Posts by rem

40

the 80's

by peaceloveharmony in

hey all, i received this in email today at work.

i always find these remember things funny, 70's or 80's.... but as i was reading this list, it got me thinking about some of the things i don't truly remember (okay, i remember but they were no-no's) because of my jw enforced childhood.

so here's the list with some of my comments:.

rem

Wow! What a blast from the past.

Like totally radical.

Bodaciously,

rem

"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain

109

Matthew Makes Another Error

by JosephAlward in

the 1 chronicles author lists the descendents of david; some of these, in order, are jehoshaphat, jehoram, ahaziah, joash, amaziah, azariah, jotham, ahaz, hezekiah, manasseh (1 chronicles 3:10-13 niv).

the matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts uzziah, who he says is jehorams son.

(matthew 1:8-10 niv).

rem

RWC,

Second, Christanity was being preached by Peter , Paul and the apostles before the Gospels were written. The Gospels are not the bases for the beginning of Christanity, the church was started before.

But what kind of Christianity? Was it a religion based on a real person, or was it mystery movement based on a mythical God man such as the pagan religions. Remember, the gospels and many of the epistles were written much later than Jesus' supposed lifetime. Paul's Christianity, which seems to be among the earliest, doesn't seem to know much about a physical Jesus or any historical events of a man named Jesus. In fact there are many teachings of the Jesus of the Gospels that Paul could have used to his defense, but he didn't seem to know about those things. The evidence is quite compelling that the Jesus myth grew from a mythical Jewish mystery religion until later believers mistook the myths to be real events.

Remember, you are only getting a very narrow viewpoint from the few books in the existing bible canon. You might want to research some of the writings that didn't make it, such as the Gnostic writings and the other 'gospels'.

rem

"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain

34

Why the bible does'nt make sense to me

by Leander in

jw
friends

for some odd reason this morning when i woke up the first thing that came into my mind was the suffering and pain that humans deal with on a daily basis.

again i'm not really sure what made me think about that so early in the morning.

(maybe it was a dream i had).

rem

Unclepenn,

How are ya!

Evidecne for God is not lacking, if it were lacking then 80% of human beings on the face of the earth would not believe in God

Irrational people believe in lots of things without evidence, such as UFO's from outer space, ESP, alien abductions, Crop Circles by aliens, Big Foot, etc. Probably 80% of little Children in the US believe in Santa Clause without any real evidence. Just because people believe doesn't automatically mean that their belief is based upon evidence.

It is as I said before, what evidence are you willing to accept

If god is all-powerful then he knows what evidence I would be willing to accept; and if he were all loving and truly wanted me to know him, then he would provide it.

You cling to the idea that in billions of years, well golly, anything could happen.

Well, not really anything could happen, but billions of years is a timescale in which we can't really fathom. If you lived billions of years, you'd live your life quite differently because rare or infrequent events would become very important to you all of a sudden. You would never cross the street or drive a car because the risk would be way too high from the perspective of billions of years. It's difficult to imagine, but you have to step outside your current frame of reference to understand it. In that timescale, things unimaginable to you are capable of happening.

Tell me REm, how did non living matter become living matter

Have I ever said that we humans know how this happened? Has anyone ever said that? No. I don't know and you don't know. You think you know because you believe the stories you read in the bible. That's fine, but please don't expect a rational person to take that book seriously as a scientific or historical document. It doesn't even have the order of creation correct, for goodness sake. You'd think god could at least be consistent in his writings to man.

Life could have come from nonlife by purely naturalistic means, even though we have not found the mechanism yet (after just a few decades of research). Life may have come from god or many gods (though we can't prove that this god or those gods are not now dead), or perhaps an Invisible Pink Unicorn did it all. They are all possibilities, but the most likely is the naturalistic theory because there is no evidence of god or gods or Invisible Pink Unicorns. Unless you can tell me why it is more probable that god created life than an Invisible Pink Unicorn doing it, you really don't have any case for god worth listening to.

Like I said in another post, natural selection is a fancy way of saying 'death'. There is no deginer in natural selection. No direction, no foreknowledge, nothing but death

Interesting that you can believe in micro-evolution and hold this thought at the same time. Cognitive dissonance, anyone? Natural Selection doesn't work in a vacuum. It works with mutations - those are the real creators. Natural Selection picks the most fit mutations. Pretty simple, really.

You are correct that Natural Selection is basically blind and with no foreknowledge. That's why we see that over 99% of all species that have ever lived on earth are now extinct. If there were an intelligent designer with foresight you'd expect to find perfectly capable species that have survived until this day.

Yuo have irreducable complexity, such as organs and systems within the body that require many working parts in order for it to function, (such as the design of a mouse trap) and if any of these parts are absent, the function ceases to exist. How can something that requires 5 moving parts, all dependent on each other to perform, evolve, when there is no foresight of design?

This is where it gets really funny. Do you realize that every time someone has tried to say a particular structure is irreducibly complex, we have found that it really was not? The funny thing is that the jokers you get this 'irreducibly complex' information from BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION. The people you are trying to use as ammo against Evolution don't agree with you! I'm talking about Behe, one of the loudest proclaimers of this theory. Also Dimbski, an Evolutionist, has done some work on this. Doesn't it make you feel silly that you are trying to argue against Evolution by supporting the theories of Evolutionists? lol

The only difference between us REM is that your god doesnt exists and mine does. Your god is you and you decide what is truth and you cling to what will keep you from being accountable

Interesting. Does this mean that I don't exist? :)

I know children whose parents do not believe in God but the child does

And I know of people who were raised in completely secular households that never had any belief in god as a child and still do not to this day. Just because you cannot fathom it doesn't mean they don't exist.

Also, since when does a supposed inborn belief in something prove the existence of the thing believed? It’s a non-sequiter.

Better yet, how about the next time you meet some children, ask them if they believe in God. Take a Gallup poll amongst 8 year olds. I bet none of them say there is no God.

It’s hard to say how many wouldn’t believe in god. About 10% of the population claim to be atheist in the U.S. I’d suppose that a large percentage of atheist parent’s kids would have no belief in god. Some kids probably would believe in god because of their outside exposure to a predominately god-believing society.

Humans do seem to be a very superstitious animal. Perhaps this has some evolutionary benefit? Although there may not be an inherent belief in god, this superstitious bias may express itself as a belief in god when society introduces the concept to the person. This may also be expressed as a godless spirituality in others. Perhaps others are able to suppress this superstitious tendency, or maybe they are not as prone to superstition as the majority of the population.

>If god is all powerful, then he should be able to reveal himself in such a way that there could be no question - no doubt for anyone - even the most hardened skeptic.
He already has

If he had, then we would not be having this conversation. Consider me one of the most hardened skeptics. If god can’t convince me, then he is either not all-powerful, or he does not really wish everyone to know him, in which case it would be difficult to say he is all-loving.

>And don't give me the whole "you need faith so he really knows you love him" routine.
I will do nothing of the sort. Have I ever once said to you that you need faith REM? EVER!? No, but I do know that once I put my faith in the evidence presented to me, then I was changed. Don't put the cart before the horse. God is not asking for blind faith.

I didn’t really make myself clear here. I was making a generic statement not particularly directed at you, but to fundamentalist Christians in general. I’ve heard this statement many times from others. You may feel that one can find god purely on evidence and logic, but most I’ve talked to feel that faith is needed. Many have said that evidence can only take you so far, but if you have faith, you will find god. This is basically saying you have to have faith (belief without evidence) before you can believe. I don’t find that approach intellectually satisfying myself.

Anyway, I think the gist of my response to you is that you believe in god, and that is all well and good. I’m glad you find a sense of purpose and happiness that way. But when you say that your faith is based on factual evidence then you are being intellectually dishonest with yourself. You believe because you have faith – and that should be good enough for you. Even scientists who believe in god realize that their belief is not based on evidence, but rather faith. I’m afraid that what you call evidence actually turns out to be circular reasonings, intuition, and inaccurate “common sense” when you get right down to it.

Just because you think your beliefs are based on common sense doesn’t mean they are based on solid evidence. Science has shown us many times that our best common sense turns out to be wildly inaccurate when it comes to many areas of knowledge. When you start a belief system on faulty premises (which happens by using inaccurate ‘common sense’) you end up with irrational belief systems, which is what belief in Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, Big Foot, Alien Abductions, Invisible Pink Unicorns, and Gods are.

Of course, just because they are irrational doesn’t mean that they aren’t true. ;)

rem

"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain

109

Matthew Makes Another Error

by JosephAlward in

the 1 chronicles author lists the descendents of david; some of these, in order, are jehoshaphat, jehoram, ahaziah, joash, amaziah, azariah, jotham, ahaz, hezekiah, manasseh (1 chronicles 3:10-13 niv).

the matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts uzziah, who he says is jehorams son.

(matthew 1:8-10 niv).

rem

RWC,

I think it's quite obvious that you are not trained in logic. I am not formally trained in logic, but even I, a layman, can see agriegious errors in your reasoning.

I know that my life is more than being in the lucky sperm club

You mean you FEEL this way. You don't know. You have no hard evidence otherwise. It's okay to say you have faith, but please don't try and say that your faith is based on evidence. It is not. It's based on a warm an fuzzy feeling inside you. Otherwise you would have provided hard evidence by now.

You love them and not for what they can do for you, but for who they are. If we were nothing more than logic, there would be no reason to love children. They may be the continuation of the species, but until they can take care of themselves they are a burden on you.

I've never said humans were completely rational beings. I agree that there is much value in emotion - it makes us, well, human. But there is no need to invoke a higher intelligence to explain Love (not that you were trying too). Love has a survival benefit, evolutionarily speaking. But when it comes down to it, love is not what chose which sperm out of millions joined with your mother's egg. That was random chance, my friend.

I do believe there is evidence of universal moral values that are not dictated by whether you believe in them or not

You've still not explained how this is possible other than hand waiving examples of other cultures that have vastly different moral codes than you do. Heck, even we probably have vastly different thoughts about morals and ethics. Like I said before, since we all have similar DNA and live in established societies, why would does an external intelligence need to be brought in to explain why most of us don't like murder and rape? I really don't think you are understanding this point. You can say there is a single moral standard all you want, but you have yet to provide evidence for it and have ignored evidence against it.

Can anyone say that killing thousands of innocent people is not fundamentally wrong regardless of whether those who engage in it believe it isn't?

Does this really make sense to you? You aknowledge two different moral codes and then deny the existence of the two different moral codes in the same sentence. Yes "anyone [can] say that killing thousands of innocent people is not fundamentally wrong" - the people who did it!

Or are you saying that YOU make the one moral standard and that if people don't agree with YOU then it is fundamentally wrong? Or perhaps you believe the bible is the one moral standard. Well either way, your argument is shot because there will always be people who disagree with your and the Bible's standards, hence there is no one moral code that all people can agree on. Case closed. Moral relativism is a fact of life.

That Roman citizen who lays his daughter in the snow to die may have been considered okay for some in that society, but do you really think that it was not wrong when it was done?

I think it is wrong NOW, but if I were an ancient Roman, I probably would NOT think it was wrong because that would be how I was raised. Or do you think people are fundamentally different now than they were in ancient times? I'm not sure how you could prove such an assertion.

As evidence for that thought, name for me one society that approves the killing of young children and than tell me that if there is such a society, the names of other countries that have approved that thought under the idea that if its good for them leave them alone. Such a fundamental wrong is recognized as such.

Perhaps you didn't see it the first time: ANCIENT ROME. Even today certain cultures mistreat women (Taliban) and many people in that country and surrounding countries think that that behavior is perfectly fine. We don't think it's fine because we were not raised that way.

Also, people's morals change. I used to think Homosexuality was a perversion, but now I believe it's just the way some people are and that's ok. How could my moral values change if there was a fundamental 'right' and 'wrong'? You really need to think this through a bit more carefully.

Is that because YOU couldn't find the evidence or because the evidence doesn't exist?

I don't believe in things in which there aren't sufficient evidence. There may be a god, but there would be no way for me to objectively verify that at this time. Maybe in the future it/they will provide evidence. I've never said there is no god, just that there is no evidence. When you believe things without evidence, you might as well start believing any and everything, such as fairies, UFO's, ESP, etc.

How do you know qauntum physics is correct even as a theory?

I don't know that it is correct. But I do have a level of trust in the scientific method because of all of the practical and tangible benefits it has produced. I happen to agree with the self correcting nature of the scientific method, and I believe that when people use that system of gaining knowledge they have a better chance of getting things right, or at least moving in the correct direction. History has shown us that other methods of gaining knowledge (intuition, religion) have been abysmal failures. So far the scientific method is the only method that has given us progress and increased knowledge of how the universe works.

I don't have the same level of trust in the Bible because there is no evidence that it is anything more than an ancient book written by superstitious men, just like other ancient books. People who base their beliefs off of theistic principles have been shown to be incorrect time and time again. History is on my side.

Eyewitnesses to his resurrection wrote about it and said it happened

Could you cite this please? I think you'll find that this assertion is incorrect. Another person CLAIMED that eyewitnesses saw the resurrection. There is no contemparaneous writing by people at the time who claimed to see the resurrection personally. Even if there was, I'd have to see independent evidence to verify this claim. It's an extraordinary claim, and needs extraordinary evidence to be believed. I'm sure you are aware that there were many miracles claimed by many other 'prophets' in Jesus' time. Why are the Bible's claims more trustworthy than those other obviously false claims?

As described he controls all aspects of their life, establishes moral codes to live by, passes judgment on them when they do not comply, performs miracles, sends prophets to say what will happen and than these prophecies come true and ultimately describes the path to eternal life.

There is no more evidence for these claims than for the claims of all other religious books. What makes the Bible's claims unique? Before you say prophecy, I would expect to see an unambiguous prophecy that actually came true (and can be proved was written before the event prophesied about). I also know of several prophecies in the bible that did not come true.

I may be wrong but wasn't communism the latest example of a government outlawing all religion in the name of atheism?

That may have been how communism was implemented, but it is not a requirement of communism. The same is true with Capitalism. The fact still stands that there is no evidence of any truly god ruled government that has taken care of all of man's problems. It is a nice fantasy, but it is not based on fact.

You are mistaken when you say that I believe that "God works in mysterious ways". What I do believe is that God's ways are always just and good even if I may not always understand them.

That's just another way of saying god works in mysterious ways.

As for the killing of children in the Bible I will agree that on the surface it can seem troubling. But the Bible is clear that God is a just God.

You don't see the circular reasoning here?

I was simply saying that the evidence is there, but that if you limit the inquiry to what you can prove through logic and merely rational thinking, you can always decide to come up short

There is no decision to come up short when usin logic and reasoning. It's the evidence that comes up short. You are basically admitting what I just said, you have to have faith (belief without evidence) before you will believe. Would you do the same with the Mormon religion?

I am wrong I will simply rot in a grave and will have lost nothing in the meantime, however if an atheist is wrong, he will have alot of explaining to do and it will be too late to change.

You do realize that this is called Pascal's Wager, and it has been debunked so many times it's not even funny. Who's to say you are not offending the one true god (or many true gods) right now because you are worshipping the wrong one? In that case, you will have some splaining to do, and I will have no problem at all. Pascal's Wager is a pretty weak reason to have faith in god.

rem

"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain

34

Why the bible does'nt make sense to me

by Leander in

jw
friends

for some odd reason this morning when i woke up the first thing that came into my mind was the suffering and pain that humans deal with on a daily basis.

again i'm not really sure what made me think about that so early in the morning.

(maybe it was a dream i had).

rem

UnclePenn,

Evidence for God is everywhere, it is axiomatic.

Just because you say it doesn't make it true. It may be axiomatic to you, but that's because you accept circular reasoning as evidence. To people with higher standards of evidence, evidence for god is sorely lacking.

You body is a self repairing, self reproducing machine that is so accurately balanced, that one cell in your body is far more sophisticated than any factory or engine man could ever possibly make, with all of our 'wisdom'

Evolution has had billions of years to come up with these cells. Science only started a couple hundred years ago. Life has a huge head start on us. ;) Could we be so balanced because otherwise we would not be fit to survive and Natural Selection would not have favored our design? Nah, couldn't be.

Jesus healed people that were blind from birth

Many people have similar miracle claims - especially in ancient texts written by superstitious and credulous men. There is no contemparaneous evidence that any man named Jesus actually did these things. Even still, the claim is not unique, yet you don't really believe all of the other ancient, extrabiblical miracle stories do you? Actually, sometimes I wonder, maybe you do? If you do believe those other non-biblical miracle stories then you betray how credulous you really are. If you don't, then you are being inconsistent in how you determine the veracity of claims. One good principle to live by is "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

There are no 8 year old atheists

I wonder how you could back that claim up? Do you FEEL there are no 8 year old atheists, or is that what you know? I would challenge you to prove your assertion, but I'm sure you realize by now how silly this statement is.

Now I'm going to go out on a limb and make an assertion without any backing evidence. I assert that we are all born atheists, but we learn theism from our parents and society. It's a meme that has lived and evolved for thousands of years of human history.

Here is my reasoning: Children don't have an inborn belief in Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy. Those beliefs are instilled by the parents. Even though the beliefs are wrong, they seem very real and true to the kids who believe them. Also, Children don't have an inborn belief in Thor, Baal, Vishnu, Invisible Pink Unicorns, etc. If they believe in any of these things, it's because parents or society has taught them these things.

Remember, not all societies are monotheistic. I'm sure you would agree that an inborn belief in many gods is not inborn. Then why would you expect an inborn belief in your monotheistic (or is that triune?) Christian god. It's fantasy - pure wishful thinking.

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that <B>men are without excuse</B>

If god is all powerful, then he should be able to reveal himself in such a way that there could be no question - no doubt for anyone - even the most hardened skeptic. If not then he is either not all powerful or not all-loving. And don't give me the whole "you need faith so he really knows you love him" routine. Do you love your parents any less because you are sure of their existence? I think not.

Regards,

rem

"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain

109

Matthew Makes Another Error

by JosephAlward in

the 1 chronicles author lists the descendents of david; some of these, in order, are jehoshaphat, jehoram, ahaziah, joash, amaziah, azariah, jotham, ahaz, hezekiah, manasseh (1 chronicles 3:10-13 niv).

the matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts uzziah, who he says is jehorams son.

(matthew 1:8-10 niv).

rem

RWC,

How did we move from a mere animal that was only worried about survival and that of its young to the concept of morality?

Another tough question, but again I don’t see the benefit in automatically saying “god did it”. I believe we are more similar to animals than you might imagine. There are societal animals that have their own hierarchies and societal norms. Perhaps our ‘morality’ or conscience is really nothing more than glorified instinct? When animals work together to form societies, there are rules that make things work more smoothly. I’m not sure why an outside intelligence has to be brought in to explain this.

The question is, where did the idea that there are certain activities that are not related to our continued survival in an individual sense, but which we have declared as mankind are not going to be tolerated

I think this is just a natural consequence of organisms cooperating for their survival. Again, I’m not sure why the only solution is “god did it”. Sure it’s a possibility, but not a very likely one since there is no evidence for god. Someone could just as easily say space aliens or Invisible Pink Unicorns did it. Sure it’s possible, but it’s not a falsifiable theory.

A concsience simply cannot be created through physical science or evolution

How so? All of the evidence we have so far says that it did. Perhaps conscience is a form of instinct? A survival mechanism for social animals. I don’t think you have enough information about the topic to make such a strong claim.

It must come from abstract thought and animals have been lving on this Earth for millions of years without the ability to reason or have abstract thought.

This is demonstrably false. There are animals such as primates and dolphins that do have rudimentary reasoning skills and are capable of abstract thought. Humans are more quantitatively different from animals than we are qualitatively different.

How would you know if the Dinosaurs or ancient mammals did not have the capability for abstract thought?

Genetically and physically we may be close to the animal world, but we are far different since we have the ability for rational thinking

I wish humans were more rational. Most seem to be controlled more by emotions rather than by logic or rational thought. If we really were meant to be rational beings created by an intelligent designer, then why would he create the universe in such a way that rational thinkers can only conclude that he does not exist?

I find it hard to believe that in our long distant path one ape woke up with a rational thought, an abstract idea, and that this gentic mutation led to man as we know it.

This is because you have a misconception about how evolution works. This never happened. You may be aware that you are presenting an argument from incredulity here. It’s hard for me to comprehend Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. That doesn’t mean that the theories are fundamentally wrong.

But, it is equally simplistic to say that given enough time everything will eventually be explained by science.

This has never been said. There are some questions that may never be answered. Some people are more satisfied with questions without answers than made up, god of the gaps answers. God of the gaps answers may be emotionally satisfying to some, but they really don’t bring us any closer to objective truth.

I look around me and see the blessings that have been given to me, from the world around me to my children and I choose not to wake up and say "Thank you primodial chemical soup for your years of evolution". I chose not to determine what is right and wrong from what I believe or what my neighbor or what others across the globe may think is right or wrong. A sense of individually based morality is a recipe for disaster.

I rarely thank the primordial ooze. ;) Should I thank my father’s sperm for being so dedicated that out of the millions of other possibilities, I was the one that got lucky? Life is an accident. No need to thank anyone.

You do determine right and wrong from what you believe and so does your neighbor. There is no one code of conduct that 100% of all humans will agree to. Some people feel it is morally right to fly airplanes into occupied buildings. It is a recipe for disaster and a recipe for joy. Right and wrong only have meaning in your own context. If you lived in ancient Rome, you’d think nothing of leaving your newborn daughter out in the elements to die because you wanted a son. That was ‘right’ back then. Today it’s unthinkable.

From history we have the best example of what happens when a society attempts to remove God from the equation, communism. A whole political structure based in part upon the atheistic belief that there is no God and man will, left to his own devises under the guiding hand of Government provide equally for everyone and all will prosper. It was an abject failure. Man on his own could not create such a society.

Since when is Communism a strictly atheistic philosophy? It’s no more atheistic than Democracy and Capitalism. Only Theocracies such as the Taliban are theistic at the core. That is, they only work with a concept of god. Sure Communism was a failure. So is the Taliban. You are probably right that man will never create a society where everyone is equal, but you have absolutely no evidence that god ever has or will either. I personally believe such a government is an unrealistic goal. I don’t see the misrule of man providing any evidence for god. Just because we wish for something doesn’t make it true.

Society as a whole has universal, objective moral values. By that I mean values that are valid and binding regardless of whether you believe tham or not. For example, rape has evolved over the course of human development to be considered wrong. However, if left only to social evolution, it could be conceived that rape would have evolved to be an acceptable way to continue the survival of mankind and thus not be wrong. The fact that it is wrong to our collective consciences points me to a God who has given us that ability. To me, the fact that absolute right and wrong, objective moral truths exist is evidence of God.

You have yet to provide evidence for this “collective conscience”. Most people today happen to see rape as wrong. Some don’t. Most don’t like rape because they wouldn’t like to be raped themselves. It’s that easy. Since we all have similar DNA, why is it impossible that we have similar values? You have yet to provide evidence that absolute right and wrong, objective moral truths exist. You may wish them to, but there is no evidence of it.

As for the Cannanties, I don't think that they lived for four hundred years. But the Bible explains that the nation as a whole was sinful. They were into insest, child sacrifices and other horrible things. Those who repented like Rahab were saved. The Bible is clear that whoever is willing to repent God is willing to save.

Did the little children and the unborn babies have a chance to repent? I suppose many of the virgin girls repented since they were saved? What about the animals that were slaughtered and hamstrung? How did that fit into god’s justice – only punishing the sinful? I don’t believe that ALL of the people were committing such gross acts. Last time I checked Lot committed incest TWICE and was called a righteous man. No, I believe you are grasping at straws here and you know it. For you the answer is “god works in mysterious ways”.

If you are trying to find God through logic and reason you will never get there without a touch of faith.

So basically you have to believe in him first before you will have enough evidence to believe in him. Do you realize that any religion can say this? Why do you not believe in the Book of Mormon? It will make sense to you if you have faith in it first. No, you don’t put faith in something before you have rationally explored it. It doesn’t make any sense. Otherwise you could justify any religion as being the true one.

Why would a god who created supposedly rational beings require belief in him despite the lack of evidence with which to base a rational decision?

Also, I had faith. I used to believe in god. I found that it was based on zero evidence, though. Would you recommend a Mormon use his faith instead of his reasoning skills if he were questioning his religion? I don’t think so.

. I am a lawyer by trade. My profession teaches me to base everything on logic and reason.

I don’t think lawyers base everything on logic and reasoning. They are trained to win arguments. Emotions and feelings are often times much stronger than any logic when it comes to persuading someone. Scientists are trained in logic and reason. You’ll notice that many people don’t agree with scientific findings based on emotional or religious reasons. If you really are trained in logic, then you should recognize many of the logical fallacies you have committed in you various posts so far.

The Bible is clear in its teaching that there is one God who is eternal and who provided the route for eternal life through his son. Science just doesn't give me any of that and never will. Why put your faith in something that can't answer how we got here, how we should behave while we are here and what happens to us when we leave?

Why put your faith in answers that are just made up? I don’t need answers for how we got here to be a happy, well-adjusted human being. I would lose respect for myself if I had to put faith in a fairy tale to feel good about my life.

rem

"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain

109

Matthew Makes Another Error

by JosephAlward in

the 1 chronicles author lists the descendents of david; some of these, in order, are jehoshaphat, jehoram, ahaziah, joash, amaziah, azariah, jotham, ahaz, hezekiah, manasseh (1 chronicles 3:10-13 niv).

the matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts uzziah, who he says is jehorams son.

(matthew 1:8-10 niv).

rem

RWC,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

I was not thinking of the Miller experiments. I was thinking of everyday lab experiments that are done in Universities that show that organisms evolve. Typical experiments where bacteria are irradiated with ultraviolet light and are then killed off with antibacterial solution. Some survive and they breed more resistant antibacteria. Natural Selection (actually unnatural selection in this case) in action. Abiogenesis is a totally different matter. There has been a lot of interesting work, but there is no answer yet.

I think the difference between us is that I am fine with unanswered questions, whereas to you there really are no unanswered questions - everything we are ignorant of was done by god.

I am not comfortable positing that an intelligent being is responsible just because of our own ignorance in the matter. If there were any evidence of an intelligent being, then it could be a possibility. But so far there is no evidence, and any evidence that is brought up is circular. Why posit an even more complex cause when you can't even explain what caused us properly? It just pushes the question back one step.

The point is that science can't explain the origin of life so the explanation must be supernatural.

History shows that everytime a god of the gaps argument was used, science has found a naturalistic explanation after the fact. Every time. I don't see why the question of origins is going to be any different. The question of our origins is a tough problem to solve. It happened billions of years ago. We don't have all of the evidence just laying around for us to observe. Why do you think science should be able to explain this question now after only a few decades of research? Does every question that science can't answer now have a supernatural explanation? Do you see how this line of reasoning is reminiscent of the dark ages?

Also, as you pointed out, it was scientists who found out the earth was round. Not religion. Even if scientists do get things wrong in the beginning, science is self correcting. What great breakthroughs have religions made in curing disease, providing more food, and understanding the universe? When is the last time religion actually corrected science? Religion is self preserving and only grudgingly follows along with science when it can no longer keep to it's old tired superstitions. I'm sure you are aware that even the Catholic Church agrees that Evolution happened.

As far as the god of the bible's personality, I'm satisfied that we can have different views. To me, if we don't understand his ways, it's just because he didn't do a good enough job explaining them. If he is god, then he should be able to make it all make sense. But it doesn't. Even you admit that. There are things we just don't understand. To me, that's not a loving father. That's just my view and that's why I can't believe in the god of the bible. In my view, his personality is contradictory in various places in the bible.

Also, did people live for 400 years back in ancient Canaan? Were the same Canaanites who were slaughtered the ones who were 'warned'? I may be ignorant of this, but where exactly were they warned? Do you think the Canaanites even knew who Abraham was after 400 years? I just don't see the justice in that, but like you said, we just can't understand god's ways sometimes.

rem

"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain

109

Matthew Makes Another Error

by JosephAlward in

the 1 chronicles author lists the descendents of david; some of these, in order, are jehoshaphat, jehoram, ahaziah, joash, amaziah, azariah, jotham, ahaz, hezekiah, manasseh (1 chronicles 3:10-13 niv).

the matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts uzziah, who he says is jehorams son.

(matthew 1:8-10 niv).

rem

RWC,

Origins of the Universe: Nobody knows for sure how the universe started. There is no evidence that god created it because there is no evidence for god. If you say something cannot come from nothing, then god is impossible too. I'm not saying god is impossible, but there is simply no evidence. Perhaps there will be evidence in the future. Until then nobody knows how or why it began. Right now all we know is what happened a fraction of a second after it all started.

Origins of Life: We still don't know how life began. There are various theories. This is Abiogenesis. Life from non-life. Not Evolution. Life did not start from a single cell. It started long before with self-replicating molecules. This is where Evolution steped in and Natural Selection formed these self-replicating molicules into the first single celled organisms that then also evolved into multicellular organisms, etc. DNA came from simpler structures such as RNA which came from simpler structures as well, etc.

Not only fossils but DNA, geology, lab experiments, computer programs/models, biology, etc. all provide evidence for Evolution. The fossil evidence is clear. Life has changed over time. Do you believe the same creatures/species on earth today existed millions of years ago? If you do, then the fossil evidence does not agree with you. Evolution explains this change of life over time. The fossil evidence is in complete agreement with Evolution. There are gaps and there always will be, but the evidence that we have is very strong. Also, there are many transitional fossils for different animals - especially Human Beings!

For every incident where you can point to the judgment of God coming into play, you will find messengers being sent telling the people to repent and change their ways

Every incident? Did the babies that he killed get a chance to repent? How about the Canaanites? I don't believe they had a chance to repent. What about the account where god PURPOSEFULLY hardened Pharaoh’s heart so that he could send plagues against the Egyptians?

Cities are where the Bible says they are, temple exist where people once believed they couldn't. Name for me one find that contradicts the Bible. I would like to hear about it. What I am referring to is a find that puts a city in a totally different place than the Bible says it would be, not just that somethings haven't been found yet.

You are limiting yourself to quite mundane archeological errors. There are anachronisms where cities were given the wrong names, but I’m not sure of any cities in the wrong place. I’m not sure how that would prove the Bible’s authenticity anyway, as many works of fiction contain correct geography. The archeology finds I’m thinking of have to do with ancient Israel. A couple of examples are the city Jericho and King David and Solomon’s empire. It seems that there was no wall around Jericho at the time it was supposed to be raised by the Israelites. Also it turns out that David and Solomon’s empire was not really much of an empire after all, but more like a small village in the southern area of Judah.

Of course the Bible also goes against archeology because it says there was a great flood when we have archeological evidence of ancient civilizations thriving at the time this was supposed to have happened. Apparently the Egyptians didn’t realize they were underwater for much of a year!

Finally, I would rather put my faith and trust in the bible than in science any day. Don't forget that it was science that once told us that the world was flat and hundereds of other scientific facts that since been disproven.

First of all, that is a very scary thought. Most probably the only reason you are still alive today is because of science. Second of all, science never said the earth was flat. That was what ignorant people thought. The educated, or more scientific ancient people knew the earth was round, and they even measured the circumference of the earth quite accurately! I’m not sure of what you mean by hundreds of scientific facts that have been disproved. Is the fact that religion stays the same even though it is proven wrong somehow better to you?

Nice talking to you,

rem

"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain

66

ex-JW Christians Suck!

by mikepence in

jw
friends

there, i said it.. how can you leave one brainwashing controlling world view and dive right into another?!.

duh!!!.

see http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=17131&site=3 for a great example of why they suck.. aaaaaarrrrrrgggghhhh!.

rem

This is my take on it:

If humans can only have a purpose with a creator, then what about the creator? Does he not have a purpose because there is no creator over him?

I don't think a creator is necessary for a purpose. At it's basic level any organism's 'purpose' is to reproduce. Since we have highly evolved brains and are conscious, we just have more possible 'purposes'. I agree that there does not have to be a reason to have a purpose.

rem

"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain

109

Matthew Makes Another Error

by JosephAlward in

the 1 chronicles author lists the descendents of david; some of these, in order, are jehoshaphat, jehoram, ahaziah, joash, amaziah, azariah, jotham, ahaz, hezekiah, manasseh (1 chronicles 3:10-13 niv).

the matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts uzziah, who he says is jehorams son.

(matthew 1:8-10 niv).

rem

RWC,

By the way, why is it that you think we die in the first place? Is death simply a result of evolution not getting it right up to now and if we wait long enough we will evolve to the point that we don't die? That simply doesn't make any sense.

Huh? Of course it doesn't make any sense because you have major misconceptions about Evolution. There is no goal of everlasting life in Evolution. Reproduction is the goal. An organism only has to live long enough to reproduce and make sure it's progeny survive. This fits perfectly with what we see happens in the world.

Second, evolution is not the answer to the creation of the earth. In fact, most scientist who have studied the origions of life have reached the conclusion that there must be a creator.

That's an interesting statement. Would you like to back it up with evidence? Even if it were true (which it is not) that "most scientist who have studied the origins of life have reached the conclusion that there must be a creator", that is not evidence against Evolution, Abiogenesis, or the Big Bang. It's also not evidence for god. It would merely be the belief of certain scientists. Some scientists believe in UFO's and ESP. Their beliefs are not evidence - that would be an argument from authority. Facts are evidence. There is much evidence that supports the Theory of Evolution. So far there is no evidence for any Theory of Creation. In fact, there still is no falsifiable Theory of Creation.

The odds against a sea of chemicals swirling around in such a manner to form amino acids and than proteins and than single cell organisms and than ultimantly all of the different types of animals and plants we have on earth today are astronomical. In fact, no scientist has been able to answer how it would happen, much less how DNA would be created. Evolution as the origions of life has been completely defeated.

More misconceptions. Evolution has more to do with Natural Selection than random chance. Read a book on how Natural Selection works. Natural selection thrives even with random mutation. The process of innumerable events weeding out the unfit features and keeping the fit by Natural Selection come up to an end result that would be extremely improbable in a single iteration. It has been explained quite easily if you take the effort to read about it.

Also, Evolution does not try to explain the beginning of life - that is Abiogenesis. Evolution has nothing to do with that. Evolution explains how all life is related and how life changes through certain principles.

There has never been an archeloigial find that has contradicted the Bible. On the contray finds prove it to be accurate.

Are you a betting man? :) I suppose you haven't been keeping up with modern scholarship and the latest archeological findings.

The main theme of the Bible is Love. Love of God for mankind. Instructions for us to Love God. Instructions for us to Love one another. We just don't always follow those simple rules. That is where the problems come from.

Perhaps you are right, but many would not agree with you. There are several other "main themes" of the bible that can be argued, such as God's Sovereignty and such. I personally find it difficult to harmonize the theme of god's love with many of his, shall we say, less than merciful moments in the bible.

When someone posts so many misconceptions and errors with such authority, it is difficult to take him seriously.

rem

"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain