Research on Belief in God

[Semper Fidelis]

Killing Jesus was on National Geographic last night.

 

[Merckx index]

An interesting lawsuit has been filed against the Washington Nationals baseball team. Three of their ushers are 7th Day Adventists, whose religion apparently forbids them from working from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday. According to the team's rules in place before they were hired, ushers have to work at least 80% of the team's home games, and the ushers can't do this if they miss part or all of every Friday and Saturday game, which their sabbath entails. The team made the mistake--so it seems, in retrospect--of suspending the rules and trying to accommodate the ushers last year, but this year they decided that missing so many games was not acceptable, and fired the three ushers. Now the ushers are claiming religious discrimination.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/instagra ... imination/

You'd think if your religion forbid you from working Fridays and Saturdays, you'd find a job that didn't require you to, you know, work every Friday and Saturday.

This is just me, but I am really, really, really, really sick of people who think their religion entitles them to some special rules that don't apply to everyone else. If your religion doesn't teach you how to live in harmony in any society, than IMO your religion is BS. The outer rules of exoteric religion are in almost all cases long out-dated, and even when they did make sense, it was only because the mass of people are too ignorant to grasp the esoteric core of religion, and require rules to point them in the right direction. Rather like kindergartners who have to be told yes or no for everything, because they lack the mental capacity to discriminate among choices.

End of rant.

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

I agree with you on this one. Of course I don't know the details, but if you're not allowed to work on Saturday because of your religion, that's fine, but then you should make clear appointments with your employer about not working on Saturday. If the employer first accepted them not working on Saturday and now randomly changed his mind, that's definitely a mistake and stupid from the employer, but it's not religious discrimination.......

 

[blutto]

A THOUGHT FOR TODAY:
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do. -Anne Lamott, writer (b. 10 Apr 1954)

Cheers

 

[Bustedknuckle]

Re:

An interesting lawsuit has been filed against the Washington Nationals baseball team. Three of their ushers are 7th Day Adventists, whose religion apparently forbids them from working from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday. According to the team's rules in place before they were hired, ushers have to work at least 80% of the team's home games, and the ushers can't do this if they miss part or all of every Friday and Saturday game, which their sabbath entails. The team made the mistake--so it seems, in retrospect--of suspending the rules and trying to accommodate the ushers last year, but this year they decided that missing so many games was not acceptable, and fired the three ushers. Now the ushers are claiming religious discrimination.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/instagra ... imination/

You'd think if your religion forbid you from working Fridays and Saturdays, you'd find a job that didn't require you to, you know, work every Friday and Saturday.

This is just me, but I am really, really, really, really sick of people who think their religion entitles them to some special rules that don't apply to everyone else. If your religion doesn't teach you how to live in harmony in any society, than IMO your religion is BS. The outer rules of exoteric religion are in almost all cases long out-dated, and even when they did make sense, it was only because the mass of people are too ignorant to grasp the esoteric core of religion, and require rules to point them in the right direction. Rather like kindergartners who have to be told yes or no for everything, because they lack the mental capacity to discriminate among choices.

End of rant.

Agree...Bike shop owner to kid(racer wanna-be) that wants to work there, " need to work a few weekends. OK with that?"..Kid says he gotta race..owner says, look somewhere else.

Did these knuckleheads at the ball park think there were no games on Friday/Saturday?

 

[Echoes]

Re:

I agree with you on this one. Of course I don't know the details, but if you're not allowed to work on Saturday because of your religion, that's fine, but then you should make clear appointments with your employer about not working on Saturday. If the employer first accepted them not working on Saturday and now randomly changed his mind, that's definitely a mistake and stupid from the employer, but it's not religious discrimination.......

Tss Marty, this is anti-Christian propaganda. How can you fall into the trap!

Christians gained the Sunday rest, at the time of Emperor Constantine. The anti-clericalist are more and more revising that in my country. THey've done so in several periods of our century. I personally think we should never work on Sundays (except for the necessary occupation to maintain public order or some particularisms like hotels and such) and more surely never trade (with a few exceptional cases). The Sunday rest issue shows me that true socialism is Christian. Secularist socialism is a fallacy. Throughout the ages, Christians have offered more protection to the workers (their health, their older days, ...) than the last 2 secularist centuries ever did.

My country is Christian, secularists won't change it. And on Sundays, we don't work, that's the way it is.

 

[frenchfry]

Re: Re:

I agree with you on this one. Of course I don't know the details, but if you're not allowed to work on Saturday because of your religion, that's fine, but then you should make clear appointments with your employer about not working on Saturday. If the employer first accepted them not working on Saturday and now randomly changed his mind, that's definitely a mistake and stupid from the employer, but it's not religious discrimination.......

Tss Marty, this is anti-Christian propaganda. How can you fall into the trap!

Christians gained the Sunday rest, at the time of Emperor Constantine. The anti-clericalist are more and more revising that in my country. THey've done so in several periods of our century. I personally think we should never work on Sundays (except for the necessary occupation to maintain public order or some particularisms like hotels and such) and more surely never trade (with a few exceptional cases). The Sunday rest issue shows me that true socialism is Christian. Secularist socialism is a fallacy. Throughout the ages, Christians have offered more protection to the workers (their health, their older days, ...) than the last 2 secularist centuries ever did.

My country is Christian, secularists won't change it. And on Sundays, we don't work, that's the way it is.

First of all, apparently you didn't really read this post or Merckx index's original post on this, because the day of rest at issue is SATURDAY, not Sunday.

Second of all, nobody is forcing anyone to work on a day they don't want. These idiots accepted a job where normally they should work on a day they didn't want to (whatever their reason). If you have beliefs, don't make decisions that force others to change their rules to accomodate you - assume your beliefs fully.

If you don't want to work on Sundays, don't and that's fine. But don't try to force your beliefs on others that don't share them.

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

Re: Re:

Tss Marty, this is anti-Christian propaganda. How can you fall into the trap!

Christians gained the Sunday rest, at the time of Emperor Constantine. The anti-clericalist are more and more revising that in my country. THey've done so in several periods of our century. I personally think we should never work on Sundays (except for the necessary occupation to maintain public order or some particularisms like hotels and such) and more surely never trade (with a few exceptional cases). The Sunday rest issue shows me that true socialism is Christian. Secularist socialism is a fallacy. Throughout the ages, Christians have offered more protection to the workers (their health, their older days, ...) than the last 2 secularist centuries ever did.

My country is Christian, secularists won't change it. And on Sundays, we don't work, that's the way it is.

For me, I was just looking at this specific case mentioned by Merckx Index; I respect the wish of the seventh day adventists not to work on Saturdays and it appears to be the case that the employer acted pretty inconsistently, but it doesn't really seem to be religious discrimination to me. Although actually reading the case a bit better it's really weird that the ushers were allowed to take Saturdays free in 2013 but not anymore in 2014. Actually, the story is lacking a bit in facts concerning what kind of an agreement the ushers had with their employer and the reaction of the employer hasn't been given in the article of in the link of Merckx Index. So in want of more information maybe it's better to refrain from a judgement concerning this case......

Anyway, when it comes to Sunday rest in general I agree with you I think.

Actually, when I moved to Belgium I was quite surprised to see so many shops open on Sundays. In the Netherlands supermarkets and such are always closed on Sundays, except in some area's which have been designated a 'tourist area' for some reason and there are a couple of Sundays a year where all shops are allowed to be open. But in Belgium it seems like supermarkets and such are always open on Sundays, at least in the area where I live.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

Tss Marty, this is anti-Christian propaganda. How can you fall into the trap!

Christians gained the Sunday rest, at the time of Emperor Constantine. The anti-clericalist are more and more revising that in my country. THey've done so in several periods of our century. I personally think we should never work on Sundays (except for the necessary occupation to maintain public order or some particularisms like hotels and such) and more surely never trade (with a few exceptional cases). The Sunday rest issue shows me that true socialism is Christian. Secularist socialism is a fallacy. Throughout the ages, Christians have offered more protection to the workers (their health, their older days, ...) than the last 2 secularist centuries ever did.

My country is Christian, secularists won't change it. And on Sundays, we don't work, that's the way it is.

What country is this, just curious. Thx.

 

[Echoes]

Re: Re:

Anyway, when it comes to Sunday rest in general I agree with you I think.

Actually, when I moved to Belgium I was quite surprised to see so many shops open on Sundays. In the Netherlands supermarkets and such are always closed on Sundays, except in some area's which have been designated a 'tourist area' for some reason and there are a couple of Sundays a year where all shops are allowed to be open. But in Belgium it seems like supermarkets and such are always open on Sundays, at least in the area where I live.

Hey nice to see that the Netherlands are still rooted in tradition, to some extent. On that aspect, at least.

Yeah a lot of supermarkets are open on Sundays by now. I don't find it normal even if I do take advantage of it but I'd rather not have the chance to. However the biggest department stores are still closed, only smaller supermarkets are open.

 

[Bustedknuckle]

Re: Re:

I agree with you on this one. Of course I don't know the details, but if you're not allowed to work on Saturday because of your religion, that's fine, but then you should make clear appointments with your employer about not working on Saturday. If the employer first accepted them not working on Saturday and now randomly changed his mind, that's definitely a mistake and stupid from the employer, but it's not religious discrimination.......

Tss Marty, this is anti-Christian propaganda. How can you fall into the trap!

Christians gained the Sunday rest, at the time of Emperor Constantine. The anti-clericalist are more and more revising that in my country. THey've done so in several periods of our century. I personally think we should never work on Sundays (except for the necessary occupation to maintain public order or some particularisms like hotels and such) and more surely never trade (with a few exceptional cases). The Sunday rest issue shows me that true socialism is Christian. Secularist socialism is a fallacy. Throughout the ages, Christians have offered more protection to the workers (their health, their older days, ...) than the last 2 secularist centuries ever did.

My country is Christian, secularists won't change it. And on Sundays, we don't work, that's the way it is.

Yup, cuz he wrote a lot of the bible, to help to quash those nasty pagans. Who dance around naked every day of the week.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I think if you have a job then you should be prepared to work on all or any day of the week. I think it should be a law that any story that provides necessary things like food / gasoline / transportation etc should be open every day of the week. No Holidays no off. No joke I actually believe that. Employers should have enough employees to rotate through holidays and other days of the week to give folks some time off but the shop stays open.

Nope those seventh day adventurist should not have Saturday off. Seems like they should choose a different career.

 

[Jspear]

Re: God and Religion

What is there to discuss? Religion has very little if anything to say about science. I think even Jspear agrees with that for the most part. When he waxes all enthusiastic about modern ways to follow a bike race, he isn’t giving credit to religion for that. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of embracing science when it produces technology one enjoys while denying it when it reveals facts about our past that that are inconsistent with a literal view of the Bible. Or if he prefers, God leads humanity to learn many helpful things about our world, yet leads humanity astray when it attempts to learn about its past.

I don't believe it's hypocrisy. It's very simple; science gives us things like technology. We can see science in action; it's repeatable, testable. When it comes to revealing facts about our past, science can play a part, but it doesn't answer as many questions as you think. A lot of what you consider science isn't science in the truest sense of that word. In our society we've just adopted that term to include our studies into such things as the origins of the earth.

Also, God doesn't deceive man when it comes to knowing what happened in the past...He has clearly revealed to us what did in fact happen. Man (as a whole) has deliberately chosen to suppress the knowledge of God.

I really don’t think there is any deep philosophical or theological debate implied by this. If you reject evolution because of the Bible, the discussion is at an impasse. There’s nothing more to say. True, there were some attempts by someone in the religion thread, I think it was Jspear, to justify the Bible by appealing to the work of an alleged scientist, but the fraudulent nature of those studies was pointed out at the time, and Jspear showed no interest in discussing that further in that thread. I didn’t think he would try to follow up on that here, either. I’ll certainly agree that any further discussion of that work should be on the religion thread, though I doubt I’d contribute to it, as again, I see nothing more needs to be said.

This is a dishonest thing to say. The individual that I quoted was a scientist. Simple as that. You don't get to decide which individuals with phd's and such are scientist and which one's aren't. If they graduated with a degree in a particular area of science than you and I can't judge that. We can of course judge their writings/research.

 

[Jspear]

Re: God and Religion

Now there's something I've wondered for a while. The infallible word of God via the bible. How did you come to that conclusion? Was it taught to you? Was there any evidence? Or is tautological because the very document (bible) claims so? What if I wrote on a napkin that the napkin says it knows your thoughts? What's the difference? Or (scary) does the napkin know your thoughts?

John Swanson

Fair questions. Was it taught to me? Yes, but of course I had a choice in whether or not I accepted it as truth. I believe the Bible to be infallible because of it's internal consistency, the claims it makes about itself, the archaeological evidence that supports it, and the manuscript evidence that supports it. Believing in what the Bible says does require faith, but it's not some mystical thing. It's the truth hence it's very rational Of course the world at large doesn't believe that it is rational or that it makes sense. But that is expected.

 

[Merckx index]

Re: God and Religion

I don't believe it's hypocrisy. It's very simple; science gives us things like technology. We can see science in action; it's repeatable, testable. When it comes to revealing facts about our past, science can play a part, but it doesn't answer as many questions as you think. A lot of what you consider science isn't science in the truest sense of that word. In our society we've just adopted that term to include our studies into such things as the origins of the earth.

How ironic. You say later that I don’t get to decide which individuals with Ph.Ds are scientists and which aren’t, yet you consider yourself qualified to decide what is science and what isn’t. I’ll repeat: evolutionary theory has been developed through the same process that has given us modern technology. Make observations. Formulate hypotheses based on those observations that imply certain predictions. Test those predictions. Use the results observed during the testing of those predictions to formulate more hypotheses.

Sometimes this process results in technology that in effect tests the predictions, but that is not a necessary part of the scientific method. I'm pretty sure you accept the findings of forensic science, which can establish the guilt of someone for some act committed in the past without any witnesses. Like evolutionary theory, forensic science is not tested through the creation of new technology, but that doesn't make its conclusions any less certain. You don’t have a problem with this because it doesn’t challenge your belief in the Bible. Technology and the definition of science have nothing to do with this.

Do you accept the existence of stars that you can't see with your naked eyes? Do you believe science when it accurately estimates the size, composition, temperature and distance from the earth of these stars? I suppose you can't accept what science tells us about the age of these stars, but can you accept that these stars actually exist? If so, how? We can't yet confirm their existence with any technology in action, e.g., by sending people to these stars through space. We infer their existence through our knowledge of light and chemistry. We use science to extend our knowledge of space that is not in our immediate presence. In the same way, we use science to extend our knowledge of time that is not the immediate present. We infer the existence of evolution through known, visible processes of selection, through fossils, through comparisons of anatomy, through similarities in DNA sequences, and many other scientific approaches.

Also, God doesn't deceive man when it comes to knowing what happened in the past...He has clearly revealed to us what did in fact happen. Man (as a whole) has deliberately chosen to suppress the knowledge of God.

Since God in your understanding I believe is all-knowing, I assume he knew this was going to happen when he created us, right? But he wasn't able to do anything about it? Or maybe he could have, but didn't want to? But why would he not want to? For that matter, how can we attribute to God desires? But then again, if God has no desires, why would he do anything, include create human beings? What would be the point of doing that except in response to some desire? But if he acts in response to desires, how can he be free?

In any case, I could just as easily say that journalists don't deceive us when they report what happened in a bike race. They clearly reveal what did in fact happen, it's just that some people, like you, choose to suppress the knowledge of journalists because you think that watching HD gives you the right to make your own conclusions. I could argue that HD, the product of science, doesn't provide all the information that you think it does. I could insist that the only legitimate way to know what happened in a bike race is to believe the word of eyewitnesses, people who were actually there at the time.

This is a dishonest thing to say. The individual that I quoted was a scientist. Simple as that. You don't get to decide which individuals with phd's and such are scientist and which one's aren't. If they graduated with a degree in a particular area of science than you and I can't judge that. We can of course judge their writings/research.

And it was on the basis of his writings that I judged his research. He's publishing two entirely different views of our history that are clearly contradictory, one of which dismisses all the things he was taught and accepted when he received a Ph.D.,that are in fact a necessary part of being granted a Ph.D.--all while trying to hide this from his scientific colleagues. Yes, I call someone who would do that an alleged scientist.

I believe the Bible to be infallible because of it's internal consistency, the claims it makes about itself, the archaeological evidence that supports it, and the manuscript evidence that supports it.

Since Godel, we’ve understood that infallibility and internal consistency don’t go together. It’s very easy to be internally consistent and wrong, or at least irrelevant.

What archaeological and manuscript evidence supports the Biblical version of genesis? Or that its views on homosexuality, e.g., are not simply those of ordinary people at the time?

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

Re: God and Religion

Or that its views on homosexuality, e.g., are not simply those of ordinary people at the time?

The sexual ethic of the NT is quite contrary to the Hellenstic context its written in, including their view on homosexual practices; that one's pretty obvious. Of course the NT sexual ethic is still quite similar to the Jewish one, but the Jewish one in turn is based on the OT. I'd have to look it up again for you if you have to have some clear evidence, but IIRC there is clear evidence that in the Ancient Near East, which is the context of the OT, there were also some accepted homosexual practices, which are in turn condemned by the OT.

So it does seem, to the best of my knowledge, that the sexual ethic of the Bible, including the unequivocal condemnation of homosexual practices, is quite distinct from the sexual ethic of the surrounding cultures, from the Ancient Near East of the OT right through to the Hellenistic era, up until Christianity became the majority in the Roman Empire and their sexual ethic became the general one.

 

[Buffalo Soldier]

Since people in the Word Politics thread want to reserve it to Conspiracy Theories only, I bring my remark here:

It's simple: keep your religious views out of politics. I do not care if you do or do not believe a bearded guy in the sky made people gay and then forbade them to be together, keep it out of politics, keep it out of other people's lives.
Marriage laws have nothing to do with religion. I do understand people can not be married in the eyes of your church if they do not follow the rules of your testament or whatever. But that's not a reason to base you civil law system on that.

 

[Netserk]

Re:

Since people in the Word Politics thread want to reserve it to Conspiracy Theories only, I bring my remark here:

It's simple: keep your religious views out of politics. I do not care if you do or do not believe a bearded guy in the sky made people gay and then forbade them to be together, keep it out of politics, keep it out of other people's lives.
Marriage laws have nothing to do with religion. I do understand people can not be married in the eyes of your church if they do not follow the rules of your testament or whatever. But that's not a reason to base you civil law system on that.

Amen!

 

[Jspear]

Re: God and Religion

How ironic. You say later that I don’t get to decide which individuals with Ph.Ds are scientists and which aren’t, yet you consider yourself qualified to decide what is science and what isn’t. I’ll repeat: evolutionary theory has been developed through the same process that has given us modern technology. Make observations. Formulate hypotheses based on those observations that imply certain predictions. Test those predictions. Use the results observed during the testing of those predictions to formulate more hypotheses.

Evolution has been developed starting with the presupposition that God doesn't exists and that He didn't create the world in 6 days - They then developed everything based on that. I'm sure you've heard before where they have taken volcanic rock that they knew was just recently formed - dated the rock - and it came out to be over a hundred thousand years old. How can that happen? Because the processes that they use to determine age are not all correct. They aren't based in sound science. They have a mindset that effects their work. Evolutionary science cannot be put in the same category as objective science.

Sometimes this process results in technology that in effect tests the predictions, but that is not a necessary part of the scientific method. I'm pretty sure you accept the findings of forensic science, which can establish the guilt of someone for some act committed in the past without any witnesses. Like evolutionary theory, forensic science is not tested through the creation of new technology, but that doesn't make its conclusions any less certain. You don’t have a problem with this because it doesn’t challenge your belief in the Bible. Technology and the definition of science have nothing to do with this.

With forensic science you are generally talking about something that has happened very recently. From what I do know and have seen it seems to be much more objective than evolution. Evolutionary science is attempting to address things that happened thousands and thousands of years ago. It's starting with incorrect assumptions hence it's outcome is incorrect. With forensic science you can start with something you know and go from there.

Do you accept the existence of stars that you can't see with your naked eyes? Do you believe science when it accurately estimates the size, composition, temperature and distance from the earth of these stars? I suppose you can't accept what science tells us about the age of these stars, but can you accept that these stars actually exist? If so, how? We can't yet confirm their existence with any technology in action, e.g., by sending people to these stars through space. We infer their existence through our knowledge of light and chemistry. We use science to extend our knowledge of space that is not in our immediate presence. In the same way, we use science to extend our knowledge of time that is not the immediate present. We infer the existence of evolution through known, visible processes of selection, through fossils, through comparisons of anatomy, through similarities in DNA sequences, and many other scientific approaches.

Of course I accept that there are stars which I can't see with my naked eye. I've already stated why I can't accept the dates that the evolutionary community has given. (Just a side note - why has the age of the earth changed through the years? Seems to me maybe they don't know as much as they say they do. This would then lead me to ask - why am I foolish for believing what I do? When your story stops changing let me know - maybe I'll reconsider. )

The fossil record is hardly a proof for evolution - quite the opposite actually. A more accurate explanation for why there are fossils of different sorts (animals that aren't from the same habitats) or whales found out in the desert, the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record,ect. is because like the Bible says, there was a world wide flood.

Since God in your understanding I believe is all-knowing, I assume he knew this was going to happen when he created us, right? But he wasn't able to do anything about it? Or maybe he could have, but didn't want to? But why would he not want to? For that matter, how can we attribute to God desires? But then again, if God has no desires, why would he do anything, include create human beings? What would be the point of doing that except in response to some desire? But if he acts in response to desires, how can he be free?

I could copy and past the whole chapters but that would take up A TON of space. The perfect answer is found in the book of Romans - read chapters 8-11. In short yes God knew many would reject Him. Regardless He made all of us and He has revealed Himself to us through the Word of God. We can know Him, but "men love darkness rather than light." God does have a desire; His desire is that you and I would be saved. He has given you the tools you need to be saved. No doubt you've heard the "gospel" before.

Since Godel, we’ve understood that infallibility and internal consistency don’t go together. It’s very easy to be internally consistent and wrong, or at least irrelevant.

What archaeological and manuscript evidence supports the Biblical version of genesis? Or that its views on homosexuality, e.g., are not simply those of ordinary people at the time?

The internal consistency of the Bible is very different from any other book. It was written by 40 different authors over a period of 1500-2000 years. Many of theses authors didn't even know each other. Still the Bible has perfect consistency and accuracy. What supports Genesis? Fossils for one thing. Going later in time there are many other archaeological artifacts that support the Bible as well. There are over 24,000 manuscripts for the New Testament. Much more than any other book in antiquity.

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

Re:

Since people in the Word Politics thread want to reserve it to Conspiracy Theories only, I bring my remark here:

It's simple: keep your religious views out of politics. I do not care if you do or do not believe a bearded guy in the sky made people gay and then forbade them to be together, keep it out of politics, keep it out of other people's lives.
Marriage laws have nothing to do with religion. I do understand people can not be married in the eyes of your church if they do not follow the rules of your testament or whatever. But that's not a reason to base you civil law system on that.

Yes! Let's keep our beliefs out of politics! Good idea! Who cares about what people belief is good and true and valuable. Politics shouldn't be about that...... hmmm.......

In a plural society such as we live in, people have a lot of different worldviews which are intimately connected with their values and ethical beliefs and will thus be intimately connected. Apparently you think some of them are stupid and should be ridiculed, good for you. People have to deal with that and you have to deal with the fact that people have these beliefs and will thus have political beliefs that you think are stupid and silly. They should still be able to bring these beliefs into politics just as much as you should bring your beliefs into politics. It's impossible to do politics without bringing your beliefs in it, unless you want politics to be without values and ideals.

Also, the other day I was reading in a novel from Dostoyevsky named 'The Idiot' and at some point the main character of the novel, Lev Myshkin, was discussing atheism, just on a passing note somewhere in a conversation he had. He said that whenever he heard atheists criticize religion, it felt as if they were talking about something else. That really struck me, because I often feel the same. When you say things like "I do not care if you do or do not believe a bearded guy in the sky made people gay and then forbade them to be together"; I hardly feel that you're even talking about me (even though I think you would describe my beliefs as such) or about the Christianity that I know.
This isn't meant so much a specific accusation at your address by the way, more of a general observation that I wanted to share in this topic that I illustrated with a citation from you, so feel free to let it slide. I recognize this sometimes in this forum, but not necessarily with you. I recognize it with some of the more militant anti religious users frequenting this topic, but it's a general thing. The more militant the atheism gets, the less I actually feel that they're talking about my faith when they're attacking Christianity. Whenever I hear Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens or some similar character, I can hear they're smart guys, I can hear all measures of good witty rhetoric, but the thing they're attacking is so wholly foreign to me, that their criticism doesn't really come across, even though it's supposed to be directed at people like me, I guess......

 

[Merckx index]

Evolution has been developed starting with the presupposition that God doesn't exists and that He didn't create the world in 6 days

Nope. It was developed starting with the premise that we don’t know how the different species emerged. But this response of yours is the very definition of preconceived bias. You seem to think science should start with the premise that God exists and created the world in six days. This kind of thinking is the antithesis of science. If all people thought this way, nothing in the modern world would be possible.

They then developed everything based on that. I'm sure you've heard before where they have taken volcanic rock that they knew was just recently formed - dated the rock - and it came out to be over a hundred thousand years old. How can that happen? Because the processes that they use to determine age are not all correct. They aren't based in sound science. They have a mindset that effects their work. Evolutionary science cannot be put in the same category as objective science.

This is cherry picking. Do you have any idea how many samples have been dated without any problem? Radioactive dating depends on certain assumptions, which can’t always be verified. No scientist has ever claimed that the profession is perfect. On the contrary, the history of science is littered with theories and claims that have later been proven to be false. One of the major differences between science and religion is that science admits its imperfections, individual scientists constantly challenge each other’s findings, with the result that the process is to a very large extent self-correcting. Religion can never admit it’s wrong, except when this is so obvious to everyone else that it has no choice but to do so to avoid humiliation (see the Catholic Church).

With forensic science you are generally talking about something that has happened very recently.

With bike races you are always talking about something that has happened far more recently than forensic cases. You don’t trust eyewitnesses to a bike race, why should you have more trust in forensic science, which often doesn’t have witnesses?

The answer, of course, is because science doesn’t depend on the observations or opinions of a single observer. It is that quality, rather than the distance back in time of the area of study, that is decisive.

Evolutionary science is attempting to address things that happened thousands and thousands of years ago. It's starting with incorrect assumptions hence it's outcome is incorrect.

Can you give me an example of an incorrect assumption underlying evolutionary science (other than your pseudo-example of the refusal to assume that the earth was created in six days)?

With forensic science you can start with something you know and go from there.

In any investigation, there are always things one knows that one can start with. In forensic science it might be the simple fact that a dead body was found in such-and-such a place at such-and-such a time. In evolutionary science, examples of what we know include selection (practiced by people on other animals for thousands of years), analogous and homologous morphological, physiological and biochemical features, and simple probability (e.g., the odds that a similar feature would occur by pure chance in two species widely separated in space). I could provide many other examples, but that would get into unnecessary scientific detail.

Just a side note - why has the age of the earth changed through the years? Seems to me maybe they don't know as much as they say they do. This would then lead me to ask - why am I foolish for believing what I do? When your story stops changing let me know - maybe I'll reconsider. )

Actually, the accepted age of the earth hasn’t changed significantly in more than half a century. Again, science is self-correcting. Science doesn’t claim to reveal the truth, it claims to reveal the most likely explanations. Religion vs. science can be compared to that old joke about a clock that is stopped being more accurate than one that is running slow. A stopped clock will be right twice a day (or once on a 24 hour cycle). A clock that is slow will never be accurate (or maybe once in a very long time). But if a clock is slow by a very small amount, it may be extremely useful, in fact, close enough to the real time not to matter.

Early estimates of the age of the earth were considerably less than a billion years. But even if we regard this today as a gross underestimate, it still represented an enormous advance over the fixed belief expressed in the Bible. It provided a completely different view of our origins, and opened up many new areas of investigation. While we now consider this estimate wrong, it was based on some correct ideas and methods. One of the key underappreciated principles of science is that some wrong answers are more useful than others.

Science is constantly changing its views of the world. One might say that relativity theory and quantum theory proved that Newton was wrong. But it would be more accurate to say Newtonian physics is incomplete. It’s still extremely useful, even if some of its claims and predictions have had to be modified. For example, all space travel, including that by commercial airliners, relies on, among other things, Newtonian physics. A nit-picker could say that physics has changed over the years, but no one who flies in an airplane--presumably including you--seems to care.

The fossil record is hardly a proof for evolution - quite the opposite actually. A more accurate explanation for why there are fossils of different sorts (animals that aren't from the same habitats) or whales found out in the desert, the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record,ect. is because like the Bible says, there was a world wide flood.

All of these findings have much simpler explanations that are quite consistent with evolutionary theory.

I could copy and past the whole chapters but that would take up A TON of space. The perfect answer is found in the book of Romans - read chapters 8-11. In short yes God knew many would reject Him. Regardless He made all of us and He has revealed Himself to us through the Word of God. We can know Him, but "men love darkness rather than light." God does have a desire; His desire is that you and I would be saved. He has given you the tools you need to be saved. No doubt you've heard the "gospel" before.

That passage sure doesn’t sound perfect to me. This is just sheer rationalizing ***. It doesn’t answer the most basic question of why there is suffering in the world. Why did God make humans who would love darkness more than light? Why are some more inclined to believe in him than others? Why would he create a world where many suffer through forces completely beyond their control? The Bible has no answers to these and many similar questions. I think you’re in enormous denial if you think it does.

By the way, if God has desires, how can he be free? I haven't even gotten into, and won't, the enormous philosophical contradictions that riddle religion. At least philosophers recognize these problems and try to come to grips with them. Religion won't even confront them.

The internal consistency of the Bible is very different from any other book. It was written by 40 different authors over a period of 1500-2000 years. Many of theses authors didn't even know each other. Still the Bible has perfect consistency and accuracy.

More rationalization. In fact, numerous scholars have pointed out dozens, hundreds of inconsistencies in the Bible. These are glossed over by true believers, hiding behind ambiguities in languages, interpretations, et al. Also, without knowing the exact sources each author used, it’s impossible to judge how much of what is written is based on common sources, and how much on personal observations.

What supports Genesis? Fossils for one thing.

That is just outright denial.

Going later in time there are many other archaeological artifacts that support the Bible as well. There are over 24,000 manuscripts for the New Testament. Much more than any other book in antiquity.

Give me an example of an artifact that supports the view that the earth is only a few thousand years old, or that it was created in six days.

 

[Buffalo Soldier]

Maarten, I do not want to criticize your religion, even though I do indeed think it is silly (I sometimes let go when talking about something I believe to be so incredibly nonsensical, forgetting that a lot of people believe the words written in the bible to be based on some divine words. Sorry for my tone.).
I am criticizing you bringing your religion into the life of others and into politics though.

I have no problem people arguing against gay marriage based on reason or morals. I would most probably not agree with them, but I am happy to argue with that. I do have a problem on people arguing against the same thing 'because their God told them so'. I am happy not to live in a land where the word of god defines the rules of my society.

When someone states he does not want live on this planet (it is covered in darkness), because a majority of the people in his country sees nothing wrong with 2 same-sex people marrying each other even though he is sure his god would not want that, I do take offense to that.

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

Re:

I am criticizing you bringing your religion into the life of others and into politics though.

I have no problem people arguing against gay marriage based on reason or morals. I would most probably not agree with them, but I am happy to argue with that.

Well, the thing is, my rational beliefs, my moral beliefs and my religious beliefs (and even more actually) are all closely connected in my worldview. So entering into the political arena leaving my religion completely behind wouldn't really be possible for me. I don't see the difference between somebody who has, say, a humanistic ideology and a naturalist worldview, bringing his moral beliefs based on his ideology and worldview into the political arena and a christian bringing his moral beliefs based on his ideology and worldview, which are closely intertwined with his religion.

I don't have a problem at all with you taking offensive at some of those beliefs though by the way. But I think we shouldn't keep certain beliefs out of political discussion because we find them offensive.

 

[Jspear]

Re:

Nope. It was developed starting with the premise that we don’t know how the different species emerged. But this response of yours is the very definition of preconceived bias. You seem to think science should start with the premise that God exists and created the world in six days. This kind of thinking is the antithesis of science. If all people thought this way, nothing in the modern world would be possible.

You and I weren't there in the beginning. God was; so if we start with excepting what He says about the beginning then everything else in science makes sense.

It would be naive to think that believing in God and a six day creation would hinder the modern world of science. There are great evolutionists and creationists that have contributed to science helping to form the world as we know it now.

This is cherry picking. Do you have any idea how many samples have been dated without any problem? Radioactive dating depends on certain assumptions, which can’t always be verified. No scientist has ever claimed that the profession is perfect. On the contrary, the history of science is littered with theories and claims that have later been proven to be false. One of the major differences between science and religion is that science admits its imperfections, individual scientists constantly challenge each other’s findings, with the result that the process is to a very large extent self-correcting. Religion can never admit it’s wrong, except when this is so obvious to everyone else that it has no choice but to do so to avoid humiliation (see the Catholic Church).

But if just one piece of volcanic rock for instance has been dated wrong that shows that the system is flawed. If the system of dating has been proven to be flawed, when should you trust it? I guess maybe you would trust it when it seems to prove you right? This though isn't science though. This is being as subjective as subjective gets. I have no problem with scientist continuing to search and study. But they shouldn't deceive hundreds of thousands of kids in our school systems, teaching them evolution as fact, when in reality they can't even prove that it is true yet.

Can you give me an example of an incorrect assumption underlying evolutionary science (other than your pseudo-example of the refusal to assume that the earth was created in six days)?

It is an incorrect assumption to assume there is no God. Everything in this life we assume (and rightly so) had a creator, a designer - yet when it comes to the origins of the most amazing, sophisticated thing around - the universe and life - we just assume that it came from chaos. Totally absurd.

Actually, the accepted age of the earth hasn’t changed significantly in more than half a century. Again, science is self-correcting. Science doesn’t claim to reveal the truth, it claims to reveal the most likely explanations. Religion vs. science can be compared to that old joke about a clock that is stopped being more accurate than one that is running slow. A stopped clock will be right twice a day (or once on a 24 hour cycle). A clock that is slow will never be accurate (or maybe once in a very long time). But if a clock is slow by a very small amount, it may be extremely useful, in fact, close enough to the real time not to matter.

If evolutionary science isn't claiming to reveal the truth then that needs to be more clearly stated. The flak I get from so many evolutionist/atheists is crazy at times. They look at me like I'm so stupid for believing what I'm believe...it's almost like they think they have the truth.

That passage sure doesn’t sound perfect to me. This is just sheer rationalizing ***. It doesn’t answer the most basic question of why there is suffering in the world. Why did God make humans who would love darkness more than light? Why are some more inclined to believe in him than others? Why would he create a world where many suffer through forces completely beyond their control? The Bible has no answers to these and many similar questions. I think you’re in enormous denial if you think it does.

Did you actually read the passages...from this response it seems like you haven't. Correct me if I'm wrong.

More rationalization. In fact, numerous scholars have pointed out dozens, hundreds of inconsistencies in the Bible. These are glossed over by true believers, hiding behind ambiguities in languages, interpretations, et al. Also, without knowing the exact sources each author used, it’s impossible to judge how much of what is written is based on common sources, and how much on personal observations.

And these "contradictions" have been addressed many times by biblical scholars, teachers.

Give me an example of an artifact that supports the view that the earth is only a few thousand years old, or that it was created in six days.

http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/btg/btg-211.pdf

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

Well, the thing is, my rational beliefs, my moral beliefs and my religious beliefs (and even more actually) are all closely connected in my worldview. So entering into the political arena leaving my religion completely behind wouldn't really be possible for me. I don't see the difference between somebody who has, say, a humanistic ideology and a naturalist worldview, bringing his moral beliefs based on his ideology and worldview into the political arena and a christian bringing his moral beliefs based on his ideology and worldview, which are closely intertwined with his religion.

I don't have a problem at all with you taking offensive at some of those beliefs though by the way. But I think we shouldn't keep certain beliefs out of political discussion because we find them offensive.

The problem with many religious claims, certainly those of Jspear and GM, is that they're based on belief in a different world, subject to different rules, from the one that governs our political life. Though people like Jspear try to misrepresent the definition or the practice of science to support or rationalize their views, in the end those views always come down to one thing: everything in the Bible is literally true. You can’t argue with it because it’s the word of God, and God is infallible. So if science contradicts the Bible, science must be wrong, or as he might put it, scientists are wrong, and they aren’t really practicing science. I can’t even ask Jspear what his response would be if there were scientific evidence as certain to him as watching his HD that evolution occurred, because he would simply deny that this is possible. His mind is absolutely shut on this issue. There is nothing that can change it.

This simply is not how our political life operates. It’s based on material evidence, not on some book written thousands of years ago. The ongoing discussion in the politics thread about the missile that shot down a commercial airliner last summer is an excellent example of this. One might despair at the conflicting claims of the Ukrainians and the Russians, but in fact both sides agree completely on the framework governing the debate. Neither side claims the other side fired the missile on the basis of what God said; they claim this based on photographs, geolocation, analysis of fragments of the plane, and other scientifically-based methods. One or both sides may be misrepresenting this evidence, but neither side denies that it is evidence, and that this evidence is the only way to decide the issue.

It’s the same way with the issue of same-sex marriage. If you want to engage in this argument, on either side, you can appeal to evidence such as 1) studies bearing on the question of whether homosexuality has a genetic basis, is learned, or chosen; 2) the effects of having same sex parents on any children they may have; and 3) the effects on children of not knowing and/or interacting with both their biological parents. Or you can simply argue that the principles of modern societies are not consistent with denying one group or class of people the same rights and benefits that other citizens enjoy.

You made an argument in this vein when you posted this earlier, in response to my statement that the opposition to homosexuality may have been just the views of ordinary people at this time:

So it does seem, to the best of my knowledge, that the sexual ethic of the Bible, including the unequivocal condemnation of homosexual practices, is quite distinct from the sexual ethic of the surrounding cultures, from the Ancient Near East of the OT right through to the Hellenistic era, up until Christianity became the majority in the Roman Empire and their sexual ethic became the general one.

A claim like this, based on historical evidence, is fine. I have no problem with it. It does counter the notion that the prevailing ethic among people of this period was to regard homosexuality as sinful. I’m not familiar enough with this period to judge the validity of this.

But note that just because this argument is based on historical evidence, it doesn’t actually respond to the deeper point I was making: that there is no evidence the Bible is the word of God. Maybe the people who wrote the Bible differed in some of their views from other people at the time, but that doesn’t by itself provide any support for the claim that they were divinely inspired. We know that many other rules/proscriptions in the Bible, e.g., regarding diet, were based not on what we might call morals, but simply on practicalities, and it might be the same with the opposition to homosexuality. Given that homosexuality is a minority orientation, and does not contribute to the reproduction of the species, there are certainly reasons why some people of that time might have decided it was to be outlawed, and regarded as a sin. If you are a community of people trying to become larger and more powerful, you want to do everything you can to discourage practices that might lower the rate of reproduction. The Bible, of course, is full of stories of procreation, which the authors clearly favored very highly. It would make very good sense that they would be opposed to homosexual behavior, not because they found anything intrinsically objectionable about the act, but because if frequently practiced, less children would be born. AFAIK, all earlier societies, and in fact up to recent times in the modern world, have equated population with wealth.

And this underscores my main point here. You can’t use historical or scientific data of the usual kind to verify the claim that the Bible is divinely inspired. You can make all kinds of claims, based on reasonable evidence, of what people of that time were like, but none of this addresses the concept of divinity—just because that claim does indicate operation by other rules. If you want to play by different rules, you can’t expect people to take you seriously when you argue that there is any relationship between your views and the material, historically-verifiable events occurring on earth. This is why we regard religion, in the literalist sense (which is not necessarily how you understands it, I’m not that familiar with your views) has no relevance to political discussions.

The Bible does describe miracles, events which seem to defy scientific explanation, which no doubt Jspear believes are evidence of acts of God. But for someone who doesn’t accept the multiple lines of very solid evidence for evolution on the grounds that this period is too far back in time, it would be rather hypocritical to accept the word, and nothing else at all to substantiate it, of people thousands of years ago that miracles occurred. Jspear sees the mote in the eye of evolutionary biology, but is blind to the log in his own eye of Biblical literalism.

You and I weren't there in the beginning. God was; so if we start with excepting what He says about the beginning then everything else in science makes sense.

Since neither of us was there in the beginning, how does either of us know whether God was?

But if just one piece of volcanic rock for instance has been dated wrong that shows that the system is flawed. If the system of dating has been proven to be flawed, when should you trust it? I guess maybe you would trust it when it seems to prove you right? This though isn't science though. This is being as subjective as subjective gets. I have no problem with scientist continuing to search and study. But they shouldn't deceive hundreds of thousands of kids in our school systems, teaching them evolution as fact, when in reality they can't even prove that it is true yet.

So if one airplane crashes due to a mechanical malfunction, should we halt all airline flights, because our knowledge of airline mechanics is not perfect? Should we assume we know nothing at all about airplanes? If someone dies because of the wrong treatment in a hospital, should we close all hospitals, and go back to primitive medicine? If your computer crashes, do you assume that the people who created the software running it know nothing, and stop using computers entirely?

Should Contador have abandoned the Giro when he had a mechanical, because he can’t trust the people who make bikes?

It is an incorrect assumption to assume there is no God. Everything in this life we assume (and rightly so) had a creator, a designer - yet when it comes to the origins of the most amazing, sophisticated thing around - the universe and life - we just assume that it came from chaos. Totally absurd.

But not as absurd to assume that God came from nothing. Typical double standard. The scientific view of our origins can't be right because something can't come from nothing. But the religious view is correct because God can come from nothing. If you can argue that God has always existed, why can't scientists argue that the building blocks of matter always existed? Which is more believable?

I won't even get into quantum theories that argue that what we call nothing can in fact give rise to particles from quantum fluctuations.

Did you actually read the passages...from this response it seems like you haven't. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You’re wrong.

And these "contradictions" have been addressed many times by biblical scholars, teachers.

Not to the satisfaction of many other scholars who are just as well qualified, and might just be operating with less bias. Again, a clear double standard. You find a few areas of evolutionary biology where there is a little controversy, and jump to the conclusion that the entire science is flawed. I find huge areas of Biblical interpretation where there is controversy, but that's no problem to you, because your side is always right.

http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/btg/btg-211.pdf

Are you serious?

Page 1: Argues that a rock formation that is dated to be more than 100 million years old “could have” formed much more quickly. This is not evidence that the earth is only a few thousands years old. At best, it’s evidence that some very old formations could form much more quickly.

Page 2: Points out that forms of life may be very well-preserved in amber, and that some species have existed for millions of years unchanged. Somehow thinks this is evidence that there has been no evolutionary change.

Page 3: The Laetali footprints. It seems that Lucy, who was thought not to walk completely upright, left footprints similar to those of modern humans. This is rather surprising, since it’s thought that Lucy did not walk upright. Welcome to science, where hypotheses and views are constantly changed.