Welcome to the
Marriage Builders® Discussion Forum

This is a community where people come in search of marriage related support, answers, or encouragement. Also, information about the Marriage Builders principles can be found in the books available for sale in the Marriage Builders® Bookstore.
If you would like to join our guidance forum, please read the Announcement Forum for instructions, rules, & guidelines.
The members of this community are peers and not professionals. Professional coaching is available by clicking on the link titled Coaching Center at the top of this page.
We trust that you will find the Marriage Builders® Discussion Forum to be a helpful resource for you. We look forward to your participation.
Once you have reviewed all the FAQ, tech support and announcement information, if you still have problems that are not addressed, please e-mail the administrators at mbrestored@gmail.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 725
A
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 725
This is a continuation of off-topic aspects of another topic with ForeverHers. If critical discussion about religion upsets you, you probably should not read this thread. I'm posting this here to keep the original thread on-topic.

ForeverHers,

I do not believe one religion is as good as any another. I believe Secular Humanism is better than any religion, otherwise I would not belong to it. However I do not believe in pressuring someone to convert if they are not interested in converting. Free exchange of ideas is good, but so is being respectful of people's right to make up their own mind. Also, people have different experiences so that an explanation of the world that makes sense to one person might not make any sense at all to someone else. And you can't expect someone to believe something that goes against their own experience, at least not without a really good explanation.

I think Secular Humanism does answer ultimate questions better than any other philosophy or religion I have encountered. We are here to help each other because if we don't, no one else will. We got here through natural processes. What happens after death is that we cease to exist except metaphorically in the minds of people who loved us.

God as a standard of morality doesn't make any sense to me because that means if God said torture was okay, then torture would be okay. Or adultery for that matter. If he can't say that because it isn't true, then there is a standard of morality ABOVE God, which makes God unnecessary. Morality has to be something more than just obedience to authority.

The normative standards I mentioned are based on what people need. What people need can't be put to a vote. It's fact-based. How can we determine what people need? Through history and the social sciences.

As for selfishness, clearly if everyone was selfish all the time the world would be a terrible place. It follow then that if everyone would care for each other the world would be a much better place than it is now. Everyone wants to live in a good world, so it makes sense we should be good to each other.

Quote
That you don't like the idea that heaven or ****** actually exist doesn't mean that they don't.

True. But IF ****** and God exist, then God is immoral by definition. If torture is wrong, then eternal torture must be even more wrong. And it doesn't matter that he has Satan do it or that people choose ******. ****** can't exist without God allowing it to exist. Torture is always wrong in every case and that's just it.

Of course there are some who say ****** is nothing more than separation from God. To which I would say, we have that now, and life doesn't seem all that bad.

Quote
Who determines what someone else feels? How do you know? If your opinion is that NOBODY will feel bad, why would it only be "probably okay" to do something?

You can ask the other person. If that's not possible you can ask, would it hurt me if someone did that to me? Another way is to look at research and see if whatever it is you want to do leads to bad consequences. If it's your opinion that nobody will feel bad about it, then the only way it would be okay is IF YOU ARE RIGHT. If you turn out to be wrong, then the action was wrong even if you mistakenly thought that it was right. So to do the right thing sometimes requires not just good intentions but knowledge and wisdom.

Quote
Would it be ethically and morally wrong to NOT obtain information from a "reluctant" individual if the lack of that information resulted in the harm or death of many innocents who were depending upon you to keep them safe from harm?

Torture is always wrong in all cases. Every state that uses torture uses the ticking-time-bomb scenario (similar to the one you posed) as an excuse for torture. The evidence shows that testimony acquired this way is usually wrong because people lie. The innocent lie to stop the torture and the guilty lie to lead you away from the truth while appearing to be confessing to something real. Not to mention the very real possibility that the person you are interrogating might well be innocent.

BTW, I find it amusing that the curse word filter is filtering out H-E-double toothpicks <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1,300
R
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1,300
i'm gonna love watching this thread :}

Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 725
A
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 725
rltraveled, thanks. I think <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

FH,

Here are some responses to your other post:

You said Secular Humanists are atheists. Yes, that's absolutely true. And in some contexts I use the label "atheist" to describe myself. However, not all atheists are Secular Humanists. It's like theism and Christianity. All Christians are theists (well, except Bishop John Shelby Spong, my favorite Christian), but theists can also be Hindu, Muslim, Jewish and maybe some others I haven't thought of.

Jesus? Some atheists do doubt that a historical figure named Jesus existed and started the Christian religion. I think he did exist but that he was only human and none of the supernatural miracles attributed to him are true. Either they are metaphors or someone made it up. I also think it is very likely that Jesus was a good person who said all the nice things that are attributed to him. I think Paul was the extra cook who spoiled the brew.

How do I know God doesn't exist? Well "know" is a strong word because what's convincing to me, may not be convincing to you. But I will try to explain why I think God does not exist. I won't focus on all gods, but just the God of the Bible because my answer would be different for other types of gods. To believe in the God of the Bible, we have to believe in such a thing as disembodied personhood. (A personality with no material reality). When in people, we call them souls. A soul can exist for eternity without a body. What else does a soul entail? Well a very long time ago, a very unpopular idea was proposed by one Christian theologian that a soul is just an immaterial substance that survives death for all eternity but has no other properties. In other words, you lose all your memories and personality traits. The reason that idea is so unpopular is that without your memory and personality, "you" are not really "you." So the you who survies death and goes to the afterlife has to contain your "self" - which of course will include your memories and personality. You can call it your psyche or your mind. Your soul without a mind just doesn't seem like "you" does it?

So most Christians will agree that your mind has to continue within your soul somehow. So your mind is also eternal and can survive bodily death. If something can survive bodily death, logically it must also be able to survive bodily injury and disease. But it can't. Certain types of drug use, brain tumors, brain injury and Alzheimer's disease can erase memory and completely change one's personality. They can destroy the mind by destroying parts of the brain, a very physical, material object. If the mind is part of the soul, then damage to your physical brain can damage your soul. But that doesn't make any sense if the soul should be able to survive bodily death.

Next question...You say that Secular Humanism is faith, just as much as religion is. Well, one of the things that people say to me when I tell them I don't believe in God because there is no evidence is, "You just have to have faith!" What that implies is that they have made a choice to believe in something without evidence, or even in spite of the evidence. The problem with that is once you do that for one unproven claim, why not all unproven claims? Why not believe in all the gods? Why not horoscopes, rabbit's feet, numerology or psychic powers? There is no filtering system whereby you can say this is worthy of faith, but this is not. Your Bible might say God is the only thing worthy of having faith in, but a Hindu also has scripture (Rig Veda, I think?) supporting faith in their gods. Why believe one over the other if both of them are based on the same thing? There is nothing about Secular Humanism that demands you have to believe something just for the sake of believing it. Everything is reality-tested. We expect claims to be demonstrated in some way.

You say Secular Humanists want to believe there is no God. I'm not sure why anyone would *want* to not believe unless they already did not believe. I mean, most of us were raised Christian and taught we would go to heaven when our bodies died and we would never actually die. We could cheat death. Who wouldn't want that? Most ex-Christians are really disappointed when they come to the realization that there is no afterlife. There are ways of coping with that, of course, but it's still a big disapointment. And then of course there are social pressures to be Christian. Most Americans won't even consider voting for a qualified atheist for president, for example. Some atheists living in the South have even been fired for being atheists. The point is, there is no motivation to believe there is no God other than being dissatisfied with the amount and quality of evidence that there could be one.

Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1,300
R
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1,300
Aph, I'm waiting for FH, or Mortarman, or Mark, or someone who's way smarter than me to jump in here.

I'm new to the Christian faith. Prayer and reading the Bible are what got me through my walk through He77 (infidelity). I believe that God, and only God, resurrected my marriage from the ashes. In my mind, there could be no other explanation. You'll think I'm nutty, but when Mr. RLT was in his A, I really did see Satan in his eyes. He wasn't even the same person. It was truly scary.

I think in a bizarre way, the A was a wake up call for both me and Mr. Rlt. If I were an athiest, I never could have gotten through this.

How do you know, btw, that there is no afterlife?

I think there are more social pressures not to be a Christian as the world moves ever secular.

And, btw, I really do love a to watch a lively debate on this stuff. I find it SO interesting.

Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 725
A
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 725
rltraveled,

I can't be comforted by something I don't think is true. I've seen atheists go through a lot and get through just fine, and some Christians who are not nearly as resilient. I suppose religion helps some people, but it's not the only thing that can help people cope. And sometimes it can backfire, like the woman who thought her husband's cheating was some sort of punishment from God. I felt really bad for her.

Europe might be becoming more secular, but I think the US is not becoming more secular as much as it is turning into a sort of civil religion. The rules of the civil religion are: believe in God but don't take God too seriously; you need religion to be moral; the Ten Commandments are something everyone should follow but you don't actually have to know what they are; be nice to each other; it's not polite to criticize anyone's religion; be patriotic; go to church on some Sundays when you feel like it - or at least on Christmas and Easter; ignore God Monday through Saturday unless you have a problem; pray for solutions to your problems because God is Santa Clause for grownups; and God cares very deeply about which football team wins, and he's always rooting for your team.

Of course there are many Christians, both convervative and liberal who take their religion seriously but when American Christians believe without thinking, their religion tends to resemble the one described above.

As for the afterlife question - same as the God question I answered above. The effects of Alzheimer's alone on the human mind is enough proof for me that an afterlife is not even possible. It can destroy a person's identity...what makes that person who they are. And isn't your soul supposed to be who you are? If it's immortal and spiritual (instead of material) how can it be destroyed so easily by biological attacks on the physical structures of the brain? If a "soul" can't survive Alzheimer's, then it can't survive bodily death.

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,058
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,058
Aphaeresis,

Those that claim that their faith is merely accepting that for which there is no evidence, do not have a clear understanding of what faith is and likely don't even know what it is they precisely believe. Faith is only as valuable as the object of that faith. Faith itself has no meaning if that object cannot be verified. If I do not know that in which I have placed my faith, my faith is but a shadow of my ignorance rather than a strength of my beliefs.

There is evidence for not only the existence of the historical Jesus, but also for His claims about himself. There is evidence for the Bible being accurate in things in which it can be tested by scientific and archaeological means. There are also additional proofs and methods for examining the evidence for the writings of the early church and even the likes of Paul.

As I have recently learned on another thread on this board, I cannot convince anyone of my position through written debate. Whether that is because of my own ineffectiveness as a communicator or because I simply remain ignorant of enough of the material to overcome objections and speculations I do not know. Perhaps it is a limitation of the format itself.

I can tell you that evidence does exist and if you wish to examine it for yourself, you are able to do so. Books by Josh McDowell (The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict) and Lee Strobel (The Case For Christ) are but a beginning. McDowell lays out what amounts to a lengthy bibliography pointing to many other sources, most of which can be examined in and of themselves, at least in so far as copies of these materials and others are often available, some within other books and writings. by reference and or direct quotation. Strobel began an examination of the evidence for Christ in an effort to refute it to his wife who had recently become a Christian. It was his effort to debunk Christianity that led to his conversion, not a debate or argument with a Christian.

I do not think I can convince you of my beliefs within the context of this forum any more than I think you can convince me of the truth of yours under the same limitations.

I have, in fact begun reading some of the materials of the Secular Humanist website and do already acknowledge the differentiation you make between atheist and a secular humanist. While this is a subject about which I have studied very little, I will likely do so, at least for a while, if for no other reason than to understand the argument from the Secular Humanist POV.

I will, however, refrain from attempting to debate in this forum either on this thread or any other the relative merits of our differing points of view even when I do have a better understanding of your beliefs, for the reasons I have already given.

I will defend my beliefs if it becomes necessary, but will not attempt to change yours. I will caution you though that lack of evidence that is known does not constitute evidence against and is why it is possible for a guilty person to be acquitted in a court of law. Not knowing a thing to be true is not the same as knowing it to be untrue.

With that, I now bow out of this discussion though I will continue to read and perhaps even comment from time to time as my conscience dictates.

Mark

Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 725
A
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 725
Mark,

fair enough. I know that people can't be converted without first being open to it because of dissatisfaction with their own religion or philosophy. All I care about is that people recognize that reasonable, good people can reach very different conclusions on the question of God.

(Of course I realize I haven't been a good person lately, but I was once and can be again.)

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
Quote
All I care about is that people recognize that reasonable, good people can reach very different conclusions on the question of God.


Of course they can. But choosing against what is true does not make that choice true, as I explained to you previously with the gravity analogy.

That "people can reach very different conclusions on the question of God" is nothing new. That's been going on since the Fall of Man.

But with respect to your disbelief in God, Jesus, life after death, this too is "nothing new."

"He said to them, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'" (Luke 16:31)

Aph, all of your statements are from a "human reasoning" viewpoint and a rejection of anything that might call some of that "reasoning" into question.

There are two basic areas that you "beg the question" on with respect to this "human reason" issue.

First, the person of Jesus Christ and the reliability of Scripture in recording the events of His time on Earth.

Second, you automatically (because of your belief in atheism) accept on FAITH that everything came about by random chance, that matter/energy ALWAYS existed (can't "create" something out of nothing), that a life (contrary to the Biogentic LAW) arose at least one time from non-life, that macroevolution occurred and continues to occur that ADDS information to a preceding lifeform that enables it to become something more complex and completely different from the species it began with, etc.

But that belief is based in FAITH, not in provable Science. There is NOTHING that "guarantees" that your belief is "right" anymore than people who used to think that the earth was flat were right. It wasn't until someone showed others that the "alternative" was true that many were convinced, in themselves and NOT by the forcing of someone else, that their old "flat earth belief" was wrong that MANY (but not ALL) "flat earthers" gave up their false belief and chose to embrace the true nature of things.

So what "proof" has God provided to the people of earth?

Jesus Christ. No myth. No "made up" person.

Jesus' resurrection from the dead. Death is NOT the "end of all things."

God demonstrated conclusively His power over the natural laws that HE established and that HE maintains.

But, "they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead."

The human heart IS NOT receptive to God, nor will God "force" you to accept Him. But the CHOICE is yours, as are the consequences of your choice. God HAS provided the way out of your chosen destination and will "reroute" you to a much better place, but He will NOT do anything other than make the gift available to you. You have the responsibility to accept or reject it, and in accepting the consequences for YOUR choice. That's reality, regardless of whether or not anyone choses to even believe that reality exists.


Then the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. "Teacher," they said, "Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and have children for his brother. Now there were seven brothers. The first one married and dies without leaving any children. The second one married the widow, but he also died, leaving no child. it was the same with the third. In fact, none of the seven left any children. Last of all, the woman died too. At the resurrection whose whife wll she be, since the seven were married to her?"

Jesus replied, "Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. Now about the dead rising - have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account of the bush, how God said to him, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!" (Mark 12:18-27)

Now, has this "good man," Jesus, LIED, knowingly, to those who did not believe in life after death?

What could He do to "PROVE" that there is life after death and that God DOES have the power to "override" nature anytime God chooses to do so?

Was this man, Jesus, a sincere "loon" who sincerely believed that He was God, but really wasn't?

Feeding thousands by creating enough for all from 5 loaves and fishes. Bringing back to life others, demonstrating HIS, command over "natural law." Not only did He claim "god-like power," even if the claim was based in a lunatics sincere belief, He actually proved the claim to be REAL, not imaginary. He demonstrated TRUTH, not insanity.

Aside from others who were raised from the dead as proof of Jesus' command over even death, Jesus Himself was raised from the dead by God. He appeared to thousands AFTER His resurrection. There eas "ample" time and way for the "unbelievers" to "prove" that Jesus had not risen from the dead, but they could not because this was NOT "done in secret and available "secret" information for only the 'select few'." It (the resurrected Jesus) was openly available for thousands to see.

But, "they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead."

"Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (John 20:29)

Faith IS involved. But not "blind faith." It is faith based upon the truth as faithfully recorded in the Scripture. The "purpose" of the Scipture is NOT a mere record of miracles that "defied" natural law.

"Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:30,31)

Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 725
A
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 725
FH,

No, not everything came about by random chance. It was random chance and non-random natural processes. I have no idea if matter and energy always existed or if they started at the Big Bang. But I think "I don't know" is a better answer than "God did it." "God did it" doesn't explain anything and has been used throughout history to explain things that later turned out to have natural causes after all.

As for life from non-living materials (abiogenesis), time will tell. There are scientists working on recreating that process in the laboratory: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18524861.100

I don't need faith in evolution because it has been demonstrated. See http://www.talkorigins.org/ for everything you ever wanted to know about evolution. All the common arguments against it have been debunked thoroughly so I feel no need to go over them here.

Furthermore, there is no alternative to evolution. Yes, I've heard of creationism and intelligent design, but they don't explain anything. All you have is "God did it." You don't have details on how it happened, such as materials or processes used. "God did it" is not a theory. It is a religious belief.

Jesus Christ existed. So what? Lots of other people existed who claimed to be God or the son of God also.

There is no evidence that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. Anyone can write a book saying so-and-so rose from the grave. That doesn't make it true.

Quote
God demonstrated conclusively His power over the natural laws that HE established and that HE maintains.

No, God has not done that. There are stories of God violating natural laws in the Bible, but in this day and age nobody sees them. Supernatural experiences are NOT part of everyday life. That's why a natural universe makes more sense to me. It's the universe I live in, and I have no experience of any other.

Quote
Was this man, Jesus, a sincere "loon" who sincerely believed that He was God, but really wasn't?

That's one theory and he certainly would not have been the only one in history. But other theory says that Jesus never claimed to be the son of God. That these claims were made after his death. I really don't care either way. All that's important to me is that he was 100 percent human.

Quote
It (the resurrected Jesus) was openly available for thousands to see.

And all of those thousands are dead, so we have no way of knowing if they were telling the truth.

Quote
It is faith based upon the truth as faithfully recorded in the Scripture.

Every religion has scripture.

FH, you are never going to convince me because the world of the Bible that you describe is a world full of magic. That's not the world I live in and experience everyday. The world I live in and experience everyday operates according to predictable natural laws that are not violated by "miracles." Oh sure some people claim there are miracles but none that can't be explained by natural causes.

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,058
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,058
Aph,

I said I would not attempt to change your views and that is not my intent here. I did also state that I would defend my beliefs, if I felt warranted, and that is my reason for this post.

[color:"blue"]"There is no evidence that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. Anyone can write a book saying so-and-so rose from the grave. That doesn't make it true."[/color]

The books of the New Testament were written by those who claimed to be contemporaries of Jesus and were eyewitnesses to the things He did and said. This alone is not my argument against the assumption on your part in the above statement.

I point to the fact that recent (within the last 100 years) archaeological finds, previously unknown by "modern" science, that have shown the reliability of the NT authors in having knowledge that only a contemporary of that time period could have known.

At the time Paul compiled his list of those who had seen the risen Christ themselves, many of those same people were still alive. Any of Paul's readers who cared to challenge his claim had only to question the witnesses to see if the claim was false. No examples of literature of the ancient world exist pointing to such a debunking of Paul's claim.

In his debates with his severest critics, Peter often turn his argument around by saying, "And you, too, know this to be true." IF his detractors had not known what he was saying to be true, you can assume that they would have taken action to defend themselves and put an end to what Peter was saying.

Not only did the writers of the NT claim to have been eyewitnesses to the risen Christ, but most died rather than to recant that claim. Many died horrible deaths, were tortured and had all personal property taken from them before their executions. Not one NT author ever recanted...none.

How many people do you know who would submit to torture and death in defense of what THEY knew to be a lie?

[color:"blue"]"No, not everything came about by random chance. It was random chance and non-random natural processes."[/color]

Just for clarification, random does not mean "no order." Neither does it mean "without pattern." In fact, it is the very nature of randomness that makes modern statistical analysis possible. Left to itself, all things fall into randomness and where no randomness occurs, there is always someone or something that has tweaked the numbers.

By definition, when applied to any number set relating to a specific characteristic, RANDOM implies the classic Gaussian distribution, known by any high school student as the "bell curve." Statistically, anything that does not fit that curve within nature is NOT random, but has been manipulated by someone or something.

It is because of this uniformity of all things random that manufacturers can predict a process that is about to become unstable. It is also the method by which a political poll can predict, based on a small sample what the outcome of an election might be.

It is also the strongest argument for intelligent design, since the more complex a system is, the less likely it is to happen by random process, and all processes within nature are in fact random. If a process is not random, it is NOT natural, since in nature, only randomness can exist.

And passage of time is not the salvation of random choice in the universe evolving since Newton's second law applies to all things in the universe. All things in nature tend to go from complex to simple, from organized to random and from equilibrium to chaos. If evolution is correct, an increase in speciation should be evident. Rather we have ample evidence to the contrary, that more species are extinct than remain.

The sun, the stars and the galaxy are all hurtling headlong into oblivion, through natural processes. Any complex system left to itself, ceases to function as it began and falls into simpler subsystems until the day when it reverts to it's original state, not one of complexity, but one of individual atoms and molecules in a random pattern.

The probability of a single cell occurring by random process is so small as to be statistically insignificant, that is, so unlikely to occur that the number may be ignored and in fact, in statistics, numbers on the order of magnitude of billions of times more likely are ignored as unattainable as a matter of routine.

[color:"blue"]"And all of those thousands are dead, so we have no way of knowing if they were telling the truth. "[/color]

By the same logic, we cannot determine if the signers of the Declaration Of Independence were in fact those whose signatures we see, since they and all contemporaries are in fact now dead. We also cannot verify that what is known as "the Trail of Tears" actually took place or any battle of the French revolution, since all eyewitnesses are now deceased and only their written accounts survive.

Truth does not cease to be true when the witness dies.

As I pointed out above, other claims and observations made by the writers of the NT have been shown to be accurate, often in minute detail. Any witness that is shown to be reliable in cases where he can be verified by other means, should be considered trustworthy in absence of any evidence to the contrary for matters in which no verifiable evidence exists.

[color:"blue"]"Every religion has scripture."[/color]


Archaeologist Nelson Gluek said, "It is worth emphasizing that in all this work no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a single, properly understood biblical statement."

William F. Albright states:"There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of the Old Testament."

Millar Burrows (Yale) writes:" On the whole, however, archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the Scriptural record." And:" The excessive skepticism of many liberal theologians stems not from careful evaluation of available data, but from an enormous predisposition against the supernatural."

When any witness has been shown to be reliable where the facts can be verified, even in a court of law, it is assumed that any testimony given is to be considered as truth, in absence of any evidence to the contrary.

The fact that the writers of the NT were close to Jesus, does not disqualify them as witnesses any more than survivors of the Holocaust can be disqualified for being too close to that about which they have testified. The same can be said for those who landed at Normandy on D-day in 1945.

In fact, in any court of law, the testimony of an eyewitness is given greater weight than any second hand or theorized account of events involved in a crime. In absence of evidence to the contrary, testimony of an eyewitness is given the weight of evidence itself.

And if two witnesses claim the same account of an event, they are considered to be verification of each other's testimony. What then do we do with dozens, or hundreds of such cross-verifiable accounts, even if the witnesses are now dead?

Mark

Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 725
A
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 725
Mark,

I reponded to your last post, but I think I will drop the thread. There's no point in debating evolution because there is information about it all over the place.

There is no way of knowing what really happened because none of us was there. It could be that Jesus was in a coma and not dead. Back then, they wouldn't have known the difference. But there is also evidence that the writers of the Bible were not contemporaries anyway, so it's a moot point.

You are completely wrong about randomness and natural processes. From Design Yes, Intelligent No by Massimo Pigliucci: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/pigliucci1.html

Quote
William Dembski uses an approach similar to Behe to back up creationist claims, in that he also wants to demonstrate that intelligent design is necessary to explain the complexity of nature. His proposal, however, is both more general and more deeply flawed. In his book The Design Inference he claims that there are three essential types of phenomena in nature: "regular", random, and designed (which he assumes to be intelligent). A regular phenomenon would be a simple repetition explainable by the fundamental laws of physics, for example the rotation of the earth around the sun. Random phenomena are exemplified by the tossing of a coin. Design enters any time that two criteria are satisfied: complexity and specification .

First of all, leaving aside design for a moment, the remaining choices are not limited to regularity and randomness. Chaos and complexity theory have established the existence of self-organizing phenomena , situations in which order spontaneously appears as an emergent property of complex interactions among the parts of a system. And this class of phenomena, far from being only a figment of mathematical imagination as Behe maintains, are real. For example, certain meteorological phenomena such as tornados are neither regular nor random but are the result of self-organizing processes...

The problem is that natural selection, a natural process, also fulfills the complexity-specification criterion, thereby demonstrating that it is possible to have unintelligent design in nature. Living organisms are indeed complex. They are also specifiable, meaning that they are not random assemblages of organic compounds, but are clearly formed in a way that enhances their chances of surviving and reproducing in a changing and complex environment. What, then distinguishes living organisms from the Brooklyn Bridge? Both meet Dembski&#8217;s complexity-specification criterion, but only the bridge is irreducibly complex. This has important implications for the consideration of design.


And Newton's second law of thermodynamics only applies to CLOSED systems. The earth is not within a closed system because we get energy from the sun. The universe itself is also not closed. You should have learned this in high school science classes but if you want to hear from experts check this out: http://www.ntanet.net/Thermo-Internet.htm

Quote
The probability of a single cell occurring by random process is so small as to be statistically insignificant, that is, so unlikely to occur that the number may be ignored and in fact, in statistics, numbers on the order of magnitude of billions of times more likely are ignored as unattainable as a matter of routine.

Besides the fact that random and natural are NOT the same, this is a common abuse of mathematics. See

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html

Quote
By the same logic, we cannot determine if the signers of the Declaration Of Independence were in fact those whose signatures we see, since they and all contemporaries are in fact now dead. We also cannot verify that what is known as "the Trail of Tears" actually took place or any battle of the French revolution, since all eyewitnesses are now deceased and only their written accounts survive.

But there's one HUGE difference. Neither of those examples involve the violation or suspension of the natural laws of the universe. The claims you are making do. Therefore you are making an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

--
The majority of archaeologists do NOT claim that all events in the Bible are shown to be accurate through archaeological evidence. You are cherry-picking. I'm sure there are places that were as and where described in the Bible, but that is to be expected. People usually write about places they know.

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
Quote
Mark,

I reponded to your last post, but I think I will drop the thread. There's no point in debating evolution because there is information about it all over the place.


uh huh. Aphaeresis, this "dropping of the thread" is a very common defense mechanism. I am a little surprised by your pulling that one out of your hat since it flies in the face of your Secular Humanism tenet:

We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.

There is little chance for, let alone commitment to, the applying of reason and science to the "how did we all get here" question when you summarily refuse to examine the facts and rely solely upon "like-minded" sources to support your contentions. What you argue for is simple rejection of the creation possibility and that, de facto, evolution is "proven" because you've eliminated the only other option by CHOICE, not by fact. The FACT that acceptance of evolution is based in FAITH and not proven or provable science seems to somehow escape notice, but it is nonetheless true. It IS a "faith based" system that has NO bearing in facts that cannot be equally well explained by the existence of a Creator.



Quote
There is no way of knowing what really happened because none of us was there. It could be that Jesus was in a coma and not dead. Back then, they wouldn't have known the difference.


Aph, this is an extremely weak attempt to grasp at straws rather than to discuss facts. So without getting too detailed, let me simply state that you seem to have very little understanding of Roman Military life. Not only were the soldiers VERY familiar with the difference between DEAD and "not yet dead," there were SEVERE penalities imposed upon the soldiers who did not carry out their orders. Let's assume for one minute that you are right, Jesus was in a coma and somehow revived in a cold tomb and had the strength to roll away the massive stone sealing the tomb. The Roman Guards were there. What do you think they would have done? Perhaps they were sleeping? The penalty for sleeping while on guard duty was DEATH. That's one of the reasons the Jews requested a Roman Guard, they knew the guards would carry out their duty on pain of death.

This "swoon theory" is nothing new and has been totally debunked every time it has been raised as a "possibility," or an excuse to deny the reality of the resurrection.


Quote
You are completely wrong about randomness and natural processes.

And Newton's second law of thermodynamics only applies to CLOSED systems. The earth is not within a closed system because we get energy from the sun. The universe itself is also not closed. You should have learned this in high school science classes

Aphaeresis - I am a Biology major with my degree in Biology and minor in Math and Science, so yes, I "learned" all this stuff many times over. I understand the science. I "embraced" all this stuff as I was an agnostic all through College. It is also equally obvious that you do not understand this stuff but are merely parroting what sources write who are in agreement with your chosen faith.

But here's where scientific training comes into play and can "play havoc" with "accepting evolution on Faith, not on facts." Perhaps I'll address this issue of "CLOSED" and "OPEN" system, but I'm not at all sure you are "open" to a rational discussion of this. Science disproves your contention and only a predisposition against any possibility that evolution might be wrong results in a misapplication of the Laws of Thermodynamics and their application and impact on abiogenesis and increase in information that is REQUIRED for evolution. There simply is not enough 'time' for random chance to have a chance, let alone to actually increase information where none existed before.



Quote
But there's one HUGE difference. Neither of those examples involve the violation or suspension of the natural laws of the universe. The claims you are making do. Therefore you are making an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


Yep, and Evolution of the universe, and especially of LIFE, from NON-life, from "always existing" (where did it first come from since it must have then had no beginning?) matter, is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

WHERE is the EVIDENCE upon which you violate or suspend the natural laws of the universe?

You cannot merely "say" that we are in an "Open System," you have to show how that available energy is APPLIED and USED to make something violate the rock hard LAWS of Thermodynamics (which ARE established by Science).

Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 725
A
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 725
ForeverHers,

It's not my job to teach you what you should have learned in high school biology class. I'm sorry to hear that you are a biology major because it would seem that you did not learn very much. It would take me weeks to cover all the material you missed. In order to have an intelligent debate, you at least need to understand the basics and you clearly do not. I pointed you to sources of information. If you choose not to read them, it's not my problem.

The fact of the matter is that there is nothing controversial about evolution. The scientific community has a broad consensus that evolution happens. It is only within the religious and political arenas that it is not accepted. In fact, very little of science, esp. biology, can be understood without understanding evolution. Now given your religious views I can understand why you would not want to believe that evolution is true, but that doesn't mean you can't try to understand what it is. You don't even grasp that.

But there's something even more important that you don't seem to get. And that is that even if evolution were flat wrong, that would do absolutely nothing to prove Biblical creationism. To support creationism, you need to do more than just poke at evolution. Why do creationists never want to talk about creationism? Can't it stand on its own without resorting to attacks on evolution?

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
Quote
ForeverHers,

It's not my job to teach you what you should have learned in high school biology class.

That's good, because I don't think you are a biology professor nor a student of the sciences. Having you teach me about the subject would be sort of like going to psychologist to learn how a cell functions. They don't have the requisite knowledge. But I COULD have a discussion with a psychologist about the subject and discuss what science, rather than opinion, has learned about cell function and perhaps we'd both learn something.


Quote
I'm sorry to hear that you are a biology major because it would seem that you did not learn very much.



Quote
It would take me weeks to cover all the material you missed.

No doubt. I've had these sorts of discussions before and they DO take a lot of time. You have "asked a question," and I am willing to take some time to attempt to answer them, but are you willing to start with the basic scientific premise that "I might be wrong, so let's really examine the data?"


Quote
In order to have an intelligent debate, you at least need to understand the basics and you clearly do not. I pointed you to sources of information. If you choose not to read them, it's not my problem.

Aphaeresis, you are replete with disrespectful judgments. What makes you think that I have not read the "pro-evolution" information, lots and lots of it? If I listed, and I can if need be, a long list of articles against evolution, would you read them?

Here, let me give you just one example. I was taught, and the "Scientific community" believed, that "Phylogeny recapitulates Ontogeny" as a truth of "evolutionary theory."

That "fact" has since been disproven and abandoned by biologists even though it WAS taught as FACT, not opinion.

Aphaeresis, in order to have a very good understanding of what you believe, one must not only know "your" supportive material, but all the cogent arguments "against" your chosen position. I do. I "could" argue effectively FOR evolution if it were an "academic debate," because I understand the data and KNOW how the data is interpreted by scientists with a predisposition FOR evolution. The data is "neutral." "Facts are facts." It is NOT "Science" that is "for or against" creation or evolution, it is "scientists," people who approach the interpretation of the data with a presupposition bias that eliminates any consideration that God created. In your case, that presupposition is clear, "since there is no God, nothing existed that could have created, therefore evolution MUST be correct." You argue from a philosophical bias, not a scientific examination of the data that looks at ALL of the possible explanations for what is observed and what explanations "best fit" with what is actually observed.


Quote
The fact of the matter is that there is nothing controversial about evolution. The scientific community has a broad consensus that evolution happens.

Yes, of course there are a lot of scientists who believe in evolution. That isn't the issue. It never has been. "Broad Consensus" does NOT necessarily equate to truth. There are a lot of scientists who believe in creation. That does not necessarily equate to truth either. But "scientific honesty" does require that data NOT be manipulated to achieve a preconceived outcome, and that has been done MANY times by supporters of evolution in order to "prove" that evolution is the answer to "how everything got here."


Quote
It is only within the religious and political arenas that it is not accepted. In fact, very little of science, esp. biology, can be understood without understanding evolution.

Now this is a statement that I would love to see you support. I understand the theories and hypothesis of supporters of evolution, but that has NOTHING to do with HOW biological organisms function or WHY they may function as they do in concert with other biological functions.


Quote
Now given your religious views I can understand why you would not want to believe that evolution is true, but that doesn't mean you can't try to understand what it is. You don't even grasp that.

More disrespectful judgments, something you seem prone to do in many situations.

So let's just assume you are right. What are some examples that I don't understand? Perhaps we could start there.



Quote
But there's something even more important that you don't seem to get. And that is that even if evolution were flat wrong, that would do absolutely nothing to prove Biblical creationism.

This statement is indicative of your lack of understand, or preference to state untruth as a means to silence opposition. So let me be very clear about this statement, Creationists do NOT say that evolution is "flat wrong." Evolution (microevolution) DOES occur, but it does equally nothing to prove "Evolutionary Theory" (aka Darwinian evolution).


Quote
To support creationism, you need to do more than just poke at evolution. Why do creationists never want to talk about creationism? Can't it stand on its own without resorting to attacks on evolution?

I AM willing to talk about creationism. It is YOU who wanted to summarily "abandon this discussion." What do you consider to be an "attack" on evolution, is it that someone disagrees with the "theory?" That's not an "attack," that's a difference of opinion and that should then lead to an honest and open examination of the "predictions" of each "theory" and what facts are "best explained" by what is actually found and observed.

Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 725
A
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 725
ForeverHers,

I know that a broad consensus does not equate to truth. But peer review is an important part of science and helps as a corrective mechanism. That's why something believed to be true by the scientific community can later be determined to be false if that's the case. If creationism really is true, then the rest of the scientific community will become convinced. However, creationists have been presenting their case for decades and haven't made a dent. I may not be a biologist, but I've spoken with biologists and other scientists about this subject. When evolution becomes a serious controversy within the scientific, not political, community then I'll examine the new arguments. But I'm already familiar with the old ones that have been around since the days of Darwin.

The reason I don't want to continue discussing evolution is that I've already had this debate with dozens of people online and I'm bored with it. I'm tired of trying to explain that no, we didn't evolve from monkeys - humans and apes just had a common ancestor. No, evolution doesn't mean we have to be racists. No, not everyone who is convinced evolution is real is an atheist. I know plenty who are not. No, evolution does not mean dolphins will spontaneously turn into elephants. Yes, there are examples of speciation. So you see, I'm not afraid of talking about it because I've talked it to death already.

And yes I know some creationists don't deny that all evolution happens. My statement was hypothetical. Even IF evolution were flat wrong, that would still not prove creationism is true. Evidence for creationism has to be able to stand on its own apart from any real or perceived flaws in evolutionary theory. But whenever I ask about the evidence I either get "The Bible says" or "Evolution (or macroevolution, depending on which type of creationist) is wrong because." But if you have something I haven't already heard, I'm willing to listen.

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
Quote
But if you have something I haven't already heard, I'm willing to listen.


Not knowing what you may or may not have already heard about, I'd have to just throw out some topics and/or areas and you'd have to comment as to whether or not you've already heard of them.

So since you are familiar with many things, let me see if I can choose a few that you may or may not have heard or, or may or may not have really looked at.

Let's begin by understanding that while the word "theory" is often used to describe both Evolution and Creationism, the more precise descriptive word would be "Model."

Inherent in a Model is that one can compare and evaluate what is actually seen (data) with what each Model would predict should be seen if that Model is correct.

But before going further with that thought, I want to digress to something else you said in your post.

"Even IF evolution were flat wrong, that would still not prove creationism is true."

I would contend that this is a false statement because there ARE only two possibilities as to how everything "got here" and how life came into being where there was no life previously.

This really IS a case of "either/or." And yes, I know of the theories that postulate life was "seeded" on earth by some unknown aliens. But the "alien origin" idea merely begs the question because ultimately life HAD to have had a beginning, and that beginning was either Creation or Evolution from non-living.


"Evidence for creationism has to be able to stand on its own apart from any real or perceived flaws in evolutionary theory."

Why? If a theory is flawed, then it is either discarded or replaced with a "new theory." But the problem with using "Evolution" as the standard of "standing on it's own" is that it doesn't stand on it's own. It stands on the interpretations of data that are founded on a presupposition that Evolution is "fact."

Neither Evolution nor Creation "has all the answers" to everything. That's why I said earlier that they are best referred to as Models.

However, as a Model, Creation "best explains" a wide variety of things, including things that Evolution cannot explain. It is in that area, perhaps, that there might be some "new" things you might find interesting to discuss.

Let me suggest one as a starter. Information Theory as it applies to what is observed and what would be predicted by the two Models.

Or we can also look at specific things that exist and how the two Models "fit" with what would be predicted and what is actually observed.

Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 725
A
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 725
Quote
I would contend that this is a false statement because there ARE only two possibilities as to how everything "got here" and how life came into being where there was no life previously.

No, there is not. Every culture has creation stories and most of them are incompatible with each other.

Quote
Why? If a theory is flawed, then it is either discarded or replaced with a "new theory."

Because there is a logical fallacy called the false dichotomy. That's when you assume there are only two choices when in fact there may be three or more. I see no reason to assume there are only two choices. There's no possible way we could know that. Thus, saying evidence against evolution proves creationism is a false dichotomy.

Quote
But the problem with using "Evolution" as the standard of "standing on it's own" is that it doesn't stand on it's own. It stands on the interpretations of data that are founded on a presupposition that Evolution is "fact."

Funny, I don't hear anyone saying evolution must be true because creationism is false.

Seriously, though, you need to be able to defend creationism without even using the word "evolution" or there is no reason to believe that creationism is a real model. Evolutionists talk about evolution without mentioning the word "creationism" all the time except when they start talking politics. But in strictly scientific discussions, the evolutionist sees no reason to argue against creationism in order to defend evolution.

So for the creationist model, we know God is the creator. But how did he create? Why did he create? Out of what materials..and why do we call him "he" when he has no biological sex organ - never mind about the last question. Not really pertinent to this discussion.

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
Quote
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would contend that this is a false statement because there ARE only two possibilities as to how everything "got here" and how life came into being where there was no life previously.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No, there is not. Every culture has creation stories and most of them are incompatible with each other.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why? If a theory is flawed, then it is either discarded or replaced with a "new theory."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Because there is a logical fallacy called the false dichotomy. That's when you assume there are only two choices when in fact there may be three or more. I see no reason to assume there are only two choices. There's no possible way we could know that. Thus, saying evidence against evolution proves creationism is a false dichotomy.


Aphaeresis - you are obfuscating with this. You KNOW, or at least you should know, that there are ONLY two possibilities regardless of how many "creation stories" may be out there. EITHER everything came into being by entirely natural process where NO "no intelligent creator" was involved in any part to the process, OR a living Creator actually exists and was the CAUSE for all that is.

In your case, you totally reject the existence of any God and are, therefore, left with the only other possible choice, Evolution, regardless of the many difficulties that indicate that evolution may NOT be the answer.

That position does NOT allow for the examination of the data, because the "outcome" of the examination is predetermined by the presuppostional bias that is brought to the "examining table."



Quote
Funny, I don't hear anyone saying evolution must be true because creationism is false.


ALL atheists say this. They say this by eliminating any God from even existing, and, therefore, NO creative action could be "true" and only evolution is left, therefore it must be true (this is called circular reasoning).



Quote
So for the creationist model, we know God is the creator. But how did he create? Why did he create? Out of what materials..and why do we call him "he" when he has no biological sex organ - never mind about the last question. Not really pertinent to this discussion.


So do you really want answers to these "standard fare" questions? Keep in mind that they apply equally to the evolution model, except for perhaps your biological sex organ question.

Why do many evolutionists call Earth "she" or "Mother Earth?" Why anthopomorphize an inanimate object?

And just so you'll know that there ARE answers to your questions, even those you don't think are pertinent, God DOES have a biological sex organ. Jesus, the second person of the Trinity was both fully God and fully human, fully human male, and was bodily resurrected from the dead, fully resurrected. He sits today at the right hand of HIS Father (not His "mother").



Quote
Evolutionists talk about evolution without mentioning the word "creationism" all the time except when they start talking politics. But in strictly scientific discussions, the evolutionist sees no reason to argue against creationism in order to defend evolution.


Of course evolutionists don't talk about creation. They reject the mere thought of it and ASSUME that evolution is a proven fact, even thought it is not. That bias extends so far as to their believing than any scientist who believes in creation is NOT scientist and any evidence to the "contrary" of evolution is discarded and refused to be considered.

Creationsist on the other had, don't deny the effects of the Fall and the subsequent changes within species that can occur as a result. Thus, they are willing to discuss both creation and evolution within the framework of what a given Model would predict and what is actually observed.

There ARE believers who don't understand much of science and they simply don't know how to evaluate or answer statements by "authority figures," so they accept as a "child" accepts truth from their own parents, they "simply believe."

Now, aside from the all the "origin" questions, let me ask you one from a strictly evolutionist position. What examples of an INCREASE in information in one species can be shown to have resulted in an entirely new and different species? This goes to the heart of genetics and replication of organisms.

Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 725
A
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 725
Most people who are convinced evolution is true are not atheists. Most in the US are Christians. They just happen to be of a different denomination than yours.

And even atheists don't just say evolution is true because creationism is false. There is much physical evidence you can give without ever saying a word about creationism.

Evolutions only say "mother Earth" in the same sense that someone may talk about Father Time or the Grim Reaper. Nobody really believes those things are male or female or that they are anything other than anthropomorphic symbols. But I know at least some Christians are very insistent on God's maleness because they get offended if you call God "it" or "she."

Quote
EITHER everything came into being by entirely natural process where NO "no intelligent creator" was involved in any part to the process, OR a living Creator actually exists and was the CAUSE for all that is.

But that living creator does not have to be God, and even if it is God, it doesn't have to be the God of the Bible. It could be a space alien, or a pantheist god, or Deist God. I think a space alien being the creator would make a whole lot more sense than the Bible God, but everybody knows that creationists, even ones who use the euphemism "Intelligent Design" believe in the Bible God, not an alien creator or a pantheist god. So again, the false dichotomy still applies. You have to present some positive evidence that the Bible God in particular created the universe in order to prove creationism.

Quote
Of course evolutionists don't talk about creation. They reject the mere thought of it and ASSUME that evolution is a proven fact, even thought it is not. That bias extends so far as to their believing than any scientist who believes in creation is NOT scientist and any evidence to the "contrary" of evolution is discarded and refused to be considered.

The fact is that no scientist concentrates exclusively on one model and does no other research. But that's what creation researchers do. Every single one of them. There is not a single scientist in any relevant field that believes in creationism. Science corrects itself by using peer review and creationist ideas do not pass the peer review process because there is no evidence for it. All you've got is arguments that try to poke holes in evolution and those arguments have all been answered.

Quote
Creationsist on the other had, don't deny the effects of the Fall

There's no evidence of a "fall".

Quote
What examples of an INCREASE in information in one species can be shown to have resulted in an entirely new and different species? This goes to the heart of genetics and replication of organisms.

Check the speciation section of the Talk Origins Archives. http://www.talk-origins.com I think. And look for speciation. It's all there.

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,957
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,957
Aphraeresis

Can you satisfy my curiosity about something, please?

Is there some requirement in SecHum that you agree with or follow each and every piece of it? And, what does it say if you don't?

I never thought non-theistic philosophies tended to work on an all or nothing basis... but I don't know much about it.

Mys

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Search
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 1,254 guests, and 50 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Mike69, petercgeelan, Zorya, Reyna98, Nofoguy
71,829 Registered Users
Building Marriages That Last A Lifetime
Copyright © 1995-2019, Marriage Builders®. All Rights Reserved.
Site Navigation
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5