tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post2009667392600745822..comments2023-10-30T08:04:07.321-06:00Comments on Demonpuppy's Wicked Awesome Art Blog: This Sunday, Why religion is bad, Muhammad and your little Allah too.Bretthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12168403050889835504noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post-1704805778252505092012-01-30T15:38:16.291-07:002012-01-30T15:38:16.291-07:00Uhm..Brett and Fatboy, you both tend to act like t...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. <br /><br /> 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.<br /><br />Fatboy states "We can simply ask how well a religion conforms to reality" there you go! <br /><br /> 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07735856522366561444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post-80854438689006937422012-01-30T13:18:07.192-07:002012-01-30T13:18:07.192-07:00After trying to get through Steves comment I'm...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? <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />Brett<br /><br />Fatboy,<br /><br />Of course how Steve reads it is really the ONLY correct translation. Everyone else who disagrees is wrong. <br /><br />Best,<br /><br />BrettBretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12168403050889835504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post-69195525512888802022012-01-30T12:12:06.425-07:002012-01-30T12:12:06.425-07:00This is why I will always suggest you actually stu...<i>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.</i><br /><br />Last statement on the post. PZ Meyers excellently points out another one of Steve's and all apologists for that matter, well used tactics. <br />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."<br /><br />Here's a URL to the Wiki on it. <br />http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_Reply<br /><br />Have a great day. :DFatboy73https://www.blogger.com/profile/04770482415512154108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post-29834958484312981892012-01-30T09:24:53.594-07:002012-01-30T09:24:53.594-07:00I have many questions God does not answer. He is ...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.<br /><br />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.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07735856522366561444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post-65206086285908669872012-01-30T09:24:21.661-07:002012-01-30T09:24:21.661-07:00Brett, remember I’m not trying to argue you into m...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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07735856522366561444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post-89163211062298984872012-01-30T08:39:18.505-07:002012-01-30T08:39:18.505-07:00Sorry, dropped a sentence: You don't want to ...Sorry, dropped a sentence: You don't want to see through everything; you don't want an explanation which prevents all conclusions.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07735856522366561444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post-54149983208204264332012-01-30T08:37:44.222-07:002012-01-30T08:37:44.222-07:00I think what the Orkinman is stating is the diffic...I think what the Orkinman is stating is the difficulty in proving causation rather than simple correlation. Blame the person not the institution. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07735856522366561444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post-7180030122615402952012-01-29T12:12:41.301-07:002012-01-29T12:12:41.301-07:00ANYTHING's name can be hijacked for whatever n...<i>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.</i><br /><br />Atheism can't as whole be blamed for anything because by it's very nature defaults back to responsibility of the individual.<br />Where as religion says hey, I'm not at fault here, I'm just following the dictates of my god/gods. <br />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.Fatboy73https://www.blogger.com/profile/04770482415512154108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post-26332798907657147702012-01-29T12:07:12.940-07:002012-01-29T12:07:12.940-07:00OM,
Not everything. And in doing so aren't yo...OM,<br /><br />Not everything. And in doing so aren't you becoming the bad guy? What about your unalienable rights? You can't change those.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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? <br /><br />Best,<br /><br />BrettBretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12168403050889835504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post-8268447342473766962012-01-29T11:53:03.008-07:002012-01-29T11:53:03.008-07:00I'm sorry, but the US is a REPUBLIC. So certai...<i>I'm sorry, but the US is a REPUBLIC. So certain things are not able to be changed democratically, like loss of rights.</i><br /><br />Yes you can. Anything including rights can be changed via Constitutional amendment by a supermajority.<br /><br /><i>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.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>Finally, LOLLOLOLOLOLOL! Basic, BASIC geology disproves the god of the bible, no flood.</i><br /><br />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 :PTheORKINManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13597425571670135419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post-12737440334435193322012-01-29T10:20:15.078-07:002012-01-29T10:20:15.078-07:00ORKINMan,
Again, you are falling prey to what Ste...ORKINMan,<br /><br />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!<br /><br />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!<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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!<br /><br />Thank you, thank you! I'll be here all week!<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />BrettBretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12168403050889835504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post-187978607358157202012-01-28T21:22:15.343-07:002012-01-28T21:22:15.343-07:00Brett,
Firstly I'd just like to say that ther...Brett,<br /><br />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)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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)<br /><br />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.TheORKINManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13597425571670135419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post-16026232854623252232012-01-28T13:40:44.347-07:002012-01-28T13:40:44.347-07:00M.O.R.
Deleted!
There is an Atheist ... who what...M.O.R.<br /><br />Deleted!<br /><br />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. <br /><br />It's a mad, mad world!<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />BrettBretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12168403050889835504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post-67088022977871002262012-01-28T13:15:29.799-07:002012-01-28T13:15:29.799-07:00Sorry. Double post.
Please delete one of your ch...Sorry. Double post.<br /><br />Please delete one of your choosing Brett.M.O.Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18199507518491506178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post-18505656137400871912012-01-28T13:14:31.441-07:002012-01-28T13:14:31.441-07:00I agree with you Brett.
Totally. That is probabl...I agree with you Brett.<br /><br />Totally. That is probably why so many folks turned towards Buddhism. Buddha also rejected the idea of worshipping a God, saying the same thing. <br /><br />I mean, most of us, when it comes to our parents, don't worship them and build temples to them. <br />We do take a heck of a lot of pictures of them, however, and we do hope they are happy and healthy. <br />Such as we are.<br />We protect our loved ones too, but only against physical attack. <br /><br />If someone mocks God/ Jesus/ or anything to do with any other religion. I much rather protect those who would protect me.M.O.Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18199507518491506178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post-78024366082277277742012-01-28T10:42:51.313-07:002012-01-28T10:42:51.313-07:00Cont.
You seem to believe there is core of evil to...Cont.<br /><i>You seem to believe there is core of evil to Christianity? That all good work is done to proselytize.</i><br /><br />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.<br />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?<br /><br />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.Fatboy73https://www.blogger.com/profile/04770482415512154108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post-6029248700638312612012-01-28T10:36:38.267-07:002012-01-28T10:36:38.267-07:00M.O.R.
It is sad and I wish fear wouldn't mak...M.O.R.<br /><br />It is sad and I wish fear wouldn't make people do such foolish things but that is the folly of humans:( <br /><br />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!<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />BrettBretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12168403050889835504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post-45287609339619939802012-01-28T10:35:41.337-07:002012-01-28T10:35:41.337-07:00Ok, I'm not going to get roped into another ev...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. <br /><br />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! <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />Best,<br /><br />BrettBretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12168403050889835504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post-5090624016852024852012-01-28T10:08:44.225-07:002012-01-28T10:08:44.225-07:00Christians do good works as proof they are thankfu...<i>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</i><br /><br />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. <br />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. <br />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. <br />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."Fatboy73https://www.blogger.com/profile/04770482415512154108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post-38521329566745431112012-01-27T13:40:22.930-07:002012-01-27T13:40:22.930-07:00Yeah, the blasphemy laws...similar thing here in I...Yeah, the blasphemy laws...similar thing here in Ireland too, albeit in the form of a financial fine.<br /><br />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. <br />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.<br /><br />Very sad.<br /><br />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.M.O.Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18199507518491506178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post-50086634715940197172012-01-27T10:32:03.218-07:002012-01-27T10:32:03.218-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Bretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12168403050889835504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post-31689806060761498212012-01-27T10:29:36.421-07:002012-01-27T10:29:36.421-07:00"Religion, makes you clannish, xenophobic and..."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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />It's appalling that people think this is a good thing.<br /><br />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."<br /><br /><br />Brett your post in its entirety disagrees with nothing at all I am implying. Nothing. It actually supports everything I said. <br /><br />Are you now agreeing with me or can you not form a counter argument?<br /><br />Maybe you are realizing we disagree, but that doesn't make my beliefs stupid, foolish, logically wrong, or the product of brainwashing. <br /><br />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.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07735856522366561444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post-52733083162422085022012-01-27T10:22:47.460-07:002012-01-27T10:22:47.460-07:00"And I never said a god didn't orchestrat..."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."<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07735856522366561444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post-65866270340146272652012-01-27T10:09:25.391-07:002012-01-27T10:09:25.391-07:00Evolution is CHANGE over time. CHANGE to fit a nic...Evolution is CHANGE over time. CHANGE to fit a niche or a different environment. There is a VERY clear line of whale evolution.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />So adaptation or favorable genetic traits do fit inside the Evolutionary model, but they don’t prove it.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07735856522366561444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post-27287626800866987392012-01-27T09:40:34.765-07:002012-01-27T09:40:34.765-07:00Okay much better interaction. Thanks guys for dig...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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.”<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07735856522366561444noreply@blogger.com