Summations Only

IF your worldview tells you that one time dimension and three space dimensions are all there are to reality, that is. If that’s your belief, you also can’t believe in the resurrection of Christ, can you? I’m glad you checked in — while Modulous gave me two good existing thread examples for places to further discuss evolution/atheism, I accidentally stumbled upon another (started by you in early 2009, 21 pages, largely off topic, but the thread is still open) that would be the best place for me to make some points I’ve never seen made here before. There were a few good points there by creationists, but I believe I can go much further than they did. I’ll be quoting your opening post. Look for that bump in the coming days.

Why yes, I would say you probably are! I hope you'll join in the upcoming discussion that I referenced in message 219.

What is evidence? From Dictionary.com;

quote:

---

1) that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

​

2)something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.

​

3)Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

---

That, something, and data — pretty vague..hmm, maybe an atheist is writing definitions of words at Dictionary.com! Seriously though, wouldn’t an appeal to more than one of the five human senses constitute some really good evidence? It seems to me that evidence should be capable of going above and beyond any one person’s worldview. I suppose perfect evidence would, but much of what is claimed as evidence actually appeals to only one human sense, and it is often arrived at by someone (or group) that wants what the evidence says to be true. So do claims for evidence in these kind of debates really mean much? That’s where we are. You believe there’s evidence for a 4.5 billion year old earth for example, and I believe there’s evidence that evolution and atheism have a very close relationship. Many here believe that a simple theistic evolutionist label is disproof of that. I don’t believe labels are evidence. Since Jesus Christ has been written about far more than any other person that has ever lived, I believe that’s pretty good evidence for his existence, most evolutionists don’t. I don’t believe radiometric dating, or anything else the scientific community has dreamed up, is clear proof that the earth has been going around the sun 4.5 billion times.Evidence claims go on and on — it’s largely a subjective term. So you believe there’s more evidence for an ancient earth than there is for Christ’s resurrection? In your view then, evidence isn’t nearly as much about eyewitness accounts as it is about.radiometric dating? Credentialed people looking through microscopes and telescopes? Not everyone’s going to agree with you, and I don’t think Dictionary.com’s definition of evidence fully supports your view.

If that’s all you want there to be evidence for, then that’s all you’re going to see. A large part of human existence is working with, and observing order and complexity. Order and complexity come about in two different ways, what humans did with their intelligence, and what humans didn’t do, like the origins of life, or the paths of the planets around the sun. With no supernatural, the order and complexity we see that humans didn’t do, had to happen by some sort of mindless rearrangement. When you stand outside on a clear night and see the full moon, knowing that humans didn’t put it there, there’s only one possibility right? An explosion put it there! Explosions can explain a lot of things, can’t they? Is there evidence that explosions can produce perfectly round objects? If atheists want there to be, I’m sure they claim evidence for it. That goes both ways — the Bible accurately records historical details about people, groups, cities, and customs. Archaeological finds continue to confirm these details. If they contradict evolutionary beliefs, the scientific community doesn’t consider them evidence. An ancient earth cannot be observed. Much of what science claims cannot be observed.

So what I say causes you to lose sleep?Not counting those in this thread who haven’t directly responded to me, and not counting Modulous, I have 11 opponents in this thread. Your messages alone contain enough writing for 11 people. If you expect me to respond, you’re going to have to learn to condense it some.

I looked at your ex-Christian testimonials. Most of them don't mention science, but that seems to be because they are far more consumed with a hatred of the word of God. These didn't take too long to find however, and I'm sure there are many similar ones;

quote:

---

The more I learned about the scientific explanations for the origin of the planets and the diversity of life, I was more sure that there was no need for a supernatural explanation.

---

http://www.ex-christian.net/.../49030-my-journey-to-unbelief

quote:

---

The first cracks in my Christian foundation started to appear my freshman year, when, as a science major, I took a class entitled the "Evolution of Biodiversity".

---

http://www.ex-christian.net/...om-the-shores-of-christianity

quote:

---

Once I was no longer under the influence of drugs, I marvelled at the use of my brain again. At that point I started doing research in many different scientific areas out of my own interest, one of which was Evolution. I was awe struck at how much sense it made to me, everything was proven and calculated by science. This led me to read the book The God Delusion. From that point on I was 100% I was an Atheist,

---

(A reference to a book that is on my list. Probably safe to say he isn't the only one at that forum who didn't have a serious issue with the influence of drugs)http://www.ex-christian.net/...-from-christianity-to-atheism

quote:

---

One thing that struck me was something that our saintly old teacher said regarding Genesis. She said that we should study genesis well, as it was "...the hinge-pin of Christianity... With no original sin, there was no need for a saviour. The journey started by Adam was completed by the second Adam, Jesus." This was the first time I'd had my faith directly challenged. I'd always thought Genesis was an allegory, but I hadn't considered how important it was to the need for Christ. No original sin, no saviour. I believed in Jesus, therefore Genesis must be true!

---

http://www.ex-christian.net/...525-my-own-deconversion-storyHe "always thought Genesis was an allegory" Something that is clear throughout those testimonies is the fact that so many of them weren't converted to atheism from Biblical Christianity, they were converted from some form of Christian compromise with science/evolution. Evidenced in the the following two examples as well.

quote:

---

At the same time, I was beginning my very first romance with the man who is now my husband. He was an agnostic and we would often have discussions about evolution and creation (luckily I wasn’t a young-Earth creationist), god’s existence and influence on our lives, and other philosophical points. His arguments for evolution began to make more and more sense, and creationism make less and less. I held on for awhile, calling myself a theistic evolutionist, but eventually even that fell away. When I ceased to believe in creation altogether, the rest of my faith began to die, as well.

---

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/46127-slip-sliding-away/"Luckily I wasn't a young-Earth creationist" - she wouldn't have been as easy to convert to atheism if she was.

quote:

---

College was what really opened my eyes. Even though I went to a Southern Baptist college (and got a degree in church music!) I was free to study things on my own, and there were a few professors at the school who were much more open-minded than anyone I'd come across in my life. One was an evolutionist, even!

---

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/42011-the-atheist-minister

quote:

---

About 8 or 9 months ago, I learned about the great Dr. Sagan. I've always been a big fan of science and new and interesting ideas.

---

http://www.ex-christian.net/...21-to-make-a-long-story-short_________________It's important however, to look at the four key paragraphs from my earlier Wintery Night link that you hand-waved away.

quote:

---

1) They want to do something immoral with impunity. This type of person wants to do something immoral that is forbidden by Christianity, like pre-marital sex. They dump Christianity in order to feel better about seeking happiness in this life, apart from God and his moral duties.

---

You don't really expect anyone in those testimonials to admit this do you? It's much easier to mock Christianity and Christians than to admit to things such as these.

quote:

---

2) They want to pursue happiness in irresponsible ways. This type of person thinks that God’s job is to save them when they act irresponsibly while pursuing happiness. When God disappoints them by not giving them what they want in order to be happy, they leave the faith.

---

Those testimonials are loaded with evidence of that.

quote:

---

3) They want to be loved by people, not by God. This type of person thinks that Christianity is a tool that they can use to become popular. When they first try to articulate the gospel in public, they find that people don’t like them as much, and they feel bad about offending people with exclusive truth claims that they cannot back up using logic and evidence. So, they water down Christianity to get along with atheists, liberal Christians and other religions. Finally, they jettison Christianity completely and focus on making everyone feel good about whatever they believe.

---

Again, obvious in those testimonials. "They want to be loved by people" - plenty of mushiness in those testimonials (and responses to them) to vouch for that.

quote:

---

4) They don’t want to learn to defend their faith. This type of person is asked questions by skeptics that they cannot answer. Usually this happens when people go to university after growing up in the shelter of the Church. The questions and peer pressure make them feel stupid. Rather than investigate Christianity to see if it’s true and to prepare to defend it in public, they dump it so they can be thought of as part of the smart crowd.

---

Again, obvious.My position is also clear.

It’s always MANY other posters, it’s always a shouting down process. It’s a sign of insecurity, an indication that other like minded posters messages may not be complete enough. To be fair, I’m sure the same thing happens at creationist boards as well. (I don’t participate in those — I have no desire to be part of a gang.) Most all forums are naturally one sided, and the shouting down process contributes to making them that way. Unfortunately for all those majorities, they’re not smarter, superior, more educated, making more progress etc. They just enjoy the sport of shouting down, of making a minority disengage, to feel a victory.By the way, I seem to remember your leaving political discussions pretty quickly. Are (the few) atheist conservatives different from creationists concerning how they react when shouted down? No, I’m saying that much of what science claims is in perfect harmony with atheistic beliefs, and the evidence presented isn’t always objective enough to convince all non atheists. Exactly, if your belief says evolution and atheism have no relationship with each other, evidence doesn’t matter. Ask dwise1.

I think something that stands the test of time, particularly with fierce opposition for that entire time, makes it more substantial as evidence. Mormonism isn’t even in the same league with Christ’s resurrection, or the 66 book Bible. Disagree - if there’s more than one time dimension and three space dimensions, there’s no way science could find any evidence for it, because it’s beyond human comprehension. That’s what the scientific community has constantly claimed as it has shouted down the concept of Intelligent Design. If the origins of life, or origins of the universe are actually the result of something beyond one time dimension and three space dimensions, the scientific community proves its dogmatism by by-passing that possibility by studying and philosophizing about things like the big bang and abiogeneis. Not just ignoring the possibility of more than one time and three space dimensions, but bypassing those possibilities. It’s nothing but atheism. I don’t think I denigrated it, I just clarified its significance by showing its subjectivity, the fact that it can be strong or weak, and swayed in its strength and weakness by biased worldviews. That sounds good, until we realize the imperfection of human endeavors. In the late 60’s, early 70’s there was a pretty sizable scientific scare about population explosion. Predictions of mass starvation and many other terrible consequences by the turn of the century if government wasn’t permitted to grow enough to control the masses. It was largely spearheaded by a young biology professor named Paul R. Ehrlich from Stanford University. In the words of author Pamela Winnick; Few in the scientific-intellectual community or in the media challenged Ehrlich’s claims or the coercive methods he suggested. Those who did were treated like heretics. He was eventually exposed, but it took too long, and no one can say that the propaganda he polluted many peoples’ minds with was completely erased. Just like no one can say that the 40 year existence of the Piltdown man hoax didn’t do irreversible damage.Central to Christianity is the mistrust of human wisdom. From thousands of years ago to today, it's not hard to find its blunders. Differently believing? Concerning Christianity, they vary somewhat on very minor things like worship/behavior procedures, but the central theme is always the same. Just like the central theme among scientific communities is always naturalism and nothing else. The scientific communities are greatly divided concerning lots of things, including how much force should be used to eradicate religion.

What can make it subjective is the reason that the information is being gathered, why the gathering process only follows certain paths. If a conclusion is reached, such as an intellectually fulfilled atheistic worldview needs several billion years to work and tons of research money is available to prove the earth to be billions of years old, what are the chances that a lot of information will be gathered about it. I’m really busy with my normal, routine life, but for only a few million dollars, I could change some priorities, and gather enough information to show the close relationship evolution has with atheism to make dwise1 blush. So obviously, motives, money, human imperfection, and many other unfortunate things largely determine what evidence will be gathered and presented as the scientific community seeks political influence and public involvement.

The word evidence can have variation — it can be strong evidence, or it can be weak evidence. The pictures you describe could be strong, unless someone educated in photo-shopping took out his magnifying glass and said uh-oh. The problem all humans have, religious or not, is that they come to a conclusion first, then work backwards to try to find evidence for it. That’s the reason dwise1 is so angry at my references to the cozy relationship that evolution and atheism has. That book list, however strong, isn’t the only evidence there is for that fact.

No, because Christianity has spread throughout the world to a far greater extent than Judaism has, and Judaism doesn’t get the fierce opposition from Judaism that Christianity does. Look through dwise1’s atheist testimony page. Do you see much hatred of Judaism? Perhaps not, because I have evidence for it. Christianity does too! If something is stranger than we can think, why does the scientific community always trying to explain it with (what it calls) physical evidence? Uh, yes really. There is a major difference between mistrust and complete disregard. I was only referring to actual Christianity, not all the various modified versions over the past few centuries that modify and disregard the 66 book Bible according to their personal whims. That may be one misconception you have about me that needs to be cleared up. I'm not one of those who considers any religion better than atheism. False religions are no different than atheism to me. Since their beginning, or a more recent compromise under pressure from science? Good luck to them. Unless someone they’ve bestowed a Nobel Prize upon says this;

quote:

---

Anything we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion, says Nobel Prize winner Steven Weinberg, should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilization.

---

They could prove their tolerance for religion by condemning a statement like that, from one of their heroes. They've done no such thing. Science can't, but those imperfect humans in control of it can. They can discriminate. There is evidence for it.

I agree. But considering how so many children are raised, from toddlers through elementary school; share, listen to mom & dad, dont say bad words, dont steal, the U.S. Declaration says we were endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights then, middle school to high school biology there is no creator, natural selection doesnt care if you say bad words or steal etc etc. a LOT of the conversion events are largely rooted in the confusion that arises from those conflicting instruction periods. My sincere sympathy, that had to be a tough time for you all. Please believe that Im not trying to offend you different tragedies cannot be compared. But heres a very good read from Henry Morris that describes the loss of his 39 year old son, who had three small children.How a Christian Dies (A Home-Going of Andy Morris) | The Institute for Creation Research So some people lose their faith when put to the test, others dont. Im sure Morris had plenty of support from any minister he cared to consult, but Id say he didnt need much support, he knew the word of God, the 66 book Bible thoroughly enough to not have his faith shaken. JMO. Point taken. A good message from you, thanks.