Choosing a faith

quote:

---

OK, lets's say that morality evolved in the way your paper describes. Isn't it reasonable to ask why it evolved at all.

---

No, it wouldn’t be. Because the answer is there. Pretending that is isn’t is not reasonable.

quote:

---

It doesn't fit with Darwin's theory of the survival of the fittest.

---

Oh yes it does. You’ve been told that often enough. You’ve had years to learn about it or discuss it and instead you choose not to, and keep to your wilfully ignorant opinion. And you pretend it’s all about the truth.

quote:

---

fittest. It doesn't account for why or even how the first seed of thought that became morality occurred.

---

I’d disagree with that.

quote:

---

It doesn't account for the the vast range of human morality we can observe or for the ongoing individual struggles we have with our own moral behaviour.

---

And it shouldn’t. That gets into psychology and history, and culture.

quote:

---

It doesn't account for the the vast range of human morality we can observe or for the ongoing individual struggles we have with our own moral behaviour.

---

Not really. Not if you actually care about the truth. The “answers” of theism often aren’t. I’ll take atheism and an honest interest in discovering the truth over the smug self-worship you indulge in any day, I don’t think my conscience would let me have it any other way,

quote:

---

Smug self worship? Who does this?

---

GDR was doing it right there.

quote:

---

..and just how did I do that

---

You know you could look up my reply to you and actually see it.We could start with the fact that you are making false objections to an idea you have been misrepresenting for over a decade, and never bothered to understand.

quote:

---

Your method of debating is calling someone ignorant, snug etc.

---

And that is a lie, I guess you’re still angry that I noticed that you aren’t really concerned with the truth at all.

quote:

---

That doesn't really make much of a point.

---

And what point does your lying make?

quote:

---

Not really. I actually start with the belief in a theistic deity because that makes a great deal more sense to me that does a wholly materialistic world.
​

---

Given the lengths you go to to maintain that belief it seems that even you really know it isn’t true.Does it really make sense to you to dismiss ideas you refuse to understand by inventing imaginary “problems”. Does that really show any interest in the truth? Because that is exactly what you have done in this thread.

quote:

---

The only evidence I have ever heard is that they know it couldn't happen because it can't happen, and that they see people dying all the time and they aren't resurrected. What other evidence have you got?

---

Well that isn’t true either. I pointed out major inconsistencies in the Gospel appearance stories and you dismissed them as insignificant details. As if stuff like Pentecost (or Luke’s version of it) is the sort of thing the participants would completely forget.

quote:

---

My first priority is the truth

---

We know that isn’t true. It obviously isn’t true. Your first priority is clinging to ideas that you want to be true - and the truth can go hang.

quote:

---

I can assure you I am very interested in the truth.

---

Because falsehood, misrepresentation and wilful ignorance are hallmarks of the search for truth, right?

quote:

---

Why would I have to avoid an infinite regress? It’s a basic issue. The book says "in the beginning God..." so logically the first cause is/was either defined as God or the guy who first wrote it. Either way, it is not an infinite regress beyond and before that point

---

GDR is using arguments that imply an infinite regress. If you are trying to defend that on the ground that you aren’t GDR then you are just being silly.

quote:

---

Try basic common sense. The first (and only) guy who wrote those words was himself the initial writer. His writing was a definite origin. IF the God He described in his writing exists, then that God is an original thought either of Him/Her/Itself or by virtue of the writers intent. And to further clarify, what I mean when I say that God is/was an original thought either of Him/Her/Itself or by virtue of the writers intent, I simply mean I AM that I AM.

---

Try using some actual sense Phat. You can’t patch up a hole in an argument without addressing the problem.

quote:

---

The whole Armageddon thing is a anachronistic misunderstanding of the Bible

---

It really isn’t. You need to read The Revelation.

quote:

---

Jesus preached a message rejecting a violent revolution that would drive the Romans out. He preached a message of non-violent revolution

---

Because preaching that a violent revolution would lead to God intervening to save the Jews and destroy Rome supports “non-violent revolution”? That’s what you have him say.
(And talking of that are we ever going to see you providing any evidence that Jesus meant that the Romans specifically would destroy the Temple. You claimed to have it, but never came up with any - looks like another of your inventions).Not to mention that there is evidence suggesting that the historical Jesus may have supported violent revolution.

quote:

---

Nothing influences your Christian beliefs does it? You feel that you have a personal communion with Christ. How could any actual facts disturb that? You find excuses to wave away all evidence counting against that belief. I don't understand why you bother with these discussions, nothing we can say can penetrate your delusion.

---

I think that you are wrong. GDR is VERY insecure in his belief. That is why he needs all the desperate attempts to prop it up and make it appear rational. Which drastically backfire, since they only reveal and underline the irrationality of the belief.It’s also why he has to indulge in the absurd pretence that he is looking for the truth, when in reality he is scrabbling around and trying to hide from it. And why he gets so angry when the truth is pointed out.It’s pitiful, really.

I note that you quoted yourself, instead of my response. Nonetheless.

quote:

---

Revelation is a book using hyperbolic apocryphal language. It is about the renewal of all things. The Gospels passages that are often used are about what the romans will do in reaction to a violent revolution.

---

Again, you need to read the Revelation. As for your interpretation of the Olivet Discourse, that is your interpretation and it is at odds with the scriptural references you see there.

quote:

---

I have gone over that with OT references earlier in this thread. I keep getting asked the same questions

---

You never offered a sensible answer to those points. So far as I can tell you just assume that the Bible says what you want without bothering to read or understand it. You still haven’t produced anything justifying your assertion that Jesus meant that the Romans would be the ones to destroy the Temple either.

quote:

---

Ya like love your enemy, turn the other cheek, those who live by the sword die by the sword etc.

---

In fact like his association with Judas Iscariot (quite likely a violent revolutionary) and the story of the Gadarene swine (“my name is Legion”).

quote:

---

Judas was in all likelihood a revolutionary that wasn't opposed to violent revolution but who saw Jesus as Yahweh's messiah who would miraculously rid them of the Romans. When he came to the understanding that this was not going be the case, he turned on Jesus. He either did this because he saw Jesus as drawing away support for the revolutionary movement, or he could well have thought that by doing this it would cause Yahweh to react.

---

If Iscariot is a corruption of “sicarius”, as it is widely thought to be then Judas was an actual violent revolutionary. The rest is all supposition on your part. We do not see any reference to disagreement between Jesus and Judas on this point in the Bible.

quote:

---

As for the pigs I understand it as a an account of Jesus finding a man with a mental issue. He was not in Jewish territory as Jews wouldn't be keeping pigs or spending time in a grave yard for that matter. "Legion" would be a reference to the many soldiers in the Roman Legions and would represent evil. The OT and particularly Daniel taught that monsters as representing evil came from the sea. The Roman legions represent evil and so, this part at least, is a metaphorical account of evil being driven back into the sea from whence it came.

---

Which supports my point. You couldn’t drive the Roman legions into the sea without violence. Though I think it likely that the entire story originated as a fiction expressing exactly that desire.

quote:

---

Actually I'm interested in the relationship between science and Christianity and when I joined the forum years ago that worked pretty well, but not so much now. It seems to have become simply a debate between entrenched beliefs.

---

You mean like your attempt to equate your misunderstanding the selfish gene with a watered down version of Original Sin which removed all the Christian elements? You think THAT “worked well”?And really if you won’t admit your many errors that’s really your fault - not the fault of people who prefer the truth.

quote:

---

Incidentally in response to a couple of posts my views are not at all tentative

---

Nonetheless your desperate attempts to prop up your beliefs - and the fact that they go firmly against any commitment to the truth - do seem to indicate that you are very insecure in your faith.

quote:

---

You just keep repeating the same old argument by showing how they exist without explaining why the exist in the first place. It's, once again, like saying that there is no intelligent origin to a robotic assembly line

---

You assume that, but it isn’t true. The “how” can be the only “why”. In the case of morality, for instance, that appears to be the case - there’s nothing more needed.

quote:

---

And again, that is confusing the benefits of co-operation with empathy and altruism.

---

But they are closely connected. Altruism is a part of cooperation, and empathy is incredibly helpful to a social species. Including gaining the benefits of cooperation.

quote:

---

Evolution on it's own leads to wolves enjoying the benefits of hunting in a pack to take down a prey, and then fighting over the spoils

---

I realise that in your lofty position is the sole arbiter of truth you don’t have to do anything as mundane as actually search for the truth. However, in this case you are ignorant and wrong. Wolves do not simply “fight over the spoils” - and no informed person would expect them to. Evolution conforms to what works, not your personal opinions. Game theory, for instance has made significant contributions to understanding.

quote:

---

What paper. You can show me a paper like tangle does that shows how empathy and altruism evolved in humans, (and other animals too), but that does not answer the question of whether or not those characteristics were externally influenced or not.

---

Making your ideas unfalsifiable is simply a way of avoiding the truth. If there is no evidence of external influence - and no need for it - why should we assume it is there?

In fairness GDR is not at all good at rational argument. He cannot tell the difference between “A does not disprove B” and “A is evidence FOR B”.

quote:

---

I'm not saying that it points to God. I'm saying that we can only surmise what causes people to do what they do. I do contend that the most likely probability for us being able to rise above evolutionary forces is an external non-material influence

---

But you haven’t shown any “rising” above “evolutionary forces”. All you’ve shown is that you misrepresent evolution and refuse to accept that you might be wrong. Clinging to - at best - wilful ignorance is not consistent with searching for the truth.Obviously the truth is far less important to you than your belief.

quote:

---

How have I misrepresented evolution? Darwin agreed that "survival of the fittest" accurately represented the evolutionary process.

---

By insisting that “survival of the fittest” must be a raw competition of all against all with no room for cooperation or altruism. Even when talking about the arguments for the latter. And you’ve been doing it for over a decade ignoring all correctionsThere is no need for an outside influence. Evolution itself will do what’s required.

quote:

---

Nonsense. I believe that my views represent, at least roughly, the truth. Just as you do.

---

I make the effort to try to keep my beliefs aligned with truth - that includes checking sources, avoiding misrepresentation and being willing to change my mind. You avoid all these things. Indeed your comment seems to be an admission that I was correct and that all through this conversation your claims that the truth was actually important to you were false all along.