If extra terrestrial life was discovered

swampgas

philologos wrote: »

Not at all. Faith is about trusting what God has done, it is about trusting the evidence that God has given us and about living our lives in the light of this.

I don't believe that God hasn't given us any evidence, rather He has given us an abundance of evidence both in the eyewitness testimony that we've received concerning Jesus, and from looking around us and making sense of this Creation that we happen to find ourselves in. I don't share the view that there is no reason or no grounding to this reality, and that a God is gratuitous and unnecessary.

First off, apologies for the tardy response - haven't had a chance to reply until now. Also apologies for the "crock" remark, I could have found a more polite way to phrase that.

Regarding the alleged evidence of the Bible though: might I put it to you that you are simply projecting what you want to see into the Bible? Is it not possible (likely even?) that you are actively looking to find meaning/purpose somewhere - if you hadn't found it in the Bible, perhaps you would have found it in another Holy Book, or in Scientology, or in the writings of Nostradamus?

I say this because you seem to be performing mental contortions of the most convoluted kind to somehow convert the rather bizarre text of the Bible into something that ties up with our modern understanding of the world. All the contradictions melt away as you interpret words one way here and another way there, all the while starting at your finishing point and working backwards from it, rather than starting with the evidence and working forward to where it may take you.

I have to admit that I am truly baffled that you can write so well while at the same time appearing (to me) to be so willfully self-deluded.

philologos

Bloodwing wrote: »

I'm sorry Phil but if there's one thing that religion lacks it's logical sense. It is entirely illogical to look at something we don't fully understand and decide it's the work of a supernatural being when the only reason to believe it is an ancient text.

Logic is looking at something we don't understand and trying to figure it out based on the evidence before us, somethings we'll never understand but it still doesn't make it logical to attribute it to a deity without primary evidence.

Firstly you use the meaningless generic term 'religion'. You do realise that there are particular religions with differing creeds?

Secondly you've admitted to me that you've not even looked into the Biblical accounts for yourself concerning Jesus. How can you know what you've rejected, or how can you be so sure that you are right concerning Him?

Thirdly, I've mentioned on numerous occasions that despite the new-atheist hollow claim that Christians don't place their beliefs on evidence it is false. Christians base their belief on eyewitness testimony, and Christians base their belief on a God which is evident in creation. You can decide to reject that, but I'm certainly not going to concede to you something that is completely false in my estimation.

Fourthly, you claim "the only reason to believe it is an ancient text". That's not even what I claim, or any Christian claims. How old or how new something is has no bearing whatsoever on how true it is.

I agree on your definition of logic by the by, what I don't agree with is what evidence that is on the table.

Admittedly I'm hugely sceptical when I see stuff like this.

robindch

koth wrote: »

How do you explain the Bible getting it so wrong?

It's not wrong -- it's metaphorically right.

pauldla

philologos wrote: »

Firstly you use the meaningless generic term 'religion'. You do realise that there are particular religions with differing creeds?

Secondly you've admitted to me that you've not even looked into the Biblical accounts for yourself concerning Jesus. How can you know what you've rejected, or how can you be so sure that you are right concerning Him?

Thirdly, I've mentioned on numerous occasions that despite the new-atheist hollow claim that Christians don't place their beliefs on evidence it is false. Christians base their belief on eyewitness testimony, and Christians base their belief on a God which is evident in creation. You can decide to reject that, but I'm certainly not going to concede to you something that is completely false in my estimation.

Fourthly, you claim "the only reason to believe it is an ancient text". That's not even what I claim, or any Christian claims. How old or how new something is has no bearing whatsoever on how true it is.

I agree on your definition of logic by the by, what I don't agree with is what evidence that is on the table.

Admittedly I'm hugely sceptical when I see stuff like this.

Philo, there is no eyewitness testimony in Christianity. Christians like to believe that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses, but that is little more than wishful thinking.

Sarky

It wouldn't be true or accurate without eyewitnesses. Therefore there were eyewitnesses.

That's about as far as his logic is willing to go. He's scared of takeing that last step, always shying away at the last minute. Shame, really.

Sin City

philologos wrote: »

Christians don't believe that Jesus was human. Christians believe that Jesus was God who took on human form. It's an event referred to as the incarnation. A good passage to look to for a start on this would be Philippians 2:1-11. Christians will be celebrating this in about a months time. It's also important to note that Christians have traditionally believed Jesus to have been pre-eminent.

If I actually believed that Jesus was entirely human, I'd understand your point entirely, but this isn't a Christian belief. You're right though, if Jesus were not God in human form His death would be entirely meaningless because He could never atone for sin. That's very perceptive of you.

Thats funny because according to the council of Chalcedon this is exactly what Christianity declared. Jesus was both fully human and fully divine, and this was only established to combat the question I posed about could he really save us. Now even as you said , if he just took on human form but was still God it still renders his sacrifce as usless as he wasnt fully human

philologos wrote: »

We've all done what is wicked, bad, wrong, etc rather than doing what is good. Therefore we've all done evil.

Honestly, if I look back through my own life, I can see that I would be a liar if I said that I hadn't done what is evil rather than what is good. Although, I guess if you think that evil is whatever you want it to be, and good is whatever you decide it is then evil and good no longer have any objective grounding and are meaningless. Considering that the world does not regard these terms as being meaningless, I'd hazard a guess and say that they are abundantly meaningful for a reason.

There is a massive difference from being bold to being evil, from being a dick to being evil isnt there?

philologos wrote: »

God doesnt have to have had Jesus take our place, its his rules, and he could change them if he wanted.

So he didnt have to sacrifice himself for us did he? He could have just changed the rules/

philologos wrote: »

I've not said that atheists can't do what is good. What I have said is that atheism can't explain why people are inclined to do good. Or why the terms good and evil are meaningful, and have objective substance and meaning. The Christian gospel can.

Not so, Atheists can explain why people do good. People are actually good. People can get a good feeling , a rush of endorphines when they help people out. Possibly a throw back from our early days where it was crucial for our survival evolved into a trait. People were good before God was ever talked about, or do you think Good never existed before humans thought up a deity?

philologos wrote: »

I'm very serious. It's the most powerful image that exists in this world.

In the Christian view Jesus did save mankind from their sin, by taking God's wrath in our place. I've posted about your position about Jesus being a human and so on up above. If you read that and have any thoughts post back to me.

He didnt have to, he made the rules, he could have changed them if he desired/

philologos wrote: »

What if Jesus had been released? - If Jesus was meant to die on the cross (as Christians believe) as a part of God's sovereign plan for humanity even asking the question "what if Jesus had been released" doesn't make sense. If God had preordained the death of Christ as Christians believe in order to save humanity from sin, then there is no possible way that Jesus couldn't have died and indeed resurrected from the dead.

If Jesus was destined to die on the cross then it is pointless, nothing humanity could have done to prevent it if he was already preordained to be sacrficed. So its a bit of an empty gesture.

philologos wrote: »

Instead of complaining about it being "bollox" why don't you give me a reason as to why it is "bollox"? Then we can talk.

I have given you several

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

I find that Christianity makes logical sense of the world where atheism simply doesn't.

Of course it doesnt. We are in a universe and we have many open questions about that fact. Many people put forward answers to those questions. "Atheism" is just an empty term for those people who do not buy YOUR particular brand of explanation. As such in and of itself it does not "make sense" of anything and more than withholding spices from a recipe adds flavour to it.

philologos wrote: »

It's normal and expected for people to look around them and evaluate what makes the most logical sense.

Just because it is "normal" does not make it "right" or "true". There are many things that do not "make sense" to humans but are true. There are many things that make lots of "sense" to them which are not true. If the sole support.... and it seems that it actually is.... that you have for your Christian position is that it makes personal sense to you then you are on weaker ground than any of us ever imagined.

PopePalpatine

This may or may not be fascinating, but today I learned that, in Hebrew, the term "Son of God" can be applied to prophet-like people as well as those who claimed to be God's son.

King Mob

philologos wrote: »

I've already explained (and if you look to those links I explain even more) how there is a symmetry between the first three days of creation and the last three in the passage. The Genesis account isn't a technical account of how exactly everything came to be. It's an account which points to the sovereignty of God and the power of God behind creation.

I'm not going to defend a view of Genesis 1 that I don't hold.

In what world is this an explanation or answer to my question.

I wanted you to explain specifically why the bible claims that birds and whales came before land animals.
I asked you to explain the poetic meaning.

Simply stating that it has poetic meaning without explaining why is not an answer.

How does claiming something we know isn't true, but is not as visual or poetic as birds and whales coming before land animals make symmetry with anything?
Why is symmetry more important than the truth? Why were the authors unable to make symmetry with the truth?

Sarky

Because he likes it more than the alternative.

Also, if his past posts are anything to go by, it's the only thing stopping him from becoming a serial murderer.

philologos

Sin City wrote: »

Thats funny because according to the council of Chalcedon this is exactly what Christianity declared. Jesus was both fully human and fully divine, and this was only established to combat the question I posed about could he really save us. Now even as you said , if he just took on human form but was still God it still renders his sacrifce as usless as he wasnt fully human

Jesus in Christian belief was both human, and divine. Jesus was fully God, and fully man. Jesus was fully man insofar as He took on human flesh. Biologically, Jesus while He was on earth was human flesh.

Philippians 2:1-11, Colossians 1:15-18, John 1:1-18 are brief examples. Jesus when He speaks in the New Testament on a few occasions explains that He was pre-eminent (existing prior to His incarnation). For the entire history of Christian church Christians have believed this.

Another useful passage to look to in terms of how Jesus was in human flesh is Hebrews chapter 4:

Hebrews 4:14-18 wrote:

Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathise with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

So in short, Jesus was in human flesh, yet He was God in human form. That's the essential difference.

This doesn't undermine the belief that Jesus was fully God and fully man in Scripture. It is because Jesus is blameless (without sin) that He can take on the wrath of God on our behalf.

Sin City wrote: »

There is a massive difference from being bold to being evil, from being a dick to being evil isnt there?

In what respect? Evil is doing what is evidently wrong. Look at the synonyms I gave you from the dictionary.

Sin City wrote: »

So he didnt have to sacrifice himself for us did he? He could have just changed the rules/

A God who changes the rules is an incompetent and an unjust God. His standards are utterly righteous. The problem isn't with God, it is because we're utterly unrighteous. A holy and a righteous God in order to be just must punish for sin. Jesus by standing as a ransom shows God's mercy and God's inherent justice.

I don't follow an incompetent God, and a holy God.

Sin City wrote: »

Not so, Atheists can explain why people do good. People are actually good. People can get a good feeling , a rush of endorphines when they help people out. Possibly a throw back from our early days where it was crucial for our survival evolved into a trait. People were good before God was ever talked about, or do you think Good never existed before humans thought up a deity?

People aren't "actually good". That's the thing, that's the wishful thinking. We all know that we've done stuff wrong rather than right. Logically we also know that if I robbed someone thirty years ago and then did nothing wrong ever since (as if that were possible) I am still guilty of the robbery.

Survival doesn't show ethics. Survival would produce an utterly selfish view of morality and certainly one where genuine self-sacrifice would never rear its head.

Sin City wrote: »

He didnt have to, he made the rules, he could have changed them if he desired/

See above.

Sin City wrote: »

If Jesus was destined to die on the cross then it is pointless, nothing humanity could have done to prevent it if he was already preordained to be sacrficed. So its a bit of an empty gesture.

Not at all. I've shown you that it is meaningful, but it seems that you're claiming that people are "good" without any meaningful standard of what is good. What do you mean by "good"? There's no point in using it in a discussion unless you can provide an objective meaning.

Sin City wrote: »

I have given you several

The reasons don't seem to hold up though. That's my issue with it.

robindch

philologos wrote: »

This doesn't undermine the belief that Jesus was fully God and fully man in Scripture. It is because Jesus is blameless (without sin) that He can take on the wrath of God on our behalf.

And since Jesus and God are the same entity, it's amazingly silly to believe that god-jesus might "take on the wrath" that the very same god-jesus had instituted.

philologos wrote: »

Jesus by standing as a ransom shows God's mercy and God's inherent justice.

So, god-jesus ransomed god-jesus to god-jesus in order to show god-jesus's own "inherent justice"?

Like, seriously, phil, I don't mind you ignoring these points from time to time. Hell, even you ignoring them all the time is fine too -- people read this forum and, very easily, they can see you avoiding the issue and draw their own conclusions from your avoidance.

Still, though, why don't you respond to the weird contradictions which I've mentioned here and which are inevitable conclusions of the christian belief that god and jesus are the same entity? I'd have thought that daftness at the center of your belief system would be interesting for you, but perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe you're ok with this religious silliness and you really don't mind it at all.

robindch

philologos wrote: »

Survival doesn't show ethics. Survival would produce an utterly selfish view of morality and certainly one where genuine self-sacrifice would never rear its head.

Have a read of Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene" which rebuts that specific creationist myth at great length and in considerable detail.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

Have a read of Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene" which rebuts that specific creationist myth at great length and in considerable detail.

Perhaps you can paraphrase what is said if you want to make an argument on it's basis. Chucking the word "survival" in to explain ethics is utterly meaningless without any substance added to explain it.

robindch

philologos wrote: »

Perhaps you can paraphrase what is said if you want to make an argument on it's basis. Chucking the word "survival" in to explain ethics is utterly meaningless without any substance added to explain it.

You were the person who included the inappropriate word "survival", no doubt having heard it derived at some distance from Herbert Spencer's dreadfully misleading, and frequently quite wrong, term "survival of the fittest".

The topic of reciprocity and the derivation of altruistic behaviour is documented at length in Dawkins' books. There are many other books which take similar, if slightly differently slanted, views on the same topic.

In short, a group which includes individuals who self-sacrifice to the greater good of the group, will outbreed a group which doesn't.

You can interpret this behaviour as altruistic or group-selfish or something else as you wish -- the effects upon the group are the same.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

You were the person who included the inappropriate word "survival", no doubt having heard it derived at some distance from Herbert Spencer's dreadfully misleading, and frequently quite wrong, term "survival of the fittest".

The topic of reciprocity and the derivation of altruistic behaviour is documented at length in Dawkins' books. There are many other books which take similar, if slightly differently slanted, views on the same topic.

In short, a group which includes individuals who self-sacrifice to the greater good of the group, will outbreed a group which doesn't.

You can interpret this behaviour as altruistic or group-selfish or something else as you wish -- the effects upon the group are the same.

No I amn't the one who introduced survival into this topic by the by:

Sin City wrote:

Not so, Atheists can explain why people do good. People are actually good. People can get a good feeling , a rush of endorphines when they help people out. Possibly a throw back from our early days where it was crucial for our survival evolved into a trait. People were good before God was ever talked about, or do you think Good never existed before humans thought up a deity?

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

Perhaps you can paraphrase what is said if you want to make an argument on it's basis.

The argument (or "fact" as we like to call it) is that co-operation and altruism increase the survival rates of genetic hosts (ie us) and thus the survival rates of the genes themselves.

The idea that the most selfish person is the fittest from an evolutionary position has been utterly debunked, if it was ever taken all that seriously in the first place. Even something as extreme as self-sacrifice is easily explained from an evolutionary position.

The idea that selfishness and aggressive behavior for personal gain is what we naturally are about now seems to only exist purely in the minds of people who think nature is some how bad and that we must reject it in order to be good.

We have evolved to be good. Which of course stands to reason, since "good" is just what we call behavior that we instinctively consider, well, good.

robindch

philologos wrote: »

No I amn't the one who introduced survival into this topic by the by:

Great. Sin City introduced the term slightly before you did. I'm happy that we got that vital issue sorted out before the thread descended into recrimination, assault and death threats.

But aside from that, would you like to respond to the answer I gave to the question you asked?

Or would you prefer to ignore it?

philologos

Zombrex wrote: »

The argument (or "fact" as we like to call it) is that co-operation and altruism increase the survival rates of genetic hosts (ie us) and thus the survival rates of the genes themselves.

I'm sorry but it isn't a "fact" that human ethics are based on a survival instinct.

Many scientists would disagree with that conclusion. Or that science can somehow lead us to an objective morality as Sam Harris has claimed. Even if that is genuinely the truth, one can still question why order and scientific laws even exist as they do in the universe.

Zombrex wrote: »

The idea that the most selfish person is the fittest from an evolutionary position has been utterly debunked, if it was ever taken all that seriously in the first place. Even something as extreme as self-sacrifice is easily explained from an evolutionary position.

No, but the "survival of the fittest" as an ethical philosophy is inherently selfish. If one takes that to heart, it means doing what is best for you, even if that may be to the detriment of others.

Zombrex wrote: »

The idea that selfishness and aggressive behavior for personal gain is what we naturally are about now seems to only exist purely in the minds of people who think nature is some how bad and that we must reject it in order to be good.

I don't think "nature is bad". I also don't believe that a "survival of the fittest" philosophy adequately explains how humans do ethics, nor do they explain concepts such as "good" or "evil" in an objective manner as Sin City has used them in his post. Good and evil are absolutely meaningless without an objective grounding. It's a topic that comes up time and time again, and I've not heard one decent answer from an atheist on the subject.

Zombrex wrote: »

We have evolved to be good. Which of course stands to reason, since "good" is just what we call behavior that we instinctively consider, well, good.

This begs the question of why we consider what is good, good. I don't think the "survival of the fittest" argument adequately matches with what people actually believe about moral action.

Bloodwing

philologos wrote: »

Firstly you use the meaningless generic term 'religion'. You do realise that there are particular religions with differing creeds?

I'm well aware that there are particular religions with differing creeds, I put them all in the same box. I don't claim to be aware of every religion out there but the ones i know of all consist of the same BS.

philologos wrote: »

Secondly you've admitted to me that you've not even looked into the Biblical accounts for yourself concerning Jesus. How can you know what you've rejected, or how can you be so sure that you are right concerning Him?

I can now say I've read Marks gospel and I can confirm that it contains stories written hundreds of years ago and it offers absolutely no primary evidence to support the existence of a god. I have therefore come to the logical conclusion that god more than likely doesn't exist.

philologos wrote: »

Thirdly, I've mentioned on numerous occasions that despite the new-atheist hollow claim that Christians don't place their beliefs on evidence it is false. Christians base their belief on eyewitness testimony, and Christians base their belief on a God which is evident in creation. You can decide to reject that, but I'm certainly not going to concede to you something that is completely false in my estimation.

Please show me some examples of eyewitness testimony where the source of the testimony has been properly examined to ensure it is not the result of mental illness, staring at the sun for extended periods of time or some other easily explained situation. I can provide you with a huge number of links to people who claim to be eyewitnesses to alien abductions, big foot, the Loch Ness monster and ghosts do you also believe all these things exist as a result of this testimony? I can even provide you with pictures taken by some of these eye witnesses.

I'd also appreciate if you could show where god is evident in creation. My level of knowledge of the natural world is limited to secondary school science and I'll be the first to admit I didn't pay much attention back then so it's possible I slept through the class on the evidence of god in creation.

philologos wrote: »

Fourthly, you claim "the only reason to believe it is an ancient text". That's not even what I claim, or any Christian claims. How old or how new something is has no bearing whatsoever on how true it is.

I'm sorry about this one Phil, I wasn't aware you were basing your belief on something other that the bible, which is an ancient text. I'd be only delighted to here what other evidence and logical reasons you have to believe in god.

Your also correct in saying "How old or how new something is has no bearing whatsoever on how true it is". You're dead right, I never claimed it did. Once something is true it will always be true but what age does have a bearing one is how easy it is to verify the claims it makes.

philologos wrote: »

I agree on your definition of logic by the by, what I don't agree with is what evidence that is on the table.

I'm glad we agree on the definition of logic. I look forward to hearing you logical reasons for believing in god.

philologos wrote: »

Admittedly I'm hugely sceptical when I see stuff like this.

I'm also hugely skeptical about stuff, that's why I've never read a book and accepted it's claims to be true without at least looking for something to verify those claims.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

And since Jesus and God are the same entity, it's amazingly silly to believe that god-jesus might "take on the wrath" that the very same god-jesus had instituted.So, god-jesus ransomed god-jesus to god-jesus in order to show god-jesus's own "inherent justice"?

Except, I genuinely don't think it is silly for God to still affirm His standards as being correct, just and holy, while demonstrating clearly that sin is costly and that it took a great sacrifice to take it away.

If God did not show His mercy in this way and simply changed his standard, then that would be claiming that the problem is with Him, rather than with us which would be utterly false given the plain reality.

robindch wrote: »

Like, seriously, phil, I don't mind you ignoring these points from time to time. Hell, even you ignoring them all the time is fine too -- people read this forum and, very easily, they can see you avoiding the issue and draw their own conclusions from your avoidance.

Except, I haven't ignored them. I disagree strongly with your objection. There's a fundamental difference between ignoring, and strongly disagreeing with you while explaining my objection to your post.

robindch wrote: »

Still, though, why don't you respond to the weird contradictions which I've mentioned here and which are inevitable conclusions of the christian belief that god and jesus are the same entity? I'd have thought that daftness at the center of your belief system would be interesting for you, but perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe you're ok with this religious silliness and you really don't mind it at all.

I have. I don't see a contradiction.

A contradiction is where one thing explicitly precludes the other. I've yet to see anything of this sort from you on this thread. Perhaps if you point out what exactly that contradiction is that'd be really useful.

There's nothing silly about Jesus standing as a substitute for our sin to demonstrate God's justice, mercy and the massive cost of sin.

philologos

Bloodwing wrote: »

I'm well aware that there are particular religions with differing creeds, I put them all in the same box. I don't claim to be aware of every religion out there but the ones i know of all consist of the same BS.

Unjustifiably. They differ in major ways. I'm sorry but I'm not going to defend anything apart from the Gospel of Christ. I'm not one of those people who will define the vague concept of "religion" to you. I think much religion is horrendous.

Bloodwing wrote: »

I can now say I've read Marks gospel and I can confirm that it contains stories written hundreds of years ago and it offers absolutely no primary evidence to support the existence of a god. I have therefore come to the logical conclusion that god more than likely doesn't exist.

Great, maybe you can PM me and let me know what you think, and what objections you have to Mark's gospel? That'd be really interesting. If you don't want to that's also fine.

Bloodwing wrote: »

Please show me some examples of eyewitness testimony where the source of the testimony has been properly examined to ensure it is not the result of mental illness, staring at the sun for extended periods of time or some other easily explained situation. I can provide you with a huge number of links to people who claim to be eyewitnesses to alien abductions, big foot, the Loch Ness monster and ghosts do you also believe all these things exist as a result of this testimony? I can even provide you with pictures taken by some of these eye witnesses.

Look at it this way. The claims of the Gospel mention specific events, specific people, specific places. If the Gospel was a load of tosh, and it was spreading around the Roman Empire much to the displeasure of the authorities why wouldn't they have debunked this sooner?

Moreover, in terms of the gospel writers, you have to ask to yourself if it was a load of tosh why would you list a load of people who were still alive for others to ask them about the specific details what happened? Moreover why would you encourage people to investigate the subject for themselves like in the opening of Luke's Gospel, in John's Gospel and again in Paul's epistles in particular.

How can texts that were written decades before the Gospels match up entirely with the details in the Gospels if was all cobbled together as fiction?

I think atheists have about as much explaining to do as Christians on this to be honest with you if they are going to seriously claim that Christianity is a lie.

Bloodwing wrote: »

I'd also appreciate if you could show where god is evident in creation. My level of knowledge of the natural world is limited to secondary school science and I'll be the first to admit I didn't pay much attention back then so it's possible I slept through the class on the evidence of god in creation.

Bloodwing wrote: »

I'm sorry about this one Phil, I wasn't aware you were basing your belief on something other that the bible, which is an ancient text. I'd be only delighted to here what other evidence and logical reasons you have to believe in god.

Morality, the very fact that we are here, the Resurrection of Jesus (this is the pivotal point - if this is wrong my whole faith is pointless) amongst other things convict me of the Gospel of Jesus, the consistency of the New Testament, the manuscript evidence for the Scriptures remaining unchanged, the powerful change that has taken place in my life and the lives of others. The fact that the Bible largely agrees with archaeology, and history to a large degree gives me even more reason to trust it.

I'm more than happy to go through specific details of these with you, but I don't believe the atheistic alternative to Christianity makes much sense. I remember the sheer cognitive dissonance I had as an agnostic trying to piece this all together even though I knew deep down that something was true irrespective of the fact that I had no idea as to what it was.

Read your post again:

I'm sorry Phil but if there's one thing that religion lacks it's logical sense. It is entirely illogical to look at something we don't fully understand and decide it's the work of a supernatural being when the only reason to believe it is an ancient text.

That's tripe. I don't believe in stuff because it's really old. I believe in stuff that holds up on examination.

Bloodwing wrote: »

Your also correct in saying "How old or how new something is has no bearing whatsoever on how true it is". You're dead right, I never claimed it did. Once something is true it will always be true but what age does have a bearing one is how easy it is to verify the claims it makes.

You implied that I think that when I don't. You said the only reason to believe in Christianity is because the Bible is really old. That's not even my position and it irks me a little bit when people claim it is without any good grounding.

Bloodwing wrote: »

I'm glad we agree on the definition of logic. I look forward to hearing you logical reasons for believing in god.

I've skimmed through a few above briefly, but I think it would be useful if you brought your objections to the Gospel of Mark forward to me on PM and then perhaps that'll give me a starting point to walk through my reasoning as to why I can trust it.

Bloodwing wrote: »

I'm also hugely skeptical about stuff, that's why I've never read a book and accepted it's claims to be true without at least looking for something to verify those claims.

It's daft to be sceptical of something without investigation though. If you've not read the Bible and you've decided that it is entirely false without thinking about it properly that's not scepticism, that's non-thinking.

doctoremma

Since when was 'survival of the fittest' an 'ethical philosophy'? Since when were the 'fittest' the most 'selfish'?

philologos

doctoremma wrote: »

Since when was 'survival of the fittest' an 'ethical philosophy'? Since when were the 'fittest' the most 'selfish'?

When you are using "survival of the fittest" terminology to explain morality that's when it starts being a philosophy about ethics.

King Mob

philologos wrote: »

When you are using "survival of the fittest" terminology to explain morality that's when it starts being a philosophy about ethics.

But Robin has pointed out a very simple fact that you've ignored.

A group that consists of individuals capable of self sacrifice for the good of the group will be more successful that a group that does not.
Humans aren't even the only species that exhibit this.
Do you disagree with this? If so, on what basis?

By ignoring it, it makes it clear that you cannot address this point.
Why do you think that ignoring questions is a valid tactic? Do you think that it invalidates the points?

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

I'm sorry but it isn't a "fact" that human ethics are based on a survival instinct.

Er, yes it is. The evolutionary development of things like altruism is quite well understood. We have a much much better idea of why a human for example would consider it immoral to hurt a child than we do have an idea for why God would consider it immoral to hurt a child (he "just" does, I suppose).

philologos wrote: »

Even if that is genuinely the truth, one can still question why order and scientific laws even exist as they do in the universe.

And you can also ask why does God exist rather than not exist and why is he one way and not another way.

If you assume there has to be an intelligent reason behind everything its turtles all the way down, something Christians are more than happy to ignore when it suits them.

philologos wrote: »

No, but the "survival of the fittest" as an ethical philosophy is inherently selfish.

Well no actually it isn't. To be inherently selfish we would have to be the center of the system. Since we aren't, it isn't. We live and die for our genes.

philologos wrote: »

If one takes that to heart, it means doing what is best for you, even if that may be to the detriment of others.

Only if you don't understand what nature is already telling us. Remember the "fittest" is the person able to survive long enough to mate as much as possible)

In general it is not possible to do what is best for you at the detriment of others. People who act that way end up either dead or simply unable to mate, or not mate as much as those who co-operate with their fellow man.

philologos wrote: »

I don't think "nature is bad". I also don't believe that a "survival of the fittest" philosophy adequately explains how humans do ethics, nor do they explain concepts such as "good" or "evil" in an objective manner as Sin City has used them in his post. Good and evil are absolutely meaningless without an objective grounding.

"Good" and "evil" are words humans came up with for concepts that they think about. Who ever said they are required to have objective grounding? Is the universe required to provide us with an objective something simply because we think of it.

Or to put it another way, can I have my unicorn now ...

philologos wrote: »

It's a topic that comes up time and time again, and I've not heard one decent answer from an atheist on the subject.

When presented with decent answers you ignore them, or dismiss them, or say something stupid like Lots of people thinks morals are objective therefore they are.

You don't take this topic seriously, so why would you expect to encounter answers you consider decent.

philologos wrote: »

This begs the question of why we consider what is good, good.

That question has already been answers, you just don't like the answer because it doesn't require God (in fact it simply highlights how silly "God did it" is as an answer)

We consider things "good" because have evolved certain behavior that has proven beneficial to are long term survival as a species, or more specifically the survival of our genes.

philologos wrote: »

I don't think the "survival of the fittest" argument adequately matches with what people actually believe about moral action.

What people believe about moral action is irrelevant. Some people believe the world is flat, some believe dragons exist, some believe Muhammad saw an angel in a cave.

What matters is that survival of the fittest, ie evolutionary biology, (as it is actually stated, not some silly Christian straw man) explains moral action almost perfectly, or at the very least with an astounding success found little in few other places in science.

You have a hard time with this either because you don't understand (which at this stage really you don't have much of an excuse for) or because you don't like the implications of it since it explains morality without requiring a "God did it" at the centre of it all.

Zombrex

King Mob wrote: »

But Robin has pointed out a very simple fact that you've ignored.

He does that a lot ... gets kinda annoying after a while ... oh well.

Zombrex

doctoremma wrote: »

Since when was 'survival of the fittest' an 'ethical philosophy'? Since when were the 'fittest' the most 'selfish'?

Since Christians would prefer to straw man evolutionary biology rather than admit that yes actually it makes a ton of sense and explains most of the behavior of our species.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

Except, I genuinely don't think it is silly for God to still affirm His standards as being correct, just and holy, while demonstrating clearly that sin is costly and that it took a great sacrifice to take it away.

A great sacrifice from whom exactly (anytime you say "Jesus" also repeat the sentence with "God" instead please, and see if it still makes sense)

philologos wrote: »

If God did not show His mercy in this way and simply changed his standard, then that would be claiming that the problem is with Him, rather than with us which would be utterly false given the plain reality.

So God demonstrated the problem was with us, not him, be pouring his entire wrath on himself?

philologos wrote: »

There's nothing silly about Jesus standing as a substitute for our sin to demonstrate God's justice, mercy and the massive cost of sin.

Nothing silly if you completely ignore the silliness (see above)

Panrich

Quick get out the red carpet!

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-11/what-earth-shaking-evidence-did-mars-rover-curiosity-just-find