The Science that led me away from Atheism.

[redleghunter]

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

This is accurate. I was adding the rest of the story not mentioned often.

Which is fairly handled in the following article:

The Abolitionists

There are wheat and tares in the visible church.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

How the "source material" is handled is the very evidence of the inner person. Meaning what we do speaks volumes for what we believe.

 

[Silmarien]

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.

I'm not really sure what you're asking. I don't have a serious problem with the idea that God is the embodiment of those virtues or that Scripture is an accurate representation of reality (or at least, no problem worth bringing up here), but that doesn't mean we'd only know about the virtues in the first place because of Scripture. If God is involved, it should be at a level more universal than the contents of a book.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Were you previously Mormon?

Mormons have very little in common with Christianity.

If you are truly curious open a thread on World Relgions forum. There's loads on Mormons there already.

so Mormons aren't followers of Christ? Are you telling me that they aren't the "Church of Jesus Christ of latter day Saints"?

In fact, they're quite confident they're restoring Jesus Christ's original Church. By definition, that makes them Christians, no?

 

[redleghunter]

Hosea 13:16

Such virtue to emulate....

What's your exegesis of the chapter, passage and verse?

Thanks.

 

[redleghunter]

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

Functions are however.

 

[redleghunter]

so Mormons aren't followers of Christ? Are you telling me that they aren't the "Church of Jesus Christ of latter day Saints"?

In fact, they're quite confident they're restoring Jesus Christ's original Church. By definition, that makes them Christians, no?

Check the CF statement of faith. The definition of Christian is one who holds to the rule of faith and creeds.

Mormons do not. That is why CF does not allow Mormons to post in Christian areas of the forum and only in the world religions forum.

 

[redleghunter]

I'm not really sure what you're asking. I don't have a serious problem with the idea that God is the embodiment of those virtues or that Scripture is an accurate representation of reality (or at least, no problem worth bringing up here), but that doesn't mean we'd only know about the virtues in the first place because of Scripture. If God is involved, it should be at a level more universal than the contents of a book.

The TaNaKh (OT) and B'rit HaChadashah (NT) are the written words of YHWHs revelation to humankind His creation. The words were spoken first to Moses and the prophets, then Jesus Christ as Truly God and truly human, then inspired in His apostles.

The universality you speak of I believe you quote linked earlier from Romans 2:14-17

In order to fully understand what Paul is getting at we must back up to chapter 1:

Romans 1 : NKJV
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.”

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, evenHis eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm not really sure what you're asking. I don't have a serious problem with the idea that God is the embodiment of those virtues or that Scripture is an accurate representation of reality (or at least, no problem worth bringing up here), but that doesn't mean we'd only know about the virtues in the first place because of Scripture. If God is involved, it should be at a level more universal than the contents of a book.

Of course God can't be limited to the sacred texts of Scripture, even though it is redemptive history spanning thousands of years. God was somehow reaching out to people outside of Judaism and his efforts to reach his creatures with revelation is much broader then sacred literature. The New Testament makes clear that it's God's will they we receive a new nature that embodies the virtues that come from his essential and eternal nature.

 

[mark kennedy]

Hosea 13:16

Such virtue to emulate....

Your not much for reading in context are you:

I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes. (Hos. 13:14)
​

Hosea was one of four eighth century prophets who predicted the fall of Israel and Judah, as judgment for their idolatrous unfaithfulness. God was prepared to protect Israel but they choose instead to go after other gods, just like the nations around them and just like Samaria.

 

[mark kennedy]

This is accurate. I was adding the rest of the story not mentioned often.

Which is fairly handled in the following article:

The Abolitionists

There are wheat and tares in the visible church.

There are others that are forgotten in the movement to end slavery, Dr. Stanley Livingston, William Wilberforce and last time I checked Abraham Lincoln was a Christian, who also happened to write the emancipation proclamation. He was an unwavering Abolitionist, so much so South Carolina decided if he was elected they would secede from the Union.

I actually went to a Klan rally once on the Statehouse steps, a profoundly disturbing spectical. I noticed while I was there the Ten Commandments had been removed from the lawn, but a Klan rally is ok. Leaving I walked past a memorial commemorating a whistle stop campaign stop where Lincoln said, 'the future of America depends on you, the people', for some reason that made me feel a little better.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

so Mormons aren't followers of Christ? Are you telling me that they aren't the "Church of Jesus Christ of latter day Saints"?

Right. Have you studied the specific beliefs that Mormon's actually have? If and when you do, you'll find that they have very little in common with traditional Christian theology, other than that they use the same words as Christians, but they instead pour different meanings into them.

In fact, they're quite confident they're restoring Jesus Christ's original Church. By definition, that makes them Christians, no?

No. It does not.

 

[redleghunter]

Right. Have you studied the specific beliefs Mormon's that actually have? If and when you do, you find that they have very little in common with traditional Christian theology, other than that they use the same words, but pour different meanings into them.

Small summary here:

 

[Astrophile]

There are others that are forgotten in the movement to end slavery, Dr. Stanley Livingston, William Wilberforce and last time I checked Abraham Lincoln was a Christian, who also happened to write the emancipation proclamation. He was an unwavering Abolitionist, so much so South Carolina decided if he was elected they would secede from the Union.

You forgot to mention Thomas Paine, Erasmus and Charles Darwin, Josiah Wedgwood, William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglass, Harriet Martineau, Thomas Clarkson, Granville Sharp, Matthew Turner, Thomas Day, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Edmund Burke, Adam Smith, and Joseph Priestley. Not all of them were Christians, and those that were tended to belong to fringe denominations, such as the Quakers and the Unitarians.

By the way, Dr. Livingstone's first name was David. It was H.M. Stanley who found him by the shores of Lake Tanganyika, and said, 'Dr. Livingstone, I presume.'

 

[MoneyGuy]

-_- no one has claimed that it's impossible, only that there isn't much, if any, evidence supporting that conclusion.



It's the water in the pothole situation again. The water so perfectly fits the shape of the pothole that one might conclude that the pothole was made for the water. However, water, being a liquid, adapts the shape of its container, regardless as to what shape that container is. Living organisms are likewise shaped by the environment in which they live rather than the environment being tailored to their needs. Heck, the fact that environments change all the time means that organisms MUST change in response to them, or end up going extinct as they fall behind.

-_- also, even if the seeds of the plants end up in areas where they aren't native, they obviously won't be able to grow in environments that would kill them.



Oh what do you know, there's no corn on the moon, and it is inhospitable to corn. Who'd have thought? Seriously, it'd be miraculous for plants to grow in an environment that should kill them. However, it's not necessarily the case that the native environment of an organism is the IDEAL environment. Dandelions seem to love North America, for example. Rabbits are doing great in Australia. Organisms very clearly don't usually occupy every ecosystem in which they can thrive.


Birds go where the food is. No more and no less.


-_- you say that as if math isn't a human invention.


Astrology is known woo, dude. Plus, the NT was written long after Jesus died, so who knows what was added in post.

There is ample evidence, although you'll dispute that. The universe, the wonder of the human body....

 

[DogmaHunter]

Unscientific. Identity not required. Does not have to be defined. Only deduced over nonintelligence.

Huh? Was there a purpose to these seemingly random sentences?

For the universe and life?

For whatever you wish to claim there was "intelligent intervention".

It would need to be shown where nonintelligent processes alone is efficient cause for both over intelligent intervention.

That would be an argument from ignorance.
I didn't ask you how "non-intelligence" could be established. I asked you how "intelligence" could be established.

That has not been done.

So?
Not having knowledge or an explanation of some natural phenomena, does not mean, imply or justify the claim that "gods-dun-it".

Actually Gen.1:1 does and we just go along with it as the best explanation given the alternative.

Why?

Then falsify it.

I already told you that I can't - because there is nothing there to falsify.
I asked you in my post to give me something that actually can be falsified. As it stands, all you got are unfalsifiable faith-based assertions.

Otherwise, all is offered is opinion which does not falsify anything scientifically.

What is asserted without evidence, can be dissmissed without evidence.
My "opinion" is more then enough to counter your "opinion".

If you wish an evidence based rebutal, you're going to have to give me an evidence based claim, instead of faith based assertions.

Hitch cuts both ways. I would say Gen.1:1 is evidence in the form of testimony.

Those are the claims that I am asking evidential support for. Got any?
The claim, is not evidence of itself.

It is either true or it is not

Indeed. Can you demonstrate it to being true? Because, again, all you are doing is asserting it to be true. Do you expect me to just believe you, no questions asked?

If true then Honor (not love) your mother and father is by the finger of God, not men. If that is true then it has universal objective application. It applies to all of us. If primitive men then it really does not mean much. Atheists assert they are right and the Bible is wrong. We assert the Bible is right then we are wrong. Since Mothers day is approaching.

How much weight it is given is another matter. The claim is not without evidence. What is without evidence is life from exclusive nonlife. All sexual reproduction for asexual reproduction. So evidence is not your issue in the first place. It is your excuse. If you rationally have two competing and contradictory models for given phenomena then one needs to be eliminated. Atheism is in deep water from the get-go because it explains absolutely zero.

Atheism is not an explanation or a claim. It's the response to one. It is a single position on a single issue.

Also, there are no "2 models". Your religion is not a model. It is a faith based assertion that doesn't have any value or merrit, at all, in trying to understand reality.

If you build a plane based on science, it will fly.
If you try to build a plane by prayer, nothing at all will happen.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

So? Why must there be purpose?
Sounds like an emotional argument. As in, you're not going to accept scientific theory X, because you don't "like" with it implies or means. Or you "prefer" living in a universe where something else is true.

That's fine, but hopefully you realise that your emotional preferences have no bearing on what is actually true.

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

That is demonstrably false. Off course, you might miss the demonstration if your head is firmly lodged into the ground.

On the metaphysical level, they need an event or study which can actually prove their various hypotheses. Something like what happened for Judaism and Christianity with the Qumran discoveries.

huh? No idea what that is about.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

Just like the slave trade itself: started and run by chrisitians.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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."

Abortion is not infanticide.

Infanticide is more like that genocide that god commanded in the bible, where he says to even kill all the babies and toddlers.

 

[dmmesdale]

Huh? Was there a purpose to these seemingly random sentences?
For whatever you wish to claim there was "intelligent intervention".

In an autopsy a damaged heart would beat out intelligent intervention as cause of death. The cause was natural, not intelligent. Science rules out intelligent intervention all the time.

That would be an argument from ignorance.
I didn't ask you how "non-intelligence" could be established. I asked you how "intelligence" could be established.

Digital code in DNA for one. Take it back to a start and deduce two possible causes. Intelligence or nonintelligence and intelligence wins out. The problem here is not with the evidence.

So?
Not having knowledge or an explanation of some natural phenomena, does not mean, imply or justify the claim that "gods-dun-it".

Ignorance does not falsify. It is not our problem atheists do not like the answers.

I already told you that I can't- because there is nothing there to falsify.

You do not know there is nothing there to falsify. You just assume it based on your dogmatic atheism. It blinds you.

I asked you in my post to give me something that actually can be falsified. As it stands, all you got are unfalsifiable faith-based assertions.

Intelligent intervention can be falsified scientifically. All that is just excuse making on your part.

What is asserted without evidence, can be dissmissed without evidence.
My "opinion" is more then enough to counter your "opinion".

Not really and neither is the opinion of a dead atheist. At least not scientifically. The asserted without evidence (Hitch) is not a science standard in the first place. It is the standard of a dead atheist attempting to validate his atheism.

If you wish an evidence based rebutal, you're going to have to give me an evidence based claim, instead of faith based assertions.

Give you? What makes you think i am here to spoon feed you?

Atheism is not an explanation or a claim.

Right atheism explains nothing and does not require brains if defined as lack belief. Most atheists believe that man is natural and being natural is amoral. Big-brained apes and inequality which naturally leads to slavery. Why not enslave humans if they are animals?

Also, there are no "2 models". Your religion is not a model. It is a faith based assertion that doesn't have any value or merrit, at all, in trying to understand reality.

It explains both the origin of the universe and life here. So it is a valid model even if you don't like it. Not liking does not falsify it.

If you build a plane based on science, it will fly.

Plane presupposes intelligent design, not natural processes. Why use ID to argue against ID?

If you try to build a plane by prayer, nothing at all will happen.

How bout a plane happening naturally? Absent intelligence? Both prayers and planes require intelligence, not nonintelligence.