Religion Ask a Christian - Continued in Part 2

[Chief]

Continued in Part Two:

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/ask-a-christian-part-2.1295001/unread

 

[Boston tiger]

Evolution relies on both random mutations and non-random natural selection. There doesn't need to be a god guiding the process when environmental factors work to select for beneficial heritable traits and against maladaptive traits.

If god created us 'as is' or guided our evolution, why did he create humans and other species with flaws?

Flaws means there is the capacity for more love in the Universe .

What does something flawless look like ? What’s a flaw in the eyes of God ? an organism that lives for ever ?
Is the Atom flawless ?
Good to see your spiritual side coming out Evo.

If I was God would I make something flawless ? And if I did how would I go about it ? Interesting subject .

He did make the banana fit perfectly in our hand and perfect for peeling . That I am sure of .

 

[Boston tiger]

“No but Jesus”
FMD, that’s all they have.
Oooooooooooooooooodavidgulpilil, with respect to my elders iand after thought in advance,
What a bizzare world we live in.
Im gonna play chess
I literally see no saviour….,,
I just don’t.
You do..,,
Prove it campaigner

12 steps

 

[Pessimistic]

Always amusing the creationist types demand proof to the nth degree on evolution theory but when pressed for the same level on alternatives get all vague and spiritual.

 

[Total Power]

Flaws means there is the capacity for more love in the Universe .

What does something flawless look like ? What’s a flaw in the eyes of God ? an organism that lives for ever ?
Is the Atom flawless ?
Good to see your spiritual side coming out Evo.

If I was God would I make something flawless ? And if I did how would I go about it ? Interesting subject .

He did make the banana fit perfectly in our hand and perfect for peeling . That I am sure of .

What you think about your 'flawless' being' creating something and then 'regret' creating it. Omnipotence remember? how do you think infinite knowledge, omnipotence gel with 'regret'? We have regret cause we don't know how things will play out, neither you can predict the future. We make bad decisions but imagine your God making one?!!?!

The flood story presents us with a picture of an all knowing God that does things he regrets. That's called fallibility.

A lot of the Bible hinges on God's knowledge of the future. How then could he do anything he would know ahead of time he would regret?

Not to mention the myth was copied anyway but that's not the point.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

The moral law for one. If there is no God morality for one can be nothing other than
an illusion.
Im sure you know this, but just choose to ignore it or whatever.

Which moral law would that happen to be? Human morality is hugely diverse.

In traditional Solomons Islands society, they had a well-established social structure involving hired assassins. If an Islander felt slighted by the actions or words of another, they would not personally take action against that person to restore their lost honour, they would use the services of the hired assassins who were an accepted feature of their complex social structures and morals.

Is that the sort of proof of the existence of god you’re talking about?

 

[Rusty Brookes]

Religion is a scientific theory according to Dawkins.

Surely you're not disagreeing with the Grand Poobar of Atheism?

Got a quote to back up that claim? I've heard Dawkins say religion should be held to the same standards as scientific theories which means something very different to religion is a scientific theory.

No religion would meet the definition of a scientific theory - there is no consensus, there are literally millions of scientific studies that do not support religious claims, every religion makes claims that cannot be falsified, etc

What Is a Theory? A Scientific Definition | AMNH

In everyday use, it may mean a hunch, or a guess. Scientists understand the term quite differently.

www.amnh.org

 

[Total Power]

He did make the banana fit perfectly in our hand and perfect for peeling . That I am sure of .

LOL! I hope the banana would fit the hand anyway, disaster otherwise.

 

[Rusty Brookes]

LOL! I hope the banana would fit the hand anyway, disaster otherwise.

After watching some online vids, I notice vegatables and fruit also fit in other parts of the human anatomy.

 

[Evolved1]

After watching some online vids, I notice vegatables and fruit also fit in other parts of the human anatomy.

Coke bottles too. Perfectly designed by god to fit in human orifices.

 

[Total Power]

Coke bottles too. Perfectly designed by god to fit in human orifices.

I could think of plenty of fruits andveggies but you have taken it to the next level brothaaaaa

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Coke bottles too. Perfectly designed by god to fit in human orifices.

And yet the gerbil is a clear case of a species having evolved to a size that allows it to, ah…….

Maybe I won’t go there.

 

[Rusty Brookes]

Two men were lost in the desert. On the brink of dying from thirst. they were rescued by a sultan who took them to his oasis palace. For a month, they lived like kings - fed the best food, the sweetest wine, full use of the haram, etc. After the month ended, the sultan summoned both men and said "You have lived on my generous nature and hospitality for a month. I now ask you one thing. Please enter my oasis and return with the first piece of fruit you find and return to me". On returning, the sultan took the first man to a room. The man was horrified to see a hooded executioner holding a scimitar. The sultan said to the man - "I will now insert your fruit into your backside. If you cry, you will be beheaded. If not, you are free to leave. Give me your fruit!". The man handed over the banana he found and the sultan inserted it. Just as the man was about to cry, he started laughing. The sultan removed the banana and said "I will be true to my word. You are free to leave. But please tell me, why did you start laughing?". The man replied - "I just remembered. The other guy found a pineapple".

 

[Opine]

The Abrahamics have been doing this since it’s inception, now they’re copping a little bit of their own medicine, their poor feel feels get all hurty hurt and they strike back with unconstitutional laws world wide.
Progress is antithetical to the adherents of Abraham, it challenges their deep rooted desire to control and patrol thought, action and need.
The original “authoritarians“.
”If you don’t believe the way I do, I’ll change the rules so that you suffer the way that I feel I have to”.
It’s unparalleled in its patheticness and it will continue until it’s destroyed, one way or another and I aim to be on the end of the shovel that turns over the ashes of it into the beautiful the new progressive life enriched soil.
The abrahamics only want for the time after that they cannot provide evidence for nor a reason why it should exist, because it’s exposes their weak underbelly for the tarian in the author of a collection of books from a place they destroyed several times over and continue to.
Shitty books should be called out for what they are and the desert trilogy is lower than sh*t, they ******* worship a bloke that was prepared to stick a ******* knife into the heart of his eldest son, because idiot moron cave-expelled dickhead man heard voices!
What a cracking shitstorm of single digit fingered .IQ I deal with.
Lolza

This sounds like a war cry. Like rhetoric justifying reprisal of some sort; political, discriminatory and or violence based. Is that what you’re advocating?

 

[Rusty Brookes]

Alright my last post on fruit and vegetables but this is a pretty good breakdown of Ray Comfort's banana proof

 

[carltonchelsea]

Question for Atheists....
Is religion a scientific theory?

No

 

[carltonchelsea]

This sounds like a war cry. Like rhetoric justifying reprisal of some sort; political and violence based. Is that what you’re advocating?

Your strawman is duly noted.
The scientific method has been doing a great job of unviolently destroying Abrahamic admirers since the enlightenment.
It would only take one thing to destroy my understanding of the universe, just one, proof.
Ya got any?

 

[Opine]

Your strawman is duly noted.
The scientific method has been doing a great job of unviolently destroying Abrahamic admirers since the enlightenment.
It would only take one thing to destroy my understanding of the universe, just one, proof.
Ya got any?

I'm confused about a seeming paradox in one of your hero's (Dawkns) key arguments, i.e. his argument against agnosticism as outlined in his book. I wonder about the resulting impact, if any, on the credibility of his overall position on religion.

He promotes his theory of TAP (Temporary Agnosticism) and PAP (Permanent Agnosticism). He wrote that the former is ok, but the latter isn't; the critical diff between both is self-explanatory, i.e. Temporary Agnostic awaits the discovery of evidence to reach a conclusion versers Permanent Agnosticism which he says can never be resolved. Not surprisingly, he puts religious agnosticism in the latter despite that science, upon which he relies to distinguish lack of theistic credibility, simultaneously pursues the direct or indirect answer to that biggest question of all; where from and where to. Given he reckons it’s not answerable, should science just pack up and leave it all to RD?

It seems that he might be a politician and or a religious preacher preaching atheism.

 

[Opine]

Your strawman is duly noted.
The scientific method has been doing a great job of unviolently destroying Abrahamic admirers since the enlightenment.
It would only take one thing to destroy my understanding of the universe, just one, proof.
Ya got any?

I can’t give you proof: which is why my personal belief errs on the side that there is no personal god. However, objective science dictates I remain agnostic until definitive proof emerges either way.

You’re entitled to believe there isn’t, just as theists are entitled to believe there is. The Fed Religious Anti-Discrimination legislation aims to ensure that remains the case.

 

[carltonchelsea]

I'm confused about a seeming paradox in one of your hero's (Dawkns) key arguments, i.e. his argument against agnosticism in ch 2 (pages 68 onwards) of his book. I wonder about the resulting impact, if any, on the credibility of his overall position on religion.

He promotes his theory of TAP (Temporary Agnosticism) and PAP (Permanent Agnosticism). He wrote that the former is ok, but the latter isn't; the critical diff between both is self-explanatory, i.e. Temporary Agnostic awaits the discovery of evidence to reach a conclusion versers Permanent Agnosticism which he says can never be resolved. Not surprisingly, he puts religious agnosticism in the latter despite that science, upon which he relies to distinguish lack of theistic credibility, simultaneously pursues the direct or indirect answer to that biggest question of all; where from and where to. Given he reckons it’s not answerable, should science just pack up and leave it all to RD?

It seems that he might be a politician and or a religious preacher preaching atheism.

Yes, we agree on one point of your ridiculous non question.
Dawkins is no hero of mine.
But I do enjoy when he destroys morons like this.
2:30

Gotta love when his heart actually breaks, pisser. his music is genuinely shite as well, just like his insanely idiotic beliefs.

 

[carltonchelsea]

I can’t give you proof: which is why my personal belief errs on the side that there is no such thing as a personal god. But objective science dictates that I remain agnostic until definitive proof emerges either way.

Are you agnostic on fairies, goblins, dragons, unicorns, Santa, Thor etc.?

 

[Opine]

Are you agnostic on fairies, goblins, dragons, unicorns, Santa, Thor etc.?

No, I agree, those things are silly if accepted literally. I’m not sure about whether they’re intended to be inferred literally. Im not overly technically familiar with the bible, others in here will have a far better understanding about such things.

 

[carltonchelsea]

No, I agree, those things are silly if accepted literally. I’m not sure about whether they’re intended to be inferred literally. Im not overly technically familiar with the bible, others in here will have a far better understanding about such things.

Why not sky daddy then, just go one step further and I’ll buy you a beer at the anti theist bar, terrific drinks at reasonable prices, my hook for the evening!

 

[Opine]

Why not sky daddy then, just go one step further and I’ll buy you a beer at the anti theist bar, terrific drinks at reasonable prices, my hook for the evening!

Just buy me one anyway.

 

[Number37]

Got a quote to back up that claim? I've heard Dawkins say religion should be held to the same standards as scientific theories which means something very different to religion is a scientific theory.

No religion would meet the definition of a scientific theory - there is no consensus, there are literally millions of scientific studies that do not support religious claims, every religion makes claims that cannot be falsified, etc

What Is a Theory? A Scientific Definition | AMNH

In everyday use, it may mean a hunch, or a guess. Scientists understand the term quite differently.

www.amnh.org

Yada-yada-yada.
That must be the Atheist trigger mechanism in operation. Again.

As Dawkins is prone to do, he just makes up shit to suit his argument, that is exactly what he did in this instance.

How does one evaluate something using the same standards as scientific theory without first framing it as a scientific theory?

 

[carltonchelsea]

Just buy me one anyway.

If you step up to the bar, I’ll buy you several.
We can discuss the possibility that Sam Walsh has supernatural powers?