The Flood

[Gracchus]

Not that it bothers me either way, except it is disappointing that you provide a better argument for being an atheist than I do.

You can can that line, Blayz --- that's an old one.

And of course, old things can't be true? When truth, the light of heaven and the fire of hell, burns away all the falsehoods, what will be left of you, I wonder.

 

[NavyGuy7]

I'll assume this is a blanket ban on reason then, so do you disagree with any of the following:

• using antibiotics to treat leprosy (or any condition that could have been diagnosed as leprosy) as the bible explicitly states they should dress in rags, uttering "unclean"
• wearing clothes of mixed fibres is cool
• washing your feet whenever you enter someone's house not required
• shops opening on sundays is te best thing since sliced bread
• tatoos are an insult to god
• meat should not be eaten with blood in it (shame, like a good medium-rare steak myself)
• mediums and spiritualists are evil

or anything else in Leviticus 19, or any holy book for that matter. Do you really follow them all?
Do you really think that your loving god did not have the foresight to tell us not to overpopulate our world or pollute it?
"Though shalt recycle" sure would be useful right now, don't you think?

Except that God left us to live our lives how we choose, i.e. free will. Even if it had been a commandment, we'd still be in this mess of pollution, etc. So you trying to blame God for that seems a little... well, lame. Sorry, not trying to flame, but that's my thought on it.
But you're using the Old Testament. Some things in the OT were kinda.... obsolete once the NT came in. Like not being able to eat certain things considered unclean. Until God ok'd it with Peter in the NT.

 

[NavyGuy7]

And yet, your presence (and by "your" I mean all the creationists) on this board is one of the things that helps keep me away from God. You are in fact doing satan's work, presenting Xtianity in such a poor light that it engenders nought but ridicule.

Not that it bothers me either way, except it is disappointing that you provide a better argument for being an atheist than I do.

But aren't you also doing satan's work by ridiculing us? Had to think about that one, didn't you? Even if you didn't, still. Don't start making baseless claims, even if this one isn't.

 

[AV1611VET]

Except that God left us to live our lives how we choose, i.e. free will. Even if it had been a commandment, we'd still be in this mess of pollution, etc. So you trying to blame God for that seems a little... well, lame. Sorry, not trying to flame, but that's my thought on it.
But you're using the Old Testament. Some things in the OT were kinda.... obsolete once the NT came in. Like not being able to eat certain things considered unclean. Until God ok'd it with Peter in the NT.

NavyGuy, nice to meet you --- Go Navy!

Let me give you a piece of advice, bro. Whenever you see a post like #752, it is almost always taken out of context.

 

[Inan3]

Hey didn't you say you were a gap theorist?

yes.

So, why are you a Gap theorist? Is it because the Bible doesn't say something that would help it match it up to the data we have?

Why would one need to interpret any time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 unless they want it to not disagree with external data?
Sounds kinda like making it say whatever you want.

I am confused by this stance.

As a way of introducing my answer to that question, I would like to say, before July of this year, I had NEVER been on a Crevo forum or board. Actually, I had probably only posted on one or two forums in all of my life before that, and only one or two posts at the most, on both of those. One was a political one and one was a Christian one. Neither was on the subject of evolution. I hadn't had any discussions or read any books or any thing online about evolution either. I did many years ago see some christian films on science and maybe one which was on h topic of evolution. I'm sure that this is no surprise to you that I was and am still quite uninformed as far as evolution is concerned.

I say all that to assure you that I have NEVER EVER based my beliefs on science or the lack there of and I NEVER will. Christianity is not based on science. It is a relationship with Jesus Christ. It is a spiritual relationshp not a natural one.

That being said, the reason I "lean toward" the gap theory is because I thought it best fit the external data rather than not. For sure, I had no ulterior motive. I had been taught about it and I thought it fit more aptly. But quite frankly, I don't know enough to be definite on anything of that nature.

My walk and relationship with the Lord is what I am sure of.

 

[Inan3]

And yet, your presence (and by "your" I mean all the creationists) on this board is one of the things that helps keep me away from God. You are in fact doing satan's work, presenting Xtianity in such a poor light that it engenders nought but ridicule.

Not that it bothers me either way, except it is disappointing that you provide a better argument for being an atheist than I do.

 

[Blayz]

But aren't you also doing satan's work by ridiculing us?

I certainly hope so. His is the power, as evidenced by the "miracles" of chirst (just thought I'd throw in some blasphemy against the holy spirit, just in case any of the fundies think I can be saved)

Had to think about that one, didn't you? Even if you didn't, still. Don't start making baseless claims, even if this one isn't.

Didnt have to think about it. My working for satan does not diminish their work for satan, in fact you could say "it takes one to know one"

And it isn't baseless. I can point to posts on this board by ex-xtians who got turned away from god by the SPI. Show me one that got moved towards. just one.

 

[Split Rock]

Except that God left us to live our lives how we choose, i.e. free will. Even if it had been a commandment, we'd still be in this mess of pollution, etc. So you trying to blame God for that seems a little... well, lame. Sorry, not trying to flame, but that's my thought on it.
But you're using the Old Testament. Some things in the OT were kinda.... obsolete once the NT came in. Like not being able to eat certain things considered unclean. Until God ok'd it with Peter in the NT.

So God changed his mind? I thought that THE TRUTH never changes?

 

[thaumaturgy]

I say all that to assure you that I have NEVER EVER based my beliefs on science or the lack there of and I NEVER will.

Well, I can certainly see how religious belief isn't based on science. But religious beliefs aren't all beliefs people hold.

Hopefully you rely on science for some beliefs?

But you know, the whole "non-overlapping magesteria" that Gould discussed, how science and religion cover different topics, I don't wholly agree with.

Sure you can say religion covers spirituality but shouldn't something in religion be scientifically verifiable? Shouldn't something about religious faith correspond so strongly that religion doesn't have to avoid science but rather that science reinforces religion?

That's what I don't get. Even when I was a believer, I realized that I had to bend beliefs and leave unattended those portions that disagreed with the science.

Even "claims" the Bible makes, like all prayers answered, required that something else be added in, whether it was the old cannard "And sometimes the answer is 'no'" or the thought maybe I hadn't prayed right or for the right reason, etc.

The whole point was that when the Bible disagreed with science I had to work around it, rather than simply reject outright that portion. When the Bible itself said one thing but apparently meant another I had to gin up some alternative explanation.

This is the whole key: God is clearly the most important concept in the sum total of all the universe and there can be nothing more important...so why is he so easy to dismiss?

You can't deny gravity, whether you like it or not. You can't deny F=ma whether you like it or not.

So why is it so easy to simply "dismiss" the God concept?

I can conceive of people being born and living and dying and never once requiring an appreciation of Yahweh. There have been entire multitudes of humans who have done just that.

And they seem to have suffered, loved, had joy, had sorrow, and lived as full a life as any atheist.

Christianity is not based on science. It is a relationship with Jesus Christ.

So if God can "speak" to you in a way you understand, and you don't care about science, why doesn't he "speak" to scientists like me in a way I understand?

NOTA BENE: most of the scientists I've worked around have been religious of some sort. I've met few who openly said they were atheists.

It is a spiritual relationshp not a natural one.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Let me give you a piece of advice, bro. Whenever you see a post like #752, it is almost always taken out of context.

AV, I think you did a typo there... I think you must have meant "...it is almost always taken out of MY context.."

Clearly a reasonable argument could be made that Matthew 5:18 says those same laws are indeed still in effect.

[bible]Matthew 5:17-18[/bible]

Now, I realize this was later hashed out by followers of Jesus, but indeed they were not Jesus, were they?

I am not saying the laws are definitely in effect, I'm merely stating what the words of Jesus are that are in the Bible. Usually when people try to "toss out the law" it is for an ulterior motive, be it the 1st and 2nd century drive to convert more Gentiles who would be resistant to adhering to laws like circumcision or today when Fundamentalists preach fire and brimstone and invoke all manner of Old Testament comments like homosexuals are an abomination before God, but seem quite happy to actively ignore many of the other rules in Leviticus.

So it is almost always someone's context, isn't it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, I can certainly see how religious belief isn't based on science. But religious beliefs aren't all beliefs people hold.

I disagree --- the Heaven's Gate cult was made up of highly-intelligent men and women, who explained the metaphysical world in "scientific" terminology.

And although they were wrong, they still appealed to "science" to explain the metaphysical.

Various aspects of the New Age movement do that as well.

Even "claims" the Bible makes, like all prayers answered, required that something else be added in, whether it was the old cannard "And sometimes the answer is 'no'" or the thought maybe I hadn't prayed right or for the right reason, etc.

Trivia question: What is the one prayer Jesus prayed that God said, "No."?

The whole point was that when the Bible disagreed with science I had to work around it, rather than simply reject outright that portion.

Give me an example where a scientist (not a "scientist") can't do his job because it would violate a specific passage of Scripture.

(Specific task and specific passage please [in context, of course].)

 

[Split Rock]

I disagree --- the Heaven's Gate cult was made up of highly-intelligent men and women, who explained the metaphysical world in "scientific" terminology.

And although they were wrong, they still appealed to "science" to explain the metaphysical.

Can you prove they were wrong, and that their spirits did not unite with the mother-ship as planned?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Trivia question: What is the one prayer Jesus prayed that God said, "No."?

Gethsemane.

What do I win?

Give me an example where a scientist (not a "scientist") can't do his job because it would violate a specific passage of Scripture.

Science doesn't violate the Bible, but the Bible sometimes violates Science.

You've seen it all already. Unmovable earth, cud+hares, etc. All points that if we didn't know the truth from an extra-biblical source we wouldn't know that the earth does move around the sun or that hares do indeed not chew cud.

I'm not going to hash it out yet again to have to drill off on one little ultra-legalistic point or some ancient hebrew linguistic point despite your contention that the KJV is the most perfect translation into English and I don't speak Hebrew.

The whole point is: If God, the most important concept in all of the universe, is not needed to explain how pretty much anything in the universe works, then he is non-scientific.

Point to a verifiable scientific event that could not work without God's action? (Oh, but first, prove God even exists).

Oh, yeah, and then tell me why this god you've proven is Yahweh who fulfills all the points about him in the KJV.

 

[Inan3]

Hopefully you rely on science for some beliefs?

I'm sure I do. I just have never asscociated science with belief.

But you know, the whole "non-overlapping magesteria" that Gould discussed, how science and religion cover different topics, I don't wholly agree with.

I think I agree by assumption, though admittedly, I don't know Gould or the "non-overlapping magesteria" concept, but it sounds to me, and for that I would agree, that science and God most surely must overlap.

Sure you can say religion covers spirituality but shouldn't something in religion be scientifically verifiable? Shouldn't something about religious faith correspond so strongly that religion doesn't have to avoid science but rather that science reinforces religion?

To keep this brief, for I am at work, I will for now answer, yes.

That's what I don't get. Even when I was a believer, I realized that I had to bend beliefs and leave unattended those portions that disagreed with the science.

Even "claims" the Bible makes, like all prayers answered, required that something else be added in, whether it was the old cannard "And sometimes the answer is 'no'" or the thought maybe I hadn't prayed right or for the right reason, etc.

The whole point was that when the Bible disagreed with science I had to work around it, rather than simply reject outright that portion. When the Bible itself said one thing but apparently meant another I had to gin up some alternative explanation.

I think this comes from religious misconceptions and misunderstandings of the Word. I would have to know what you mean more particularly to answer more. This is not to insult your study of the Bible over the years just to note that there are misconceptions and old cannards out there that are not Biblically correct. To know truth we often must unlearn mistruths. I find myself even still unlearning things that I thought were true.

This is the whole key: God is clearly the most important concept in the sum total of all the universe and there can be nothing more important...so why is he so easy to dismiss?

You can't deny gravity, whether you like it or not. You can't deny F=ma whether you like it or not.

So why is it so easy to simply "dismiss" the God concept?

I can conceive of people being born and living and dying and never once requiring an appreciation of Yahweh. There have been entire multitudes of humans who have done just that.

And they seem to have suffered, loved, had joy, had sorrow, and lived as full a life as any atheist.

Well, that is all relative and really unknown. We can know people and not really know them inside. That's not to say there are not happy and content people who do not know God but just to say it's not necessarily a marker of God or not.

So if God can "speak" to you in a way you understand, and you don't care about science, why doesn't he "speak" to scientists like me in a way I understand?

I think He does http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html and it is seems obvious to me, TMT, that you have never totally abandoned all of your beliefs.

 

[AV1611VET]

Can you prove they were wrong, and that their spirits did not unite with the mother-ship as planned?

Yes --- it was revealed that there was no mother ship behind the Hale-Bopp comet --- nor had there been.

It was reported as a hoax.

 

[AV1611VET]

Gethsemane.

Not bad --- I didn't think you could do it --- I obviously underestimated you.

What do I win?

Check ur reps.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Yes --- it was revealed that there was no mother ship behind the Hale-Bopp comet --- nor had there been.

It was reported as a hoax.

So can you prove that there wasn't a cloaked mothership behind the Hale-Bopp comet that we could not detect with our primative instruments?

 

[AV1611VET]

So can you prove that there wasn't a cloaked mothership behind the Hale-Bopp comet that we could not detect with our primative instruments?

Yes --- the cloaking device was invented by the Romulans --- in the 23[sup]rd[/sup] (?) century.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I think He does http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html and it is seems obvious to me, TMT, that you have never totally abandoned all of your beliefs.

Well, because I'm between experiments, I'll take this particular CNN article on:

My earlier atheist's assertion that "I know there is no God" emerged as the least defensible. As the British writer G.K. Chesterton famously remarked, "Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative." (SOURCE)

Well, then, this is clearly a statement on strong atheism, which I contend (as do many other atheists) is logically indefensible since it is, by definition, a universal negative.

That is why I am a "weak atheist". Not because my atheism is weak but because I do not attempt to justify a universal negative. I merely fail to see reason to believe in God.

Strangely even Dr. Collins earlier in the same article says:

I was an atheist, finding no reason to postulate the existence of any truths outside of mathematics, physics and chemistry.

So he was a weak atheist? But he took took to heart the rightful point that strong atheism is logically indefensible as a negation of weak atheism? For someone in the advanced sciences, this shows a possible misunderstanding of the logic claims involved. But I don't know the guy.

But further, Dr. Collins is drifting over into teleological arguments for God. Arguments from design. Those are nearly unfalsifiable since design appears where you see things working and simply doesn't appear in other places because when things don't work they don't tend to stick around long enough to be studied. (That's a gross oversimplification).

Teleological arguments don't need an advanced science degree, Aquinas pushed this in the 13th century. It isn't convincing. And it is not a logical necessity.

But reason alone cannot prove the existence of God. Faith is reason plus revelation, and the revelation part requires one to think with the spirit as well as with the mind. You have to hear the music, not just read the notes on the page. Ultimately, a leap of faith is required.

Revelation is exceedingly weak. I've known someone who had extremely strong revelations that he "programmed their dental work into a television set" and would sit for hours with the remote trying to "unprogram" the false teeth from the TV set (yes, it's a true story, my dad did this very thing when he started having small strokes which ultimately robbed him of his mind.)

Revelation? No, what Collins seems to be thinking about here is "feelings". I love music. My brain is wired for it. I'm not a good musician but I can listen to music for hours. Most humans can do this. It "feels good" to us. It is how our brains are wired. Nothing supernatural. The well-placed scalpel in the quick hands of a doctor and I bet I'd wind up completely incapable of understanding music. But I bet I'd love to talk to ice cream.

For me, that leap came in my 27th year, after a search to learn more about God's character led me to the person of Jesus Christ. Here was a person with remarkably strong historical evidence of his life,

I've never heard of this "remarkably strong historical evidence." Despite archaeology and history's best efforts all the data in support of Jesus literal existence pretty much resides within the pages of the Bible. Even the Testamonium Flavianum is considered in question. But more importantly what if we could prove Jesus was a real person. Can we prove he was GOD incarnate?

and whose claims about being God's son seemed to demand a decision about whether he was deluded or the real thing.

Sounds like he got his main stuff from C.S. Lewis.

Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers. Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.
But why couldn't this be God's plan for creation? True, this is incompatible with an ultra-literal interpretation of Genesis, but long before Darwin, there were many thoughtful interpreters like St. Augustine, who found it impossible to be exactly sure what the meaning of that amazing creation story was supposed to be. 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.

And here I applaud Dr. Collins. I give him a standing ovation.

Honestly this is what I see from the vast majority of scientists I work with who are believers. And it seems only rational.

That is why I argue against literalism. I've seen good scientists who can do science despite their religion.

I seldom see any places where religion adds value to the science. But I can see it coexisting in an uneasy truce perhaps. But it is easy to parse one's mental faculties from each other. And I think this is the vastness of the human experience.

 

[AV1611VET]

Isn't today Thanksgiving Day in Canada or something?