lfbno7's tags:
lfbno7's most popular posts:
lfbno7 reads (140):
Who's reading lfbno7 (138):

Evolutionism is nonsense

lfbno7 posted on Jun 05, 2007 | views: 1096 | Tags: evolution, atheism, god, religion, intelligent design, philosophy, backwards reasoning, agnosticism
The new religion for today's intelligentsia is evolutionism, the belief that there is no intelligence behind life in the universe, that it all happened by a series of accidents and mutations.  That is complete nonsense.  Life was designed.

I like to watch nature shows on tv.  But they make me cringe whenever they use the word "evolved", which they do very often.  They hit you over the head with their idiot religion of evolutionism the way religious zealots hit you over the head with theirs, or the way scientologists hit you over the head with theirs.

According to them, the lion evolved its teeth, presumably from an amoeba or a little bacteria.  Good trick.  How do you do that?  Personally I would like to evolve some more hair on my head.

They say that evolutionism is explainable, though it seems impossible, because of the huge amounts of time involved, the millions or even billions of years.  I'll tell you what.  I will give you four amoebas, three parameciums, and eleven bacterias.  I will sit here and wait for three billion years while you somehow magically turn any of them into your Aunt Tilly.

In three billion years, your original amoeba will evolve into a more complicated amoeba. It won't even evolve into a frog.  It sure won't evolve into a dinosaur.  That is absolute idiocy.

Do the evolutionists admit that they themselves have intelligence?  If so, why do they deny intelligence to whatever is responsible for life on Earth?  If intelligence exists at all in  the universe, which I sometimes doubt when I watch the news on tv or read a history book, why insist that whatever force is responsible for life on Earth possesses no intelligence?  Why must it be an accident?  I don't believe in accidents.

You might say that accidents definitely do happen.  Look at car accidents.  But I'm saying that even car accidents aren't accidents.  At what point do you keep calling it an accident?  Ten minutes before the car hits the telephone pole, you can call it an unforeseen accident.  But one half of a second before it hits the telephone pole, you can't call it an accident anymore.  It is going 75 miles per hour and it is heading straight for the pole, the breaks are shot, and the driver is drunk and talking on a cell phone.  Is it now an unforeseen and surprising event when the car hits the pole?  That's no accident.  The word "accident" can only refer to an event so far in the future that it can't YET be predicted.  It's more a question of our inability to foresee the inevitable, or a question of something not yet being inevitable, but soon to become inevitable.  There are no accidents.

Evolution means gradual change.  It does not mean creation of a new species.  Lions don't evolve teeth and claws.  Lions are designed with them.  Survival of the fittest is a natural law that explains why some species go extinct and other thrive in a particular location.  Evolution explains why a species becomes gradually bigger, or gradually smaller, or changes its dominant color to suit its environment.  Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of a brand new species.  Mutation my foot.  The human eye doesn't just happen by accident, evolving out of a blind amoeba.  What transparent nonsense that is.


send to a friend del.icio.us Digg reddit StumbleUpon

Comments

  • bloc said on Jun 05, 2007....
    there are many flaws in your rant.

    "The new religion for today's intelligentsia is evolutionism, the belief that there is no intelligence behind life in the universe, that it all happened by a series of accidents and mutations. "

    This is a strawman. Many people believe in evolution and believe in a creator. Why can't a creator have created evolution?

    "In three billion years, your original amoeba will evolve into a more complicated amoeba. It won't even evolve into a frog.  It sure won't evolve into a dinosaur.  That is absolute idiocy."

    Making up things is not a convincing argument.

    "Do the evolutionists admit that they themselves have intelligence?  If so, why do they deny intelligence to whatever is responsible for life on Earth?"

    You argue that life on earth is so complex that the only explanation is a creator. This creator is more complex than the earth so surely it too must have a creator, right? Please tell me why the one requires a creator (the earth) but the creator itself does not require yet another creator!
  • kelly said on Jun 05, 2007....
    Just as you won't learn much about religion in a science classroom you won't learn much about evolution in church.  Why not consider reading up on the science before your next post?  I highly recommend Richard Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker."  It's a terrific explanation of evolution.
  • lfbno7 said on Jun 06, 2007....
    To bloc,

    Your first statement, that I set up a strawman, is incorrect.  Of course there are people who believe in a creator and in evolution, but the belief I am objecting to is that there is no creator, there is only evolution, that evolution gave the tiger its teeth and claws.

    Your next statement "making up things is not a convincing argument" again misses the point.  My point is clearly stated, that amoebas do not evolve into dinosaurs, as the evolutionists claim.  The evolutionists claim that all living things evolved out of the tiny one celled creatures that first appeared in the seas.

    Your final point is also empty.  I have no idea whether the creator requires another creator.  That is beyond the scope of my blog.

    To kelly,

    I've read a lot about the science.  I do a lot of reading.  I read Angels Apes and Victorians, the story of Charles Darwin, who did believe in a creator.  I'm familiar with Richard Dawkins as well.  I've probably read more science books than you have.  I like to read physics books.  I'm unimpressed with Dawkins.  He makes unsupported statements.

    In any event, to both of you and any other readers, I'm not here to make enemies and I hope I haven't made enemies of you.  I'm just here to express my ideas.  I'd rather make friends than enemies.
  • bloc said on Jun 06, 2007....
    "Your final point is also empty.  I have no idea whether the creator requires another creator.  That is beyond the scope of my blog."

    cop out and a clear and GIANT flaw in your argument. Why does earth require a creator? If you say that it's because of the complexity then surely you have to explain why a more complex entity, the creator itself, does not also require a creator.

    "Your first statement, that I set up a strawman, is incorrect.  Of course there are people who believe in a creator and in evolution, but the belief I am objecting to is that there is no creator, there is only evolution, that evolution gave the tiger its teeth and claws."

    It is a strawman and you just restated it. You are trying to claim that evolution didn't happen. Why couldn't it have happened by the hands of a creator? Why can't an amoeba evolve into a tiger with the guidance of a creator? If it can then can't evolution be true?
  • Antimatter said on Jun 06, 2007....

    Evolution is the most established theory in all of biology. It’s a simple and elegant explanation for the complexity and diversity we observe in life today. Like the design argument, evolution attempts to explain the improbability of our existence, and it does so using many gradual (and plausible) steps. It also happens to be well supported by evidence from an increasing number of scientific disciplines.

    The design argument, on the other hand, makes no attempt to explain that same data, does not generate new questions for further scientific study, and relies entirely upon an even more complex designer. Those who use the design argument must dodge questions about the origin of that designer, or the flaw in their explanation of improbability becomes readily apparent: a designer is always at least as improbable as its creations.

  • lfbno7 said on Jun 06, 2007....
    oh yeah?
  • bloc said on Jun 06, 2007....
    Everyone, come listen to my flawless logic. The world is so amazing and complex that it could only be created by design. I mean, look at the human eye. That can't come from nothing, it can only come from a creator so complex that we can't understand it.


    small print: the complexity of the creator does not require it's own creator even though I just argued that less complex things require a creator because of their complexity.
  • kelly said on Jun 07, 2007....
    "I've probably read more science books than you have."

    I doubt it, but OK.

    "I'm unimpressed with Dawkins.  He makes unsupported statements."

    I really doubt that one.
  • anonymous said on Jun 08, 2007....
    We all begin from 23 chromosomes from a mother's ovum and 23 chromosomes from the father's sperm and you don't believe in evolution? We go through many biological changes in the mother's womb before being born as infants and hopefully grow to be intelligent adults. Our bodies are changing daily, 20,000 cells dying and being regenerated every minute; meaning, we don't go to bed with the same body that we woke up with in the morning. Whenever a person makes a statement that "I believe this thing or that," automatically shuts the mind from other possibilities as well as personal growth. We are all born rather stupid, and it takes time and experience to develop a minimal amout of intelligence to be able to walk across the street safely--without accident. Are there accidents? Of course, that's why they are called accidents. Are they predetermined? Maybe, but they are beyond the consciousness of most people, and why they surpise us either positively or negatively, ask Geo. W. Bush and the victums of the Indonesian tsunami. Life is complex and mysterious; that's what makes it worth living.
  • CalmDown said on Jun 11, 2007....
    Ifbno7: Evolution is a tough one to deny, and explain away. You don't honestly believe that man walked with dinosaurs, and that humans aren't at least remotely related to primates , do you?
      I am with you on intelligent design, we don't know enough to dismiss the possibility of a creator. Our scientific knowledge is comparable to a drop in the Atlantic. until we know  way more, how can anyone absolutely, dismiss the possibility of an intelligent design? 
  • Antimatter said on Jun 11, 2007....

    On the contrary, we know enough about biology to conclude that an intelligent force was not required to create the diversity of life on our planet. We know enough about the formation of the first replicators to conclude that intelligent forces were probably not required to start life, given the immense size of our universe. (After all, it only had to happen once.)

    The jury is still out on the laws of physics. Obviously, we have some difficulty examining the circumstances that resulted in the formation of our own universe. The physical constants certainly appear well-suited for sustaining life in this universe, but there are good arguments both for and against a cosmic dial-turner. We’re here asking these questions, so obviously the constants must have been well-tuned for life.

  • CalmDown said on Jun 12, 2007....
    Antimatter: I was not and would not argue that the elements and circumstances required to create the universe and life, were not well suited. I believe that things were optimal.
      But, that does not disprove  intelligent design! Did someone/something have a hand in the creation of the universe? Or the creation of whatever led to the events that created the universe? How do we know that our entire universe and beyond, our very existence, is not part of an experiment, accident, or deliberate plan of a vastly superior being/beings? This is what I mean by humans lacking enormous amounts of information. How can anyone close the book and declare "It's evolution" or "It was the big bang" when we are not even close to scratching the surface. It's like reading the first 3 words in War and Peace and claiming that you know the story. 
  • bloc said on Jun 12, 2007....
    @calm
    I think the people that "close the book" are the ones that say "god did it, and that's all I care to know about it".
  • Antimatter said on Jun 13, 2007....
    Like bloc mentioned, it’s worth pointing out that the people still asking questions are the scientists. Their theories produce more questions, not fewer.
  • CalmDown said on Jun 13, 2007....
    I'm satisfied, as long as people are still asking questions and not ruling out possibilities. It's when many, many atheists; close their minds, hide behind the little bit of knowledge that scientists have accumulated, and use fanatical religious zealots as a basis for shutting down further thought. Basically putting a period after no creator, no intelligent design, that raises my suspicion as to whether atheism is simply a counter-religion. Not being able to imagine, past what you already know is not science.    
  • bloc said on Jun 13, 2007....
    i'm not an atheist :)
  • Antimatter said on Jun 13, 2007....

    If there was a designer, we must be careful to not rely on a “God of the gaps” argument. Many advocates of intelligent design are eager to find uncertainties in scientific theories only to declare that “a miracle happened there.” That strategy is dangerous! The clear historical trend is that eventually science will fill in those gaps. We must demand more rigorous reasoning than “we don’t know how else this might have happened.” How did God do it? At which point did he perform a miracle? Which forces did he use to assemble the pieces? What predictions could we make about future discoveries to validate the theory? These are all questions that a scientist might ask in response to a design theory.

    Though I’m an atheist now, I was not always. Thus, I’m clearly not close-minded. :}

  • CalmDown said on Jun 13, 2007....
     Fair enough! I would never expect anyone, especially an atheist to substitute missing pieces of life's puzzle with supernatural tales. And, for those of you that still don't get it: You can be an atheist and still believe that intelligent design is a possibility.  (not  fact,  not  belief)  possibility.
  • truthsayer said on Jun 15, 2007....

    Hi ladies and gentlemen:

    With all due respect.  I take exception to a few comments.

    This statement made by anonymous, is incorrect:

    Whenever a person makes a statement that "I believe this thing or that," automatically shuts the mind from other possibilities as well as personal growth.

    Belief is common to all thinking-information-processing-feeling-humans.  I believe in keeping an open mind.  I believe this because I know that closed systems die. 

    And this statement made by anonymous, is incorrect:

    We are all born rather stupid, and it takes time and experience to develop a minimal amout of intelligence...

    Quite the contrary is true.  Infants are brilliant!  They learn at a rate that you and I can only wish we could still learn.  We actually get 'dumber' as we grow older.  We learn slower, retain less and are able to integrate, or formulate 'new' ideas at a slower rate.  Thank God we can increase in wisdom though ; )  You may be confusing intelligence with a measurement of current factual data that we call, IQ.  It has nothing to do with brilliance, or genius of course.  In fact, if you want your child to be proficient in a foreign language, you need to get them started before age nine, I think it is.  After that age, it is so much harder for us to learn another language...and it gets harder and harder as we get older and older!

    Interesting discussion folks.

    Thanks,

    truthsayer 

  • truthsayer said on Jun 15, 2007....
    bloc, I am surprised at you.  Being that you are a student of Eastern philosophy, what about the Tao?  Or are you strictly a student of selective, or certain selected forms of Eastern philosophy?  Otherwise, if you know about the Tao, you really owe it to your readers to own up to it, and stop using this Creator needs a creator argument : )
     
    truthsayer
  • truthsayer said on Jun 15, 2007....
    Antimatter:
     
    So you are still 'open' to the possibility that God IS, and that it may be, that you do not fully understand him yet?  I ask because you said, Though I’m an atheist now, I was not always. Thus, I’m clearly not close-minded. :} 
     
    truthsayer
  • truthsayer said on Jun 15, 2007....
    Also bloc, I am wondering when an analogy became a 'strawman' or reduced to 'making things up'?  Remember, you are water...or does Eastern philosophy get set aside when you are defending your position?  Is Eastern philosophy logical then?  It has been a while since I have studied Buddhism (in any of its myriad forms) or the Tao Te Ching; but I don't remember reading any Eastern philosophers that claim to be adherants to evolution. 
     
    I am not saying this tongue in cheek either, I am asking how you reconcile your Eastern religious leanings with the theory of evolution.  Like reincarnation, for instance.  Have you had any trouble reconciling that belief with the theory of evolution?
     
    truthsayer
     
    truthsayer
  • bloc said on Jun 15, 2007....
    @truth
    but the tao doesn't make arguments for intelligent design ;)

    What I'm saying is this. If we accept, for the sake of argument, the idea that the complexity of life requires a creator then we must ask why the more complex creator doesn't also require a creator.

    I don't accept the premise, but I'm using it to refute the conclusion that supposedly follows.
  • truthsayer said on Jun 15, 2007....
    BTW & FYI, to anyone interested: 
     
    In 1977 (I think that's the year), the Supreme Court says that Atheism is a religion.  So forgive them if some of them are a little more evangelical than you would prefer ; )  They truly are passionate about their beliefs and some will even fight you for converts...but don't take it personally, unless you can take it as a compliment : )
     
    truthsayer
  • truthsayer said on Jun 15, 2007....
    So then bloc, you do not know The Tao?  The Tao is self existent and self sufficient. I wasn't referring to intelligent design theory.  I was referring to your comment that the Creator needs a creator.  Before everything, the Tao was, and always will be...self existent, self sufficient.
     
    truthsayer 
  • bloc said on Jun 15, 2007....
    we're talking past each other. I know the tao, I'm simply taking the concepts put forth by some intelligent design proponents and using it to refute their argument. I'm not agreeing to those mental conceptions :)
  • truthsayer said on Jun 15, 2007....
    Then enlighten them to the Tao.  Tell them the truth about it.  Their is nothing wrong with their logic.  A Creator doesn't have to have a creator.  God can be self existent and self sufficient.  Tell them that, based upon what you know of the Tao. 
     
    You of all people then, should be able to understand the argument that there can be a first cause.  I don't think we were completely 'talking past each other', I think we just hit a snag in your counter-logic ; )
     
    Aren't 'cha glad I'm back?  : D
     
    your little sling-shot buddy,
     
    truthsayer
  • bloc said on Jun 15, 2007....
    I agree with you, but I think we may draw different conclusions. First the word god can mean very different things to different people. For the moment I'm going to use the term in the Christian sense, an anthropomorphic God that cares about the outcome of football games ;)

    If we accept the premise that god can be self existent and self sufficient then we immediately invalidate the argument that complexity requires a creator. This is my main point in this thread. You can't argue that god can be self existent, but that the universe can't be based on an argument of complexity requiring a creator.

    It is nice to have you back :)
  • lfbno7 said on Jun 17, 2007....
    I just love the post I wrote.  This was one of my best.

    My favorite comments are the ones by Calm Down.  They hit the nail right on the head.  There are other good ones here too.

    I totally oppose the idea of a God who cares about the outcome of football games.  Baseball, that's something else.  God distracted the Red Sox when Mookie Wilson hit that ball.  God sits in a recliner waving a Yankee pennant.

    And remember, from my post Bugs Bunny is God, thou shalt not watch Disney cartoons if thou knowest what is good for thee.  Beware, you silly fools, Hell is a hot place to live.  So stay on God's good side.
  • Antimatter said on Jun 17, 2007....

    truthsayer, like any rational person I remain “open” to the possibility that I might be wrong. However, I do not believe there is a God that I may someday “fully understand.” Only clear empirical evidence is likely to convince me otherwise.

    And begging your pardon, but the Supreme Court of the United States is not an authority on atheism or religion. Atheism is religious only in the sense that it makes a claim that directly contradicts religions. Atheists do not have temples, ceremonies, clerics, priests, or formal tenets like all the religions in the world.

  • Trinov said on Jun 26, 2007....
    To me there is so much evidence of The Creator in everything that I see that it makes no sense to me that anyone else is not seeing it. And that is besides my personal and tribal relationship to Him. But anyone who is convinced by the religion of Darwin, should go to the website of Cremo, Forbidden Archeology and see what some archeologists have to say about Darwinism. My prediction: 30 years from now, nobody with half a brain will still be believing in random evolution, which in my mind demands much more blind belief than intelligent design.
  • Antimatter said on Jun 26, 2007....

    Trinov, I’m not convinced your perspective is unrelated to your religious associations. I encourage you to itemize all the evidence you see for a Creator. Such an ambitious topic probably deserves a new blog entry, as that exact argument as eluded apologists and philosophers for centuries.

    The Theory of Evolution is the most influential and established concept in modern science (excluding physics) and forms the cornerstone of modern medicine and biology. It is here to stay. To describe evolution as “random” only demonstrates your unfamiliarity; the theory does not describe a random process.

  • Trinov said on Jun 26, 2007....
    I was reading about evolution as a child, those were the books available, and it seemed so stupid to me, but as a child I said maybe I'm not educated enough to dispute all these adults. But now I've been reading about these subjects for over 50 years and all the academics in the world typing for a million years-- with or without the monkeys typing Shakespear-- could not convince me of their non stupidity. Take a look at the website of Forbidden Archeology if you have the courage. [I went to one of the Seven Sister colleges, and I am not a hick my child, so being condensending to someone of my age and education doesn't get you anywhere. As they said in The Hobbit: don't try to teach your grandma to suck eggs. Influential and established means just that it is popular now. So was the flat earth, so was hanging seven year olds for theft (up until the present century in England)] so was abusing women in childbirth up until the 1990's -ever see a nurses textbook ?, so many influential and established things turn out to be so much crap. Influential and established, boy am I impressed. Influential and established, Influential and established etc.
  • Antimatter said on Jun 26, 2007....

    I’m sorry if I came across as condescending. You made the claim that a Creator is obvious, and I’m genuinely interested in seeing your specific reasons, as there are none obvious to me. “Influential and established” does not mean “popupar” in the context of the sciences. Creationism is analogous to the examples of popular trends you listed.

    Don’t pull the age and education cards on me, please. You have no idea what my age is, nor where I attended school. Both are totally irrelevant to the discussion unless your academic credentials are in the biological sciences.

  • Trinov said on Jun 27, 2007....
    To antimatter: one: go into Cremo's website if you have any real curiosity. two: I had an uncle who never finished his BS in chemistry because he was told that a Jew could not get a job in that field -1930's. He worked alone, and had dozens of patents to his name,and was hired by companies( with PH'ds on their payroll) to be a consultant on certain issues from time to time. I'm not impressed by academic credentials or public opinion. I'm only impressed by truth, and truth I have found is often the victim of fads. Age has taught me that fads pass, many things I was taught as the whole truth have faded away, with a whimper.three: Go into my second blog on intelligent design if you are truly interested. There may be more, but I don't intend on going into lists of facts, sometimes all you need is one fact to crack the box. It's true I have no idea of your degrees but your use of 'influential and established' would have gotten you only laughter in my circles, that would have been considered a logical fallacy --not a proof of anything, so I assumed that you come from a far less critical age and have been in fewer arguments than I have. What my college gave me was not what they necessarily wanted to give me, what I took away with me is that I don't take any authority at face value, or any degree, only what they can teach me or not teach me. Truth is what I value, not authority since in this world it is much abused.
  • Antimatter said on Jun 27, 2007....

    Trinov, my claim that evolution was “influential and established” was in response to your similarly laughable prediction that “30 years from now, nobody with half a brain will still be believing in random evolution.” Do you see me implying that you have “half a brain?” That you come from a “less critical age?” Or perhaps some other ad hominem fallacy? No. Please do not accuse me of poor debate tactics before reviewing your own material.

    Scientists are equally skeptical of authority. Evolution is “established” not because a majority of scientists accept the theory, but because a century of data from diverse disciplines all converge to support the theory. The theory works brilliantly at explaining the data and predicting future discoveries. That’s where your Cremo website falls short. It’s one thing to point out the hoaxes that have emerged (and there have been several, but scientists are just as quick to happily refute them), but for any scientist to take the site seriously, it must present an alternative theory that makes successful predictions and better explains a century of data from astronomy, physics, biochemistry, geology, biology, paleontology, anthropology, and medicine.

  • truthsayer said on Jun 27, 2007....
    With all due respect AntiMatter, have you ever spent much time in academia?
     
    You said, '“Influential and established” does not mean “popupar” in the context of the sciences."  Ahhh, but it does.  At least that is what we knew and talked about in Arts and Sciences Hall...it has ever so much to do with popularity and getting the academia 'masses' to support you and your research.  It is a joke in academia...accepted as one of the necessary evils of academia. 
     
    If you look critically at evolution, there are many problems.  You are right though, it is of course, other scientists that question, and they must question it.  The parts of evolution, or Darwinism, that just don't hold water, need to be addressed and replaced with something that is true, effective, efficient and workable.  The fossil record does not support the argument, and Darwin himself said this.  He even saw it as a weakness. 
     
    We also know that there has never been an instance, in all of history, where something inanimate has 'come alive'.  Yet, we persist in this notion, as humans that just don't understand.  See, to me, Antimatter, that is like a story that someone made up, to explain something they didn't understand...it cannot ever be proven "logically" you see ; ) 
     
    We just keep guessing, or we try to envision what might have happened 'in the beginning'.  Evolution, for me, is full of vain imaginings.  For you, the thing that I see as truth, has become a story to you.  A fable.  A myth.  The truth (to me) has become falsehood (to you)...and the truth (to you) I now see as riddled with falsehood.  Since I became unwilling to be deceived anymore, I realize that so much of what has been accepted as 'truth' is merely the fact-of-the-day, and facts do change daily, as knowledge increases. 
     
    You should recognize this entire paragraph as being from the Word of God.  You were warned that this would happen in the world...if you were an evangelical Christian, and you were well versed in the Word.  I do not speak down to you here either, so don't get your feathers ruffled.  There are many, many, many professing Christians in the world that are not well studied in the Word of God.  In fact, I think I can safely say that would include the Jewish people as well. 
     
    Many people that believe in God, do not read, study, or meditate upon, the Word of God.  Relatively few really devote themselves to knowing it, and fewer still to understanding it, and fewer still that are willing to implement it, and integrate it into every cell and corner of their lives.  So, I only mention this because your conversion seems to be so radical, if you were totally immersed in The Word, as you say.  If someone betrayed you, or was a hypocrit towards you, I can only offer my sincere apologies as a believer.  Of course, I do hope that you don't take my apology as something to deride.  I am sincere, if nothing else.
     
    I would leave you with one parting thought:  It only takes one goose to lead the whole flock in the wrong direction.  That was the word of caution, a seed that my mentor at university placed in me.  It is a truth and a caution to us humans, who are so group-think oriented....I sincerly hope and trust that God is in charge, because left to our own devices...like The Lord of the Flies...well, enough said ; )
     
    truthsayer
     
       
  • truthsayer said on Jun 27, 2007....
    Thanks for reviving this blog AntiMatter and Trinov.  It was interesting when I first read it, and it is still "evolving" in an interesting, but Divine way ; )
  • kelly said on Jun 28, 2007....
    Some random observations:

    "It is a truth and a caution to us humans, who are so group-think oriented"

    Yes, but who is engaging in the group-think here?  For the record, some experiments done a long time ago showed that it is possible for amino acids to form with nothing more than sea water, the minerals it contains and some lightning strikes.  Of course, this isn't life itself but it is a necessary building block of it, which is very fascinating.  

    "facts do change daily, as knowledge increases. "

    Perhaps you meant that our interpretation of facts changes daily.  Not the facts themselves.

    "With all due respect AntiMatter, have you ever spent much time in academia?"

    I'd say he sounds as if he has spent quite a bit of time in academia.  Antimatter has never suggested I believe something he said just because he said so.  He uses evidence and logical thinking to support his claims.

    "Since I became unwilling to be deceived anymore..."

    Me neither.  That's why I'm now an atheist.  :-)

    "The parts of evolution, or Darwinism, that just don't hold water, need to be addressed and replaced with something that is true, effective, efficient and workable."

    Which parts of evolution don't hold water?  Have you listed them here previously?  I'm sorry if I missed it.  And if any parts don't stand up to scrutiny are we to replace them with magical thinking?  Is that more effective, efficient and workable?
  • Antimatter said on Jun 28, 2007....

    Thank you for your reply, Truthsayer. You bring up some interesting points. I must leave for work soon, but let me quickly address some of them.

    “If you look critically at evolution, there are many problems.”

    Of course there are many problems with Evolution. There will always be more questions as the detail of our understanding increase. These hotly debated topics should not be confused as major problems. Evolution happened. Scientists only disagree on the details.

    “The fossil record does not support the argument, and Darwin himself said this. He even saw it as a weakness.”

    The fossil record supports the theory of evolution brilliantly. Darwin predicted that we would find simpler forms of life the further back we looked, and this is exactly what we have found in the century since. One unexplained mammal fossil found in the Cambrian layer of the geological column would present a serious problem to the Theory of Evolution. We have found none. Not one.

    Darwin did lament over the lack of transitional fossils in the fossil record. The lack of samples is to be expected, because fossilization is actually a very rare occurrence, and exploration of the geological column was still premature in Darwin’s day. We have since discovered several dozen good examples of transitional fossils, hoaxes aside.

    “We also know that there has never been an instance, in all of history, where something inanimate has 'come alive'.”

    Strictly speaking, this is not part of the Theory of Evolution. Nevertheless, I’ll entertain the objection, as it does relate to the need for a Creator and is a popular target of “God of the gaps” arguments.

    Ambiogenesis is a gap in our current understanding of life’s origins. As Kelly pointed out, we have discovered natural sources for some of the key molecules of life. The random assembly of the simplest replicator is currently left to probability. Given the immense size of the Universe and the number of planets probably similar to Earth, the chances of life starting someplace are not unreasonable. It only had to happen once to get Evolution started.

    “Since I became unwilling to be deceived anymore, I realize that so much of what has been accepted as 'truth' is merely the fact-of-the-day, and facts do change daily, as knowledge increases.”

    Are you aware of how much science has changed the creation stories people tell? :} I’d much rather go with “fact-of-the-day” among scrutinizing scientists than the “fact-of-the-day” among religious masses who value blind faith and unquestioned obedience of religious leaders. Like Kelly said, I’m unwilling to be deceived anymore, which is why I’m not a creationist.

    “Many people that believe in God, do not read, study, or meditate upon, the Word of God. Relatively few really devote themselves to knowing it, and fewer still to understanding it, and fewer still that are willing to implement it, and integrate it into every cell and corner of their lives.”

    I’m convinced today that if more Christians actually read their Bibles and thought about the implications of integrating it into every corner of their lives, we’d have a lot fewer Christians.

  • truthsayer said on Jun 28, 2007....
    Wow kelly.  I haven't seen you for a really long time.  How odd to see you now, in this old conversation ; )  A tendency towards group-think, kelly, is universal to all humans.  Not any particular group kiddo.
     
    As to the 'building blocks of life', it is true that we see all the building blocks of life.  One only has to look at the periodic table of elements to see that.  But I will refrain from the obvious, that there has never been a tower built from those blocks, without a tower-builder ; )
     
    Instead, I will remind you of a medical procedure used in invitro fertilization.  This is one of my favorite mysteries: 
     
    The sperm and the egg are placed in the petri dish.  If there is fertilization, there is a spark, a visible light that is produced.  If there is no spark, there is no fertilization. 
     
    I am not interested, at this time, in whether or not fertilization happens.  I am interested in the spark that scientists cannot explain.  It baffles them.  Now, for those of us intrigued by quantum physics, and can apply it to their faith, or let it illuminate their faith, (as silver once said he might be interested in seeing ; )
     
    ...that light is an expression of a power that science cannot understand.  It is not the spark of life, but why is there a spark of life sometimes, and not others?  They have no idea.  Perhaps they leave that question to philosophers.  But they do know that they cannot cause that spark to happen.
     
    Curiously, you said, on behalf of AntiMatter:
     
    I'd say he sounds as if he has spent quite a bit of time in academia.  Antimatter has never suggested I believe something he said just because he said so.  He uses evidence and logical thinking to support his claims.
     
    I already know about your claims of mental and intellectual superiority over all Christians, kelly.  However, I asked AntiMatter a question, and I asked it politely; based on my experience working at a university.  I would prefer to hear his/her answer, if you don't mind.  Unless you speak for AntiMatter in a way that I just don't fully understand yet. : )
     
    Then you said, "That's why I'm now an atheist.  :-)" 
     
    So you too, kelly, like AntiMatter, are a former Christian?  Or deist?
     
    Parting words kelly:
     
    To me, with an understanding of the Bible and my faith, you are the one engaged in magical thinking.  If you cannot see this, that we each see the other one as being engaged in magical thinking...then you will never be able to discuss this in any way that will ever effect any of the changes you so desire my friend. 
     
    You will only be able to prey on the weak in faith, with your vitriol speech.  You may be able to spread seeds of doubt with them, but you will never 'win them' to anything lasting.  Anger breeds anger.  Hate breeds hate. 
     
    If you cannot love me kelly, you will never ever be able to show me the truth of anything my friend.  And that is probably the difference between where you are, and where I am.  I love you.  I have told you that before.  I love my enemies as well as my friends.  Although I do not see you as an enemy kelly...far from it.
     
    Your think-buddy,
     
    truthsayer
     
     
  • truthsayer said on Jun 28, 2007....
    I'll respond to you, probably later tonight, AntiMatter.  It is dinnertime here.  Hope you had a good day at work. 
     
    Later,
     
    truthsayer
  • bloc said on Jun 28, 2007....
    "...that light is an expression of a power that science cannot understand. "
    This seems to be a large logical leap. 

    btw, i didn't read any vitriol from kelly.
  • Antimatter said on Jun 28, 2007....
    “As to the 'building blocks of life', it is true that we see all the building blocks of life.  One only has to look at the periodic table of elements to see that.”

    Kelly was referring to amino acids, the basic building blocks of proteins and the foundation of biochemistry. These molecules are a bit more complicated than elements on the periodic table, and it was not clear until now whether these molecules were naturally occurring.


    “But I will refrain from the obvious, that there has never been a tower built from those blocks, without a tower-builder ; )”

    There are actually many examples of complex structures occurring naturally. Mountains, for example, do not require a mountain builder. Hurricanes do not require a hurricane builder. Likewise with crystals, solar systems, and stars. All of these structures have accepted natural explanations and emerge naturally from disorder with input from an external energy source.


    “The sperm and the egg are placed in the petri dish.  If there is fertilization, there is a spark, a visible light that is produced.  If there is no spark, there is no fertilization.”

    Would you mind providing a citation for that? I’ve never heard it before, and my attempts at googling the topic have failed. :}


    “To me, with an understanding of the Bible and my faith, you are the one engaged in magical thinking ... you will only be able to prey on the weak in faith, with your vitriol speech.”

    Ouch. I don’t understand how Kelly is engaged in “magical thinking” by any definition, and I don’t see any vitriol from Kelly. Perhaps you should be asking yourself, if you really love Kelly, would it be best to tell him that after you accuse him of spewing hatred? Or would that communicate self-righteousness?
  • truthsayer said on Jul 02, 2007....
    Bloc and Antimatter:
     
    I am referring to kelly's constant references to his intellectually superior attitude toward all Christians, and, over all people that believe in a Creator...and just about every single God-fearing person, that has ever attempted to have a conversation with him about morality, government, or science.  Those are the only ones I remember.  That and his often referring to God as the flying green spaghetti monster ; )  Or something like that. 
     
    It is as if he, and many others that enter into these discussions don't want people that believe in a Creator to have opinions or even perspectives about government, morality, or science...that might differ from his own.  I don't see him calling any nonbelievers his intellectual inferiors, as a rule.  It is a common argument used by athiests, evolutionists, and even some agnostics, however flawed it clearly is.
     
    I believe he is pretty angry about Christianity.  He has told me himself that he sees us as a threat to him, his way of life and his government.  That real threat, certainly is not coming from me.  He can keep speaking as he has, and I defend his right to think and say whatever he wants to.  I am telling him this in love.  Out of respect for him.  I think he has some real things he would like to say, and using the same old argument is, well, it's just getting old.  One can have an IQ of 200 or more, and choose to believe in a Creator.  It has nothing to do with IQ.  One can have an IQ of 200 or more, and reject evolution as well.  Or evolution as it is accepted today.  It has nothing to do with intellect.
     
    I have had a few conversation with kelly that you are not privvy to.  One in particular stands out to me.  He was very thoughtful and interesting in that conversation, and I really appreciated it.  Maybe it is just that part of me that doesn't like to see people picked on.  I don't let my children say things that put down the others' intellect, I don't stand for it at church (from youth, or adults) either.  I am not in charge of other adults (like I am my children), but, I do gravitate towards defending quieter folks (not just Christians), or people that may not stand up for themselves...I believe in kindness and empowering people.  That is my morality, and I have a right to it.  I also have a right to agree with Trinov, although Trinov is perfectly capable of standing up for him/herself.
     
    I do not think it helps kelly to treat Christians, or anyone that believes in a Creator, badly.  It doesn't make him smarter, and it doesn't help him to appear smarter.  This tendency to oversimplify the heartfelt beliefs and the accepted mindset of another.  It is bad, all the way around.  Kelly is passionate about his cause and I respect that about him.  So am I, and so are many other people, that may not feel like they can put their thoughts to words...on both sides of the faith war. 
     
    So, when you speak to Christians and others that believe in the Creator, if you want them to listen to you, if you really care about having a respectful discussion with them (perhaps you:  kelly, bloc, Antimatter, or others, do not want a meaningful discussion...your choice...but don't act like you do : ) Then drop the rude comments, sarcasm and references to their intellectual inferiority, ok? 
     
    Example?  People like Dawkins are often rejected even by other athiests and agnostics because he is so obviously vitriol towards Christians and Christianity.  I read reviews by a peer group that said as much.  I know that you like him Antimatter, and kelly too...I am sorry for that, but it is your choice.  I just hope you don't begin adopting his communication style, unless you believe that you too are intellectually 'set apart' from the weak intellects of Christians.  I say that tongue in cheek, I pray : )  Because the world is full of Christians that refuse to go out into all the world ; ) thereby never having any positive spiritual influence over anyone, as far as their faith is concerned.  I don't like that 'superior attitude' in the church anymore than I do 'in the world'.   
     
    I didn't hand kelly a tract and start praying in tongues over him.  I was talking about science.  Sometimes I am talking about our government, or morality.  I have a brain and a mind, and I am a Christian.  I have the same rights that kelly has.  I do not believe in a green spaghetti monster in the sky ; )  And although that particular comment has been used in other blogs, and not this one, it is intended to insult.  I am pretty imperturbable.  But I am not the only one reading the blogs.
     
    I have been pretty much offline since Friday.  I will google that SPARK for you Antimatter, and the scientist's own comments (for bloc).  But it was a documentary.  We usually watch Discovery.  It was within the last two to three years I believe.  I will do my best to oblige Antimatter.
     
    Also, from what I have read about the current status of the theory of evolution:  It is molecular biologists and geneticists that have the most problems with the theory...and they seem to be working towards understanding what can be done about it as well.  Synthetic Theory of Evolution emerged from such scientists.  Also, brain development (in addition to reproduction) has been an area of concern.  All of these things usually have to do with our understanding of TIME, however....which is minimal at best.  Perhaps a good look at quantum physics is in order : )
     
    There are both natural laws and there are probabilities, right? 
     
    "Science illuminates my faith,
    my faith illuminates science."
    I like that...truthsayer : )  
  • bloc said on Jul 02, 2007....
    "So, when you speak to Christians and others that believe in the Creator, if you want them to listen to you, if you really care about having a respectful discussion with them (perhaps you: kelly, bloc, Antimatter, or others, do not want a meaningful discussion...your choice...but don't act like you do : ) Then drop the rude comments, sarcasm and references to their intellectual inferiority, ok? "

    I get far more condescension from believers than I give. Well, let me rephrase that. I can be extremely condescending to people once I realize they do not want a real discussion. I think it may be a mistake to look at things Kelly or I have said to people other than you. Our tone may be a result of our history with that person or persons.

    Back to my first point. I've received far to many "maybe one day you'll understand, I pity you for not basking in the glory of god, you just don't get it, etc, etc" comments from believers on this site. Many of these people will say this and not address any of my points that I would like to discuss. 
  • Antimatter said on Jul 02, 2007....
    Truthsayer, I encourage you to actually read Dawkin's God Delusion if you believe his handling of religion is vitriol. I honestly did not think it was. (Hitchens's God Is Not Great, on the other hand...) Dawkins actually complains a great deal about the special "respect" we grant towards religious belief. We avoid criticizing doctrine in fear of offending the demographics that believe them.

    For example, consider Mormons. They believe that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from golden plates. He performed the translation by placing seeing stones in a hat and covering his face to block out the light. When held over the plates, the stones revealed the English translation to Smith. The plates revealed that Jesus had visited the Americas after his ascension.

    All of us (except the Mormons among us) know Mormonism sounds silly. If the belief were held by only a few dozen people in a rural area, we would call it a cult. We might have committed Smith if he lived in modern times. So why don't we say that? Why shouldn't we be just as critical of religious beliefs as we might be towards a political viewpoint or scientific theory? Perhaps because we fear how silly our own beliefs might appear when similarly examined.

    I don't believe Dawkins has been offensive at all. If anything, he was too honest. I'm convinced that religious people are simply too sensitive and don't want to consider alternatives.
  • kelly said on Jul 04, 2007....
    Truth, my first problem with all these conversations is your assertion that morality only comes from a religious perspective.  As an atheist who thinks constantly about the effects my actions may have on others I find this particularly objectionable.  If moral behavior truly depended on religious thought or the belief in a creator we would live in a fabulous world, as so many of its inhabitants attend church on a regular basis and believe that the earth and universe was created about 10,000 years ago.

    My second problem with these conversations is the fact that there is an attempt at logical argument, which is just not possible when you ask someone to believe in a supernatural being with absolutely no proof.  If you really wanted to win this debate you would say "I believe there is a god.  I know it isn't logical or provable but I choose to believe it anyway."  I would have absolutely no response for that.  What you choose to believe is what you choose to believe.

    Now, as to your perceived vitriol on my part, I think you are projecting.  To be fair, I do have a fair amount of frustration built up towards religious zealots who are attempting to corrupt the idea of scientific thought by teaching creationism as "just another theory" in classrooms, but  as long as religion keeps its nose out of my life I'm happy to let it be.

    Here's why I love Richard Dawkins.  For once it's a great relief to have a spokesman to champion the kind of thinking that I admire.  He's brilliant and clear and for someone like me who isn't quite so brilliantly expressive there is a tendency to want to shout out "YES!" when I hear him speak because it is such a cathartic experience.

    So, in the end I reserve the right to be as comfortably vocal about atheism as religious people are comfortably vocal about theism.  Atheism is not a bad word and atheists are not deprived in any way.
  • truthsayer said on Jul 05, 2007....
    Hi Bloc:
     
    You said, "I get far more condescension from believers than I give. Well, let me rephrase that. I can be extremely condescending to people once I realize they do not want a real discussion. I think it may be a mistake to look at things Kelly or I have said to people other than you. Our tone may be a result of our history with that person or persons.

    Back to my first point. I've received far to many "maybe one day you'll understand, I pity you for not basking in the glory of god, you just don't get it, etc, etc" comments from believers on this site. Many of these people will say this and not address any of my points that I would like to discuss.
     
    These are valid points and comments bloc.  I have done my best to be respectful and care about you.  When you and I come to an impasse, I just say so.  I know that you respect that.  But I am kind of a communication freak though ; )  Not everyone has the patience or the interest in going that extra mile. 
     
    I am not even blaming "them" though.  I don't think all Christians, or many Christians, are equipped for that kind of thing.  I am afraid, in a sense, you might be stuck with me, and others kinda-like-me ; ) here in soulcast. 
     
    People of faith are only given the measure of faith that God knows they can handle.  They are called to witness (by their lives, or their words) to folks that they are called to witness to.  I have been called to witness, or be a witness, to people like you...that have not had satisfactory experiences, as far as getting their heartfelt questions answered. 
     
    I know that I cannot persuade you of anything really.  I trust you to do your own search, and decision making.  I can only share what it is that I really have to share with you...from my experiences, studies, etc.  I happen to have had a very diverse background, so, I can hold my own within certain parameters.  God knows what I can handle and what I cannot. 
     
    When things got bitter, or what I experienced as vitriol in soulcast, I thought about leaving.  I prayed.  I asked God for direction...because I thought my time here was finished.  I have been moved around a lot ; ) and may have gotten a little too used to it : )  Anyway, He immediately sent someone to me, out of the 'blue' that had my answer...they didn't even know the question, but they had the answer : )
     
    So, I stayed.  And I am glad I did.  I hope we will always stay 'friends', whether we share this little cyber-space or not.  I have learned a lot from our discussions.  I would share that with you sometime, if you wanted to know.  You just cannot afford to generalize from a people group, about the Creator, or Jesus, when it comes to spiritual matters.  Everyone is different, all at different points in their development and their growth, and you, like all of us who dare to know the Truth, simply must 'go direct to the Source'.  But none of us can do that, without humbling ourselves first.  That is a very personal thing.  Concurrently, we must acknowledge a need. 
     
    Short of that bloc...I am sorry for anyone that has mistreated you because of your doubt or unbelief.  If all Christians were unafraid, they would admit that they have been there too.  We just aren't very well trained.  We are working on it though : )
     
    Blessings,
     
    truthsayer 
     
     
  • bloc said on Jul 05, 2007....
    I'm very glad you stayed. You are one of my favorite soulcasters, especially when we can discuss a subject and not the people behind the keyboards. 
  • truthsayer said on Jul 05, 2007....
    Hi Antimatter:
     
    You said a few things here that I would like to respond to, one at a time.
     
    You said:
     
    If the belief were held by only a few dozen people in a rural area, we would call it a cult. We might have committed Smith if he lived in modern times. So why don't we say that?
     
    For several reasons.  I am trained to look at myself.  Judge myself.  I only get involved in a situation if I feel that someone is getting hurt, damaged, etc.
     
    There are good ways to intervene and there are bad ways too.  There are also tons of things in our culture today that qualify as cults.  So that we aren't sidetracked here, I won't go into them.  But the word cult has a definition, yes, but far more things would 'fit' into that definition than either you or I could ever discuss.  For Christians, we are told to be compassionate too.  This is part of my faith, my instructions for life in Christ.  Most Mormons don't even know the example you mentioned.  And I have compassion for everyone that is deceived, misguided, misinformed, etc...that includes non-religious people as well.  In fact, I would go so far to say that if you do not, or cannot have compassion for all of the people that you perceive as being deceived, then chances are, you do not have the truth in you.  Or, even if you do have the truth, if you have not love...well, you know how that goes.
     
    You said:
     
    Why shouldn't we be just as critical of religious beliefs as we might be towards a political viewpoint or scientific theory? Perhaps because we fear how silly our own beliefs might appear when similarly examined.
     
    To this I can only say:  Maybe, but, maybe not!  I knew a professor in our department.  He was brilliant (he was quick to point this out himself ; ) and everyone in the department knew it.  No one denied it.  But he was like what the Bible calls a clanging cymbol or sounding brass. 
     
    His research, for me, was sort of, 'tainted.'  It is hard for me to explain.  I guess it wasn't 'tainted' so much as it just didn't carry as much weight with me.  I read his books.  They were true.  He wrote the textbook on small group communication.  He was 'the best'.  But you put him up next to, say, an Elton Carter, and I can tell you hands down which one I'll read...does that make any sense to you?  
     
    There are a lot of 'facts' out there, lots of things that are accurate, but when we get down to which one of those men cared more about the truth, communicating, people, and 'the world' in general....you don't have to guess which one has my vote.  He was a pretty nice guy too, so don't get me wrong.  His wife was really sweet.  I figured maybe he was real different, one on one, so to speak : )
     
    Anyway, I believe in being critical of my own beliefs, my own understanding, not the understanding of others.  I believe in humility as well.  When it comes to beliefs, we cannot afford to be critical of another's beliefs, only our own.  IMHO. 
     
    That includes academia too.  I had one professor while I was an undergrad, that was so linear, I quite simply couldn't understand him AT ALL.  Conversely, I was so abstract, that he quite simply couldn't understand me AT ALL.  It took the department chair to mediate this situation.  Thank God he did.  Otherwise, we might have each judged, or been critical of the other one's intellect, understanding, or even our perceptions.  
     
    He and I could have easily fallen into that trap:  And it is a trap Antimatter.  We laughed about it later.  But we didn't get into any deep life altering discussions from there on out ; )
    Lastly, you said:

     
    I don't believe Dawkins has been offensive at all. If anything, he was too honest. I'm convinced that religious people are simply too sensitive and don't want to consider alternatives.
     
    With all due respect Antimatter...just because you are convinced of it, doesn't make it true ; )  I thought about reading his book, and that's why I did my research.  I read many exerpts of it, but my reading time is precious to me.  I have to use discernment in proportion to the time I spend on a book.  I am sitting here looking at about four that I still haven't read since April, that were given to me and that I cannot wait to read ; ) 
     
    My research (my opinion, remember ; ) didn't prove to me that he was time worthy.  I did not like his attitude at all.  I think anytime anyone challenges the intellect of another, because they don't understand, what "I understand', that it speaks very poorly of that person.  I kind of grew weary of the 'intellectual superiority argument'.  Hence, why I asked about your experience with professors and academia in general.
     
    So, convinced or not Antimatter, not all people can entertain your questions because they do not have the answers that you require.  They only know their understanding of their faith.  Not their faith, according to your standards.  By the way, there is no such thing as being 'too honest'...but there are people, believers and nonbelievers alike, that are just plain mean-spirited. 
     
    I am no stranger to evolution.  I am no stranger to Aristotelian thinking.  I am no stranger to academia, research standards, peer reviews, etc.  But, that doesn't mean that I cannot have faith in my Creator.  It certainly doesn't mean that because I don't (if I didn't) believe in a Creator, that the Creator doesn't exist : )  That would be vanity, wouldn't it? ; )
     
    I will keep an eye out for a summary of Dawkin's research though.  I just think the guy is out to lunch (my opinion) as far as his style, and that alone, makes me question his motives.  There are deceived and there are little-deceivers, you know?  I am sure you can understand that...at least, from your own perspective, on the other side of the fence.
     
    Thanks for the thoughtful discussion Antimatter.  
     
    truthsayer 
  • truthsayer said on Jul 05, 2007....
    kelly, you are last for my comments tonight, but certainly not least.  I really feel what you are saying here, and because of that, I want to respond as thoughtfully to you.  Maybe you and I can sort some of this out, if you want to.  If you don't, I understand that too.  I think you can understand why calling the God that I know, believe in, and have experienced; a flying-green-spaghetti-monster, is just not conducive to thinking people working anything out ; )
     
    I don't waste my time with such nonsense either : )
     
    Now, as to your comments, I know that you feel so strongly about them, that I hesitate to say anything to you at all my friend.  I noticed that you didn't say anything about having been a practicing Christian at one time.  But I still want to apologize for any of my brothers or sisters, or even the posers that might have disrespected you at such a fundamental level as to have created a barrier, that neither one of us could possibly cross.
     
    Ok, that said.  Let me take this one thing at a time.
     
    I do not claim, nor have I ever claimed that only Christians, or religious people have morals.  I have said, and this comes even from ancient philosophers that were pagans, that morality in general comes originally, from a belief in a, or several ; ) higher powers. 
     
    Until some of the more recent philosophers, for instance the ones touting humanism (which is relatively new on the philosophy scene) said that they believed in a morality that was completely independent of anything other than themselves. 
     
    Darwin's own theory as far as 'survival of the fittest' is put into question when you discuss morality as being a natural human attribute.  But that is far too complex for this discussion.  I do not suggest that you are amoral kelly.  Far from it.  That is why I appeal to your 'higher self' which I believe can do better than green-spaghetti-monsters.  Ok?  Please tell me if you understand what I am saying.
     
    Don't get me started on parallel universes kelly : )  Let's let the 'perfect world' scenario go for now, shall we?
     
    I wish I could oblige you too, and say that my belief in the Creator is completely illogical.  If I just wanted to shut you up, I suppose I could go that route.  But that isn't my intent, and I can't, or won't lie to you...even if you would be more comfortable with that, than my truth.  Sorry man, I love you too much to lie to you.
     
    I have told you this several times too kelly:  Vitriolic speech denegrates the intelligence of another.  I think that is simple.  So, no, I am not projecting.  I have never, ever insulted your intelligence.  I don't think I have ever insulted the intelligence of anyone on soulcast.  I may discuss the information we have all been given, but not your ability, or anyone's ability to understand it.  We can be sharp as tacks but given the wrong information, and our conclusions will only be as good as the information and our willingness to understand it...at least on some level.  We are all created differently too.  Just because one person isn't comfortable discussing one topic, doesn't mean they don't have a wealth of information or understanding about another topic. 
     
    Ay, but this is the rub kelly:
     
    You said, "but  as long as religion keeps its nose out of my life I'm happy to let it be. "   This isn't going to happen kelly.  I won't come lay hands on you, or start praying in tongues over you...but this country was founded on faith and religious principles, and the formerly unchallenged view that we (Christians) can be kept out of the government, the courts, the newspapers, or, your hallowed 'science', just isn't going to happen kelly.  We have been remiss for far too long. 
     
    Enough of us are awakened now, and we are speaking the truth, our Truth, whether you like it, or want us to, or not.  Neither you, Dawkins, or anyone else is going to tell me what I can or cannot talk about anymore.  We are not 'lap dog' Christians anymore...'everyone should have one (((patting the head))), they are so simple, they are cute.'  (Gosh I hope you see the humor in my words here kelly ; ) 
     
    The classrooms belong to Christian children too...Christian money spends at tax time just like yours do : )  So, you are going to have to find a way of being happy even with us speaking our minds in this country, just like we defend your right to free speech.  In fact, if you don't defend my right to free speech, my freedom to express my religion and my free exercise of my religion, then you don't even understand the country you live in.  You cannot possibly have respect for this nation's ideals.  You are free to choose to express yourself as an athiest...I am free to choose to express myself as a Christian.  You cannot have your freedom here, unless I too have mine.  I could go deeper into the constitutional issues, but not here, not now.  Let's just see if you defend my rights or, if you prefer to force your morality on me.
     
    I am really happy that you have found your voice in Richard Dawkins kelly.  Everybody deserves to be understood. 
     
    Peace man.
     
    truthsayer
     
     
  • truthsayer said on Jul 05, 2007....
    Here here bloc.  Now, I really have to go ; )  but I had to say 'thanks'.  You are one of my favorite people too.  Don't expect me not to comment to certain denegrating comments however.  Ok?  I think that was a very productive exchange.  It worked for me.  : ) I am not sulking or hiding, or gloating.  I just spoke my mind/heart about some issues near and dear to me, just like kelly did.
     
    Love you guys.  Gotta go!
     
    truthsayer
  • Antimatter said on Jul 09, 2007....
    Thank you for taking the time to reply, Truthsayer, but I fear you missed my point. You objected, “Most Mormons don't even know the example you mentioned.” My argument wasn't that Mormonism in particular sounds odd, it was that all religions sound strange to an outsider. As Dawkins argues, we’ve been conditioned to give religious belief more respect than we afford any other belief. The story of Christ’s virgin birth, atonement, resurrection, and bodily ascension into space sounds just as silly to those outside Christianity as Joseph Smith sounds to those outside Mormonism. Allow me to quote Hitchens as he reviews some implications of atonement in God Is Not Great:

    “Let us just for now overlook all the contradictions between the tellers of the original story and assume that it is basically true. What are the further implications? They are not as reassuring as they look at first sight. For a start, and in order to gain the benefit of this wondrous offer, I have to accept that I am responsible for the flogging and mocking and crucifixion, in which I had no say and no part, and agree that every time I decline this responsibility, or that I sin in word or deed, I am intensifying the agony of it. Furthermore, I am required to believe that the agony was necessary in order to compensate for an earlier crime in which I also had no part, the sin of Adam. It is useless to object that Adam seems to have been created with insatiable discontent and curiosity and then forbidden to slake it: all this was settled long before even Jesus himself was born. Thus my own guilt in the matter is deemed ‘original’ and inescapable. However, I am still granted free will with which to reject the offer of vicarious redemption. Should I exercise this choice, however, I face an eternity of torture much more awful than anything endured at Calvary, or anything threatened to those who first heard the Ten Commandments.

    “The tale is made no easier to follow by the necessary realization that Jesus both wished and needed to die and came to Jerusalem at Passover in order to do so, and that all who took part in his murder were unknowingly doing god’s will, and fulfilling ancient prophecies. (Absent the gnostic version, this makes it hopelessly odd that Judas, who allegedly performed the strangely redundant act of identifying a very well-known preacher to those who had been hunting for him, should suffer such opprobrium. Without him, there could have been no ‘Good Friday,’ as the Christians naively call it even when they are not in a vengeful mood.)”

    You replied, “I am trained to look at myself. Judge myself. I only get involved in a situation if I feel that someone is getting hurt.” Allow me to express my confusion at your subsequent reply to Kelly, “we are speaking the truth, our Truth, whether you like it, or want us to, or not.” As Kelly said, you are free to believe in any Creator you wish. Yet religious people are relentless in their desire to teach their beliefs to other people’s children. This is why I feel compelled to step in and risk being rude.

    You replied to Kelly that you have never insulted the intelligence of anyone on SoulCast. If I may be so bold as to point out some of the things you said to me in your prior comment. You implied that I was vain to believe that my disbelief vanquished the Creator, that I was a “clanging cymbal or sounding brass” who judged others and lacked humility. You also suggested that I was not compassionate to Mormons, and that my attitude somehow demonstrated that I lacked “truth” or “love” in me. Surely you can see your own veiled (and, because I like to give the benefit of a doubt, probably unintentional) insults. I don't claim to be perfect, and I realize I come off as rude, but like Kelly, it is only out of frustration, not malice.

    I must also object to some of your other points in response to Kelly. This country was not founded on “faith and religious principles” but by deists who authored a secular Constitution in the spirit of The Enlightenment. On Kelly’s alleged attempts to “force morality” and deny your ability to express yourself, you are entitled to say anything you wish as a private citizen, and nobody here is suggesting that we ought to remove that right. Private Christian schools may teach whatever curriculum they desire. However, the concept of “free speech” does not extend to those acting under the employ of the government in a public service, such as public education.

    Thank you again for the dialog, Truthsayer. We could no doubt spawn these comments into several interesting new posts.
  • truthsayer said on Jul 09, 2007....
    Hi AM:
     
    No, I don't think you are rude.  But I rarely choose to take 'things' and conversations, personally though.  So, let's see where we are here, ok? 
     
    I apologize to our host...this could quite possibly be my longest post.  Sorry about that.  We are having a thunderstorm here...so I am not editing, as I usually do.  : (
     
    First, you pretty much made my point for me, again; when you said that "all religions sound strange to an outsider."  I am just expanding your point to include that your positions, and kelly's positions, and Dawkins positions sound equally strange to a believer.  I don't think that is hard to see at all.  But then, I am a trained mediator.  I have to be able to see both sides of an issue.  I guess, since you are a former believer, I assumed that you too could see both sides, thus, I expanded your point.  But, anyway, rest assured, I get your point.  I have also been quite honest about my bias at this time of my life...as I believe you have honestly exposed your bias.  Can we at least agree upon that? 
     
    Take this section next:
     
    You replied, “I am trained to look at myself. Judge myself. I only get involved in a situation if I feel that someone is getting hurt.” Allow me to express my confusion at your subsequent reply to Kelly, “we are speaking the truth, our Truth, whether you like it, or want us to, or not.” As Kelly said, you are free to believe in any Creator you wish. Yet religious people are relentless in their desire to teach their beliefs to other people’s children. This is why I feel compelled to step in and risk being rude.
     
    Two points:
     
    I do believe in my Creator.  Thanks!  I also told kelly that he, of course, isn't obligated to believe in my/his/any Creator.  Right?
     
    And, for a very long time now, humanists and other athiests, etc; have been relentless in their desire to teach their beliefs to other people's children...even, and perhaps especially, Christian and Jewish children...at least here in America.
     
     Would you like references, quotes and proof?  I am a teacher.  I have a lot of proof.  Decades and decades of proof.  So, like I said to kelly, and now to you...go ahead and hold beliefs different from mine.  I believe in healthy debate and discussions.  I believe in this nation and the principles and intentions of the founding fathers.  I will always support your right to disagree with me...you can even disagree with the founding fathers...but don't rewrite history please. 
     
    Next point:
     
    I said that if I pretended that my belief in anything, made it real, I would be vain, etc.  My belief in something doesn't change the existence of something...anything.  People used to believe in idols...they existed, but without power.  Does evolution only exist if you believe in it?  My son loves The Matrix, but I hope that isn't what we are discussing ; )  So, I gotta admit, you lost me here.  I hate it when people try to say that things exist only if they understand them.  If that is what you are saying now, then we will just have to agree to disagree.  Ok?
     
     
    Again, you said (re:Mormonism, and examining our spiritual or religious beliefs):  We might have committed Smith if he lived in modern times. So why don't we say that?
      
    I didn't say that you had a lack of compassion for Mormons...I said that we all need to have compassion for each other...our different walks in life, different influences, etc. 
     
    Then, I said this:
     
    And I have compassion for everyone that is deceived, misguided, misinformed, etc...that includes non-religious people as well.  In fact, I would go so far to say that if you do not, or cannot have compassion for all of the people that you perceive as being deceived, then chances are, you do not have the truth in you.  Or, even if you do have the truth, if you have not love...well, you know how that goes.  
     
    And I stand by that.  If you don't feel for people that you believe are deceived, then I hold that my statement above is true.  If all a person can feel is contempt, ire, anger, impatience, or even fear...then, I don't see how that person can say that they are compassionate people.  If they are only compassionate to people that agree with them...how is that anything unusual or extraordinary?  Compassion is an extraordinary thing, don't you think?  Much more complicated than anger, for instance.  Compassion is something that is considered a great human virtue isn't an easy thing for everyone; it takes heart.  You know?   
     
    I didn't take your comments as being rude, and I am not sure that you and I are able to discuss this like we thought...because you took statements I carefully made about myself, as a fellow human being, with my knowledge of human communication, and I openly stated my bias as a Christian...I even said that I believe that you and kelly and even Dawkins, are as passionate about your own beliefs...I am not sure what else I can do to acknowledge your "side".  I didn't insult your intelligence with discussions of compassion, tolerance, or being loving and truthful...did I?  And I don't think anyone is claiming to be perfect here.  Just humans with different belief systems.  Isn't that okay? 
     
    Does everyone have to believe the same to be on the planet?  I think that's kind of silly, and unrealistic to boot.  I think the world is full of all sorts of intelligent people, and yet, they all believe so differently...is that wrong?  Does that make certain ones smart, and other ones stupid?  I can look up statistics for what percentage of the world believe in a Creator...whatever they call him/her/it...and I daresay that you had better not go around saying that 85%, or that even 50% of the people on the planet are unintelligent.  Are you understanding my point now?
     
    But I understand your frustration AM.  I really do.  I don't know how many more times I can say that to you before you accept that I mean it.  I can empathize.
     
    As to the last paragraph, I understand what you have been taught in school.  I disagree as to the veracity of the textbooks you were taught from.  Telling an intentional partial truth is called lying.  I am not suggesting that you are lying, only that you have been lied to.  The last paragraph is incorrect, and it is provable.  In order to understand this, you would have to go back to study the intentions and the personal and public writings of the founding fathers.  That truly is another blog altogether.  I have written a few.  I have posted many links to the sources.  Public schools in this nation, until the 1940's had Bible classes.  The Bible was the required curriculum of the founding father's.  Of course, I don't suggest that you take my word for it, but if you are truly interested, I will post another link; because I do recommend that you do your own research through the thousands upon thousands of original documents on file at WallBuilders.com
     
    The concept of FREE SPEECH does extend to everyone...at least it used to ; )  The misunderstood and now twisted concept now known as "Separation of Church and State" was intended for an entirely different purpose than its current perversion, using it against Christians and Christianity.
     
    As long as humanists and athiests want to keep Christians and Christianity out of government, schools, and public places...they are most certainly trying to force their morality on us.  This is a very complicated matter AM, it is best not to trivialize it in any way.  Especially without proper understanding of the input of this system we call America. 
     
    I am sorry that we have come to this in America...but we have.  And the only way it will be sorted out is with a great deal of compassion, understanding, patience and perseverance.
     
    At least, that is my humble opinion.
     
    Over and out.
     
    Peace fellow think babies.
     
    truthsayer    
     
     
  • Antimatter said on Jul 10, 2007....

    Thanks for braving the thunderstorm to give us your reply, Truthsayer. I think it's important at this juncture to draw a clear distinction between secularism and atheism, because I think there may be some confusion on that point. On the matter of public policy, most atheists (and many Christians) are secularists. When we fight to keep religious indoctrination out of our public schools, we are not advocating the teaching of atheism as the alternative. We don't want atheism taught in public schools any more than we want Christianity taught (except in the context of a comparative religion course, of course). Schools should be equipping children with the rational tools required to critically evaluate religious beliefs, not presenting one as fact.

    I glanced through the wallbuilders.com site that you provided, and I must say I disagree wholeheartedly. The site has a clearly stated agenda and picks quotes out of their historical context. This nation was not built on Biblical values, and that much should be apparent after any cursory glance through the Bible. Even if we ignore the God-sanctioned genocide, subjugation, blood sacrifice, demeaning of women, disintegration of families, and authoritarianism, the most cited example of Christian morals, the ten commandments, has very little resemblance to the laws in the United States. Only three of the commandments are reflected in US law: murder, theft, and false witness. (Furthermore, none of the commandments are particularly novel or interesting, even when Genesis was written.) Our Constitution does not derive from any religious source and does not reference religion at all outside the first amendment. The Declaration of Independence references only a deistic “Creator” God who set the “Laws of Nature.” Our egalitarian-striving, capitalistic, and secular republic resembles the principles of The Enlightenment far more than they resemble any Christian morals.

  • truthsayer said on Jul 10, 2007....
    Well, Antimatter, first of all, I must say that we are truly at a