Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8904 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-18-2019 7:10 PM
22 online now:
dwise1, Phat (AdminPhat), xongsmith (3 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,792 Year: 4,829/19,786 Month: 951/873 Week: 307/376 Day: 100/57 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
21NextFF
Author Topic:   What we must accept if we accept evolution Part 2
Modulous
Member (Idle past 208 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 106 of 301 (282853)
01-31-2006 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Faith
01-31-2006 9:45 AM


Why don't you all fight with Robin when he says it?

I don't fight with RR when (if) he says it, because I am agreeing with you!

I said that any God that that describes starting with a simple life and after A LOT of DEATH develops man is NOT the God of the Bible according to you.

You agree!

I said that man came before death according to you.

You agree!

I was defending your position Faith, is it really that hard to see? Reread Message 79 again with that in mind and I assure it should be clear. To help, see how I am agreeing with you see also Message 76 and Message 84 and to a lesser extent Message 70. The subtitle I used in 'Message 82' explicitly states that I am agreeing with you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Faith, posted 01-31-2006 9:45 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Faith, posted 01-31-2006 10:05 AM Modulous has responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 30887
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 107 of 301 (282854)
01-31-2006 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Modulous
01-31-2006 10:03 AM


I'm sorry I thought it was clear I knew you were agreeing with me. Maybe I should have said thank you. THANK YOU. I was making some small other point which I've forgotten in all this confusion.

But yes THANK YOU.

This message has been edited by Faith, 01-31-2006 10:07 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Modulous, posted 01-31-2006 10:03 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Modulous, posted 01-31-2006 10:10 AM Faith has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 208 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 108 of 301 (282857)
01-31-2006 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Faith
01-31-2006 10:05 AM


I'm sorry I thought it was clear I knew you were agreeing with me.

No worries, occasional unintentional ambiguity comes with the territory of the 'net unfortunately.

THANK YOU

You are most welcome.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Faith, posted 01-31-2006 10:05 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Faith, posted 01-31-2006 10:12 AM Modulous has not yet responded

kjsimons
Member
Posts: 665
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003


Message 109 of 301 (282859)
01-31-2006 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Phat
01-31-2006 9:56 AM


Re: evolution is incompatible with a good God
I mean, if God exists and is an evil or indifferent God, how would we even have a desire to attain good and be noble, selfless, and altruistic ourselves?

Our desires are shaped by our genes and environment. We don't need a god , good or evil, to want to better ourselves or help others. It's already part of our nature due to the fact that we are a social animal and as such cooperation and altruism have positive effects on social groups and are selected for.

It's pretty obvious after looking at the history of religion that mankind always creates a god(s) to serve their current needs and as those needs change so do their god(s).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Phat, posted 01-31-2006 9:56 AM Phat has not yet responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 30887
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 110 of 301 (282860)
01-31-2006 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Modulous
01-31-2006 10:10 AM


Lots of unintentional ambiguities and slights and oversights come with the 'net. Wish I could unsay a lot of things.

But anyway I'm glad we sorted that out.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Modulous, posted 01-31-2006 10:10 AM Modulous has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30887
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 111 of 301 (282862)
01-31-2006 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by AdminWounded
01-31-2006 8:17 AM


Re: Lit-crit
Akshully I kind of like the way the couplet falls apart at the end. Ever so little. The scansion isn't all that bad, just a teeny extra syllable there, which I could have eliminated with another half second's thought. And I LIKE that bad rhyme. But I will aim for better things next time. Thank you for the warning.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by AdminWounded, posted 01-31-2006 8:17 AM AdminWounded has not yet responded

  
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 1071 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 112 of 301 (282871)
01-31-2006 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Faith
01-31-2006 9:56 AM


Re: Lit-crit
:D

Ah, yes, like the single, deliberately thrown stitch in the otherwise perfect Persian carpet...

Works for me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Faith, posted 01-31-2006 9:56 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30935
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 113 of 301 (282921)
01-31-2006 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Modulous
01-31-2006 1:09 AM


Re: At least one point was pretty conclusively falsified...
The point is that her definition of God is not compatible with evolution.

I have no problem with that. I have never said she was not entiled to believe in any god she wants.

I only object when she tries it imply that her god is the Christian GOD, to encourage keeping children ignorant, to oppress others or to assert falsehoods.

An individuals religious beliefs are very personal and should be respected unless they infringe on the life or rights of another.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Modulous, posted 01-31-2006 1:09 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Modulous, posted 01-31-2006 3:45 PM jar has not yet responded

Modulous
Member (Idle past 208 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 114 of 301 (282924)
01-31-2006 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by jar
01-31-2006 3:30 PM


My Father is more loving than your Father
An individuals religious beliefs are very personal and should be respected unless they infringe on the life or rights of another.

Agreed. I respect Faith's religious beliefs and I respect yours. This is just a variant on the old Catholics v Protestant war. Which God is the Christian God? Whole threads have been put aside to discuss this very thing. Whilst an interesting topic in its own right, its besides the point here.

I think we can happily concede that belief in her god and evolution are not compatible. Perhaps you think think her god is not the Christian God and vice versa.

I think this is a victory. We have taken Faith from 'athiesm' to 'belief in any god but mine', where she believes her God is the Christian God.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by jar, posted 01-31-2006 3:30 PM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Faith, posted 01-31-2006 4:03 PM Modulous has not yet responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 30887
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 115 of 301 (282927)
01-31-2006 3:56 PM


I only object when she tries it imply that her god is the Christian GOD, to encourage keeping children ignorant, to oppress others or to assert falsehoods.

I would simply like to point out that this is a personal attack on me and off topic. It doesn't REALLY matter, this is Just For The Record.

My God IS the Christian God.

I'm used to jar's character assassinations, and may even be getting to the point that I consider them an honor. He is going to be defended no matter what violations of the Forum Guidelines he commits, which he does routinely, so again, this is Merely For The Record.

His tack on this thread has been to insist that I have not argued my case but merely asserted it. He said it over and over no matter how many times he was corrected. This is bullying and he was wrong. I made my case.

I will repeat my case:

The God of traditional Christianity made a universe of peace and comfort for His creatures. Suffering and death are alien to His character. They came with opposition to Him by His human creatures. Suffering and death are not natural. Evolution on the other hand REQUIRES suffering and death. It is a major way genetic selection occurs.

THEREFORE the Biblical God as TRADITIONAL CHRISTIANITY worships Him, is incompatible with evolution.

This means that believing in a loving personal Creator God AND the ToE is a logical contradiction.

The case has been made.


Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by jar, posted 01-31-2006 4:18 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 141 by Parasomnium, posted 01-31-2006 6:40 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30887
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 116 of 301 (282928)
01-31-2006 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Modulous
01-31-2006 3:45 PM


Re: My Father is more loving than your Father
I think this is a victory. We have taken Faith from 'athiesm' to 'belief in any god but mine', where she believes her God is the Christian God.

That's OK by me. At some point I hope RR will enter the discussion and clean the whole mess up. BUT I would like to point out again that ALL versions of God besides the God of love and care for His creation ARE compatible with the ToE. ONLY the personal God of love is not.

SO, once again, if anybody THINKS he believes in this loving personal God AND the ToE, he is believing a contradiction.

GOD'S LOVE IS DEFINED HERE AS NOT CREATING LIVING THINGS TO SUFFER AND DIE.

AND, the other point is that, practically speaking, atheism IS the most logical inference from the ToE, and in fact the most common. Nobody claims to believe in an evil God, and only a few believe in the weak or Deistic God, the only kinds of god compatible with the ToE.

This message has been edited by Faith, 01-31-2006 04:07 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Modulous, posted 01-31-2006 3:45 PM Modulous has not yet responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2015 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 117 of 301 (282929)
01-31-2006 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Faith
01-31-2006 9:37 AM


This thread has a sequel!?!?!?
What is all of this except some sort of academic sounding rant for which the only discrepancy between it and the likes of willowtree or JAD is the lack of direct inflammatory language?

Faith writes:

Death was not part of God's creation.

There is simply no argument. Faith's version of God is incompatible with the TOE because she defines God and interprets the bible specifically to be incompatible. By this reason everyone who does accepts the TOE must be an atheist towards Faith's God. This of course means nothing in general unless you accept this perpetual state of pedantic lunacy!

As it stands to the non-lunatic 3rd party observer there has been one major point missing from this whole discussion that some people touched on. There has been no attempt other than assertion to show that Faith's version of God is actually the God of the Bible.

Certainly there is no doubting that Faith's God is BASED on the Bible but the only people I know of who believe in Faith's God or a "Faith style" God are fundamentalist Christian young earth creationists. Why would a non-lunatic 3rd party observer ever accept this definition of God especially those of us who have had personal experiences with God and have the ability to read the bible.

The concept of "the Fall" as it is perpetuated by this subset of Christianity is self invented as a survival mechanism by those who must deal with contradiction in their faith while still claiming inerrancy. All the rules and effects of the fall are all applied into the theology ad-hoc. Assuming that Biblical literalism is even required to have "true" faith in Christ, those that fall into this category of "Faith style" God believers are not even Biblical literalists. Their theology is an addendum to Biblical literalism stimulated by supposed "logical" consequences of their own invention.

Worse than this is that anyone who is a Christian is going to have almost the exact same problem simply with a less extreme difference because religion is subjective! I happen to believe that God who created this universe is someone who came down to a live as one of a member of people who had certain sense and connection with Him and who had their own political and religious mythology both borrowed and created by their culture over time. My God gave in clear terms and actions an attitude of how to be a good human being as well as a way to escape the pains of mortality. This is just a "Jazzns style" God though because really given that God is not physical there can be no actual objective definition of God. I happen to feel that my definition of God is more sane and that most reasonable Christians have a similar definition of God that is very close to mine.

Exercise: Can you count how many words in the previous paragraph that suggest subjectivity?

Some of what I am getting into is sort of regarding a Meta issue with this topic which is why I don't feel too bad posting it here. I first saw this thread and ignored it because the OP seemed pretty ridiculous to me. Only the people who define atheism, materialism, determinism, and God in a certain way would ever be able to say that the TOE, or any scientific theory for that matter, would logically insist upon acceptance of the others. These also just happen to be the people who I just happen not to care to have a conversation with because I prefer to talk about things that are actually stimulating. Hence I ignored the topic predicting that it would just go the way of any number of inane topics that inevitably are created here on this forum. Only when I saw this thread boom into a sequel did I realize that my beloved community of EvC actually took this dementia seriously. Really now, the next time someone claims to have a logical proof that the TOE implies atheism are you really ever going to make a compelling case through thick haze of zealot style conviction?

Just remember folks, everyone's religion is different. Religion is probably the most subjective things we as humans ever stuff into our heads.

This message has been edited by Jazzns, 01-31-2006 02:08 PM


No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Faith, posted 01-31-2006 9:37 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Faith, posted 01-31-2006 4:10 PM Jazzns has responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 30887
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 118 of 301 (282930)
01-31-2006 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Jazzns
01-31-2006 4:06 PM


Rejoice when you are persecuted for righteousness' sake
I am honored to be so thoroughly misrepresented and vilified.

This message has been edited by Faith, 01-31-2006 04:11 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Jazzns, posted 01-31-2006 4:06 PM Jazzns has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Jazzns, posted 01-31-2006 4:11 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2015 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 119 of 301 (282931)
01-31-2006 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Faith
01-31-2006 4:10 PM


Re: This thread has a sequel!?!?!?
I don't think you are a villan. Only if you held a public office would I be worried.

I just call it like I see it. We ARE here to disagree. :)


No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Faith, posted 01-31-2006 4:10 PM Faith has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 30935
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 120 of 301 (282933)
01-31-2006 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Faith
01-31-2006 3:56 PM


Faith once again makes unsupported assertions.
THEREFORE the Biblical God as TRADITIONAL CHRISTIANITY worships Him, is incompatible with evolution.

Not true Faith. It looks like I must refute your assertion yet again?

I believe in the Biblical God as TRADITIONAL CHRISTIANITY worships Him and accept the TOE.

Pastor James Aalgaard of St. Paul Lutheran Church in Ontario, OR believes in the Biblical Christian GOD and accepts the TOE.

Pastor Wes Aardahl of Faith Lutheran Church (ELCA) in Bismarck, ND believes in the Biblical Christian GOD and accepts the TOE.

The Rev. Charles L. Aaron, Jr., Ph.D. the Senior Pastor of Cornerstone United Methodist Church in Garland, TX believes in the Biblical Christian GOD and accepts the TOE.

The Rev. Torben G. Aarsand of Evangelical Lutheran Church in America in Hagerstown, MD believes in the Biblical Christian GOD and accepts the TOE.

The Rev. Pamela Abbey of United Methodist Church in Concord, CA believes in the Biblical Christian GOD and accepts the TOE.

The Rev. Jesse Abbott of Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, ELCA in Cincinnati, OH believes in the Biblical Christian GOD and accepts the TOE.

Your point is refuted Faith.

Would you like additional proofs?

I still have over 10,000 of them.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Faith, posted 01-31-2006 3:56 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by robinrohan, posted 01-31-2006 5:06 PM jar has responded
 Message 122 by Modulous, posted 01-31-2006 5:10 PM jar has responded

Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
21NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019