Belief in God versus the Evolutionist's put down

Scofflaw · 13-11-2007 10:59pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I think Bonkey that I would look for tangible evidence of the effects of your pink unicorn.

We can't scienticically prove any character or event from history. A study of history will show us the effects of person or event on the environment both physical and social, by way of written or photographic accounts.

So with Jesus we can study biographical accounts of His life and study the effects of that life and the social ramifications of that life.

We would usually look, rather, for circumstantial evidence - inscriptions, family records, documents, recorded meetings from external sources etc. All of these are absent in this case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary · 13-11-2007 11:21pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

We would usually look, rather, for circumstantial evidence - inscriptions, family records, documents, recorded meetings from external sources etc. All of these are absent in this case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Roman documents attesting to the effects of Jesus upon the Roman world do exist.

Roman and Jewish historical adocuments do attest to the life of Jesus.

Family records beyone royalty and gentry do not exist.

What does exist though is a testimony to the life of Jesus and Hi seffect on the population. Both the actions of His supporters and the actions of those who tried to kill Christianity and place blame on it for the ills of the Empire.

BrianCalgary · 13-11-2007 11:23pm

2Scoops wrote: »

But those 'tangible' effects could just as easily be ascribed to the real-world reactions of humans to a fictional, but believed real, character.

In the case of the pink unicorn, there is no tangible evidence of it's existence beyond the tales of Bonkey and his testimony of it.

Whereas there is tangible historical evidence surrounding the life, times and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth and the effect His life had on many a person throughout the Roman world at the time.

I don't see many influenced by Bonkey's unicorn.

Scofflaw · 13-11-2007 11:25pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Roman documents attesting to the effects of Jesus upon the Roman world do exist.

Roman and Jewish historical documents do attest to the life of Jesus.

None contemporary.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Family records beyone royalty and gentry do not exist.

What does exist though is a testimony to the life of Jesus and Hi seffect on the population. Both the actions of His supporters and the actions of those who tried to kill Christianity and place blame on it for the ills of the Empire.

Well, I would be very foolish to deny the historicity of Christianity. However, I would be equally foolish to take the historicity of Christianity as evidence for the historicity of Jesus, since otherwise I would have to equally accept the historicity of every other cult figure or deity, the golden book of Joseph Smith, and the existence of Xenu.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch · 13-11-2007 11:39pm

Brian wrote:

In the case of the pink unicorn, there is no tangible evidence of it's existence beyond the tales of Bonkey and his testimony of it.

And, in the case of Jesus, there's no tangible evidence of his existence beyond the tales in the bible, the testimony in it, and four or five tiny and discrepant references in texts written much later by people who'd not witnessed the events anyway.

At least bonkey is alive and we can speak with him/her and see if we'd like to trust the tale about the pink unicorn. We can't even do that small credibility check with the authors of the bible who have been dead for 80 generations.

.

2Scoops · 14-11-2007 12:43am

BrianCalgary wrote: »

In the case of the pink unicorn, there is no tangible evidence of it's existence beyond the tales of Bonkey and his testimony of it.

OK, more popular examples would include Luke Skywalker/Jedi-ism, Harry Potter and others. All have a massive following with tangible effects in the world. Santa Claus is another, which I regretfully have to bring up in these pre-December times. All fictional.

PDN · 14-11-2007 2:36am

2Scoops wrote: »

OK, more popular examples would include Luke Skywalker/Jedi-ism, Harry Potter and others. All have a massive following with tangible effects in the world. Santa Claus is another, which I regretfully have to bring up in these pre-December times. All fictional.

St Nicholas (Dutch - sinterklaas) is very much a historical figure. While many of the popular images of Santa Claus are fictional accretions, Nicholas' bones lie in a crypt in Bari, have been photographed, and tell us that he was five feet high with a broken nose.

Dave! · 14-11-2007 2:38am

I think youre missing the point...

PDN · 14-11-2007 2:45am

DaveMcG wrote: »

I think youre missing the point...

Quite possibly. I just have an annoying habit of correcting people on side issues. It drives my family mad, but everyone wants to be on my team at Christmas when we play Trivial Pursuit.

Zombrex · 14-11-2007 10:35am

PDN wrote: »

St Nicholas (Dutch - sinterklaas) is very much a historical figure. While many of the popular images of Santa Claus are fictional accretions, Nicholas' bones lie in a crypt in Bari, have been photographed, and tell us that he was five feet high with a broken nose.

That is actually a good example.

Does the fact that St Nicholas was a real historical figure mean that every Christmas Eve he flies around the world giving children toys?

I would imagine most people would say no.

Confirmation of one aspect of historical accuracy of a story that claims to be fact is not confirmation of all the other aspects of the story.

I don't think anyone here doubts that there was something significant going on 2000 years ago in the middle east. Jesus may have been one single person. Or the stories of him may draw on instances from the lives of a number of different people (as with Santa)

But the fact that people can find slimmers of truth in these stories does not in any way verify the historical accuracy of the entire story.

If Jesus was a real person that no more means he did what is describe in the New Testament than it means Santa flies around the world because St. Nicholas was a real person.

bonkey · 14-11-2007 11:16am

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I think Bonkey that I would look for tangible evidence of the effects of your pink unicorn.

So you believe that the human eyes are the judge and jury of all reality, then? That if we cannot find tangible evidence for something, it is reasonable to conclude that it doesn't exist???

We can't scienticically prove any character or event from history.

Only insofar as the notion of "scientific proof", strictly speaking, doesn't exist.

We can establish, to varying degrees of certainty, our historical timeline. Beyond a certain point, our degrees of certainty drop so far that we honestly know we are making a "best guess" at certain facts, and our belief of what really happened may change over time.

The further back we go, the "blurrier" our understanding of history becomes.

So with Jesus we can study biographical accounts of His life and study the effects of that life and the social ramifications of that life.

Not exactly. We can study what appear to be biographical accounts of his life. We can study the effects of those accounts, and the social ramifications of those effects.

My position would be that the Christian faith in the detail of the bible - or indeed in the detail of the gospels alone - is far greater than the scientific position can be.

Before we go too far down this road, however, I would point out that my point was looking at something slightly different. I was addressing the argument that there is evidence to suggest that the physical word isn't all there is. I read this as SW making the case that there is evidence that, for example, that the divine exists, that heaven exists, and so forth.

I would argue that there is no such evidence, using the scientific understanding of the term. There is, as with the stance you took regarding my unicorn, no tangible evidence of its existence. There is my claim that my unicorn exists. At need, I can produce written material regarding its existence. I can probably get a couple of colleagues to write up some stuff as well. Does this constitute tangible evidence of its existence, or merely tangible evidence of the claim of its existence? For me, its the latter.

From a scientific perspective, either my unicorn interacts tangibly with the physical world (in which case, those interactions can be falsifiably tested), or science does not address the question of its existence. Logic suggests that I've made it up, though, even if I genuinely believe in it.

bonkey · 14-11-2007 11:20am

PDN wrote: »

St Nicholas (Dutch - sinterklaas) is very much a historical figure. While many of the popular images of Santa Claus are fictional accretions, Nicholas' bones lie in a crypt in Bari, have been photographed, and tell us that he was five feet high with a broken nose.

You're saying that there is evidence that a person, whom we know as St. Nicholas, existed....but that this does not constitute evidence that the "Saint Nick" of various Christmas fables was the same man, or that St. Nicholas possessed the magical qualities we attribute to Santa.

Applying the same logic to BrianCalgary's assertions of the evidence of the existence of Jesus should lead us to the same conclusion...that there is multiple sources of corroborating evidence that a real individual was the root of the various accounts, but not necessarily that the accounts themselves are accurate.

Zombrex · 14-11-2007 11:24am

bonkey wrote: »

So you believe that the human eyes are the judge and jury of all reality, then? That if we cannot find tangible evidence for something, it is reasonable to conclude that it doesn't exist???

Zing

Akrasia · 14-11-2007 5:25pm

Soul Winner wrote: »

Not that you need me to or anything but I can accept that. But if the God of the Bible exists then the only choice you have is to choose masters, you do not have a choice to have no master.

And thus, probably by accident. you have stumbled onto the 'evolutionary' benefit of religion. Of course, it's not exactly evolution, more like anthropology, but the reason why almost every indigenous society has some form of religion is down to systems of control. Religion has been used to control people since its inception. The leaders of countries or tribes always claim to have some god on their side (sometimes they claim to be god themselves)
Religion exists because it is in the personal interest of elites to have religion exist.
The fact that religion is possible, is because humans have evolved to be social animals who learn culture through immersion and through being taught by others. People tend to believe what their teachers tell them, and when those teachers are telling them that there is an all mighty god watching their every activity, and this god commands them to be loyal to him and the state, there is an obvious benefit to the elites. And there are countless examples of elites taking advantage of 'religion' to control people

Acid_Violet · 14-11-2007 7:38pm

Soul Winner wrote: »

Why then would an atheist or those who prescribe to (or have faith in) the theory of evolution consider me as (Richard Dawkins would) to be a fool for believing in such things as the supernatural when it’s obviously of no ultimate benefit to me whatsoever in this purposeless universe. When by the same token his or her criticism of me is as equally of no benefit to them and just as foolish if things exist they way they themselves believe them to be?

A ‘no ultimate purpose universe’ means nothing in it has any purpose and this includes the criticism from evolutionists of those who believe in a God who did purpose it.

The evolutionists believe we evolved our working parts (organs etc) for specific bodily functions in order to ‘just’ survive in this by chance living planet, but from whence has evolved (and why? as there is no survival benefits from it) the ability to choose freely one’s belief system in this purposeless universe?

By-product of heightened consciousness, which is a survival benefit because you're able to think and understand things more (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong in saying that

)

What is the point of it all if there really is no creator?

To have a mind developed so much that it's able to make a point of it all?

If we are all but chance happenings ourselves then where is the evolutionary benefit for survival (to borrow from CS Lewis) in evolving a God concept in our consciousness?

Evolutionary psychologists answer this.

Personally speaking, I think God is probably an explanation for things early man didn't know. The evolutionary benefit of that?

I'll use an analogy; generations gone by believed things like blood-letting cured certain illnesses due to ignorance of said illnesses.
When you're trying to figure out why the crops didn't grow this year, you say it's because of whatever supernatural force, and embark upon rituals to try to stop it happening again. Make sense?

Is this fallacy to the laws of nature as some believe them to be the start of the evolutionary wind down of the human race? Is this pointless God concept development in our genes but the beginning of the end to the survival instinct gene in homo sapiens? Or are religious people just the outcasts or waste product of the human race which strives to evolve for purely survival purposes in a purposeless universe? If so then why has it (the God concept itself) survived for such a long time over the history of mankind on this earth?

I hate to say it, but Richard Dawkins answers these questions all pretty well!

Nobody wins if there is no God because all things are purposeless from the get go and have no sense in them nor were they meant to have if it all started by chance including the purpose of evolution.

Or it means that, within human limitations, anything is possible? Could you not find some purpose in your life without God? Would you not think that making life better for others is a good purpose, whether there is a God or not?

If I were a blank page in this world not yet convinced of either argument as to the belief systems in relation to how we came to be then it would be a hard fight to compel me toward the side of the evolutionist as I would find it much harder to place my faith in the ‘by chance everything just came into being’ belief system (which has to be taken on faith) than the belief in a supernatural all powerful being who started it all with purpose (which also has to be taken by faith).

So you think it more plausible that 'by chance' a God was conceived of himself and created the universe?

Both concepts require faith but at least the religious side will tell you that from the outset.

The difference is that the faith is required in an old book of tales of creation similar to the lore of other civilizations but the difference is that these tales are believed, and then the faith required for belief in evolution is that these things, logically explained, make sense.

The evolutionists say that their theory is fact and anyone who doesn’t accept it is a fool. That just smacks of dark ages religious mentality if you ask me and has no true old fashioned scientific searching after truth aspect to it at all.

It does smack of dark religious mentality. But I really think that's a severe exaggeration.

The universe is too perfect and balanced and beautiful a place for everything in it to be all but chance products of a series of chance happenings spread out over billions of years. The chances of even an enzyme evolving by chance has the same odds as you winning the lottery this week by finding the winning lottery ticket in the street and then winning it the same way every week for a thousand years.

Please don't take this is a personal jibe, but do you have any specific education on these matters to back up these claims

Also what do you think the odds would be of a God conceiving himself in thin air?

seamus · 14-11-2007 7:54pm

The chances of even an enzyme evolving by chance has the same odds as you winning the lottery this week by finding the winning lottery ticket in the street and then winning it the same way every week for a thousand years.

Actually, that's not entirely accurate. All it really requires is for a single cell to randomly form. After that, it's a pretty inevitable (if slow-burning) process. For most of the earth's history, all that existed was algae.

One of the problems us humans have is fathoming very large distances or periods of time. People point to mutated virii with resistances and wonder why we haven't seen such leaps in human development. They miss the fact there may be thousands, if not millions of generations of that virus before that strain emerged. We, on the other hand, are probably about 200 generations (taking a generation to be 25-30 years) from the start of recorded history.

Even in that time, we've seen genetic variance sufficient to form "proof" that evolution isn't by chance. Every single human being is a genetic mutation of their predecessors. We don't mutate by chance, it's an undeniable part of our nature. Those who benefitted from their mutations lived to procreate and pass it on.

To use your analogy, it's like winning the lottery once, then putting your money into a million different shares every week for the next billion years. If a share wins one week, you leave your money there. If it drops, you lose your money and go elsewhere.

DeVore · 14-11-2007 11:08pm

PDN wrote: »

The reason anarchists get angry with government types is because government is no longer a simple personal decision, it has invaded law, state and rights. It causes wars due to its blind faith and at its worst infringes on the most basic human rights of those who choose not to believe it in.

Hurrah! Let's ban governments! We should all be anarchists!

Your logic is faulty. You equate atheists with anarchists, and religion with government, then having drawn this analogy, you conclude with a reasonably silly statement, implying, through the use of reductio ad absurdum that my initial statement is equally invalid.

This fails because religion is not equivalent to government. Democracy enshrines the right of all people who live under a government to be able to elect, question and repeatedly replace their governments. The same cannot be said of the religious hierarchy.

You have though, neatly betrayed an example of the type of mindset (ie: religion should be in charge of society) which greatly annoys those of us who dont belong to that particular "club".

I'm not putting the boot in here, I'm answering the question the OP posed.

DeV.

DeVore · 14-11-2007 11:29pm

Soul Winner wrote: »

I'm sorry that Religion is not a simple subject that you can shelve an be done with. It's been around longer than the sciences and deserves respect and at least as level a playing field as other subjects. Science is a wonderful subject and deserves as much of an audience as any other but it does not have all the answers to all the questions and until it does then it cannot look down on religion or any other subject as being inferior to it. Religion itself is not he causer of war and evil. Mankind can do all that himself, even if it might be in the name of religion at times. Like I said in an earlier post 'don't throw the baby out with the bath water' even if some religionist are prone to taking stupid pills from time to time.

I have no issue whatsoever with the freedom of expression of religious beliefs. What I DO have a problem with is when those beliefs involve specifying what *I'm* allowed to do. The day I join a religion, is the day you can tell me wha I can and cannot do. Until then I will always have a problem with religious interference in state (and personal) matters.

If you think I am countenancing a repression of religious rights and beliefs, you might want to stop and consider on who's platform this forum, containing this and many other enlightening debates, exists.

DeV.

Fanny Cradock · 15-11-2007 12:51am

DeVore wrote: »

religion should be in charge of society

I don't think PDN actually said that. You would be hard pressed to find many Christian posters here desiring such a thing.

Scofflaw · 15-11-2007 1:03am

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't think PDN actually said that. You would be hard pressed to find many Christian posters here desiring such a thing.

Would we find it hard to find Christian posters who believe that the law of the land should reflect Christian morality, though?

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN · 15-11-2007 2:47am

DeVore wrote: »

Your logic is faulty. You equate atheists with anarchists, and religion with government, then having drawn this analogy, you conclude with a reasonably silly statement, implying, through the use of reductio ad absurdum that my initial statement is equally invalid.

This fails because religion is not equivalent to government. Democracy enshrines the right of all people who live under a government to be able to elect, question and repeatedly replace their governments. The same cannot be said of the religious hierarchy.

You have though, neatly betrayed an example of the type of mindset (ie: religion should be in charge of society) which greatly annoys those of us who dont belong to that particular "club".

I'm not putting the boot in here, I'm answering the question the OP posed.

I believe my reductio ad absurdum succeeds very well because it operates on the following principle:
De Vore argues that atheists get angry at religious types because 'religion' has invaded state, law and rights. However, that only makes sense if all religious types belonged to religions that have invaded such areas. Some religions have but some religions have not, therefore it is illogical to be opposed to religion in general or to all religious types irrespective of their brand of religion.
My reductio ad absurdum is based on the principle that some governments have invaded state, law and rights. Of course an anarchistic opposition to all government would be fat headed because some governments are fairly OK. The anarchist blanket condemnation of governments, or indeed of all 'political types' would only work if all governments were harmful.
The fact that religion is not equivalent to government is irrelevant. The reductio ad absurdum works because it displays an identical logical fallacy to Devore's argument.

Democracy enshrines the right of all people who live under a government to be able to elect, question and repeatedly replace their governments. The same cannot be said of the religious hierarchy.

What do you mean by 'the religious hierarchy'? Do you believe there is a single hierarchy over all religion? I can assure you that I belong to a denomination where we are able to elect, question and repeatedly replace our hierarchy. In fact we vote in a new hierarchy every 2 years and have term limits to ensure no-one can hold a senior position for longer than 2 terms.

You have though, neatly betrayed an example of the type of mindset (ie: religion should be in charge of society) which greatly annoys those of us who dont belong to that particular "club".

And you have betrayed an apparent inability to read someone's post before you answer it.

Where did I say that religion should be in charge of society? I have never said such a thing. In fact, on these boards, I have consistently expressed my belief in secular government. I get in enough arguments over what I actually have posted without you going inventing stuff like that.

PDN · 15-11-2007 2:52am

Scofflaw wrote: »

Would we find it hard to find Christian posters who believe that the law of the land should reflect Christian morality, though?

Most Christian posters would believe that the law of the land should reflect some Christian morality. Laws against murder, theft, etc. - but I think you would be understandably aggrieved if we tried to claim such morality as exclusively the preserve of Christians.

I would think most Christians on this board would be against laws that reflect all Christian morality (eg laws prohibiting adultery, gossip, or the worship of idols). You might get the occasional member of the lunatic fringe that would support such laws (I have one in mind) but they would be a small minority. You could always run a poll?

Scofflaw · 15-11-2007 2:55am

PDN wrote: »

I believe my reductio ad absurdum succeeds very well because it operates on the following principle:
De Vore argues that atheists get angry at religious types because 'religion' has invaded state, law and rights. However, that only makes sense if all religious types belonged to religions that have invaded such areas. Some religions have but some religions have not, therefore it is illogical to be opposed to religion in general or to all religious types irrespective of their brand of religion.
My reductio ad absurdum is based on the principle that some governments have invaded state, law and rights. Of course an anarchistic opposition to all government would be fat headed because some governments are fairly OK. The anarchist blanket condemnation of governments, or indeed of all 'political types' would only work if all governments were harmful.

All 'government' is harmful. Anarchists don't object to specific governments, but to people abdicating their responsibilities to government.

PDN wrote: »

Where did I say that religion should be in charge of society? I have never said such a thing. In fact, on these boards, I have consistently expressed my belief in secular government. I get in enough arguments over what I actually have posted without you going inventing stuff like that.

Quite true - but let me ask you the question I put to Fanny - do you believe that the law of the land should reflect Christian morality?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex · 15-11-2007 10:54am

Perhaps the issue of religion and politics belongs in another thread

Soul Winner · 15-11-2007 12:15pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soul Winner
I'm sorry that Religion is not a simple subject that you can shelve an be done with. It's been around longer than the sciences and deserves respect and at least as level a playing field as other subjects. Science is a wonderful subject and deserves as much of an audience as any other but it does not have all the answers to all the questions and until it does then it cannot look down on religion or any other subject as being inferior to it. Religion itself is not the causer of war and evil. Mankind can do all that himself, even if it might be in the name of religion at times. Like I said in an earlier post 'don't throw the baby out with the bath water' even if some religionists are prone to taking stupid pills from time to time.

DeVore wrote: »

I have no issue whatsoever with the freedom of expression of religious beliefs. What I DO have a problem with is when those beliefs involve specifying what *I'm* allowed to do. The day I join a religion, is the day you can tell me wha I can and cannot do. Until then I will always have a problem with religious interference in state (and personal) matters.

If you think I am countenancing a repression of religious rights and beliefs, you might want to stop and consider on who's platform this forum, containing this and many other enlightening debates, exists.

DeV.

I agree completely but I fail to see what that has to do with what you quoted me on???

I will try and reply to everyone else when I get 2 minutes from work.

DeVore · 15-11-2007 2:44pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Perhaps the issue of religion and politics belongs in another thread

The OP posed the question of why atheists get angry with religious people if they don't believe that God exists. My point is that its not the belief in God or otherwise that bothers them, its the increasing invasion of the secular state by the christian right, organised by powerful religious organisations that really annoys them.

Some clear examples:

The teaching of genetics in schools, the right of choice of a woman over her body, homosexual unions.

Teach what you like in your church. Hold your members accountable for their actions to your morals. Stay out of our classrooms, doctors offices and bedrooms.

I'll reply in more depth when I get a chance, running for a train now.

DeV.

PDN · 15-11-2007 2:52pm

DeVore wrote: »

The OP posed the question of why atheists get angry with religious people if they don't believe that God exists. My point is that its not the belief in God or otherwise that bothers them, its the increasing invasion of the secular state by the christian right, organised by powerful religious organisations that really annoys them.

Some clear examples:

The teaching of genetics in schools, the right of choice of a woman over her body, homosexual unions.

Teach what you like in your church. Hold your members accountable for their actions to your morals. Stay out of our classrooms, doctors offices and bedrooms.

And again, it is totally wrong to be angry at all religious people because of the actions of some religious people.

I was opposed to abortion when I was an atheist. My Christian beliefs have not affected that opposition. I do not believe that an unborn baby is merely part of a woman's body. That is a humanitarian, not a religious position.

My GP is a Christian. If he stays out of the doctor office then no-one will get treated. That wouldn't be very good.

As for your bedroom, or homosexual unions - I have no intention of going anywhere near your bedroom. I think you should be free to form a union with whoever you like (providing they are a consenting adult and, presumably, not fussy about sound logic).

bonkey · 15-11-2007 3:34pm

PDN wrote: »

And again, it is totally wrong to be angry at all religious people because of the actions of some religious people.

deVore wasn't the first to engage in such sweeping generalisations on this thread. His generalisation is no more 'totally wrong' then those used by the OP to both equate 'atheist' with 'evolutionist', and indeed to tar all atheists with the same brush.

Its interesting to note, though, that in a thread effectively asking why atheists/evolutionists get angry with Christians/believers, it was the latter who objected to mischaracterisation first.

For allegedly angry people, those atheists are sure willing to suck a lot up

bonkey · 15-11-2007 3:36pm

PDN wrote: »

And again, it is totally wrong to be angry at all religious people because of the actions of some religious people.

For the record, I agree completely.

Individuals should be treated based on their individual actions and voiced opinions, as far as is possible.

Zombrex · 15-11-2007 3:54pm

PDN wrote: »

And again, it is totally wrong to be angry at all religious people because of the actions of some religious people.

Is he getting angry at all religious people?

My understanding of what he is saying is that he gets angry with those who wish to push religion into the realm of general social policy. As you say that isn't all religious people.

Belief in God versus the Evolutionist's put down

Comments