#12: Good and Evil

[LuckyLuigi7]

I was thinking about Natural Selection a bit while skimming through these posts, and sometimes I wonder a scenario like this:

Everytime you kill an animal like a fly or accidentally kill a chipmunk on the road, you are charged with murder. I think of a life like that and I'm glad we're living the way we are.

In my opinion, an intentional murder is evil and anything done with the intention to hurt or offend others is evil unless the intention is to help but does end up hurting or offending others. Most relgious guidelines as well help identify the line between good and evil. What Palmer has explained fits accurately in to practice of our society today because many assets from the bible explain what good and evil is, and one of the most obvious are the 10 commandments. :3

- Luigi

 

[Heavenly Spoon]

LuckyLuigi7, is that idea meant to be related to natural selection at all?
In natural selection, death is part of the engine. Animals which are more able to avoid cars will become more and more dominant.
Murder within a species is not at all beneficial for the species, but murder outside of the species usually doesn't affect it.
And for the record, I'm not saying "live your life according to natural selection", I'm saying the theory of evolution is capable of explaining the existence of morals.

The 10 commandments are absolute guidelines, yet nothing is absolute. Do no lie, for example, has its limits. An example commonly used to demonstrate this is: What if, during WWII, a German soldier came knocking on your door asking whether or not you were hiding any Jews?
Also, some of the 10 commands make no sense to the non-religious individuals. I for example don't see why blasphemy or working on a Sabbath day would be evil.

 

[Zyflair]

And at Zyflair: societies automatically tend to form order, otherwise they wouldn't survive. Even if it's a set of illusions, it's a set of illusions which helps the society, and which was an evolutionary advantage.

Very ironic, the situation is (oops, just did Yoda for a moment). By not lying, we can all cooperate and form a powerful group, but when you do lie, you sacrifice the order of the society for your own benefits. Lying isn't the only thing; killing, bribing, and other "immoral" actions benefit the individual while undermining society. If you accept the illusion as it is, then you would be considered an honest person, but you are giving up several personal advantages.

Gaining an advantage is considered a logical thing to do, but that implies that logic is morally blind. Why not do something "evil" if it will benefit you? I could be posting here as a criminal with several felonies and you guys wouldn't know for sure. That's why I don't argue what's right and wrong because in the end, it's always "what's in it for me?"

 

[Heavenly Spoon]

But evolutionary, we have problems with guilt and selfishness, which was my point.
If we'd all be doing the logical thing, we wouldn't be here anymore, so we're a group of illogical creatures (at least, when it comes to this), and that's really the only way.

 

[Zyflair]

But evolutionary, most of us have problems with guilt and selfishness, which was my point.
If we'd all be doing the logical thing, we wouldn't be here anymore, so we're a group of illogical creatures (at least, when it comes to this), and that's really the only way.

It's impossible for society to be perfect at the current rate, whether it's the only way or not. Unless we can firmly establish the morals into troubled people (such as convincing a starving child not to steal), or remove all troubles and form a communist Utopian society, then we're always going to have problems. That's how it's going to be.

And since I've said everything I feel like saying, I'll watch the rest of the debate while eating popcorn.

 

[Mapleboy86]

I want to share a story with you guys that I've had in my computer for a few years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did God create everything that exists? Does evil exist? Did God create evil?

A University professor at a well known institution of higher learning challenged his students with this question. "Did God create everything that exists?"

A student bravely replied, "Yes he did!"

"God created everything?" The professor asked.

"Yes sir, he certainly did," the student replied.

The professor answered, "If God created everything; then God created evil.
And, since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works define who we are, then we can assume God is evil."

The student became quiet and did not respond to the professor's hypothetical definition. The professor, quite pleased with himself, boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth.

Another student raised his hand and said, "May I ask you a question, professor?"

"Of course", replied the professor.

The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?"

"What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?"

The other students snickered at the young man's question. The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat.

Everybody or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy.
Absolute zero (-460F) is the total absence of heat; and all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat."

The student continued, "Professor, does darkness exist?"

The professor responded, "Of course it does."

The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality is the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact, we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is?

You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."

Finally the young man asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?"

Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course, as I have already said.
We see it everyday. It is in the daily examples of man's inhumanity to man.
It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world.
These manifestations are nothing else but evil.

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist, sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat, or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

The professor sat down.


The young man's name --
Albert Einstein . A true story.

 

[Palmer]

Well It is good to see you understand where I am coming from. Your beliefs in the bible's undeniable truth may be wrong. You could say that the Quran for instance is quite accurate with modern science but it is down to interpretation and believe it or not, the Quran seems to be more accurate (science wise) than the Bible. Also if you give a an Atheist the same good/bad standards and the same to an average Christian you will see that there is good correlations from actions. It is human nature, you can't change it. Also about your crack at big bang and evolution, Spoon will come with Every single youtube video in his power to change your mind lol.

Be wary...

May is the key word, and I'm waiting for a bunch of prophecies that should occur around this day and age to happen still, since several of them have already happened. Kinda hyped up really,. I'm not chauvinist so I won't be disproving the Quran's chances of being true. Both religions are faith based anyway so science isn't exactly a key component, except for proving their acceptability.

Like I've said earlier, most of it are already bare facts that can't be taken in other contexts. As for those that can, you usually have to correlate them with other verses to solve the puzzle. I'll be honest and admit that several modern-day Christians don't see the whole picture and continue to do tithes when they were are no longer applicable to the present times. It's a little sad they they cling onto the old testament which is obsolete. In fact, some believe that hell is at the enter of the Earth. Now, I'll have to deal with something else.

Commentary in green. Note: I won't be replying to anything supported with evolution-related claims due to the fact that Spoon is quite resistant when it comes to that, just as I am when it comes to defending my faith(1 Corinthians 8:1).

General Facts

1. First and foremost, the location of the Garden of Eden can be found by correlating it with history. Mesopotamia is the cradle of civilization as we all know, and since Mesopotamia encompasses the land between the Euphrates and Tigris rivers (which are also where the Garden of Eden is since Tigris and Euphrates stretch out from it) it would be sensible to say that the Garden of Eden (where man was created) is the cradle of civilization because man came to existence there (cf.Genesis 2:14).
2. The Ten Plagues of Egypt can scientifically be explained.
3. Originally, animals weren't meant to be eaten but to be ruled like beast of burden (Genesis 1:26). We were meant to eat plants (Genesis 3:18) which explains why we have a herbivorous set of teeth and also why plants are a lot more conventional than animals for food (You can just pluck 'em out of a tree to eat without the need to cook). Thanks to the flood though, vegetation became scarce and they began to lose nutritional value which is why we now eat animals for Protein, fats, and other nutrients that plants no longer sufficiently provide (Genesis 9:3).

1. It's not hard to imagine Mesopotamia as a paradise on earth, the region was still a region of welfare at the time.
But you're quoting from the story of Adam and Eve, which is as nonsensical as possible. Not only does it contradict EVERYTHING in genetics, it also completely contradicts the theory of evolution. You can go claim the theory of evolution is wrong now, in which case there's little point in debating someone who things he can do science better than 99.8% of all biologists (nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution). However, if you accept the theory of evolution, then you have to admit that most of the story is either completely wrong, or you're going to interpret it with metaphors and what not until it looks nothing like the original text.
But why would you want it to look like the original text? To completely understand it of course.It's the most nonsensical piece of fiction I've ever read. Talking snakes? Why would God even create a talking snake like that in his own funny little paradise? Why obey a talking snake? Why plant a tree in the middle of a garden only to say that those who live there can't eat of it?Part of the master plan; that is for sin to enter the world, eventually to be cleansed by Christ, and for believers who were chosen to be saved. I'd delve into this more and I'm ready to answer questions like "If God was God, why did Have to make man?" or "Why did He have to put a medium for sin to enter the world?", but the rest requires faith. Do I have to go on?No.
2. Or maybe the plagues actually happened, and your book just claims credit? The book was written after the plagues...
That was to prove the plagues scientifically if you
think of them as supernatural and unproven.
And just because something can be scientifically explained
doesn't mean it actually happened.That's for me to believe in, and for you to opt not to.
Also, Yahoo Answers as source? Seriously?I saw it
on Discovery first, just looking for lost proof that I'm already aware of.
3. So no evolution for you? God creating the animals and the plants and all.
Why would food with less nutritious value survive anyway? Over the history, you'll find that fruits as we know them today are rather recent, and thanks to agriculture and selective breeding we made them quire a good source of food.Good, but not superb food. Not even modern-day vegetarians could live hundreds of years like people used to.

Paleontology

1. Dinosaurs are referred to in several Bible books, but the book of Job in particular describes two of them, here, and here. All their characteristics and traits are those of particular dinosaurs, they couldn't have been mistaken for anything else; the brachiosaurus and kronosaurus respectively.

Please tell me Ken Ham didn't give a speech at your school, that man is messed up ._.The existence of dinosaurs alongside humans is contradicted by the fossil record (nope, sorry, the dinosaur/human footprints are hoaxes, and rather bad ones at that. Dinosaurs do not have the feet of Barney) and predictions by evolution (which I take it you don't believe in judging by your previous claims...).
The book might as well mention that we still have dinosaurs today, look outside, you'll see a few. Though, you might know them as birds, but whatever.
And have you ever seen the fossil record of dinosaurs? It's immense, especially considering what it takes for something to fossilize, if God only mentions 2, he's not really doing his job right...Not every animal is given so much detail, a chapter and a half to be more precise. Not everything in the Bible can be explained by science, because if God were God, he'd be able to accomplish the supernatural, the unexplainable, and the impossible.

Astronomy

1. The Bible frequently refers to the great number of stars in the heavens (Genesis 22:17, Jeremiah 33:22) when only about 3000 are visible to the naked eye. We have seen estimates of 10^21 stars - which is a lot of stars. (The number of grains of sand on the earth's seashores is estimated to be 10^25. As scientists discover more stars, wouldn't it be interesting to discover that these two numbers match?) We see 3000 or so, but the Bible says that there are heaps more.
2. The Bible also says that each star is unique (1 Corinthians 15:41). All stars look alike to the naked eye. Even when seen through a telescope, they seem to be just points of light. Again, I'm awestruck by how this Book is ahead of its time.
3. The Bible describes the precision of movement in the universe(Jeremiah 31:35-36). It's amazing how the tidal forces of the moon and how the sun's warmth are mentioned in an era where people think that they're only good for providing light. And how their misplacement would cause global death.
4. The Bible also describes the suspension of the Earth in space (Job 26:7). It's funny how this was said when people couldn't even tell the difference between the sky and space back then.

1. The easy answer would be "they can't count", but that'd be too easy.
1st quote, OMG genesis again... I'm not that good at understanding gibberish, but if you interpret that as "there's as many stars as sand on the seashores", be my guest.

Not really, I also believe in probability. It means that the Bible points out that there are a lot more stars, when we can only see a bunch.
2nd quote seems to refer to the inhabitants of heaven more than stars, actuallyOopsy, wrong version. Gotta hate the misconceptions that come from transliterary errors.

Here. The thing is, it takes the original Hebrew and Greek to find the most accurate meaning and interpretation, but I couldn't be bothered to have to go through translating all the scriptures.
That's the problem with books of the time, way too poetic ._.I like poetry, so sue me.
2. They're different "in glory"? I donno, I always have the idea some stars shine brighter. Especially if you see the planets and galaxies as stars. Why is the sun not mentioned as a star, though? It clearly is...People at the time wouldn't know the difference between the sun and stars and would probably be in disbelief. More importantly, they wouldn't be able to comprehend what a galaxy is anyway. That doesn't change the fact that there are still lots of stars..
3. Your quote mentions God as wave-stirrer, you're one master interpreter ._.
I also fail to see the sun's warmth or the movement is space in your quote.
Ignore warmth, that shouldn't be there. But that's not the point; the fact that if the fixed order being altered kills everyone shouldn't be a known fact there is what you should look at. "Who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar" refers to the tidal forces of the moon, if you look at the line above that, you see "And the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night"
4. The Earth doesn't hang ._.
Thanks for again claiming a great number of scientists have no idea what they're doing. We are fully aware of how the formation of planets happens, nobody "hangs" them anywhere, they just form there.It's a figure of speech. ._. "Hangs on nothing" means the Earth is suspended is space, not that it was hanged there/is hanging there. >.>

Meteorology

1. The Bible describes the circulation of the atmosphere(Ecclesiastes 1:6).
2. The Book includes some principles of fluid dynamics(Job 28:25). The fact that air has weight was proven scientifically only about 300 years ago. The relative weights of air and water are needed for the efficient functioning of the world's hydrologic cycle, which in turn sustains life on the earth.

1.I see no mention of the circulation of the atmosphere there. To me, that looks like someone describing the wind, and someone else interpreting his quote to mean what he wants it to mean, so it complements modern day science...
2. OR that means that wind applies power. He would've said "air" if he meant "air", no?That is, to weigh the winds and to measure the waters - things that it would seem most difficult to do. The idea here seems to be, that God had made all things by measure and by rule. Even the winds - so fleeting and imponderable - he had adjusted and balanced in the most exact manner, as if he had "weighed" them when he made them. The air has "weight," but it is not probable that this fact was known in the time of Job, or that he adverted to it here. It is rather the idea suggested above, that the God who had formed everything by exact rule. and who had power to govern the winds in the most exact manner, must be qualified to impart wisdom.

Biology

1. The book of Leviticus (written prior to 1400 BC) describes the value of blood. The blood carries water and nourishment to every cell, maintains the body's temperature, and removes the waste material of the body's cells (Leviticus 17:11). The blood also carries oxygen from the lungs throughout the body. In 1616, William Harvey discovered that blood circulation is the key factor in physical life - confirming what the Bible revealed 3,000 years earlier.
2. The Bible describes biogenesis (the development of living organisms from other living organisms) and the stability of each kind of living organism (Genesis 1:11-12, Genesis 1:21, Genesis 1:25). The phrase "after its kind" or "after their kind" occurs repeatedly, stressing the reproductive integrity of each kind of animal and plant. Today we know this occurs because all of these reproductive systems are programmed by their genetic codes.
3. The Bible describes the chemical nature of flesh.
4. It is a proven fact that a person's mental and spiritual health is strongly correlated with physical health. The Bible revealed this to us with these statements (and others) written by King Solomon about 950 BC.(Proverbs 12:4, Proverbs 14:30, Proverbs 15:30, Proverbs 16:24, Proverbs 17:22)

1. Oh. My. God. He discovered that you can't live without blood? No way. Your quote contains no mention of anything you said besides the neccesity for blood circulation for life, which is pretty evident.True, those were just notes to emphasize blood's importance to sustain life, but people back then didn't know how it worked. I'm certain that God knew why, but telling them all that wouldn't matter because they don't even know what a cell is to begin with.
Are you saying that the bible contradicts evolution here?

Because animals can eventually evolve to "other kinds". But still, you're going to have to give me a definition of kind 1st.Just like taking every kind of animal into the ark, it most likely refers to an order or class. Taking every single animal by species into a boat is pretty impossible, so they just gathered the generalized "kinds" to maybe, let evolution allow them to eventually make other species appear anyway. Some support evolution and support the Bible, some do otherwise, but we can't be for certain until God himself reveals it all.
3. Very cute. No quote?I was going to quote this, but I skipped onto the next verse. Ignore it anyway since it's irrelevant.
4. So Stephen Hawking is a terrible scientist?Nope, not at all.

Anthropology

1. We have cave paintings and other evidence that people inhabited caves. The Bible also describes cave men (Job 30:5-6). Note that these were not ape-men, but descendants of those who scattered from Babel. They were driven from the community by those tribes who competed successfully for the more desirable regions of the earth. Then for some reason they deteriorated mentally, physically, and spiritually. Check your local slums for modern-day comparison.

So ape-men don't exist?
Before you start ranting about piltdown man and nebraskaman, do some research 1st, 'kay? I know these 2 are part of like every creationist propaganda video, as if there are a) no other homonid fossils and b) scientists themselves didn't define them as hoaxes. Nebraskaman wasn't even scientific at all.Did I mention those hoaxes? Look, I wasn't saying that evolution is false since I'm neither for or against it, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if evolution supported religion or vice versa, but let's not plunge into that.

Hydrology

1. The Bible includes reasonably complete descriptions of the hydrologic cycle (Psalm 135:7, Jeremiah 10:13). In these verses you can see several phases of the hydrologic cycle - the worldwide processes of evaporation, translation aloft by atmospheric circulation, condensation with electrical discharges, and precipitation. Job 36:27-29 is a simple passage with remarkable scientific insight. The drops of water which eventually pour down as rain first become vapor and then condense to tiny liquid water droplets in the clouds. These finally coalesce into drops large enough to overcome the updrafts that suspend them in the air.
2. The Bible describes the recirculation of water(Ecclesiastes 1:7, Isaiah 55:10)
3. It refers to the surprising amount of water that can be held as condensation in clouds (Job 26:8, Job 37:11).
4. Hydrothermal vents are described in two books of the Bible written before 1400BC - more than 3,000 years before their discovery by science (Genesis 7:11, Job 38:16).

1. Was this knowledge not available at the time?Clearly, no. They just thought that water came from the sky, assuming that the water just went into the ground.
Anyhow, water vaporizes, easily observable. Look everyone! It's wet smoke! Rain falls from clouds? no way! Yes way.
2. An observation even a child can make...But does the poor kid know where the water is going? Going back to Noah's Ark, it wasn't a global flood as people thought, otherwise the global skyrocketing of the water level would be nonsensical. Some tribes also have legends of a great flood, but others don't since they didn't get flooded to begin with.
3. Funny, because I always figured clouds WERE water. To me, it seems like they think the clouds are some form of sack in which God places water.Figure of speech again? Poetic as you might say.
4.Cute.
NOAH'S ARK? SERIOUSLY? I take back what I said about the Adam and Eve story, this is the silliest piece of fiction EVER.Not only does this go against genetics COMPLETELY (but of course, you know better than biologists, right?), it's just... weird. It's impossible to put every species of animal on a boat, anything below species means they must've evolved quite drastically and completely contradictory to any evidence. Survive for 3 weeks? On a boat? With predators? Who die if you don't feel them enough, BTW...I actually have a funny video about Noah's ark:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mk1owD9y1hc
(the same guy also made one about the story of Adam and Eve if you want to see it)Lolwut? I found it entertaining to be honest, and what entertained me even more was the fact they misinterpreted it as a global flood like most people. Since it's local, they wouldn't have to go to Australia and the North/South pole anyway.

Geology

1. The Book describes the Earth's crust (along with a comment on astronomy - Jeremiah 31:37). Although some scientists claim that they have now measured the size of the universe, it is interesting to note that every human attempt to drill through the earth's crust to the plastic mantle beneath has, thus far, ended in failure.
2. The Bible described the shape of the earth centuries before people thought that the earth was spherical (Isaiah 40:22). The word translated "circle" here is the Hebrew word chuwg which is also translated "circuit," or "compass" (depending on the context). That is, it indicates something spherical, rounded, or arched - not something that is flat or square. The book of Isaiah was written sometime between 740 and 680 BC. This is at least 300 years before Aristotle suggested that the earth might be a sphere in his book On the Heavens.This brings up an important historical note related to this topic. Many people are aware of the conflict between Galileo and the Roman Catholic Pope, Paul V. After publishing A Dialogue on the Two Principal Systems of the World, Galileo was summoned to Rome, where he was forced to renounce his findings. (At that time, "theologians" of the Roman Catholic Church maintained that the Earth was the center of the universe, and to assert otherwise was deemed heretical.)We could not find any place in the Bible that claims that the Earth is flat, or that it is the center of the universe. History shows that this conflict, which took place at the time of the Inquisition, was part of a power struggle. As a result, scientific and biblical knowledge became casualties - an effect we still feel to this day.

1. We can measure the size of the earth, the depth of the different layers, and so on. We've never reached the end of the universe either, so what you're claiming makes little sense...Little, but sense is still present.
2. Or it means circle. It's closer to sphere I mean, how else are you supposed to "sit above" it? You can't sit above a sphere, you'd be down for the other half... But I'm sorry, I forgot that I'm only supposed to interpret everything the way you want me to interpret it, sorry.
BTW, The Greek discovered that the Earth was spherical, they also knew the size of the Earth, stop lying (which is a sin, right?). I acknowledge that the Greeks discovered that it was round, but that was after Isaiah. Gravity keeps us on the sphere, but I'm sure you already know that. But if you want to interpret it as a circle, the sea would spill and stuff. On the other hand, if you want to interpret it just as a place on Earth, that's fine by me. Lying on purpose, to my advantage is a sin, but lying on purpose for a good cause isn't; a Christian lying on purpose could be classified as "stumbling", because he doesn't go by a lifestyle of lying. You're sorry? I forgive you.

Physics

1. The Bible suggests the presence of nuclear processes like those we associate with nuclear weaponry. This is certainly not something that could have been explained in 67 AD using known scientific principles (when Peter wrote 2 Peter 3:10).
2. The television is a practical (if not always worthwhile ) device that uses electromagnetic waves (which transmit its video signal). The Bible contains passages that describe something like television - something that allows everyone on earth see a single event (Matthew 24:30, Revelation 11:9-11). (Note: Such passages typically refer to the end of time. It may not be long before all of us learn for sure whether the Bible is true or not.)

1. That seems like a massive out-of-context quote. And honestly, I can see that as a vulcano eruption ._. (the elements there probably referred to the 4 elements of alchemy) Wow, I have to thank you for telling me that. No sarcasm. That actually refers to hell (which isn't present right now like most people think).
2. You interpret that as TV? ._. Also, it mentions tribes...And "everyone", not everyone has a TV. Meh, this actually refers to the second coming after Armageddon, pardon me for squeezing it in.

Now that that's done, I'll be replying to the other stuff. Phew. The Book is flawless, that's for sure, and it's flawless in telling the truth as far as I know. Mrs.A, it's not 'blind faith' because I did mention that those verses only seemingly contradict each other and are taken in the wrong context. The truth is, they're completely unrelated to each other, or the other verse only applied to that time and place (Hebrews 8:13). The reason why the old testament is there is to signify God's new, exalted standards since The Holy Spirit now dwells in believers; they wouldn't have an excuse to disobey in the New Testament. Then again, you wouldn't understand a concept that you don't follow so ignore that.

Also, I'm not saying that 'all people that are not theists are directionless',

for some, religion is clearly something worth living for. That's not saying that religion is a necessity since I'm well aware that a lot of people don't need it.

Well Spoon, I guess your entire post pretty much ruffles that little History Channel documentary that I watched a couple of years ago, and I'm glad that we agree with certain things, so pardon my desultory post. Using the words 'even' and 'some' was to emphasize that 'some' atheists don't have a sense of guilt, or at least try to hide it. This stems from the fact that two of my atheist acquaintances deny that they become guilty when doing something bad, maybe they've got a few loose screws. They've got their own claims and try to be as callous as they can, I'm actually glad that you two aren't even remotely like them. In fact, I have nothing against agnostics and atheists because we all have the right to choose what to believe, and with that, I choose to believe in the Christian God. I also thank you both for using the words "God" and "Holy Book" with capital letters, it vexes me when people don't. Now if you'll excuse me, I have other things to attend to, try to make your replies as concise as possible. [/gtg]

I never watch the history channel.
Guilt is an evolutionary advantage, tell them it's silly to deny it.
I use "God" when referring the the fictional person with the name, and "god" when I'm talking about a god. I guess I just respect language Anyhow, I've tried to just respond the the Bible quotes, just because. There's way better arguments against religion in general than this.

Also, I invite you to check out: http://www.pokebeach.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=58095&pid=1183367#pid1183367

You might also want to check out one of the previous topics discussion ID. And at Zyflair: societies automatically tend to form order, otherwise they wouldn't survive. Even if it's a set of illusions, it's a set of illusions which helps the society, and which was an evolutionary advantage.

Quote pyramids galore! I'll be modest and admit that I've got a bunch of flaws here and there, but they're mine and nothing/no one else's; I'm not the one who's perfect after all. Clearly, you've got plenty of scientific claims and facts, and even heaps of videos and threads that disprove the Bible's scientific acceptability, but I worship God and not science, naive that may sound. I was citing references to show that there's some science in the Book, but I don't believe in the Bible because of it - science is only there to uphold what we Christians believe. Supporting science doesn't necessarily disprove God. Do you think God is stupid? Who do you think came up with the Kreb's cycle or photosynthesis? An ancient forerunner civilization, or probability? I beg to disagree. Besides, science won't reveal everything (Deuteronomy 29:29).

I still support science, but I also know that there is a Higher Being that created all this, whether He decided to do it by way of the Big Bang theory, I have no idea. I know that our universe didn't just appear. Someone with a loving hand made the galaxies, made the beautiful sunset, the beautiful rainbow we see after the rain, the stars that twinkle in the night, and even the concept of beauty itself. So what if scientists can explain how it's all done? That just means God gave us the sentience and intellect to figure it out. Interesting how science carves ideas in stone and then has to redefine things. Science sometimes even proves people guilty of crimes and then later, when science improves, then proves that they were innocent.

I've never actually seen the moon landings, but watched the astronauts on the moon fully believing that they actually did that. I've never actually seen, touched, or directly heard any of the several presidents of the United States during my lifetime. But I believe they existed and some still exist. Never have I seen my heart either, but I know it's there because that's what I learned in school. This is faith. I have evidence of it and I trust my conclusions. I have evidence of and trust my conclusions on the record and presentation of Jesus Christ being who He said He was. You don't share my faith and I don't have as much faith in yours. So what? Before we branch off the real topic even further, let's leave it here. Good day to you.

P.S. I'd love to spend some more time to work on another reply for your replies, but I'll be on a vacation for a week or so; camping. My sister abroad will also be coming home soon, so I might spend even more time off. I'll be back to read the replies, but I don't promise any guaranteed responses.[/laterguys.]

 

[Heavenly Spoon]

Funny how Eintstein later became pantheistic. The problem with that story is that you have not not proved the existence of God, but you haven't proved it either. I thought God was omnipresent, BTW?

Palmer, to avoid big quote pyramids, I'm just gonna quote things out of your text.
1st is just belief, belief, belief, belief, so I'm not gonna argue with that...

"Good, but not superb food. Not even modern-day vegetarians could live hundreds of years like people used to."
That's because we EVOLVED to omnivores. The ancient vegetarians you speak of were homonids, but not human, so either your claim is false, or you accept that we were once something which was not a human...

"Not every animal is given so much detail, a chapter and a half to be more precise. Not everything in the Bible can be explained by science, because if God were God, he'd be able to accomplish the supernatural, the unexplainable, and the impossible."
We're talking about DINOSAURS, things the size of buildings roaming around, and quite a lot of them. I think that'd be quite important to note...

"People at the time wouldn't know the difference between the sun and stars and would probably be in disbelief. More importantly, they wouldn't be able to comprehend what a galaxy is anyway. That doesn't change the fact that there are still lots of stars.."
or the writers didn't know the non-difference between the sun and the stars, and couldn't comprehend what a galaxy is. The presumtion that there is a God and he wrote a book seems rather far-fetched from the presumption that some guys just wrote a book.

""Who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar" refers to the tidal forces of the moon, if you look at the line above that, you see "And the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night""
To me, it sounds like a list of the things God does. Wouldn't it be "Which" instead of "who", but I guess it's that in Hebrew, right?

"That is, to weigh the winds and to measure the waters - things that it would seem most difficult to do. The idea here seems to be, that God had made all things by measure and by rule. Even the winds - so fleeting and imponderable - he had adjusted and balanced in the most exact manner, as if he had "weighed" them when he made them. The air has "weight," but it is not probable that this fact was known in the time of Job, or that he adverted to it here. It is rather the idea suggested above, that the God who had formed everything by exact rule. and who had power to govern the winds in the most exact manner, must be qualified to impart wisdom."
Wait, you admit that God didn't mention the fact that air has weight, whilst you claimed otherwise before?

"True, those were just notes to emphasize blood's importance to sustain life, but people back then didn't know how it worked. I'm certain that God knew why, but telling them all that wouldn't matter because they don't even know what a cell is to begin with."
You take a minor, logic observation, and use it to claim that God knows all, but was trying to explain everything in an easy manner? ._.

"let evolution allow them to eventually make other species appear anyway." Funny how this goes against the evolution theory in its entirety, but I'd have to explain Genetics for that.

"in fact I wouldn't be surprised if evolution supported religion or vice versa"
Sadly, it doesn't. Evolution is an unspecific, semi-random process, it follows no guidelines, and is based on both lock and survivability. If God is omnipotent, there would've been easier ways to create humans, because evolution has to be the silliest of them all.
Not only that, it completely conflicts with Genesis, Noah's Ark, and so on. You might claim that they're compatible, but I think this only shows ignorance. The only god evolution allows is a god of the gaps or a pantheistic god.

"Some tribes also have legends of a great flood, but others don't since they didn't get flooded to begin with."
Funny, because they wouldn't have survived the flood ._.

"Since it's local, they wouldn't have to go to Australia and the North/South pole anyway."
Aboriginals survived the flood? Native America survived the flood? Inuits survived the flood? Mayans survived the flood?
Oh yeah, humanity got punished alright...

"Who do you think came up with the Kreb's cycle or photosynthesis? An ancient forerunner civilization, or probability?"
BEFORE you start with irreducible complexity, do some research. I'm sure a lot of bilogists can tell you how the Kreb's cycle and photosynthesis formed through means of natural selection.
And evolution is not probability, it's survival of the "fittest". Converting some solar energy into energy is better than none, right? So it gets selected for, bacteria with it will be able to survive more, and will produce more offsprings. Another mutation occurs which makes it even better, and so on.

"Interesting how science carves ideas in stone and then has to redefine things. Science sometimes even proves people guilty of crimes and then later, when science improves, then proves that they were innocent."
It's called the scientific method. A scientist will be the 1st to admit he's wrong in the face of evidence, that's what science is all about. If a theory is outdated (or in the rare cases, false(or even a hoax)), it will be replaced with a better one. Newton had a nice idea of gravity, but then Einstein came along, showed us that his theory was imperfect (although it was seemingly perfect for everything we had to cope with in our daily lives). Science constantly updates and improves, and that's the strength. It doesn't hold on to dogmas, it doesn't force opinions onto people, it doesn't not want to admit it's wrong. All it wants is to understand the universe. The fact that science is no constant is what makes it good, what makes it believable.

And going off-topic doesn't matter much, it's not like anyone was discussing anything of importance at this point, and if they were, they'll just have to scroll some more

I hope you can understand why I wasn't going to leave a post like yours untouched
Have fun camping, though.

 

[Medaforcer]

"Interesting how science carves ideas in stone and then has to redefine things. Science sometimes even proves people guilty of crimes and then later, when science improves, then proves that they were innocent."
It's called the scientific method. A scientist will be the 1st to admit he's wrong in the face of evidence, that's what science is all about. If a theory is outdated (or in the rare cases, false(or even a hoax)), it will be replaced with a better one. Newton had a nice idea of gravity, but then Einstein came along, showed us that his theory was imperfect (although it was seemingly perfect for everything we had to cope with in our daily lives). Science constantly updates and improves, and that's the strength. It doesn't hold on to dogmas, it doesn't force opinions onto people, it doesn't not want to admit it's wrong. All it wants is to understand the universe. The fact that science is no constant is what makes it good, what makes it believable.

Ah, yes.

One of my personal favorite things a professor of mine said to me was, "in science nothing is certain."

 

[Palmer]

Last post before I pack my stuff for tomorrow.

...What, where you expecting a long post or something? I'm not that stubborn and I have limits too. In this case, time limits.

I would go on and tell you about the "Vapor canopy theory" of the flood (which supports global deluge) but...nah, been there, done that, know what's gonna happen. Maybe I could say hi on chat to tell you to believe in God, then you can reply by telling me not to. Oh joy. :] [/touché?]

 

[Mapleboy86]

Funny how Eintstein later became pantheistic. The problem with that story is that you have not not proved the existence of God, but you haven't proved it either. I thought God was omnipresent, BTW?

Sorry, I thought the question was, "Do good and evil really exist?" I didn't realize you wanted me to prove God.

 

[DarthPika]

Spoon is ALWAYS trying to get people to prove God.

 

[afstandopleren]

*Gasp* But same goes for people that believe in God, though the way of proofing is different, everyone is trying to do the same. *Gasp*

Wow, no one saw that coming eh?

 

[DarthPika]

No, like I mean big long HUGE posts that I really don't have time to argue with.

I have nothing wrong with doing that, but I do have a little bit of a life.

 

[Heavenly Spoon]

I would go on and tell you about the "Vapor canopy theory" of the flood (which supports global deluge) but...nah, been there, done that, know what's gonna happen. Maybe I could say hi on chat to tell you to believe in God, then you can reply by telling me not to. Oh joy. :] [/touché?]

It's not a theory if it's not supported by evidence and doesn't conflict with any scientific facts. Sadly, anything supporting a global flood by default goes against the facts because nothing in geology supports a global flood, let alone when humans existed.

And God was bound to come up here anyway, as there are always those who think religion defines good and evil.
And if the length of my posts/Palmer's scares you, Darthpika, how do you ever study? Read books?
You might as well read some of it, who knows, you might learn something :O
And if you can't defend your opinion, you might as well not have it...

 

[DarthPika]

I can defend it, I just would rather not waste my time doing so. This is why I do badly in arguments. It's not that I can't put up a good argument, but that I'm too lazy to keep up with it. ;P

 

[LuckyLuigi7]

LuckyLuigi7, is that idea meant to be related to natural selection at all?
In natural selection, death is part of the engine. Animals which are more able to avoid cars will become more and more dominant.
Murder within a species is not at all beneficial for the species, but murder outside of the species usually doesn't affect it.
And for the record, I'm not saying "live your life according to natural selection", I'm saying the theory of evolution is capable of explaining the existence of morals.

The 10 commandments are absolute guidelines, yet nothing is absolute. Do no lie, for example, has its limits. An example commonly used to demonstrate this is: What if, during WWII, a German soldier came knocking on your door asking whether or not you were hiding any Jews?
Also, some of the 10 commands make no sense to the non-religious individuals. I for example don't see why blasphemy or working on a Sabbath day would be evil.

Actually, the theory of Natural Selection just helped me stunt that and it's more of a side note just to bring up more ideas. But really think what it would be like living in a world like that. And if crimes are supposed to be evil, that would be a sad way to face serious charges.

As with the 10 commandments, although religous people are sensibly required to follow them, as for non-religous people, you can choose which guidlines fit your sense of right/wrong. And with WWII, of course, the bible would never command someone to tell the truth to allow a death or captivity or even torture undeserved. Even some parables or stories explain what is right and what is wrong. Of course, it is religon so if you don't believe, it doesn't apply to you. But as I'm sure many people are aware of, many commandments are accepted by believers and non-believers in the US today. =)

- Luigi

 

[DarthPika]

Also, Spoon, even in religion there are many times where there isn't an absolute. Many guide lines, but there are plenty of situations where you wouldn't be expected to do something. A good example is having to to lie to the germans to protect hidden jews.

 

[Heavenly Spoon]

As with the 10 commandments, although religous people are sensibly required to follow them, as for non-religous people, you can choose which guidlines fit your sense of right/wrong.

My point exactly. Religion forces upon you a definition of right and wrong (which might or might not be true) and forbids you of questioning it. So, if it's inaccurate, anyone believing in that religion is a liability. This is not a problem with non-religious individuals, as they won't all share the same idea of good and evil. There might be one odd bird, but s/he will quickly be punished by society. In the case of religion, nearly everyone will follow this guideline...
As an example, the Jews claim the right to Jeruzalem based on scripture, whilst this might have originally seemed benign, it now has serious consequences.

Seriously, please, don't base your morals on scripture, but use your own common sense, reasoning, and so on.

DarthPika, there will always be those who consider them absolute. The Americans used to be a bunch of people convicted for their religion, they were open-minded, and some of the founding fathers weren't even religious. Now, America has some of the most extremist Christians around...

 

[LuckyLuigi7]

My point exactly. Religion forces upon you a definition of right and wrong (which might or might not be true) and forbids you of questioning it. So, if it's inaccurate, anyone believing in that religion is a liability.

That's very true and that is a factor that is a decision if someone should be religious or not. People who are relgious usually can accept the fact that the bible's guidlines are effective towards their life. People in other religions have this same rule usually. Non-relgious people have the right to believe what they want if they believe the same or not, because they decided for themselves, they would rather be independent in their defenition of right/wrong which is absolutely fine because that is their choice. But technically, you have to follow some rule of right/wrong because you can get arrested for a crime if you do not. =P

And I do agree that political and relgious views do conflict. So that's controversial which to be loyal to sometimes. It's hard but that's another story.

- Luigi