Atheist ethics, atheist values

Polycarp_fan · #**1131** 26th June 2009, 02:26 AM

Originally Posted by sandwiches

Cool. It's one of the interviews I read of him along with the one on the Discover website.

That must mean that like Dr. Collins you won't be taking a literal interpretation of the Bible when compelling evidence contradicts it. Fantastic! So, I would like to formally welcome you among the evolutionists who, like Dr. Collins use evidence, experimentation, and observations in nature to arrive at logical conclusions. Good for you, sport!

And he became a Christian.

I notice your icon?

sandwiches · #**1132** 26th June 2009, 03:15 AM

Originally Posted by Polycarp_fan

And he became a Christian.

I notice your icon?

So, now that you believe in the power of evidence, that means that an 'ultraliteral' interpretation is out the window, right?

roflcopter101 · #**1133** 26th June 2009, 04:07 AM

Originally Posted by Polycarp_fan

Interesting that that is "encoded" in my DNA from conception.

Sniff, sniff. You smell that? Logic is cooking.

Uh, what? I don't get what you're saying.
Wait, did you get the joke about uniqueness? No?

Really? You know I try so hard not to hurt the feelings of an atheist.

<3

I'm a Christian. What is not compatible with the Gospel I will not support.

My question has not been fully answered. Why did you become/stay Christian rather than become a pagan if you (as far as I can tell) sympathized greatly with paganist/nature-loving beliefs?

I believe that you must jettison stupidity to become a Christian. I'm sure being ignorant of many things is just a matter of time and logistics.

My intended message was that one who believed in an irrational idea/belief is not necessarily irrational.

I don't know how anyone can believe that nothing caused everything by nothing causing everything. To much machination in atheism for me to not think it's really just glorifying ignorance with very educated wording.

As for your views on intelligent design/creationism, I must disagree.
Firstly, can you prove that the world was made by a superpowerful entity? Most atheists/people-that-don't-agree-with-creationism probably disagree with creationism mainly due to this problem of proof. String theory, for example, is viewed with similar scepticism by the scientific community because while it presents a unifying explanation of what the world is made of, it is currently unprovable due to accurate enough instrumentation.
Secondly, does order imply design? If all order was designed, then the designer of such designs would need to have designers themselves, right?
Thirdly, cause and effect. Did the universe need an impetus to start existing? Maybe. Radioactive decay requires no cause, yet it gives off radiation as an effect.
However, I must say that wondering about the creation/spontaneous existence/spaghetti cooking of the universe is really not a constructive use of time, seeing as we cannot really tell yet.

"No true scientist could be a Bible-believing Christian," so the story goes, per guys like Dawknis.

And of course: You Christians are suppoded to be sarcastic and caustic.

No true Christian would be rude and nasty to someone . . .

Oh, thank you. Please inform me if I do that to you; I hate imperfect argumentation more than I do eggplants.

Polycarp_fan · #**1134** 26th June 2009, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by sandwiches

So, now that you believe in the power of evidence, that means that an 'ultraliteral' interpretation is out the window, right?

Some "Christian scholars" believe that Jesus was eaten by dogs after he was executed (crucified) and some believe he may not have existed at all as we know him and may have been a bunch of Jesus's that were lumped all together.

Scholarship is only opinion about the Biblical record.

It appears that the ultraliteral presentation in the Bible about God, is believed quite firmly by said scientist in question.

In the beginning God . . .

When time began.

You're talking origins of human beings (as well as everything else). And the absurdity of nothing making that all happen is being noticed by science at tiny, tiny levels even now. How miraculous the blind can now see.

Re-read genesis again, Or maybe read it for the first time for yourself, by yourself.

And then we'll see you start a new thread on all the inconsistencies and contradictions your old skeptic buddies hold to before you evolved to conversion to evolution-based Christian life. (EBCL: Kind of redundant.)

I see you've forgotten to change your icon still?

To be on the right path takes a first step in the right direction on it.

C'mon squirt, jump. Daddy's got ya.

Or ask Brother Francis. We know you trust him.

Psudopod · #**1135** 26th June 2009, 11:06 AM

It appears that the ultraliteral presentation in the Bible about God, is believed quite firmly by said scientist in question.

I’d doubt that, as an ultra literal interpretation would deny common decent; at the very least humans were a separate creation. Collins, as head of the Human Genome project will know full well the relationship between humans and out closest relatives.

You're talking origins of human beings (as well as everything else). And the absurdity of nothing making that all happen is being noticed by science at tiny, tiny levels even now. How miraculous the blind can now see.

Well, we know something happen with no cause. And some cause doesn’t mean a god. And even if you could show that a deity was necessary, that wouldn’t necessarily show it was the Christian God

Polycarp_fan · #**1136** 26th June 2009, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by Psudopod

[/color]

I’d doubt that, as an ultra literal interpretation would deny common decent; at the very least humans were a separate creation. Collins, as head of the Human Genome project will know full well the relationship between humans and out closest relatives.

How many human women give birth to throw-backs? How many apes are giving birth to Einsteins? Obviously there is a massive chasm between us. Tiny though it appears.

Well, we know something happen with no cause.

In what lab experiment? The milieu itself has already proved God. Which segues . . .:

And some cause doesn’t mean a god.

G O D are just letters. Designer, Creator, The First Scientist, whatever.

And . . .

And even if you could show that a deity was necessary, that wouldn’t necessarily show it was the Christian God

True enough. I noticed that Collins didn't become a Zuesian though. And you would think that as a scientist with all of those other scientists in such an exclusive and authoritative club, you'ld expect him to go with a pantheon approach to deity. Evidence and all.

He went with Christ Jesus.

Psudopod · #**1137** 26th June 2009, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by Psudopod

[/color]I’d doubt that, as an ultra literal interpretation would deny common decent; at the very least humans were a separate creation. Collins, as head of the Human Genome project will know full well the relationship between humans and out closest relatives.

How many human women give birth to throw-backs? How many apes are giving birth to Einsteins? Obviously there is a massive chasm between us. Tiny though it appears.

Well, yes, there’s millions of years of evolution separating us and the other great apes. Lots of apes are giving birth to humans, every day. But you meant non human apes, didn’t you? And if you think that evolution requires non human apes to occasionally give birth to humans, then you need to go back and study some more.
As for throwbacks, have a look at babies born with tails.

Well, we know something happen with no cause.

In what lab experiment? The milieu itself has already proved God. Which segues . . .:

Virtual particles in a vacuum, radioactive decay to name two.

And even if you could show that a deity was necessary, that wouldn’t necessarily show it was the Christian God

True enough. I noticed that Collins didn't become a Zuesian though. And you would think that as a scientist with all of those other scientists in such an exclusive and authoritative club, you'ld expect him to go with a pantheon approach to deity. Evidence and all.

He went with Christ Jesus.

I was under the impression that Collins was a Christian before he started the work on the human genome project? I may be wrong.

sandwiches · #**1138** 26th June 2009, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by Polycarp_fan

Some "Christian scholars" believe that Jesus was eaten by dogs after he was executed (crucified) and some believe he may not have existed at all as we know him and may have been a bunch of Jesus's that were lumped all together.

Scholarship is only opinion about the Biblical record.

It appears that the ultraliteral presentation in the Bible about God, is believed quite firmly by said scientist in question.

In the beginning God . . .

When time began.

You're talking origins of human beings (as well as everything else). And the absurdity of nothing making that all happen is being noticed by science at tiny, tiny levels even now. How miraculous the blind can now see.

Re-read genesis again, Or maybe read it for the first time for yourself, by yourself.

And then we'll see you start a new thread on all the inconsistencies and contradictions your old skeptic buddies hold to before you evolved to conversion to evolution-based Christian life. (EBCL: Kind of redundant.)

I see you've forgotten to change your icon still?

To be on the right path takes a first step in the right direction on it.

C'mon squirt, jump. Daddy's got ya.

Or ask Brother Francis. We know you trust him.

Dr. Collins said:

So attaching oneself to such literal interpretations in the face of compelling scientific evidence pointing to the ancient age of Earth and the relatedness of living things by evolution seems neither wise nor necessary for the believer.

I'm assuming you agree and you don't stick to literal interpretations of the Bible when compelling scientific evidence contradicts it then, right? I mean, I'm just saying considering you alluded to him originally and then you quoted him.