I disagree. Reason and experience suggest that the Bible is just a book just like the Koran, the Talmud, the Bhagavad Gita, the Iliad, and the Dungeon Master Guide. Do these books not also reveal the word of God?

[Edited on May 12, 2010 at 11:56 AM. Reason : b]

5/12/2010 11:56:00 AM

yes, except for 2nd edition which was clearly the work of the devil

5/12/2010 1:26:32 PM

Quote :

"as a presbyterian i am called to draw on reason, experience, and the holy spirit inside me when reading. we believe god's word is in the holy spirit as you read, not the words itself. you listen for the word of god and not to the word of god."

But what you're hearing is not the word of god, it's your own thoughts, perhaps some of them subconscious, reaffirming what you already know or believe. It's literally a form of meditation.

You could achieve the same effect by just practicing normal meditation.

If what you were hearing was the word of the Christian God as you were reading, then why would people of other beliefs as ^ listed experience the same thing (because they do)? It's not because God is speaking to them, it's because you are using your brain in a different way than you normally do.

There is nothing wrong with believing that the Bible or Christianity gives you strengths, or helps you see things more clearly (this is what you should expect from someone who meditates regularly). The problem is when people presume based on this that the utensils they use for meditation (the Bible) are what is causing this, and mis-interpret or mis-use these tools to reject reality like Lutz, fanatical muslims, or Discovery Institute people who try to remove science from science textbooks.

[Edited on May 12, 2010 at 6:23 PM. Reason : ]

5/12/2010 6:20:41 PM

that's where faith comes in, its not something you can respond to logically

5/12/2010 6:23:08 PM

^ why? Why is that an acceptable response when people kill in the name of faith, or gain or use political power in the name of faith?

5/12/2010 6:26:07 PM

those things aren't ok

5/12/2010 6:33:52 PM

Quote :

"Why is that an acceptable response when people kill in the name of faith, or gain or use political power in the name of faith?"

We kill each other in the name of everything. Communists kill other communists for not being exactly the same kind of communist. Hutus kill other Hutus for not being fanatically pro-Hutu enough. The Nazis didn't round up Jews because of theological problems with the Torah. At some point you people have to realize that religion has very little to do with why people kill other people. The human condition dictates that. Religion/ethnicity/politics/every other distinguishing factor ever is more or less just window dressing.

Ditto, of course, gaining or using political power.

Honestly, sometimes it's as though you guys have issue with bad religious people for being religious rather than for being bad.

5/13/2010 2:24:15 AM

^ i think you misunderstand what i was saying.

Of course people kill each other for various reasons.

My issue is that religious people will hide behind the umbrella of “oh well, it’s just faith” rather than try to rationalize logically what they believe.

The nazis/hutus/whoever will at least come up with something, and perhaps be swayed by reason.

But for someone like Lutz, for example, he may never embrace any field of modern science despite any rational information because of “faith.” That seems particularly dangerous.

Quote :

"Honestly, sometimes it's as though you guys have issue with bad religious people for being religious rather than for being bad. "

there’s being religious, then there’s being “religious” though.

5/13/2010 3:10:56 AM

^i would say thats taking what i have said a little too far. I am all for science, but i think that there is overwhelming evidence, both practical and personal, that there is a God. And if there is a God, he would be the author of science which would mean he makes the rules.

With that said I will note that many Christians believe in the Big bang, (I myself have not done enough research but I don't have a problem with it at all). Its just who did the bang. I would suggest reading some from Lee Strobel too who does a great job of compiling the scientific, cosmological, and psychological evidence for a creator.

Again, just one example is that naturalism defies the 2nd law of thermo. No one can figure out a beginning that is scientifically consistent with what we already claim to know.

5/13/2010 7:20:45 AM

O rly? In what way do you think naturalism breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

5/13/2010 7:24:07 AM

yeah you should stick with not having done enough research and stay away from the 2nd law of thermodynamics

5/13/2010 7:31:22 AM

Quote :

" but i think that there is overwhelming evidence, both practical and personal, that there is a God."

Obviously you can't share the personal evidence, but what practical evidence is there?

Quote :

"gain, just one example is that naturalism defies the 2nd law of thermo."

How's your research on the literalism of the Flood and creation story going?

Quote :

"No one can figure out a beginning that is scientifically consistent with what we already claim to know."

Look up "Argument from Ignorance". Just because we don't yet have a scientific explanation for something does not mean a theistic explanation is more plausible. I can't disprove the Loch Ness Monster for certainty.

Quote :

"Honestly, sometimes it's as though you guys have issue with bad religious people for being religious rather than for being bad"

Religion has done a lot worse for humanity than simply "some random bad people that were also religious sucked. It's a scam, a mass delusion, robs people of money, prevents them from thinking, and inhibits scientific progress. And it has done this consistently for thousands of years.

It also just happens to encourage violence, bigotry and closet boy raping.

[Edited on May 13, 2010 at 8:01 AM. Reason : .]

5/13/2010 7:56:27 AM

Quote :

"Again, just one example is that naturalism defies the 2nd law of thermo."

Shit like this makes Jesus want to facepalm.

5/13/2010 9:34:13 AM

Quote :

"With that said I will note that many Christians believe in the Big bang, (I myself have not done enough research but I don't have a problem with it at all). Its just who did the bang. I would suggest reading some from Lee Strobel too who does a great job of compiling the scientific, cosmological, and psychological evidence for a creator."

Of course Christianity and science can co exist, when you understand portions of the Bible, like genesis, the tower of Babel, the flood, etc., are meant to be figurative.

A Christian can’t believe in the big bang, but then also thing Genesis or the story of the flood are 100% literal truth.

Quote :

"Again, just one example is that naturalism defies the 2nd law of thermo. No one can figure out a beginning that is scientifically consistent with what we already claim to know. "

Other people have addressed on it, but basically, you are entirely wrong about the law of thermodynamics. This is a common misconception from the Creationist’s playbook about how the law of thermodynamics works.

What do you feel is violated, and how?

And there are numerous theories that are extremely plausible, and become more plausible with new research, about how life came about, that is consistent with what we know. I find it odd you are so confident about what science knows and doesn’t know on one of the fastest developing fields, when you haven’t considered any scientific evidence (of the vast amounts) that would be against the idea of a massive, global flood 3000 years ago.

5/13/2010 9:43:30 AM

Quote :

"I would suggest reading some from Lee Strobel too who does a great job of compiling the scientific, cosmological, and psychological evidence for a creator."

I've read The Case For Christ and there is nothing new under the sun. If you want to be convinced by his argument, you probably will.

[Edited on May 13, 2010 at 10:00 AM. Reason : ]

5/13/2010 9:59:55 AM

Quote :

"that's where faith comes in, its not something you can respond to logically"

Assertions need to backed by evidence or they have no justifiable belief.

[Edited on May 13, 2010 at 11:23 AM. Reason : /]

5/13/2010 11:23:34 AM

A lack of evidence is, itself, a justification for faith.

5/13/2010 11:35:50 AM

It's a stupid justification and not logically sound.

It's known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance.

If you accept this, then you must accept all assertions without proof. For instance, there is no evidence that there isn't an extremely powerful unobservable alien species controlling everything. Must you believe this?

I don't have to prove that the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist, why does God get a pass?

By your own admission, faith is a rejection of reason.

[Edited on May 13, 2010 at 12:33 PM. Reason : .]

5/13/2010 12:30:48 PM

faith is not logical, you can't define it. you just look like an idiot trying.

5/13/2010 1:08:10 PM

You're right about that.

5/13/2010 1:15:09 PM

Quote :

"The nazis/hutus/whoever will at least come up with something, and perhaps be swayed by reason."

Are you insane? Every time you get a big enough pack of bastards together you're going to have elements who are not swayed by reason. Or do you think we could have put together a powerpoint presentation so convincing that Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot/whoever would've said, "Wow, what we're doing is just plain wrong."?

And religious people do "come up with something," and have been since the Middle Ages. There are a lot of prominent philosophers who tried to rationalize logically what they believed, including religion.

Quote :

"It's a scam, a mass delusion, robs people of money, prevents them from thinking, and inhibits scientific progress."

You've described pretty much every government or large organization since the dawn of time, including the subsequent violence and bigotry. (Boy raping, I will grant, is less common to all of these but still pops up now and then).

Of course, "pretty much every government" includes the ones run by atheists who demanded atheism from their citizens. You need to get over yourself and realize that every group has bastards in it because people are, by and large, a bunch of bastards.

5/13/2010 1:30:39 PM

You're right. Because there are other bad things in the world, I should spend no time concerning myself with bad things. Noted.

5/13/2010 1:35:45 PM

^^do you believe in Original Sin?

[Edited on May 13, 2010 at 1:37 PM. Reason : ...]

5/13/2010 1:37:26 PM

Don't be fucking stupid, disco.

The point of my post was not to ignore bad things. It was that religion is not malum in se, it's just another organization large enough to invariably contain a great many assholes.

Take away the actions of assholes, and there's no reason for you to oppose religion other than you happen to disagree with it, which would make you a twat.

Quote :

"do you believe in Original Sin?"

Why does it matter? What point to arguing the details of my faith when everybody seems to be falling neatly into "pro" or "anti" religion in general?

5/13/2010 1:51:40 PM

Quote :

"vTake away the actions of assholes, and there's no reason for you to oppose religion other than you happen to disagree with it, which would make you a twat."

The problem with religion is that its goal is to create assholes like this guy http://brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=594795 . Do you really think religious people are going to stand up and proclaim that it's wrong to push religion to children in schools? That it's wrong to overshadow science with "Faith"? This is the very thing most religious people would love to happen.

The general idea of making yourself better through thoughtful reflection on what a greater being would think is good for humanity, is not the same thing as dogmatically supporting measures harmful to society because you think it's what a 3000 year old text wants you to do.

When you consider the fact that humans are inherently group-thinkers, you can't argue that a group philosophy that aims to reject reason for "faith" isn't going to result in negative actions.

5/13/2010 1:57:34 PM

Sorry, I feel that religion is in fact malum in se necessarily because it is based entirely on misinformation and fosters delusion. And as ^ points out, it has a direct effect on me and people that I care about.

Yes, any government or large organization that brainwashes its constituents with falsehoods is just as bad and every argument I have against religion can easily be applied to them as well.

Maybe this will help. It's not the religious assholes that make me hate religion. They are a symptom. I'll make sure that whenever I reference religious assholes I will make that clear.

[Edited on May 13, 2010 at 2:00 PM. Reason : ^]

5/13/2010 1:59:14 PM

Quote :

"Do you really think religious people are going to stand up and proclaim that it's wrong to push religion to children in schools?"

Perhaps I was misleading with my statement. I don't actually think it's possible to detach the assholes from any group. There are, however, religious people who proclaim such things quite regularly. The people in favor of teaching evolution -- and only evolution -- in schools are not uniformly non-religious or non-Christian.

Quote :

"it has a direct effect on me and people that I care about."

No, pricks have a direct effect on you and people you care about. I manage to go to church and believe in God and I assure you, it has never once affected you.

If it's possible for religion to not affect anybody other than the person having it, then the problem must be with the people, not the concept.

5/13/2010 2:09:15 PM

Quote :

"I don't actually think it's possible to detach the assholes from any group."

Quote :

"No, pricks have a direct effect on you and people you care about."

This seems contradictory to me.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I contend that the religious pricks (and religious non-pricks like you) would be better off without it. Now whether your improvement would have any effect on me is questionable, but surely the religious pricks that do affect me would affect me less so. And you'd be better off too, so it's a plus for everyone.

5/13/2010 2:18:49 PM

Religion can't be malum in se if it prevents people from being evil.

5/13/2010 2:52:10 PM

Are there really 4 pages of bickering over a Christian singer coming out of the closet? Do you people care that much? Just curious.

5/13/2010 2:58:05 PM

It's obvious that the focus of the thread has shifted to general religion rather than Jennifer Knapp.

Quote :

"Religion can't be malum in se if it prevents people from being evil."

Why not?
If the total effect on humanity is bad (even though some religious people do good) then religion is bad. And I contend that this is the case. I believe that people will continue to do good things after they give up on religion. I believe they will continue to do bad things as well, but the intrinsic delusion will be gone and the propensity for bad will be lessened.

V
You're welcome to not question your beliefs or anything you encounter in your life. Enjoy.

[Edited on May 13, 2010 at 3:17 PM. Reason : V]

5/13/2010 3:11:03 PM

Oh right, I forgot about your epic quest against religion.

5/13/2010 3:12:42 PM

http://xkcd.com/154/

5/13/2010 3:57:26 PM

"scientist are also sexy, let's not forget that"

5/13/2010 6:40:46 PM

Quote :

"O rly? In what way do you think naturalism breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics?"

If everything is flowing from order to disorder how did it ever start ordered?

5/13/2010 8:51:31 PM

What makes you think it ever had order? Disorder does not logically have to flow from order.

5/13/2010 9:22:16 PM

^well, if time has no beginning then that would mean that we would have already traversed an infinite amount of time. This in turn would mean that everything would already be in disorder. Now some say that time has a beginning IE the big bang. the problem with that is that there isn't enough evidence to support a big bang

5/13/2010 9:39:45 PM

Perhaps not, but there is plenty of evidence to support that this planet was created millions of years ago.

5/13/2010 9:41:31 PM

Yo moron and disco. I did some research on the mitoDNA and found that they did a study on mitoDNA and found that actual mutation rates where 18 times more than what they expected. The Mitochondrial Eve is more or less irrelevant now. She was believed to be around 200,000 years old but other estimates have come in at as low as 6000 years (that I have seen). So in other words this is not a settled issue and there is much skepticism on both sides of the aisle.

As for the flood evidence, again the more I research the more I see evidence for both sides of the argument.



http://www.trueorigin.org/mitochondrialeve01.asp

5/13/2010 10:23:36 PM

you google 2nd law of thermodynamics yet?

Quote :

"The problem with religion is that its goal is to create assholes like this guy http://brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=594795 . Do you really think religious people are going to stand up and proclaim that it's wrong to push religion to children in schools?"

that's not the goal of religion and there are plenty of christians who aren't trying to push religion in public school. in fact there are probably more christians, your perspective has just been skewed by the most vocal people who make the news. being an idiot or an asshole isn't unique to christians, they are found in every group.

5/13/2010 11:02:07 PM

Keep reading, your source is from 1998. The current accepted age of "Mitochondrial Eve" by the scientific community is ~200k.
http://www.evolutionpages.com/Mitochondrial%20Eve.htm

Quote :

"Conclusion No-one in the science community thought that the Parsons et al study supported a matrilineal MRCA of 6,500 years. Nevertheless their work did result in discrepancies between the known date of human geographic dispersion (at least 60,000 years BP) and the apparently very high rate of mitochondrial mutation, which, if taken at face value, would yield a matrilineal MRCA 6,500 years ago. Subsequent studies have shown the following: RFLP analysis (as used by Parsons et al and Howell et al) is not a an appropriate approach to determine mutational rates; whole genome sequencing as used by Ingman et al is more accurate There is considerable disagreement between different studies of mutational rate, as measured by pedigree analysis of near relatives, concentrating on the D-loop Some of this variation is simply the result of stochastic variations in small sample sizes Much of this variation is due to genuinely different mutational rates on the D-loop in different populations The rate of fixed mutations over many generations is much lower than the instantaneous mutational rate from generation to generation as a consequence of the elimination of slightly deleterious mutations from the gene pool The presence of mitochondrial heteroplasmy will result in an elevated mutational rate in pedigree studies The fixed mutational rate outside the D-loop over many generations is constant across primate species and can be used as an accurate mutational 'clock' A study of a representative sample of humans from the worldwide population using whole genome analysis and excluding the D-loop yields an age for matrilineal MRCA (Mitochondrial Eve) of 150,000 to 200,000 years The same humans give an X-chromosome MRCA of ~480,000 years as predicted. It seems to be the nature of creationist apologists to misrepresent and misuse scientific work. The fact that so many creationists and creationist websites latch on to the Parsons et al paper ,and claim that it is proof for a biblical Eve living 6500 years ago, (even though Parsons et al claim no such thing), demonstrates two things: They do not understand or they deliberately misrepresent the concept of the matrilineal Most Recent Common Ancestor which does not point to the only female human ancestor They ignore the fact that subsequent research has largely resolved the issues that the Parsons et al paper raised."

[Edited on May 13, 2010 at 11:06 PM. Reason : bolded for emphasis]

And to follow up:
http://www.evolutionpages.com/Mteve_not_biblical_eve.htm

Quote :

"Conclusion There is a vast preponderance of scientific evidence against the notion that the first humans lived as recently as 6,500 years ago. In fact the evidence is that they lived 200,000 years ago (20) Creationists everywhere, including Carl Wieland, have used the Parsons et al work in isolation to support their biblically determined views and have failed to acknowledge more recent work that reconciles the basic discrepancy. The fact is that Wieland is ignorant of the basic science and misrepresents its results. Other, less scrupulous creationists do so more blatantly and more dishonestly than he. I predicted in my original paper that " both ill-informed creationists and those who should know better will be using this discredited argument 20 years from now". I have had cause to remember this prediction many times since then, as I frequently come across creationists claiming that mitochondrial DNA has proved that we are descended from one woman who lived about 6,000 years ago. Wieland's somewhat more sophisticated argument is no less erroneous and does nothing to discourage this irrational nonsense."

^Sure, there are assholes in every group. But the assholes in the religious groups are assholes *BECAUSE* of the group that they are in, not independent of it.

[Edited on May 13, 2010 at 11:08 PM. Reason : ^]

also:

Quote :

"The most common definition of the second law is: "The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium." The second law of thermodynamics uses the word entropy, which is what causes the confusion (Or allows the lies, depending on how you look at it.) The meaning of the word entropy that is used in the second law is: "For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work." Using that correct definition the second law of thermodynamics obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. It never did, it's just about thermal energy. (As should be evident by its very name.) But the definition that the apologists use is: "A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system." And using that definition, the second law of thermodynamics would mean: The random disorderliness of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium. However, this is not only an incorrect use of the second law. It is also untrue, some closed systems will tend to fall into disorder, while some will become more orderly. Examples: Disorderly dust clouds in space eventualy gravitate towards a central/denser point, forming a star. If we presume that humanity is orderly, and that the apologists definition of entropy is valid, we should observe the continuous destruction of humanity - human populations should dwindle, human technology should decline. That this is not occurring is not evidence that the definition is incorrect - it would mean that the Earth is not a closed system. Evolution is compatible even with the apologists definition - the earth itself is not a closed system. In a universe consisting solely of the earth and the sun, biological evolution is still possible - the total "randomness" will increase consistently as the sun releases energy, but on earth, that energy converts to temporary order. So in summary, the second law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with evolution, the beginnings of life, star formation, or anything at all other than the movement and/or effects of energy."

[Edited on May 13, 2010 at 11:14 PM. Reason : thermodynamics. http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Thermodynamics]]

5/13/2010 11:05:42 PM

Quote :

"But the assholes in the religious groups are assholes *BECAUSE* of the group that they are in, not independent of it"

negative

5/13/2010 11:16:16 PM

Quote :

"As for the flood evidence, again the more I research the more I see evidence for both sides of the argument."

You need to look up the definition of the word "evidence". There is no evidence for the Biblical flood.

^
Ok, let's take for example the people that are trying to insert creationism into our classrooms. If they didn't believe the falsehood that our Universe was created by God would they be doing this? They didn't random decide to put random non-facts in science books. They are led to believe by their religion that science, empiricism, falsifiable evidence, etc. are wrong and they are attempting to replace it with theology. Would they be doing this if they weren't part of this religion?

[Edited on May 13, 2010 at 11:23 PM. Reason : ^]

5/13/2010 11:20:34 PM

That was unfair of me. Lutz, please present evidence for the Biblical flood.

5/14/2010 12:34:56 AM

Quote :

"Yo moron and disco. I did some research on the mitoDNA and found that they did a study on mitoDNA and found that actual mutation rates where 18 times more than what they expected. The Mitochondrial Eve is more or less irrelevant now. She was believed to be around 200,000 years old but other estimates have come in at as low as 6000 years (that I have seen). So in other words this is not a settled issue and there is much skepticism on both sides of the aisle. "

That study was about 12 years old that put the lower estimate at 6000 years. That is before the human genome project reached its first major milestone by 2 years, and before the human genome was mapped by about 5 years.

You'll have to try harder than that if you wish to keep your head in the sand.

5/14/2010 1:49:11 AM

i'll compile some flood evidence and post. Gone this weekend though, so it may be a few days b4 I can do this

As for thermo. What do you all make of the idea of heat death? That is ultimately where I make my point. From order to disorder is a simplification. Heat death is one of the results.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe

5/14/2010 7:08:41 AM

What does that have to do with anything? There are plenty of models in our current cosmology that suggest that in the distant future our Universe will not be inhabitable anywhere.

How does this in any way prove or disprove anything regarding religion, God, or the literalness of the Biblical Flood/Creation?

5/14/2010 7:36:14 AM

Quote :

"But the assholes in the religious groups are assholes *BECAUSE* of the group that they are in, not independent of it"

Then, likewise you must admit that the good people in the religious group are good BECAUSE of the group.

5/14/2010 8:59:19 AM

Sure.
However, the distinction is that I believe that without religion people will have reason to continue to do good, and less reason to continue to be assholes.

5/14/2010 9:04:29 AM

hate the players, not the game, dog.

5/14/2010 9:11:46 AM