Nutters wrote: "Take a look at the Burgess Shale if you want to see the [evolutionary] timeline."

Ness comments: Burgess shale is a problem for Darwinists, not Christians. http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes23.html

“There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks.” Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 348.

“The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palaeontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection.” Ibid., p. 344.

“To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.” Ibid., p. 350.

“The case at present must remain inexplicable, and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.” Ibid., p. 351.

“The most famous such burst, the Cambrian explosion, marks the inception of modern multicellular life. Within just a few million years, nearly every major kind of animal anatomy appears in the fossil record for the first time ... The Precambrian record is now sufficiently good that the old rationale about undiscovered sequences of smoothly transitional forms will no longer wash.” Stephen Jay Gould, “An Asteroid to Die For,” Discover, October 1989, p. 65.

"Strange Cambrian fossils, thought to exist only in the Burgess Shale of western Canada, have been discovered in southern China." (L. Ramsköld and Hou Xianguang, “New Early Cambrian Animal and Onychophoran Affinities of Enigmatic Metazoans,” Nature, Vol. 351, 16 May 1991, pp. 225–228.) (Jun-yuan Chen et al., “Evidence for Monophyly and Arthropod Affinity of Cambrian Giant Predators,” Science, Vol. 264, 27 May 1994, pp. 1304–1308.) "Evolving so many unusual animals during a geologic period is mind-boggling. But doing it twice in widely separated locations stretches credulity to the breaking point. According to the theory of plate tectonics, China and Canada were even farther apart during the Cambrian." “Granted an evolutionary origin of the main groups of animals, and not an act of special creation, the absence of any record whatsoever of a single member of any of the phyla in the Pre-Cambrian rocks remains as inexplicable on orthodox grounds as it was to Darwin.” T. Neville George, “Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective,” Science Progress, Vol. 48, No. 189, January 1960, p. 5.

Nutters wrote:

"Linking a belief in science with being a Nazi or a Communist is a particularly vile and unfounded accusation straight out of the 1950s or the Reagan era - or the playbook unthinking ant-antisemitism - with no justification whatsoever.

I'd wager that a smaller percentage of people who believe in science were ever nazis or communists than religious believers who thought it was okay to slaughter their religious rivals or anyone of a different skin color.

Ness replies: Ummm ... though Communism claims to be "scientific" socialsim, I submit that it (and Nazism) are clearly Darwinian cults ...

1) Nazism was an occult-laden Darwinian-based religion, with sacred documents ("Mein Kampf") and a Messiah (Der Fuehrer) and an eschatology (the 1000-year Reich).

2) Communism is a non-occult Darwinian-based religion, with sacred documents ("Das Kapita" and "The Communist Manifesto") and prophets (Marx, Engels, Lenin) and an eschatology (the Classless Society).

3) Both Nazism and Communism promote a form of 'Jihad' to wipe out their enemies (Jews, Capitalists), though neither offers any hope of personal immortality to their adherents ... just annihilation for a perceived good cause.

4) The Christians at McLean Bible Church do not "slaughter their religious rivals." They are trying to save lives because their Messiah, Jesus, commanded his disciples to "love their neighbors as themselves" and to "preach the Gospel" of grace.

5) Jesus promised his followers something that neither Darwin, Lenin, nor Hitler ever did -- personal immortality: "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life." "I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live." "For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man." "Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out — those who have done good will rise to live, And those who have done evil will rise to be condemned. By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me."

Nutters wrote:

"We have very good consistent explanations for observed phenomena at the level of the cosmos, the quanta and the mind, across timescales from femto-second to the age of the universe." (Surely you jest! All of these areas of inquiry are in constant scientific flux, and are under constant discussion by serious scientists, both Christian and non-Christian.)

"It's not bigotry to point out that science and religion are no longer compatible," (It may not be "bigotry" but it's embarrasignly imprecise ... but you are correct to point out that a "scientific' faith in an impersonal, chance Darwinian origin of species is incompatible with the personal Christian creation related in the Bible.)

"There is no god ..." (This is a presupposition -- and as such, it is an article of "faith.")

I love these Intelligent Design idiots. They want to say that Evolution didn't happen because there are a couple of areas where we don't have enough information to fill in all of the blanks. I guess they would argue that gravity didn't exist until Newton or that the Earth really was the center of the Universe until Copernicus.

dude, who fucked the font up? If there was a god this would have never happened!

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nutters wrote: "Take a look at the Burgess Shale
> if you want to see the timeline."
>
> Ness comments: Burgess shale is a problem for
> Darwinists, not Christians.

Nah - no problem for scientists... sorry!

The fact that neither you nor I will show up in the fossil record is just indicative of how it forms - its not encyclopedic of all individuals or species that existed at any given location, at any given time or globally across time.

What it does do, definitively, is to show you a subset of life as it evolved and adapted over time - timestamped by the chemistry and physics of the rock.

Just look at how few T-rex's we've found - it limits what we can know about them - but we certainly know where some of them were and when

That there was an explosion of multi-cellular experiments at different points is in no way surprising or inconsistent. In fact, the more we know about how the processes of replication work in different kinds of life forms from the profligate swapping amongst viruses and bacteria to the sophisticated regulatory systems in more complex animals such as ourselves replete with old viral DNA, the more we see how elegant and powerful the mechanisms are

The fact that scientists have to estimate from the incomplete record the paths that evolution took, the rates of change and the causes of those rate changes does not affect the fundamental agreement amongst scientists as to the evolutionary process at work.

The evolution has taken place over the last 3-4 billion years is adequately shown by the fossil record and universally accepted amongst scientists. Creationists falsely try to label any area of ongoing scientific discussion justification for some god or other.

The fossil record documents, incompletely, the emergence and changes in life over time on earth - evolution as a mechanism provides a very good explanation for how it happened. Genetic science is giving us deep insights into the historical detail.

Its clear that we can't replay the precise lives of every organism that ever lived and died on earth from the evidence of the fossil record and the history represented in the genomes of those species still around. But it is clear that science, and specifically evolution, give a very good explanation for the detail that we can see within the limits of the remaining record, our current scientific instruments and our evolving understanding of the way information is propagated across and within generations.

While evolution tells us about the details of life, cosmology tells us about the grand sweep of the universes history - that our planet is unexceptional, that our star is like billions of others, amongst billions of galaxies colliding or passing through each other over billions of light years, that the heavy elements that make up much of the earth were formed in the nuclear cores of earlier stars, now long gone.

Quantum mechanics and complexity science are beginning to show us how the detailed information which the fine grain structure and state of the universe represents at any time works.

The timescales of cosmology and our improving understanding of the behavior of truly complex systems such as the nuclear furnaces of stars tell us something fundamental about whether the end states of a universe could be designed a priori.

No deity is required to explain the evolution of life on earth, or the physics of the cosmos. Worse than that, for creationists, one doesn't even help you.

What quantum mechanics and quantum information processing show us is that to predict the state at any time of a given chaotic quantum system which is highly dependent on starting conditions, you need a quantum system that undertakes the same number of quantum calculations - there are no shortcuts. Hence, if you posit that some grand creator set the universe in flow with the express aim of producing serfs who could worship it via personal conversation, you also need to posit that the creator is a system at least as complex as the universe operating over the timescales of the universe able to predict necessary starting conditions to produce the subservient end state through the chaotic processes of star burn, nuclear decay, chemistry, genetic information processing, mutation through incident radiation etc etc etc. Which suggests that the idea of a chatty personal god is somewhat more than unlikely.

so
1. everything we see around us can be explained without recourse to a deity
2. there is no evidence of a deity or anything supernatural
3. having a deity doesn't help you

Creationists falsely attempt to characterize the detailed process of science testing and refining its models to explain apparent inconsistencies as new evidence is uncovered by new instruments and insights as a failure.

What they fail to accept is that creationism is not borne out by the evidence and that invoking religious doctrine or faith does nothing to explain the way the universe is the way it is and that we are the way we are. Religion and creationism are left over relics of our old scared past, when we didn't have the tools to explain how basic physical phenomena like light, materials or life worked.

Their time is passed - move on

Cotton Mather Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Or when every response is "Christianity is
> superstitious nonsense for the dim-witted." Which
> all goes to show the ultimate futility of
> discussing matters of faith.

Again, I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that the contradictions need to be acknowledged instead of being glossed over. But you're a fanatic, there's no reasoning with you.

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Numbers Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Honestly, do you YOU feel comfortable knowing
> that someone who literally believes in the Noah's
> Ark story, Adam and Eve, buried golden tablets or
> some kid at the bottom of a well is making
> decisions that can affect the whole world?
>
> 1) You're right ... Christianity stands or falls
> on the historicity of the Bible.
>
> 2) Hence the intense interest and online debate
> about the Genesis Flood (e.g., Dr. Walter Brown's
> site).
>
> 3) Those who believe in an historical Adam and
> Eve, and Genesis Flood ... subscribe to Christian
> ethics -- Jesus' command to love your neighbor as
> yourself.
>
> 4) Historically, those inspired by Darwin's
> 'vision' (specifically National Socialists and
> Communists) have slaughtered millions -- absurdly,
> meaninglessly, without responsibility -- in a
> universe condemned to an entropy-inevitable heat
> death.
>
> 5) So yeah, I'd absolutely rather have a
> conscience-bound Christian "in charge" rather than
> a 'visionary' who is willing to slaughter to
> achieve a Master Race or Classless Society or
> Global Caliphate.
>


I'm sorry Elliot, but you are ignoring the millenium of anti-semitism in Europe when you ascribe people to 'Darwins' vision. You need to back up your assertions with facts - something that I've been asking you to do for a while now.

> 2) Hence the intense interest and online debate
> about the Genesis Flood (e.g., Dr. Walter Brown's
> site).

Let's also remember that Walt Brown has been refuted *BY CREATIONISTS*
http://www.answersincreation.org/rebuttal/other/center_scientific_creationism.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Brown_(creationist)#Claims_and_criticism

> 4) Historically, those inspired by Darwin's
> 'vision' (specifically National Socialists and
> Communists) have slaughtered millions -- absurdly,
> meaninglessly, without responsibility -- in a
> universe condemned to an entropy-inevitable heat
> death.

I had to address this bit of nonsense. You do realize that the Nazi's got their euthenasia ideas from the US don't you?

Seriously, blaming Darwin for this is essentially the same kind of reasoning as blaming Christianity for the branch davidians.

But if you want to play this unreasoned game, let's remember that Christians didn't believe that black people were the same species as human beings (do you accept this belief?):

Creationists From Darwin's Day:

George Price was one of the early anti-evolutionists who contributed significantly to the pseudoscientific "discoveries" of creationism in the late 1800's and early 1900's. His main problem was with the fossil layer and the contention of scientists who said that these layers could be used to date the fossils they contained. The below passage was written by E.G. White, who was a seventh day Adventist, and right below the passage is a written insight to some of the early creationist ideas of mankind's origins.

"If there was one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood, it was the base crime of amalgamation of man and beast, which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere...

Every species of animals which God had created was preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood, there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men."[1] (Written by E.G. White).

Price comments on this passage by saying: "I am sure that Sister White's statements were given very providentially for our guidance...I am confident that if they had not been given us, we ourselves would now be in confusion and perplexity over this 'species' question..."[1]

What exactly are these people saying? In the book Fads and Fallacies, Martin Gardner clears up any mystery:

"In his opinion, the men who lived before the flood were so completely destroyed that no fossil remains have been found. '...Since we are told that the Lord wished to destroy that ungodly race, He probably did a good job of it and buried them so deeply that we have not yet discovered their remains," he [Price] writes. The fossil human bones which have been uncovered are, he believes, those of men who lived after the flood.

Early Adventists frequently referred to certain primitive tribes-such as the African bushmen, Hottentots, and Digger Indians-as examples of degenerate hybrids, and on a few occasions, the entire Negro race. Price does not go quite this far. He thinks the Negro and Mongoloid races are degenerate types produced by amalgamation of the pure races God created at the Tower of Babel. Modern apes, however are probably hybrid men. Here are Price's words on this matter:

PRICES' WORDS: ***"There are no clear and positive evidences from paleontology which would prove that the existing anthropoid apes existed before the great world cataclysms, or the Deluge. These present day anthropoid apes may be just as much a product of modern conditions as are the Negroid or the Mongolian types of mankind. And if I were compelled to choose between saying the apes are degenerate or hybridized men and that man is a developed ape, I am sure it would not take me very long to decide which it would be. Nor do I think it ought to take any well-informed scientist long to make the choice."[1]***

What Price is saying is that apes are not actually a separate species; instead they are a degenerated form of mankind who has become so since the flood. He regards certain racial groups with being more degenerated then other ones and they are closer to apes then other races (presumably the Caucasian race-as Price was Eurocentric and white).

In another passage from Fads and Fallacies, Martin explains some of the justifications for racism for bible believing Christians:

"In the early history of the United States, when racial feelings were the greatest, many books and pamphlets were written to prove the Negro inferior. It is difficult, however, to find a single work of this type that purports to be written by a professional anthropologist. Most of it is religious in character, relying chiefly on the Bible for support. There are many variations, but the basic themes of these shabby works are that God created different races which He did not intend to intermarry, and that the Negroes were ordained a race of servants."[2]

If you notice that this belief is directly correlated to Price's belief that the intermingling of the races was a displeasure of God's and one of the reasons for the flood (at least according to E.G. White, whom Price supports).

Martin continues a little later to say:

"It seems impossible now that any intelligent person could have regarded the Negro as a sub-human species, yet this view was by no means uncommon in the South even as late as the early years of this century. In 1867 the Reverend Buckner H. Payne, writing under the pseudonym of "Ariel," published a booklet (later expanded to a larger work) titled The Negro: What is His Ethnological Status? Payne's conclusion was that the Negro is an animal without a soul. It remained however, for Charles Carroll, a resident of St. Louis, to give this demented theory definitive formulations. His two books on the subject-The Negro a Beast, 1900, and The Tempter of Eve, 1902-set a record in racial literature that probably will never be surpassed.

Carroll held the view that the Negro was created along with the animals as a higher ape, and for the purpose of providing Adam and his descendents with servants to perform tasks of manual labor around Eden. He possessed a mind, in common with other mammals, but not a soul. The "Serpent" who tempted Eve was in reality a Negro maidservant. The age-old problem of where Cain got his wife is solved neatly. Cain married a Negro-the first example in history of the heinous crime of amalgamation of man and beast. All the races except the white are hybrid products of mixtures between the races of Adam and Negroid animals.

Do these hybrid offspring have souls? There is no indication Carroll even considered this a perplexing question. They do not, he declares. 'Man cannot transmit to his offspring by the Negro," he writes, "the least vestige of the soul creation. Hence, no mixed blood has a soul." Brilliant intellectual achievements by mulattos do not bother Carroll. "The Mere fact that Alexander Dumas possessed a fine mind is no evidence that he possessed a soul."

If the red, yellow, and brown races, and all individuals who have a red, yellow, or brown ancestor do not have souls, then why bother sending missionaries to preach the Gospel to them? Like many crack-pot scholars, Carroll maintains a striking consistency with his premises. The Lord never intended the Gospel to be preached to these half-breeds, he argues. That it is being done only indicates how sinful and corrupted and "negroized" modern churches have become. In fact almost all the ills which beset mankind since the Fall can be traced to a failure to recognize the bestial character of all peoples except the pure white descendants of Adam."[2]

As disgusted as I am with reading such pig-ignorant views, the sentiment of some of the early Christian in the early twentieth century is hard to ignore. The idea that the African races are closer to apes is not only appalling, but it's also illogical-since if we actually examine apes we discover that they have thin lips, quite a bit of body hair, straight hair, and white skin (at least chimps and some other primates).

1. Fads and Fallacies: in the name of Science, Martin Gardner, 1952 Dover Publications, Inc NY (p. 130-31)

2. Fads and Fallacies: in the name of Science, Martin Gardner, 1952 Dover Publications, Inc NY (p.156-57)

Let's also remember (I got this from an old MB):

Hitler burned people like Anne Frank for being Jewish. For that, we call him evil.
God burns Anne Frank for being Jewish, forever. For that, theists call him "good"

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> 5) Jesus promised his followers something that
> neither Darwin, Lenin, nor Hitler ever did --
> personal immortality:


I love this - try to equate Darwin with Hilter and Lenin - quiet Victorian scientist (and a christian due to his upbringing and the prevailing world view that he helped to change) with two mass murderers - brilliant!

ROFL

- Darwin - presented evidence and a reasoned explanation of his observations, as scientists have always done and continue to do
- Jesus - yet another dead cult leader from a time when they were two a shekel

So, you present Gould and Dawkins' debate about what the incomplete fossil record tells us about variability in the rate of evolution as the failure evidential science.

Yet when, with no evidence, some random mystic tells you that you can be immortal its okay for christians and other cultists to throw away all evidence about anything in order ignore the complete inconsistencies of their world view - and then expect to be able to force their doctrine on the rest of us, usually at the end of a sword or a flaming cross.

It doesn't hold water

Sorry - world not flat, earth not the center of the universe, no chosen people, grand canyon was not created in a day and the dinosaurs are not the devils little joke

Move on

Professor Pangloss Wrote:

> Hitler burned people like Anne Frank for being
> Jewish. For that, we call him evil.
> God burns Anne Frank for being Jewish, forever.
> For that, theists call him "good"


Which is a bit of a downer if he's told you that you're the chosen people...

Also, let's remember that the Russian Communists came down on the Christian's side - they didn't accept Darwinian evolution either. So blaming Darwin for their crimes is incoherent.

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss wrote: Freud's idea that god was
> basically a substitute for a parent or father
> figure. It seems odd for me to view God in this
> way, as God could not possess these attributes in
> any way feasibly known to human beings.
>
>
> You're omitting the word "fabricated" from
> Freud's view.

What is your meaning here - that Freud said that mankind fabricated god in the image of his parent? Or that Freud was fabricating in general?

> The "father" metaphor is everywhere in the Bible,
> and is used by Jesus and God to describe their
> relationship. ("This is my beloved Son. Hear ye
> him.")

True.

> Goddess worship, and the "mother" metaphor, are
> non-Christian. Intriguingly, Roman Catholicism has
> progressively elevated Jesus' mother Mary to
> god-like status ... despite the fact that she
> plays only a small role in the NT after Jesus'
> birth, and disappears from history after Acts
> Chapter 1.

Not really true - unless you discount ancient Hebrew. I take it you are unfamilar with God's wife?

> It's dogmatic to assert that "God could not
> possess these attributes in any way feasibly known
> to human beings."

Not really - if god is infinite and has infinite attributes, then an entity with finite attributes and finite understanding could not, by definition, understand the infinite being.

> Why couldn't a personal God communicate his
> 'attributes' to his creatures in human language?

You are cherry picking your bible. In the old testament god basically explained his ways as being unknowable by man. Or do you explain the book of job in some other way?

> (It is an Eastern religion presupposition that God
> is unknowable and "could not" do so.)

Are you unfamilar with Eastern Orthodoxy during the Dark ages? They subscribed to god's incoherency, as an example I submit the trinity, which they believed was beyond reason. Read The History Of God, if you want the full story.

> Jesus' view of Scripture is precisely that a
> personal God communicated with his personal
> creatures in human language -- in Hebrew to Moses
> and the Prophets.
> Jesus also told his disciples that if they have
> seen him, they have seen God (specifically, "the
> Father"),
> Paul's view of Scripture was the same as Jesus'
> ... "pasa graphe theopneustos" ... all scripture
> is god-breathed.
> In fact, the word 'prophet' means 'spokesman'
> rather than future-predictor. (pro=for,
> phemein=speak) Prophets sometimes described the
> future (as it is known to God), but more
> importantly they spoke human words to human beings
> as given to them by God.

In all fairness you are cherry picking Christian beliefs here. Have you not heard of Gnostic Christianity? The book of thomas?

This next section really diminishes my respect for you Elliot. You succumb to passing on creationist dishonesty through quote mining. Either you have not read the original sources or you have and you persist in passing on dishonesty.

Please list the context of these quotes, as they make no sense:

> “To the question why we do not find rich
> fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed
> earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I
> can give no satisfactory answer.” Ibid., p. 350.

This makes no sense because we *HAVE* found earlier periods - the Precambrian!

> “The case at present must remain inexplicable,
> and may be truly urged as a valid argument against
> the views here entertained.” Ibid., p. 351.
> “The most famous such burst, the Cambrian
> explosion, marks the inception of modern
> multicellular life. Within just a few million
> years, nearly every major kind of animal anatomy
> appears in the fossil record for the first time
> ... The Precambrian record is now sufficiently
> good that the old rationale about undiscovered
> sequences of smoothly transitional forms will no
> longer wash.” Stephen Jay Gould, “An Asteroid to
> Die For,” Discover, October 1989, p. 65.

This is completely dishonest as it spins Gould's words as those of someone who doesn't accept that transitional fossils as evidence of evolution. Either you expect us to be unfamilar with Gould or you yourself are unfamilar with Gould.

Do you know what his theory for the mechanism of evolution is? It's punctuated equilibrium. What he is arguing here is that gradual evolution - ie, a smooth transition of creatures is incorrect. Instead, evolution works on long periods of status followed by rapid (as in millions of years) periods of change. That's why he specifically says "the old rationale about undiscovered sequences of *SMOOTHLY* transitional forms".

You are being dishonest here or you didn't do your due diligence in checking creationist sources.

>
>Ness replies: Ummm ... though Communism claims to be "scientific" socialsim, I >submit that it (and Nazism) are clearly Darwinian cults ...

Um, you thought wrong. Stalin's communism specifically REJECTED Darwinian evolution.

Further, did you forget that Hitler tried to find Christian artifacts? Such as the Spear of Destiny? Nazism was an ideological cult - one that had Nordic influences, Christian influences, and many other influences. It is not honest to simply forget the other influences and to blame it on Darwin (evolution does not support eugeneics, btw).

My guess is that you haven't really looked into either Stalinist communism or Nazism. Just for edification, what was the mechanism of selection for Stalinist communism?

Again though, you merely ignoring the fact that even if what you say was true (which it isn't, as I've shown), that STILL doesn't mean that christianity is correct. So at best, if you are right, you are engaging in wishful thinking by accepting christianity.

Maybe Elliot would like to answer (or even acknowledge) Nietzche's criticism of Christianity?

The following from a blog I wrote a few years ago:

What is of value? Where should it be placed? Who determines it? These are the underlying currents that Nietzsche wishes to explore in his critique of Christianity. The implication of a nihilistic and destructive message to mankind that Christianity fosters is brought up again and again in Nietzsche's The Anti-Christ.

Central to his theme is the charge that Paul has corrupt the religion into one that transforms everything we hold of value in this life into a worthless bog and replaces it with a 'promise' of egotistical future rewards that never materialize. To a certain extent and in regards to certain Christian beliefs, I tend to agree with him. That is to say that not all Christians would fall under this category.

So the purpose of this blog is to explore some of the nihilism that is, perhaps, essential to some Christian's beliefs. Perhaps the message of the Bible is that God is angry at us for our attempt to secure knowledge. Perhaps Jesus was just a lie meant to take our focus off of the attempt of Christianity to keep us ignorant and believing that we are worthless.

Those are pretty heavy charges and ones that certainly need some support if I'm going to attempt to paint any Christians with holding to such nihilism. If we explore the Bible though, I do think that some interpretations (if not most) lead to this. If we think about it, the whole foundation of Christianity is based on the notion of original sin and our salvation of it. Original sin is the idea that none of us our worthy of salvation - that we are all worthless sinful scum that need an intermediary in order to be of any value to God. If we accept salvation we achieve immortality in a heavenly paradise. The unintended (or perhaps, deliberate) result is that this world and this life is worthless.

This is actually a sleigh of hand though - what it effectively does is say that our lives have no value and that we cannot (or rather, should not) put any value into anything. As Frederick Nietzsche explains:

When the center of gravity of life is placed, not in life itself, but in "the beyond" - in nothingness - then one has taken away its center of gravity altogether. The vast lie of personal immortality destroys all reason, all natural instinct - henceforth, everything in the instincts that is beneficial, that fosters life and that safeguards the future is a cause of suspicion. So to live that life no longer has any meaning: this is now the "meaning" of life...Why be public-spirited? Why take any pride in descent and forefathers? Why labor together, trust one another, or concern one's self about the common welfare, and try to serve it? ...Merely so many "temptations," so many strayings from the "straight path." "one thing is necessary."...That every man, because he has an "immortal soul," is as good as every other man; that in an infinite universe of things the "salvation" of every individual may lay claim to eternal importance; that insignificant bigots and the three-fourths instance may assume that the laws of nature are constantly suspended in their behalf - it is impossible to lavish too much contempt upon such a magnification of every sort of selfishness to infinity, to insolence. And yet Christianity has to thank precisely this miserable flattery of personal vanity for its triumph - it was thus that it lured all the botched, the dissatisfied, the fallen upon evil days, the whole refuse and off-scouring of humanity to its side. The "salvation of the soul" - in plain words: "the world revolves around me." ...The poisonous doctrine, "equal rights for all," has been propagated as a Christian principle: out of the secret nooks and crannies of bad instinct Christianity has waged a deadly war upon all feelings of reverence and distance between man and man, which is to say, upon the first prerequisite to every step upward, to every development of civilization - out of the [resentment] of the masses it has forged its chief weapons against us, against everything noble, joyous and high-spirited on earth, against our happiness on earth. [1]

As Nietzsche explains, achievements in this life are worthless, differences are worthless - all the effort, the failures, the successes, and the struggles of life are, in the end, completely leveled to meaninglessness. We are not rewarded for any effort and we are not punished for any wrong doing - as long as we succumb to the dogma of belief. We are all, in the end, equal in "value" (I.e., in the idea that all our efforts have been perfectly useless).

Adhering to dogma is backed up repeatedly in the Bible to such an extent that I don't think I have to really expound on it. I think that the backing of deploring science is equally expounded, however it seems to me that this is not equally understood or accepted. While the Bible does praise childlike belief, it is harder to grasp that one of the central messages in the Bible is that knowledge and science are to be scorned. Nietzsche would say that this is something the priests are supposed to foster, and as he puts it, it's something that is expressed in the earliest chapters of Genesis:

-Has any one ever clearly understood the celebrated story of the beginning of the Bible - of God's mortal terror of science?...No one, in fact, has understood it. This priest-book par excellence opens, as is fitting, with the great inner difficulty of the priest: he faces only one great danger; ergo, "God" faces only one great danger. - The old God, wholly "spirit," wholly the high-priest, wholly perfect, is promenading his garden: he is bored and trying to kill time. Against boredom even gods struggle in vain. What does he do? He creates man - man is entertaining.... But then he notices that man is also bored. God's pity for the only form of distress that invades all paradises knows no bounds: so he forthwith creates other animals. God's first mistake: to man these other animals were not entertaining - he sought dominion over them; he did not want to be an "animal" himself. - So God created woman. In the act he brought boredom to an end - and also many other things! Woman was the second mistake of God. - "Woman, at bottom, is a serpent, Heva" - every priest knows that, too. Ergo, she is also to blame for science...It was through woman that man learned to taste of the tree of knowledge. - What happened? The old God was seized by mortal terror. Man himself had been his greatest blunder; he had created a rival to himself; science makes me godlike - it is all up with priests and gods when man becomes scientific - Moral: science is the forbidden per se; it alone is forbidden. Science is the first of sins, the germ of all sins, the original sin. This is all there is of morality. - "Thou shalt not know": - the rest follows from that. - God's moral terror, however, did not hinder him from being shrewd. How is one to protect one's self against science? For a long while this was a capital problem. Answer: Out of paradise with man! Happiness, leisure, foster thought - and all thoughts are bad thoughts! - Man must not think. - And so the priests invents distress, death the moral dangers of childbirth, all sorts of misery, old age, decrepitude, above all, sickness - nothing but devices for making war on science! The troubles of man don't allow him to think. Nevertheless - how terrible! - the edifice of knowledge begins to tower aloft, invading heaven, shadowing the gods - what is to be done? - The old God invents war; he separates the peoples; he makes men destroy one another (-the priests have always had need of war....). War - among other things, a great disturber of science! - Incredible! Knowledge, deliverance from the priests, prospers in spite of war. - So the old God comes to his final resolution: "Man has become scientific - there is no help for it: he must be drowned!" [2]

As I suggested earlier in this blog, in some respects it can be said that the whole foundation of Christianity is based on the notion of original sin. Now, I have to say here that I find this rather hard to reconcile with the idea of an omnimax benevolent god who values us - but pressing on - How did we get this 'original sin'?

We inherited it from A&E who got it after eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Why was eating from that tree a bad thing though? I suspect that many apologists would say that the eating from the tree was not, in and of itself a bad thing, it was the disobeying god part.

But this doesn't quite fit the biblical interpretation of events. Why would God make that tree, of all trees, bad? Why would God not have created A&E with the knowledge they came to possess after eating the tree? Why specify that it was from the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Surely such specification points to an importance.

In fact if we read the scriptures, the serpent entices A&E by saying that if they eat from that tree they will become like God in the knowledge of good and evil (which I find internally contradictory with some of Christianity's other assertions, but that will have to be for another blog) - that their eyes will be opened.

This is, exactly what happens. God concedes this by saying: Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

To put it briefly in other words, our sin was the sin of attaining knowledge - at least that's the message the bible spells out for us.

So when the Christian sits there and says "That's just what people think.... Jesus is the ONLY way to the father, and anything else is a lie meant to destroy your soul"[3] I become a little puzzled as the foundation of the bible is not about truth or attaining knowledge. It seems to be about keeping mankind ignorant. Paul's reminder that God will send delusions could certainly be used to support this contention:

2 Thessalonians 2:11-12: "And said, verily I say unto you, except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."

Evidently the God of the Bible has no problem lying in order to get what it desires, but what does this mean in regards to the importance of the truth, to facts? It's not the truth that God is pushing, it's not the facts of reality that this God wants you to know and to strive for - it's slave-like devotion and unquestioning obedience and worship. Why such a perfect being requires this is a philosophical conundrum.

I'll end the blog with one last quote from Nietzsche, where he compares Christianity to Buddhism. I think it's an interesting thing to reflect on.

One now begins to see just what it was that came to an end with the death on the cross: a new and thoroughly original effort to found a Buddhistic peace movement, and so establish happiness on earth - real, not merely promised. For this remains - as I have already pointed out - the essential difference between the two religions of decadence: Buddhism promises nothing, but actually fulfills; Christianity promises everything, but fulfills nothing. - Hard upon the heels of the "glad tidings" came the worst imaginable: those of Paul. In Paul is incarnated the very opposite of the "bearer of glad tidings"; he represents the genius for hatred, the vision of hatred, the relentless logic of hatred. What, indeed, has not this dysangelist sacrificed to hatred! Above all, the savior: he nailed him to his own cross. The life, the example, the teachings, the death of Christ, the meaning and the law of the whole gospels - nothing was left of all this after that counterfeiter in hatred had reduced it to his uses. Surely not reality; surely not historical truth![4]




Notes:

1. Nietzsche, Frederick. The Anti-Christ (Translated by H.L. Mencken). Pg 61 section 43.

2. Nietzsche, Frederick. The Anti-Christ (Translated by H.L. Mencken). Pg 69 section 48.

3. This is actually a quote from a discussion that I was taking part in. I saved the quote but unfortunately I didn't save a link to the actual discussion so I have no idea who said it or really what the context was. Suffice it is to say though that in the context of this blog, it is fitting.

4. Nietzsche, Frederick. The Anti-Christ (Translated by H.L. Mencken). Pg 59 section 42.

ITEM: Seventh-Day Adventism (SDA) is just another "cult" of Christianity whose belief system is larded up with something like 100,000 pages of Ellen White's epileptic visions. Nobody at McLean Bible would defend Mrs. White's rather peculiar personal additions to the Scriptures. To the contrary, they would applaud the present-day "Martin Luthers" who have left the denomination -- just as Luther left the Roman Catholic church -- in order to return to New Testament Biblical Christianity.

I realize I'm droning on here, but a rational person cannot accept a young earth. Amongst many arguments against it (and none for a young earth) is the problem with Meteors. Young Earth Christians must ignore evidence and reason in order to accept Christianity.
---------
My question is how does a young earth account for meteors?

Over the past several billion years the earth has been plastered with meteors (http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/CIDiameterSort.html)- several of which are of sufficient size as to cancel out most of life on the planet (one of which would have cancelled out *all* life on the planet - http://www.hartrao.ac.za/other/vredefort/vredefort.html).

How did mankind survive during the 140 plus large impacts that have been discovered? Not only that, but why didn't anyone write about such earth shattering events?

Further why isn't the earth still reeling from the massive impacts?

The following is taken from the Cambridge Conference Correspondence (http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc032003.html):

"Very big impactors are rare, but if one the size of Vredefort should hit us, it would probably spell the end of life as we know it.

Colossal fires and tidal waves would sweep away landmarks, killing millions if not billions immediately. Ejecta and dust thrown from the impact zone would do the long-term damage, darkening the skies and chilling the seas for centuries, putting an end to agriculture and possibly disrupting the atmospheric processes from which we draw our air.

This is what seems to have caused the mass extinction of the dinosaurs. About 65-million years ago, an asteroid ploughed into what is now the Yucatan peninsula of Mexico, setting in motion the chain reactions that killed off Earth's dominant species in a few short years. Known as the Chicxulub crater, this is regarded as the world's third-largest. "

Keep in mind, the conference is talking about two different impacts - the Vredefort (which I linked to earlier) and the K-T event. So how is it that both of these hit us sometime in the last 6, 000 (or 10, whatever you hold to) years and not only are we still around to debate about it, but there is no written record of these impacts?

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> ITEM: Seventh-Day Adventism (SDA) is just another
> "cult" of Christianity whose belief system is
> larded up with something like 100,000 pages of
> Ellen White's epileptic visions.
>
> Nobody at McLean Bible would defend Mrs. White's
> rather peculiar personal additions to the
> Scriptures. To the contrary, they would applaud
> the present-day "Martin Luthers" who have left the
> denomination -- just as Luther left the Roman
> Catholic church -- in order to return to New
> Testament Biblical Christianity.
>


Sorry Elliot, but special pleading is a logical fallacy. If you can charge a scientific theory with motive (ie, Nazism and absurdly, Stalin's communism), then we can charge Christianity with motive as well (ie, that it's racist).

I'm curious Elliot, do you intend on answering what I've written or are you going to continue your debunked soap box of 'Darwin = teh satan'?

Again, I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that the contradictions need to be acknowledged instead of being glossed over. But you're a fanatic, there's no reasoning with you.

Actually, it's you who's the fanatic. Your every post is filled with narrow-minded hatred and an utter inability to accept people whose beliefs are different from yours. Of course, you consider yourself to be an open-minded and tolerant person, but your posts show you for what you are. A bigot.

1) Pangloss wrote that "Walt Brown has been refuted *BY CREATIONISTS*" ... I would suggest that some of Brown's ideas have been 'disputed' by fellow creationists who are not afraid to debate the issues.

2) All that Caroline Crocker has ever asked for was that the establishment be willing to dispute the idea of Intelligent Design rather than trying to silence the debate. [This was also the point of Ben Stein's movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed".]

3) Modern man would rather see himself as merely "something kicked up out of the slime by chance" than to even discuss the possibility that our immense, complex cosmos was 'created' with a structure by someone with a character and intelligence -- which is what the Bible asserts.

Pangloss ... I'm not "charging a scientific theory with a motive."

I'm saying that Nazism and Communism share an impersonal Darwinian view of the cosmos, while attaching distinct sacred documents, prophets/Messiahs, and a romantic, glorious future to their irrational confections of "national"/"scientific" socialism.

They can both be considered "religions" in that respect ... so can Nietzsche's romantic vison of a world of "supermen" and Ayn Rand's romantic vision of a world of "producers."

Does anyone have any data regarding how much revenue churches would bring to the Fed if they weren't tax exempt?

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > 1) Pangloss wrote that "Walt Brown has been
> refuted *BY CREATIONISTS*" ... I would suggest
> that some of Brown's ideas have been 'disputed' by
> fellow creationists who are not afraid to debate
> the issues.
> 2) All that Caroline Crocker has ever asked for
> was that the establishment be willing to dispute
> the idea of Intelligent Design rather than trying
> to silence the debate.
> 3) Modern man would rather see himself as merely
> "something kicked up out of the slime by chance"
> than to even discuss the possibility that our
> immense, complex cosmos was 'created' with a
> structure by someone with a character and
> intelligence -- which is what the Bible asserts.

let...say...it...again...very...slowly...for...the...hard...of...thinking...

you...do...not...need...a...designer...to...explain...what...you...can...see...around...you...

and...there...is...no...evidence...for...one

intelligent...design...is...just...a...last...ditch...attempt...to...keep...religion...alive

creation...science...is...not...science...its...religion... pretending...to...be..science...

there...is...no...god..get...over...it

Does anyone have any data regarding how much revenue churches would bring to the Fed if they weren't tax exempt?

Does anyone have any data regarding how much charities, such as food banks, homeless shelters, etc. would lose in financial aid if churches lost their tax exempt status?

there...is...no...god..get...over...it

Get over it, the phrase that is last refuge of those who are unable to debate intelligently. Why does it bother you if people believe in God? What difference does it make to you?

Jim Thorpe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> there...is...no...god..get...over...it
>
> Get over it, the phrase that is last refuge of
> those who are unable to debate intelligently. Why
> does it bother you if people believe in God? What
> difference does it make to you?


Because they foist misguided laws and policies on the rest of us - not because they've thought about them, but because some religious hierarchy tells them so.

Because they continue to lie to the next generations and waste talent

Because they attempt to get cr*p like creation science into our schools

Because they get us into unnecessary wars and have us back other religious regimes when they massacre their religious rivals

Because it enables people with really dangerous views to hold on to a constituency because of fear of damnation or exclusion

If religion had no net effect, them I wouldn't give a damn - it would just be some ethnographic oddity for national geographic. But it does have devastating and dangerous results.

Religion's time is over - consign it to the trash can of history where it belongs and address the world as it really is.

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > 1) Pangloss wrote that "Walt Brown has been
> refuted *BY CREATIONISTS*" ... I would suggest
> that some of Brown's ideas have been 'disputed' by
> fellow creationists who are not afraid to debate
> the issues.

And?

> 2) All that Caroline Crocker has ever asked for
> was that the establishment be willing to dispute
> the idea of Intelligent Design rather than trying
> to silence the debate.

Nonsense - if she wanted the establishment to take it seriously then she should have approached it from a serious manner, ie, go through the normal scientific channels and come up with a scientific theory. What she, and ID proponents do, was try to get ID in the back door. Again, this is why the discovery institute spends money on PR and the media instead of doing *any* empirical work.

> 3) Modern man would rather see himself as merely
> "something kicked up out of the slime by chance"
> than to even discuss the possibility that our
> immense, complex cosmos was 'created' with a
> structure by someone with a character and
> intelligence -- which is what the Bible asserts.


1. Evolution is not 'chance'. If you believe this, then you do not understand evolutionary theory.
2. This is irrelevant to the actual truth.

-------------------------------------------------------
> > Pangloss ... I'm not "charging a scientific
> theory with a motive."I'm saying that Nazism and
> Communism share an impersonal Darwinian view of
> the cosmos, while attaching distinct sacred
> documents, prophets/Messiahs, and a romantic,
> glorious future to their irrational confections of
> "national"/"scientific" socialism.

As I've shown, you are incorrect and you are doing exactly what I said, attempting to charge a scientific theory with motive. You are using rhetoric instead of reason, which is why you attempt to discredit it by using terms such as 'prophets/messiahs' and 'nazism' and 'communism' (which I've shown is absurd, as Stalinist communism did not accept Darwinian evolution - which you haven't addressed at all).

> They can both be considered "religions" in that
> respect ... so can Nietzsche's romantic vison of a
> world of "supermen" and Ayn Rand's romantic vision
> of a world of "producers."

No, they can't. Further, you are again trying to link a scientific theory with completely different metaphysical views. In fact, if Ayn Rand is right, then Nietzche wasn't - yet you are...what...trying to say that Darwinism is linked with both??

Are you going to address any of the points I've made or are you going to ignore them and continue with your refuted rhetoric? Do you think that we can see the strawman behind the rhetoric? I've pulled back the curtain Elliot and you are still trying to convince us of the all powerful Wizard.

Because they foist misguided laws and policies on the rest of us - not because they've thought about them, but because some religious hierarchy tells them so.

Because they continue to lie to the next generations and waste talent

Because they attempt to get cr*p like creation science into our schools

Because they get us into unnecessary wars and have us back other religious regimes when they massacre their religious rivals

Because it enables people with really dangerous views to hold on to a constituency because of fear of damnation or exclusion

If religion had no net effect, them I wouldn't give a damn - it would just be some ethnographic oddity for national geographic. But it does have devastating and dangerous results.

Religion's time is over - consign it to the trash can of history where it belongs and address the world as it really is.


Tell it to the Muslims, asshole.

Jim Thorpe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Because they foist misguided laws and policies on
> the rest of us - not because they've thought about
> them, but because some religious hierarchy tells
> them so.
>
> Because they continue to lie to the next
> generations and waste talent
>
> Because they attempt to get cr*p like creation
> science into our schools
>
> Because they get us into unnecessary wars and have
> us back other religious regimes when they massacre
> their religious rivals
>
> Because it enables people with really dangerous
> views to hold on to a constituency because of fear
> of damnation or exclusion
>
> If religion had no net effect, them I wouldn't
> give a damn - it would just be some ethnographic
> oddity for national geographic. But it does have
> devastating and dangerous results.
>
> Religion's time is over - consign it to the trash
> can of history where it belongs and address the
> world as it really is.
>
>
> Tell it to the Muslims, asshole.


Retard (although that's tough on real retards) - I've happily told it to the Christians, the Muslims, the Jews, the Mormons, the JWs and the Hindus (the Jains get a bit of a break because, although wrong and hence wasteful of talent, they don't tend to go out invading, murdering and subjecting which is at least a start)

You all believe incompatible things (incompatible with each other and will all of the evidence around you) yet all claim that your particular divine intervention is the right one and that the others should all burn in some form of hell - by Tuesday if at all possible

Its not surprising that an intolerant religious numb-skull such as yourself would just attempt to deflect your ignorance at a rival religious group - world history is littered with people like you and it always ends up in war, blood and poverty. At the end of the day, you're as dead as the rest of us and the universe doesn't even notice.

Some 'christian' you are... clearly full of the milk of human kindness for other 'communities of faith'

Pangloss stated that "Stalinist communism did not accept Darwinian evolution - which you haven't addressed at all."

Umm ... the lunatic Stalin didn't accept Mendel's view of genetic mechanisms ... instead Stalin empowered the Lamarckian (inheritance-of-acquired-characteristics) Lysenko ... and Lysenko then became the hideous "Che Guevara" of Soviet science:

Lysenko was put in charge of the Academy of Agricultural Sciences of the Soviet Union and made responsible for ending the propagation of "harmful" ideas among Soviet scientists. Lysenko served this purpose by causing the expulsion, imprisonment, and death of hundreds of scientists and eliminating all study and research involving Mendelian genetics throughout the Soviet Union. This period is known as Lysenkoism. He bears particular responsibility for the persecution of his predecessor and rival, prominent Soviet biologist Nikolai Vavilov, which ended in 1943 with the imprisoned Vavilov's death by starvation.

But the terrible tyranny that empowered Stalin flowed from Marx's cosmology via Lenin ... long before Mendel, Marx and Darwin lived in very much the same non-created universe. (Dunno if Lenin had ever expressed any private views about genetic mechanisms!)

Letter from Marx, 1861, to Lassalle:

"Darwin’s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle. One does, of course, have to put up with the clumsy English style of argument. Despite all shortcomings, it is here that, for the first time, ‘teleology’ in natural science is not only dealt a mortal blow but its rational meaning is empirically explained."

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss stated that "Stalinist communism did not
> accept Darwinian evolution - which you haven't
> addressed at all."
>
> Umm ... the lunatic Stalin didn't accept Mendel's
> view of genetic mechanisms ... instead Stalin
> empowered the Lamarckian
> (inheritance-of-acquired-characteristics) Lysenko
> ... and Lysenko then became the hideous "Che
> Guevara" of Soviet science:
> Lysenko was put in charge of the Academy of
> Agricultural Sciences of the Soviet Union and made
> responsible for ending the propagation of
> "harmful" ideas among Soviet scientists. Lysenko
> served this purpose by causing the expulsion,
> imprisonment, and death of hundreds of scientists
> and eliminating all study and research involving
> Mendelian genetics throughout the Soviet Union.
> This period is known as Lysenkoism. He bears
> particular responsibility for the persecution of
> his predecessor and rival, prominent Soviet
> biologist Nikolai Vavilov, which ended in 1943
> with the imprisoned Vavilov's death by
> starvation.
> But the terrible tyranny that empowered Stalin
> flowed from Marx's cosmology via Lenin ... long
> before Mendel, Marx and Darwin lived in very much
> the same non-created universe. (Dunno if Lenin had
> ever expressed any private views about genetic
> mechanisms!)

Congratulations, you've learned something - Stalinist communism rejected Darwinian evolution. I expect you to quit referring to it now. I did notice that you still attempt (very weakly and not reasoned at all) Stalin with Lenin's cosmology, but it is irrelevant.

> Letter from Marx, 1861, to Lassalle: "Darwin’s
> work is most important and suits my purpose in
> that it provides a basis in natural science for
> the historical class struggle. One does, of
> course, have to put up with the clumsy English
> style of argument. Despite all shortcomings, it is
> here that, for the first time, ‘teleology’ in
> natural science is not only dealt a mortal blow
> but its rational meaning is empirically
> explained."


I forget, was "Marx" just another name for "Stalin"?

In all seriousness, as I said, you cannot blame a scientific theory for the atrocities that people commit. So just like you cannot blame Hiroshima (sp?) on Einstein's theory of relativity, you cannot blame Stalin's starvation of 20 million of his own people on Evolution.

But again, as I've pointed out, your entire argument is a red herring - as even if it were true, it doesn't mean that Christianity is true. At best you are engaging in wishful thinking.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/25/2009 09:50PM by Professor Pangloss.

Your biases are showing Elliot. Further you seem either unwilling to engage in what's being discussed or unable to. If it's the former, then your mindset is similar to holocaust deniers. If it's the latter then all I can suggest is that you actually look into the topics you disagree with. Remember Aristotle's Maxim that one can entertain an idea without accepting it.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


> I forget, was "Marx" just another name for
> "Stalin"?
>

Marx's thinking was deeply incisive given the historical and unfolding economic context in which it was undertaken - don't forget that it done shortly after the American Civil War and 20 years before the christian aristocracy and monarchies of Europe sent the youth of their people to the cemeteries of Flanders.

Marx's work is 19th century thinking without the benefits of the 20th century experience of large scale markets and industrialization - that the limits of his work took time to emerge is not surprising,

Stalin's use of starvation, ethnic cleansing and massacre is only peripherally related to Marx's analysis - and is much more reminiscent of the catholic church's enrichment from the extermination of the South American civilisations

> In all seriousness, as I said, you cannot blame a
> scientific theory for the atrocities that people
> commit. So just like you cannot blame Hiroshima
> (sp?) on Einstein's theory of relativity, you
> cannot blame Stalin's starvation of 20 million of
> his own people on Evolution.
>

Exactly - claiming that relativity is wrong because you don't like what it tells you, or what it enables you to do, despite the evidence would be stupid - just like claiming that the world is flat because air-travel makes you sick or that evolution is wrong because you don't like being a direct descendant of pond-slime (which is quite an fine ancestry if you ask me - seeing how cool pond-slime is when you really look at what it does and how it works)

Prof. Pangloss ... the point I was making about Communism and Nazism, as well as Objectivism, is that in order to escape despair they take refuge in Romanticism about the future (and often the personification of the impersonal) rather than live consistently with the Nihilism of their premises ... viz., is the projected "heat death" of the [uncreated] cosmos due to increasing entropy.

E.g. Prof. George Wald, as Nihilst:

Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing.” (1954, “The Origin of Life”).

E.g. Prof. George Wald, as Romantic:

Every creature alive on the earth today represents an unbroken line of life that stretches back to the first primitive organism to appear on this planet; and that is about three billion years. That really is immortality. ... All that time, that germ plasm has been making bodies and casting them off in the act of dying. If the germ plasm wants to swim in the ocean, it makes itself a fish; if the germ plasm wants to fly in the air, it makes itself a bird. ... the germ plasm that we carry around within us has done all those things. There was a time, hundreds of millions of years ago, when it was making fish. Then at a later time it was making amphibia, things like salamanders; and then at a still later time it was making reptiles. Then it made mammals, and now it’s making men. If we only have the restraint and good sense to leave it alone, heaven knows what it will make in ages to come."(1970, "The Origin of Death")

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Prof. Pangloss ... the point I was making about
> Communism and Nazism, as well as Objectivism, is
> that in order to escape despair they take refuge
> in Romanticism about the future (and often the
> personification of the impersonal) rather than
> live consistently with the Nihilism of their
> premises ... viz., is the projected "heat death"
> of the cosmos due to increasing entropy.

I disagree - you are lumping various worldviews into one big strawman. Again, I point you to Nietzsche. You are simply ignoring anything and everything that you don't already agree with - and then you repeat yourself.

> E.g. Prof. George Wald, as Nihilst: Most modern
> biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the
> downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis,
> yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in
> special creation, are left with nothing.” (1954,
> “The Origin of Life”).

*Sigh* this is getting real OLD Elliot. If you are suggesting that Spontaneous Generation is at all similar to abiogenesis then this is going to get frustrating real fast.

You aren't comprehending what anyone is writing. You are simply standing on your soapbox spouting nonsense. Would you like to engage other people in your discussion?

> E.g. Prof. George Wald, as Romantic: Every
> creature alive on the earth today represents an
> unbroken line of life that stretches back to the
> first primitive organism to appear on this planet;
> and that is about three billion years. That really
> is immortality. ... All that time, that germ plasm
> has been making bodies and casting them off in the
> act of dying. If the germ plasm wants to swim in
> the ocean, it makes itself a fish; if the germ
> plasm wants to fly in the air, it makes itself a
> bird. ... the germ plasm that we carry around
> within us has done all those things. There was a
> time, hundreds of millions of years ago, when it
> was making fish. Then at a later time it was
> making amphibia, things like salamanders; and then
> at a still later time it was making reptiles. Then
> it made mammals, and now it’s making men. If we
> only have the restraint and good sense to leave it
> alone, heaven knows what it will make in ages to
> come."(1970, "The Origin of Death")
>


The relevance to the conversation is....?

So since you didn't touch my meteor argument, do you concede that a young earth is impossible?

Let me guess, you are going to ignore it? Just like you ignore the fact that Christianity is nihilistic and that Christianity cannot answer the is-ought dilemma.

Are you just copying and pasting from other websites?

Pangloss wrote: "Congratulations, you've learned something - Stalinist communism rejected Darwinian evolution."

Ness replies:

	1) You presume too much ... I've known about Lysenko for decades. (Everybody who studies modern Russian history learns about Lysenko!)
	2) Stalin personally supported Lysenko's Lamarckian rejection of Mendel's mechanism ... but what evidence is there that Stalin "rejected Darwinian evolution?"

Seriously Elliot, do you have a problem communicating or something? You have been blubbering on about 'Darwinian cosmology' (yet never defining it or linking Darwin with cosmology) and trying vainly to link Darwin with Stalin's atrocities. I point out that it's absurd and you change the subject!

Here's the exchange:

***Pangloss stated that "Stalinist communism did not accept Darwinian evolution - which you haven't addressed at all."

Umm ... the lunatic Stalin didn't accept Mendel's view of genetic mechanisms ... instead Stalin empowered the Lamarckian (inheritance-of-acquired-characteristics) Lysenko ... and Lysenko then became the hideous "Che Guevara" of Soviet science:***

Ie, I showed that you couldn't link Darwin's evolution with Stalin's atrocities, yet instead of honestly admitting that you start blabbering about Stalin not accepting Mendel and how he went with Lysenko. You, obviously, left out the crucial 'why' Stalin went with Lysenko (you probably don't know), but when one looks over this exchange, it's immediately apparent that you still didn't address the fact that your primary contention was refuted.

You apparently don't know what you are talking about and it's getting frustrating discussing this with you since you don't know what you are talking about AND you aren't addressing 1/2 of the topics being discussed.

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss wrote: "Congratulations, you've learned
> something - Stalinist communism rejected Darwinian
> evolution."
>
> Ness replies:
>
> 1) You presume too much ... I've known about
> Lysenko for decades. (Everybody who studies modern
> Russian history learns about Lysenko!)
> 2) Stalin personally supported Lysenko's
> Lamarckian rejection of Mendel's mechanism ... but
> what evidence is there that Stalin "rejected
> Darwinian evolution?"


I don't think I do presume too much - as you've failed to convince me that you are adequately aware of many of the topics you are discussing.

As to your point two, please tell me, did Lysenko support Darwin's contention of natural selection?

You imply that you've studied Russian history and that you know about this, but you clearly don't.

Do you know the difference between natural selection and lamarkianism Elliot?

Pangloss wrote: "So since you didn't touch my meteor argument, do you concede that a young earth is impossible? Let me guess, you are going to ignore it? Just like you ignore the fact that Christianity is nihilistic and that Christianity cannot answer the is-ought dilemma. Are you just copying and pasting from other websites?"

Ness replies: Give me a break! I just finished an 8-hour drive from NY, and I haven't had time to even read all of Page 7, let alone reply to it.

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss wrote: "So since you didn't touch my
> meteor argument, do you concede that a young earth
> is impossible? Let me guess, you are going to
> ignore it? Just like you ignore the fact that
> Christianity is nihilistic and that Christianity
> cannot answer the is-ought dilemma. Are you just
> copying and pasting from other websites?"
>
> Ness replies: Give me a break! I just finished an
> 8-hour drive from NY, and I haven't had time to
> even read all of Page 7, let alone reply to it.


This isn't the first time you've ignored important points. This is a habit with you. I find your excuse unconvincing. It's extremely frustrating to try to have a conversation with someone who is just on a soap box about an issue that *even if it were true* it doesn't make a difference as to whether or not Christianity is true.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/25/2009 11:23PM by Professor Pangloss.

Pangloss wrote: "You imply that you've studied Russian history and that you know about this, but you clearly don't."

Ness replies: Sigh. Once again you presume too much ... the energetic and respected Stephen Lukashevich (cf. http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/LUKIVA.html http://www.fordfound.org/archives/item/1961/text/82) gave me an 'A' for writing about "The Russian Revolutionary as a 'Symbol for an Age'."

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss wrote: "You imply that you've studied
> Russian history and that you know about this, but
> you clearly don't."
>
> Ness replies: Sigh. Once again you presume too
> much ... the energetic and respected Stephen
> Lukashevich (cf.
> http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/LUKIVA.html
> http://www.fordfound.org/archives/item/1961/text/8
> 2) gave me an 'A' for writing about "The Russian
> Revolutionary as a 'Symbol for an Age'."


And I should believe this because? Seriously, you expect me to believe this when you don't know the difference between Darwinian evolution and lysenkoism?

Pangloss, we have devolved into silliness about Russian history. (I don't have a notarized photo of me with Lukashevich! And who cares?) So I'm going to move on and speak to a previous post about the death of Anne Frank.

In re: Darwinism, the debate about mechanisms of inheritance is certainly secondary to the larger issue of whether the cosmos was created, or not created ... intelligently designed, or entirely chaotic. Currently fashionable Big Bang theory thinks in terms of 'out-of-nothing-by-nobody' and projects a hopeless chaotic 'heat death' of our uncreated universe. (Lon Solomon would describe it as "Pfft. The candle goes out. Fade to black.") The Bible, from beginning to end, asserts "created" and "intelligently designed" by Jesus-as-God ("He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.") ... and purports to speak in human language with the Creator's authority in detail about human history and human future, both of which are known to God ... there is therein a real resurrection of the dead and a recreation of the cosmos. "(I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away ... No longer will there be any curse ... There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.")

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss, we have devolved into silliness about
> Russian history. (I don't have a notarized photo
> of me with Lukashevich! And who cares?)

Yes, I agree, but let's remember, you brought it up!

> So I'm going to move on and speak to a previous post
> about the death of Anne Frank.In re: Darwinism,
> the debate about mechanisms of inheritance is
> certainly secondary to the larger issue of whether
> the cosmos was created, or not created ...

You cannot be serious. Darwinism, aka, the theory that darwin came up with is about the mechanism of common descent. You are apparently attaching cosmology to Darwin. For what reason?

Rhetoric.

> intelligently designed, or entirely chaotic.

*Sigh*, I'm going to call you out for lying because I think you know better. Darwin's theory is not 'entirely chaotic'. Neither are modern cosmological theories.

I believe you even referenced Smollin's big bang model and yet you have the nerve to characterize non 'intelligent designed' models as 'entirely chaotic'.

Shame on you.

> Currently fashionable Big Bang theory thinks in
> terms of 'out-of-nothing-by-nobody' and projects a
> hopeless chaotic 'heat death' of our uncreated
> universe. (Lon Solomon would describe it as "Pfft.

NONSENSE. The 'Big Bang Theory' is related to the expansion of the singularity. It is NOT an ultimate cosmological theory.

You don't know what you are talking about here.


> The candle goes out. Fade to black.") The Bible,
> from beginning to end, asserts "created" and
> "intelligently designed" by Jesus-as-God ("He was
> with God in the beginning. Through him all things
> were made; without him nothing was made that has
> been made.") ... and purports to speak in human
> language with the Creator's authority in detail
> about human history and human future, both of
> which are known to God ... there is therein a real
> resurrection of the dead and a recreation of the
> cosmos. "(I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for
> the first heaven and the first earth had passed
> away ... No longer will there be any curse ...
> There will be no more death or mourning or crying
> or pain, for the old order of things has passed
> away.")

Yes, the Christian model is logically impossible, since it is predicated on time existing prior to time.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/26/2009 04:37PM by Professor Pangloss.

Elliot, is the reason you are a Christian because you have convinced yourself that other positions are wrong, based on lies? It certainly seems that way (you don't understand cosmology or evolution, you blatantly quote mine, and you consistently build up strawmen).

I'm curious because you are making an astonishing amount of assertions based on unsupportable rubbish.

Some Questions that I would like a direct answer to Elliot:

1. Do you think the earth/universe/etc is under 20 thousand years old?
2. Do you have an reasoned arguments for your belief that god exists?
3. Do you accept that intelligent design is an appeal to ignorance?
4. Do you accept Christianity is nihilistic?
5. Which model of Christian Morality do you accept? Divine command theory?
6. Why do you disagree with modern science about cosmology, when you aren't very familar with it?
7. Why do you disagree with modern science about biology/evolution/abiogenesis, when you aren't very familar with it?
8. Why Christianity instead of Zoroastrianism or Horus worship?
9. Do you still believe god is omnibenevolent even though he is responsible for all the evil in the world?

Pangloss asks:

1. Do you think the earth/universe/etc is under 20 thousand years old?
I'm agnostic and unconcerned about the earth's age. The debate
between contemporary science and Christianity is about the 'createdness' of the
universe ... not its age.
The Bible is clear, however, that
space/time is created because God 'is' in the past, the present, and
the future, and He has spoken authoritatively about all of them.

Isaiah 14: The LORD Almighty has sworn, "Surely, as I
have planned, so it will be, and as I have purposed, so it will
stand."
Deuteronomy 18: "If what a prophet
proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a
message the LORD has not spoken."2. Do you have any reasoned arguments for your belief that god exists? The huge amount of fulfilled prophecy is the most arresting
component of the Christian Bible. It should knock the socks off any agnostic.
3. Do you accept that intelligent design is an appeal to ignorance? No, because I've met some ID proponents personally and have looked at their books. They are are not 'ignorant.'
They strike me as more open-minded ... and less emotionally out-of-control than some of their
antagonists (who call Dr. Crocker an "idiot-bitch").
If Christianity is
true, then fallen Man does not want to hear that he was 'created' by the
personal God of the Bible ... because he does not want to be guilty.4. Do you accept Christianity is nihilistic?Darwinism is
nihilistic because, as Keynes said, "we are all dead in the long run."
Nothing matters. Only a-morality makes sense in a Darwinian cosmos.

Biblical Christianity is not nihilistic precisely because of the
character and personality of a God who is really "there" and is not
silent.5. Which model of Christian Morality do you accept? Divine command theory? No particular 'theory.' Where God has spoken in scripture, Christians have to listen.
The enormously verbal God of Scripture has [alas!] chosen to speak in parables and poetry as well as prose, so [alas!] there are areas of disagreement among Christians.
One thing Biblical Christians certainly agree on, is that all men except Jesus
have behaved immorally and stand 'guilty' before the God of the Bible.6. Why do you disagree with modern science about cosmology, when you
aren't very familar with it?The real debate between Christianity and
contemporary cosmology is about 'createdness.'
When a contemporary scientist's presupposition is 'uncreated' and 'undesigned,' Christians
respectfully disagree. 7. Why do you disagree with modern science about biology/evolution/abiogenesis, when you aren't very familar with it?
The real debate between Christianity and contemporary biology is about
'createdness.'
When a contemporary biologist's presupposition
is 'uncreated' and 'undesigned,' Christians respectfully disagree.8. Why Christianity instead of Zoroastrianism or Horus worship?
Because I read the 'Book' ... and participated in hundreds of hours of
discussions with other European and American skeptics in Francis Schaeffer's
living room.
But Christians agree that God converts atheists, not the
atheists themselves. Jesus said: "No one can come to Me,
unless the Father who sent Me draw him: and I will raise him up on the last
day." (John 6:44) 9. Do you still believe god is omnibenevolent even though he is
responsible for all the evil in the world?The Bible describes a cosmos
in which created/fallen Man and angels have real significance, and can do
awful things for which God is NOT responsible or blameworthy, despite his
absolute sovereignty over events. (See the discussions at GodAndScience.org and Pyromaniacs.)
The Christian can truly
hate the fact that there is abnormal 'evil' and 'suffering' in the world,
without hating God.
To the consistent Darwinist, however, what is, is ...
regardless of his/her feelings about it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2009 01:20PM by Eliot Ness.

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss asks:
>
> 1. Do you think the earth/universe/etc is under 20
> thousand years old?
> I'm agnostic and unconcerned about the earth's
> age. The debate
> between contemporary science and Christianity is
> about the 'createdness' of the
> universe ... not its age. The Bible is clear,
> however, that
> space/time is created because God 'is' in the
> past, the present, and
> the future, and He has spoken authoritatively
> about all of them.
> Isaiah 14: The LORD Almighty has sworn, "Surely,
> as I
> have planned, so it will be, and as I have
> purposed, so it will
> stand."Deuteronomy 18: "If what a prophet
> proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take
> place or come true, that is a
> message the LORD has not spoken." 2. Do you have
> any reasoned arguments for your belief that god
> exists? The huge amount of fulfilled prophecy is
> the most arresting
> component of the Christian Bible. It should knock
> the socks off any agnostic.
> 3. Do you accept that intelligent design is an
> appeal to ignorance? No, because I've met some ID
> proponents personally and have looked at their
> books. They are are not 'ignorant.' They strike me
> as more open-minded ... and less emotionally
> out-of-control than some of their
> antagonists (who call Dr. Crocker an
> "idiot-bitch"). If Christianity is
> true, then fallen Man does not want to hear that
> he was 'created' by the
> personal God of the Bible ... because he does not
> want to be guilty.
> 4. Do you accept Christianity is
> nihilistic?Darwinism is
> nihilistic because, as Keynes said, "we are all
> dead in the long run."
> Nothing matters. Only a-morality makes sense in a
> Darwinian cosmos.
> Biblical Christianity is not nihilistic precisely
> because of the
> character and personality of a God who is really
> "there" and is not
> silent.5. Which model of Christian Morality do you
> accept? Divine command theory? No particular
> 'theory.' Where God has spoken in scripture,
> Christians have to listen. The enormously verbal
> God of Scripture has chosen to speak in parables
> and poetry as well as prose, so there are areas
> of disagreement among Christians. One thing
> Biblical Christians certainly agree on, is that
> all men except Jesus
> have behaved immorally and stand 'guilty' before
> the God of the Bible.
> 6. Why do you disagree with modern science about
> cosmology, when you
> aren't very familar with it?The real debate
> between Christianity and
> contemporary cosmology is about 'createdness.'When
> a contemporary scientist's presupposition is
> 'uncreated' and 'undesigned,' Christians
> respectfully disagree. 7. Why do you disagree with
> modern science about
> biology/evolution/abiogenesis, when you aren't
> very familar with it?
> The real debate between Christianity and
> contemporary biology is about
> 'createdness.' When a contemporary biologist's
> presupposition
> is 'uncreated' and 'undesigned,' Christians
> respectfully disagree.
> 8. Why Christianity instead of Zoroastrianism or
> Horus worship?
> Because I read the 'Book' ... and participated in
> hundreds of hours of
> discussions with other European and American
> skeptics in Francis Schaeffer's
> living room.But Christians agree that God converts
> atheists, not the
> atheists themselves. Jesus said: "No one can come
> to Me,
> unless the Father who sent Me draw him: and I will
> raise him up on the last
> day." (John 6:44) 9. Do you still believe god is
> omnibenevolent even though he is
> responsible for all the evil in the world?The
> Bible describes a cosmos
> in which created/fallen Man and angels have real
> significance, and can do
> awful things for which God is NOT responsible or
> blameworthy, despite his
> absolute sovereignty over events. (See the
> discussions at GodAndScience.org and
> Pyromaniacs.)The Christian can truly
> hate the fact that there is abnormal 'evil' and
> 'suffering' in the world,
> without hating God. To the consistent Darwinist,
> however, what is, is ...
> regardless of his/her feelings about it.


Silence for so long, we were beginning to hope you'd be raptured

Wow - hundreds of words of self referential drivel

Get out and look at the evidence - stop just spouting scripture - think for yourself rather than trying to throw out clear science and observations in order to cram dead religious ideas in. Without any evidence, the bible is just another creation myth from a group of middle eastern peasants and gets no more credence than any of them. You're not convincing anyone. If you start with the evidence, you never end up at religion.

Seems like you'd have been much happier in the medieval Vatican or perhaps modern Tehran

Nutters wrote: "Without any evidence, the bible is just another creation myth from a group of middle eastern peasants and gets no more credence than any of them. ... Seems like you'd have been much happier in the medieval Vatican or perhaps modern Tehran."

Ness replies:
1) You disregard the massive amount of fulfilled prophecy in the Bible.
2) Cosmology dictates lifestyle. Rome has added the enormous superstructure of an authoritative, repressive church to the Bible, while Tehran adheres to an entirely different 'revelation' that endorses cruelty to non-believers. Darwinism, however, has nothing at all, just nothing, to say about how humans should live ... no matter how much its adherents may [irrationally] preach some Christian values.

"Humanism has no final way of saying certain things are right and other things are wrong. For a humanist, the final thing which exists -- that is, the impersonal universe -- is neutral and silent about right and wrong, cruelty and non-cruelty. Humanism has no way to provide absolutes. Thus, as a consistent result of humanism's position, humanism in private morals and political life is left with that which is arbitrary."

"On the biblical basis, there are absolutes, and therefore we can say that certain things are right or wrong, including racial discrimination and social injustice. Consider Jesus standing in front of the tomb of Lazarus. The New Testament records that Jesus not only wept but was angry. The one who claimed to be God could be angry at the abnormality of death without being angry at himself. To a Christian on the basis of what the Bible teaches, not only is death abnormal, so is the cruelty of man to man. These things did not exist as God made the world. A Christian can fight the abnormality which has resulted from man's rebellion against God without fighting the final reality of what is -- that is, without fighting God. Therefore, because God exists and there are absolutes, justice can be seen as absolutely good and not just expedient." F. A. Schaeffer

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2009 02:10PM by Eliot Ness.

Repeating the previous answer ...
Pangloss asks:

1. Do you think the earth/universe/etc is under 20 thousand years old?
I'm agnostic and unconcerned about the earth's age. The debate
between contemporary science and Christianity is about the 'createdness' of the
universe ... not its age.
The Bible is clear, however, that
space/time is created because God 'is' in the past, the present, and
the future, and He has spoken authoritatively about all of them.

Isaiah 14: The LORD Almighty has sworn, "Surely, as I
have planned, so it will be, and as I have purposed, so it will
stand."
Deuteronomy 18: "If what a prophet
proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a
message the LORD has not spoken."2. Do you have any reasoned arguments for your belief that god exists? The huge amount of fulfilled prophecy is the most arresting
component of the Christian Bible. It should knock the socks off any agnostic.
3. Do you accept that intelligent design is an appeal to ignorance? No, because I've met some ID proponents personally and have looked at their books. They are are not 'ignorant.'
They strike me as more open-minded ... and less emotionally out-of-control than some of their
antagonists (who call Dr. Crocker an "idiot-bitch").
If Christianity is
true, then fallen Man does not want to hear that he was 'created' by the
personal God of the Bible ... because he does not want to be guilty.4. Do you accept Christianity is nihilistic?Darwinism is
nihilistic because, as Keynes said, "we are all dead in the long run."
Nothing matters. Only a-morality makes sense in a Darwinian cosmos.

Biblical Christianity is not nihilistic precisely because of the
character and personality of a God who is really "there" and is not
silent.5. Which model of Christian Morality do you accept? Divine command theory? No particular 'theory.' Where God has spoken in scripture, Christians have to listen.
The enormously verbal God of Scripture has [alas!] chosen to speak in parables and poetry as well as prose, so [alas!] there are areas of disagreement among Christians.
One thing Biblical Christians certainly agree on, is that all men except Jesus
have behaved immorally and stand 'guilty' before the God of the Bible.6. Why do you disagree with modern science about cosmology, when you
aren't very familar with it?The real debate between Christianity and
contemporary cosmology is about 'createdness.'
When a contemporary scientist's presupposition is 'uncreated' and 'undesigned,' Christians
respectfully disagree. 7. Why do you disagree with modern science about biology/evolution/abiogenesis, when you aren't very familar with it?
The real debate between Christianity and contemporary biology is about
'createdness.'
When a contemporary biologist's presupposition
is 'uncreated' and 'undesigned,' Christians respectfully disagree.8. Why Christianity instead of Zoroastrianism or Horus worship?
Because I read the 'Book' ... and participated in hundreds of hours of
discussions with other European and American skeptics in Francis Schaeffer's
living room.
But Christians agree that God converts atheists, not the
atheists themselves. Jesus said: "No one can come to Me,
unless the Father who sent Me draw him: and I will raise him up on the last
day." (John 6:44) 9. Do you still believe god is omnibenevolent even though he is
responsible for all the evil in the world?The Bible describes a cosmos
in which created/fallen Man and angels have real significance, and can do
awful things for which God is NOT responsible or blameworthy, despite his
absolute sovereignty over events. (See the discussions at GodAndScience.org and Pyromaniacs.)
The Christian can truly
hate the fact that there is abnormal 'evil' and 'suffering' in the world,
without hating God.
To the consistent Darwinist, however, what is, is ...
regardless of his/her feelings about it.

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Ness replies: 1) You disregard the massive amount
> of fulfilled prophecy in the Bible.

So to paraphrase, your proof is

'the bible says its right, so its right'

Sorry - you'd better to far far better than that



2) Cosmology
> Darwinism, however, has
> nothing at all, just nothing, to say about how
> humans should live ...
>

Absolutely right

Science (cosmology, physics, life sciences, information sciences, cognitive sciences, social sciences etc) tells you why and how decisions get made - and how to understand the consequences. Science doesn't have concepts of 'moral right' or 'moral wrong' or 'good' or 'evil' - it has concepts of 'observably true' and 'observably wrong'. Similarly, it views 'morals' and 'laws' (in the legal sense) as social constructs underpinned by cognitive mechanisms and evolutionarily adapted predispositions.

As such, it doesn't tell you how you 'should' live - but it helps you to understand how people do live and the potential consequences.

It allows you to live with the elegant honesty of the way the world is and to understand how ends and means relate.

It doesn't say is murder is evil or morally wrong, it does say that successful societies stay successful because they drive out practices which severely damage social cohesion and effectiveness, and if you do murder in a stable society, you're likely to receive retribution - and that if you're a society that condones unconstrained murder, you're not likely to be effective or stable,

Some societies choose to go one way, some go the other.

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss asks:
>
> 1. Do you think the earth/universe/etc is under 20
> thousand years old?
> I'm agnostic and unconcerned about the earth's
> age. The debate
> between contemporary science and Christianity is
> about the 'createdness' of the
> universe ... not its age. The Bible is clear,
> however, that
> space/time is created because God 'is' in the
> past, the present, and
> the future, and He has spoken authoritatively
> about all of them.
> Isaiah 14: The LORD Almighty has sworn, "Surely,
> as I
> have planned, so it will be, and as I have
> purposed, so it will
> stand."Deuteronomy 18: "If what a prophet
> proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take
> place or come true, that is a
> message the LORD has not spoken."

You are quite incorrect in your assertion about what the debate is about. The age of the earth might be of no concern of yours, but quite a number of your Christian brothers are *VERY* concerned with it. In fact, they would call you a cafeteria Christian for ignoring it.

Yes the bible is quite clear on the contradiction, as I've mentioned.

> 2. Do you have
> any reasoned arguments for your belief that god
> exists? The huge amount of fulfilled prophecy is
> the most arresting
> component of the Christian Bible. It should knock
> the socks off any agnostic.

It's surprisingly underwhelming, actually. In fact, it's a little worse then the 'fulfilled prophecy' of Nostradamus.

In any event, I'm not sure that even if prophecy were accurate, it would point to the necessity of god.

> 3. Do you accept that intelligent design is an
> appeal to ignorance? No, because I've met some ID
> proponents personally and have looked at their
> books. They are are not 'ignorant.' They strike me
> as more open-minded ... and less emotionally
> out-of-control than some of their
> antagonists (who call Dr. Crocker an
> "idiot-bitch"). If Christianity is
> true, then fallen Man does not want to hear that
> he was 'created' by the
> personal God of the Bible ... because he does not
> want to be guilty.

I am talking about the logical fallacy of appealing to ignorance, I am not commenting on their intelligence. Perhaps you'd like another stab at answering the question? The appeal to ignorance is also called the god of the gaps logical fallacy.

As to motives, you are appealing to motive, not reason, ergo, your opinion (and hence Christianities) is not relevant.

> 4. Do you accept Christianity is
> nihilistic?Darwinism is
> nihilistic because, as Keynes said, "we are all
> dead in the long run."
> Nothing matters. Only a-morality makes sense in a
> Darwinian cosmos.
> Biblical Christianity is not nihilistic precisely
> because of the
> character and personality of a God who is really
> "there" and is not
> silent.

Ha! This is funny as it provides a clear example of a red herring. I've already pointed out that your analysis of "Darwinism" is an attempt at rhetoric and can be discarded. Asserting that Christianity isn't nihilistic is an empty assertion. Appeaing to god's character/personality doesn't actually get you out of the nihilistic quandry. Would you like to try again?

>5. Which model of Christian Morality do you
> accept? Divine command theory? No particular
> 'theory.' Where God has spoken in scripture,
> Christians have to listen. The enormously verbal
> God of Scripture has chosen to speak in parables
> and poetry as well as prose, so there are areas
> of disagreement among Christians. One thing
> Biblical Christians certainly agree on, is that
> all men except Jesus
> have behaved immorally and stand 'guilty' before
> the God of the Bible.

....No offense, but you aren't familar with the various morality theories? If this is the case, then we can come back to this issue later, if not, then I wonder why you are dancing around the issue.

> 6. Why do you disagree with modern science about
> cosmology, when you
> aren't very familar with it?The real debate
> between Christianity and
> contemporary cosmology is about 'createdness.'When
> a contemporary scientist's presupposition is
> 'uncreated' and 'undesigned,' Christians
> respectfully disagree.

A contemporary scientists opinion is not at issue. Cosmological models do not presuppose any such thing and it is encumbent upon you to demonstrate that they do, as you have the burden of proof. In short, you need to back your assertions.

7. Why do you disagree with
> modern science about
> biology/evolution/abiogenesis, when you aren't
> very familar with it?
> The real debate between Christianity and
> contemporary biology is about
> 'createdness.' When a contemporary biologist's
> presupposition
> is 'uncreated' and 'undesigned,' Christians
> respectfully disagree.

Then you don't disagree with biological evolution? Evolutionary theory is the mechanism for speciation, which the universe could have been created in order to foster. Ergo, logically, you can be a consistent theist and accept that we shared a common ancestor with modern apes.

Some how I doubt this is true, since you have been favoring the incoherent idea of intelligent design.

> 8. Why Christianity instead of Zoroastrianism or
> Horus worship?
> Because I read the 'Book' ... and participated in
> hundreds of hours of
> discussions with other European and American
> skeptics in Francis Schaeffer's
> living room.But Christians agree that God converts
> atheists, not the
> atheists themselves. Jesus said: "No one can come
> to Me,
> unless the Father who sent Me draw him: and I will
> raise him up on the last
> day." (John 6:44)

Technically you aren't answering my question here. Do you presuppose that were you born in India you would not be a hindu (even if your parents and friends are/were), instead you'd be a Christian?

> 9. Do you still believe god is
> omnibenevolent even though he is
> responsible for all the evil in the world?The
> Bible describes a cosmos
> in which created/fallen Man and angels have real
> significance, and can do
> awful things for which God is NOT responsible or
> blameworthy, despite his
> absolute sovereignty over events. (See the
> discussions at GodAndScience.org and
> Pyromaniacs.)The Christian can truly
> hate the fact that there is abnormal 'evil' and
> 'suffering' in the world,
> without hating God. To the consistent Darwinist,
> however, what is, is ...
> regardless of his/her feelings about it.

In other words your beliefs about god and evil are inconsistent. As to your feelings about'darwinism' we have already determined that you do not know what you are talking about and cannot properly define what it is to be a 'darwinist', ergo your opinion on the topic is next to worthless.

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nutters wrote: "Without any evidence, the bible is
> just another creation myth from a group of middle
> eastern peasants and gets no more credence than
> any of them. ... Seems like you'd have been much
> happier in the medieval Vatican or perhaps modern
> Tehran."
> Ness replies: 1) You disregard the massive amount
> of fulfilled prophecy in the Bible. 2) Cosmology
> dictates lifestyle. Rome has added the enormous
> superstructure of an authoritative, repressive
> church to the Bible, while Tehran adheres to an
> entirely different 'revelation' that endorses
> cruelty to non-believers. Darwinism, however, has
> nothing at all, just nothing, to say about how
> humans should live ... no matter how much its
> adherents may preach some Christian values.

Two assertions, no evidence. Remember, it is Christians who accept irrational arguments without evidence, *we* are skeptics, so you if you expect reasoning people to believe you, you will have to provide evidence.

I'll ask a second time: How are you defining 'darwinist'? Right now, it's a near meaningless term as you clearly are unfamilar with Darwin (who wasn't a cosmologist).

> "Humanism has no final way of saying certain
> things are right and other things are wrong. For a
> humanist, the final thing which exists -- that is,
> the impersonal universe -- is neutral and silent
> about right and wrong, cruelty and non-cruelty.

A perfectly vapid assertion - please demonstrate it logically.

> Humanism has no way to provide absolutes. Thus, as

A perfectly vapid assertion - please demonstrate it logically.

> a consistent result of humanism's position,
> humanism in private morals and political life is
> left with that which is arbitrary.""On the
> biblical basis, there are absolutes, and therefore
> we can say that certain things are right or wrong,
> including racial discrimination and social
> injustice. Consider Jesus standing in front of the
> tomb of Lazarus. The New Testament records that
> Jesus not only wept but was angry. The one who
> claimed to be God could be angry at the
> abnormality of death without being angry at
> himself. To a Christian on the basis of what the
> Bible teaches, not only is death abnormal, so is
> the cruelty of man to man. These things did not
> exist as God made the world. A Christian can fight
> the abnormality which has resulted from man's
> rebellion against God without fighting the final
> reality of what is -- that is, without fighting
> God. Therefore, because God exists and there are
> absolutes, justice can be seen as absolutely good
> and not just expedient." F. A. Schaeffer

Yeah, I'm not impressed by Schaeffer, as he doesn't seem to have a grip on logical argumentation. His 'word' on this topic is no better then yours. Please demonstrate any of this as being true.

Further, as I've repeatedly brought up, Christianity doesn't solve the is-ought dilemma either (granted I actually *reasoned* to this conclusion as opposed to just asserting it as you do). Ergo Schaeffer is impaled on the very sword he is attempting to attack 'darwinists' with (whatever they are).

BTW - I read that 'Did God Create Evil' article and what a wonderful attempt at side stepping. Did you actually fall for that? Seriously, "Calamity"? I could argue that linguistically that's not correct (did Eve eat the fruit of knowledge, of good and calamity?), but it's beside the point. I didn't say 'created', I said 'responsible for'. There is a distinct difference. If I build a robot that will destroy anything in it's path and it does just that, then I am responsible for that robot (or substitute robot for raising a child to do the same if you are one of those people who think that 'free will' is coherent and addresses the question of evil).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2009 04:46PM by Professor Pangloss.

Face it Elliot, we are not your congregation. We will not just believe what you say, simply because you say it. If you want us to accept what you are saying you will have to use reason and evidence, not assertions and strawmen. We are the biblical Thomas asking to see the wounds and instead of showing the wounds to us, you instead just keep asserting that you have them.

If you have evidence then do the rational thing and start presenting it, because right now your evidence and your statements are clearly underwhelming. You are doing yourself and your god (if he exists) a disservice. Remember, you are supposed to have an answer to all that question.

ETA: Look man, I'm not trying to pick on you, but you are making a load of unsupported assertions. We've asked that you back them up and you seem intent on refusing. I can only conclude that either you don't understand the topic fully, or that you know the weaknesses and don't want to defend them, or fill in the blank.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2009 04:39PM by Professor Pangloss.

You reference Schaeffer and presuppositions. Do you support the TAG? Are you a presuppositionalist? I believe I've asked this before.

I am struck by the dismissive and condescending verve with which secular evangelists assail the biblical account of a God who 'created' space/time and 'designed' plants and animals and 'spoke' with authority about the past, present, and future of his cosmos (in the languages of his image-bearing men) ... in addition to becoming truly man in Jesus of Nazareth, in order save some from the wrath that God says his own character requires him to unleash on our idolatry and rebellion. Christian thinkers ascribe this remarkable vigor to fallen Man's deep denial of death and true moral guilt, and Man's abhorrence of a future resurrection and judgment. On this very forum, you'll see that Men who regard themselves as 'uncreated' and 'undesigned,' oscillate between the extremes of consistent amoral Nihilism and inconsistent [baseless] 'Boy Scout' values, blasting away at Christianity from both directions. Christianity is complex -- reflecting the complex personality of the God of the Bible. But it has a rational basis for absolutes and for hope in that: He is There, and He is not Silent.face=arial color=black> But from the postulated Big Bang 'singularity,' what is, is -- value free -- and that's that ... until, as Lon Solomon describes today's Man's hopeless expectation of personal annihilation: "Pfft. The candle goes out. Fade to BLACK."

Rod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Skeptics point to a long line of dualisms that are
> in the Bible and exist in pagan culture.
> Christians consider some of them counterfeits. To
> the Christian there's a religion I think it's
> called miterism seems counter fit Christianity.
> Christianity is a faith based religion. Still the
> spread of Christianity can correctly be based on
> the actual resurrection of Jesus and 500 people
> seeing him after the resurrection and they telling
> others. This is something that mere story telling
> cannot recreate. Some Christians are converted by
> miraculous acts. For example the Apostle Paul was
> struck blind and heard Jesus voice. This is what
> it might take for some people. Christians believe
> everyone will be converted because the Bible says
> every knee will bow .


Rod...you are so full of shit. You christians go around saying how something happened that easter morning because nothing else would explain the growth of the religion since then. Well the fact of the matter is that every crap pot religion has had similar if not greater growth from a supposed event. Take the mormons....Smith was presented with the book of mormon in a forest in NY state in the 1800s from one of gods angels....the tablets today dont even exist....but despite that mormons have had greater growth then the early christian church! So... it really isnt unusual that a group of people come to think an imaginary event actually occured and to act upon it.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2009 07:25AM by Vince(1).

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am struck by the dismissive and condescending
> verve with which secular evangelists assail the
> biblical account of a God who 'created' space/time
> and 'designed' plants and animals and 'spoke' with
> authority about the past, present, and future of
> his cosmos (in the languages of his image-bearing
> men) ... in addition to becoming truly man in
> Jesus of Nazareth, in order save some from the
> wrath that God says his own character requires him
> to unleash on our idolatry and rebellion.

I am struck by your failure to actually address issues and your obfuscating. Not to mention your hypocrasy with regards to addressing those who disagree with you as 'Secular Evangelists', 'Darwinists', 'Nihilists', etc. You haven't once validated any of your claims, yet you have the temerity to act indignant at these 'secularists' for disregarding your bald assertion that god created space time (which is logically impossible!!). Take the log out of your eye Elliot.

> Christian thinkers ascribe this remarkable vigor
> to fallen Man's deep denial of death and true
> moral guilt, and Man's abhorrence of a future
> resurrection and judgment.

They may ascribe it, but they have no evidence for it and they ignore (as you do) the evidence against it.

> On this very forum, you'll see that Men who regard
> themselves as 'uncreated' and 'undesigned,'
> oscillate between the extremes of consistent
> amoral Nihilism and inconsistent 'Boy Scout'
> values, blasting away at Christianity from both
> directions.

No, you won't. On this forum all you will see is one Christian (hint, his name is 'Elliot') hysterically trying to assert that the opposite of Christianity is nihilism - which ignores the fact that his position is nihilistic!

Sorry Elliot, I have to remind you, we aren't your congregation, if you want anyone to believe you then you'll have to argue for your position. We aren't gullible enough to just fall for Schaffer's words as you apparently did.

> Christianity is complex -- reflecting the complex
> personality of the God of the Bible. But it has a
> rational basis for absolutes and for hope in that:
> He is There, and He is not Silent.

That is not a rational basis Elliot. Do you not recognize this?

How does existence of an entity provide a basis for moral absolutes? Hint: It doesn't. This is what Hume brought up with the is/ought dilemma, which you've successfully avoided for several pages now.

> But from the postulated Big Bang 'singularity,'
> what is, is -- value free -- and that's that ...
> until, as Lon Solomon describes today's Man's
> hopeless expectation of personal annihilation:
> "Pfft. The candle goes out. Fade to BLACK."


Strawman, Elliot. The big bang is a cosmological model - it is not a metaphysical worldview.

You are wasting our time and embarrassing your god (if it exists). Were I an onlooker I would have to conclude that you can't hold up your end in an argument and that your position was fundamentally flawed.

But hey, go ahead and post another response that avoids any and all the difficulties I've continually brought up about your position - maybe a lurker who hasn't bothered to read this thread will find your bilge appealing. Maybe they won't notice how intellectually vacuous it really is.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You reference Schaeffer and presuppositions. Do
> you support the TAG? Are you a
> presuppositionalist? I believe I've asked this
> before.

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am struck by the dismissive and condescending
> verve with which secular evangelists assail the
> biblical account of a God who 'created' space/time
> and 'designed' plants and animals and 'spoke' with
> authority about the past, present, and future of
> his cosmos (in the languages of his image-bearing
> men) ... in addition to becoming truly man in
> Jesus of Nazareth, in order save some from the
> wrath that God says his own character requires him
> to unleash on our idolatry and rebellion.
>
> Christian thinkers ascribe this remarkable vigor
> to fallen Man's deep denial of death and true
> moral guilt, and Man's abhorrence of a future
> resurrection and judgment.
>
> On this very forum, you'll see that Men who regard
> themselves as 'uncreated' and 'undesigned,'
> oscillate between the extremes of consistent
> amoral Nihilism and inconsistent 'Boy Scout'
> values, blasting away at Christianity from both
> directions.
>
> Christianity is complex -- reflecting the complex
> personality of the God of the Bible. But it has a
> rational basis for absolutes and for hope in that:
> He is There, and He is not Silent.
> But from the postulated Big Bang 'singularity,'
> what is, is -- value free -- and that's that ...
> until, as Lon Solomon describes today's Man's
> hopeless expectation of personal annihilation:
> "Pfft. The candle goes out. Fade to BLACK."


More and more religious tripe

If 'He is not silent' - then he's pretty damned quiet ... because he's just not there

The reason - there is no god and just wishing there was one means precisely nothing. Replacing evidence with faith is just BS to comfort old ladies and hoodwink the young into your particular cult - society should not tolerate you or groups like you - you're dangerous parasites.

Why not take the opportunity to provide one sliver of evidence to the rapt audience? How about sometime today, given you have some direct conversation with Thor or whoever.

I'll watch the skies...

Pangloss says that my "bald assertion that [the God of the Bible] created space/time ... is logically impossible!!" 1) I am not bald. 2) Why is it "impossible" that space/time was created by someone outside of space/time? That is clearly the biblical position. 3) Is created space/time any more "impossible" than an uncreated 'singularity' or multi-dimensional string theory? 4) Just one "l" in Eliot, in deference to the untouchable Agent Ness.

Do I support the TAG? Which TAG?

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss says that my "bald assertion that
> created space/time ... is logically impossible!!"
>
> 1) I am not bald.

By bald, I mean unsupported - although your response did give me a chuckle.

> 2) Why is it "impossible" that space/time was
> created by someone outside of space/time? That is
> clearly the biblical position.

Well, there a many reasons, the one I briefly touched on though was a logical problem. I might go over the scientific problem if there's any interest.

As to the biblical position, if you accept the bible as word of god a priori, then you'd have to engage in cognitive dissonance to allievate the mental strain.

In any event, here's the dilemma: We all know that thanks to einstein, space and time are one and thus, they could not have been created. Why is this? because in order to create space and time, one needs to possess space and time - otherwise there could 'before'. In fact, I'm not convinced there was a before - as I'm a proponent of the "B" theory of time anyway. I've attached a picture (one of many in series of slides that I hope illustrates my position).

In short, (and I saw this summed up on a forum long ago), God needed time in order to create time, but because there was no time he didn't have the time to create it.

> 3) Is created space/time any more "impossible"
> than an uncreated 'singularity' or
> multi-dimensional string theory?

I believe so, in both cases - although I do think that multi-dimensional string theory is more possible then space/time being created.

Here's another problem with the creation of space/time. Let's forget for a moment the whole absurdity of requiring time in order to create time.

What is creation, as we understand it? It is the manipulation of matter/energy within space/time. Without pre-existing matter/energy, it is impossible to create anything, as what would one act upon? So let's suppose we accept that something can come from nothing. If that's the case, then it's logically impossible for that something to have been caused, since there was nothing on which to act upon (ie, nothing to manipulate).

> 4) Just one "l" in Eliot, in deference to the
> untouchable Agent Ness.

Yes, I'm well aware of where your name originates, just not the spelling. I'll guess that you are aware of where my name originates and why it is ironic. ;-)
Attachments:

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do I support the TAG? Which TAG?


You follow Schaeffer and you are pretending (??) not to know what the TAG is?

Eliot Ness Wrote:
> Ness replies: 1) To a Christian on the basis of what the
> Bible teaches, not only is death abnormal, so is
> the cruelty of man to man. These things did not
> exist as God made the world.

So, what about all those dead dinosaurs, ammonites, stromatolites and fossilized trees?

Presumably, being as though they died long long before man turned up, god pre-killed them because, being onmiscient, he knew adam would munch on that apple.

That's a bit mean to dinosaurs - although, what with all that dinosaur sex going on and no death, we'd be upto our necks in hungry dinosaurs. No sure how carnivores made a living before death, or earth worms.

Ah, sorry - I forgot, it was all just god's idea of a joke to trick the unwary

Not surprising it took the full 6 days if he had to stack up all those bones at the right layers and futz around with all the isotopes to make them line up - tiresome even if you are onmipresent

And sticking sea-bed fossils on the tops of mountains - classic!!! Oh, and moving the continents around to make it look as if they'd drifted with plate tectonics - fossils in Antarctica that tricked 'em - and those funky magnetic stripes on the ocean bed to make it look as if the plates were spreading. Oh, Oh and all those pretend ancient volcanoes - oh and coal - what a wheeze - especially those fake giant bugs and tree ferns!!!!

Yup, the big man deserved a day off.

WHEN DISCUSSING GOD, IT MUST BE DETERMINED what one’s definition of God is. For some people, God is a faceless entity that moves through all things, a life force. For others, God is a man who walked the earth and died on a cross for your sins. Historically, God could also be called the Ocean, the Sun or the Moon, or even a flying monster made of spaghetti. There have literally been thousands of Gods posited throughout our history. For the purposes of this discussion I’ll identify God by his Judeo-Christian definition, being that I was born into a Jewish household and reside in the United States of America. Is there any validity to the literal insistence of God? I honestly don’t know, but I don’t think so. If you are reading this, it means that you’re interested in my perspective. If you aren’t then you should just stop reading now and I will take no offense.

One thing that perplexes me is how anyone can take the biblical texts literally. I think a healthy understanding of the authors’ intent can be established if the religious texts are approached as literature, in the same way one would approach any other major historical literary work. It is not until these texts are taught as doctrine that I feel we begin to run into some major problems. I am continually astounded by how many people take the Bible literally. To me, it’s just simply illogical. We can’t get stories straight that happened last week, let alone rely on the literal validity of events that supposedly took place thousands of years ago. So here’s a conjecture of my own: If God exists, He does not write books for people.

For one, specifically at the time the biblical manuscripts were written, reading and writing were primarily tools of the elite. Literacy was a sign of affluence, and it doesn’t sound quite right that God would speak to the world solely through the pens of rich people. However, from a historical perspective it makes perfect sense that religious texts could be used as a powerful tool by the orthodoxy in controlling the masses, and they obviously figured that out early on. It is my opinion that if whatever incomprehensibly powerful force that created our universe was intent on passing along a message to all of humanity, in his own words, that a better job would have been done of it. This message has not penetrated the whole of the world (not even close), and there are infinite versions, many of which are in direct conflict with one another. If there really existed such a message from a truly all-knowing, all-powerful, omnipotent force, I would think there would be no question as to the authenticity or the content of that message. The Message would be uniformly and universally accepted by all mankind as unquestionable truth. However, this is a far cry from reality and the faithful can’t even come close to agreeing with each other about the content and details of this message. It all seems very unreliable to me.

I take no issue with people believing in a higher power, as many of my family members and close friends find meaning and purpose in their faith. But I definitely do think it is wrong to promote intolerance, which, like it or not, is at the heart of what is taught in many religious institutions, behind a shiny facade of love and compassion: The ideas that hell awaits those who do not follow Christ, that gay people are an abomination or that a woman is not equal to a man are still taught to children and adults alike, every single day. I just don’t buy it. If the idea is to spread a message of love, compassion and equality then it should apply to everyone, not just to unborn fetuses.

The default position that there is only one path to enlightenment in this world is a dead-end road and an archaic philosophy that I do not subscribe to. Do I consider myself a non-believer? I do believe that our universe is much bigger and more complex than any story we could come up with just by sitting around and thinking about it. I do know, however, that I don’t believe in an invisible bearded man in the sky who’s watching my every move. Nor do I believe in the idea of a human sacrifice for redemption. Those two ideas, to me, seem out of date and out of time. According to DNA evidence, modern humans originated in Africa approximately 250,000 years ago, and humanity seems to have survived just fine in the 246,000 years before man decided that we needed the Bible.

Michael Einziger is the guitarist for Incubus. He has been accepted to Harvard where he will study musical composition, physics, cosmology and evolutionary biology.

https://www.relix.com/Soap_Box/Soap_Box/Mike_Einziger:_I_Could_Be_Called_a_Non-Believer_200809043130.html

SRE, that sounded like it was going to be the argument from non-cognitivism.

Pangloss wrote: I'll guess that you are aware of where my name originates and why it is ironic. ;-) 1. Oh yes, definitely, from both its Greek and French etymologies ... 2. Greek: pan πᾶν (all) and glossa γλῶσσα (tongue) 3. French: Dr. Panglosse, the absurdly optimistic tutor to Voltaire's Candide, in a scathing book about good and evil (which I read along with Moliere, Racine et al. at ages 15-16 in a French-speaking country, and which I also saw on Broadway in a Bernstein revival) 4. FYI, I consider you to be the Boy Scout optimist critic on this forum, and Nutters to be the Nihilist 5. Let's play global thermonuclear war. I'm a anti-Christian atheist. I'll bet I can ask more piercing questions of the the McLean Bible Church apologetics staff than you can! E.g., 6. Even 'Darwinists' (perhaps irrationally) despise child molesters and deplore parents who would leave their children alone with a known molester ... so how can McLean Bible Church 'love' a God who knowingly left his utterly naive first children, Adam and Eve, alone in the Garden of Eden with his arch-enemy, the fallen, lying, and completely evil 'super-predator' Satan?

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
E.g.,6. Even
> 'Darwinists' (perhaps irrationally) despise child
> molesters and deplore parents who would leave
> their children alone with a known molester ... so
> how can McLean Bible Church 'love' a God who
> knowingly left his utterly naive first children,
> Adam and Eve, alone in the Garden of Eden with his
> arch-enemy, the fallen, lying, and completely evil
> 'super-predator' Satan?

You're getting yourself tied up in your own rhetorical BS again

'Darwinists', would suggest that child molesters are despised
a) because they attack the social cohesion that is essential for human success - hence societies that have serious penalties and deterrents will tend to be more coherent and successful
b) because they reduce the effectiveness of strategies to ensure the quality of mates for the next generation
c) they directly challenge personal power and status of the family group and hence access to resources and advantage


By asking a theological question framed in the inbred thinking of the religion, you miss the point.

Once you've drunk the Kool aid, thrown away all of the evidence of science and observation and decided that there's a creator and hence you have to have an adam and eve, post-rationalizations about why one character in your fairy tail are just par for the course. Its a bit like worrying about why Little Red wore Red not blue and why the wood-chopper just happened to be passing through. None of them are true or important.

Once you're on that slippery slope and counting the angels on your pin-head, you're one step from self identified messiahs, poisoned soft drinks, silly robes and hats, speaking in tongues, hearing voices and keeping women indoors lest they be infected by any of that silly education.

Once you've wandered off into the la-la-land of religion, you're on your own in an increasingly self obsessed world of explaining every ripple in your invented world - like Trekkies on steroids, except that you expect a tax break, be able to indoctrinate children into your cults and, where-ever possible, insulated from the law.

Medieval Europe was littered with every weird little variation of theology you can imagine and, surprise, surprise, they spent hundreds of years exterminating each other and imploding over theological niceties - before deciding that slaughtering the natives in Africa and South America was much more profitable

The new train of thought among the Wacko Religious Right is that scientific evidence is part of "The Devil's Delusion." Like Jesus couldn't be part of "The Devil's Delusion."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2009 03:42PM by WashingTone Locian.

WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The new train of thought among the Wacko Religious
> Right is that scientific evidence is part of "The
> Devil's Delusion." Like Jesus couldn't be part of
> "The Devil's Delusion."


That's because they're all in self obsessed la-la-land - which would just be funny if they weren't so dangerous.

SRE commented: "I am continually astounded by how many people take the Bible literally. To me, it’s just simply illogical. We can’t get stories straight that happened last week, let alone rely on the literal validity of events that supposedly took place thousands of years ago. So here’s a conjecture of my own: If God exists, He does not write books for people." By "literally" do you mean "historically where the supernatural is involved" or do you just mean "historically?" If your world view postulates a chance, impersonal beginning ... then probably nobody is "out there" to speak or write authoritatively about the past or the future (despite any claims of the Psychic Hotline). However, the Bible clearly speaks of a personal creation of space/time by a God who speaks, and writes authoritatively: Exodus 24:4 "Moses then wrote down everything the LORD had said." Predicting the future accurately is reserved to God alone. Concerning false prophets, God through Ezekiel says: "Their visions are false and their divinations a lie. They say, "The LORD declares," when the LORD has not sent them; yet they expect their words to be fulfilled. Have you not seen false visions and uttered lying divinations when you say, "The LORD declares," though I have not spoken?" The Jesus of the New Testament clearly accepts the Law and the Prophets as nothing less than the written words of such a God, stating time and again that certain events must occur in order that the Scriptures be fulfilled. Matt 26:55 "At that time Jesus said to the crowd, "Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? Every day I sat in the temple courts teaching, and you did not arrest me. But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled." John 5:46-7 "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?" Speaking about presuppositions, Luke 16: 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'

face=verdana>

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss wrote: I'll guess that you are aware of
> where my name originates and why it is ironic.
> ;-)1. Oh yes, definitely, from both its Greek and
> French etymologies ...2. Greek: pan
> πᾶν (all) and glossa
> γλῶσσα (tongue)3.
> French: Dr. Panglosse, the absurdly optimistic
> tutor to Voltaire's Candide, in a scathing book
> about good and evil (which I read along with
> Moliere, Racine et al. at ages 15-16 in a
> French-speaking country, and which I also saw on
> Broadway in a Bernstein revival)4. FYI, I consider
> you to be the Boy Scout optimist critic on this
> forum, and Nutters to be the Nihilist

The irony is that my metaphysical worldview is, to a large degree, absurdist.

> 5. Let's play
> global thermonuclear war. I'm a anti-Christian
> atheist. I'll bet I can ask more piercing
> questions of the the McLean Bible Church
> apologetics staff than you can! E.g.,

Maybe so.

> 6. Even
> 'Darwinists' (perhaps irrationally) despise child
> molesters and deplore parents who would leave
> their children alone with a known molester ... so
> how can McLean Bible Church 'love' a God who
> knowingly left his utterly naive first children,
> Adam and Eve, alone in the Garden of Eden with his
> arch-enemy, the fallen, lying, and completely evil
> 'super-predator' Satan?


What are 'Darwinists'? You've used that phrase repeatedly and I've asked for clarification repeatedly. I know it's used rhetorically by ID proponents who seek to insult people who hold to modern biology - but even they can't actually define it as a worldview.

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SRE commented: "I am continually astounded by how
> many people take the Bible literally. To me, it’s
> just simply illogical. We can’t get stories
> straight that happened last week, let alone rely
> on the literal validity of events that supposedly
> took place thousands of years ago. So here’s a
> conjecture of my own: If God exists, He does not
> write books for people."By "literally" do you mean
> "historically where the supernatural is involved"
> or do you just mean "historically?"If your world
> view postulates a chance, impersonal beginning ...
> then probably nobody is "out there" to speak or
> write authoritatively about the past or the future
> (despite any claims of the Psychic
> Hotline).

This does not follow logically, unless you are speaking for 100 percent certainty (in which case, I'll remind you that your position is no better).

> However, the Bible clearly speaks of a
> personal creation of space/time by a God who
> speaks, and writes authoritatively: Exodus 24:4
> "Moses then wrote down everything the LORD had
> said."Predicting the future accurately is reserved
> to God alone. Concerning false prophets, God
> through Ezekiel says: "Their visions are false and
> their divinations a lie. They say, "The LORD
> declares," when the LORD has not sent them; yet
> they expect their words to be fulfilled. Have you
> not seen false visions and uttered lying
> divinations when you say, "The LORD declares,"
> though I have not spoken?"
> The Jesus of the New Testament clearly accepts the
> Law and the Prophets as nothing less than the
> written words of such a God, stating time and
> again that certain events must occur in order that
> the Scriptures be fulfilled. Matt 26:55 "At that
> time Jesus said to the crowd, "Am I leading a
> rebellion, that you have come out with swords and
> clubs to capture me? Every day I sat in the temple
> courts teaching, and you did not arrest me. But
> this has all taken place that the writings of the
> prophets might be fulfilled."

As I've shown, the bible cannot be correct on this point (at least, it hasn't been argued that it can be). So why accept it? Why do you accept that the bible is the word of god, when logically it cannot be since it argues for a creation?

If you blindly accept creation, that's one thing, and please admit it now - but if you claim to rationally accept creation then please explain the problems I've brought up.

"> John 5:46-7 "If you believed Moses, you would
> believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you
> do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to
> believe what I say?"Speaking about
> presuppositions, Luke 16: 'If they do not listen
> to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be
> convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'"

This is no more compelling then what is argued by the Zoroastrians or the Hindis. Why should we believe 'John' over them?

Nutters says: "By asking a theological question framed in the inbred thinking of the religion, you miss the point."

Ness replies: I disagree, I think that my question, entirely from within Christianity, is tougher to deal with than outside objections.

Here it is in another form: Does it not distress Christians that a God who truly knows the future, left his innocent children alone with a lying super-predator who was smarter than they were ... when the Church would deplore human parents who knowingly left a pair of five-year-olds alone with, say, a known homicidal maniac or sexual predator?

Pangloss asks: "What are Darwinists?"

Reply: Broadly speaking, contemporary men who postulate an impersonal, uncreated, undesigned beginning ... where everything that 'is' or can be, derives from impersonal matter/energy + time + chance ... where they themselves are merely a "chance collocation of atoms; something kicked up out of the slime by chance."

Ironically, within the scientific community there is often a leap into Romanticism, personifying "Nature" and asserting that animals somehow consciously seek to propagate their genes, and that somehow the preservation of 'life' bestows 'value' upon things ... despite the expectation of an annihilating heat death of the entire universe.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2009 04:55PM by Eliot Ness.

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nutters says: "By asking a theological question
> framed in the inbred thinking of the religion, you
> miss the point."Ness replies: I disagree, I think
> that my question, entirely from within
> Christianity, is tougher to deal with than outside
> objections.Here it is in another form: Does it not
> distress Christians that a God who truly knows the
> future, left his innocent children alone with a
> lying super-predator who was smarter than they
> were ... when the Church would deplore human
> parents who knowingly left a pair of
> five-year-olds alone with, say, a known homicidal
> maniac or sexual predator?

Who cares?

Once religionists and religionistas have left the ranch and started to ignore the facts around them, who gives a damn about the theological rat holes they carve for themselves except to stop them harming everyone else?

why do hindu's think cows are sacred, why do moslems believe that images are bad, why do catholics believe in transubstantiation, why do evangelicals believe in tongues, why do jews believe in mutilating boys penises, why do some tribes believe in female circumcision, why do groups of christians insist the end of the world is due next tuesday every few years? Why do you always find ways of circumventing the fundamental inconsistencies of your cults?

Who cares?

Its like getting inside the mind of Jeffry Dhamer

Once they've decided on some loony premise, they all inevitably get tied in knots over the inconsistencies

who cares?

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss asks: "What are Darwinists?"
> Reply: Broadly speaking, contemporary men who
> postulate an impersonal, uncreated, undesigned
> beginning ... where everything that 'is' or can
> be, derives from impersonal matter + energy + time
> + chance ... where they themselves are merely a

In short, a position that no one accepts (chance has yet to be seen). What's the connection to Darwin?

> "chance collocation of atoms; something kicked up
> out of the slime by chance."Ironically, within the
> scientific community there is often a leap into
> Romanticism, personifying "Nature" and asserting
> that animals somehow consciously seek to propagate
> their genes, and that somehow the preservation of
> 'life' bestows 'value' upon things ... despite the
> expectation of an annihilating heat death of the
> entire universe.


Again, a position that no one accepts. Modern scientists do not subscribe to chance when talking of evolution (do you know this?).

So who is a 'Darwinist'? Even Richard Dawkins, who sometimes refers to himself as a darwinist, doesn't fall into your definition of Darwinist.

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss asks: "What are Darwinists?"
> Reply: Broadly speaking, contemporary men who
> postulate an impersonal, uncreated, undesigned
> beginning ... where everything that 'is' or can
> be, derives from impersonal matter + energy + time
> + chance ... where they themselves are merely a
> "chance collocation of atoms; something kicked up
> out of the slime by chance."Ironically, within the
> scientific community there is often a leap into
> Romanticism, personifying "Nature" and asserting
> that animals somehow consciously seek to propagate
> their genes, and that somehow the preservation of
> 'life' bestows 'value' upon things ... despite the
> expectation of an annihilating heat death of the
> entire universe.

That's funny, because your definition of "Darwinism" doesn't reflect Charles Darwin's views of God or life at all. Darwin started out as fairly religious and even though he became agnostic as he grew older, he never considered himself an atheist and never denied that God existed or that there wasn't some divine inspiration or direction for all things.

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss asks: "What are Darwinists?"
>Ironically, within the
> scientific community there is often a leap into
> Romanticism, personifying "Nature" and asserting
> that animals somehow consciously seek to propagate
> their genes, and that somehow the preservation of
> 'life' bestows 'value' upon things ... despite the
> expectation of an annihilating heat death of the
> entire universe.

Yet again, you miscast the debate in science - which is about at which levels of representation evolution can be said to act, and which approaches give the most tractable analytical tools

That species which develop mechanisms for successfully propagating their genes within reasonable bounds of sexual mixing, error correction and mutation are more successful is universally accepted in science.

Or as Dawkins would probably frame it, genes that co-locate with other genes to build organisms and high level mechanisms that enable effective propagation, tend to get propagated.

That the human mind is also an evolutionary artifact of the evolved human brain is also not in doubt amongst scientists.

There are fundamental differences between the brutal analysis of science and the romanticism of religion

In science, 'Value' in nature is not some kind of moral absolute - but it does force an understanding that our own quality of life and future as a species is deeply entwinned with the sustainability of the environment and its system.

Science's drive to understand and protect nature is informed self interest for the species, which seems to make much more sense that the destructive christian concept of dominion over nature and 'drill baby drill, the end times are coming'

Science is a hard task-master but an honest one

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Eliot Ness Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Pangloss asks: "What are Darwinists?"

> Modern
> scientists do not subscribe to chance when talking
> of evolution (do you know this?).
>


This does require some clarification.

Science and engineering do believe in statistics and chaotic systems - and hence the advantages of adaptive systems.

That a particular sexual mix, viral infection or UV caused mutation occurs in a particular environment that is compatible can be called 'chance' - and it should be made clear that there is no 'intent' in evolutionary biology, although systems which have the capability to adapt will have a disproportionate chance of success in changing circumstances - one of the reasons why modern organisms are so complex.

e.g. being an lighter grizzly in the woods isn't that useful, but being a genome that has the capacity to throw up lighter and lighter variants as the ice encroaches is

similarly having a human genome that if flexible enough to adapt to differing levels of UV as climate change forces migration north-south has been useful, whereas being blond and blue eyed in central africa would not have been.

Do you want to see a magic trick?

I'm about to make this thread a lot more interesting.
















...

Ta-da!
Attachments:

Here's another tougher-than-most-critics 'internal' question: "Why are some Christians so passionate to stop abortions, as if saving a baby's life were the same as saving its soul?" Do Christians expect all aborted fetuses to be resurrected and judged just like adults? If so, on what Biblical basis? If fetuses will NOT be resurrected and judged, then hasn't Planned Parenthood in effect backhandedly 'saved' millions from Hell by truly annihilating them? Perhaps as many as 50% of fertilized human eggs do NOT implant ... do Christians expect all of those embryos to be resurrected, in which case the single largest demographic at the Judgment will be those who never lived long enough to perform a single conscious action or acquire language. Wide-eyed and amazed at their sudden incarnation, might they be expected to be! (As might all resurrected children.) What about tubal ectopic pregnancies, with fetal pole and cardiac motion, which medical emergencies, if NOT aborted, will almost certainly kill the mother AND the child? At what point does a Christian doctor decide to 'play God' by performing abortive surgery to save the mother's life at the cost of the child's life, rather than leaving things entirely in "God's hands" with respect to abortion? (An estimated 50% of such pregnancies spontaneously abort.)

Sadly, the JSN2ID'ers (Just-say-No to Intelligent Design) must regard Mr. Mephisto's two bathing beauties as merely "chance collocations of atoms kicked up out of the ocean slime" ... and not intrinsically different from cows ... except for different DNA. Love one and marry it; kill the other and cook it ... What's the difference in a truly impersonal universe? (Unless you cheat intellectually, and confect some arbitrary values to apply to human behavior -- as even irrational 'evil' scientists like Lysenko must do in order function as human beings in the world.)

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2009 09:37PM by Eliot Ness.

Nutters ... Nobel prize-winner George Wald once called Shakespeare a mere "collection of atoms." But Wald could not live and think consistently with his reductionism. Tell me that there is NOT desperately 'Romantic' personification here, in The Origin of Death, where Wald waxes poetic about ''germ plasm" immortality as opposed to personal immortality. Tell me why Prof. Wald wasn't laughed out of Harvard for his germ plasm -- almost "Intelligent Design" -- babblings. (Answer: Men don't want to live, and die, in an impersonal universe ... even if they have to take a great 'leap' to feel meaningful.)

"You see, every creature alive on the earth today represents an unbroken line of life that stretches back to the first primitive organism to appear on this planet; and that is about three billion years. That really is immortality. For if that line of life had ever broken, how could we be here? All that time, our germ plasm has been living the life of those single-celled creatures, the protozoa, reproducing by simple division, and occasionally going through the process of syngamy -- the fusion of two cells to form one—in the act of sexual reproduction. All that time, that germ plasm has been making bodies and casting them off in the act of dying. If the germ plasm wants to swim in the ocean, it makes itself a fish; if the germ plasm wants to fly in the air, it makes itself a bird. If it wants to go to Harvard, it makes itself a man. The strangest thing of all is that the germ plasm that we carry around within us has done all those things. There was a time, hundreds of millions of years ago, when it was making fish. Then at a later time it was making amphibia, things like salamanders; and then at a still later time it was making reptiles. Then it made mammals, and now it’s making men."

"If we only have the restraint and good sense to leave it alone, heaven knows what it [germ plasm] will make in ages to come."

"... I think that is the only kind of immortality worth having -- and we have it."

Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 02/03/2009 11:20AM by Eliot Ness.

I especially hate the traffic jams on Route 7 that are caused by the massive size of the congregation and their insistence on all worshiping at the same time on Sundays.

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Mephisto's two bathing
> beauties as merely "chance collocations of atoms
> kicked up out of the ocean slime" ... and not
> intrinsically different from cows ... except for
> different DNA.Love one and marry it; kill the
> other and cook it ... What's the difference

Depends which state you're in

Seriously though, the difference is context - chimps care about other chimps, they eat bush-babies

nutters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Eliot Ness Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Pangloss asks: "What are Darwinists?"
>
> > Modern
> > scientists do not subscribe to chance when
> talking
> > of evolution (do you know this?).
> >
>
>
> This does require some clarification.
>
> Science and engineering do believe in statistics
> and chaotic systems - and hence the advantages of
> adaptive systems.
>
> That a particular sexual mix, viral infection or
> UV caused mutation occurs in a particular
> environment that is compatible can be called
> 'chance' - and it should be made clear that there
> is no 'intent' in evolutionary biology, although
> systems which have the capability to adapt will
> have a disproportionate chance of success in
> changing circumstances - one of the reasons why
> modern organisms are so complex.
>
> e.g. being an lighter grizzly in the woods isn't
> that useful, but being a genome that has the
> capacity to throw up lighter and lighter variants
> as the ice encroaches is
>
> similarly having a human genome that if flexible
> enough to adapt to differing levels of UV as
> climate change forces migration north-south has
> been useful, whereas being blond and blue eyed in
> central africa would not have been.


Yes, I suppose some clarity was in order. There is chance in nature, however evolution is not a chance endeavor, which is why it's called natural selection.

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here's another tougher-than-most-critics
> 'internal' question: "Why are some Christians so
> passionate to stop abortions, as if saving a
> baby's life were the same as saving its soul?"Do
> Christians expect all aborted fetuses to be
> resurrected and judged just like adults? If so, on
> what Biblical basis?If fetuses will NOT be
> resurrected and judged, then hasn't Planned
> Parenthood in effect backhandedly 'saved' millions
> from Hell by truly annihilating them?Perhaps as
> many as 50% of fertilized human eggs do NOT
> implant ... do Christians expect all of those
> embryos to be resurrected, in which case the
> single largest demographic at the Judgment will be
> those who never lived long enough to perform a
> single conscious action or acquire language.
> Wide-eyed and amazed at their sudden incarnation,
> might they be expected to be! (As might all
> resurrected children.)What about tubal ectopic
> pregnancies, with fetal pole and cardiac motion,
> which medical emergencies, if NOT aborted, will
> almost certainly kill the mother AND the child? At
> what point does a Christian doctor decide to 'play
> God' by performing abortive surgery to save the
> mother's life at the cost of the child's life,
> rather than leaving things entirely in "God's
> hands" with respect to abortion? (An estimated 50%
> of such pregnancies spontaneously abort.)

You make a point that I've made with my family numerous times. They are not Augustianians (sp?), so it should effect them, but it doesn't.

Modern Christians shouldn't be against abortion. Certainly, as I alluded to, Augustinian Christians should be, as they believe the unbaptized go to hell.

Most modern Christians believe in the age of accountability, and as such, I think that the best thing a Christian can do (according to that worldview) is to have an abortion, since it *guarantees* that their child goes to heaven - instead of giving their child a chance at growing up and becoming a hindu or atheist (and thus going to hell).

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sadly, the JSN2ID'ers (Just-say-No to Intelligent
> Design) must regard Mr. Mephisto's two bathing
> beauties as merely "chance collocations of atoms
> kicked up out of the ocean slime" ...

This is what is wrong with Intelligent Design advocates - they do not understand evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory - ie, natural selection - is not a 'chance' endeavor.

> and not
> intrinsically different from cows ... except for
> different DNA.Love one and marry it; kill the
> other and cook it ... What's the difference in a
> truly impersonal universe?(Unless you cheat

The difference is the same as the difference in a personal difference; our individual values. You are pretending there is a difference in spite of evidence to the contrary.

> intellectually, and confect some arbitrary values
> to apply to human behavior -- as even irrational
> 'evil' scientists like Lysenko must do in order
> function as human beings in the world.)


You act as though Christianities values are not equally arbitrary (yet you do not refute my arguments to the contrary!).



Regardless though - and I've asked this several times - even if this were true (that non-Christian worldviews must be nihilistic) are you in favor of believing what we know to be false just because it makes us feel good (ie, Christianities appeal)?

Pangloss asked: "Are you in favor of believing what we know to be false just because it makes us feel good (ie, Christianity's appeal)?

Ness replies: "No ... but Christianity does not 'make people feel good.' On the contrary, it makes them feel bad about themselves as (forgiven) 'sinners' and horrible about others as (unforgiven) sinners facing a very real wrath of God."

Personally, I would rather that Christianity be NOT true ... that there be no eternal judgment ... just 'non-being' and nothingness for Hitler and his victims alike. But that's not Christian 'reality.'

You can see some of the 'pain' of Christianity in Paul and Jesus:

Paul wrote that: I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh [the Jews]. (Romans 9) Why was Paul in such pain? Because of "the righteous judgment of God [when] the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power." (2 Thess 1) The NT twice states that Jesus wept ... once at the tomb of Lazarus, who he raised from the dead ... and again while approaching Jerusalem to die. As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it and said, "If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God's coming to you." (Luke 19) Josephus records that the Romans crucified as many as 500 starving Jews each day, when they destroyed Jerusalem a generation later. (Try to imagine that scene in front of your house.) Lon Solomon talks about Josephus. And anyone who has listened to Solomon knows that he operates out of the same pain as Jesus and Paul ... which is why he has been spat upon and punched in the face (by fellow Jews in NYC). This is not "Happy Face" Christianity. Solomon is not in it for the money or public prestige (at the often-ridiculed MBC?). He would probably accept the metaphor of himself as a modern-day Jew rescued like a "like a brand from the burning" from unbelieving modern-day Jerusalem before the coming destruction. If you don't understand this, then you don't understand MBC at all.

Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 02/03/2009 01:33PM by Eliot Ness.

To clarify, I'd marry and love the one on the right, and eat the one on the left (even though I'd just be hungry again in another hour).

I'm a firm believer that we are all animals; our technilogical advancements haven't mitigated the animalistic behavior and instincts we still have; it's just changed the manner in which they manifest.

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss asked: "Are you in favor of believing
> what we know to be false just because it makes us
> feel good (ie, Christianity's appeal)?Ness
> replies: "No ... but Christianity does not 'make
> people feel good.' On the contrary, it makes them
> feel bad about themselves as (forgiven) 'sinners'
> and horrible about others as (unforgiven) sinners
> facing a very real wrath of God."Personally, I

Nonsense, just because Christianity (and quite a lot of other religions) have a piece of it that involves penance does not mean that it makes you feel 'bad'. The fact is that Christianity overall would make one feel good - the good guys win and get eternal paradise, while the bad guys lose and are punished forever. You can pretend that there is some level of sacrifice and some level of negatives, but the fact of the matter is that the overall 'feel badness' is outweighed infinitely by the 'feel goodness'. So you can stop pretending as though your worldview isn't peaches and icecream.

> would rather that Christianity be NOT true ...
> that there be no eternal judgment ... just
> 'non-being' and nothingness for Hitler and his
> victims alike. But that's not Christian

Oh please, I don't believe this at all and I don't even think you do. This whole time you have not once been interested in defending your religion. All you have been interested in is pointing out how the non-christian's worldview is nihilistic. What this indicates is that you *VERY MUCH* require eternal judgement and morality.

So either you are lying to yourself or us.

> 'reality.'You can see some of the 'pain' of
> Christianity in Paul and Jesus:Paul wrote that: I
> have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my
> heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed
> from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according
> to the flesh .Why was Paul in such pain? Because
> of "the righteous judgment of God the Lord Jesus
> shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty
> angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them
> that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of
> our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with
> everlasting destruction from the presence of the
> Lord, and from the glory of his power." (2 Thess
> 1)The NT twice states that Jesus wept ... once at
> the tomb of Lazarus, who he raised from the dead
> ... and again while approaching Jerusalem to
> die.As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city,
> he wept over it and said, "If you, even you, had
> only known on this day what would bring you
> peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. The
> days will come upon you when your enemies will
> build an embankment against you and encircle you
> and hem you in on every side. They will dash you
> to the ground, you and the children within your
> walls. They will not leave one stone on another,
> because you did not recognize the time of God's
> coming to you." (Luke 19)Josephus records that the
> Romans crucified as many as 500 starving Jews each
> day, when they destroyed Jerusalem a generation
> later. (Try to imagine that scene in front of your
> house.)Lon Solomon talks about Josephus. And
> anyone who has listened to Solomon knows that he
> operates our of the same pain as Jesus and Paul
> ... which is why he has been spat upon and punched
> in the face (by fellow Jews in NYC). This is not
> "Happy Face" Christianity. Solomon is not in it
> for the money or public prestige (at the
> often-ridiculed MBC?). He would probably accept
> the metaphor of himself as a modern-day Jew
> rescued like a "like a brand from the burning"
> from unbelieving modern-day Jerusalem before the
> coming wrath. If you don't understand this, then
> you don't understand MBC at all.
>


I'm not saying that Christianity preaches *all good* things - but on balance, it does make you feel good.



This is just a red herring and you know it - because not once did you say that you were more interested in the truth. Regardless of the smoke you are trying to foist up our bums, the point is that you are more concerned with the implications of Christianity then you are of it's truthfulness.

Seriously, the Christian worldview, at it's core doesn't even make sense. Let's examine it:

God creates entities that he knows will displease him (instead of only creating ones that freely choose not to), then he requires a sacrifice to appease himself. In order to appease himself, he comes down to earth in human skin, has it destroyed and then resumes his eternal existence.

For one, why does he require a sacrifice to appease himself? What sort of sense does that make?
For two, how is becoming flesh and dieing only to be restored to a much superior body (if it can be said to be such) a sacrifice AT ALL?

Shoot man, beat me and torture me for a day and then guarantee me a omnimax body - I'd do that in a heart beat.

I wouldn't, however, delude myself into believing that it was any sort of 'sacrifice'.

Pangloss: "Nonsense, just because Christianity (and quite a lot of other religions) have a piece of it that involves penance does not mean that it makes you feel 'bad'. The fact is that Christianity overall would make one feel good - the good guys win and get eternal paradise, while the bad guys lose and are punished forever. You can pretend that there is some level of sacrifice and some level of negatives, but the fact of the matter is that the overall 'feel badness' is outweighed infinitely by the 'feel goodness'. So you can stop pretending as though your worldview isn't peaches and ice cream."	I would never presume to read your mind and lecture you about your real feelings ... any Christian with empathy will hurt deeply at times. Indeed, some leave everything behind and become missionaries to [literally] God-forsaken places where they are killed for their efforts. The NT is not a "Happy Face" book.
Oh please, I don't believe this at all and I don't even think you do. This whole time you have not once been interested in defending your religion. All you have been interested in is pointing out how the non-christian's worldview is nihilistic. What this indicates is that you *VERY MUCH* require eternal judgment and morality. ... So either you are lying to yourself or us.	I would never presume to read your mind and call you a liar ... I am in fact deeply convinced that in an impersonal universe, a consistent man would be forced to true metaphysical Nihilism, whereas the inconsistent man escapes in some form of baseless Romanticism. In contrast, Christians live in a fundamentally 'personal' universe.
This is just a red herring and you know it - because not once did you say that you were more interested in the truth. Regardless of the smoke you are trying to foist up our bums, the point is that you are more concerned with the implications of Christianity then you are of its truthfulness.	The 'implications' of Christianity are directly related to whether Christianity is historically and cosmologically true (let's call that 'true truth') as opposed to some form of personal narcotic.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/03/2009 02:01PM by Eliot Ness.

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would never presume
> to read your mind and lecture you about your real
> feelings ... any Christian with empathy will hurt
> deeply at times. Indeed, some leave everything
> behind and become missionaries to God-forsaken
> places where they are killed for their efforts.
> The NT is not a "Happy Face" book.
>

You have attempted to do just that all throughout this thread - why pretend otherwise now?

I'm not saying that Christians don't empathize or hurt deeply, or are not zealous about their faith. That's a strawman.

The NT is very much a happy faced book - Jesus tells his followers that there are rough patches ahead, but have faith and you will be forgiven and that good will eventually vanquish evil. You are apparently missing the overall message of the bible - missing the forrest for the trees. You are trying to have it both ways, and it's transparent.

Is not the suffering that people face on earth not worth the eternal paradise and being holy?

If it's not, then you have a serious logical problem with your 'omnibenevolent' god.

> I would
> never presume to read your mind and call you a
> liar ... I am in fact deeply convinced that in an
> impersonal universe, a consistent man would be
> forced to true metaphysical Nihilism, whereas the
> inconsistent man escapes in some form of baseless
> Romanticism.

You wouldn't outright say it, but you've been calling me a liar the entire thread by accepting the dichotomy between 'christian' and 'non christian'. You need to actually provide evidence - not just 'believe' - for your claims about the 'consistent man'.

Seriously, this is getting old Eliot - you are making your faith look silly and making yourself look hypocritical.

> In contrast, Christians live in a
> fundamentally 'personal' universe.

Which is incoherent.

> The 'implications' of Christianity are directly
> related to whether Christianity is historically
> and cosmologically true (let's call that 'true
> truth') as opposed to some form of personal
> narcotic.


Nonsense Eliot. You aren't interested in whether Christianity is historically or cosmologically true at all, you are interested in whether Christianity emotionally appeals to you.

Let's look at your posts:

You've failed to defend or refute anything that deals with facts, evidence, and logical arguments. Even the softball anti-cosmological argument I pitched to you was ignored. Were you interested in truth, you would have actually tried to defend your position.

What you are interested in is whether or not Christianity satisfies your preconditions of being anti-nihilistic. The ironic thing is I pointed out that this cannot be and you ignored it.

You are not interested in discussing this topic, nor getting at the truth, you are interested in preaching your garbage to make yourself feel better. Yet you use the moniker 'Eliot Ness'. Irony at it's best.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/03/2009 02:40PM by Professor Pangloss.

Pangloss: Seriously, the Christian worldview, at its core doesn't even make sense. Let's examine it: * God creates entities that he knows will displease him (instead of only creating ones that freely choose not to), then he requires a sacrifice to appease himself. In order to appease himself, he comes down to earth in human skin, has it destroyed and then resumes his eternal existence. * For one, why does he require a sacrifice to appease himself? What sort of sense does that make? * For two, how is becoming flesh and dieing only to be restored to a much superior body (if it can be said to be such) a sacrifice AT ALL? *Shoot man, beat me and torture me for a day and then guarantee me a omnimax body - I'd do that in a heart beat. * I wouldn't, however, delude myself into believing that it was any sort of 'sacrifice'.

You've asked one of my favorite tougher-than-the-critics internal questions: ."Why isn't Jesus still in Hell suffering for all eternity, 'X' times as much as would have been required for the 'X' number of humans that he saves? 1) Jesus himself clearly regarded his Crucifixion as a huge 'sacrifice, repeatedly asking God to do things some other way:' "My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death." ... Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will." ... He went away a second time and prayed, "My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done." (Matthew 26) 2) Jesus-as-Man within the created cosmos was on the Cross for only a few hours before he died. There is every Biblical reason to understand that Jesus-as-God did indeed suffer the full, eternal amount of 'weeping and gnashing of teeth' required to ransom 'X' number of human beings for all eternity. "... he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed." (Isaiah 53) 3) In the last analysis, of course, it depends upon whether you believe God or not - the Bible makes it clear that Jesus' life and death were not merely Kabuki theater, a trivial slam dunk, but rather required phenomenal effort on the part of Jesus, both in life and in what Paul called the "foolishness" of his death on the Cross. "God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength." (1 Corinthians 1)

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/03/2009 03:05PM by Eliot Ness.

How can you suffer an eternal amount of suffering without spending eternity suffering?

Mephisto: "How can you suffer an eternal amount of suffering without spending eternity suffering?"

Ness: Suffer like Jesus did ... as Man and as as God (outside of created space/time) ... rather than as Men will, limited to created space/time.

(Note that it therefore truly matters whether God is encircled by the cosmos, or whether He created the cosmos but entered it as truly God and truly Man, in the person of Jesus.)



Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 02/03/2009 03:18PM by Eliot Ness.