The Science that led me away from Atheism.

[PsychoSarah]

So one mouth is not enough for you?

Perhaps a half dozen?

-_- more mouths would not solve the problem; rather, the esophagus and the trachea shouldn't merge into a shared path at any point in the body.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Do nothing which can be observed?

-_- how about only doing mutations which actually result in change in function? Plus, from a practical perspective, if the deity doesn't allow itself to be detected while it does something and gives the illusion of a natural process, that provides about as much evidence for it as doing nothing would.

 

[PsychoSarah]

That's something new.

The information in DNA is stored as a code made up of four chemical bases: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T). Human DNA consists of about 3 billion bases, and more than 99 percent of those bases are the same in all people. The order, or sequence, of these bases determines the information available for building and maintaining an organism, similar to the way in which letters of the alphabet appear in a certain order to form words and sentences.​

DNA bases pair up with each other, A with T and C with G, to form units called base pairs. Each base is also attached to a sugar molecule and a phosphate molecule. Together, a base, sugar, and phosphate are called a nucleotide. Nucleotides are arranged in two long strands that form a spiral called a double helix. The structure of the double helix is somewhat like a ladder, with the base pairs forming the ladder’s rungs and the sugar and phosphate molecules forming the vertical sidepieces of the ladder.

An important property of DNA is that it can replicate, or make copies of itself. Each strand of DNA in the double helix can serve as a pattern for duplicating the sequence of bases. This is critical when cells divide because each new cell needs to have an exact copy of the DNA present in the old cell.

What is DNA?​

Yup, pretty much the only way to explain DNA in a few paragraphs is to compare it to a code/information. But, DNA has no code-like patterns and has a ridiculous amount of redundancy. Regions of DNA that precede genes aren't all super similar because that's a message to replication proteins to do it; those are the regions the transcription complex can actually bind to because it physically cannot fit onto the DNA otherwise.

There are so many proteins your cells have to produce in abundance because it relies on them just ending up where they are needed eventually, and yet people treat cells as if they work like computers. Designing a computer after a cell would have a huge portion of attempted uses of programs end in failure and would have failed attempts at code constantly have to be taken apart to retry construction.

 

[Silmarien]

Perhaps you should try reading The Social Record of Christianity by Joseph McCabe (1867-1955), which you may be able to buy online. Of course the book is very badly out of date (my copy was published in 1937), but it does at least give a different view of the progress of society in Europe from the normal Christian version. In my opinion, chapter IX is particularly interesting in its comparison of the contributions of atheists and Christians to social reform during the 19th century.

I really hope you're not suggesting a turn of the century anti-theistic crusader as a neutral source. A lot of the 19th century rhetoric about the evils of religion has been overturned by modern scholarship, so you're just going to get a narrative every bit as biased, if not more so, than the normal Christian one. (Not that there wasn't some great stuff going on in 19th century atheism, before Nietzsche's prophecy finally came true.)

 

[redleghunter]

First very insightful observations.

Yeah. I think you'd still need some understanding apart from any specific divine revelation of what it means to bear fruit, though, otherwise how could you ever know if that was in fact what was happening?

I believe there is an abundance of evidence of what good works or fruit looks like in the Holy Scriptures. For example, the apostle tells us to walk in the Spirit and not the flesh (Romans 8). Yet he qualifies what the fruits of the Spirit are:

Galatians 5:22-23 New King James Version (NKJV)
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law.

How could anyone else know?

A valid question. James opines on this in James 2

If the Christian lifestyle is truly good (at least when genuinely practiced), outsiders should be able to look at it and recognize that this particular person is bearing fruit.

Agreed.

Otherwise, you're trapped in a loop where you get to decide what qualifies as fruit and whether you're bearing an

I believe the ministry of Christ in the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles and epistles give an abundance of qualifiers.

 

[redleghunter]

-_- how about only doing mutations which actually result in change in function? Plus, from a practical perspective, if the deity doesn't allow itself to be detected while it does something and gives the illusion of a natural process, that provides about as much evidence for it as doing nothing would.

What do you mean by "if the deity doesn't allow itself to be detected while it does something..."

 

[redleghunter]

Yup, pretty much the only way to explain DNA in a few paragraphs is to compare it to a code/information. But, DNA has no code-like patterns and has a ridiculous amount of redundancy. Regions of DNA that precede genes aren't all super similar because that's a message to replication proteins to do it; those are the regions the transcription complex can actually bind to because it physically cannot fit onto the DNA otherwise.

Which is just confirmation of information.

There are so many proteins your cells have to produce in abundance because it relies on them just ending up where they are needed eventually, and yet people treat cells as if they work like computers. Designing a computer after a cell would have a huge portion of attempted uses of programs end in failure and would have failed attempts at code constantly have to be taken apart to retry construction.

And now you add to the argument proteins function as machines. Yet another evidence information and intelligence is involved.

 

[Silmarien]

I believe there is an abundance of evidence of what good works or fruit looks like in the Holy Scriptures. For example, the apostle tells us to walk in the Spirit and not the flesh (Romans 8). Yet he qualifies what the fruits of the Spirit are:

Well, my point is more that if the picture of morality that the Gospel portrays truly is correct, if love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control truly are objective goods, then we should know this independently of revelation. We shouldn't need to look to Scripture to have any idea what morality or a life well lived means. If Christianity is true, the Gospel should be a reminder of what we know simply by the light of reason, not a revelation without which we'd all be knocking each other over the head with clubs. So if an atheist is borrowing from Christian values (and I think secular humanism does this a lot), it doesn't really make much sense to tell them they're not allowed to do this. Romans 2:14-17 would indicate that they should in fact be instinctively doing just that.

 

[mark kennedy]

Well, my point is more that if the picture of morality that the Gospel portrays truly is correct, if love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control truly are objective goods, then we should know this independently of revelation. We shouldn't need to look to Scripture to have any idea what morality or a life well lived means. If Christianity is true, the Gospel should be a reminder of what we know simply by the light of reason, not a revelation without which we'd all be knocking each other over the head with clubs. So if an atheist is borrowing from Christian values (and I think secular humanism does this a lot), it doesn't really make much sense to tell them they're not allowed to do this. Romans 2:14-17 would indicate that they should in fact be instinctively doing just that.

Doesn't it make sense that the God who is the embodiment of those virtues would be involved in our development, that the source of those virtues would be God himself. It makes no sense that he would just sit by and watch, the testimony of Scripture is that God is involved.

 

[redleghunter]

Well, my point is more that if the picture of morality that the Gospel portrays truly is correct, if love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control truly are objective goods, then we should know this independently of revelation.

Yet fallen human nature is opposed to these very attributes.

We shouldn't need to look to Scripture to have any idea what morality or a life well lived means.

Of course not. The teachings reinforce, exhort and encourage the transformed inner person (2 Corinthians 4:16; Ephesians 3:16; Romans 7:22–23)

If Christianity is true, the Gospel should be a reminder of what we know simply by the light of reason, not a revelation without which we'd all be knocking each other over the head with clubs.

Actually, our own efforts fail as human history demonstrates. What YHWH promised for the new covenant hundreds of years before Christ was the following:

Ezekiel 36: NKJV
25 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.

I bolded "I will" as the context is YHWH speaking.

As you can see the promise above is a supernatural act of YWHW to transform our inner person, being or soul.

When Nicodemus came to Jesus one night, the above is what Jesus was trying to explain to him.

John 3: NKJV
3 There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.”

3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

4 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”

5 Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

9 Nicodemus answered and said to Him, “How can these things be?”

10 Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things?11 Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”

So if an atheist is borrowing from Christian values (and I think secular humanism does this a lot), it doesn't really make much sense to tell them they're not allowed to do this. Romans 2:14-17 would indicate that they should in fact be instinctively doing just that.

Anyone can borrow from the Biblical morals and most of Western civilization have until the post modern era. But as Jesus said unless one is born again they will not enter the Kingdom of God. Reference back to my Ezekiel 36 quotes, being born again is an act of YHWH.

Now on Romans 2? One has to truly understand what's being taught in Romans 1.

When you read both chapters the conclusion is we know better but still don't do what is right.

If you have not read the entire book of Romans I highly encourage you to do so.

Here's a good outline:

Romans Road

 

[dmmesdale]

You paint a disturbing picture here. If the merits of equality and other moral values are something that can only be known through revelation,

Normally we teach these things so that is a form of revelation. Unless you have something else in mind when your appeal is to revelation. Equality before God is Judeo Christian. Equality is dismissed as religious superstition. In Godless nature equality is myth.

and there is no measurable indication that equality is better than tyranny and oppression,

Inequality leads to tyranny and oppression, not equality. The road to slavery is paved with both inequality and the assumption man is another animal. A big-brained ape. By the opposite standard equality and man as image of God (moral man) leads to liberty, relationship with an Infinite Being who loves us fiercely. Why would anyone not want that?

then it would be unclear why the former is to be considered better than the latter for anyone, Christian and non-Christian alike.

Not for sure what you are attempting to say here since it comes across as garbled. Equality has nothing to do with tyranny and oppression.

Do you hold your values simply because God said they were good, or do you have reason to believe that they actually are good in and of themselves?

The two Egyptian women (EX.1) who did not throw Hebrew male infants into the River were governed in their civil disobedience by fear of God. It overrode doing what was expedient. When called on the carpet by Pharaoh part of their explanation had to do with drawing a distinction between Hebrew and Egyptian women. v.19 ''they are vigorous'' can also be translated as ''they are animals.'' Unlike the refined Egyptian women, the Hebrew women gave birth like animals appealed to the prejudice of Pharaoh. It also reduced women in status as image of God. Just like we do today when humans are defined as another form of animal.

They did not really tell the truth to Pharoah since the real reason had to do with fear of God. The two females were also courageous. It is the first recorded act of civil disobedience and it catalyst was God. I fear God, not men. That is why totalitarian regimes stomp out religion. They are breeding grounds for revolution. Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God. It also involves courage and trust in God.

Nor do I see how you can say that the only rational thing for an atheist to do is pull the trigger.

That was explained.

Do you only refrain from murdering people because you fear divine judgment?

Have no reason to murder people. The problem with your question is no context. The stated reason for the two women not murdering infants even when it was legally required of them was because they feared God. Which may (?) exclude they had an inner moral compass void of God.

Most people, atheist and theist alike, do have genuine respect for life, even if many on the atheistic side seem to just view this as a subjective personal feeling these days.

Human history says otherwise. Besides we have abortion on demand today. That calls into question your assumption most have a genuine respect for life. If one is pro-choice today then they really do not have a respect for life, do not fear God. We are to be governed by laws of God and not by human nature. Being image of God and moral, we are distinct from amoral nature.

Anthropologist Laila Williamson notes that "Infanticide has been practiced on every continent and by people on every level of cultural complexity, from hunter-gatherers to high civilizations, including our own ancestors. Rather than being an exception, then, it has been the rule."

The universal practice of slavery and the accompanying horrible treatment of slaves, is one of the many reasons it is absurd to believe people are good. D. Prager.

I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever. T. Jefferson.

 

[redleghunter]

If Christianity is true

Sorry I missed this most important "if."

Actually, Christianity rises and falls on the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Again a supernatural act.

Then we would be reliant on the testimony of the witnesses of Jesus's Bodily Resurrection.

Agnostic Simon Greenleaf, Harvard Law professor took on this endeavor in his work:
An examination of the testimony of the four evangelists, by the rules of evidence administered in courts of justice. With an account of the trial of Jesus

Wikipedia summary:

Greenleaf begins his book by arguing for the need to suspend prejudices and to be open to conviction, "to follow the truth wherever it may lead us" (p. 1). He cites Bishop Daniel Wilson's Evidences by stating that Christianity does not "bring irresistible evidence" but offers sufficient evidences for "the serious inquirer" (p. 2). He limits the scope of his book to an inquiry "to the testimony of the Four Evangelists, bringing their narratives to the tests to which other evidence is subjected in human tribunals" (p. 2). His specific inquiry is concerned with testing "the veracity of these witnesses by the same rules and means" employed in human tribunals (p. 3). Greenleaf argues the case by first inquiring as to the genuineness of the four gospels as ancient writings. Here he applies what is known in law as the ancient documents rule, stating that "Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise" (p. 7). Greenleaf maintains that the Four Gospels do not bear any marks of being forgeries and the oldest extant copies may be received into court as genuine documents.

Greenleaf proceeds to argue that "In matters of public and general interest, all persons must be presumed to be conversant, on the principle that individuals are presumed to be conversant with their own affairs" (p. 9). On the basis of this legal rule, Greenleaf briefly profiles those traditionally attributed as authors of the Four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, concerning (in the case of John and Matthew) their firsthand knowledge of the life of Jesus of Nazarethand (in the case of Mark and Luke) their intimate personal links with Jesus' original band of disciples.​

More:

Testimony of the Evangelists - Wikipedia

 

[Gene2memE]

Sorry I missed this most important "if."

Actually, Christianity rises and falls on the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Again a supernatural act.

Then we would be reliant on the testimony of the witnesses of Jesus's Bodily Resurrection.

Agnostic Simon Greenleaf, Harvard Law professor took on this endeavor in his work:

Greenleaf was a Christian apologist, not an agnostic.

From your own link:

Several evangelical books and websites claim that Greenleaf was an atheist who set out to disprove the Gospels, but instead the evidence for Jesus' resurrection convinced him to become a Christian. Greenleaf was a devout evangelical Episcopalian, and no evidence exists that he ever doubted the truth of the Gospels.

 

[tas8831]

It's an accurate statement. The American Abolitionist movement was started and run by early Evangelical Christians of multiple denominations.

And it is also accurate that Christians in the Confederacy cited Divine Providence as their justification FOR slavery.

It is quite easy to see their actions and conclude they heard the voice of the Good Shepherd and followed His ways...aka were disciples.

Yes, the abolitionists were good people, yet the same source material was used to justify slavery in the first place. At best, it is a wash, and to ignore the other side of the coin is dishonest, in my opinion.

 

[tas8831]

Doesn't it make sense that the God who is the embodiment of those virtues would be involved in our development, that the source of those virtues would be God himself. It makes no sense that he would just sit by and watch, the testimony of Scripture is that God is involved.

Hosea 13:16

Such virtue to emulate....

 

[tas8831]

FYI, Christianity was a pretty important force behind both Abolitionism and the Civil Rights Movement. Particularly the Quakers for the former and the Black Church for the latter. (Take a look at the second part here.)

Honestly, you could easily argue that the justification for slavery was rooted in Enlightenment thought with its sharp distinctions between the races and focus on European rationalism, with a biblical dross tossed on top. During the medieval period, slavery was generally regarded as an unfortunate result of the Fall. (See Augustine and Aquinas.)

I think the implication was pretty clear in the claim of the never-was-an-atheist - that it was Christians that ended slavery, therefore, it was those other people, bad people, that 'caused' it.

I was responding to the apparent context of that rant.

 

[tas8831]

Do you understand the math you're referring to though? Because I asked you earlier to explain the premise of the probability you keep referring to, but so far you don't appear to have done so.

Funny how frequently that happens with creationists.

 

[tas8831]

This is what interests me the most. There is no purpose in the metaphysical design of Darwin and the imported views of the neo-Darwinist.

What scientific endeavor DOES have purpose as baggage?

Where we can easily see in our universe there is information we usually assign there is an intelligence behind it.

Because that is how we define it.

 

[tas8831]

Which is just confirmation of information.


And now you add to the argument proteins function as machines. Yet another evidence information and intelligence is involved.

Sorry, but metaphorical language and analogies are not evidence or an indication of anything.

 

[mark kennedy]

Greenleaf was a Christian apologist, not an agnostic.

From your own link:

Several evangelical books and websites claim that Greenleaf was an atheist who set out to disprove the Gospels, but instead the evidence for Jesus' resurrection convinced him to become a Christian. Greenleaf was a devout evangelical Episcopalian, and no evidence exists that he ever doubted the truth of the Gospels.

Green leaf was also the founding Dean of Law at Harvard. He literally wrote the book for rules of evidence used in courts for half a century.