Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

silverharp · 16-03-2015 06:33PM

Nick Park wrote: »

Again, I think you're making faith statements. It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that, however you define 'human', that evolution led to a series of mutations by which somebody eventually crossed the line from being 'nearly human' to 'human'. I can't see that you have any evidence that was not the case.

Then you say that you 'don't see a God that was communicating with them in any sense.' Can you present evidence to that effect? If not, then it's another faith statement.

if you are interested have a look at the following video, its 4 minutes long only but presents evoluton in a very visual way. The point is made that whatever generation you look at , the parents and kids would have been pretty much identical.

So the scenario i see is that anywhere going back a million years there was some kind of humanoid that was more than an ape. That means there were multiple groups unrelated without the means of communicating with other groups who wouldnt have had a formal language so while being human they would not have had the mental or physical tools to pass on a constant god story.

Do you not see my issue? I see evolution happening, I dont see christians giving a credible account of where God actually steps in and is with these multiple starting points of mankind. And what mechanism would god have used to keep several thousand family groups in contact with Himself where the parents do not have a language to convey god to their kids?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdWLhXi24Mo

pueblo · 16-03-2015 11:54PM

“God is a comedian playing to an audience that is too afraid to laugh.”
Voltaire

Nick Park · 17-03-2015 11:49AM

silverharp wrote: »

if you are interested have a look at the following video, its 4 minutes long only but presents evoluton in a very visual way. The point is made that whatever generation you look at , the parents and kids would have been pretty much identical.

So the scenario i see is that anywhere going back a million years there was some kind of humanoid that was more than an ape. That means there were multiple groups unrelated without the means of communicating with other groups who wouldnt have had a formal language so while being human they would not have had the mental or physical tools to pass on a constant god story.

Do you not see my issue? I see evolution happening, I dont see christians giving a credible account of where God actually steps in and is with these multiple starting points of mankind. And what mechanism would god have used to keep several thousand family groups in contact with Himself where the parents do not have a language to convey god to their kids?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdWLhXi24Mo

I have a policy of not watching videos that people post as a substitute for stating their case in their own words. Also, because I would rather spend 60 seconds reading something in print that takes 5 minutes or more on a video.

Unfortunately, in this case, I broke my policy and was reminded why I operate such a policy in the first place.

The guy in the video made the repeated assertion that "there was no first human" but didn't offer any evidence. His argument appears to be that because the transition between species occurred in very small increments, that therefore there was no point where the transition occurred. And if he says that often enough, and confidently enough, then we should believe him.

That makes no sense. If something transitions from A to B then there is, by definition, a point where it passes from being non-B to being B. That point may be an increment so small that you can't recognise it, but that does not mean that it doesn't exist.

Also, the video seems particularly ineffective in the context of this thread, because there was nothing there to challenge a Christian understanding of the Bible.

Christian theology teaches that "the first human" was not so much of a biological phenomenon, but rather a spiritual act by which God put a spirit into a man (or humanoid, if you prefer). The possession of this spirit, and the ability it gives us to communicate with God, sets people apart from animals.

Now, that might conflict with your own faith position, but I don't see that you've offered any argument that speaks to that point at all.

marienbad · 17-03-2015 01:02PM

Nick Park wrote: »

Christian theology teaches that "the first human" was not so much of a biological phenomenon, but rather a spiritual act by which God put a spirit into a man (or humanoid, if you prefer). The possession of this spirit, and the ability it gives us to communicate with God, sets people apart from animals.

Now, that might conflict with your own faith position, but I don't see that you've offered any argument that speaks to that point at all.

What argument have you offered ? All you are saying is that in your interpretation of Christian theology is that at some point God put a spirit into man . So what ?

Within your own closed loop reading of your own holy books this is your interpretation . And one not shared by many other Christians ? Correct ?

But it is an interpretation not dependant on or subject to any events outside its own literature .

You have offered not a shred of evidence whether or not it conforms to science, reality, whatever . And you are unlikely to do so , why would you ?

Nick Park · 17-03-2015 01:42PM

marienbad wrote: »

What argument have you offered ? All you are saying is that in your interpretation of Christian theology is that at some point God put a spirit into man . So what ?

I'm not offering any argument. Silverharp offered an argument (that what we know of human origins contradicts the Christian concept of 'the first human') and I'm pointing out why his/her argument is invalid.

You see, this thread works like this. People offer arguments for or against the existence of God, and then others respond to those arguments. So that's what I'm doing - responding to Silverharp's argument.

If I was interested in trying to convince you of God's existence then I would have offered an argument. But I'm not and I didn't.

Within your own closed loop reading of your own holy books this is your interpretation . And one not shared by many other Christians ? Correct ?

No, incorrect. It's one that I've heard from many Christians. Ever hear of the BioLogos Forum? I appreciate it probably sounds unusual to those who are more interested in constructing strawmen rather than trying to understand what Christians actually believe and the varieties of Christian belief.

But it is an interpretation not dependant on or subject to any events outside its own literature .

It doesn't need to be, not to demonstrate the invalid nature of Silverharp's argument.

You have offered not a shred of evidence whether or not it conforms to science, reality, whatever . And you are unlikely to do so , why would you ?

Why would I indeed? I only would if I were advancing arguments to persuade anyone of God's existence, and I have no interest in that. As far as I'm concerned, atheists and theists represent two opposing faith positions (only one of us generally being honest enough to admit so). I've yet to see one decent argument advanced in this thread (or its predecessor) that would be likely to persuade anyone on either side. But those of both sides will keep on trying, and others will keep shooting those arguments down.

marienbad · 17-03-2015 01:59PM

Nick Park wrote: »

I'm not offering any argument. Silverharp offered an argument (that what we know of human origins contradicts the Christian concept of 'the first human') and I'm pointing out why his/her argument is invalid.

You see, this thread works like this. People offer arguments for or against the existence of God, and then others respond to those arguments. So that's what I'm doing - responding to Silverharp's argument.

If I was interested in trying to convince you of God's existence then I would have offered an argument. But I'm not and I didn't.

No, incorrect. It's one that I've heard from many Christians. Ever hear of the BioLogos Forum? I appreciate it probably sounds unusual to those who are more interested in constructing strawmen rather than trying to understand what Christians actually believe and the varieties of Christian belief.

It doesn't need to be, not to demonstrate the invalid nature of Silverharp's argument.

Why would I indeed? I only would if I were advancing arguments to persuade anyone of God's existence, and I have no interest in that. As far as I'm concerned, atheists and theists represent two opposing faith positions (only one of us generally being honest enough to admit so). I've yet to see one decent argument advanced in this thread (or its predecessor) that would be likely to persuade anyone on either side. But those of both sides will keep on trying, and others will keep shooting those arguments down.

This is just semantics , of course you are offering an argument , the very fact of posting is an argument . So lets not be so pompous about it.

And this ''No, incorrect. It's one that I've heard from many Christians'' , many Christians is not all Christians I am sure you will agree , So your interpretation is not shared by all Christians -correct ?

Nick Park · 17-03-2015 02:08PM

marienbad wrote: »

This is just semantics , of course you are offering an argument , the very fact of posting is an argument . So lets not be so pompous about it.

You can't help yourself, can you? Every time I don't post in the way you want me to, you resort to name-calling.

There's no pomposity here. I'm simply addressing the arguments that other posters present here. If you don't like me doing that, then I suggest you report me to a front-seat mod rather than trying to dictate to me how I should post.

And this ''No, incorrect. It's one that I've heard from many Christians'' , many Christians is not all Christians I am sure you will agree , So your interpretation is not shared by all Christians -correct ?

Nobody claimed that anything they post is an opinion "shared by all Christians". Did they?

It was you who raised the issue of 'many Christians' - not me. You claimed that my view was not shared by many Christians. I pointed out that you are wrong, and that my view is shared by many Christians. So, instead of admitting that you were wrong, you now want to raise some kind of red herring about 'all Christians.'

silverharp · 17-03-2015 02:14PM

Nick Park wrote: »

I have a policy of not watching videos that people post as a substitute for stating their case in their own words. Also, because I would rather spend 60 seconds reading something in print that takes 5 minutes or more on a video.

Unfortunately, in this case, I broke my policy and was reminded why I operate such a policy in the first place.

The guy in the video made the repeated assertion that "there was no first human" but didn't offer any evidence. His argument appears to be that because the transition between species occurred in very small increments, that therefore there was no point where the transition occurred. And if he says that often enough, and confidently enough, then we should believe him.

That makes no sense. If something transitions from A to B then there is, by definition, a point where it passes from being non-B to being B. That point may be an increment so small that you can't recognise it, but that does not mean that it doesn't exist.

I dont see that there is anything controversial about it, any more so than understanding the idea that someone who spoke greek in 400 BCE say and someone who speaks Greek now would be speaking 2 different languages. How much more subtle is a process that happens over a million years.

Nick Park wrote: »

Also, the video seems particularly ineffective in the context of this thread, because there was nothing there to challenge a Christian understanding of the Bible.

Christian theology teaches that "the first human" was not so much of a biological phenomenon, but rather a spiritual act by which God put a spirit into a man (or humanoid, if you prefer). The possession of this spirit, and the ability it gives us to communicate with God, sets people apart from animals.

Now, that might conflict with your own faith position, but I don't see that you've offered any argument that speaks to that point at all.

ok so now you are saying it doesnt matter so much when the "first" biological human occurred because God picked the point (a method guessed at by theologians I guess?) so when roughly did this happen? were there non spiritual humans and spiritual humans? how did god communicate with humans that didnt have a language yet? how were humans supposed to follow a god when the parents couldnt explain God to their kids? Did God really abandon people that had less technology than cavemen?
Or am I missing something and god only selected one people which happened to be the pre Jewish culture? and everyone else was on their own, even though they had no opportunity to communicate with god.

Nick Park · 17-03-2015 02:33PM

silverharp wrote: »

I dont see that there is anything controversial about it, any more so than understanding the idea that someone who spoke greek in 400 BCE say and someone who speaks Greek now would be speaking 2 different languages. How much more subtle is a process that happens over a million years.

I didn't say it was controversial. I said it relied on repetition of assertions.

Plenty of arguments are wrong or unconvincing without being controversial.

If there is a set of parameters that defines modern Greek, as distinct from koine or classical Greek, then there was obviously somebody who was the first to speak Greek in a way that meets those parameters. They might have reached that point by a leap of inspiration, or just as part of a very long series of increments, but there was still a first one.

ok so now you are saying it doesnt matter so much when the "first" biological human occurred because God picked the point (a method guessed at by theologians I guess?) so when roughly did this happen? were there non spiritual humans and spiritual humans? how did god communicate with humans that didnt have a language yet? how were humans supposed to follow a god when the parents couldnt explain God to their kids? Did God really abandon people that had less technology than cavemen?

I'm not pretending to have all the details. The bible is a book of theology, not biology. But we can speculate.

It's certainly possible that there were non-spiritual humanoids, possibly ones that were biologically indistinguishable from those who had received a spirit. There are passages in Genesis that speak of the 'sons of god' and the 'sons of men' - apparently they could interbreed and that didn't turn out well. That's not something I would argue for or against dogmatically, but it seems a possibility. I keep an open mind.

I'm not quite sure what evidence you have for your assertion that they didn't have a language yet? Do you have evidence that humans, at an unspecified time that you don't know, had no capacity for language?

As for technology, stone-age or otherwise, I'm not sure what that has to do with developing moral responsibility. I mean, I like technology a lot, but I don't think it's necessarily the be all and end all.

marienbad · 17-03-2015 02:57PM

Nick Park wrote: »

You can't help yourself, can you? Every time I don't post in the way you want me to, you resort to name-calling.

There's no pomposity here. I'm simply addressing the arguments that other posters present here. If you don't like me doing that, then I suggest you report me to a front-seat mod rather than trying to dictate to me how I should post.

Nobody claimed that anything they post is an opinion "shared by all Christians". Did they?

It was you who raised the issue of 'many Christians' - not me. You claimed that my view was not shared by many Christians. I pointed out that you are wrong, and that my view is shared by many Christians. So, instead of admitting that you were wrong, you now want to raise some kind of red herring about 'all Christians.'

Just more semantics .

silverharp · 17-03-2015 03:41PM

Nick Park wrote: »

I'm not pretending to have all the details. The bible is a book of theology, not biology. But we can speculate.

It's certainly possible that there were non-spiritual humanoids, possibly ones that were biologically indistinguishable from those who had received a spirit. There are passages in Genesis that speak of the 'sons of god' and the 'sons of men' - apparently they could interbreed and that didn't turn out well. That's not something I would argue for or against dogmatically, but it seems a possibility. I keep an open mind.

I'm not quite sure what evidence you have for your assertion that they didn't have a language yet? Do you have evidence that humans, at an unspecified time that you don't know, had no capacity for language?

As for technology, stone-age or otherwise, I'm not sure what that has to do with developing moral responsibility. I mean, I like technology a lot, but I don't think it's necessarily the be all and end all.

It makes god seem a bit arbitrary , the universal god was only interested in some humans? As far as language Im sure there are different theories however it would seem reasonable to assert that language developed out of non verbal communication over thousands of years into something like a proto language and then into modern type languages.
Moral responsibility is not technology dependent , but following the arbitrary rules of a deity though the generations requires technology and an established language, how exactly were small groups of humans who couldnt communicate with other groups going to convey a constant theology?

ghosttombrown · 17-03-2015 07:14PM

Hi.
In reading through the latest posts from Nick Park, it reads to me like the theology he believes in and follows is rather shallow in details. Where another person might have asserted a belief in a literal first human, as per the Genesis account, Nick is aware that these stories don't make sense when contradicted by the evidence provided by science.

However, with his abandonment of a literal interpretation of Genesis in favour of a symbolic interpretation, it seems that Nick is now unaware of the situation his belief system has placed him in. From reading his posts, he asserts that there were many humans, and that there were probably spiritual humans and non-spiritual humans, who were physically identical. The only difference between them is apparently a difference that science cannot detect. That to me seems to be a difference not worth mentioning at all.
This symbolic interpretation also leaves Nick with no account of the origin of the human species. Where believers in other religions say humans came about because of this, that and the other, Nick doesn't any such account. I am still pondering just why exactly Nick thinks these scarcity of details unimportant, especially when it comes to Jesus Christ and what he came to do, what his mission was. I've been told many a time that Jesus came to defeat sin. Surely it would only make sense for us to have an actual account for how sin was introduced? Instead, according to Nick, there were prehistoric humans, probably divided into spiritual and non spiritual, that this for some reason prevented cross-breeding. Then, at some undefined point in time, our ancestors chose evil, chose to reject God (I find it astonishing that with a rejection of the Genesis account, Nick doesn't realise that this means he now has no account at all for man's introduction to God) and sin entered the world. The who, why, when, where, what and how are unimportant details according to Nick.
This is not satisfactory to me. If I'm to believe in Christianity, to become a Christian, I need details. I'd sooner choose fundamentalist Christianity than this symbolic interpretation of Nick's; at least literal interpretations have these details!

silverharp · 17-03-2015 07:50PM

ghosttombrown wrote: »

This is not satisfactory to me. If I'm to believe in Christianity, to become a Christian, I need details. I'd sooner choose fundamentalist Christianity than this symbolic interpretation of Nick's; at least literal interpretations have these details!

Below is the catholic position on it and in a way is more is more absurd than the literal bible position. Its clear that catholics should believe in one first spiritual Human who sinned against god and messed it up for everyone.
Now think about that , at some point one would assume between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago God selected the son of two "non spiritual" humans and somehow revealed itself to the boy/man. At some point "zapping" a similar female. These two had to live both with the values of their primitive upbringing and in the tough environment of the time unless they were physically transported to an actual garden of Eden where the rules of physics were partially suspended :pac:
After "the fall" some of these "pre jews" either bred with some of the non spiritual men which created Giants

and when they figured out that didnt work they somehow managed to kill them all so that that there were only "spiritual" humans left.....Absurd doesnt begin to explain it

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

Adam and Eve: Real People

It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: "When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own" (Humani Generis 37).

The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents" (CCC 390).

tommy2bad · 17-03-2015 08:32PM

ghosttombrown wrote: »

Hi.
In reading through the latest posts from Nick Park, it reads to me like the theology he believes in and follows is rather shallow in details. Where another person might have asserted a belief in a literal first human, as per the Genesis account, Nick is aware that these stories don't make sense when contradicted by the evidence provided by science.

However, with his abandonment of a literal interpretation of Genesis in favour of a symbolic interpretation, it seems that Nick is now unaware of the situation his belief system has placed him in. From reading his posts, he asserts that there were many humans, and that there were probably spiritual humans and non-spiritual humans, who were physically identical. The only difference between them is apparently a difference that science cannot detect. That to me seems to be a difference not worth mentioning at all.
This symbolic interpretation also leaves Nick with no account of the origin of the human species. Where believers in other religions say humans came about because of this, that and the other, Nick doesn't any such account. I am still pondering just why exactly Nick thinks these scarcity of details unimportant, especially when it comes to Jesus Christ and what he came to do, what his mission was. I've been told many a time that Jesus came to defeat sin. Surely it would only make sense for us to have an actual account for how sin was introduced? Instead, according to Nick, there were prehistoric humans, probably divided into spiritual and non spiritual, that this for some reason prevented cross-breeding. Then, at some undefined point in time, our ancestors chose evil, chose to reject God (I find it astonishing that with a rejection of the Genesis account, Nick doesn't realise that this means he now has no account at all for man's introduction to God) and sin entered the world. The who, why, when, where, what and how are unimportant details according to Nick.
This is not satisfactory to me. If I'm to believe in Christianity, to become a Christian, I need details. I'd sooner choose fundamentalist Christianity than this symbolic interpretation of Nick's; at least literal interpretations have these details!

You have been misinformed as to what Jesus came to achieve.
Jesus did not come to defeat sin but to reremove its power over man. Slight difference, in as much as if sin had been defeated we wouldn't have sin now, in removing it's power we still have sin but it no longer has the power to keep us separated from God.
yes it's a bit of a have your cake and eat it situation but in the context of a relation between God and man it's a real difference. Outside of that context, it's just a way of saying things change but stay the same.

Nick Park · 17-03-2015 10:00PM

ghosttombrown wrote: »

Hi.
In reading through the latest posts from Nick Park, it reads to me like the theology he believes in and follows is rather shallow in details. Where another person might have asserted a belief in a literal first human, as per the Genesis account, Nick is aware that these stories don't make sense when contradicted by the evidence provided by science.

However, with his abandonment of a literal interpretation of Genesis in favour of a symbolic interpretation, it seems that Nick is now unaware of the situation his belief system has placed him in. From reading his posts, he asserts that there were many humans, and that there were probably spiritual humans and non-spiritual humans, who were physically identical. The only difference between them is apparently a difference that science cannot detect. That to me seems to be a difference not worth mentioning at all.
This symbolic interpretation also leaves Nick with no account of the origin of the human species. Where believers in other religions say humans came about because of this, that and the other, Nick doesn't any such account. I am still pondering just why exactly Nick thinks these scarcity of details unimportant, especially when it comes to Jesus Christ and what he came to do, what his mission was. I've been told many a time that Jesus came to defeat sin. Surely it would only make sense for us to have an actual account for how sin was introduced? Instead, according to Nick, there were prehistoric humans, probably divided into spiritual and non spiritual, that this for some reason prevented cross-breeding. Then, at some undefined point in time, our ancestors chose evil, chose to reject God (I find it astonishing that with a rejection of the Genesis account, Nick doesn't realise that this means he now has no account at all for man's introduction to God) and sin entered the world. The who, why, when, where, what and how are unimportant details according to Nick.
This is not satisfactory to me. If I'm to believe in Christianity, to become a Christian, I need details. I'd sooner choose fundamentalist Christianity than this symbolic interpretation of Nick's; at least literal interpretations have these details!

This is a common misconception among atheists - to accuse Christians of retreating to a symbolic interpretation of Genesis in the face of modern science. In fact the symbolic interpretation of Genesis goes back at least as far as Augustine in the Fifth Century.

The rest of your post is, again, not new. Atheist gets irked because Christian turns out not to conform to your strawman stereotype of a creationist.

The Genesis story conveys what it means to convey:
a) God created everything.
b) God created man.
c) Man chose to sin.
d) Now sin is a problem.

And there we have a foundation for the story of redemption.

It's not that the details of creation are of no interest to me. I find them very interesting indeed. I just don't expect to find them in a theological book (the Bible). Rather I look to astronomers, physicists, biologists etc.

ghosttombrown · 17-03-2015 10:18PM

The Genesis story conveys what it means to convey:
a) God created everything.
b) God created man.
c) Man chose to sin.
d) Now sin is a problem.

And there we have a foundation for the story of redemption.

Excuse me, but a few bullet points does not a good story make. Who is this God person? Since Genesis is symbolic, then what makes him so special? What is this action, 'to sin'?

It's not that the details of creation are of no interest to me. I find them very interesting indeed.

I'm pretty sure I remember you saying before that the 'details are unimportant'.

I just don't expect to find them in a theological book (the Bible).

So what use is this book? Why is this book the holy book of your religion and yet it leaves out all these key details? I know you've said before that you're not making claims, but still, what you're talking about here is like showing how NOT to be a salesman. You're not inspiring confidence in me of your religion.

Rather I look to astronomers, physicists, biologists etc.

At first glance, this seems to me a recognition on your part the importance of looking at evidence. However, a second reading of your comment reveals some fundamental flaws. You've accepted the story of creation, symbolic as you say, and then say you expect scientists to find evidence to support your belief.
Am I correct in reading in your comment that you have reached a conclusion BEFORE the evidence has been found? It seems to me that you have. I am unaware of any evidence presented by scientists in favour of a Christian creation account, symbolic or literal. How would scientists test for the presence of spirituality, especially in prehistoric humans?

Nick Park · 17-03-2015 10:39PM

ghosttombrown wrote: »

Excuse me, but a few bullet points does not a good story make. Who is this God person? Since Genesis is symbolic, then what makes him so special? What is this action, 'to sin'?

If you're going to pretend you don't understand simple Christian concepts then I'm not going to indulge you by playing those kinds of games. There are good introductory books on religion that you can buy from Amazon or at any good book shop.

I'm pretty sure I remember you saying before that the 'details are unimportant'.

And I'm pretty sure that if you're old enough to use a computer keyboard then you're able to understand the distinction between the following:
a) Details of creation being important in relation to the purpose for which the Bible was written (knowing God and obtaining salvation).
b) Details of creation being interesting from a stance of intellectual curiosity.

So what use is this book? Why is this book the holy book of your religion and yet it leaves out all these key details? I know you've said before that you're not making claims, but still, what you're talking about here is like showing how NOT to be a salesman. You're not inspiring confidence in me of your religion.

I'm not in the slightest bit bothered about your confidence in any religion.

The Bible is of great use to those who are genuinely interested in getting to know God.

At first glance, this seems to me a recognition on your part the importance of looking at evidence. However, a second reading of your comment reveals some fundamental flaws. You've accepted the story of creation, symbolic as you say, and then say you expect scientists to find evidence to support your belief.
Am I correct in reading in your comment that you have reached a conclusion BEFORE the evidence has been found? It seems to me that you have. I am unaware of any evidence presented by scientists in favour of a Christian creation account, symbolic or literal. How would scientists test for the presence of spirituality, especially in prehistoric humans?

Maybe you should address what I actually post? I never said that I expect scientists to find evidence to support my belief.

I said that I find the details of the creation (or 'coming into existence' if you prefer) of the universe etc to be fascinating. Those details, as scientists are discovering them, remain the same whether you approach them from a standpoint of believing them to be initiated by God or not. I don't expect scientific discoveries to either confirm or deny the question of whether God was behind the creation of the universe or whether it spontaneously popped into existence by itself out of nothing. Those are philosophical, not scientific, questions.

ghosttombrown · 17-03-2015 11:44PM

If you're going to pretend you don't understand simple Christian concepts then I'm not going to indulge you by playing those kinds of games. There are good introductory books on religion that you can buy from Amazon or at any good book shop.

It's not that I don't understand these concepts, in a general sense. What I was asking there was that, without a literal reading of Genesis, then who or what is God? God minus Genesis lacks any context at all that makes him special. At least, that's how it seems to me.

And I'm pretty sure that if you're old enough to use a computer keyboard...

Thank you for the clarification, but why this implied insult towards my age? I am new to boards.ie and so far in my short time here, I have not been insulting towards you or anyone else.

The Bible is of great use to those who are genuinely interested in getting to know God.

Which I am. I lean more towards the possibility that there is a god, than there is no god. However, I have to disagree with your assertion. The Bible, especially when viewed in the context you hold, doesn't provide much details about God. If I take a symbolic reading of Genesis, then there is no account that describes creation.

Those details, as scientists are discovering them, remain the same whether you approach them from a standpoint of believing them to be initiated by God or not.

I disagree. Many recent scientific discoveries have no mention at all in the Bible, not even with the most extreme stretched interpretation possible. Again, going back to Genesis, there wasn't a first human. Mitochondrial Eve was not the first human woman. She is the most recent common ancestor to all humans, which is not at all what the Bible says. If you look at that Eve through a God lens, then you're left with the puzzling question of just who were all the other women who lived at the same time as her or before, whose descendants all died out? The Bible doesn't answer that question. It doesn't come up.
I must say this. I have talked to a few Christians in my time about their religion (not many, as only recently have I become interested in the topic), and it seems to me that what they believe sometimes bears no relation to the actual Christian religion as it is taught and preached. I have talked to a few Roman Catholics who fully support homosexual marriage for instance, even for them to be performed in churches!

ghosttombrown · 17-03-2015 11:50PM

To help understand what I mean by without Genesis, God becomes unimportant, please think of it this way.
Imagine you're reading the biography of a famous person. It details his life. However, it leaves out a key part. You realise this key part is left out when later on in the book, the person starts talking about his term as head of a nation, what he did while in office. When you read that, you scratch your head, wondering "Just when and how did that happen? Last chapter he was an actor, now he's been President of the US for a few years? What, were his presidential campaigns not worth writing about?"

Cen taurus · 18-03-2015 12:51AM

ghosttombrown wrote: »

It's not that I don't understand these concepts, in a general sense. What I was asking there was that, without a literal reading of Genesis, then who or what is God? God minus Genesis lacks any context at all that makes him special. At least, that's how it seems to me.

Thank you for the clarification, but why this implied insult towards my age? I am new to boards.ie and so far in my short time here, I have not been insulting towards you or anyone else.

Which I am. I lean more towards the possibility that there is a god, than there is no god. However, I have to disagree with your assertion. The Bible, especially when viewed in the context you hold, doesn't provide much details about God. If I take a symbolic reading of Genesis, then there is no account that describes creation.

I disagree. Many recent scientific discoveries have no mention at all in the Bible, not even with the most extreme stretched interpretation possible. Again, going back to Genesis, there wasn't a first human. Mitochondrial Eve was not the first human woman. She is the most recent common ancestor to all humans, which is not at all what the Bible says. If you look at that Eve through a God lens, then you're left with the puzzling question of just who were all the other women who lived at the same time as her or before, whose descendants all died out? The Bible doesn't answer that question. It doesn't come up.
I must say this. I have talked to a few Christians in my time about their religion (not many, as only recently have I become interested in the topic), and it seems to me that what they believe sometimes bears no relation to the actual Christian religion as it is taught and preached. I have talked to a few Roman Catholics who fully support homosexual marriage for instance, even for them to be performed in churches!

What is God ? An old man with a white beard sitting on a cloud playing a harp ? No. God as far as deists and theists are concerned, is an infinite spirit and the source of all energy, life and matter (deism). Now if someone believe no such entity exists, or cannot exist, then there is little point in them even considering any religion. Only when someone's belief approaches that of at least Deism, is there any point in them examining religions to see has God, this infinite being, ever made contact with mankind, when and how, and which one of them has the most credible account.

What we know from scripture, is that God the source of our God given eternal souls that were given to the first beings on earth ready for them, and chosen for them. The bible (a collection of books), and it's many literary styles, from figurative, to poetry, to songs, to gospels, to letters, isn't scientific evidence or proof/disproof of God.

The only thing that makes the old testament important and different from any other set of religious texts, is it's personal endorsement by no less than our saviour Jesus Christ, God incarnate, and his appointment of the official interpreters of scripture, (the apostles and their direct successors), guided by the holy spirit, and for believers, deism becomes monotheism.

Of course Jesus of Nazareth, the apostles, disciples, and gospel writers, and the eye witnesses of his lives, could all have been mad and/or bad, instead of giving up their lives for the truth, but there is no evidence that this is so. More importantly, nor are there any counter accounts written by surviving eyewitness that the accounts in the Gospels were in fact false.

Everyone gets a fair choice : belief / non belief.
Most people's problem with belief, is usually that they have to give the vices they are most fond of, in order to follow the teachings of Christ.

This Sunday's Gospel is rather apt :

Jesus said to Nicodemus:

“Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.

For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.

Whoever believes in him will not be condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

And this is the verdict, that the light came into the world, but people preferred darkness to light, because their works were evil.

For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come toward the light, so that his works might not be exposed.

But whoever lives the truth comes to the light, so that his works may be clearly seen as done in God."
- John 3:14-21

ghosttombrown · 18-03-2015 06:56AM

Everyone gets a fair choice : belief / non belief.

Why is this the deciding factor? It seems to me that choosing who is saved based merely on whether or not they believe one particular God myth over another would be a very flawed system. Why this emphasis on belief, what's so special about it? Why not actions?
Also, how is it fair? I've been chatting with some people, a few of whom tell me that no matter how hard they try, they just can't believe. Are they to be condemned as per your Bible quote?

Most people's problem with belief, is usually that they have to give the vices they are most fond of, in order to follow the teachings of Christ.

What vices? Like Nick Park complained before about me straw-manning him, this too is a straw-man. The people I mentioned just up above, who can't believe? Not once did they mention having to give up their vices was a problem for them.
So it seems to me, Cen Taurus, that this is a false position of yours, this "they don't want to give up vices". I scanned over this thread, took me a little while, and not once did any of the atheists complain about it. So where are you getting this from?

silverharp · 18-03-2015 08:54AM

Cen taurus wrote: »

The only thing that makes the old testament important and different from any other set of religious texts, is it's personal endorsement by no less than our saviour Jesus Christ, God incarnate, and his appointment of the official interpreters of scripture, (the apostles and their direct successors), guided by the holy spirit, and for believers, deism becomes monotheism.

God in the OT is a psychopath, the amount of people "he" killed including babies and kids is too long to even reference.

Harika · 18-03-2015 09:04AM

Cen taurus wrote: »

What is God ? An old man with a white beard sitting on a cloud playing a harp ? No. God as far as deists and theists are concerned, is an infinite spirit and the source of all energy, life and matter (deism).

Did not god create us in his own image? Genesis 1-27 So why are theists treating him as an infinite spirit what he clearly is not or are we spirits?

Michael OBrien · 18-03-2015 10:41AM

Harika wrote: »

Did not god create us in his own image? Genesis 1-27 So why are theists treating him as an infinite spirit what he clearly is not or are we spirits?

Don't forget that 'spirit' is a meaningless word in itself as it describes nothing we know exists, has no properties we know of, except what it is allegedly not.

orubiru · 18-03-2015 01:10PM

Nick Park wrote: »

You are entitled to your faith. Thank you for sharing it.

I think it's a pretty interesting attitude.

Nothing presented to you was too controversial or "out there".

Yet, later on, you admit that you would hesitate to watch videos that make an attempt to educate or to put across a point. Because you know better than biologists like Richard Dawkins, right?

I wonder if you think that this would be an appropriate attitude to send a kid to school with? "Now, little Nick, just remember that Teacher is entitled to their Faith but that's all it is..."

The idea that there was no "first human" is pretty much universally accepted by evolutionary biologists.

We are talking about ideas and teachings built upon thousands of man hours of work and research.

So before you dismiss it as "well, that's just a faith based opinion" you have to tell us, what are your credentials?

Or do you just not understand the different between facts and opinions?

Nobody is saying that widely held beliefs about the world cannot be wrong sometimes but I think it's pretty unreasonable to go against some of the worlds most renowned and respected scientists with "well, that's just their faith and they are entitled to it".

orubiru · 18-03-2015 01:24PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

Everyone gets a fair choice : belief / non belief.

Most people's problem with belief, is usually that they have to give the vices they are most fond of, in order to follow the teachings of Christ.

Jesus said to Nicodemus:

“Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.

For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.

Whoever believes in him will not be condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

And this is the verdict, that the light came into the world, but people preferred darkness to light, because their works were evil.

For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come toward the light, so that his works might not be exposed.

But whoever lives the truth comes to the light, so that his works may be clearly seen as done in God."
- John 3:14-21

I think this is kind of an unfair assessment of humanity.

I don't think that people are so dependent on their vices.

The majority of people care for, and love, their families and their children. Most people work hard and struggle every day to provide for their families.

To condemn them as "sinners", or to imply that they turn their back on God because they kind of just can't be bothered to give up their "vices", it's not a good view of the world.

Now, I know you can point to all the bad that happens in the world but these are the actions of a minority.

Man does not choose Evil and Man does not "sin". Some of us do. Not all of us. It's not right to suggest otherwise.

We can be good people without God.

Nick Park · 18-03-2015 01:47PM

orubiru wrote: »

I think it's a pretty interesting attitude.

Nothing presented to you was too controversial or "out there".

Yet, later on, you admit that you would hesitate to watch videos that make an attempt to educate or to put across a point. Because you know better than biologists like Richard Dawkins, right?

No, wrong.

I said that I had a policy of not watching videos that are presented in lieu of an argument. My reasons for this are two-fold.

a) They waste my time. A five minute video rarely says anything that could not be conveyed in written form and read in 30 seconds. I don't see the point in multiplying tenfold the amount of time it takes to make a point. I am too busy for that.

b) If someone is discussing something with me then I want them to express their own thoughts in their own words. That way I can engage with what they really think. For the same reason I rarely bother reading posts where people cut and paste huge blocks of text. In my experience, people who cut and paste extensively, or who link to videos, often don't even understand the stuff they link to.

I'm perfectly happy learning from biologists, anthropologists, physicists and others. Jared Diamond and Brian Greene are particular favourites of mine.

silverharp · 18-03-2015 01:58PM

Nick Park wrote: »

No, wrong.

I said that I had a policy of not watching videos that are presented in lieu of an argument. My reasons for this are two-fold.

a) They waste my time. A five minute video rarely says anything that could not be conveyed in written form and read in 30 seconds. I don't see the point in multiplying tenfold the amount of time it takes to make a point. I am too busy for that.

b) If someone is discussing something with me then I want them to express their own thoughts in their own words. That way I can engage with what they really think. For the same reason I rarely bother reading posts where people cut and paste huge blocks of text. In my experience, people who cut and paste extensively, or who link to videos, often don't even understand the stuff they link to.

I'm perfectly happy learning from biologists, anthropologists, physicists and others. Jared Diamond and Brian Greene are particular favourites of mine.

I thought it was a good way to visualise how slow evolution is , by the way some people discuss evolution I'd reckon their view is based on the Rise of the Planet of the Apes.
Given that the Catholic view is that there was an Adam and Even, what happened to the rest of the soul-less humans that were genetically indistinguishable from "Adam"? are their unbaptised africans that do not have souls?

Nick Park · 18-03-2015 02:01PM

silverharp wrote: »

I thought it was a good way to visualise how slow evolution is , by the way some people discuss evolution I'd reckon their view is based on the Rise of the Planet of the Apes.
Given that the Catholic view is that there was an Adam and Even, what happened to the rest of the soul-less humans that were genetically indistinguishable from "Adam"? are their unbaptised africans that do not have souls?

You would probably be better addressing that question to a Catholic. I can't possibly speak on that church's behalf.

I do think your sly, and scurillous, insinuations of racism are pretty unworthy of you. Can you not engage in discussion with people who disagree with you without resorting to that sort of stuff?

marienbad · 18-03-2015 02:07PM

Nick Park wrote: »

You would probably be better addressing that question to a Catholic. I can't possibly speak on that church's behalf.

I do think your sly, and scurillous, insinuations of racism are pretty unworthy of you. Can you not engage in discussion with people who disagree with you without resorting to that sort of stuff?

Can you not engage in discussion without seeing what isn't there ? There is no accusation of racism here ! But I notice you do this with lots of posters and posts - easier to throw in red herrings than address the points made I suppose

Would you give over with '' your sly, and scurillous, insinuations of racism '' !

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Comments