Christians vs. nonChristians on issues
-
No, there is real evidence. Wjousts wrote: "the bible says...." I do get frustrated with Christians who think they prove that God exists because Genesis 1:1 says it. Can you say circular logic? Wjousts wrote: "look how wonderful the world is, I just can't imagine how it couldn't have been created by a divine being...." Although that is true, there's much more than that. I do think it's ridiculous to think that everything you see is the result of a big explosion and random coincidence. At the surface, this statement "look how wonderful..." appears cheesy and a cop out, and most people who use it haven't really looked into the Design argument, but there is validity to the truth behind it. Wjousts wrote: "I was given 6 months to live and that was 6 years ago..."? If it's the latter, I'll pass I'll pass, too. Doesn't prove anything.
J. Eric Vaughan wrote: Although that is true, there's much more than that. I do think it's ridiculous to think that everything you see is the result of a big explosion and random coincidence. Then you don't understand the vastness of the universe, the vastness of time and the laws of statistics. J. Eric Vaughan wrote: and most people who use it haven't really looked into the Design argument, but there is validity to the truth behind it. No there is no validity to the design argument. It's a "god of the gaps" argument, an argument from ignorance.
-
jhwurmbach wrote: You are forcing the rather lengthy string returned by TheBibleStatesHomosexualityIsWrong() into a bool Incorrect, the function returns a boolean and its value is TRUE. The Bible clearly states that the act of homosexuality is wrong (old and new testament). Where many Christians fall down is the same Bible also says that we should love everyone, including homosexuals. That, however, doesn't mean Christians should condone the act. Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs I thought I wanted a career, turns out I just wanted paychecks
the bible also says adultery is a capital crime. do we get to pick and choose the crimes and the punishments we like? Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
-
Figured it was just a fundamentalist thing - 'Revealed' vs 'Inspired'. I guess the latter leaves a lot more room for debate. Interestingly mainstream Islamic theology treats the Quran as the revealed word of god, and not derived from Jewish and Chistian beliefs. But then, I don't think that causes his argument to be voided because I know what he intended to say. Just doing the pesky athiest thing :) Ryan
I think if God had written the Bible Himself it would have been rather more consistant. The way eunuchs are treated is a case in point - initially excluded from God's Kingdom, but later welcomed. There's an interesting study at http://www.reference-guides.com/isbe/E/EUNUCH/[^] which gives some useful historical background to the Biblical texts on this subject. However, the one unchanging constant is Jesus' Message of love, compassion and respect. That's the principle I endeavour to live my life by above all else. Anna :rose: Homepage | Tears and Laughter "Be yourself - not what others think you should be" - Marcia Graesch "Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart" - A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work. Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Visual C++ Add-In
-
J. Eric Vaughan wrote: Although that is true, there's much more than that. I do think it's ridiculous to think that everything you see is the result of a big explosion and random coincidence. Then you don't understand the vastness of the universe, the vastness of time and the laws of statistics. J. Eric Vaughan wrote: and most people who use it haven't really looked into the Design argument, but there is validity to the truth behind it. No there is no validity to the design argument. It's a "god of the gaps" argument, an argument from ignorance.
Wjousts wrote: vastness of the universe, the vastness of time and the laws of statistics Sorry, but last I heard, neither of the above can overcome a little thing they call Second Law of Thermodynamics, otherwise know as, "ever increasing entropy". The vastness of time would do the exact opposite of what is being claimed. Things would spead out and become more disorderly, not orderly. When they disprove that Law, I'll re-think at least this one argument.
-
the bible also says adultery is a capital crime. do we get to pick and choose the crimes and the punishments we like? Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
No, I feel that should be illegal also. Of course, I know I'll receive a lot of flak for this, but I said it :)
-
Richard Stringer wrote: Botha (A) and )B) will blow the socks off the basis of most mainstream religions Let's think about this for a minute... (A) Man creates life... OK, so that proves that intelligent beings can create life. How does that prove that an intelligent being did NOT create life. (B) What does life on other planets prove? If God could create it here, why not somewhere else? Note: Neither (A) nor (B) has happened. If (A) or (B) NEVER happen, will that convince you that God exists? How long will you wait? Sorry, but you'll have to come up with something better that hypotheticals about what evidence we MAYBE, MIGHT find in the future.
J. Eric Vaughan wrote: (A) Man creates life... OK, so that proves that intelligent beings can create life. How does that prove that an intelligent being did NOT create life. It would prove that you don't need God to create life and all religions basically say that God created the universe and all things in it. If man can obtain God like powers then perhaps WE are Gods. J. Eric Vaughan wrote: Note: Neither (A) nor (B) has happened. If (A) or (B) NEVER happen, will that convince you that God exists? How long will you wait? I never said that God does not exist ( although I do think that it cannot be demonstrated ) and A and B WILL happen. Its not even farfetched or waiting for some scientific breakthrough - A can happen anytime a research lab with some cajones wants it to happen ( and bring the wrath of the world down on thier heads ) and B is almost a mathamatical certainity given the size and relative smoothness of the universe. J. Eric Vaughan wrote: Sorry, but you'll have to come up with something better that hypotheticals about what evidence we MAYBE, MIGHT find in the future. Humand knowledge is increasing exponitionaly - not lineraly. We are close to another paradigm shift similar to what the invention of the IC was except that this time the area of interest is genetics and its ancillary effects on biology and medicine. We are tinkering with the very source of life itself. Be a Luddite if you must but it is coming like a freight train. Combine this with the new science of nano technology and our ever increasing knowledge base of how proteins work and interact and let your mind run free with what we will be able to accomplish in the next 100 years. Its gonna make the 20'th century look small in comparision. In 1900 the average life expectancy was 49 years - in 2000 it was 77 - an increase of 28 years. Wonder what it will be in a century that WILL see the invention of a real working artifical heart ( or maybe a clone heart grown in the lab), the probable end of cancer and most autoimmune diseases, vastly improved antibiotics and antivirals due to increased understanding of how they work on a genetic level, nano surgery, etc.. man I was born too early. God , if he/she does exist , is rapidly losing his/her power to amaze. Richard "The man that hath not music in himself and is not moved with concord of sweet sounds is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils; Let no man trust him."
-
Richard Stringer wrote: Can you do this without resorting to the nonproveable therefore ambiguious state called "faith" ? There is a serious misunderstanding (even among Christians) about what "faith" means. Faith is not some ambiguous state. It just means I've seen evidence that causes me to believe something is true even though I have not personally "witnessed" or seen it. In a courtroom, no one in the jury (hopefully) witnessed the actual crime. But they can be convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the crime was committed by a certain individual. Because of evidence. I've been convinced beyond a reason doubt that God created everything. Because of evidence. Not in spite (which is how most people view "faith"). Humanists, atheists, or anyone else who denies the existance of God ignore that fact that their belief is exactly that: belief. They weren't there in the beginning to witness it. So their conclusions are based on the facts that they have gathered, and they accept their conclusion by "faith" since they were there when it happened.
J. Eric Vaughan wrote: There is a serious misunderstanding (even among Christians) about what "faith" means. Faith is not some ambiguous state. The Bible disagrees with you: ‘Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.’ Hebrews Chapter 11 Verse 1 J. Eric Vaughan wrote: In a courtroom, no one in the jury (hopefully) witnessed the actual crime. But they can be convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt" But there must be PROVEN facts that link and individual to a crime. It must be demonstrated that he and he alone could have committed the crime. Faith does not require this and as the definition above shows anything that can be proven falls outside of the pervue of "faith". Richard "The man that hath not music in himself and is not moved with concord of sweet sounds is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils; Let no man trust him." Shakespeare
-
J. Eric Vaughan wrote: (A) Man creates life... OK, so that proves that intelligent beings can create life. How does that prove that an intelligent being did NOT create life. It would prove that you don't need God to create life and all religions basically say that God created the universe and all things in it. If man can obtain God like powers then perhaps WE are Gods. J. Eric Vaughan wrote: Note: Neither (A) nor (B) has happened. If (A) or (B) NEVER happen, will that convince you that God exists? How long will you wait? I never said that God does not exist ( although I do think that it cannot be demonstrated ) and A and B WILL happen. Its not even farfetched or waiting for some scientific breakthrough - A can happen anytime a research lab with some cajones wants it to happen ( and bring the wrath of the world down on thier heads ) and B is almost a mathamatical certainity given the size and relative smoothness of the universe. J. Eric Vaughan wrote: Sorry, but you'll have to come up with something better that hypotheticals about what evidence we MAYBE, MIGHT find in the future. Humand knowledge is increasing exponitionaly - not lineraly. We are close to another paradigm shift similar to what the invention of the IC was except that this time the area of interest is genetics and its ancillary effects on biology and medicine. We are tinkering with the very source of life itself. Be a Luddite if you must but it is coming like a freight train. Combine this with the new science of nano technology and our ever increasing knowledge base of how proteins work and interact and let your mind run free with what we will be able to accomplish in the next 100 years. Its gonna make the 20'th century look small in comparision. In 1900 the average life expectancy was 49 years - in 2000 it was 77 - an increase of 28 years. Wonder what it will be in a century that WILL see the invention of a real working artifical heart ( or maybe a clone heart grown in the lab), the probable end of cancer and most autoimmune diseases, vastly improved antibiotics and antivirals due to increased understanding of how they work on a genetic level, nano surgery, etc.. man I was born too early. God , if he/she does exist , is rapidly losing his/her power to amaze. Richard "The man that hath not music in himself and is not moved with concord of sweet sounds is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils; Let no man trust him."
Richard Stringer wrote: It would prove that you don't need God to create life No it doesn't. You've shown that intelligence can create life. That's far from proving that life can be created by unintelligent material randomly bumping against each other. Richard Stringer wrote: B is almost a mathamatical certainity Cool! I honestly look forward to finding life elsewhere. It fascinates me completely. It doesn't scare my faith. I would be excited to know there are other being out there. There are so many technical diffculties in contacting/visiting them, but I think it would be great to see how God has dealt with them through time. Richard Stringer wrote: God , if he/she does exist , is rapidly losing his/her power to amaze. I'm truly sorry... :((
-
No, there is real evidence. Wjousts wrote: "the bible says...." I do get frustrated with Christians who think they prove that God exists because Genesis 1:1 says it. Can you say circular logic? Wjousts wrote: "look how wonderful the world is, I just can't imagine how it couldn't have been created by a divine being...." Although that is true, there's much more than that. I do think it's ridiculous to think that everything you see is the result of a big explosion and random coincidence. At the surface, this statement "look how wonderful..." appears cheesy and a cop out, and most people who use it haven't really looked into the Design argument, but there is validity to the truth behind it. Wjousts wrote: "I was given 6 months to live and that was 6 years ago..."? If it's the latter, I'll pass I'll pass, too. Doesn't prove anything.
J. Eric Vaughan wrote: and most people who use it haven't really looked into the Design argument, but there is validity to the truth behind it. The Design argument is not required for existence, and in fact isn't a particularly great argument for the existence of $DEITY. a) If you're arguing design as Paley described it, Hume raised several objections to it. b) if you're arguing design as Dembski and Behe describe it, you might want to read this http://www.talkdesign.org/[^] website. I do not accept the premise $DEITY or aliens from another dimension have designed me - I believe it to be faulty.
Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
-
Wjousts wrote: vastness of the universe, the vastness of time and the laws of statistics Sorry, but last I heard, neither of the above can overcome a little thing they call Second Law of Thermodynamics, otherwise know as, "ever increasing entropy". The vastness of time would do the exact opposite of what is being claimed. Things would spead out and become more disorderly, not orderly. When they disprove that Law, I'll re-think at least this one argument.
J. Eric Vaughan wrote: "ever increasing entropy". Not a physics major are we :) Does this law apply univerally or is it different for closed and open systems. You do the homework. J. Eric Vaughan wrote: When they disprove that Law, I'll re-think at least this one argument. Start rethinking http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo[^] http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html[^] And the list goes on and on. Google is your friend Richard "The man that hath not music in himself and is not moved with concord of sweet sounds is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils; Let no man trust him." Shakespeare
-
Wjousts wrote: vastness of the universe, the vastness of time and the laws of statistics Sorry, but last I heard, neither of the above can overcome a little thing they call Second Law of Thermodynamics, otherwise know as, "ever increasing entropy". The vastness of time would do the exact opposite of what is being claimed. Things would spead out and become more disorderly, not orderly. When they disprove that Law, I'll re-think at least this one argument.
J. Eric Vaughan wrote: Sorry, but last I heard, neither of the above can overcome a little thing they call Second Law of Thermodynamics, otherwise know as, "ever increasing entropy". The vastness of time would do the exact opposite of what is being claimed. Things would spead out and become more disorderly, not orderly. When they disprove that Law, I'll re-think at least this one argument. Oops. Common pop-science mistake one (this error is frequently made by Creationists, BTW) I am not a physicist. But I do know that the Second Law of Thermodynamics does allow for a "local" increase of order (or reduction of entropy) in a closed system, providing that the system as a whole has a net increase of entropy. This is why there's plenty of organisation on Earth, because we're "local" to the closed system of the universe. And Earth can continue to have any level of organisation and not automatically lose it for as long as there is a greater amount of energy we can use coming from elsewhere (eg, the Sun). I'm sure a physicist will be able to cast that argument more accurately, but the essence is right.
Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
-
J. Eric Vaughan wrote: There is a serious misunderstanding (even among Christians) about what "faith" means. Faith is not some ambiguous state. The Bible disagrees with you: ‘Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.’ Hebrews Chapter 11 Verse 1 J. Eric Vaughan wrote: In a courtroom, no one in the jury (hopefully) witnessed the actual crime. But they can be convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt" But there must be PROVEN facts that link and individual to a crime. It must be demonstrated that he and he alone could have committed the crime. Faith does not require this and as the definition above shows anything that can be proven falls outside of the pervue of "faith". Richard "The man that hath not music in himself and is not moved with concord of sweet sounds is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils; Let no man trust him." Shakespeare
Richard Stringer wrote: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.’ Hebrews Chapter 11 Verse 1 Unfortunately, that is King James' rendering of that verse, and does not not capture the meaning as well as it could. This verse says nothing about evidence (if you look in the original Greek). When it says it is the "substance" of thing hoped for, it means it is the basis of our hope. Because we believe things to be true, we have hope of a better future. "Evidence" (elegchos) is better rendered "conviction". Faith is the conviction of things not seen. I am convinced of something that I've not seen. I've never seen Paris, but I am convinced or convicted that it exists. Richard Stringer wrote: anything that can be proven falls outside of the pervue of "faith". That's not what faith means. Faith is AWLAYS based on fact. If it's not, it's what we Christians call "blind-faith", not true faith
-
J. Eric Vaughan wrote: Sorry, but last I heard, neither of the above can overcome a little thing they call Second Law of Thermodynamics, otherwise know as, "ever increasing entropy". The vastness of time would do the exact opposite of what is being claimed. Things would spead out and become more disorderly, not orderly. When they disprove that Law, I'll re-think at least this one argument. Oops. Common pop-science mistake one (this error is frequently made by Creationists, BTW) I am not a physicist. But I do know that the Second Law of Thermodynamics does allow for a "local" increase of order (or reduction of entropy) in a closed system, providing that the system as a whole has a net increase of entropy. This is why there's plenty of organisation on Earth, because we're "local" to the closed system of the universe. And Earth can continue to have any level of organisation and not automatically lose it for as long as there is a greater amount of energy we can use coming from elsewhere (eg, the Sun). I'm sure a physicist will be able to cast that argument more accurately, but the essence is right.
Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
Just curious, where do you think the extra entropy went to? Is there another universe "catching" our universe's entropy? Stating that the universe is closed implies there is a system larger than it. But I thought the universe was a term used to describe everything that exists. I'm sure I'm probably confused on this, and will welcome elightenment.
-
I think if God had written the Bible Himself it would have been rather more consistant. The way eunuchs are treated is a case in point - initially excluded from God's Kingdom, but later welcomed. There's an interesting study at http://www.reference-guides.com/isbe/E/EUNUCH/[^] which gives some useful historical background to the Biblical texts on this subject. However, the one unchanging constant is Jesus' Message of love, compassion and respect. That's the principle I endeavour to live my life by above all else. Anna :rose: Homepage | Tears and Laughter "Be yourself - not what others think you should be" - Marcia Graesch "Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart" - A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work. Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Visual C++ Add-In
Anna-Jayne Metcalfe wrote: However, the one unchanging constant is Jesus' Message of love, compassion and respect. That's the principle I endeavour to live my life by above all else. No argument there. I try to live by Bill and Ted's version of The Golden Rule:
"Be excellent to each other"(And party on! :-D)
Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
-
J. Eric Vaughan wrote: "ever increasing entropy". Not a physics major are we :) Does this law apply univerally or is it different for closed and open systems. You do the homework. J. Eric Vaughan wrote: When they disprove that Law, I'll re-think at least this one argument. Start rethinking http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo[^] http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html[^] And the list goes on and on. Google is your friend Richard "The man that hath not music in himself and is not moved with concord of sweet sounds is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils; Let no man trust him." Shakespeare
Richard Stringer wrote: Not a physics major are we Wrong. :) I have a bachelor's in Physics and minor in Math. ;P:) I just got bored with Physics, and fell in love with computers. I appreciate the links and I will read them.
-
Anna-Jayne Metcalfe wrote: However, the one unchanging constant is Jesus' Message of love, compassion and respect. That's the principle I endeavour to live my life by above all else. No argument there. I try to live by Bill and Ted's version of The Golden Rule:
"Be excellent to each other"(And party on! :-D)
Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
Ian Darling wrote: I try to live by Bill and Ted's version of The Golden Rule: Who do you think inspired them? ;) Anna :rose: Homepage | Tears and Laughter "Be yourself - not what others think you should be" - Marcia Graesch "Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart" - A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work. Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Visual C++ Add-In
-
Just curious, where do you think the extra entropy went to? Is there another universe "catching" our universe's entropy? Stating that the universe is closed implies there is a system larger than it. But I thought the universe was a term used to describe everything that exists. I'm sure I'm probably confused on this, and will welcome elightenment.
J. Eric Vaughan wrote: Just curious, where do you think the extra entropy went to? Is there another universe "catching" our universe's entropy? Stating that the universe is closed implies there is a system larger than it. But I thought the universe was a term used to describe everything that exists. I'm sure I'm probably confused on this, and will welcome elightenment. Entropy doesn't "go" anywhere. AFAIK It's a measurement of the useable (ordered) energy in a system. There doesn't need to be a system larger than it. I'll reverse your proposal. If the universe is an open system, doesn't that mean we can gain usable energy from outside it from the "parent" system? In that case, doesn't that also stuff up your point that there is an increase of entropy [edited] consistently across the universe?
Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
-
Ian Darling wrote: I try to live by Bill and Ted's version of The Golden Rule: Who do you think inspired them? ;) Anna :rose: Homepage | Tears and Laughter "Be yourself - not what others think you should be" - Marcia Graesch "Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart" - A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work. Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Visual C++ Add-In
Anna-Jayne Metcalfe wrote: Who do you think inspired them? So-crates? :-D
Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
-
I've been reading the message boards for a good while now without getting too involved. Certain subject seem to come up over and over and we have conservative "Bible-thumpers" arguing with liberal "go-what-feels-gooders" over morality issues. It seems that everyone is missing the point. :sigh: Noone will ever win the argument if we focus on just the issues. It's worldviews that have to be discussed and fought. I'm a conservative Christian. I hear a lot about how "close-minded" Christians are. Well, yeah, in a sense they are. But in the same way non-Christians are. You're convinced you're right and Christians are convinced they are right. What we have here is a failure to communicate.... Here's how the Christian's worldview affects his view on, say, homosexuality:
if ( DoesGodExist() )
{
if ( GodWroteTheBible() )
{
if ( TheBibleStatesHomosexualityIsWrong() )
{
bHomosexualityIsWrong = true;
}
}
}Once the Christian gets inside he can't get a different answer. You can make all types of statements about "love knows no bounds", blah, blah, blah, but to the Christian this function still returns true To change a Christian's mind you have to get the the first three conditionals to fail, before you can ever convince him that homosexuality is OK. So the Christin's "close-mindedness" is only inside the inner if loop. I'm not afraid of studying the if statements to see if they return true or not. So far, I've put a lot of study into it and I'm conviced that they do. You will have to do a lot of convincing to get my answers to change, but as an honest truth seeker, I'm willing to study and even admit weaknesses in my own arguments, and ultimately change my mind if the truth demands it. And Christians are hard-pressed to convince anybody that anything is wrong without first proving that the 1st three conditional return true. Once they accept those, they'll be no more argument. This is why I avoid arguments about these types of issues. All you do is get frustrated and go nowhere. We're missing the point. Sorry for such a long post. :-O Had to get this of my chest. :) There.. I feel better now...
I was concerned for a moment that this was about everyone against me.... J. Eric Vaughan wrote: What we have here is a failure to communicate.... Some men, you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. ( sorry, couldn't resist ) J. Eric Vaughan wrote: Here's how the Christian's worldview affects his view on, say, homosexuality: You're probably right, but your pseudo code is in error. It should look like this: if (bThereIsAGod && bGodWroteTheBible && bTheBibleSaysHomosexualityIsUnacceptable && nNumberOfPracticingHomosexualsInTheChurch) // This is C++, so the number at the end is true if it's not zero { ASSERT("We've made a mess of things"); } J. Eric Vaughan wrote: To change a Christian's mind you have to get the the first three conditionals to fail, before you can ever convince him that homosexuality is OK. Probably, and what really needs to happen is for Christians to learn from Jesus' example. Heterosexual immorality is also wrong in the church, but Jesus did not shun or attack the woman caught in adultery. He *did* tell her to 'go and sin no more', but he didn't treat her with revulsion or horror. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
Richard Stringer wrote: Not a physics major are we Wrong. :) I have a bachelor's in Physics and minor in Math. ;P:) I just got bored with Physics, and fell in love with computers. I appreciate the links and I will read them.
Don't you see, though, that there are at least reasons for our beliefs, even if the reasoning is wrong (of course, I don't think they are, but anyway...). I just get tired of people calling Christians names and saying they just accept whatever they're told without using their brains. We've studied the evidence and have come to different conclusions. (Of course, we're right and always will be...;)) :sigh: I guess it's partially our fault for not being clear about what we believe and not "teaching the truth in love" as we're told in the NT. To many "Christians" who don't even know what they believe going out and beating people over the head with it.