Evolution and is God Evil

Ganado · Oct 9, 2016

chelloveck · Oct 9, 2016

Ganado said: ↑

Click to expand...

Oh my....this meme has been doing the rounds of the F&R forum for several years.....(Good old Albert | Survival Monkey Forums and This one is for the Atheists here | Survival Monkey Forums) it contains a number of logical fallacies, and its purpose is basically to bolster faith, (principally the Christian faith) at the expense of reason, by making science and professors appear to be silly, and by attacking evolution as a scientific theory. There is absolutely no evidence that the student actually was Einstein, or that this supposed conversation actually took place. The meme is, if anything, a contemptibly risible religious apologetic not worth the digital ink that it is published in.

Einstein proves God in an encounter with a professor-Fiction!

Did Einstein prove that God exists?

Atheist professor myth - RationalWiki

A detailed refutation of the logic, (if it could be called logic) contained in the OP referenced "Einstein and the Professor" anecdote, used to construct the OP religious apologetic is as follows....

This is so ridiculous it's embarassing. No professor of philosophy would be tricked by a stupid word game like this.

Words like "heat" and "cold" are not scientific or precise. We use them for brevity because we don't want to talk about molecular motion and energy in ordinary human conversations, and because they describe sensations that our nerves transmit to our brains.

To a scientist, "heat" is an imprecise word that describes the human perception of the amount of molecular energy that our bodies are absorbing at a given moment. "Cold" merely means that the amount of molecular energy is low enoungh to cause discomfort.

So it's stupid to say there is no such thing as cold. Everyone knows that "cold" is defined as the lack of heat, and is a subjective term.

Whoever wrote this essay wanted this to be the "shot across across the bow" of the professor's ship. It was supposed to be the startling moment that wakes us up, where we say, "Hey, what's going on here? Maybe this professor doesn't know everything after all!"

But in fact, it looks like the author of this essay simply never took a class in philosophy or linguistics.

When an eight-year-old does a simple magic trick in front of a bunch of professional magicians, they admire his pluck and encourage him. But if a grown man tries the same trick and thinks he's actually fooling everyone, it's embarrassing.Student : What about Darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as Darkness?

Professor: Yes. What is Night if there isn't Darkness?

Student : You're wrong again, sir.

Darkness is the Absence of Something. You can have Low Light, Normal Light, Bright Light, Flashing Light ... But if you have No Light constantly, you have nothing and its called Darkness, isn't it? In reality, Darkness isn't. If it is, were you would be able to make Darkness Darker, wouldn't you?Again, this is the same silly word trick. The author is claiming there is no such thing as darkness. Darkness is merely a subjective, relative term that says, "Insufficient photons are stimulating the retina for this human's present needs."

Replace "darkness" with "emptiness" and see how it sounds. Suppose your coffee cup is empty. Would you say there's no such thing as emptiness because you can't make your coffee cup any emptier than it already is?

The author of this essay has portrayed a "professor," but hasn't given him a high-school education. Any real professor of philosophy would make mincemeat of this argument. But real professors (especially in philosophy) are faced with smart-alec kids like this in every freshman Philosophy 101 class. Most of them learn to gently correct these young hotheads so that they can get on to important lessons.Professor: So what is the point you are making, Young Man ?

Student : Sir, my point is your Philosophical Premise is flawed.

Professor: Flawed ? Can you explain how?A real professor would have cut this student off by now and suggested some reading and a writing assignment to force the student to defend his position. And while writing the essay, the student would probably discover his errors.Student : Sir, you are working on the Premise of Duality. You argue there is Life and then there is Death, a Good GOD and a Bad GOD. You are viewing the Concept of GOD as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, Science can't even explain a Thought. It uses Electricity and Magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view Death as the Opposite of Life is to be ignorant of the fact that Death cannot exist as a Substantive Thing. Death is Not the Opposite of Life: just the Absence of it.This is so dense with errors it's hard refute in just a paragraph or two.

The Premise of Duality is a religious concept, not a scientific one. The author of this essay is trying to put religious logic into an atheist's argument. The professor would never do that.

Science has a deep and detailed understanding of the electrochemical mechanisms of the brain.

Saying that science doesn't understand "Electricity and Magnetism" shows glaring ignorance. The correct name is "electromagnetism," and there is no duality at all. It's a single thing that exhibits different physical effects in different situations. And electromagnetism is probably the best understood science of all.

Now we get to the heart of this paragraph: "Death as the opposite of Life" thing is just another manifestation of the silly "duality" arguments presented above regarding heat/cold and light/dark. No philosophy professor would fall for this trick.Now tell me, Professor, do you teach your Students that they evolved from a Monkey?

Professor: If you are referring to the Natural Evolutionary Process, yes, of course, I do.This is a nonsequitur designed to trick the reader. By this time, the reader is supposed be thinking the student is really clever and has the professor "on the ropes." By introducing the controversial "e" word ("evolution"), the Christian readers get positively gleeful. The student is going to make mincemeat of evolution too!Student : Have you ever observed Evolution with your own eyes, sir? (The Professor shook his head with a Smile, beginning to realize where the Argument was going )Another subtle trick: the student says, "with your own eyes." Scientists use all sorts of instruments to extend our senses. You can't see sunspots "with your own eyes" because your eyes can't look at the sun. But does anyone not believe in sunspots? Or bacteria, viruses, supernova, radio waves, protons and electrons? It's ridiculous.

More importantly, scientists have observed evolution at every level. We've seen it at the microscopic level – it's the key to all modern medicine. And we've seen it at the macroscopic level, with plants and animals that continue to evolve as we watch. That's just a plain, irrefutable fact.

What the professor would really do is say, "Scientists see evolution in action every day. It's been proved over and over. Go take your biology, physics, chemistry and botany classes, and then come back to argue with me." Only the student wouldn't, because after taking those classes he'd realize he didn't have an argument.

Evolution is the best-proved theory in the history of the world. No other science can touch it.Student : Since no one has ever observed the Process of Evolution at work and cannot even prove that this Process is an On-Going Endeavor, are you not teaching your Opinion, sir? Are you not a Scientist but a Preacher?

(The Class was in Uproar )In a real classroom, by this time the student would have been respectfully corrected and would have shut up in embarrassment.Student : Is there anyone in the Class who has ever seen the Professor's Brain?

(The Class broke out into Laughter )

Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's Brain, Felt it, touched or Smelt it? … No one appears to have done so. So, according to the Established Rules of Empirical, Stable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says that You have No Brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then Trust your Lectures, sir?

(The Room was Silent. The Professor stared at the Student, his face unfathomable)

Professor: I guess you'll have to take them on Faith, son.

Student : That is it sir . . . Exactly! The Link between Man & GOD is FAITH. That is all that Keeps Things Alive and Moving.OMG. This is embarrassing.

Does the author of this essay really want to claim that we have to take the existence of our brains on faith alone? Do I have to state the obvious, that neurosurgeons operate on humans every day, and they've never found a walking, talking human who didn't have one? Or that coroners will tell you that a bullet through your brain will make you dead?

NB: I believe you have enjoyed the Conversation ... and if so ... You'll probably want your Friends / Colleagues to enjoy the same ... won't you? Forward them to Increase their Knowledge ... or FAITH.This is the only true statement: "increase their Knowledge or faith." But not both. You can either use faith to believe stuff that can't be true, or you can use logic and reason to discover the wonders of this universe.

This essay illustrates perfectly my biggest objection to religion: it relies on ignorance and actively discourages logical thinking and true inquisitiveness. It resists education. It thwarts rational thought.

Why? Because education, logical thought and inquisitiveness are all the enemies of religion. Religious beliefs can't stand up to real scrutiny. So religion has developed all sorts of defense mechanisms to discourage learning and logic.

And that's why I keep writing. I don't know how many religious people will actually read this far, but for those of you who have, I hope I've at least given you some food for thought.

Via: The Religion Virus: Refuting the Atheist Professor vs the Christian Student
Click to expand...

chelloveck · Oct 10, 2016

An alternative conversation between an apocryphal professor and an apocryphal "student"

Lalit Mohan Chawla

24.6k answer views595 this month

Lalit Mohan Chawla
Written Apr 30, 2013
Here is the freethinker's version of the story

A professor overheard two students discussing.
Student 1:"Did God create everything that exists?"

Student 2:Yes, he did"

Student 1:If God created everything, then he created evil. Since evil exists (as noticed by our own actions), so God is evil. The student couldn't respond to that statement causing the professor to conclude that he had "proved" that "belief in God" was a fairy tale, and therefore worthless.

Professor interrupted, he said, that i am afraid is a non sequitur,
Even if god created evil, it doesn't necessarily make god evil (unless you introduce additional and compelling qualities defining god).
Even if god is evil, how does that prove that belief in god is a fairy tale (again, unless we are provided a bit of essential information about this thing called god).
Given additional qualities about god, such as the (really twisted) Judeo-Christian notion that god is all-loving, we can say that there is an inherent contradiction in an all-loving god who created evil.

Impressed by this,another student raised his hand and asked the professor, "May I pose a question? " "Of course" answered the professor.

Student: "Is there such a thing as heat, Professor?"

Professor: "Yes."

Student: "Is there such a thing as cold?"

Professor: "Yes, there's cold too."

Student: "No sir, there isn't. You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold, otherwise we would be able to go colder than 458. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat can be measured in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it."

Professor: "Good point. However, you're incorrect in your concept that cold can exist only in the absence of heat. Both heat and cold are merely comparative terms. Temperature is a real thing, which can be measured by scales, such as Fahrenheit, Centigrade, and Kelvin. Higher readings are perceived as warm by the human skin, lower ones as cold. But, heat and cold are only handy reference points, not absolute terms, and NOT dependent on the presence or absence of the other. "

Student: "Is there such a thing as darkness, Professor?"

Professor: "Yes..."

Student: "You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light but if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker and give me a jar of it. Can you give me a jar of darker darkness, Professor? My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with and so your conclusion must be in error. You are working on the premise of duality. That for example there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science cannot even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism but has never seen, much less fully understood them. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, merely the absence of it."

Professor: "I disagree. You are mistaken again, young man. Darkness is the lack of perception of any electromagnetic radiation typically called light. Just because we cannot see the radiation, does not mean it isn't present. Science helps us to realize this. Remember, the spectrum goes from infrared to ultraviolet and beyond on either end. So darkness is NOT the absence of light, merely the lack of its perception by available sensors."

The student then holds up a newspaper.

Student: "Here is one of the most disgusting tabloids this country hosts, Professor. Is there such a thing as immorality?"

Professor: "Of course there is, look..."

Student: "Wrong again, sir. You see, immorality is merely the absence of morality. Is there such thing as injustice? No. Injustice is the absence of justice. Is there such a thing as evil? Isn't evil the absence of good? If there is evil in the world, and we all agree there is, then God, if he exists, must be accomplishing a work through the agency of evil. What is that work God is accomplishing? Judaism/Christianity/Islam tells us it is to see if each and every one of us will choose good over evil. I would have thought that the absence of God's moral code in this world would be one of the most observable phenomena. Newspapers make billions of dollars reporting it every week!"

Professor: "My dear student, let me give you an example. You see, based on your argument, some would also argue that the absence of love is hate. But love only exists within the entity experiencing that feeling. If that entity does not feel love or it ceases to exist, can love still exist by itself? No. Love and hate are relative terms on a spectrum of emotional experiences caused by the brain, just as with cold, heat, light, dark, morality, immorality, justice, injustice, and whatnot. This same reasoning can apply to all emotions. In addition, ideas need not exist only in absolute extremes. When a person does not feel love, they need not feel hate either.

In the same way, some would say that war exists in the absence of peace. No. It doesn't have to be that way. There can be both an absence of peace and an absence of war at the same time. For example, people can dislike each other without attempting to kill each other. Peace and war can co-exist in the same place, and their existence does not depend on the presence or absence of the other. Life does not always work in absolute opposites.

Your last point about evil would follow the same rule. Good and evil are points along a spectrum of human moral values, and certainly the world today should show you that both good and evil can exist at the same time, in the same place, and even within a single individual. For example, there have been psychopathic serial killers who still love their dogs, or a person they're really close to and trust; and they treat them very well. So you see, they too can make good and evil decisions. Again, life doesn't have to be always in extreme absolutes."

Student: "Okay. Tell me, Professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey then? Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir? Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work or can even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching, or rather preaching, your own opinion about it, sir? Are you now not a scientist anymore, but a priest?"

Professor: "No. I don't teach nor preach to my students that they evolved from monkeys. We did not evolve from monkeys. We, like the apes, evolved from a common ancestor, not monkeys. And that common ancestor is long extinct. That's why there are still monkeys around. Believe it or not, we are still evolving. There's no telling how we would look in the far future, billions of years from now. Here, watch this video on my laptop for a better and detailed explanation on how evolution works:
1. The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution
2. If Evolution is a fact, why are there still monkeys (chimpanzees) around?
3. Religious reasoning on Evolution (cartoon version).

Experiments in evolution can also be repeated or reproduced in a laboratory. Science is based on observations. Scientist do not make claims without evidence to back them up. So, I suggest the proponents of Creationism or the idea that God created everything, read the writings of, or watch the video Cosmos by the an American scientist, Dr. Carl Sagan (1934-1996).

In one applicable part of the video, Dr. Sagan says:

“We mix together and spark the gases of the primitive Earth: hydrogen, water, ammonia methane, hydrogen sulfide all present, incidentally, on the planet Jupiter today and throughout the cosmos. The sparks correspond to lightning also present on the ancient Earth and on modern Jupiter. The reaction vessel is initially transparent: the precursor gases are entirely invisible. But after ten minutes of sparking, we see a strange brown pigment slowly streaking the sides of the vessel. The interior gradually becomes opaque, covered with a thick brown tar. If we had used ultraviolet light simulating the early Sun, the results would have been more or less the same. The tar is an extremely rich collection of complex organic molecules, including the constituent parts of proteins and nucleic acids. The stuff of life, it turns out, can be very easily made."

"Such experiments were first performed in the early 1950’s by Stanley Miller, then a graduate student of the chemist Harold Urey… Under the right circumstances in the test tube, short nucleic acids can synthesize identical copies of themselves… (Of course) no one has so far mixed together the gases and waters of the primitive Earth and at the end of the experiment had something crawl out of the test tube (yet)… But we have been performing such experiments for only some thirty years. Nature has had a four billion year head start. All in all, we have not done (too) badly.”

Student: "Yeah whatever! So... you still don't accept God's moral code to do what is righteous?"

Professor: "Which god's moral code are you talking about? Vishnu? Yahweh? Allah? JuJu? And how do you know which god's religious book (Bible/Quran/Gita/etc.) or scriptures are true and not man-made? Regardless, if you can scientifically and historically prove any of your claims, sure, why not, I will consider it."

Student: "Ahh! SCIENCE! Sir, you rightly state that science is the study of observed phenomena. Science too is a premise which is flawed.

Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen air, oxygen, molecules, atoms or even the professor's brain? (silence in class)

Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? (silence in class)

It appears no one here has had any sensory perception of the professor's brain whatsoever. Well, according to the rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol of science, I now DECLARE that the PROFESSOR has NO BRAINS!!!"

The class breaks out in laughter.

Professor: "Haha! That was very funny! However, my dear student, science can prove the existence of unseen things such as air, oxygen, molecules, atoms, gravity, electricity, electromagnetism, radio waves etc. But I'm afraid the same can't be said about your god, son. Science is not flawed. But the way in which misinformed people misuse the scientific method to DECLARE something is true is flawed. For these people, science is no longer a legitimate method based on observation and evidence. There is another name for what these people do. It's called pseudoscience or in simple terms, science fiction. And that is exactly what you are doing now, my young student. Your method of using 'science' to DECLARE that I have no brains is absolutely flawed. Let me give some examples of how to use legitimate science to discover whether or not I have a brain. You can try:
1. Brain scan.
2. Surgery.
3. The fact that I am a living being, standing in front of you, talking to you right now, and teaching you about science, reason, rationality and critical thinking would not be possible if I did not have a brain. Am I right? So widen your views and your perspectives, my child. You will learn and understand a lot more by doing so.

Science is the best tool ever devised for understanding how the world works. Science is the single most consistently reliable method we have for understanding reality. Science is a way of learning not to fool yourself. Thank you."

The class applauds the professor and the student for giving them such an entertaining and educational experience.

Sources:
http://nirmukta.net/Thread-Einstein-Proves-God-Exists
http://filipinofreethinkers.org/...
http://www.snopes.com/religion/e...
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/...
http://www.indianskeptic.com/cha...
8.6k Views · View Upvotes

Via:As an atheist, how would you respond to the following apocryphal conversation between a student and his teacher? - Quora
Click to expand...

duane · Oct 10, 2016

Is the conversation good or bad, right or wrong, true or false? I don't really care. I happen to believe in a God, find it comforting, and really could care less what anyone else thinks. I am not out to make anyone else a disciple of mine or of my beliefs, don't wish to convert the rest of the world to my beliefs, could care less what their beliefs are as long as they don't effect me in a negative way, and really would like it if they didn't try to convert me either through persuasion, legal tactics or the use of force. Is the sun going to come up in a few hours? I really hope so as if it doesn't, I don't think my preps will do me much good. Do I really know why it will come up? Well it could be God's will, the rotation of the earth, thermonuclear reactions in the sun, etc. It would be really nice if it does come up and I don't really care why as long as it does and I don't freeze, burn, die of radiation, my greenhouse and gardens keep on working, I can see to do things, etc. I guess it boils down to faith, I believe in God, some believe in science, some in their next drunk or fix and ignore the whole subject, some don't have the resources or the ability to worry about it, and I guess in the grand scheme of things, what I believe or think really doesn't matter. Don't try to lecture the cat, he could care less, it irritates him, and he really isn't going to change his habits.

john316 · Oct 10, 2016

chelloveck why are you so mad at God

chelloveck · Oct 10, 2016

john316 said: ↑

chelloveck why are you so mad at God
Click to expand...

Goodness john....By god, I'm assuming that you are referring to the Abrahamic god....is there any other? No, john...I'm not angry at god...any more than I am angry at Vishnu, Thor, Jupiter, Osiris, Chronos or any other deity for that matter....it makes no sense to be angry at entities for which there is scant evidence for their existence, other than as figures in human myths, legends, fables and fantasies.

If I have any lack of patience, it is with smug, self serving theistic apologetics that are badly argued and that are riddled with logical fallacies...such as the OP referenced apocryphal battle between a big bad professor, and a smug, snotty, not very bright, scientifically illiterate student. I prefer to believe in as many true things as I can, and as few false things as I can....for some, that is not so important, as merely believing the world view that they feel comfortable with, regardless of what is true, and what is false.

I think Zinnia Jones explains it more eloquently than I have.

"Are atheists “angry at God”?

People have sometimes tried to discredit atheists by claiming that they’re just “angry at God”. It’s meant to dismiss nonbelief as merely a personal issue of sorts, something that’s the result of a bad experience or a bad attitude. Apparently it just isn’t possible for someone to genuinely not believe in a god – as if this belief is so universal that those of us who profess otherwise must be deceiving even ourselves. That’s very presumptuous on the part of believers, no matter what their faith. Surprising as it may be, it’s not as if everyone secretly believes in your god.

In case it isn’t obvious, atheists are not “angry” at something we don’t believe in. That would make no sense. But when believers treat a difference in views as pathological in nature, it allows them to refuse to consider the actual merits of the position they don’t agree with. And without even listening to someone else’s perspective, it’s easy to see why they might not understand what atheists do take issue with. Just because we’re angry – and not all of us are – it doesn’t mean we must be angry at your god. What we do object to is the belief in a god, which is the only sense in which “God” can be said to exist: as a concept in people’s minds. When we look at how people act on this belief, we do get angry. And there’s a reason for that.

We’re angry at how religion is treated as a license to ignore reality. We’ve seen how faith is used to elevate beliefs from complete uncertainty to complete certainty, simply by choosing to believe. And that bothers us. We find it absurd that mere strength of belief is considered sufficient to constitute knowledge, and we’re outraged by what this has been used to justify. We’re angry about how religious texts are regarded as unimpeachably authoritative for no reason other than the belief that they are. We’re upset with how this is allowed to take precedence over actual facts about science, history, medicine, sexual health, and reproduction. We’re shocked when religious claims with no evidence behind them are considered just as good as empirical knowledge and actual research.

We’re angry when believers center their ethics around something totally unproven rather than real-world concerns. We’re angry when they argue in favor of eternal torture as a valid form of justice. We’re angry at how religious beliefs offer a divine stamp of approval to completely human failings, and give believers permission to hate people and even kill people – all the while, assured beyond a doubt that this is what God wants. And we’re sickened when they try to claim a monopoly on morality, as if we need all of this to be an ethical person.

We’re angry when they don’t treat our life on earth with the respect that it deserves, because they don’t realize that this is the only life we get. We’re disgusted by all of the conflict that’s resulted from disagreements over something that isn’t even real. And we’re very angry when they tell us we shouldn’t say it isn’t real, when there’s never been any evidence of it. We’re angry when believers act like a lack of faith is something wrong with us, as if refusing to believe in something when there’s no reason to must be a character flaw of some sort. We’re angry that the unquestioning acceptance of religious claims, with no standards whatsoever, is treated as something to aspire to. And we’re just astonished that so much of the world has come to revolve around what people believe about something that doesn’t even exist, and who can believe it harder. We’re tired of it.

We’re sick of the bottom-of-the-barrel expectations for reasons to believe in things, the intellectual dishonesty excused by faith, the mistreatment of our fellow human beings, the endless reserves of gullibility, the disregard for evidence, and the denial of reality – and all of it for nothing.

Yes, we’re angry – not with God, but with belief. And we have every right to be. Twisting this into a personal attack against those who don’t believe in gods only serves as a way of ignoring actual objections to religion. Treating any disagreement with your beliefs as nothing more than someone’s issues is just condescending and arrogant. A valid position should be able to withstand dissent, without having to run away from it or write it off as some kind of dysfunction. And if you’d like to know what atheists are really angry about, maybe you should try listening."
Are atheists "angry at God"? - Zinnia Jones
Click to expand...

chelloveck · Oct 10, 2016

duane said: ↑

Don't try to lecture the cat, he could care less, it irritates him, and he really isn't going to change his habits
Click to expand...

Who is lecturing a cat?? I'm planting seeds....who knows, some may germinate, and start the processes of doubt, and enquiry. Such are the beginnings of apostasy, and the shucking off of religious belief. The thing is....a person's beliefs can change...even if a cat might not have any beliefs other than that the person they own is slack at feeding it.

Usually a person's beliefs don't change as a consequence of a single, brilliantly constructed intellectual argument....it, will often change however when a person absorbs and processes new information that brings into question the underpinnings of the original religious faith paradigm (that is the basis upon which converting people from believing one god and religion to a different god and religion relies.)....those uncomfortable doubts and new insights may alter a person's existing beliefs to a new set of beliefs, at variance to the person's original worldview.

I was once a very devout, pious Christian, but it was only with a critical evaluation of the truth claims made in the Bible (unmediated by clerics or religious apologists) that my commitment to faith in Christianity unraveled. It no longer made any rational sense. The kind of simplistic and dishonest theistic apologetics typified in the OP apocryphal story made the whole business of believing an unbelievable creed less and less tenable, to the point that I had to recognize that I was no longer a theist, let alone a Christian theist...and so here I am. winnowing the chaff: what is bad from good, what is wrong from right, and what is false from what is true. It does matter to me; and it should matter to those who value what is good, what is right, and what is true.

arleigh · Oct 10, 2016

Jesus provided something far better then faith , He provided the Holy Spirit to dwell in and teach those committed to God, in Jesus name.
This guidance transcends any knowledge one can gather in human terms, and serves others God is ministering to.
Some one that has no actual commitment to God there is no obligation on His part to respond in any way .
Being religious has little, if any thing, to do with it.
God know's the heart of man. they that do not respect the fact, even being religious, have the most trouble in their concept of God . This is why academics are NOT a relationship , the are a distraction.
Men are so deceitful among one another they assume to be deceitful with God .
God hates lies an false fronts shifting blame and excuses. Stark contrast by the way to Allah
People with these issues usually never see any thing of God in their life, because they have lived in a world of deception. even self deception. Allah works in deception and lies. fact.
Atheist's have faith in men that teach their version of science but have not take the time to discover if what they are told are actually fact them self.
I do not take for granted what some preacher had told me to believe. I sought God on my own, determined to know Him, and serve Him in a relationship He provided for me.
Those that propose them selves paleontologist, have built creatures out of speculation on a fragment, not fact, and handed it to the world as though it were fact.
People that want to believe in evolution, resistant to believing in God, buy into it with more faith than christianity, completely dependent on some one's speculation .
Also why would some one want to discourage another from believing in God , if that person actually has a belief the includes behaving because God is always aware. encouraging them to behave with greater morals.
Do people with a higher regard to the values and morals offend ?
Why would any one want more wicked people around ?

chimo · Oct 10, 2016

Wow, @chelloveck really gets mad when people seem to attack his religion.

BTPost · Oct 10, 2016

So..... Water is Wet, and What else is A Given.....

Bandit99 · Oct 10, 2016

Personally, I think God gets all the blame for religions that do all these crazy things in his name or because it was written in some book a thousand years ago, I wonder about that publisher/editor... So, for me, I believe in God but not religion - if that makes any sense. Religion in my opinion has a lot to atone for...and cannot be trusted. I do understand an atheist's viewpoint and in return I hope that they can understand mine but if not - well - I have lost nothing...but them? Perhaps. And, we'll all know soon enough...

Brokor · Oct 10, 2016

I think it's wise not to poke Chello on this subject since he's been civil and hasn't resorted to being abrasive.
I think it is good to have debate and sincere discussion on religion, or else it would be quite boring if it was only one-sided praise and worship. So long as it is civil, I am content.

On the subject, I did have a thought or two. I remember first reading The Age of Reason, by Thomas Paine. It helped me to recognize some of the fallacies of religion and the attraction that mystery, prophecy, and the promise of an afterlife offer.

Sgt Nambu · Oct 10, 2016

That was absolutely....well...awesome! IMHO!!!

chelloveck · Oct 10, 2016

chimo said: ↑

Wow, @chelloveck really gets mad when people seem to attack his religion.
Click to expand...

Nobody in this thread thus far has attacked my non-religion or non theistic beliefs, even if some have made ham fisted efforts at demonstrating their understanding of science, evolution, and their own faith's claims to moral superiority, et al: but if it suits your purpose to suggest that I am angry...then that is on you; not on me, nor on others. And what would my religion be, that you perceive me to be so angry about others attacking???

Bandit99 said: ↑

God gets all the blame for religions that do all these crazy things in his name or because it was written in some book a thousand years ago.."
Click to expand...

On the other hand, gods get all the kudos for religions that do all the beneficial stuff done in his/her/its/their name(s), or because it was written in some book a thousand years ago. I find it difficult to give a hide-and-go-seek Teflon god much worshipful adoration when his/her/its/their believers do awful, cruddy things....yet bask in all the glory of the wonderful things that their followers do. If there were a Nuremburg type tribunal for godly crimes against humanity....there would be a number of gods who would be most worthy of indictment....the evidence is there, readily to be seen in the great sacred texts.

marlas1too · Oct 10, 2016

the Great Spirit does not give me what I want but the great spirit gives me what I need---that what I have faith in--------don't need to see the great spirit to know he,s there

Ganado · Oct 10, 2016

Well that was an interesting debate.

I liked it because a student stood up to a professor's pseudo logic and out did him with more pseudo logic.

Belief and logic are separate components that make up what it is to be human. Even lack of belief is a belief.

chelloveck · Oct 10, 2016

A lack of belief is simply a lack of belief, the reasons underpinning a lack of belief, may involve some belief perhaps, but ....one may as well say non stamp collecting is stamp collecting. I have a lack of belief in many things....mostly because I have never given any conscious thought to issues unknown or unknowable to me (yet), that may have given rise to any kind of belief, one way or t'other.

ghrit · Oct 10, 2016

chelloveck said: ↑

A lack of belief is simply a lack of belief, the reasons underpinning a lack of belief, may involve some belief perhaps, but ....one may as well say non stamp collecting is stamp collecting. I have a lack of belief in many things....mostly because I have never given any conscious thought to issues unknown or unknowable to me (yet), that may have given rise to any kind of belief, one way or t'other.
Click to expand...

That's laden with depth unknown. But I painted it blue.

chelloveck · Oct 11, 2016

ghrit said: ↑

That's laden with depth unknown. But I painted it blue.
Click to expand...

If you hold the belief that it should be painted blue....then knock yourself out...paint it blue: if you lack a belief that it should be painted blue, then you are free to not paint it any colour at all, or to paint it any colour at all, other than the colour(s) that you lack the belief that it should be painted. Or you could just do a Jackson Pollock and..... it if that is what you believe. Who knows, it might be worth something in 50 years time.

GhostX · Oct 11, 2016

arleigh said: ↑

Jesus provided something far better then faith , He provided the Holy Spirit to dwell in and teach those committed to God, in Jesus name.
This guidance transcends any knowledge one can gather in human terms, and serves others God is ministering to.
Some one that has no actual commitment to God there is no obligation on His part to respond in any way .
Being religious has little, if any thing, to do with it.
God know's the heart of man. they that do not respect the fact, even being religious, have the most trouble in their concept of God . This is why academics are NOT a relationship , the are a distraction.
Men are so deceitful among one another they assume to be deceitful with God .
God hates lies an false fronts shifting blame and excuses. Stark contrast by the way to Allah
People with these issues usually never see any thing of God in their life, because they have lived in a world of deception. even self deception. Allah works in deception and lies. fact.
Atheist's have faith in men that teach their version of science but have not take the time to discover if what they are told are actually fact them self.
I do not take for granted what some preacher had told me to believe. I sought God on my own, determined to know Him, and serve Him in a relationship He provided for me.
Those that propose them selves paleontologist, have built creatures out of speculation on a fragment, not fact, and handed it to the world as though it were fact.
People that want to believe in evolution, resistant to believing in God, buy into it with more faith than christianity, completely dependent on some one's speculation .
Also why would some one want to discourage another from believing in God , if that person actually has a belief the includes behaving because God is always aware. encouraging them to behave with greater morals.
Do people with a higher regard to the values and morals offend ?
Why would any one want more wicked people around ?
Click to expand...

I used to be a Christian and I remained a Christian as I began to question my beliefs. The science of evolution was something I looked at with scepticism at first but I managed to keep an open mind. I began to realize that I acquired my faith not through any kind of logic or reason but because that's just what I was taught to believe since I was a kid. It was at this point that I was able to step out side of the box of Christianity and look at it for what it is. It seems that getting outside of the box is the hardest part for most people because most people see it as a way of "admitting defeat". Well I had nothing to prove to myself besides the truth of my own existence on this earth. My faith was based on things that were told to me as they were stated in a book. I did quite a bit of study with the bible when I was a kid and around the time that I began questioning my faith I referred back to it often. It was then that I began to compare the bible to reality and I realized how it doesn't quite match. Not in the way that the theory of evolution does.

Sure, I understand. A planet just randomly coming into existence from a cosmic event which places it at the precise distance from the Sun to freeze and melt H2O is a 1 in 1,000,000,000 x etc. event. But I still find it easier to believe than the idea of a divine consciousness that suddenly decided he was bored and wanted to make life... and then just kind of watches everything play out like a soap opera. I'm sorry but I personally need more solid fact to go on and evolution provides that for me. No, it is not a religion and please don't call it that! I hate it when people do that because it has no guide for a code or morality. The closest thing to a religion evolution has ever been was eugenics. Eugenics is a mockery of evolution in my opinion and simply a way that Hitler attempted to manipulate his people. Eugenics is what you get if you try to treat evolution as a collective religion with an "only the strong will prevail" mindset. I'm sure that is the reason that evolution is demonized by many.

I apply evolution in a different way in my life than I think most people would. It could be because I'm formerly a Christian that I have my philosophy structured as I do but I have made my philosophy my own and evolution is at its foundation. It's simple, I try to live to be the kind of person that I would hope my future children will be. It encourages me to be a good person since I realize that basically everything that makes me me will be passed onto them. I also try to take my time with finding a mate and do soul searching to determine who I want to make up the other side of my child's genetics. It's important to me that my child has a good future... it seems to be a concept lost with most people today including theists.

I also have a belief in an afterlife which some people might find unique among atheists. I just want to remind you that ALL "atheism" means is: the absence of a belief in a god or deity.

Log in or Sign up

Evolution and is God Evil

Ganado Monkey+++

chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

duane Monkey+++

john316 Monkey+++

chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

arleigh Goophy monkey

chimo the few, the proud, the jarhead monkey crowd

BTPost Stumpy Old Fart,Deadman Walking, Snow Monkey Moderator

Bandit99 Monkey+++ Site Supporter+

Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

Sgt Nambu RIP 4/19/2018

chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

marlas1too Monkey+++

Ganado Monkey+++

chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

GhostX Monkey

Log in or Sign up

Evolution and is God Evil

Ganado Monkey+++

chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

duane Monkey+++

john316 Monkey+++

chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

arleigh Goophy monkey

chimo the few, the proud, the jarhead monkey crowd

BTPost Stumpy Old Fart,Deadman Walking, Snow Monkey Moderator

Bandit99 Monkey+++ Site Supporter+

Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

Sgt Nambu RIP 4/19/2018

chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

marlas1too Monkey+++

Ganado Monkey+++

chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

GhostX Monkey

Useful Searches