Atheism: Love it or Leave it? - Part 2

[random_havoc]

I should point out that on this subject when I use the term laymen I'm including myself and (presumably, unless one of you is a scientist and hasn't mentioned it) all of you. But there are obviously degrees of ignorance on a topic and sometimes each of us has to hear it from either side.

Also the dog argument, is moot, that's guided breeding not natural selection. It'd actually be more arguable "proof" for "intelligent design" as they call it.

agreed. I normally wouldn't have bothered on this particular topic at all but i saw a pretty large flaw in logic there and felt it should be addressed.

And now I'm getting back to work. I've spent far too much time here already. I usually only come to the hype for passing entertainment, I discuss this stuff enough in real life.

Since I probably won't bother coming back on this thread again for a number of months (I tend to stick with the comic ones), just wanted to say hope the conversation is fun. God bless guys. Or if you prefer, best wishes.

 

[random_havoc]

No, but you are arguing that Christianity is a friendly environment for science to flourish. What I am saying is that the Scientific accomplishments of these men were independent of their pursuits within religion and in some cases, their pursuits in religion were fruitless.



And again, you're improperly regurgitating my argument. I'm not arguing about the atrocities of Christianity. I am stating that if Christianity was so friendly to the free inquiry of science, then why did it take until the 17th century for scientific discoveries to flourish?



Galileo's problems with the Church are a myth? New one on me. Do you have a cite for that?

What are those factors exactly? Those factors would go a long way to supporting a contention that Christianity supports scientific inquiry.



Again, you are erroneously restating my argument. I am not saying that either. What I'm saying is that for many years faith DID hinder freethought, and those discoveries were made when the power of Christianity was at a low after years of having a stranglehold on almost all aspects of society. Even within the timeframe you have, all educated men were Christian, they had to be.

You cite an article that supports the contention that Christianity supports the framework of the scientific method, but you don't get that support within the confines of history until over a thousand years after its birth.

There are Christian Scientists today. And, depending on which sect they choose to follow, their views on the discoveries of science vary as great as those of secular scientists. Those that decide to follow the route of Creationism do not publish in journals views that reflect that, and those that try fail on the lack of merits that are contained in their papers. Those that do publish in science journals publish findings unrelated to their religious beliefs or do not cover fields that conflict with their religious beliefs. I would say with certainty conflicts with science. How much so depends upon how well the individual is able to rationalize what the evidence states with what they read in the Bible.



No, I'm not misinterpreting your argument, I'm making an extrapolation from it which is problematic for you given that it doesn't fit within the confines what you're attempting to state.



Other than an offhand statement dismissing the reference to Galileo, you haven't provided any evidence to the contrary. That he was imprisoned and tortured is a myth. But he was tried and convicted of heresy, and he stayed out of prison(I misspoke about actually going to prison, but house arrest is prison at home) by recanting his ideas of heliocentrism. He was remanded to house arrest for the rest of his life. The Church was certainly unfriendly to his views on Science, and his views were contrary to Scripture according to the Church. I would say that it was in spite of religion, not because of it, that those findings were made. I think that the inherent curiosity and intellect of those men provided the framework for their findings, not what they read in the Bible. I think they would have made those discoveries without the need of a background in Christianity. They happened to have during a time when everyone educated had it.

If you have a cite that says otherwise, provide it. I hope it's better than the last one. Don't cite from an Art Historian just because they might have a Dr. in front of their name, try to find a source related to the field this time.

Shoot, didn't see you posted this already. Kudos on the speed. I've spent far too much time on this already when I should've been working (one of the reasons why I avoid these boards in the first place, to avoid tempting myself) so I'm still going to go. For now I will just have to tip my hat to you Bill.

 

[Bill]

I want to preface the following by saying that I have yet to research everything that is included with the article, and there is much more to it than just the part I am quoting, but I thought it might be fun to offer up for discussion. When I took a Western Civilization course in college, I heard references along these lines, but there was never any follow up on it.

I have explored some of the rest of the site. It seems to be some part conspiracy theories. There is a page on the Big Bang which uses two sources that have known discrepancies that render the entire essay in error. But some may find this part interesting along with the rest of it. It is quite long.

From the article:

6. THE ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT WAS NOT WRITTEN BY ANYONE WHO KNEW THE HISTORICAL JESUS.

"The earliest known fragment of the Gospel of John dates from 130 C.E. The first collection of texts now called the Bible appears to have been assembled around 250 C.E. from texts written long after the historical Jesus died. None of the books of the new testament were written by the original apostles for whom they are named. Out of some 30 known gospels at the time, the early Christians chose only 4 to go in the Bible, not because of their literary merit, but because the Earth had four compass points, and (it was believed) four corners, and four winds. Strangely, there are texts which were written while the historical Jesus was still alive, but these were not only ignored but destroyed by early Christians during the struggle to define the orthodoxy. Fortunately, copies of these gospels which were hidden to protect them were discovered at Nag Hammadi. Still other texts, such as Moses' book on magic spells, were arbitrarily consigned to the "Apocrypha". All texts, the bible included, were withheld from the congregations. Only the priests could read them. The congregations were kept ignorant of the gospels and were fed stories of witches, demons, satyrs, incubi, sirens, cyclops, tritons, etc., to keep them in a permanent state of fear. The early church ruled the people by terror.

Much of the history of the dark side of the church (to follow) was recorded by the clergy themselves, writing their journals in an age when the congregations were discouraged from learning to read. The hideous crimes and atrocities were set down by men confident that the common people would never be able to read their written words.

The oldest texts in the accepted canonical Bible are those of Saul of Tarsus (Saint Paul), but he never met the historical Jesus (although Paul was convinced that Jesus would return to Earth in his lifetime), nor do his writings indicate the existence of the modern gospels as they are known today in his time. Saint Paul did not become Christian until he was 30, but had been raised as a Mithraist, which is why so much Mithraic influence is seen in his writings. Early Christians desired to separate theologically from the Jews as quickly as possible, so the "Paulist Doctrines" became the accepted heart of modern Christianity, Mithraic influence and all.

It was at this time that the Essene word meaning "revive" was mistranslated to read "resurrect" and the myth of Jesus' coming back from the dead (an idea copied from the Mithraists, as well as Ishtar, Osiris, and other myths) was created. To the historical telling of the crucifixion was added the story of a Roman soldier stabbing Jesus in the side with a spear to make certain he was dead, but it's equally clear that this was written by someone with no knowledge of anatomy, Roman metallurgy, or how to handle a spear. Trying to stab through to the heart of someone on a cross from the side would be impossible because of the ribs. Someone who knew how to use a spear would stab through from the front, into the abdomen below the sternum and then thrust up. The tale of the spear through the side is a fiction invented years after the fact to counter questions raised by other aspects of the account of the "crucifixion" which suggested that the historical Jesus actually survived his ordeal and escaped to India.

Much of the early Christian symbolism was copied from other then popular religions, apparently to make the new religion more acceptable. The ritual of the making of the sign of the cross predates the time of Jesus and is a symbol for the Mithraic god of good, represented by the sun. Early Christians, despite the old testament reference to the Sabbath being the 7th day of the week, placed their day of worship right on top of that of the Mithraists, the FIRST day of the week, The "Sun day." Likewise, ignoring the biblical reference that the historical Jesus was born in "lambing time", the early Christians placed their celebration for the birth of Jesus at the Winter Solstice, over the Roman feast of the Saturnalia and the major creation festival of Mithra. The "loaves and fishes" as a ritual meal was also Mithraic in origin, as was the story of a final day of judgment when the dead are all raised from the grave and the wicked sent to eternal fire. The "flesh and blood" ritual sacrifice at the heart of communion also has roots in Mithraic ritual, and evidence of the transition appears in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The spring festival of Ishtar became "Easter", and so on, the early Christians building their new religion by copying what worked in other, older religions. Whereas the old testament makes little mention of a separate afterlife for the wicked, or of an evil god, both concepts were copied from Zoroastrianism/Mithraism and into the New Testament."

Discuss.

 

[Schlosser85]

^ That was a fascinating read.

 

[Slushy]

I want to believe in something whether its a universal spirit or whatever because I'll be pretty damn disappointed if there's nothing on the other side!

 

[redhawk23]

Can you be disappointed if you no longer exist?

 

[DBryan]

Also the dog argument, is moot, that's guided breeding not natural selection. It'd actually be more arguable "proof" for "intelligent design" as they call it.

Not in the slightest. It's just a simplified way of explaining what happens in nature. There is no difference between natural selection and human selection. Animals are 'selecting' each other, plants and animals are 'selecting' each other, they're just not consciously aware of it the way we are.

An example would be how flowers with strong aromas and bright colours will attract insects and birds. Flowers that lack these qualities will die off, whereas ones with the right qualities will survive.

They're 'selecting' each other the same way we select when we breed dogs. We're better at it because we're aware of it.

Human selection and natural selection is the SAME thing.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Not in the slightest. It's just a simplified way of explaining what happens in nature. There is no difference between natural selection and human selection. Animals are 'selecting' each other, plants and animals are 'selecting' each other, they're just not consciously aware of it the way we are.

An example would be how flowers with strong aromas and bright colours will attract insects and birds. Flowers that lack these qualities will die off, whereas ones with the right qualities will survive.

They're 'selecting' each other the same way we select when we breed dogs. We're better at it because we're aware of it.

Human selection and natural selection is the SAME thing.

A better example would be Peppered Moths or African Elephants. In those cases evolution through natural selection can be seen, without any form of guidance.

 

[8wid]

I want to believe in something whether its a universal spirit or whatever because I'll be pretty damn disappointed if there's nothing on the other side!

You don't have to think of their being an afterlife, but maybe some sort of celestial mind that is infinitely thinking everything literally possible into existence is what creates and designs the universe.

 

[moviedoors]

Wow, Galileo wasn't oppressed by the church? That is just a flat out lie.

 

[Anubis]

He was put under house arrest by the Inquisition. (he's lucky that's all he got when you think about it. )

 

[Lighthouse]

Must......supress........Python.......joke.........

 

[Anubis]

 

[Lighthouse]

no!!!! Not the comfy chair!!!!!!

 

[redhawk23]

Not in the slightest. It's just a simplified way of explaining what happens in nature. There is no difference between natural selection and human selection. Animals are 'selecting' each other, plants and animals are 'selecting' each other, they're just not consciously aware of it the way we are.

An example would be how flowers with strong aromas and bright colours will attract insects and birds. Flowers that lack these qualities will die off, whereas ones with the right qualities will survive.

They're 'selecting' each other the same way we select when we breed dogs. We're better at it because we're aware of it.

Human selection and natural selection is the SAME thing.

Human selection is consciously guided for purpose or for asthetic as opposed to natural selection which is directed by the pressures of survival in the environment. A large number of dog breeds would not survive in the wild at all. Only those with traits that aid their survival would be most likely to breed and pass on their genes. Natural selection.

Human selection has led to animals dependent upon us for their survival and existence.

If you hadn't noticed this

Is a very long way from this

If you just look at dingos, descendants of dogs that have returned to the wild, nature selects for more robust and more survival oriented traits.

Re-adapting to the wild, in this case the outback of Australia leads to a physiology not unlike coyotes.

In other words, if we disappear, kiss your shiatsu goodbye. (Unless there's some environment I'm unaware of that shiatsus would be very adapted to.)

 

[redhawk23]

Wow, Galileo wasn't oppressed by the church? That is just a flat out lie.

He wasn't kept in a dungeon and tortured as is the common perception.

 

[redhawk23]

A better example would be Peppered Moths or African Elephants. In those cases evolution through natural selection can be seen, without any form of guidance.

Exactly. The whole African elephants thing involves humans but in terms of predatory pressures as opposed to guided breeding.

 

[Bill]

He wasn't kept in a dungeon and tortured as is the common perception.

I've not seen that in most of what I've read, but that is exactly what would have happened if he had not recanted his views.

 

[Schlosser85]

Um, the common perception is that he was forced to recant and was kept under house arrest, which is what happened.

 

[redhawk23]

Um, the common perception is that he was forced to recant and was kept under house arrest, which is what happened.

When most layfolk think about the situation, if they think about it all, they think about the stereotypical images of the Inquisition.

This view of it goes back a long time. There's even a painting of it. But yes you are correct that he was forced to recant and kept on house arrest. I never denied that.

 

[8wid]

Where does the light first cast upon the earth come from in the Book of Genesis? Remember the Sun, stars, and moon are invented later? Does that mean there is a contradiction here? Livestock and fish are even conveniently placed for humans to hunt and eat.

 

[Rocketman]

I'm new to this thread, so I'll try my best to jump right in with a coherent position. I was brought up atheist by my parents, I've always been atheist, and I have been 100% removed from religion my entire life. And I turned out okay. I got straight A's in school, college, got a Bachelor's degree, and I've been with my girlfriend for almost 5 years, and we live together in a house. We're perfectly happy - in fact, it's eerie how well things have been. I have a core group of best friends who I've been best friends with (and loyal to) for many years.

- I don't smoke.
- I drink socially.
- I don't take drugs.
- My girlfriend is the same way on all of these things.
- I believe in pro-choice.
- I believe in equal rights.
- I believe in same-sex marriage.
- I don't belong to any political party, but I tend to swing to the left.
- I believe that war should only occur when it's absolutely necessary.
- I've never broken any laws, gotten any speeding tickets, never been arrested.
- I don't believe in guns or weapons of any kind.
- I believe that family is extremely important, as well as my girlfriend and friends.
- I love to read, and I think it's one of the most important things you can do.

None of these values that I have are thanks to religion. I came to be who I am on my own. My parents were atheist, but they never forced anything on me, nor did they try to manipulate me in any way. They were VERY clear when they explained to me that I was free to come to my own conclusions.

And when they said that I was free to come to my own conclusions, they were very clear when they said (while I was in high school) that:

- I was allowed to drink.
- I was allowed to smoke.
- I was allowed to have sex.
- I was allowed to knock a girl up.
- I was allowed to take drugs.
- I was allowed to shoplift.
- I was allowed to get into fights.

They didn't WANT me to do these things. They loved me with all their heart. They told me that they wanted me to LEARN from my mistakes, so I could become a better person as a result of the bad choices I made.

As a result of these freedoms and this style of parenting, I never did any of those things, and I still haven't. It was my freedom of choice when it came to my rebellious teenage years, that caused me to NOT be rebellious. In fact, I was a rebel by NOT doing any of those things.

I'm now 24, and I do have sex with my girlfriend (of 5 years), and we have sex because we are in love. I'm very much in love with her.

And I couldn't have asked for better parents.

Religion, to me, can be extremely dangerous, and poisonous, if handled the wrong way. If parents try to force or manipulate rules and bible verses on their children at a young age, that is a recipe for disaster. I think most of America's problems can be traced back to religion, and most of our social issues are moral conflicts that are only conflicts because religion has gotten in the way.

I have no clue why christians are so bent-out-of-shape when it comes to gay marriage. WHO CARES what a stupid book says from thousands of years ago? Why can't two people just be in love? Since when was love EVER a bad thing?

Secondly, why is it that we must all be the same? I swear, christians are about one step away from saying that everybody on Earth should be white.

- Some people have green eyes.
- Some people write with their left hand.
- Some people have brown hair.
- Some people are over 7 feet tall.
- Some people have 6 toes on each foot.
- Some people are GAY.
- None of these things occur by choice. We are who we are.
So why would it make sense to ban people with green eyes from getting married?
Or why would it make sense to ban people with brown hair from getting married?
IT WOULDN'T MAKE SENSE AT ALL.
It wouldn't make sense to tell two left-handed people that their love for each other isn't real.

BUT, because it's written in some book, it must be enforced.

Well . . . I reject that piece of crap book.

And that book, for all we know, is fictional.

It blows my mind that so much of our world's problems is based on something that is probably fiction. (I say "probably" because I don't even care if it's real or not. I'd still reject it even it was real because it's all BS.)

 

[8wid]

^I love how you say who cares about some book written thousands of years ago. It's so true. The only reason Christianity survived passed the Roman Empire was because it was adopted by one of the emperors and maintained by a state religion that the later European kingdoms admired. If Elagabalus mandated that the Syrian rock god he prayed to was the state religion, we would be hearing about that instead of the Hebrew religion.

 

[Bill]

A refutation of the general interpretation of the experiment you referenced:
http://creation.com/bacteria-evolving-in-the-lab-lenski-citrate-digesting-e-coli

Contrary to the wide claim, that experiment does not give evidence of new genetic information arising from mutation.


As to the last article I posted and its author, I apologize, if I'd looked more into it I would have chosen one with an author with more particular educational focus on that topic. Nonetheless the same view is held by a variety of creationist scientists specializing in that field. A couple that come to mind are Dr Duane Gish (biochemist) and Dr Jonathan Sarfati (physical chemist and all around genius). There are, of course, more, but of course number of people holding an opinion don't prove an opinion. I'm just stating that people with the proper education and experience do hold that opinion.

Again, we have a rebuttal by a plant physiologist. Does Creation.com have a single microbiologist in the house? Or are they busy studying those 15th century dinosaurs?

But, lest you think I'm being unduly mean to Batten, he did get a bit incorrect. He sides with Behe and claims that one, no more than two mutations occurred when the paper cites at least 3 mutations. And the organism is definitely doing something it couldn't do before. Batten claims that these bacteria had that ability inherently, but this particular species of E. coli did not have that at all. It is a specific trait inherent in this species. It cannot pull the nutrient within its cell membrane. So Batten is incorrect in his assumption about this particular species of E. coli. You can read a full description of this in an article by Carl Zimmer which details the experiment. Compare the article with Batten's "rebuttal."

We definitively see the bacteria develop new pathways to absorb a nutrient it could not before, and although the denials are pouring in from the Creationist camp, the evidence is unmistakable. Lenski is currently mapping the genome and pinpointing the exact mutations. Once that is published, where will the Creationists hide then? Certainly not beneath long winded "rebuttals" that seem to only impress the scientifically illiterate.

Dr. Gish has become something of a joke of late. Actually, he's been something of a joke for the last 20 or so years. He dishonesty and lack of intellectual integrity during his debates is legendary. Sarfati certainly has credentials, but nothing related to biology or microbiology. He has a BSs. in Chemistry and his PhD is for a paper on 'A Spectroscopic Study of some Chalcogenide Ring and Cage Molecules.' It should be noted that neither field is of any relevance for experience in Biological Evolution. You would think that an all-around genius would have a more impressive dissertation upon which to base his Doctorate, perhaps something related to a Scientific defense of Creationism complete with relevant empirical evidence and testable results from detailed and properly conducted experiments. Alas, maybe a future paper on that subject is forthcoming.

He could also use a dose of Christian humility as he is something of an arrogant twit to people, even fellow Christians. It is so stark that I have seen Christians disgusted with his behavior. But, despite his decidedly limited field of knowledge, he writes on a variety of subjects in which he has no experience. But I wouldn't call anyone who thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old and a global flood actually happened an "all-around genius." They obviously have no experience in Geology, Radiometric dating, Archaeology, and a host of relevant fields, and looking at his credentials, sure enough, he doesn't.

As an aside, if either one had written the article that Dr. Lightner produced, they would be just as mistaken.

 

[8wid]

Besides who said God created the universe, I thought there were infinite earths and universes before and after this one as the ancient Greeks believed in.