Being brainwashed into a belief is not a good reason to hold said belief.

Great Debates
281

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]

In some post of yours I read something about certain religions that might be considered atheists. I thought it was this thread but I couldn’t find it. I found that very thought provoking. I had the impression that atheists held no spiritual beliefs and religions like Buddhism were not atheists , but merely worshiped God in a different form. As time goes on and I examine my own beliefs I am more uncomfortable with the term God because it seems to support an image of a being separate from us that doles out mercy and miracles. I don’t see us or the mysterium tremendum as separate in that way.
[/QUOTE]

30 years ago, when I took an Eastern religion course in college, I recall being impressed that the original form of Buddhism was definitely atheistic - but with strong beliefs about what happens after we die. I believe this was the way the universe worked, and not due to some deity or deities imposing this structure. Later forms began to worship the Buddha as a kind of god. I remember being quite disappointed at another example of the need for humans for gods, even in the case of a religion and worldview that struck me as being quite commendable. I’m not up on current forms of Buddhism, perhaps someone who is can contribute.

282

[QUOTE=Bible man]

[Quote=Revenant Threshold]
..it’s really quite possible that Piaget’s work is inspired by God.
[/quote]
This statement, making an argument against my refusal to include Piaget’s book in those which God directly inspired, proves my basic argument better than I could myself ie, that there is a God-instilled conscience working within even those who most ardently deny His existence and who claim that their conscience concurs. If you really absolutely believed that there is no God and your conscience truly bore witness to it, this argument could never even enter your mind. If you had been honest about your previously stated beliefs then your mental process could only produce this equation: (No God) + ( Any book on the planet) = (None are inspired by God). In my case, as a counter example, if you began to argue about adding some additional writings to The Origin of Species, I wouldn’t bother opposing it for a moment. The equation in my mind would be: (False Theory) plus (Any Book) = (Falsehood). Since I’m 100% certain God designed and created everything and my conscience bears total witness to that fact, all opposite views or variations of such are completely inconsequential. Your subconcious has betrayed the insincerity of your all your previous professions of certain unbelief (you’re better connected to those first 4 commandments than you thought).
[/QUOTE]
I’m afraid that this is the sort of dishonest debating tactic that makes all your posts suspect.

You have offered up the concept that all persons are born with a conscience as evidence that there is a god.
I pointed out that there is evidence that no one is born with a conscience.
You replied with a couple of bible verses regarding the ways in which the conscience of a fully adult person might be abused* and have steadfastly ignored the salient fact that not even the bible claims that children are born with consciences.
When another poster suggests that the “work” (meaning the entire body of scientific inquiry) of Piaget might be inspired by God (which would NOT actually contradict the bible, since the bible does NOT claim that humans are born with a conscience), you put forth the distorted article that his “work” (by which you mean a particular book) cannot be added to Scripture because it is false and Scripture is true.

To do this, you ignore the following facts:

  • The bible does not support your claim that babies are born with consciences;
  • Nothing in Piaget’s work (body of research) contradicts anything in the bible.

Further, you commit the following errors:

  • you imply that the bible does claim that babies are born with consciences (providing no evidence);
  • you rely on equivocation to change the meaning of another poster’s statement;
  • you claim that Piaget’s work is false because it does not support your personal beliefs, disregarding the fact that it does not contradict the bible (from which you claim to get your beliefs).

As a witness to the truth of the bible, you are a very strong advocate for your opponents.

  • (Setting aside, for the moment, that you actually twisted the meaning of one of the verses you quoted to mean the opposite of what was written.)
283

[QUOTE=Bible man]
It’s not rocket surgery, here’s a quick summary: virtually every human being comes down the conveyor with a conscience ie, a non-tangible force that serves as a built-in internal guide that propels them towards good and produces guilt if it’s disobeyed. Since the conveyor places them in the hands of fallen parents who live in imperfect societies, in a short time they begin to reflect the distorted values of their particular environment. Although the designer’s originally programmed values of right and wrong can be distorted by these faulty external forces, the original program will always remain at work at least at a subconcious level. It’s like an operating system that’s been infected with a virus - it’s function becomes shortcircuited to various degrees but hasn’t been completely disabled, and it struggles in the background to retake control of the computer. The variations we see in conscience, therefore, are a result of the operation of these various outside influences and the success or failure of the original program in the battle to retake control. The Designer helps the conscience to win the struggle by posting rules(10 commandments) as a guide to clearly identify the proper design and correct functioning of his original programming. This battle for control is ultimately decided by each individual’s decision to continue to accept the invading virus or to take the steps required to remove it and allow the original software to function as designed.

[/quote]

The first problem with this view is the question of how societies got that way if most of the original members must have been good. But let’s be scientific. If we all share the same conscience, and bad people are bad just because of societies distortions, we should be able to determine a purely physiological. genetic or medical difference bwtween those we call sociopaths and those we call normal. Correct? So, if there were genetic factors correlated with being a sociopath, your hypothesis would be falsified. Do you accept this, or are you going to try to explain it away?

That’s rather insulting. You have no way of knowing that any former theist here did not truly believe. When I was a believer - and I went to temple far more than I had to, quite willingly, I wasn’t testing god. I suspect most other people weren’t either.

Go off and read a few books on evolution and stop exposing your ignorance. You do know that even Darwin explained the evolution of the eye quite well, don’t you? You do know that our eye has a design flaw, the blind spot, that some species don’t have, do you? My wife just had three eye operations which testify to what a crappy job your god did. We of course don’t design optics the same way the eye is designed, with the same output, but in many ways we have better lenses than natural ones, some collecting a wider range of frequencies and resolving over a longer distance.

Just out of curiousity, which books on evolution by real scientists have you read?

So, if God placed the evidence for evolution in the rocks, you are so convinced that you are right to pridefully reject God’s evidence in favor of what you know? Have fun explaining that to god.

284

[QUOTE=Voyager]
So, if God placed the evidence for evolution in the rocks, you are so convinced that you are right to pridefully reject God’s evidence in favor of what you know? Have fun explaining that to god.
[/QUOTE]

Bibleman has been living UNDER one of those rocks, evidently.

285

[QUOTE=Voyager]
The first problem with this view is the question of how societies got that way if most of the original members must have been good.
[/QUOTE]
You are not going to be able to pursue this argument. Bible man’s response will be that all humans are fallen and that no person is good. The “original ones” fell into sin and have passed that trait down in unending procession for all time.

286

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
You are not going to be able to pursue this argument. Bible man’s response will be that all humans are fallen and that no person is good. The “original ones” fell into sin and have passed that trait down in unending procession for all time.
[/QUOTE]

I know that explanation, but Bibleman is saying we’ve all got these perfect consciences that are distorted by society. The explanation you refer to is far more logically consistent than his. You’re giving him too much credit. :slight_smile:

287

[QUOTE=Bible man]
It’s not rocket surgery, here’s a quick summary: virtually every human being comes down the conveyor with a conscience ie, a non-tangible force that serves as a built-in internal guide that propels them towards good and produces guilt if it’s disobeyed. Since the conveyor places them in the hands of fallen parents who live in imperfect societies, in a short time they begin to reflect the distorted values of their particular environment. Although the designer’s originally programmed values of right and wrong can be distorted by these faulty external forces, the original program will always remain at work at least at a subconcious level. It’s like an operating system that’s been infected with a virus - it’s function becomes shortcircuited to various degrees but hasn’t been completely disabled, and it struggles in the background to retake control of the computer. The variations we see in conscience, therefore, are a result of the operation of these various outside influences and the success or failure of the original program in the battle to retake control. The Designer helps the conscience to win the struggle by posting rules(10 commandments) as a guide to clearly identify the proper design and correct functioning of his original programming. This battle for control is ultimately decided by each individual’s decision to continue to accept the invading virus or to take the steps required to remove it and allow the original software to function as designed.
[/quote]
Just a couple of questions;

People’s consciences are corrupted by outside influences. How, then, did these influences come about in the first place? The first humans created the first society; as beings of unadulterated conscience, they would have created a similarly perfect moral society. And this would be passed down to their kids, and their kids, and so on. So where exactly did these corrupting societal influences come from?

I see another problem with your logic. In your beliefs, you and I actually have exactly the same consciences. However, whereas in your case, you accept God and your conscience, i’m unconsciously rejecting part of my conscience because I haven’t accepted God. Right so far?

Secondly; God’s existence is obvious - it’s plain to see that God exists. Ok?

So, God obviously exists, yet I do not see him in my conscience. Conclusion? What we consider our conscience can easily be fooled. So here’s my question; if our consciences can so easily be obscured, even with the overwhelming evidence of God, how do you know that it is I who am mistaken about my conscience and not you (or both of us)? Under your logic, it’s incredibly easy to be fooled; how do we know you aren’t?

I was not insulting then, nor have I been insulting in the past. I do not intend to insult any deity, be it God or Zeus or whoever, on the off chance they might exist. Yes, that’s right - i’m prepared to say God exists. Seriously. If I see any evidence of God, i’ll be right up there with you and all the other believers, fighting back ignorance and trying to spread the truth. But I don’t, because so far, nothing’s there. I’m receptive to gods; i’m ready and willing. They just aren’t coming - either they do not care or they do not exist.

I’m going to echo other posters and suggest you read into the workings of evolution. Evolution doesn’t explain away the intricacies of the eye, it explains them. As it does guilt and conscience, and altruism, and a whole list of lovely abstract concepts and emotions. Indeed, those who don’t even take the time to understand other positions are doomed to wander in their rut of knowledge, spouting inanities whilst the rest of us have a knowledgeable, respectful dialogue.

You’re saying God must exist because i’m accepting the potential he exists? Alright. I also accept Zeus might exist. And fairies. Leprechauns. Unicorns. Do they all exist too? After all, if they didn’t, I wouldn’t even be able to accept the possibility, would I?

I’d make some kind of witty remark about your subconscious here, but i’m afraid it’s clear you aren’t listening to it. I’m picturing a small furry animal, desperately shouting “LOGIC! THINKING! RATIONALITY!” as it heaves at the bars of it’s tiny cage.

And as i’ve said; i’m ready, willing, and happy to accept the truth. Really. You don’t think i’d like to know the true meaning of the universe (assuming there is one)? Of course I would! If there was a deity of some kind, i’d love to know. But as of yet, there’s no evidence - I really think your God should work harder.

288

[QUOTE=Voyager]
If you are saying that growing up with a scientific belief is not a good reason to hold it, I agree completely. No one should believe in evolution, for instance - one should look at the evidence and decide oneself. “I believe in Darwin because my teacher said it was right” and “I believe in Genesis because my pastor said it was right” are very similar. Where they differ is that you can dig deeper into evolution and get the direct evidence supporting it. I’m not saying you believe in Genesis, just using it as an example.
[/QUOTE]
This is pretty close to what I’m saying, though there are actual parallels between “doing more reasearch in science magazines” and “reading Chick tracts”. I’d wager that most scientifically educated people haven’t personally verified wether the effect of gravity actually diminishes with the effect of distance, for example; they’ve just trusted their literature. I’m reasonably certain that that’s the way most of us incorporate scientific knowledge, and I suspect that it’s pretty much the same way that many theists gather more information about their particular flavor of belief. Thus, statements that assault general religious indoctrination are throwing stones from their glass house: the indoctrination/untested belief process is alive and well in scientific education at all levels.

(There is, of course, the major difference that religion seems to often require a person to become incredibly credulous to accept its content as being non-crap, whereas science encourages that its own content be hammered by criticism as often as possible. This fact makes science immeasurably more credible, but it doesn’t change the fact that any given person (even a scientist) is likely to have accepted numerous scientific statements without making that challenge. There’s only so much time in the day to be personally verifying the entire body of scientific knowledge in, after all.)

[QUOTE=Voyager]
The world was created in 6 days 6,000 years ago. There was a Garden of Eden. There were earthquakes and the dead saints walked Jerusalem at the time of the crucifiction. Stuff like that.
[/QUOTE]
As expected, you choose which statements to disregard based on your pre-existent bias. If you believe that God is all-powerful, then none of the above is impossible, or even improbable. Reconciling the evidence recorded in history and the earth itself about such things is, of course, half the fun, and obviously theists fall all over the map as to how that reconciliation turns out. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that theist X isn’t the one that guessed right.

[QUOTE=Voyager]
Nope, because a precursor to discovering relativity is the mathematical and technological ability to do experiments and understand the result. I didn’t realize that anything similar was necessary for god to appear. Language, true - that chimps don’t believe is not an argument against any gods.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, iirc, the christian God at least seems to fairly consistently show himself only to people who already believe in him. (Sure, there’s the occasional exception, which one figures would be his perogative.) Explanations for this may vary (they’re imagining him, he thinks atheists smell funny, whatever) but the fact is, there is a precursor to God appearing: he has to want to. So, the examples are comparable.

In other words, yes, if (the same religion/knowledge of relativity) was found in all ‘tribes’, that would be compelling evidence of its truth (though not proof: I hear belief in the flatness of the Earth was pretty commonplace at one point), but the absence of universal knowledge of (whichever) is not disproof of it.

[QUOTE=Voyager]
I didn’t realize the Christian God had a chose race. My old god did, but that meant that there was no penalty at all for outsiders not believing in him.
[/QUOTE]
Given the whole covenant with Abraham thing as just one example among many, I think it’s safe to say that the christian God is written as having interfaced quite differently with different peoples and nations. Generally it seems to mean that they get more blessings, not necessarily more responsibility, though I could be wrong about that. ‘Chosen race’ is simply a term I’ve heard associated with this phenomenon.

[QUOTE=Voyager]
Adam and Noah are interesting, actually. Given the long lifespans of those mentioned in the geneology between Adam and Noah, the loss of understanding of God is hard to fathom. Pretty much anyone in the area could have spoken to someone who spoke to someone who spoke to Adam. The Bible explains the origin of languages, but doesn’t explain why or how the identity of God was lost somewhere between Noah and Abram. I suppose the theistic explanation could be the old sin thing again, but all us sinners after Abram became Abraham remember for an even longer period.

That’s what I love about Genesis - the deeper you go, the more logical holes you find.
[/QUOTE]

I hadn’t realized that everyone was supposed to have literally forgotten god by Noah. I thought they had just fallen away from the church in the meantime (which takes like, what, one generation?) Wasn’t it less “What is this ‘god’ thing you speak of, Noah?”, and more “Dude, shut up with your moralizin’, we’re got a good debauch going here!”?

There’s plenty of fun to be had with space constraints on the ark alone (among other things); you don’t need to grasp for logic problems in addition to the blatant ones. The more you have to stretch to make your points, the more tenuous your entire position ends up sounding, after all.

289

[QUOTE=Voyager]
Actually, I became an atheist from reading the introduction and commentary of a Bible in the English book room of my public high school, the first place I came across the multiple authorship hypothesis.

And I certainly didn’t say anyone was stupid. The important thing was seeing the Bible as something you can analyze logically. My Hebrew School never taught inerrancy (and never taught errancy either) but we got taught as if it were proven history, just like the history books I read in elementary school. We were hardly stupid, just misled. Our books just left out the contradictory parts. More sophisticated students learn the complex rationale for why the Bible contradicts itself. When you start with a relatively blank slate, you don’t have this built in bias for belief.
[/QUOTE]

Well that makes sense. By contrast, I was never taught that Genesis was anything remotely resembling proven history.

In regards to bias, I’m unclear as to whether you’re talking about yourself or just making a more general statement. It would seem to me that learning an absurdly fundamentalist set of beliefs, then having those beliefs dashed, would bias one against belief as a whole.

I also want to emphasize that non-literalist interpretations of Genesis are by no means a solely modern phenomena, as evidenced by the citation below. In Catholic teaching, they are the norm.

Kalhoun and badchad expressed hope that a “liberal Christian” might explain how his beliefs differ from those of the fundamentalists, in regards to literal interpretation. I doubt that St. Augustine is very often accused of being a liberal, but perhaps his beliefs will suffice (emphasis mine):

“It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation” (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20 [A.D. 408]).

“With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation” (ibid., 2:9).

290

[QUOTE=Sanders]
Well that makes sense. By contrast, I was never taught that Genesis was anything remotely resembling proven history.

In regards to bias, I’m unclear as to whether you’re talking about yourself or just making a more general statement. It would seem to me that learning an absurdly fundamentalist set of beliefs, then having those beliefs dashed, would bias one against belief as a whole.

I also want to emphasize that non-literalist interpretations of Genesis are by no means a solely modern phenomena, as evidenced by the citation below. In Catholic teaching, they are the norm.

Kalhoun and badchad expressed hope that a “liberal Christian” might explain how his beliefs differ from those of the fundamentalists, in regards to literal interpretation. I doubt that St. Augustine is very often accused of being a liberal, but perhaps his beliefs will suffice (emphasis mine):

“It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation” (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20 [A.D. 408]).

“With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation” (ibid., 2:9).
[/QUOTE]

I’m still not quite sure what you’re saying. I just wanted to know how you determine that walking on water was a fable but rising from the dead was the real deal.

291

[QUOTE=begbert2]
This is pretty close to what I’m saying, though there are actual parallels between “doing more reasearch in science magazines” and “reading Chick tracts”. I’d wager that most scientifically educated people haven’t personally verified wether the effect of gravity actually diminishes with the effect of distance, for example; they’ve just trusted their literature. I’m reasonably certain that that’s the way most of us incorporate scientific knowledge, and I suspect that it’s pretty much the same way that many theists gather more information about their particular flavor of belief. Thus, statements that assault general religious indoctrination are throwing stones from their glass house: the indoctrination/untested belief process is alive and well in scientific education at all levels.

[/quote]

There is a difference between reading a lot of science (or religion) books and going back to first principles. Yeah, in religion you can read the Bible, and the Gnostic Gospels that have been found, and all the commentary you want. In science, if you don’t believe F = ma you can do the experiment. Some are impractical, but not all. When I toured Cooper Union while deciding whether to go there, one of the exhibits they had up was a mini Michaelson-Morley experiment done with lasers and much more precise measurement techniques. If you question the Big Bang, you can measure CBR, or look at satellite data directly. Scientific papers are written in order to allow the experiments to be reproducible, if anyone cares.

Now, if you question the flood or the Exodus you can also go to sites to look for evidence - but you won’t find any. Curious, that.

True. But the important stuff gets reproduced. The trivial, least publishable unit papers languish, unread by most, possibly forever. I led a committee selecting significant papers over the past 20 years presented at a conference - it is remarkable how many were dead ends.

As expected, you choose which statements to disregard based on your pre-existent bias. If you believe that God is all-powerful, then none of the above is impossible, or even improbable.

[/quote]

My rejection is not because they are impossible, but that the evidence does not confirm they ever happened. Consider the rising saints. That there would be an earthquake and dead saints wander about is far more likely than that no one would notice! “Scientific” creationists waste a lot of time inventing implausible explanations, where if they said “it’s a miracle,” no one could object. Of course then they can’t pretend it is science to be taught in the schools.

How do you define Christian God? God never reveals himself to anyone, not since Moses, unless you think he looks like Alanis, of course. Signs of god were revealed to the fleers from Egypt, at least some of whom didn’t believe, given the golden calf incident. I don’t think Paul (Simon) was a believer in Jesus when he saw Jesus. So, I don’t think you got Biblical justification for this statement.

And one could hardly criticize someone in a very local region from believing the Earth was flat. It is a justified belief, if an incorrect one.

Being “chosen”, I never grew up with a Christian God - just God. There were a few people in my neighborhood who thought the Messiah had come, despite the fact that the prophecies never got fulfilled, and that the Messiah was not goijng to be god’s son (an absurd concept anyway.) BTW, I’ve heard chosen likened to being chosen for a suicide mission. If we got perks for being chosen, no one ever told me about them.

I’ve done the size of the ark a zillion times. Much more fun to come up with something new. There is a problem that this was pre-Torah, so it is not clear what law people were operating under. There were no churches (or shuls or mosques) and no Ark. People may fall away from church today since there is no record of god showing up in direct memory. (And even those living where Jesus supposedly did weren’t very interested.) If the people knew the difference between good and evil, and if God had ever told anyone not to practice evil, you think at least a few beyond Noah would have gotten the message.

And then, after the flood, we have Noah getting drunk (not that I blame him) and the Ham and Shem thing, and people being bad again lickety split. How did they forget again? We won’t even talk about the cultural continuity in many places before and after the supposed date of the flood, or the repopulation problem, or lots of other things. For those who believe in the flood, the physics and zoology are hardly the hardest thing to explain.

292

[QUOTE=Sanders]
Well that makes sense. By contrast, I was never taught that Genesis was anything remotely resembling proven history.

In regards to bias, I’m unclear as to whether you’re talking about yourself or just making a more general statement. It would seem to me that learning an absurdly fundamentalist set of beliefs, then having those beliefs dashed, would bias one against belief as a whole.

I also want to emphasize that non-literalist interpretations of Genesis are by no means a solely modern phenomena, as evidenced by the citation below. In Catholic teaching, they are the norm.

[/QUOTE]

I started Hebrew School at 8 or 9, long before logical reasoning kicked in. I never, ever got taught that the Bible was 100% true, and I never got taught that what I’d learn in science class was wrong. We were on the Reform side of Conservative, hardly Orthodox. But at that age you tend to accept what a teacher figure tells you. I realize that Catholics are nowhere near fundamentalists, but I bet 3rd graders going to Catholic Sunday School just get taught Genesis as if it did happen. For us, far more time was spend on Abraham and after than on Genesis. The problems with those stories are a bit more subtle. And we were never taught unquestioning belief. The very first story in our “history” book was about how a young Abram, growing up in Ur, demonstrated that the priests, not the idols, were taking the offerings. He spread flour on the floor of the temple and checked for footprints. So my skepticism came from a good source. Unlike some, my atheism is not a result of bad experiences with religion, but just that I’m convinced that none of them I’ve seen are correct or even close to correct. If I were forced to join a religion, I’d go back in a second.

I assume that in more advanced religious instruction the Bible and science are synchronized. (At least for Catholics and Jews.) But that doesn’t happen in the formative years.

293

How do you know why they choose not to elaborate about their beliefs? Perhaps they feel they do not have the time to adequately explain their beliefs. Or maybe they find that you do not listen because of your own prejudiced agenda and are reluctant to waste their time. Maybe they would like very much to explain their beliefs but would like to avoid your negativity.

It is illogical to jump to conclusions. Just as you are not an authority on other people’s motives, you are not an authority on their feelings as well.

I would think that most liberal Christians would maintain that their beliefs simply have merit. These beliefs would not have to have merit in relation to “Christians in general” (whatever that means!) and/ or fundamentalist Christians.

Some do. Some don’t. I don’t think that it is criticism specifically that bothers liberal Christians so much. But they sometimes don’t continue to share their beliefs with those who unnecessarily spew insults during the conversation.

Criticism is one thing. Projectile vomiting of offensive comments is another.

Is it possible that you did your thinking and set your agenda before you began posting and that no matter what was said here, you would then reach the conclusions that were formed before you came? You would have had to twist words, become illogical and bullying, ignore the difference in conditioning and brainwashing and make great leaping assumptions in order to do it.

You are just not quite as “bad” as your name would imply.

I enjoyed your questions for a while and I wish you well.

Pax

294

[QUOTE=Voyager]
30 years ago, when I took an Eastern religion course in college, I recall being impressed that the original form of Buddhism was definitely atheistic - but with strong beliefs about what happens after we die. I believe this was the way the universe worked, and not due to some deity or deities imposing this structure. Later forms began to worship the Buddha as a kind of god. I remember being quite disappointed at another example of the need for humans for gods, even in the case of a religion and worldview that struck me as being quite commendable. I’m not up on current forms of Buddhism, perhaps someone who is can contribute.
[/QUOTE]

I remember reading a book called “The Religions of Man” One thing that stood out to me was the idea that the key figures of most religions taught “You can do this too” rather than “worship me! me! ME!” I began to read the NT that way and saw that that was the message of JC as well. There’s a couple of books about the many parallels between what Jesus taught and what Buddha taught.

Jesus talked a lot about the Father but he also made a lot of statements about being in the Father and the Father in him and He and/or the Father dwelling in us and with us. It supports the concept of some supreme being more than Buddhism but also speaks of the unity of all in a similar sense as Buddhism. Being led into all truth sounds a lot like Buddhist enlightenment to me.

295

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Just a couple of questions;People’s consciences are corrupted by outside influences. How, then, did these influences come about in the first place? The first humans created the first society; as beings of unadulterated conscience, they would have created a similarly perfect moral society. And this would be passed down to their kids, and their kids, and so on. So where exactly did these corrupting societal influences come from?.
[/QUOTE]

This is answered in the book of Genesis. The first parents willfully caused a separation between themselves and God and it was passed on to us. All our troubles are due to being separated from God.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
I see another problem with your logic. In your beliefs, you and I actually have exactly the same consciences. However, whereas in your case, you accept God and your conscience, i’m unconsciously rejecting part of my conscience because I haven’t accepted God. Right so far?Secondly; God’s existence is obvious - it’s plain to see that God exists. Ok?
[/QUOTE]

Actually, the problem is that you deny God’s existence solely on the basis that you have had no personal contact with Him and I’m saying that’s an insufficient basis to deny His existence and to fail to seek Him out. My point has simply been that there is plenty of outside evidence for His existence, one of which is our own conscience which reflects His character. You disregard that and all His other footprints while at the same time settling for an absurd unproveable theory - you believe evolution by faith, scientific evidence can’t sustain it.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
If I see any evidence of God, i’ll be right up there with you and all the other believers, fighting back ignorance and trying to spread the truth. But I don’t, because so far, nothing’s there. I’m receptive to gods; i’m ready and willing. They just aren’t coming - either they do not care or they do not exist.
[/QUOTE]

Jesus said, “Every one who keeps on asking receives, and he who keeps on seeking finds, and to him who keeps on knocking it will be opened” (Matt7:8) Another verse which applies is, “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing comes by the Word of God” (Rom10:17). Try reading the Bible for yourself and don’t settle for what others tell you about it - see if God speaks to you through it as He has promised.

296

[QUOTE=Bible man]
This is answered in the book of Genesis. The first parents willfully caused a separation between themselves and God and it was passed on to us. All our troubles are due to being separated from God.

[/quote]

Then people aren’t born with perfect consciences. You’re contradicting yourself.

Not for me. I never expected to have a direct connection - I don’t believe in god since there is no good evidence for him, and his inspired book is a pack of distorted history and myth - with some nice poetry, but good fiction is not the truth.

But you said our conscience is corrupted by sin - does that mean God is corrupted? That explains a lot, actually.

You’re lying. Evolution needs no faith, and science does support it. Why don’t you demonstrate you know the first thing about evolution, and we’ll see how well you do.

I’ve read the Bible cover to cover - it’s what turned me into a true atheist. Have you read Darwin or Dawkins or Gould?

297

[QUOTE=Voyager]
Then people aren’t born with perfect consciences.
[/QUOTE]

Just as there is nothing wrong with God’s Law, there’s nothing wrong with the conscience, it’s our fallen nature that perverts both. For instance Romans8:7 states, “Because the mind of the flesh - with its carnal thoughts and purposes - is hostile to God, for it does not submit itself to God’s Law, indeed it cannot”. You don’t have to look far to see the concept at work, the example of suicide bombers is a good illustration. They don’t acknowledge their actions as murder but justify them as being the implementation of Allah’s plan ie, the destruction of non-believers who are the source of evil in the world. You won’t find one of them who stands for murder (that would be a violation of conscience), they are instead waging a “holy war”. Their conscience has been placated by this belief and in their minds killing themselves and others has even become the highest virtue to strive after. Thus two good and perfect things from God, the conscience and the Law, become completely distorted and twisted in the hands of fallen men.

[QUOTE=Voyager]
Evolution needs no faith, and science does support it.
[/QUOTE]

No one in human history has ever documented a single example of macroevolution, it’s not observed in the present and there are no transitional structures in the fossil record to show that it ever occured in the past, plus the universal law of increasing entropy stands against it. Bottom line is that you have more blind faith than I could ever muster up. Further, if Darwin was alive today he would be forced to disavow his own theory having stated that the theory collapses if the concept of irreducible complexity was ever proven. Our scientific equipment now proves that easily, for example bacteria faggelum: It needs 40 individual parts to operate and if one is missing none of it works - impossible in Darwins theory for such a system to have evolved. His theory only worked in his day because technology wasn’t advanced enough to disprove it.

[QUOTE=Voyager]
I’ve read the Bible cover to cover - it’s what turned me into a true atheist.
[/QUOTE]

The Bible remains a closed book without the help of the Holy Spirit, you should try again and ask for His help. He’s the teacher and interpreter of the Scriptures (seeGalatians1:12, 1John2:27, and 2Pet1:20-21)

298

[QUOTE=Bible man]
Just as there is nothing wrong with God’s Law, there’s nothing wrong with the conscience, it’s our fallen nature that perverts both. For instance Romans8:7 states, “Because the mind of the flesh - with its carnal thoughts and purposes - is hostile to God, for it does not submit itself to God’s Law, indeed it cannot”. You don’t have to look far to see the concept at work, the example of suicide bombers is a good illustration. They don’t acknowledge their actions as murder but justify them as being the implementation of Allah’s plan ie, the destruction of non-believers who are the source of evil in the world. You won’t find one of them who stands for murder (that would be a violation of conscience), they are instead waging a “holy war”. Their conscience has been placated by this belief and in their minds killing themselves and others has even become the highest virtue to strive after. Thus two good and perfect things from God, the conscience and the Law, become completely distorted and twisted in the hands of fallen men.

No one in human history has ever documented a single example of macroevolution, it’s not observed in the present and there are no transitional structures in the fossil record to show that it ever occured in the past, plus the universal law of increasing entropy stands against it. Bottom line is that you have more blind faith than I could ever muster up. Further, if Darwin was alive today he would be forced to disavow his own theory having stated that the theory collapses if the concept of irreducible complexity was ever proven. Our scientific equipment now proves that easily, for example bacteria faggelum: It needs 40 individual parts to operate and if one is missing none of it works - impossible in Darwins theory for such a system to have evolved. His theory only worked in his day because technology wasn’t advanced enough to disprove it.

The Bible remains a closed book without the help of the Holy Spirit, you should try again and ask for His help. He’s the teacher and interpreter of the Scriptures (seeGalatians1:12, 1John2:27, and 2Pet1:20-21)
[/QUOTE]
Feh. Sez you. You speak of the bible as if there is any degree of corroboration anywhere in the thousands of years since it was written. There is none. Zero. Not so for the concepts of evolution. There is corroboration everywhere. You have nothing. You never did. You never will.

299

[QUOTE=Bible man]
Further, if Darwin was alive today he would be forced to disavow his own theory having stated that the theory collapses if the concept of irreducible complexity was ever proven. Our scientific equipment now proves that easily, for example bacteria faggelum: It needs 40 individual parts to operate and if one is missing none of it works - impossible in Darwins theory for such a system to have evolved. His theory only worked in his day because technology wasn’t advanced enough to disprove it.
[/QUOTE]
Are you making things up again?

Please cite the passage where Darwin ever claimed that “irreducible complexity” would disprove hie theory. Otherwise, I will have to conclude you are inventing lies to make a point.

Your second point is simply a restatement of Behe’s error, demonstrating that you are merely parroting other people with no knowledge of your own. (If the flagella require 40 (amusingly claimed) “individual parts,” then how do you reconcile that to different bacteria that require only 33 “parts”?)

300

Refresh me, Bibleman…do you consider yourself a bible literalist?