BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 06:54 AM

"Good and evil dates back to the garden of Eden, when God first told Adam and Eve not to touch the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. They didn't obey. And since all men are descended of Adam and Eve, of course all men have a sense of good and evil."

Iona,

To everyone except the religiously brainwashed and literalist zealots 'The Garden of Eden' stuff is a METAPHOR, not a description of the actual origin of the human species! I bet even the author(s) of Genesis knew that!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 06:50 AM

As I've said before I'm not a philosopher by training, and I've just spotted I've fallen into the trap of assuming too close a correlation between good/evil and right/wrong, or at least the good=right part. Sorry, but that what happens when you talk about things outside your expertise.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 04:25 AM

Glad you enjoyed the joke, Iona. I was afraid it was a little too snarky.


I'm not intending to avoid the question of where the Greeks the good/evil concept from. If two cultures, say Greek and Hebrew, have a concept of good and evil that has much in common [e.g. its frowned on to kill members of your own tribe, but everyone else is fair game] but also major differences [e.g. Homesexuality is normal and natural versus an abomination], then its fair to consider whether the Greeks got their ideas from the Hebrews, or vice versa, of if one or both got them from somewhere else, or whether they both developed the ideas independently. You have decided that it is simply God-given and that's all needs to be said [but so often! *smile*]

For those who don't think that's an answer, there is the question where it does come from. And actually there are pretty reasonable, purely scientific reasons: some of them are reviewed here. I say 'pretty reasonable' rather than anything stronger for the usual reasons: early days of the research, and so forth. Pursued more from a social sciences perspective there are papers like this and this. So the concept of good and evil does not automatically imply God. Which of course, all those of a non-religious disposition knew anyway.

When considering the question of good and evil, its worth thinking about the Trolley problem. I'd be interested in hearing what your exact actions would be based on your interpretation of the bible. [I'll be disappointed if you say "it's hypothetical, so I won't answer", but I can learn to live with that!]

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 04:20 AM

The wellsprings of Religion / God are pretty basic:

Good = life, light, warmth, sex, food, day, summer, sun etc.

Bad = death, dark, cold, no sex, no food, night, winter, no sun etc.

This is 50,000* years ago; humanity emerges from Nature and looks upon Nature as other. So what does we do? We give things names & personify them accordingly, then we begin to tell stories that will become myths & religions. I might say: Myth = Good / Religion = Bad. Myth was just storytelling, but religion got hung up on truth and putting people to the sword & enslaving them accordingly.

No Religion = Good. We just see the sunrise over the hill and are glad enough of that, like the birds and bonobos, none of whom ever bother going to church.

* Or somewhen.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 02:58 AM

The Bible, including the Old Testament, had not yet been assembled when Plato and Aristotle were writing.

No, they weren't all bound up in a book and branded "The Bible" or "The Old Testament". But the laws of God did exist (It's very possible that Adam wrote some of the Old Testament), and have been existent as long as man has. Josiah found the 'lost book of the Law' in 2 Kings 22. It wasn't called 'the old testament', but it was still the word of God.
It doesn't matter whether Plato ever read what we call the Bible or not. What matters is that he presupposed concepts of absolutes, of laws of logic, of absolute right and wrong, et cetera, when those things can't be justified without a Christian worldview. Because in any other worldview, (it's hard to generalize because it's a different argument with different types of worldviews) there is always an inconsistency with good and evil being defined. But with Christianity there isn't.

.....we are still awaiting any sort of evidence that it wasn't from any of the other contacts the Greeks had or - perish the thought - something they developed themselves? But I suppose you would declare that to be really christian as well. Oddly enough, you seem happy to call everyone as essentially Christian who says the aren't, except for those people who think they are ...

Okay, so taking your scenario, what if they *did* borrow the concepts of Christianity from some other venue. Where did they get it? You can't escape the question just by suggesting that it came from some other source.....because we still have to ask, then where did it originally come from? Anyway, where is the evidence that they did get it from 'some of the other contacts'? What other religion gives a basis for good and evil?
Good and evil dates back to the garden of Eden, when God first told Adam and Eve not to touch the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. They didn't obey. And since all men are descended of Adam and Eve, of course all men have a sense of good and evil.

"you seem happy to call everyone as essentially Christian who says [they] aren't, except for those people who think they are......"
*chuckle* no, I'm just pointing out that most Western culture atheists must borrow from a Christian worldview in order to reason. But that does not make them 'essentially Christian'. Just because I borrow some sugar from the neighbor in order to make candy doesn't mean that I am essentially 'neighbor', if you follow me.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 02:12 AM

Paul,
I haven't gotten around to answering all of the arguments that have been brought up, but I am working on it. One person trying to answer the arguments of several people is time consuming. I apologize if my 'slowness' is causing confusion. I do intend to answer as many of you as I can. But, ladies and gentlemen, time.....give me time. :)

Iona

Who is a 'she'. {smile}

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Paul Burke
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 01:54 AM

Don't ask Iona for answers. S/he has an "answer" for everyting. What s/he hasn't got is any answers of his/her own, or any questions.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 01:52 AM

Don T, I am not avoiding your question. I have about three very long email drafts of responses that you all have given me that I have yet to answer, and it takes time...a lot of time....to answer them all. I will get around to yours tonight or tomorrow. Rest easy. I shall return. *grin*

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Feb 12 - 09:32 PM

Please, let's not convert the bonobos, they'll start wearing clothes and worrying about sin!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 06 Feb 12 - 07:59 PM

Comforting, empathy, defense of the helpless, reciprocation, etc. have all been clearly demonstrated in apes (particularly Bonobos).

Iona- does this mean that Bonobos are *necessarily* Christian?

If no, please explain how this behaviour is not "Good".

Thanks ever so...

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Feb 12 - 07:46 PM

*smile* thanks, frogprince... that is a good example of how easy it is to turn a 'line' into an easy generalization.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Feb 12 - 07:44 PM

If that article intrigues you, go on to this one by the same author.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: frogprince
Date: 06 Feb 12 - 07:42 PM

Bill just reminded me of something. In the circles I was found in years ago, it was common to hear someone say, "Christianity isn't a religion, it's a way of life" This was usually said by someone who practiced as religious a version of Christianity as you would find anywhere. So, approx 30 years ago, I first encountered a young couple who were avowed pagans. Within moments of stating her "affiliation", the young woman said, "It's not a religion, it's a way of life". I about choked for a moment, and then I about laughed my butt off. So many lines can mean so many things to so many people.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Feb 12 - 07:41 PM

Some reading on religion and the relationship to the history of evolution, creationism and intelligent design...

http://www.arachnoid.com/opinion/religion.html

It IS a medium longish article... but very well expressed. Don't glance at it for 3 minutes and make judgments.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Feb 12 - 07:26 PM

adding MY vote to the silliness/ridiculousness of "...Because without Christianity you have no foundation to believe anything."

That is a slogan, not a reasoned argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Feb 12 - 06:38 PM

""But Christianity compasses the whole history of the world, back to Adam. Adam and other people before Christ were saved by faith in a savior to come, and this faith was demonstrated by sacrificing animals.""

Total Cobblers.

And tell me, how come you can't be arsed to address my last question?

"Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T - PM
Date: 04 Feb 12 - 06:41 PM

600 years before Christ and half a world away, Gautama Buddha promulgated a moral and ethical code which became Buddhism. It developed and expanded to the point, 265 years before the birth of Christ, when it led to the establishment by the king of the world's first major Buddhist state, of free hospitals and free education and also the first recognition of human rights.

These people had never heard of Hebrews, or the Old Testament, and were a quarter of a millennium ahead of Jesus in suggesting that one should respect the rights of others and indeed respect all life.

Iona, please explain how that relies in any way at all on your world view, on Christianity, or on the Bible."

Doesn't comply with your world view, does it?


Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: frogprince
Date: 06 Feb 12 - 05:37 PM

I have been thinking of writing this up for some time, well before this thread. 999's thoughts about the "logic" of the trinity finally nudged me to sit down to it.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the three gospels known as the synoptics, are all largely from common source material. They were written some years after the death of Jesus, and in all probability already colored significantly by beliefs that had begun to coalesce. But they remain the closest thing we have to a factual representation of Jesus of Nazareth. One interesting aspect of these books is that Jesus is credited with some significant statements which really don't jibe with what became orthodox belief. I'm inclined to agree with those scholars who contend that the problematic nature of such statements increases the probability that they actually represent the teachings of Jesus; writers biased toward later theology wouldn't be apt to make them up, and conservative commentators have to interpret their way around what appears to be the plain sense intended.

To me, a prime example of this, recorded in all of the synoptics, is found in Mark 10:17-18.:
"As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good except God alone."

What I see in this now is quite simply a young rabbi expressing his discomfort and disapproval at being addressed in wording that, in his belief, should be directed only to God.

Even in the synoptics, this appears mixed with the compulsion of his followers to deify him. By the time John was written, Jesus was God's "only son". By the time of the Nicene creed, the factions that became "orthodox" Christianity had formulated a "monotheistic" faith based on three "persons" who at the same time were one Deity.

There is at least one sect I know of, generally considered a cult, that believes that God is a family of three, not a trinity. I would still see Jesus as shaking his head and saying "Wait, it's not appropriate to refer to me that way".

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Feb 12 - 05:03 PM

the reason why Plato and Aristotle, Socrates and other philosophers had a basis to believe that there even was such a thing as good and evil, was because they borrowed the Christian/Old Testament presupposition that there was such a thing as good and evil

Yes, you've asserted that several times but we are still awaiting any sort of evidence that it wasn't from any of the other contacts the Greeks had or - perish the thought - something they developed themselves? But I suppose you would declare that to be really christian as well. Oddly enough, you seem happy to call everyone as essentially Christian who says the aren't, except for those people who think they are ...

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Feb 12 - 03:05 PM

Iona, I just noticed this in your writings above:

"Christian/Old Testament. . . ."

The Bible, including the Old Testament, had not yet been assembled when Plato and Aristotle were writing.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Feb 12 - 03:00 PM

"Good- Good is that which agrees and is in accordance with the person and character of God."

"Evil- Evil is that which is not in accordance with the person and character of God."

These are two flat, unsubstantiated assertions with nothing to support them but the faith of the person making the assertions. I completely reject the idea that belief in God—and not just God, but a Christian God—is the source and definition of Good and Evil.

Iona tries to negate the importance of pre-Christian philosophers by declaring Christianity retroactive to the Big Bang (or her version thereof, the Garden of Eden). Sorry, no sale.

She also mis-states Aristotle's view of Plato's concept that Reality is mere shadows on the wall of things in the World of Essences. Aristotle knocks on the table-top and says, "This is not a shadow. This is real." [Next time you bark a shin on something in the dark, comfort yourself with the idea that what produced that bruise was merely a shadow!]

Iona, how long has it been since you gave food to someone who was hungry? Gave a thirsty person something to drink? Welcomed and offered hospitality to a stranger? Gave clothes to someone who was ill-clad or naked? Visited and cared for someone who was sick? Visited someone who was in prison, especially someone imprisoned unjustly and attempted to aid them?

According to who actually does the sort of things that Jesus tells people they should do, I know atheists who are better Christians than a many self-proclaimed Christians.

I am a member of a Christian church, Iona, and my beliefs encompass and include the findings of science:   that the Cosmos began some 13 billion years ago, the sun, the earth and the other planets in the solar system formed 4.5 billion years ago, and that all life, including Man, evolved from primitive organic (carbon based) compounds. We evolved from primitive forms and we are still evolving.

This is not to say that some supreme intelligence had nothing to do with it. One may have faith that this is true, but one cannot know this. In any case, Iona, if there is, indeed, a supreme intelligence, It is so far beyond our comprehension that we have no concept of what its nature is, and to say that one "knows the mind of God" is to make an assertion which is beyond absurd. And, have a care! It may be blasphemous as well!

I find nothing inconsistent with what Jesus taught and the findings of science.

I know a great deal about the history of the Bible and how a collection of scrolls and manuscripts were gathered together, some selected, some rejected (did you know that there are many more Gospels than just the four?). Why were these scrolls and manuscripts selected and not the others? Who made these decisions? God? No, men! I also know that, in the copying of the Scriptures (before the printing press, each copy was done laboriously by hand), individual abbots, monks, and bishops did their own editing, adding their own ideas and deleting passages that they didn't agree with.

This is the "Inerrant Word of God?"

I don't think so!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Feb 12 - 02:33 PM

" ... because good and evil must be relative."

Yes, they are relative - they're certainly not absolutes! After all there have been many Christians, over the years, who have believed that imposing their religion on others (evangelism, missionary work etc.) is a good thing!

"And since most atheists are materialistic (believing that only what is material exists), you can't even believe in mind. All you have are chemical reactions in your brain."

It seems highly likely to me that only material things exist; the probability that non-material things (?) exist seems to be very, very low. But then there's a whole uncharted, depthless, fathomless ocean of material stuff out there - and so far we've just lightly clipped a wave top. We'll never set out to explore that ocean if we assume that we know everything already and that it's all contained in some old book!

"I say that without Christianity you have no basis to believe anything. I'm not saying "Without religion", I'm saying without Christianity."

That's complete nonsense for which, I would imagine, you can produce no justification whatsoever!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 06 Feb 12 - 02:18 PM

Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and others taught—and wrote—monumental tomes on Ethics, Virtue, and the nature of Good and Evil three to four centuries BEFORE Christ. Before there WAS a Christian religion!

It was before Christ came to earth, but it was not before there was a Christian religion. The Christians before Christ were not called Christians, they were called Jews. They believed in a Christ to come. They worshiped the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of Noah and Adam, etc. etc.
And again---like I've said before, the reason why Plato and Aristotle, Socrates and other philosophers had a basis to believe that there even was such a thing as good and evil, was because they borrowed the Christian/Old Testament presupposition that there was such a thing as good and evil. On the atheistic basis you have no foundation to believe in transcendental good and evil.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 06 Feb 12 - 02:04 PM

I would like to know how Iona can make the claim, "Without Christianity, there can be no evil, no good,"

Because without Christianity you have no foundation to believe anything. You are on the horns of a dilemma. What is evil? I think it was you, Don, who said "Good is what promotes life", or something to that effect. Okay, so how do you know that life is good? It all comes back on what your foundation is. You believe that the world has no author (no divine Author, anyway), and that the world is all a random chance accident. If that is the case then your mind is also merely a random chance accident and you can't be sure that reality is what you see. For all you know, what you call 'evil' is really the quintessential good for another person. And you have no place to judge them, because good and evil must be relative. And since most atheists are materialistic (believing that only what is material exists), you can't even believe in mind. All you have are chemical reactions in your brain.
I say that without Christianity you have no basis to believe anything. I'm not saying "Without religion", I'm saying without Christianity. Other religions are just as impossible to justify as atheism. (though on a different basis.)

Iona

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 06 Feb 12 - 12:05 PM

"I am ready and willing to debunk every other religion out there besides Christianity. There's only one God, only one truth. Nothing else fits."

Neither does that statement. The Jews and Muslims each have one god, but Islam tends to glorify its prophet a bit too much. Christianity seems to have three gods: why a need for three? The big cahuna, Yeshua and the holy spirit. I have heard the logic used to combine all three as a three-in-one and frankly it makes no sense to me. I understand that three thirds equals one, but it seems we get three separate thirds each of whom becomes one and I find something wrong with that picture. No offense meant to anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Feb 12 - 11:36 AM

Thanks, clone for '[we can add missing letters to your attempts at italics, but Mudcat does have a preview function so you can be sure before you post. Don't blame Iona----- bemused clone]' Yes, I am aware of the preview. Yes, I admit it, I am hopeless at remembering to use it. That's certainly entirely my own fault. There might be a benefit to having a setting somewhere in the profile so that Preview defaulted to on, but I guess I still wouldn't proof read the b*** post properly even then.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 06 Feb 12 - 10:34 AM

Perhaps the best example of a complete transitional sequence is the Fish to Tetrapod series.

You can read about it here:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/v16470436056263j/
click


There are photos and descriptions of the fossils (and yes, there are names).

I am curious to see whether you will actually read this, and come back with a substantive question or critique.

Actually, I know that you won't (read it that is), which is proof that you really are not interested in truth. I am not saying that this article IS truth, but if you really are seeking truth, you would read it and try to understand it.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Musket
Date: 06 Feb 12 - 10:31 AM

If Christianity is all pervading, how come it was never mentioned The Lord of The Rings?

Sorry, getting silly now. But believe me, no more silly than some of the tripe spewed out here.

Based on the idea that evolution seems to make the superstitious ramblings presented in the bible less than truthful, I can see how those who prescribe to a religion might cry foul. In fact, in days gone by when we were much simpler in general and brainwashed to religion without the option of thinking about it, I can see how it spoilt some peoples' dinner, or at least gave them indigestion.

But this is 2012? We have smart phones, internet and bean to cup coffee machines! What the hell are people clinging to this sharp edged comfort blanket for?

It is no different to some idiot saying that they have found a 2,000 year old scripture that says 2 + 2 = 5. It is heresy to dispute it. No doubt the clowns in pointy hats and their acolytes would show how to calculate it.

(Before anybody does, I am aware of how to prove it by calculus. An old student bog wall graffiti showed us all how. It is a conjuring trick. A bit like some other conjuring tricks mentioned in old scriptures, because one thing is for certain, you can't raise the dead, you can't come back yourself and you can't heal people like he did without 20th century equipment... Mind you, I often turn wine into water.)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 06 Feb 12 - 09:41 AM

Good- Good is that which agrees and is in accordance with the person and character of God.

Evil- Evil is that which is not in accordance with the person and character of God.
Evil can also be synonymous with sin: sin is doing what God forbids.

These arguments always bring forth a reference to God ordering the genocide of the Amalekites at some point. This appears to be the right one. So was murdering them all except the prepubertal girls good, or bad?



Christianity- After Christ's death, eventually his followers took on the name of Christians. But Christianity compasses the whole history of the world, back to Adam. Adam and other people before Christ were saved by faith in a savior to come, and this faith was demonstrated by sacrificing animals.

This seems to derive an argument from Islam - I've never heard it before. I take it you approve of sacrifice? Seems a bit odd.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Mr Happy
Date: 06 Feb 12 - 07:29 AM

I 'disapprove the existence of god'

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: TheSnail
Date: 06 Feb 12 - 07:07 AM

Steve Shaw has reaffirmwd his belief in the truth of evolution and now, apparently, has Shimrod's full support in that view so there is nothing more I can say. I'll leave them to concentrate on their battle of wits with Pete and Iona.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Feb 12 - 06:54 AM

"If all religion is DEMONSTRABLY the invention of humanity, then DEMONSTRATE it to me ... I am ready and willing to debunk every other religion out there besides Christianity ...The only way that you can say that religion is the product of humanity is to disapprove the existence of God. I agree with you, all world religions are concepts of men.......except for Christianity. Christianity was 'started' by God."

Iona, the arrogance and illogicality of those assertions take my breath away! What I hear you saying is, "only my tribe is right - every other tribe is wrong." And we all know where such (religious) tribalism has led, and is still leading - i.e. to terrible crimes against other tribes of different persuasions. In my opinion the only way out of such immoral, illogical, infantile thinking is to adopt a more up-to-date, objective, scientific understanding of the Universe and other human beings. In my experience such understanding is not inconsistent with feelings of awe or reverence (paradoxical as that may appear to you).

And I've said this before, no-one can "disapprove" (I assume you mean disprove?) the existence of God; it's a logical impossibility. It's up to the religious to PROVE the EXISTENCE of God; and, if you're just going to rely on the Bible as your source of evidence, you need to prove that the Bible is the WORD of God. Until you can do this you cannot expect to be respected or taken seriously, nor can you be allowed to let your religion affect the lives of others.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Feb 12 - 06:06 AM

Worse than that, Steve, it is a world that leans to the right, which is not what I'd choose! Definitely upright or left for me! *smile*

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Feb 12 - 05:41 AM

See now, Iona, what you've done? You've got both me and DMcG floundering around in an italicised world. Grrr.

[we can add missing letters to your attempts at italics, but Mudcat does have a preview function so you can be sure before you post. Don't blame Iona----- bemused clone]

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Feb 12 - 05:39 AM

I keep hearing "We have found millions of transitional forms"--can somebody point me as to where I can see them? What are their names?

This is one of those creationist ambush questions. If I showed you two closely-related but not quite identical fossils you'd still claim that there was one in between that was missing. As I've said to pete ad nauseam, why don't you commit a mortal sin and read On The Origin Of Species by Darwin? There is a section in the book in which he acknowledges the issue and deals with it honestly and straightforwardly, without jargon. There really is no excuse for creationists to keep coming back with this one. It is, like irreducible complexity, a specious non-argument. If you wish to be taken seriously you must demonstrate that you have read Origin, understood it and are prepared to address the issues therein with which you are at odds. Then we can talk about it. But, it seems to me, all you want to do is to fool us around with your hands clasped and and your eyes raised to heaven, tight shut.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 06 Feb 12 - 04:58 AM

If all religion is DEMONSTRABLY the invention of humanity, then DEMONSTRATE it to me.

Okay. It's pretty simple. Where there are no Human Beings, there is no religion; and where there is no religion, there is no God. The Religious might see God in Nature (all things bright and beautiful; cancer & poverty included no doubt), or else in the vast empty reaches of the cosmos, but that's wishful desperation. There is nothing there other than what is there; and there is no purpose to it other than what it is, and yet - how utterly awesome that ineffable emptiness!

Life's too precious for Religion; and Human Spirituality is too subjective a wonder for so inane a concept as God, or even Truth. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong; and if one is wrong, they are all wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Feb 12 - 03:57 AM

Your saying that I am being logically inconsistent means nothing to the reader unless you explain why

I did not claim you were being logically inconsistant. I said you were being non-logical/illogical. And my post explained what the difference is.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Musket
Date: 06 Feb 12 - 03:49 AM

I love this idea by our tambourine rattling brethren (both of 'em) that noting evolution is a faith game in the same way as Christianity.

I don't believe in evolution. I don't believe in egg & chips, but for now, I am satisfied that they both fill a hole. One in understanding, the other in a gastronomical sense.

Now... Sometimes, I get satisfaction from noting how genes use us as hosts, in the same way I get satisfaction from ordering l'entree at Maxims, when in Paris.

It is just the scale that alters.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Feb 12 - 03:28 AM

Sorry about the italics ;(

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Feb 12 - 03:26 AM

I really think that we ought to talk epistemology. How about those philosophical problems I presented? you all haven't even touched on inductive inference--do you have no answer for me?

Well, as I say I'm a mathematician, rather than a philospher, so I am by no means an expert on epistemology and will probably make all sorts of blunders if I do. But I'll give it a go. Yes, I know something about Platonic forms and how they were very much the basis of philosophy up to and including the middle ages. But we have to be wary of that pesky old argument from authority again. Plato also had models for things like astronomy and medicine, though we tend to associate them more Ptolemy and Galen; those models were superceded when something better came along. And so it is with Platonic forms. The concept of Platonic forms has some quite major holes in it, such as whether there are distinct Platonic form for cedar trees and for trees in general and how those forms are related. There have been attempts to sort out a hierarchy of forms, but they have never been particularly successful for several reasons: the relationships can be arranged in different heireachies and it begs the question of whether the heirarchy itself has a Platonic form and if so, what is its nature. But the question of what is the nature of the concept '2' is a very good one, to which there have been some excellent answers which do not rely either Platonic forms or a separation of mind/body. For example, you could read Daniel(?) Lewis for his approach on the subject. Moreover, there is scientific evidence that many creatures are able to distinguish between 1, 2 and more-than-2, so whatever the solution to the problem you propose it must encompass much of the animate world, not just humans. I could give you the precise understanding of '2' used in mathematics, but you wouldn't like it!

As for induction: as I hinted at before you seem to have a problem with the word 'random'. Things can have a random component and still be subject to induction. I cannot say whether my car engine will start when I turn the key this morning, but I can still make the inductive argument that it will, based on past experiences. The ideas of David Hume will help clarify this for you [Again let me stress the distinction between the ideas in his books as logical arguments, and what David Hume 'says']   As I mentioned before, the formulation of the underlying logic of mathematics is comparatively new, and one of the things that was a major focus was induction; when it could be valid, and what conditions made it invalid. Any good textbook on first year undergraduate mathematics of analysis will tell you more about than than you could possibly wish to know about induction.

As you have an interest in the philosophers of ancient Greece, you will of course be aware that the idea "Good is that which agrees and is in accordance with the person and character of God" is the subject of 'Euthyphro' (hope I've spelt that right) and that even today the resolution of the internal contraction in the statement taxes theologians; what is your take on how this is best resolved?

[we can add missing letters to your attempts at italics, but Mudcat does have a preview function so you can be sure before you post. Don't blame Iona----- bemused clone]

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Feb 12 - 02:47 AM

I am a true, complete, thorough atheist. Not only do I not believe in a Deity ~~

But I honestly do not believe in GUEST,Iona either.

She is just too priceless to be true!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 06 Feb 12 - 02:30 AM

All religion is DEMONSTRABLY the invention of humanity; therefore, all the moral codes and Good & Evil are Atheist by default. Such an instinctive morality underwrites our familial / societal / tribal codes and relationships in terms of altruism and empathy; they are innate as language and music, and might be found in the Humanist Teachings of Jesus as the simple universal absolute of Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This is something we struggle with for sure - after all the Good / Evil duality is encoded as deep as the Nature / Nurture debate - but it is something we also FEEL pretty deeply too.


If all religion is DEMONSTRABLY the invention of humanity, then DEMONSTRATE it to me. (I'm just borrowing your caps, pardon) I am ready and willing to debunk every other religion out there besides Christianity. There's only one God, only one truth. Nothing else fits.
The only way that you can say that religion is the product of humanity is to disapprove the existence of God. I agree with you, all world religions are concepts of men.......except for Christianity. Christianity was 'started' by God.
"All the moral codes of Good and Evil are atheistic by default"--well, if all other religions were false, then yes, the religion of atheism must be true. But how do you know that you're right? Were you there when the earth was created, so you can say "I definitely know that there is no God." Do you know everything? If you don't, then is it possible that you just don't see the evidence for God, and it really is there?
Of course consciousness of good and evil are ingrained in humans.(whether they suppress them or not/are conscious of the fact depends.) God put it there. Animals don't have a sense of good and evil--you don't see a wild jaguar looking guilty when he's found eating a human being. Only humans have 'ethics'. Only humans have souls that can never die. And that's because we were created in the image of God.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 06 Feb 12 - 02:16 AM

As for "How am I being illogical? Please be specific" - again, you miss the point that in a discussion, the writer/speaker decides what to say, but it is the reader/listener who decides whether it makes sense. And, whether you like it or not most of your readers have decided that what you write is logically inconsistant, confused or simplistic. And again, in the interests of avoiding confusion, that's not the same thing as wrong [though of course its quite easy to be both]. So rather than add more examples to the growing pile, why not just deal with the logical inconistancies that have been raised so far. If you need help, there are many sites on the web to help distinguish between valid and invalid logical arguments.

We all have presuppositions--beliefs that we hold when we come to the table. I examine the evidence in the light of my presuppositions (i.e. that of young earth creationism).
Your saying that I am being logically inconsistent means nothing to the reader unless you explain why. Like I've said before, we've all been too general and need to get specific. For instance, the atheists here are being inconsistent when they say that the universe is the result of random chance processes (simply speaking, everything came from nothing, or else matter is eternal), and then they go about debating me as if they had a basis for believing in right and wrong, absolutes, and truth.

You say that there is evidence for evolution. Fine. I say that there is evidence for creationism. Now what? Instead of sitting here glaring at each other like two kindergartners, let's get down in the dirt and point things out. I've proposed to you the jellyfish of Mosinee. What do you say to that? How about the grand canyon?.......transitional fossils? Again, I keep hearing "We have found millions of transitional forms"--can somebody point me as to where I can see them? What are their names?

I really think that we ought to talk epistemology. How about those philosophical problems I presented? you all haven't even touched on inductive inference--do you have no answer for me?

You say that 'most of my readers have decided that what I write is logically inconsistent, confused or simplistic'. Perhaps. But is that because they have decided that I'm wrong, or is it because I'm not representing the Creationist position rightly? I would say the former, unless you can give me evidence for the latter. Let me repeat; I think we ought to get more specific. I want somebody to pick out one thing I say, and pick it apart. 'This is why this is wrong. Here's how you're being contradictory--you say A here, but over here you say B.'
Fair enough? I'm listening (contrary to popular opinion). :)

Iona

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 06 Feb 12 - 01:31 AM

So, Iona, I'm new to this thread, and I'm a bit lost in all the verbiage. Could you take the time to give us a simple glossary of your terms, like truth, good, evil, Christianity, moral relativism, and knowing?

Sure thing, Joe.

Truth- Truth is conformity to fact or reality. Truth is "exact accordance with that which is, or has been, or shall be......'we rely on the truth of the scriptural prophesies.'" (Webster's 1828 dictionary)

Good- Good is that which agrees and is in accordance with the person and character of God.

Evil- Evil is that which is not in accordance with the person and character of God.
Evil can also be synonymous with sin: sin is doing what God forbids.

Christianity- After Christ's death, eventually his followers took on the name of Christians. But Christianity compasses the whole history of the world, back to Adam. Adam and other people before Christ were saved by faith in a savior to come, and this faith was demonstrated by sacrificing animals.

Relativism- relativism is the idea that points of view have no absolute truth or validity, being subjective unto your opinions. Moral relativism is the idea that morality is subjective to the view of the specific individual; the evolutionist must hold to moral relativism because men are all products of random chance accidents and there can be no such thing as an absolute. Ethics are relative to the culture, Morals are relative to the individual......


Knowledge- Knowledge is justified true belief. If I go and buy a lottery ticket, and say, the number is 13569. I say to myself, "I just know that this is today's number!" And sure enough, that night I find out that I won the lottery! I say "I KNEW that 13569 was today's number! I knew it!"
Did I really know it? No. I believed it, and it did turn out to be true, but I didn't know it. I had no justification for my belief. Knowledge is justified true belief.

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction (Proverbs 1:7)

________________________________________________________________

It seems to me that all of these terms should have a more-or-less absolute meaning, but your understanding of these terms appears to be quite "relativist" - depending on your far-south-of-mainstream brand of Christianity instead of on something more definitive. Certainly, if they are not "relative," then truth, good, and evil must exist of themselves. If so, they must be independent to the ability of anyone to ascertain truth and good and evil.

Could it be that you are a relativist yourself, relating all to your particular shade of Christianity?


Perhaps your definition of 'relativist' is different than mine that I just defined. I believe that there is absolute right and wrong, and I do so because I believe in a God who defines right and wrong, and instituted those 'laws' into the human being. But an atheist doesn't. He believes that we live in a random universe (after all, the universe would have to be pretty random if a single cell organism can be created out of nothing, caused by nothing, and then evolve into all of the amazing life we see today--then again, it's impossible. Anyway.....), and in a random universe, there can be no inductive inference (conclusions based on the idea that the future will be like the past), there can be no right and wrong, and there can be no reason or logic, because after all, everything is material. According to the atheist, there is no soul, no afterlife, and no God. Those things are spiritual, but if men have no souls, if everything is material, then they can't exist. Fair?
But wait. There's more.
If everything is material (as a faithful materialistic atheist would assert), then there can be no logic, there can be no numbers. If I write "2" on a blackboard--is that two? Yes or no?
Then I erase that 2.
If you answered yes, and if that was two, then we have just destroyed two. There is no more twoness in this world. Dear me!
But you say "no, you did not destroy 2. What you drew on the board is merely a representation of two, the numeral two, not actually two."
So where/what is two? Obviously it's not material--you can't cool Two in your freezer, you can't stub your toe on it, you can't serve it for lunch in the college cafeteria--it's not material. So how do you justify its existence?
Because if two is material, then laws of logic are also material. Class concepts are material. Emotion is material. Your mind is material.
Therefore, these concepts and others like them are all relegated to chemical reactions in your brain. You can't help being an atheist because you have no choice in the matter. It's just what the chemicals came up with. You have no free will, you're just doing what your brain chemicals tell you to do.

Plato proposed that all things on earth are merely representations of the actual "thing". He said that there must be a realm out somewhere that contained all of the embodiments (he called them 'forms', I think) of things like ducks, forks, two, humanity, etc. A fork is material, but the concept, the class of 'fork' isn't. So Plato believed that the actual form of 'forks' was somewhere in the realm of 'universals' as he called it.
Plato said that even though he'd never seen that realm (he said that it was outside of of human sense), he knew that it must exist because it was a logical necessity. If it were not true, he said, we could not make sense of our experiences.
If you're a materialistic atheist, then you must disagree with him, because you believe that all there is is materialism and everything reduces down to chemical processes in the brain.
Anyway, the thing that Aristotle said to debunk Plato was simply "WHO CARES!" Who cares, Plato, if there's a real of forms out there. What I want to know is how do you bring those forms in contact with the physical world. How does 'duckness' become 'duck' in the material world?
Athiests, if they don't say that all things are material, then they must answer this question as well. If there are 'realms' out there that aren't material, then perhaps Plato is right (for the atheistic worldview that is: as for me, I don't agree with him, and I have no need to). But you have to answer, how does the transfer happen? How does 'forkness' become 'fork'? How does 'humanity' become 'humans'?

I have a foundation for believing in laws of logic, 'twoness', mind and soul. The Bible gives me a foundation. But atheists don't have any--unless they borrow from my worldview. Am I a relativist? No. I believe that there are definite truths. There is only one Christianity, and that is the one taught in the Bible. Most 'Christian' churches today, and most 'Christians' aren't Christians at all. They don't understand the gospel. The 'sinner's prayer'--'asking Jesus to come into your heart' never saved anybody.
"Because straight is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." (Matthew 7:14).
There is ONE truth, ONE way to eternal life, and that one way is Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, who came to earth to die for His chosen people.
________________________________________________________________________

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Feb 12 - 08:14 PM

Apart from asserting that Snail is a trolling twat, I shall step aside in dignified manner from the current spat (except to reaffirm that evolution is indeed true, of course! ;-)) But as for pete, please, everyone, note that I have asked him on numerous occasions to read "Origin." Pete, as we know, is a man who is of somewhat limited intellect and very circumscribed notions, but he does seem arrogant enough to think that a gap of a few weeks is sufficient for the rest of us to forget that the "intermediate forms" canard is one of his pet themes and that he never takes on board what anyone tells him. Best not to respond except to say to him that Darwin not only anticipated the "intermediate forms" objection but also, elegantly and in simple words, in as searingly-honest a manner as any scientist has ever achieved, addressed it very convincingly. Beware of those like pete who not only reject the evidence but who also reject it without understanding it. Incidentally, Darwin also addressed, in just as elegant a manner, the bogus issue of "irreducible complexity." But you wouldn't think so, would you, the way these crackpot creationists keep resurrecting it as if it was their own original idea!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 05 Feb 12 - 07:22 PM

It was boring from post number 1

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 05 Feb 12 - 06:55 PM

Snail,

I've given you an answer and it will have to suffice.

Please remember that I don't HAVE to answer any questions.



Right! Let's move on - I'm bored with this now!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 Feb 12 - 06:13 PM

Shimrod

I would have used a different phrase to that used by Steve Shaw ... and, in fact, I did use a different phrase - which you have re-produced above!

The two phrases -

But Science is not a dogmatic assertion of faith and 'absolute truth'

and

Evolution is true.

Spot the rephrasing.

Any more orders you'd like to give me, Snail?

Yes. Stop being so bloody evasive and answer the questions.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Feb 12 - 05:34 PM

Sorry pete, I missed this remark of yours, in which you note people say you should submit to the evolutionist/atheists because i dont have degrees etc

I hope I would never make that mistake, and if I have I apologise. My guess is that when people said that to you they weren't choosing their words carefully. If they said something like 'Read what Dawkins had to say about it in XYZ before repeating that [some insulting remark or other]' then it sounds very much like an appeal to authority but I don't think it is, really. What they probably meant was "There are good arguments about [whatever] and I think the version Dawkins presented in XYZ presents it well. But you can find the same argument in other places if you prefer; Dawkins as such is not important to the point."

Or, of course, they might just have been having a tantrum.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 05 Feb 12 - 05:27 PM

Snail,

I would have used a different phrase to that used by Steve Shaw ... and, in fact, I did use a different phrase - which you have re-produced above!

I shall be going to bed in the next half-an-hour, or so, but I can assure you that I won't be losing much sleep over the distinction.

Any more orders you'd like to give me, Snail?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 Feb 12 - 03:33 PM

Hi Shimrod. I see you are getting quite good at avoiding answering questions and you are adapting very quickly to the Steve Shaw style of intelectual discourse.

Perhaps you could just answer one straight question, how do you reconcile -

But Science is not a dogmatic assertion of faith and 'absolute truth' but a method for exploring and understanding the Universe, based on experiment and evidence.

and

Evolution is true.

No messing about. Just answer the question.