Why do theists reject evolution?

[Vociferous]

duplicate

 

[Vociferous]

I can agree with you in the context that there are leaders ( thinkers) and followers (non thinkers).

Uh, the leaders of both are just as prone to drinking their own kool-aid. And the blind faith is not usually in their leaders but in their ideology.

Absolutely not.
The rules of evidence are well set out...the one that will cause religion problems are those that reject heresay...think about that for a while and the reason why such rules are in place.

A religious testimony is not hearsay. It's conveying a personal experience. You know, something no one has of abiogenesis.

 

[Michael 345]

The evolution of nature does not contrast with the notion of creation, as evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.

Pope Francis in a speech at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 27. 2014.

In the pope’s speech “presupposes the creation of beings that evolve” I wonder if he includes bacteria as well as other eukaryotes as “beings”. I wonder how much his definition of “being” overlaps with the biological definition of living organisms.

I mean it is cool that the pope doesn’t outright reject science but let’s not get carried away with how much mumbo jumbo he continues to propagate.

George Harrison

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

A religious testimony is not hearsay.

What could we call it I wonder and not sound critical or making a judgement best given by a health professional skilled in the study of delusional behaviour.

Leaving that to one side the problem arises in the new testament given that it is accepted that the gospels were written well after..how many years can we agree upon? Fifty...a hundred? Not that it matters it is hearsay.

It is a pity there is nothing outside the bible that was written down at the time by historians or officials ...which in itself is curious..imagine if today a man rose from the dead after three days it would be recorded..oh of course no Facebook back then and yet many things were recorded particularly of religious significance. It just does not sit well with me that such an extraordinary event was not written about nor did it inspire any poems or songs ... And who wrote the gospels..certainly not Mathew Mark Luke and John... that's so odd...why would someone write that stuff and use made up names...does not make sense..well it does if you subscribe to christianity being a Roman invention designed initially to control the rebelious Jews...that part of history is well recorded..you see the trouble is no evidence..zip...that's impossible to refute.
Anyways I think you said that you were not a Christian so I expect you may agree with much of what I have said...do you?
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

You know, something no one has of abiogenesis.

I don't believe in angiogenesis..

I think life started from the many many combinations of elements, molecules and environments where stuff became self replicating and with greater complexity became the first simple life that was able to evolve into more complex self replicating systems..a expected result if one understood the chemistry sufficient to follow the individual steps that chemistry will do following the laws that dictate specific, not random, results and outcomes....and some of that can be done in the lab giving a hint that such an occurrence is the most likely given the only other alternative is to summon a preferred mythical invented entity from a long long list of invented mythical entities to over see esentialy the combination of elements molecules and environments so that inventors of that entity can say without our god it could not happen somehow thinking that just willing life into existence somehow makes more sense. It does not. I suspect it will not be too long where scientists will assemble the necessary components and demonstrate that life in no more than a chemical process from start..well even before it's start..to finish.
As time passes the credibility of religion erodes and continues to erode and even now it only hangs on due to the inherent superstition found in humans put there presumably by the early religious indulgence over countless generations where humans did not have the light of science to lead them out of the dark.
Alex

 

[Vociferous]

What could we call it I wonder and not sound critical or making a judgement best given by a health professional skilled in the study of delusional behaviour.

Again, if we're talking legal standard of evidence, that would require expert testimony, likely with some religious jurors. That would virtually guarantee an unfavorable verdict or hung jury.

Leaving that to one side the problem arises in the new testament given that it is accepted that the gospels were written well after..how many years can we agree upon? Fifty...a hundred? Not that it matters it is hearsay.

The Bible, itself, is not the faith of the individual. Again, that involves some personal experience.

It is a pity there is nothing outside the bible that was written down at the time by historians or officials ...which in itself is curious..imagine if today a man rose from the dead after three days it would be recorded..oh of course no Facebook back then and yet many things were recorded particularly of religious significance. It just does not sit well with me that such an extraordinary event was not written about nor did it inspire any poems or songs ... And who wrote the gospels..certainly not Mathew Mark Luke and John... that's so odd...why would someone write that stuff and use made up names...does not make sense..well it does if you subscribe to christianity being a Roman invention designed initially to control the rebelious Jews...that part of history is well recorded..you see the trouble is no evidence..zip...that's impossible to refute.
Anyways I think you said that you were not a Christian so I expect you may agree with much of what I have said...do you?

You do know that Romans purportedly crucified Jesus at the behest the Jews, right? Great way to enlist the rebellious Jews, huh?
Many people claim to have caught sight of a loved one after they died. The biblical tale isn't too far removed from that, given alterations to oral tradition.
Early Christianity was a very small movement.

I don't believe in angiogenesis..

I think life started from the many many combinations of elements, molecules and environments where stuff became self replicating and with greater complexity became the first simple life that was able to evolve into more complex self replicating systems..a expected result if one understood the chemistry sufficient to follow the individual steps that chemistry will do following the laws that dictate specific, not random, results and outcomes....and some of that can be done in the lab giving a hint that such an occurrence is the most likely...

That is abiogenesis. Again, no one has any personal experience of ever witnessing abiogenesis. And no, there's not a single step in a genuine inanimate/chemical transition to life than has ever been accomplished in a lab, or anywhere else. Be honest with yourself.

I suspect it will not be too long where scientists will assemble the necessary components and demonstrate that life in no more than a chemical process from start..well even before it's start..to finish.

And that's your blind faith in scientism speaking. Without any evidence such a thing will ever be accomplished. If you think there is, you've been duped.

As time passes the credibility of religion erodes and continues to erode and even now it only hangs on due to the inherent superstition found in humans put there presumably by the early religious indulgence over countless generations where humans did not have the light of science to lead them out of the dark.

Except that belief in religion has positive correlations to ethical behavior, charity, etc.. Science does not. Science cannot define nor instill morality.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

That would virtually guarantee an unfavorable verdict or hung jury.

I see no reason why that could be the case at all. The jury is directed by the judge as to the law which does not admit hearsay..in fact such evidence would not reach the jury as the judge would be bound not to admit it in the first place..a complete non starter you see. The only thing the jury can get hung up on is the facts and the rules of evidence would have them only reviewing the facts and they will be directed by the judge as to any aspect of the law.

The Bible, itself, is not the faith of the individual.

You know I think it says somewhere in there that faith is the evidence..you presumably have read the bible do you recall similar?

But I see your point and certainly it is the faith of the individual that drives everything, although I would say maybe it is actually hope..hope that there is someone who will ultimately deal out justice and make everything right and while doing so issue an eternal existence in heaven or paradise. I don't know when hope turns into faith but it is clear that folk really want to believe it's all true...me I am a realist...given religion has evolved with the invention of thousands of gods from animal worship, to Sun worship leading us to astrology based human gods it is easy to content myself that add to the facts,as I know them, by way of absence of reasonable evidence, I doubt if any human has any idea but certainly a wish list...thousands of invented god but just one is the real deal..then the plot..honestly distill it and ask how real does it sound...Anyways that why one needs faith..that somehow in spite of everything being mostly wrong a second eternal life better than this one awaits...just sounds too good to be true...and what is the warning for young players..if it sounds too good to be true then most certainly it won't be true...it's like those "I want to share millions with you" from !Nigeria...there are folk who focus on the money so intent that they won't accept they are the victim of a con...

You do know that Romans purportedly crucified Jesus at the behest the Jews, right?

Yes that's the way the story goes...convenient attaching such a crime to folk that won't settle down and bow down to Rome...

Great way to enlist the rebellious Jews, huh?

The invention was to produce a meshia that expounded love and peace and to accept Rome..render to Ceasar what is Ceasars..curious thing to come from a down trodden Jew... you are obviously intelligent research it, read some of the facts then come and scoff..you won't because if you look the penny will drop...who were the first saints and who were they related to...which family is alleged to have invented christianity for the Romans.

Many people claim to have caught sight of a loved one after they died.

Many people claim many things that is why the law is very careful to set out what is required to support a claim.. by the prosecutor that the defendant is guilty or that the plaintiff has the goods to seek a favourable judgement in a civil matter. I have had a lady claim she was talking to Lucifer in the bottom paddock...no I did not ask because like so many folk who claim wild things she was just seeking attention...don't you get it? Do you get out in the real world..do you know there are people who confess to murders they have not committed..why? It about attention and they demonstrate so many wild claims are simply poor unimportant folk trying to get the fifteen minutes of fame they thought all humans had a right to...

The biblical tale isn't too far removed from that, given alterations to oral tradition.

I don't get what you mean but oral tradition actually has major flaws even if those relying upon them argue the opposite...it don't work..that is a demonstratable fact...heck even stories that are written when rewritten change..it's like evolution a little change here and a little change there, more time more change and we find a new species has evolved... be realistic rather than seek reasons why it must be right just approach it all with an open mind..the plot just think about the plot..it certainly is far from Devine wouldn't you conceded.

Early Christianity was a very small movement.

And there were many such small movements so one could ask, from a practical approach, how did this small movement all of a sudden spread all over the world at that time..the Roman world that is...maybe the Christians got a bit of a leg up while the others were eradicated...politics mate.
Who controlled travel..any ideas?

That is abiogenesis.

Yes I know I wanted to see if you know.

It does not have to provide morality..but if you want to argue that morality comes from the bible you will lose...even for believers morality is a personal choice...the bible says kill folk who gather sticks on the Sabbath.. does any one kill for that reason..well probably no because they make a personal decision that killing is morally wrong not withstanding the guide book to morality say kill them..the bible lays out slave ownership and management but few folk follow that immorality..morality is a choice..I have very high moral standards and I believe that one can be decent without the threat of hell.

If you want to talk morality..how moral is it to believe a lie and refuse to seek the truth knowing it is out there and almost certainly will show what you believe is a lie based in astrology invented to merely control a rebellious group and to control you and hold yourself back from enlightenment in this life on a promise of another life and threat of hell.

Nice chatting. I expect you went to a school where there were daily prayers and so you probably had no chance to actually think about things..as I said consider the plot..boil it down a simple sentence for each step..then ask ..could this be the way of it?
We just need a religion with no god...
Alex

 

[Vociferous]

I see no reason why that could be the case at all. The jury is directed by the judge as to the law which does not admit hearsay..in fact such evidence would not reach the jury as the judge would be bound not to admit it in the first place..a complete non starter you see. The only thing the jury can get hung up on is the facts and the rules of evidence would have them only reviewing the facts and they will be directed by the judge as to any aspect of the law.

Again, belief is not hearsay. You've yet to provide any good argument that it is. Judges can't predict and preemptively stop testimony on the stand, hence the order to disregard testimony after it's been given. Besides, both the prosecution and defense know full well that the jury will not disregard things just because they are so ordered. That's not how human nature works. You are familiar with some actual humans I suppose? Maybe seen an episode or two of Matlock? Or just some overly idealized notion of the purity of court?

If the latter, you have more faith in court (like you do in science) than I have in God. I don't expect God to provide me with a ruling or answers that fit my existing ideological bent.

You know I think it says somewhere in there that faith is the evidence..you presumably have read the bible do you recall similar?

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrew 11:1​

Unless you want to broaden your definition of evidence, you may not want to put at that thread.

But I see your point and certainly it is the faith of the individual that drives everything, although I would say maybe it is actually hope..hope that there is someone who will ultimately deal out justice and make everything right and while doing so issue an eternal existence in heaven or paradise. I don't know when hope turns into faith but it is clear that folk really want to believe it's all true...me I am a realist...given religion has evolved with the invention of thousands of gods from animal worship, to Sun worship leading us to astrology based human gods it is easy to content myself that add to the facts,as I know them, by way of absence of reasonable evidence, I doubt if any human has any idea but certainly a wish list...thousands of invented god but just one is the real deal..then the plot..honestly distill it and ask how real does it sound...Anyways that why one needs faith..that somehow in spite of everything being mostly wrong a second eternal life better than this one awaits...just sounds too good to be true...and what is the warning for young players..if it sounds too good to be true then most certainly it won't be true...it's like those "I want to share millions with you" from !Nigeria...there are folk who focus on the money so intent that they won't accept they are the victim of a con...

"The substance of things hoped for" is not that of wishing for some future comeuppance or reward. It is the confidence (NIV) to let it go, to not dwell on vengeance or current disadvantage. You're free to believe that the human invention of God evolved over time, apace with human intelligence. From capricious evil spirits, to very human-like motives and foibles, to an ultimate objective being. That would sound like you're literally making science your god, on the same gradient as all the rest. In that light, your scientism would be perfectly fit that ideological spectrum.

"How real does it sound"? That depends on how naively literal you insist on taking it. We have plenty of modern fiction that makes statements on very real things. Use to be called parables, allegory, etc.. Jews certainly acknowledge as much.

As you demonstrate, as it pertains to a second life, belief is not always so easy. Or are you admitting that you struggle with your disbelief?

Yes that's the way the story goes...convenient attaching such a crime to folk that won't settle down and bow down to Rome...

Kind of belies your notion that it was designed to quell (your word was "control") Jewish rebellion, don't cha think?

The invention was to produce a meshia that expounded love and peace and to accept Rome..render to Ceasar what is Ceasars..curious thing to come from a down trodden Jew... you are obviously intelligent research it, read some of the facts then come and scoff..you won't because if you look the penny will drop...who were the first saints and who were they related to...which family is alleged to have invented christianity for the Romans.

Your own unsupported claims are your own onus. I don't take homework assignments from people just talking out of their hat.

 

[Vociferous]

Cont....

Many people claim many things that is why the law is very careful to set out what is required to support a claim.. by the prosecutor that the defendant is guilty or that the plaintiff has the goods to seek a favourable judgement in a civil matter. I have had a lady claim she was talking to Lucifer in the bottom paddock...no I did not ask because like so many folk who claim wild things she was just seeking attention...don't you get it? Do you get out in the real world..do you know there are people who confess to murders they have not committed..why? It about attention and they demonstrate so many wild claims are simply poor unimportant folk trying to get the fifteen minutes of fame they thought all humans had a right to...

The law doesn't cover the whole of human experience. This pretense that it may only seems to fit with your absolute faith in science. So now you're trying to convince yourself religious belief is all about attention-seeking? You think you've taken a sufficient survey of religious people to know that some majority of them behave as the most outlandish you've experienced? Or maybe that's just a hasty generalization, conveniently feeding into your existing ideology. How do you suppose all these people (>80% of the world) sought out their 15 minutes of fame before the internet?

The biblical tale isn't too far removed from that, given alterations to oral tradition.

I don't get what you mean but oral tradition actually has major flaws even if those relying upon them argue the opposite...it don't work..that is a demonstratable fact...heck even stories that are written when rewritten change..it's like evolution a little change here and a little change there, more time more change and we find a new species has evolved... be realistic rather than seek reasons why it must be right just approach it all with an open mind..the plot just think about the plot..it certainly is far from Devine wouldn't you conceded.

I guess you missed the bolded word. An altered narrative that still makes the same allegorical points. And?

And there were many such small movements so one could ask, from a practical approach, how did this small movement all of a sudden spread all over the world at that time..the Roman world that is...maybe the Christians got a bit of a leg up while the others were eradicated...politics mate.
Who controlled travel..any ideas?

How did the Greek gods take such prominence over the tribal spirits? Perhaps human-like gods were just more satisfying to the human psyche. There's no need to look for conspiracies where simple human nature will suffice. You seem to idealize the Roman empire the way you idealize court and science. You're really desperate to find somewhere to place hang ideals, huh?

Yes I know I wanted to see if you know.

At this point, I really don't think you did know. Play dumb long enough and people start to believe you.

It does not have to provide morality..but if you want to argue that morality comes from the bible you will lose...even for believers morality is a personal choice...the bible says kill folk who gather sticks on the Sabbath.. does any one kill for that reason..well probably no because they make a personal decision that killing is morally wrong not withstanding the guide book to morality say kill them..the bible lays out slave ownership and management but few folk follow that immorality..morality is a choice..I have very high moral standards and I believe that one can be decent without the threat of hell.

Who said morality comes from the Bible? Death for defiling the sabbath is Jewish law, not part of the new covenant of Christianity. You should really know that before you try to use obsolete parts of Jewish history against modern day Christians. Much less simple theists. Same goes for slavery. It was ubiquitous at the time. Something that was far from being eradicated, but could be moderated, much like pagan human sacrifices being substituted for animal sacrifice. Only the terminally simple believe the Bible advocates slavery. You'll have to let me know if that shoe fits you.

It's also a straw man that many/most religious actively fear hell. It's what you teach children until they are mature enough to understand the will of God without things like Santa and Elf on the Shelf. And even in children, who have no real conception of their own mortality, it's not really all that frightening.

If you want to talk morality..how moral is it to believe a lie and refuse to seek the truth knowing it is out there and almost certainly will show what you believe is a lie based in astrology invented to merely control a rebellious group and to control you and hold yourself back from enlightenment in this life on a promise of another life and threat of hell.

You tell me. How moral is it to insist on the dumbest possible interpretations of the beliefs of the vast majority of people just so you never have to question your own existing ideology?

Nice chatting. I expect you went to a school where there were daily prayers and so you probably had no chance to actually think about things..as I said consider the plot..boil it down a simple sentence for each step..then ask ..could this be the way of it?

You're just chock full of wrong-headed presumptions. Those would be awfully necessary to quell the cognitive dissonance.

We just need a religion with no god...

Apparently you've found yours. Congratulations. It's called scientism.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Hebrew 11:1

Are you actually quoting the bible?

 

[paddoboy]

As time passes the credibility of religion erodes and continues to erode and even now it only hangs on due to the inherent superstition found in humans put there presumably by the early religious indulgence over countless generations where humans did not have the light of science to lead them out of the dark.
Alex

Bingo!! Well said Alex, and if investigated further, the reason why fanatical religious nuts [we have had three of them] see the need to come to a science forum, preaching their versions of fire and brimstone, misinterpreting science, being obnoxiously obtuse, and telling lies to please their overlords.
And as is the case at least with one of these raving nuts, a card carrying supporter of Donald Trump, the greatest threat to humanity since Hitler.

 

[paddoboy]

You're just chock full of wrong-headed presumptions. Those would be awfully necessary to quell the cognitive dissonance..

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Again, belief is not hearsay.

Yes that is interesting given that belief comes totally from hearsay.

Judges can't predict and preemptively stop testimony on the stand, hence the order to disregard testimony after it's been given.

Perhaps but breach of rules of evidence are stopped in their tracks.

What point are you trying to make..I enjoy the chat but feel I am missing what you are really trying to present. Evidence is evidence and it is clearly defined and the fact is holding a belief does not count as evidence nor does hearsay so push your cart between those two obstacles.

Maybe seen an episode or two of Matlock? Or just some overly idealized notion of the purity of court?

Lived in the residence attached to the local court when I was five years old, in the next town left my push bike in the court grounds next to my school and on the weekend sat where the judge sat to do my homework cause my father ran the office and was responsible for the building, do you think I ever watched proceedings? Later my father became a magistrate..do you know what the discussions at the dinner table centered upon?

I spent five years as an Articles Clerk and in that time spent many days in court sitting alongside the Barrister as a go for....later I drew briefs for Barristers and again would be present in court...so I know my stuff.

I don't expect God to provide me with a ruling or answers that fit my existing ideological bent.

Nor do I expect that he will for obvious reasons.

If the latter, you have more faith in court (like you do in science) than I have in God.

Just to be clear..I have confidence that our courts and legal system as is our science pretty good both with reality in mind...I really don't know what your problem is with either other than each force you to stop playing make believe.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrew 11:1

Thanks for that.
I like it "the evidence of things not seen"...You can't get better than that. You can't beat wisdom that is perceived by the fool..my words but heck wouldn't they make a good quote.

"How real does it sound"? That depends on how naively literal you insist on taking it.

It's not me really who need be the focus of concern but perhaps the many who do take it literally...the problem is for me to make the claim the bible is the word of God suggests one could expect a book that is entirely correct etc which clearly it is not...it boils down to the fact gods are a human invention and the supposed words of God are words from men.

Or are you admitting that you struggle with your disbelief?

Never ...not a hint ever. I expect that would be difficult for you to realise but I have not been brainwashed and was left free to think...if you have been brainwashed I appreciate it must be difficult to understand you have been sold a pup.

Kind of belies your notion that it was designed to quell (your word was "control") Jewish rebellion, don't cha think?

I am not going to defend your casual pot shots from an uninformed position as I am sure if you bothered to do the research all your objections would disappear. There is no point in me trying to convince you but you may wonder given my demonstrated sceptism on all matters why I find the proposition compelling...however you are smart enough to look into it if you wanted to...the claim has been made and backed up with good evidence and has been published...I am not going to hold you down and force feed you..it's out there it is very credible and I don't care if you choose the path of ignorance...well I do actually as I like you and I share much of your political outlook strangely so I certainly want the best for you but I won't do more than encourage you to look into the matter...if you find what I say is true you can still say that God was very clever to do it that way...and the bottom line is the spread really worked...

Your own unsupported claims are your own onus. I don't take homework assignments from people just talking out of their hat.

No worries it's your loss. I only want to help you find enlightenment.

The law doesn't cover the whole of human experience. This pretense that it may only seems to fit with your absolute faith in science. So now you're trying to convince yourself religious belief is all about attention-seeking? You think you've taken a sufficient survey of religious people to know that some majority of them behave as the most outlandish you've experienced? Or maybe that's just a hasty generalization, conveniently feeding into your existing ideology. How do you suppose all these people (>80% of the world) sought out their 15 minutes of fame before the internet?

Each of us can only bring our personal experience to the table...your response trys to discredit my observations if you think it has that's ok with me but all I said were truthful comment ..I think you got the attention seeking thing wrong but having reread what I said I think it would be clear if you were not being so defensive.

You seem to idealize the Roman empire the way you idealize court and science. You're really desperate to find somewhere to place hang ideals, huh?

How is it you can be so wrong? I don't see why wanting some reliable structure to replace the nonsense that dominated us for thousands of years should be so repulsive to you...Why do you think I thought highly of the Romans ..I am only pointing out history...
Why should we not place science over superstition...why not have a reliable legal system where real evidence is required...miss the witch burnings I expect..the inquisition?
Do you ever stop and think about , as Bill Maher would say..."the turds in the pool"...and here you are trying to make me the bad guy...all I expect is truth and to put reality above make believe...I expect Bill Maher would not be on your watch list...but his point basically is why would you stay in a club or group when they have done many bad things and support nonsense and superstition etc etc..I know you only need one I do it cause I am dumb.

I really don't think you did know

You hold on to that so I can wring out every advantage that thinking gives me.

Play dumb long enough and people start to believe you.

Look I recognise I am just a mug, and old, and poorly educated but really when discussing religion you really do not have to be at all that clever.
Reading history is within even my grasp. It's way easier than my manuals on camera and mount control, politics etc. And further do you really think that I care if people think I am dumb ..to be clear I don't care I accept most folk will see me as dumb and crazy..so what...I am a hermit after all.

Who said morality comes from the Bible?

I thought that was what you were suggesting hence my response...so you agree with me?

Death for defiling the sabbath is Jewish law, not part of the new covenant of Christianity

Hang on...in the story Jesus said he was not interested in changing the law and in fact was into seeing it carried out...that hardly supports this made up nonsense about a new covenant..still if you have your bible handy please link me to this new covenant thing...I was relying on the promise not to change a thing. Continued next post.

Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Same goes for slavery. It was ubiquitous at the time. Something that was far from being eradicated, but could be moderated, much like pagan human sacrifices being substituted for animal sacrifice. Only the terminally simple believe the Bible advocates slavery. You'll have to let me know if that shoe fits you.

Oh yes even though it's there it's not and even though we don't follow that bit and that bit and that bit we accept the flood story and the bits we like...anyways put me down on the terminally simple list as the way I read it it is impossible in my view to see it any other way...I wish I had my bible here to quote the passages...do you get tired making excuses all the time?

it's not really all that frightening.

I like you ..just so funny.
Honestly man just look at the way you twist and turn to support the nonsense...would you not like to be above all that?

How moral is it to insist on the dumbest possible interpretations of the beliefs of the vast majority of people just so you never have to question your own existing ideology?

Dumbest possible interpretation..come now...even for believers there are interpretations that make my dumb interpretation seem rather intelligent..of course I know my interpretation are not intelligent and of course I know I am too ignorant to understand what is not there because no faith..I know that..but I am a simple guy just preoccupied with demonstratable truth..is that so evil..well perhaps it is given truth seems to play a very small part of the godism mix. Look at how you try and change the truth..slavery??? A new covenant so all that old stuff does not apply except this bit and that bit and the prophesy we use to tell of the coming Christ.. give me strength....and you don't see it..would you care to make a list of all my excuses that I routinely roll out for science and evidence?...take your time...do you get it yet?

Those would be awfully necessary to quell the cognitive dissonance.

With such a severe case you have to try everything.

Congratulations.

Thank you.
Thanks for the chat I hope you have a nice day.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Death for defiling the sabbath is Jewish law, not part of the new covenant of Christianity.

Look at this if you dare.

Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

And no, there's not a single step in a genuine inanimate/chemical transition to life than has ever been accomplished in a lab, or anywhere else.

You may find this interesting.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/as...molecules-origin-of-life.163255/#post-3638158
Alex

 

[Vociferous]

Yes that is interesting given that belief comes totally from hearsay.

I've told you several times that it's not hearsay, since the individual has personal experience that substantiates it for themselves. I'm starting to doubt that you understand what hearsay is.

Perhaps but breach of rules of evidence are stopped in their tracks.

Yes, after the jury has already heard it.

What point are you trying to make..I enjoy the chat but feel I am missing what you are really trying to present. Evidence is evidence and it is clearly defined and the fact is holding a belief does not count as evidence nor does hearsay so push your cart between those two obstacles.

You're the one who brought up court, where testimony is evidence. You're repeated bare assertions about hearsay don't change that fact.

Lived in the residence attached to the local court when I was five years old, in the next town left my push bike in the court grounds next to my school and on the weekend sat where the judge sat to do my homework cause my father ran the office and was responsible for the building, do you think I ever watched proceedings? Later my father became a magistrate..do you know what the discussions at the dinner table centered upon?

I spent five years as an Articles Clerk and in that time spent many days in court sitting alongside the Barrister as a go for....later I drew briefs for Barristers and again would be present in court...so I know my stuff.

Wow, and you learned so little through all that.

Nor do I expect that he will for obvious reasons.

Just to be clear..I have confidence that our courts and legal system as is our science pretty good both with reality in mind...I really don't know what your problem is with either other than each force you to stop playing make believe.

So we agree that I don't have blind faith in God, but you do have blind faith in science. Good.
I have zero problem with either the law or science. I actually like them both. I just recognize the simple facts that testimony is evidence in court and the law and science do not cover the truth of everything in human experience. The make believe is pretending they do.

It's not me really who need be the focus of concern but perhaps the many who do take it literally...the problem is for me to make the claim the bible is the word of God suggests one could expect a book that is entirely correct etc which clearly it is not...it boils down to the fact gods are a human invention and the supposed words of God are words from men.

Relatively few believe the Bible 100% literally. https://news.gallup.com/poll/210704/record-few-americans-believe-bible-literal-word-god.aspx
Why are you so worried about such a minority?
You've yet to point out any error, aside from your own naive and literal straw men.

Never ...not a hint ever. I expect that would be difficult for you to realise but I have not been brainwashed and was left free to think...if you have been brainwashed I appreciate it must be difficult to understand you have been sold a pup.

No, you just don't realize who you were brainwashed by. Scientism is an ideology.

I am not going to defend your casual pot shots from an uninformed position as I am sure if you bothered to do the research all your objections would disappear. There is no point in me trying to convince you but you may wonder given my demonstrated sceptism on all matters why I find the proposition compelling...however you are smart enough to look into it if you wanted to...the claim has been made and backed up with good evidence and has been published...I am not going to hold you down and force feed you..it's out there it is very credible and I don't care if you choose the path of ignorance...well I do actually as I like you and I share much of your political outlook strangely so I certainly want the best for you but I won't do more than encourage you to look into the matter...if you find what I say is true you can still say that God was very clever to do it that way...and the bottom line is the spread really worked...

Lots of justification for being too lazy to support your own claim.

Each of us can only bring our personal experience to the table...your response trys to discredit my observations if you think it has that's ok with me but all I said were truthful comment ..I think you got the attention seeking thing wrong but having reread what I said I think it would be clear if you were not being so defensive.

More of your own bs you clearly have zero intent to support. Just excuses and deflection.

I thought that was what you were suggesting hence my response...so you agree with me?

Morality can come from God, without you ever having read the Bible.

Hang on...in the story Jesus said he was not interested in changing the law and in fact was into seeing it carried out...that hardly supports this made up nonsense about a new covenant..still if you have your bible handy please link me to this new covenant thing...I was relying on the promise not to change a thing. Continued next post.

He didn't change the law, he fulfilled it. He satisfied the need for performing those tasks. There's a whole wiki on that verse, if you wanna bother. There's writings in Hebrews, for example, that said Jesus' death satisfied the need for animal sacrifice.

Oh yes even though it's there it's not and even though we don't follow that bit and that bit and that bit we accept the flood story and the bits we like...anyways put me down on the terminally simple list as the way I read it it is impossible in my view to see it any other way...I wish I had my bible here to quote the passages...do you get tired making excuses all the time?

Seems the excuse making is projection.

I like you ..just so funny.
Honestly man just look at the way you twist and turn to support the nonsense...would you not like to be above all that?

Then show me where I've twisted or turned on any point. You know, instead of conjuring it to your own naive straw men.

Dumbest possible interpretation..come now...

Since it's a complete straw man of what most actually believe, yes, yours is the dumbest possible interpretation.

Look at this if you dare.

He's just ignorant of the new covenant doctrine. Yawn.

You may find this interesting.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/as...molecules-origin-of-life.163255/#post-3638158

See, that's my point. There's faith and then there's blind faith. Faith that God exists through personal experience and blind faith that God will make everything alright or whatever. Likewise, there's faith in the methodology of science (which, believe it or not, I do have) and blind faith that science will solve all. The blind variety of each seems to require a dose of ignorance of the subject matter of that faith. People who espouse scientism never seem to see words like "may" (which means it's not fact) nor comprehend that making claims about life based on amino acids and proteins (neither of which are life) is erroneous.

You need to educate yourself on your own faith, mate. But then, that's why you're busy trying to poke holes in the faith of others. So you can feel like you've bolstered your own by comparison.

 

[Michael 345]

Go take your crusade elsewhere.

In my world he is taking up space in Iggy landfill

A place where not even the rants of the damned can be heard

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I've told you several times that it's not hearsay, since the individual has personal experience that substantiates it for themselves. I'm starting to doubt that you understand what hearsay is.

First of all let me thank you for taking your time to put together a well considered reply.

I get what you are saying I get it...I am addressing all that which is past personal experience.

Yes, after the jury has already heard it.

Actually in a small respect but one of the lawyers will object if not the judge points out the rules of evidence and tells the jury to disregard the offending testimony..the way you put it really is like you may see on tv which I presume is the limit of your experience in these matters. The fact remains hearsay evidence is not admissable and for very good reason.

You're repeated bare assertions about hearsay don't change that fact.

I think you are the one relying upon bare assertions..how are my observations of the rules of evidence bare assertions?
Do you assert that hearsay is admirable or not and if hearsay slips in that it will not be instantly corrected by the judge.

You may care to note trials by jury are not as frequent as tv suggests.

You're the one who brought up court, where testimony is evidence. You're repeated bare assertions about hearsay don't change that fact.

I ask again..what was your point?

Wow, and you learned so little through all that.

That's all you have?

At least perhaps some recognition that I gained my experience from real life and not tv as you casually suggested.

Further you have no idea of what I know as I have tried to keep it simple and not expand upon my day to day experiences wherein I had a reasonable insite as to the law, the courts and evidence...I conducted cases for goodness sake...

but you do have blind faith in science.

Well let me share with you this..I accept the Big Bang model is our best current theory however I personally think it can not reflect reality..I have no faith, rather confidence, in the inflation epock...I don't see it as science ...and personally I believe the universe is eternal reflecting that I prefer the steady state model...no the only point here is that I have stated such on many occasions and to my mind that hardly entitles you to suggest I follow the models without question...and so really not guilty of your vague crime of scientism.

My confidence in science is reasonable in that for a scientific model to be retained it must make predictions and they must deliver...religion has predictions which we call prophesy.. most vague that they are useless..but GR for example explains why Mercury is where is to a incredibly small measurement...no waffle just hard cold observable results. One can have confidence in that delivery but I still do not call it faith..faith is the acceptance without evidence..that is why it is the buzz word for theists..they sprout "I have faith" as if a virtue but when you define it..belief without evidence it hardley is a virtue..it is a cop out..pure and simple.

. I just recognize the simple facts that testimony is evidence in court and the law and science do not cover the truth of everything in human experience. The make believe is pretending they do.

Well tell me how one can sort thru the nonsense if one does not have rules to prevent folk contributing facts when all they have is a mental problem turning on delusion and confusion. Do you believe folk who claim to have been abducted by aliens? I hope not..my experience in law taught me that many are liars, many more than you would guess are delusional...I would take a statement from a client when taking initial instructions..funny how it became a different story waiting a couple of years for a hearing..the statement was real handy to remind them of the facts they presented at the start.
I think you are too casual in dismissing our law and courts..it is not like tv...it is very different.

People are not convicted because the judge knows he is guilty because he has long hair and an ear ring..and let's face it on your wishy washy approach to reality I bet you would judge a chap guilty if he was just different to you...now that is cruel but you hold such poor regard for evidence I can only guess at how casual you must be in looking at any assembly of facts.

Relatively few believe the Bible 100% literally

This is what I do not understand...it is god inspired so could we not expect something very special..you know each sentence undeniable fact, each observation wisdom that leaves you shaking your head and saying that is just profound...why why why does one have to cherry pick? Read any book on science and find one mistake..you know 2+2 =5 That sort of thing..well you may but you could spend a life time to find any mistake and you can bet the next edition fixed it..what does that whale story offer? I can't find a moral or truth..did god inspire that while drunk? There is no defence to these sort of allegations..I presume that you have never read the bible and your knowledge is from preachers or ministers picking out good bits as you would for the croud on Sunday..have you read the lot and not nodded off? Do you know that generally atheists know the bible better than believers..probably why they are atheists...all I am saying is there is little to suggest the bible is the word of God and that being the case why claim that it is..

You've yet to point out any error, aside from your own naive and literal straw men.

Slavery? Stoning an unruly child, the flood, Adam and Eve..the resurrection and the zombies running around at that time..get real.
I could list and list and still not have you conceded that there is a problem...and that is the problem..let's take the whale story..why is it included? Is it true..do you think god "inspired it"... what moral can we take from it..heck if I drank a bottle of Scott and started rambling and sprouted such nonsense you would be justified in saying..man you have lost it..but of course if I was raging drunk two thousand years ago I probably would have my very own book where folk would say how clever...look at revelations..I wish I could get that high and retain consciousness.
Give me a break..it's the book of God.. can we not expect perfection...of course we can and when we don't find it does that not entitle us to reject the lot as never the word of God...I don't know how folk can be so gullible given the available history..it is a clear case of "Nigerian letter syndrome " make the promise big enough and the mark will believe anything.

No, you just don't realize who you were brainwashed by. Scientism is an ideology

I doubt it..know anyone else who won't roll over for the Big Bang?
Does it really appear to you I accept big bang the way it is presented..does that attitude qualify me for scientism?
I think my friend..I don't buy anything..even what I believe I realise how humans convince themselves they are right...but I know one thing..if there was a god there is no evidence that he has been in touch or that he cares...in fact if there is a god I think there is a case to suggest he likes playing with his pets and seeing how they manage adversity..but the fact is no one knows or can know and speculation is just speculation...you really don't have anything to support your wishful thinking..

Lots of justification for being too lazy to support your own claim.

Let's get the support ones claim list in order..you clearly come first and if successful I won't get a look in...
Now to accuse me of lazy is not fair, I have read the bible cover to cover which I doubt you could have done..I have looked at the history pre Sun worship, then all civilizations that we know about, tried to understand what is going on..noticed how religion was dictated by environment particularly how Sun worship started and particularly how many cultures adopted human gods with Sun like attributes so as to slip into the place occupied by the Sun god...you know the Big picture..not confined to the 6000 years christianity has to roam..or rather given their new covenant the two thousand years they have limited themselves to inhabit.
My laziness is just restricted to helping you with matters that if you really gave a hoot could research yourself..you have constructed the wall of your prison it is only you who should extend your confinement.

More of your own bs you clearly have zero intent to support. Just excuses and deflection.

Do I impress you as a man who pedals BS?

Morality can come from God, without you ever having read the Bible.

How does that work?

[

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

QUOTE="Vociferous, post: 3638507, member: 287428"]He didn't change the law, he fulfilled it. He satisfied the need for performing those tasks. There's a whole wiki on that verse, if you wanna bother. There's writings in Hebrews, for example, that said Jesus' death satisfied the need for animal sacrifice.[/QUOTE]

I know how the story goes..all I could ask..if you had no idea about any of this and a show came on tv and the plot was as we have from the bible..would your first response be..change channels cause this stuff is BS..or would you watch the lot and say..wow that is just so logical so god like and I can believe all of it...don't answer you can only strengthen my points or make an idiot of yourself..but hang on that is me cutting off discussion..how do you regard the plot.. do you know the plot? You know the original sin etc..what do you know? Do you find any small concern that stops you from screaming..WTF?

Seems the excuse making is projection

You get a C minus...and will be used in am application for funding for special needs..You now make me feel guilty as it seems you are on the ropes taking damage..the ref should stop the fight before you will never fight again.

Please show me you can fight back. Do you like cage fighting..I love it when the winner gives thanks to god..and the other guy also a believer gets smashed..funny..humans are just so funny.

Then show me where I've twisted or turned on any point.

I take all of that back..I don't want to humiliate you or destroy you..I do like you even if our views are different..you are clearly intelligent and really we can all be somewhat manipulative unconsciously in presenting our side..I must remember to respect you..just because you are wrong that is no reason for me to disrespect you..I can't lead you to enlightenment if I dont respect you now can I...you show promise that you can be saved..that gives me hope.

, yes, yours is the dumbest possible interpretation

So you don't think I have anything to offer? I just have the problem of getting past square one..you see when you are dumb like me you need little basics like some sort of evidence for god..now being dumb I guess I just miss it..and given there must be lots of dumb folk in the world one wonders if god is real and important etc that we could not see something..anything..oh I know he kills thousands of people and saves one so we understand what miracles are made of but really a personal appearance would be terrific...and JC..here he is promising to the croud to be back in their life times and a no show, obviously for reasons mere humans won't know..but if only JC or god or the holly spirit..did I get them all in..no forgot Mary...heck send a few saints maybe..
[
QUOTE="Vociferous, post: 3638507, member: 287428"]He's just ignorant of the new covenant doctrine.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely that's how he came over to me..knew nothing..still that's heaps more than all Christians..what BS you guys just can't see it...dream on.

People who espouse scientism never seem to see words like "may" (which means it's not fact) nor comprehend that making claims about life based on amino acids and proteins (neither of which are life) is erroneous.

I am looking for places we can agree..there are those on both sides who are followers and unable to think.
As to the start of life I really don't know..but I think it is just a chemical progression...to be fair the call is we don't have the answers yet..but that does not mean you can quote an ancient book and say you have the answer and until we create life in the lab science in some respects is no closer..but no doubt in our life time life will be created in the lab...and if it's not that does not mean the modeling clay story wins..you do see that..don't you?

You need to educate yourself on your own faith, mate. But then, that's why you're busy trying to poke holes in the faith of others. So you can feel like you've bolstered your own by comparison.

That is unkind. First I don't have faith in anything second I look at humans before me and learn not to be stupid enough to think you or me have the answers..I don't have any answers but it gets to me that folk like you or those with scientism think that they actually know..really what will be known five thousand years from now..we can't even speculate.
Alex