 7000 years ago in that area. It DID NOT cover the earth, or kill everything on the planet. The Myth is just that a myth based on an OLDER religion.

You don't see the problem with changing your god into something he's not? And then claiming he can't be disproven because you've essentially made him into something else? The god of the bible has been disproven, this new god can't be because you're made him up using the old disproven god as a base. Can you not see the flaw in the logic there?

Best,

Brett

Fatboy73 said...

ANYTHING's name can be hijacked for whatever nefarious purpose a bad person has in mind. Atheists in China did this too when they killed anyone who would not reject their religion and accept atheism. That doesn't make atheism bad or destructive, it makes the people who commit those acts criminals who skew atheism to suit their purposes.

Atheism can't as whole be blamed for anything because by it's very nature defaults back to responsibility of the individual.
Where as religion says hey, I'm not at fault here, I'm just following the dictates of my god/gods.
So yes while people can and will finds excuses and reasons to exert control over one another, certain institutions can be held accountable. especially if the ideology directly supports the negative action.

steve said...

I think what the Orkinman is stating is the difficulty in proving causation rather than simple correlation. Blame the person not the institution.

To a degree I would agree, with people we are too complex to uniformly do the same thing for the same reasons, but like CS Lewis' famous transparent garden analogy, you want a window to be transparent so you may see the garden outside, but you don't want the garden to be transparent as well, otherwise you will see through it. At some point opacity is necessary or vision ceases to operate.

The simple way to counter this point is to point out what the faiths actually teach. Brett and Fatboy, who claim to understand Christianity, do not grasp its core values. The Bible does not support us acting in a hostile selfish or evil way to our neighbors, but it is possible to be misused for these purposes. Remember Christians and crackpots both tend to use the Bible. I would continue to hold that history has shown this to be true, but the results from the two camps are radically different.

steve said...

Sorry, dropped a sentence: You don't want to see through everything; you don't want an explanation which prevents all conclusions.

steve said...

Brett, remember I’m not trying to argue you into my faith; that is pointless and not how Christianity spreads. If I could argue you into my faith someone wiser could argue you out. Christianity as I stated in “the longest post which says nothing” is at its core a relationship with God. You can enter into that relationship with faulty motives, faulty beliefs, faulty logic, poor character traits, bad science, bad hair, etc. God takes people who are jacked up and through relating to them changes them at a heart level. It is not indoctrination because there is not one method and it does not create cookie-cutter believers but unique individuals. God accepts the humble and repentant; those two qualities tend to be lacking in certain types of people, the arrogant and proud have an especially difficult time accepting Christ (though there is hope, God got a hold of me and those are two of my favorite vices) but you still see all variety of people coming to faith.

You asked why I would continue in my faith if it did not adequately explain away all my questions, for instance the Great Flood. This deserves a serious look and an answer.

Christianity stands in contrast to all other world faiths because it offers a person not a program. Christianity is not spiritual self help or a quit sinning 12 step program. Fatboy, It is also not a “get out of Hell free” card; if fear is the only motivating reason to follow God (I fear eternal damnation) you do not know God, you really aren’t in relationship with Him. God wants people to know Him, and in knowing Him LOVE Him. Not in a school girl crush type of way, but because God created the order of the world to work only when He is God and we act as His created beings. God is the rightful ruler, sin is”I refuse to bow to God” in one or more areas, this tends to line up pretty closely with how most atheists end up arguing against God.

The late great Christopher Hitchens was probably the best example of this, I’m not picking on him because he is deceased, he just debated better than either Harris or Dawkins ever dreamed of. At every debate Hitchens usually hit the same 7 or 8 atheistic arguments, this was pretty wrote, no one on either side was ever surprised and so most debates were somewhat predictable. However, Christopher shined when he got to his “I refuse to believe” statements. This is where his logic stopped and his inner man took over, it is usually where he scored the most points because he bared his soul and inner objections and stopped trying to argue he was operating as an atheist for purely academic reasons. I disagreed with Hitchens, but I always loved when the gloves came off and he started his “I refuse to believe…” rant.

steve said...

I have many questions God does not answer. He is under no compulsion that He must answer them. I do not follow Him only to the degree I understand Him. Because He has proven Himself true and trustworthy to me subjectively and also the weight of the objective evidence I trust Him on all matters. I have proven to be incredibly untrustworthy and prone to selfish behavior, God never has-He is above reproach. In fact God’s character weighed against all men who have ever lived and will ever live, is more dependable and trustworthy. God is not wholly understandable, but He is consistent. This is where our conversations often break down, because your understanding of the Bible is weak you assume inconsistencies where none are shown; you are unable to accept the character of God as it is written but rather you choose to believe a distortion. This is why I will always suggest you actually study and learn what the Bible actually says, what Christ actually taught, and what Christians actually believe. It is quite the opposite of the “no true Scotsman” argument because I’m always pointing to the one true Scotsman, Jesus, not my fault if you never look.

This is also why I accept Christianity as being wholly true, but not wholly understood. I know much more about Christ today than I did twenty years ago. I’ve had many misconceptions corrected by spending time with Him. Areas where logically it looked like He was wrong turned out to be instances where He actually was more correct than I could comprehend at the time. It isn’t simply a breaking or bending of my will, it isn’t I get no answers, no signs, no reason to continue believing. The problem is Jesus continues to teach me at a higher level than I know enough to ask for. Jesus both outsmarts me and out loves me. I can’t comprehend all of His reasons, plans, or motives, but yet I can’t argue with the subjective results and the objective way they line up with the Bible.

Fatboy73 said...

This is why I will always suggest you actually study and learn what the Bible actually says, what Christ actually taught, and what Christians actually believe.

Last statement on the post. PZ Meyers excellently points out another one of Steve's and all apologists for that matter, well used tactics.
The Courtier’s Reply: "demanding that we respect obvious nonsense and study it with all the fervor of a convert. We don’t need to. We have answers determined by reliable, independently verifiable methods, that don’t depend on gullibility and an upbringing in a particular dogma to accept. We can simply ask how well a religion conforms to reality."

Here's a URL to the Wiki on it.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_Reply

Have a great day. :D

Brett said...

After trying to get through Steves comment I'm beginning to think HE hasn't read the bible. DIdn't your god command the hebrews to kill their neighbors? Men women and children?

So if God doesn't answer your many question why no go elsewhere and look? If your mechanic is not listening and keeps not fixing the problem why keep going back? It's insane logic.

No Steve, you are trying to manipulate me into thinking like you so I'll be easy to convert. You're gonna need a hell of a lot of physical evidence for this. Nothing you have ever told me about your religion has been in any way convincing to me, in fact a few times I was worried you might need to see a doctor. I almost called you to make sure you were OK.

If a god who kills everything on the planet and curses all the children of the father, messes up the language so we can't co-operate is dependable, really we can't ever have a decent conversation about this. I have dogs that I'd put my faith in before someone like that.

Best,

Brett

Fatboy,

Of course how Steve reads it is really the ONLY correct translation. Everyone else who disagrees is wrong.

Best,

Brett

steve said...

Uhm..Brett and Fatboy, you both tend to act like the way I read the Bible is way out in left field, like I'm in the minority.

Christians believe very similarly on central truths. So when I push for a particular foundational truth it is usually what the majority of all Christians historically have argued for. So no you don't have to learn it to the same degree as a convert, but you really should know the basics as practiced by the devout, not just how religious folks are lampooned. Instead of empty accusations, could you please state one instance where my beliefs depart from orthodox Christian beliefs? Will you man-up and cease the “your particular brand of Christianity” comments. Really-these are ungrounded comments which add nothing to the conversation.

Fatboy states "We can simply ask how well a religion conforms to reality" there you go!

You have to understand both the religion and reality and compare them. Of course no one person has a total accurate understanding of all of reality (that would make them God). Individuals are highly cultural-centric. There is an arrogance which must be avoided which states: mine, and only my perception of the world is correct. If a religion was true it would have to be true for all people, for all times, not culturally biased. We in North America are not the pinnacle of human development or the standard to judge all cultures by.

Brett, finally you say if God doesn’t answer all my questions I should look elsewhere? Who is going to have a more accurate understanding of reality? You? I think you might even answer science? Even though materistic naturalism science has more holes than swiss cheese. You accept a natural world view, with zero evidence for a viable first cause, for the rise of abiogenesis, for the evolutionary path of plant to animal life, or an explanation for sexual dimorphism. But science does have ideas, unproven but accepted on faith. I mean even a simple one like whales evolving which is an interesting idea, has very little evidence, easily as many problems as positive elements, but Brett mentions it like it is as solidly understood as a mathematic table. Holes? What holes? Disagreement? What disagreement? Brett seriously acts like it is a closed matter and understood inside and out.

Brett where do you go when science doesn’t answer all your questions? Or do you not ask? Are you okay with science being incomplete, and your understanding of their incompleteness, incomplete as well?

Let’s be charitable when we can. Everyone operates with an enormous amount of faith. No one is stupid or evil here. We disagree but there is no need to vilify the opposing views.

I too am done with this post, thanks for digging in and sticking to your guns! I think we moved a bit closer to understanding each other a bit better.