Choosing a faith

With evolution you can go back thousands of years which provides a physical record of our physical evolution. You can speculate that altruism grew along with the evolutionary process without any external input but it isn't science. OK, if you like the idea of a god meme is an add, on which you can say is unnecessary, but in reality you can't even know that. It is belief, and if you start from the atheistic position then of course there is no question, and if someone doesn't agree they must be not too bright. However, if you start from a theistic position it makes sense.

Just how is it that expressing my belief is a lie. I'm lying when saying what it is I believe. I'm not sure what you even mean by creationist. The term usually applies to someone who reads Genesis as being a literal account of Genesis, which as you should know I don't.At any rate. I DO NOT LIE and I have no idea why you would bother replying to me if you believe that I am lying and I'm not interested in corresponding with someone who calls me a liar.
Cheers

quote:

---

With evolution you can go back thousands of years which provides a physical record of our physical evolution. You can speculate that altruism grew along with the evolutionary process without any external input but it isn't science.

---

Again, that is not what I’m talking about. So you are only demonstrating - again - that you have a problem with the idea.
I would also add that not assuming an external input without evidence is exactly what science DOES do.

quote:

---

OK, if you like the idea of a god meme is an add, on which you can say is unnecessary, but in reality you can't even know that

---

A “god meme” would just be the idea of a god. I think we can reasonably say that worker bees lack any such idea - or even the capability to have any such idea. Clearly it is unnecessary for them.

quote:

---

It is belief, and if you start from the atheistic position then of course there is no question, and if someone doesn't agree they must be not too bright.

---

There you go with the persecution complex. I have never suggested that you “aren’t too bright”. I do point out that you have a habit of making obviously false claims, as you are doing now.

quote:

---

However, if you start from a theistic position it makes sense.

---

If desperately clutching at straws with no regard for intellectually honesty “makes sense” for theists, then I am glad not to be a theist.

Because it's an established fact for over a hundred years now, that ALL life here evolved by a natural process, science makes the assumption that all the attributes of life evolved by natural processes too. It would be bad science to excluded a single attribute without evidence just because a particular religious group hopes that it was supernatural.In order to change that orthodoxy you have to provide evidence not just say "I believe that..." So I suggest that you get on with it - scientifically.I wish you'd at least try to understand the no equivalence argument. It's a constant error. It's not reasonable to say that because science can't prove god didn't do it then it's as least equally possible that he did. In fact, given the evidence for natural processes and the lack of evidence of the supernatural a reasonable person would rule it out entirely. That is a total corruption of science and the scientific method. Where a person starts from should have no baring on the conclusions reached - if you're following the evidence not your belief.Of course 'where a person stands affects what a person can see' and no-one is without bias. That's why we have a scientific method; it means that you have to show your workings so that everyone working in the field you're reporting on can pull it to pieces. It's a savage process, positively Darwinian - only the fittest theories survive.

That is only true for a Biblical literalists. Christian scholars over the last few decades have greatly advanced their knowledge of the first century language, the first century world in general, have had a great deal more material to work with such as the dead sea scrolls, and have far better access to all the new information because of the internet. In addition, as in the world of science, all of those researching their fields are now able to know what the others in the field are doing and learning.The church is a very different institution than it was 50 years ago. I recently read a book titled In Stone and Story - - Early Christianity in the Roman World. The author had access to all of the discoveries resulting from the clearing away of the desecration done by Vesuvius in Pompeii. Actually it was more interesting as an account of life in the Roman sphere, than the impact on the early church but just the same it is an example of the type of material that is now available to Christian scholars. I don't believe I do that. The disagreement comes from the different positions that we hold about there being an external consciousness that is responsible for and connected somehow with our world. If there is, the answer will not be scientific. That gets back to the point of why I started this thread. It isn't about what we name the our god but the nature of the such a deity. I venture to say that there are many Christians out there that worship a different god than I do even though we both name our deity God. It is the same for members of the Islamic faith although all name their deity Allah. I know people that are atheist or agnostic who are more Christ like than some Christians I know.I see that as being consistent with the Gospels. In what we have of what Jesus said shows that there were only two people that Jesus said had great faith. One was a Roman centurion in Matthew 8 and the other was a Canaanite woman in Matthew 15. Both of these were outsiders and not of the Jewish faith. Even the parable of the Good Samaritan uses an example of someone who was essentially considered to be non-Jewish.
​

No professional can let religion get in the way of his/her professionalism.

Yeah, that's what creationists always say - they don't have enough faith to accept reality. But they do have enough faith to believe that fantasies trump reality.

You have no way of knowing the nature of any so-called deity.Some gods allegedly have books written about them - by humans, usually anonymously. In your case it's the two Testaments; one of which you say is mostly myth the other open to interpretation.That's all you have. All of which just shows how contradictory your position is. And yet... ... we then we get the apologetics to make it fit what you personally want to believe. But if it doesn't convince other Christians, how is it supposed to convince an atheist? Yeh, well, whatever. I can't regard your book as evidence of anything except someone wrote something once. It all comes down to early indoctrination and/or revelation. You believe in your interpretation of the book, all your other arguments are just post hoc rationalisations.Believe what you want to believe, but don't try to pretend any of it is rational and can be validated by science's discoveries.It can't and it will get even less so over time.
​

You are again trying to argue as if our views are on an equal footing. They are not. Our views have evidence, yours do not. AZPaul3 says "warm and fuzzies" because you have no evidence for what you believe but accept it because it feels good. Your assertion that we don't want to acknowledge a greater intelligence is yet another claim you have no evidence for. You're actually just casting aspersions at us for not accepting baseless claims. But rejecting baseless claims is exactly what people should do. Forming one's views around evidence is the pinnacle of rational thought.One more thing about not acknowledging an intelligence greater than our own. While I was working I encountered geniuses regularly. I had no problem acknowledging they were a lot smarter than me. I suspect everyone else here also has no problem admitting we're not the greatest intelligence in existence. Any kind of thought, philosophical or otherwise, can provide insights. Einstein gained insights by imagining traveling on a light beam, but relativity was not accepted until Eddington detected the bending of Mercury's light. You're at the equivalent of Einstein's imagination stage, which means you got nothin'. When you get to the equivalent of Eddington's evidence stage then you've got something. This is the lip service you always give. The reality is that you do not agree, which we know because you keep arguing that you do too have evidence. You put qualifiers on it, like "philosophical evidence," and after that you seem to believe that since you've used the word "evidence" that your evidence is just as valid as scientific evidence. It is not as good. It isn't even evidence at all.Please stop saying you agree you have no evidence, because it isn't true. Your answer is orthogonal to AZPaul3's comment. He was only saying that things that actually happen leave evidence behind. Responding, "But it doesn't address 'why' questions," is irrelevant.Science does, of course, answer "why" questions, but only when they're actually "how did this happen" type questions,. Science does not answer true "why" questions, like "Why are we here?" Krauss's quote of the age old question, "Why is there something instead of nothing?" is actually the question, "How did it come about that there is something instead of nothing?" I don't think you know what you're agreeing with. AZPaul3 expressed the shorthand form of, "Looking for evidence of something and not finding it is evidence." For example, if you look for evidence that a live elephant is in your garage and don't find any, then that is evidence that there is no elephant in your garage.But let's say you never go into to your garage and look around for an elephant. There would be a lack of evidence that there is an elephant in your garage, but since you never sought such evidence it definitely would not be evidence that there is no elephant in your garage. Capisce? I think you accidentally put an extra negative in there, because removing the two negatives makes this, "I am denying that what you say is true," which isn't the sense I think you intended. There is an absence of evidence of anything beyond the universe in which we live. Wherever he is, God gives off no light, has no gravity, makes no sound, carries out no actions. He resides in the realm of the spiritual along with ghosts, goblins, sprites, angels, spirits and demons, for which there is an equal amount of evidence.--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Typo.

Edited by Percy, : Typo again.

I agree that you do not lie and that you are not a liar. But I also think there is nothing in your philosophy that recognizes that the easiest person to fool is yourself (Richard Feynman).--Percy

If we offer the Bible into evidence then the theistic position is internally inconsistent and contradictory (there's a reason they're called apologists) and externally fantastical and wrong.--Percy

When you study the nature of your God, you will really be studying your own nature.

Starting to sound more and more like design all the time. The thing is though that if there is no consciousness or intelligence greater than human consciousness or intelligence, it kinda does make us gods as ultimately fundamental morality has to come from somewhere. I don't know how you got that out of what I've posted but that isn't my view at all. Maybe you can define it another way but I equate atheism to materialism, so how could they deny his rules?I would ad that the only rule is to love others which includes being good stewards of all of creation.

Not at all. IMHO science should be agnostic. When I look at things like evolution it does point towards the idea that it is evolving towards something which would mean that there likely is some long term point to existence, which is suggestive of a designer. Posters here see morality as evolving within the mind and developed with in a culture which is what I meant be it being naturally infectious.

Comenius is found in the Golden Rule. It is the theology that we seem to have trouble finding agreement on. IMHO the only timeless rule is the rule of love and as Jesus says in the Gospels. He says that it is the basis for all the laws and the prophets.