Creationism as a mental illness?
Here is a somewhat old, but still relevant article published in Psychology Today briefly explaining why creationism is actually a mental illness.
Creationism as a mental illness:
In Cockney rhyming slang, the word ‘believe' is represented by ‘Adam and Eve'. When faced with something baffling, shocking or plain peculiar, you might use the rhetorical expression, ‘Would you Adam and Eve it?' It's ironic, then, that one of the great debates of the day is about the literal truth of the bible story; or in other words, the extent to which we should Adam and Eve in Adam and Eve.
It's a question not just of belief but of denial . The phrase ‘in denial' has become so commonplace it's hard to still hear its power. In common with the ostrich which, as danger approaches, buries its head in the sand, those who are ‘in denial' prefer a false but subjective sense of security to a true but objectively scary reality. Denial brings short term, if illusory, comfort.
Hence creationism, the theory/ superstition that, contrary to massive scientific evidence, the world began exactly as described in the Book of Genesis. Instead of deriving from millions of years of patient evolution, Adam and Eve popped out, fully formed, like characters from a Swiss cuckoo clock. Would you Adam and Eve it? Of course not. It's a myth, but like many myths it serves a psychological purpose which is to provide a storybook sense of simple origins, which allays people's fears. Those who believe this myth to be the truth are in a state of denial.
Along with denial, two other factors connect creationism with mental illness. The first is psychosis, which is an extension of denial. If psychosis is marked by the discrepancy between one's personal view of the world and the consensual view, creationism holds onto the personal view at all costs, refusing to accept what is abundantly clear. True, if creationism became the majority view, its psychotic character might be mitigated. Except that this majority view would have no more valence than the belief so widely held about the relationship between the sun and the earth before Copernicus proved how the latter orbits the former, and not vice versa.
Finally, creationism shares with autism an alleged lack of ability for irony. Creationists take the bible story as literally true, unable to recognize that it might be working on those other, mythic levels. If tests for madness include talking to yourself and looking for hairs on the palm of your hand, then here's another: do you Adam and Eve in Adam and Eve?
Tags
Who is online
259 visitors
How else can belief and acceptance in creationism be explained except by hard denial of actual science which contradicts it?
It is certainly denial of well established findings, but I do not see this as a mental illness. Rather, I see it as quite normal. Human beings seem to naturally believe that which we prefer. It takes effort to follow the evidence to wherever it leads ... especially if the result is unpleasant.
I have long concluded that religious belief is based primarily on comfort. Religions help us deal with the fear of death, the loss of loved ones, etc. They offer compelling 'good news' and provide a wonderfully sounding raison d'etre.
I am fully convinced that every religion that I know of is basically bullshit, but I am in the minority by having 0 religions. Most people believe that their one religion is truth.
The existence of God can neither be proven or disproven. Given that fact, and it is a fact, all belief, or non belief, is either a coping mechanism or an attempt to ridicule something that cannot be disproven.
Did Jesus rise from the dead? It goes against everything we know about physical laws, and death, but presumably God could write his own laws. We will never know.
I think that we will never know if God exists , because it cannot be known. By definition God is a supernatural being and thus beyond human understanding , no matter how hard we try. And it will always be that way.
Which is an argument that God is an invention of man.
I wish human beings held the position that we simply do not know what caused us to come into existence and do not know if it is even sentient.
In my opinion no one will ever PROVE that God exists, and no one will ever PROVE God doesnt exist, because such proof either way is not a possibility.
So all religious people are kidding themselves. They have a man-made concept of God yet there is no possible way that they could know they are correct. Worse, there is no reason as to why they would even be remotely close to being correct.
Agnostic atheists, however, do not have this problem. We are not persuaded that any god exists but do not exclude the possibility. Agnostic atheism is an honest acceptance of our ignorance regarding our existence.
We require hard evidence of a God. Whereas theists rely on faith. Faith doesn't require proof. At least it shouldn't if people are honest with themselves. But too many theists look at artifacts and ancient writings to proof that God exists
Faith is the opposite of proof. Especially given the topic of the Christian religion. It's the very core of Christianity.
IMHO this is in direct violation of God's word. The Christian God doesn't ask his "children" to prove his existence, only to follow the Word and have faith they will be rewarded for it in the afterlife. A few denominations require "Acts" of spreading the Word and doing good deeds. None of them except a small minority of Evangelicals & even smaller group of Catholics require burning books and telling the rest of humanity they are going to Hell.
On more than one occasion I have exchanged with a Christian who made the claim that god is real because it says so right in the Bible.
Apparently that person needs to learn the definition of circular logic
Seems to me, most believers simply accept their holy books as truth and start from that point. So it is common to hear proof of an assertion that ultimately relies upon the holy book being true. God exists because the Bible says so works perfectly within that framework.
And, curiously, I think many (if not most) believers do not see anything wrong with that.
While I tend to agree, at some point, such full blown and willful denial of established findings can become a delusion as a rejection of reality, or one making up their own reality.
Which is why one cannot or should not make an affirmative claim either way.
Who cares? If atheists dont bother me, why should believers bother you?
As long as they dont force their specific beliefs on anyone else its fine.
Affirmative claims invite and should be challenged.
Yeah, but many do not seem to stop there.
There is no such thing. Atheists operate on faith too though. None of them have ever disproved the existence of God.
"Faith" in what, exactly?
Of course not, as proving the nonexistence of something is a logical fallacy. But it's usually theists who claim with certainty there is a god. So they bear the burden of proving it.
Yep.
For a sense of irony, (Oh, you are going to love this...) My girlfriend is a young earth creationist...and I am as close to an atheist you can get without actually being there...
Suffice it to say we don't talk about religion very much. Just one of those subjects we agree to disagree on.
That's probably a good idea.
You can't disprove a negative.
Only if someone is in my face and insisting I take on their beliefs or I will go to hell. Otherwise, I'm content to let people believe in whatever they want. I don't feel the need to challenge all believers
The aptness of that answer depends on whether someone is an atheist or an agnostic. Atheists believe there is no God, and are required to prove their assertion. Agnostics dont take a concrete position on the question and their stance does not require proof.
Atheism tries to claim the "default position", the starting point in the debate. But that is a mistake. There is no "default position" regarding the existence of God.
Atheists do not believe there is no god. A lack of belief is not a belief in itself. Atheists are simply not convinced there is a God. Neither is there any evidence for one.
But that is exactly what is happening in this country at this time. SO YES I will denigrate Christians.
Indeed. Just look at stayes which want to reintroduce prayer or the 10 commandments in public schools. Or prohibit abortion. There are certain religious individuals or groups who want or advocate for this country to be a "Christian country."
Very true & until Christians fight against that tide I will not give any of them respect. They are simply sitting back as those of us that do not believe in their god get run over.
I am waiting for the new tax for those of us who do not attend a Sunday Christian service. They are already taking attendance at some churches.
No, they are not required to prove their assertion. How can you prove a negative? I already explained this to you
Why is it that so many non-atheists insist on defining atheism in such a narrow fashion?
Most atheists are agnostic atheists which means not being convinced a god exists. Only the relatively few gnostic atheists hold as truth that no god exists.
Agnostic atheists do not operate on faith ... we are simply not yet persuaded that a god exists.
NO! Wrong. Atheists (most of us) are simply not persuaded a god exists. Only the slim minority of gnostic atheists (irrational) hold as truth that no god exists.
Further, agnostic atheists (the vast majority of atheists) do not even make an assertion. We simply note that we are not yet convinced a god exists.
It is a statement of honesty with no claim that no god exists.
You're wrong. If you are an atheist you can't claim the default position. Saying that atheism has no responsibility for proof is an attempt to claim the default position.
Your logic so wrong here. To claim one has not seen scientific evidence of God, where there is none is not claiming a default position. Nor is it necessary to disprove someone else's claim. I claim the universe has come into being, expanded and contracted until it hit singularity and then repeats. I have no proof. There is no way to examine such a claim, but I claim it anyway. Now go ahead and disprove it.
Gnostic atheists bear the burden of proof because they assert as truth that no god exists.
Agnostic atheists bear NO burden of proof because we make no claims. We simply express that we are not yet persuaded that a god exists.
Most every atheist is an agnostic atheist. The gnostic atheists are as irrational as gnostic theists.
Because negatives can never be proven...
You know it. Why demand impossiblities?
The onus is to prove something exists... because non-existentence is unprovable.
and as annoying as hell
Do tell, what is the "default position" that atheists claim?
Why is it that you insist on redefining atheism to be gnostic atheism?
That is intellectual dishonesty.
Agnostic atheists are not making a statement about god, we are making a statement about our lack of belief in a god. We are stating that we are not yet persuaded that a god exists.
We are not saying that no god exists as a statement of certain truth. Only the relatively few gnostic atheists make such a statement.
Would you agree with that statement ?
Yes. What surprises me is that you had to ask that question given what I have written.
That said, I am using the definition of 'God' to be "sentient creator" and not the biblical God. There is very good rational to argue that the God as defined by the Bible does not exist (as defined). But there is no strong argument (that I know of) that a sentient creator cannot exist.
Why do you use the description "agnostic atheist" when you are an agnostic ?
Because I like to use precise language.
Agnostic refers to the notion of something not being knowable.
Agnostic atheism applies that notion to the notion of belief in a god. It is a common term and is precise.
That is why I use it: to be precise.
If God exists there is only one God. There is no "God of the Bible" as opposed to something else. By definition God is THE Supreme Being. Only one.
If there is but one god why are we commanded to have no other gods except God? Doesn't that indicate there are/were others?
The god of the Bible is a character defined by the Bible. Just as the god of the Qur'an is a character defined by the Qur'an. Just like the gods of Hindu are characters defined by the Veda.
A god might exist, but it clearly will not match the definitions of these 'holy' works given they are profoundly contradictory. And the Bible, in itself, offers a contradictory definition of God.
Your supplied definition of god is okay. I would say that god should be defined merely as "that which created us". But note that your definition is much more abstract (a good thing) than that of the Bible. Your definition is not self-contradicting and therefore might be true.
How do you know this? On what basis can such a claim be made? Especially since polytheism has existed far longer than monotheism.
I understand the 'position' I and you are caught up in, Veronica. Some Christians, mostly White evangelicals, aka: Christian Nationalists, are meddlers in the affairs of people who simply want diversity which includes 'nationalists' and their concocted worldview.
So the term I, you, and others should acquaint (or reacquaint) ourselves with is this: CHRISTIAN NATIONALIST.
Christian Nationalists are the distinct problem for our country.
Listen! Chris Hayes and William Barber III, and Evangelical leader himself, on "All-In" making the problem plain. I hope you can make time to listen to the clip: (TIP: Use Youtube Setting (cog icon) to change its speed to get through any clip faster.)
Let us all properly id and name the problem! Christian leaders like Reverend Barber III are not a part of the problem. Men and women leaders like him are part of the solution to the problem of Christian Nationalism.
But what remains is the "other" Christians are not standing up to these (as you call them) "Christian Nationalists" - so I will paint them with the same brush. I do not see a backlash by Christians to what the "Christian Nationalists" have done to this country in the past 7 years. They are just along for the ride so once again their religion will be held above all others.
BTW, I feel I owe you an explanation regarding something I wrote in a comment at 6.1.20. Just know that through it all I respect DIVERSITY (yours/Native Americans/et ceteras) which all our worldviews speak to here and 'beyond.'
Be Blessed!
I know you do and I do not mean to be so disrespectful to you, but currently I see hell on earth for people that do not follow Christianity & this movement is growing. While not all Christians are into the total take over - many of them (even those that are not nutbags) so many of them relish the thought of Christianity be the stronghold it used to be.
You are on point, dear Veronica! Actually this video I posted is not precisely the one I was looking for. The one I am looking for, going from memory, is of Reverend Barber saying to—I can't recall the cable anchor, it was maybe Chris Hayes- about a week a so ago. The subject matter is the same, but Reverend Barber states plainly and clearly that the "CHURCH" and a hosts, plural, of religious leaders, are finally going to speak up and out against Christian Nationalism with a public voice. HALLELUJAH, I say!
I am desperately trying to locate that interview, but am going from memory here (and it is 'ye long' these days)!
I can share this since I have not located the soundbite or the show I was watching where Reverend Barber called out Christian Nationalist in our ranks!
I think at their spring/summer meeting, the 'coalition' headed by Rev. Barber will have religious leaders on hand to speak out against Christian Nationalism/ilsts who are causing all these troubles in and out of the Church. These "nationalists" do not speak for us! (I will continue to seek this out.
I am ready to ditch my ignostic label because I identify more as a Secular Humanist. Secular Humanism has better values than any Christian sect that I have ever been acquainted with.
I try to avoid labels that correlate with organizations / ideology because I rarely agree with everything espoused by an organization / ideology.
To me, agnostic atheist is good enough. I am not persuaded that a god exists, but am entirely open to persuasive evidence that one does exist. Finding 'god' would be the greatest scientific achievement ever.
"God" requires defining before it can be found. Doesn't it have to be able to be tested and results reproduced to be accepted in science?
If the "god" found is not "Yahweh/Yeshua" would Christians accept it as "god"?
I agree with that.
Even if I conceived and started the organization, I would continually be fine-tuning it. I have found that most people absolutely hate it when I begin a sentence with "That is really good, but have you considered adding......?" LOL!
Absolutely!
I would define "God" as that which created us.
I suspect that our creator is not sentient but whatever created us is logically "God".
One could ask them.
Would have no problem with recognizing an advanced race.
It's just the bowing and worshiping thingy that I couldn't do.
One of the fundamental problems with recognizing our creator (if a sentient creator exists) is distinguishing it from an advanced form of exolife.
Some do. Check out John Pavlovitz. He's pretty happy basically telling evangelicals that they're great at making atheists out of former believers because so many of them are acting like shits. And he does not judge nonbelievers or those of other religioins.
Interesting how there are so many ancient depictions of the gods riding in flying 'chariots'.
Could Erich von Daniken have gotten it right?
Read Chariots of the God's once and it made a certain amount of sense.
Nope. Archaeologists can and have explained away all that stuff. Those drawings are religious art and the 'rocket ships' are just elaborate chairs they depicted their deities as sitting in.
"Chariots Of The Gods" was basically a scam. Get people to buy the book.
You are right, "some" do, but from my experience with Christians in my world - they just sit back & allow these morons to hijack their religion so that their religion once again is on top. Until we have the "Christians" in our local, state & federal governments stand up to these militant Christians & say - "NO! You are not going to persecute any more US Citizens regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation" I will continue to believe that they are kind of happy the way things are going & that once again the US will be a "Christian Nation" like they believed it was in the 50s.
Lol basically you are saying humans are naturally lazy as fuck, like all mammals. Agreed.
And that extends to beliefs about death.
Although 'lazy' is true, my emphasis is on 'comfort'. Many people will stop at a comforting belief rather than dig deeper to get a better understanding of what is more likely true.
Bottom line, death is scary and unpleasant ... one must be driven to follow the evidence to wherever it leads and not just stop at a point of comfort (or deny evidence to retain said comfort).
How did you conclude that from 1.1. ? Why do you think that all mammals are lazy?
You think all mammals know of their mortality?
Probably because it takes effort to go beyond and then challenge one's religious beliefs.
I think that laziness of course isn’t uniform across the species and some of the hardest working people that I know are also religious.
Religions help to satisfy many basic desires that our species share. Goals like social contact, tranquility, family, acceptance, idealism, etc.
Religion can also be a coping mechanism for dealing with stress. Perhaps that is why the church plays a bigger role in our black community than in our white one.
Talking about species other than humans missed the point I made ... I was talking about humans.
Offering exceptions is not an argument against the point I made. There are always exceptions. Further, one can be an extremely hard worker (on the job) and not lift a finger to investigate / challenge one's own religious beliefs.
Yes
I wasn’t trying to argue against your point, I was trying to understand Thrawn’s.
My friend, TiG, introduced me to Robert Sapolsky's lectures and books a few years ago.
This is one of the lectures that might provide an answer or two.
And this is one of the lectures that might provide answers if a person can accept that we probably don't have freewill or at least the level of freewill that we thought we did.
What does it feel like to not have free will? Because I've never experienced not having free will (and I dont think I ever will).
With 100% sincerity, the best answer I can give you is to research and study how the human brain functions via the internet or whatever other resources you have.
I stumbled upon the lack of freewill debates a few years ago and found them interesting. However, it was only this year that I enrolled in a Coursera course about the study of psycholoy/brain function. I only completed a week and hope to get back to it in the near future. It is free as an audit course so I am not under any time constraints. I am finding it fascinating, but I am not near competent enough to try to explain or summarize what I think I have learned.
Logically, the lack of free will would be undetectable by the individual going about their daily routines. One can at best hypothesize that we do not have free will based upon logic and the body of knowledge we call science.
If reality is deterministic, then it is a very complex cause-effect network. If we know the current state, we can compute the future state. No free will. If it is possible (even if we cannot do it) to compute a future state then free will is merely an illusion.
If reality is non-deterministic, then there is no consistent cause-effect network. Effects can happen without causes. Not sure I would call that free will either.
I think we have been through this before. No human being that has ever lived has ever experienced NOT having free will. Logic dictates that if we can never experience NOT having free will that is all that matters.
Otherwise tell me about the time your mind was so frozen that you had an experience of not having free will.
Even the thought "there is no free will" is an example of free will.
I asked you to tell me what it feels like to not have free will? Can you do it or not?
Thanks for that. I'll check it out more in depth when I get the time.
I have expressed my own opinion here in the past that free will shouldn’t even be an expression, because there is no example of any self aware thing that does not have free will. What’s the point of such an expression if it describes the same identical innate quality that we all share? It’s not a gift, it’s an inescapable reality.
Ask the ones here that deny it.
I think it is possible that the future is pre-determined AND we can have free will. Free will is an experience, and it is an experience that CANNOT be removed from human beings. Ever.
Have you ever been in jail?
Free will: " ... in philosophy and science, the supposed power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe . "
One must put aside trying to win an argument and think deeply about what this means.
To date, every decision/action we make is a function of the physical body — in particular, the nervous system — in particular, the frontal lobe of the brain. There is no evidence of any other factor of an individual making decisions other than with the physical body.
Thus if there is free will, it would seem it must emanate from the physical body. And this makes sense because if free will is not a property of our bodies then it must be some remote factor making decisions for us. That would certainly not be considered free will.
Now, if you agree that free will is necessarily a function of the physical body (in particular, the brain) consider how the brain works. The brain is a biological machine. It processes signals in response to stimuli tempered by myriad chemical agents from the body and the environment and ultimately based on how the body is 'wired' per genetics and growth.
A decision is, in effect, the conclusion of a complex network of cause and effect (in particular, a vast network of neurons firing when they hit their action potentials). Where is there room for free will? Where is there a point where the brain can be free of its cause & effect biology and spontaneously make a decision? Science has yet to answer this question.
This does not mean we do not have free will, but it suggests strongly that what we 'feel' as free will is an illusion.
Now, from a logical perspective (which is what I have been writing about prior to this) we need to consider reality. Is reality deterministic or non-deterministic? It is one or the other.
If reality is deterministic then all future events are direct consequences of past events. One could (theoretically) start at a particular state and predict a future state. Thus, if reality is deterministic, free will is impossible. One cannot have free will if one's future actions are knowable before one even makes the 'decision' to act.
If reality is non-deterministic then we do not have this cause & effect limitation. It means that truly random events occur. It means it is not possible to calculate a future state. This gives room for free will. But note, even here, I doubt anyone would consider free will to be merely the ability to act in different ways based on myriad random factors.
Finally, I am not denying free will. I never do. What I always do is break down free will to illustrate why our having free will is not nearly as obvious as you think it is.
People in jail have free will.
Have you ever been married? Does free will exist in marriage? (Joke!)
As a person trying to understand my own ptsd disorder after decades of physical and emotional abuse by my husband, I can absolutely tell you what it feels like to not have freewill. However, unless you have experienced it personally, it would probably be akin to trying to explain color to a blind person. It has taken years of research on personality disorders for me to even have a basic understanding of how just vile some people's brain processes are. It is even more difficult for me to accept that there is NOTHING that me or anyone else can do to "help/fix" them because we did not cause it in the first place even if we had given birth to them or raised them!!!!!
If I had "FREEWILL" to not care about others, or even be sadistic and derive pleasure from harming others, then I would have saved myself any lengthy association from these toxic people.
If you really want to know what survivors of toxic relationships feel like when it comes to feeling like they have lost themselves and their "freewill" there are plenty of testimonials on youtube. I sincerely doubt that you are able to understand this on any level, but if you can't, maybe this help someone who needs some understanding of what they are living or have survived in their own life.
Do you have the "FREEWILL" to understand human evolution and biology? Or is that not an example of "FREEWILL"?
I have all the sympathy in the world for your reaction to abuse, but it has nothing to do with whether or not we experience free will.
There is an old Buddhist parable about a monk who is being chased through the jungle by a tiger. He comes out of the jungle and runs to the edge of a cliff with a drop of hundreds of feet. He looks back and sees the tiger still coming, so he shimmys over the edge of the cliff and is able to grab onto a small branch hanging out from the side of the rock. Above him is a tiger waiting to eat him, and below him is certain death from a fall. The branch begins to give way, and he is about to fall. Out of the side of his eye he sees a plump red strawberry just within his reach. He grabs it and brings it to his mouth for a bite, and says "how sweet".
We can always choose how we will respond to any situation. Someone who is buried alive will have free will up to the second he stops breathing.
Thats just the way human beings are. Nothing can change it.
I think you equate free will with the perceived ability to make decisions. Because it feels as though you (we) make decisions on our own (not influenced by biology, genetics, hormones, environment, etc.) you are convinced that we all indeed have free will.
Ever get a craving for something? That craving is a perceivable mega trigger that encourages a particular behavior (that which might satisfy the craving). Where did the craving come from? Clearly you did not decide to have the craving ... it came from the complex mixture of your body interacting with the environment.
Also consider other triggers such as those emanating from drugs and alcohol. Funny how different chemicals can make us all behave differently. Our free will is a function of our chemical state.
Now, imagine that all triggers (perceivable and imperceivable) encourage your brain to 'decide' on particular behaviors. Are you really so certain that you are operating on free will rather than just 'feeling' as though your decisions are all coming from your frontal lobe (which, by the way, is a biological machine)?
TiG explained it in comment 1.2.18.
There are numerous videos about brain functions.
Also, there are factors such as hereditary traits and social conditioning that inhibit (or encourage) our thoughts and therefore, our ability to understand ourselves and others.
We come with programming from birth - and even before.
There is ample free material on the web to spend decades studying human biology and behavior if the subject really interests you.
Because "God" or "The Bible" does require the absolute least effort on your part, and you are unwilling, or incapable, or more in-depth independent study, then I will continue to explain as best I can, but maybe this is one of those subjects that just aren't your cup of tea.
Ok, we will have to differ on this topic. Thats fine.
I have to tell you though, that I dont really care if there are studies or research on this topic. No one who has ever lived has ever experienced an instant when they did not experience free will.
That someone is trapped in a cycle of abuse does not negate free will.
If it were possible for a human being to NOT experience free will then maybe there would be a reason to care about studies. But its not. What we actually experience is far more important than university studies.
That is a contradictory position. If the future is pre-determined, nobody has free will.
How would I understand the difference between free will and pre-determination?
Would I be pre-determined to understand?
Good point.
Yes, as would some be pre-determined to never understand.
Do you know the future? Why should you care if "God does", or even if science does? We all experience free will every day and minute of our lives, and it cannot be otherwise. So just what is accomplished by declaring one's fate is predetermined? I dont get it.
We have free will because we think we do and it CANNOT be otherwise.
It kind of reminds me of when someone gets told "you're not really happy you just think you're happy".
Irrelevant. If the future is pre-determined, free-will is impossible. It is impossible to have free-will if your decisions are knowable before you make them.
Sure it can. What we feel is free will might be an illusion. Reality (what we perceive) is an illusion. We think we are solid beings yet in reality we are ultimately vibrations operating in a superposition.
It doesn't matter whether I know it, John. What would matter is that it was knowable. If the future is knowable and known, you have only the illusion of free will.
For emphasis since this point is never recognized by those on the other side of this debate.
They seem to think that feeling like one has free will means one does.
Human beings have to experience "freewill" . It is not a choice they make , it is part of the makeup of human beings.
So please tell me what you think the gain is in telling people they dont have something that they literally have to have?
Is it just to spit in the face of religion? I dont get it.
Support that assertion.
Also, I'm not telling people they don't have free will. Please read ALL of what I typed.
You ignored over half of this sentence.
No, it's to point out logical inconsistencies.
Uh, it does. All any of us can do is experience our existence on this earth. Part of that existence is the constant experience of free will.
You know of course that a table isnt really a solid object, it is a constant swirl of the atoms that make up the components of wood. The earth is traveling around the sun at a speed of 67,000 miles an hour, yet we think we are standing still. Should people be concerned that a table is not really solid or that we are traveling through space at a frightening speed? Of course not. But you want to deny something that cannot be changed - human beings experience free will. I will ask you again, why?
It strikes me as ironic that you don't recognize the quite amusing logical inconsistency in this assertion. We don't have free will about having free will?
Who cares?
This is what annoys people about atheists.
You aren't reading what I'm typing. That makes for very poor responses on your part.
Logical people participating in discussions. If you want your logical inconsistencies to go unchallenged, don't enter a discussion with people who value logic.
Please tell me under what circumstances you could EVER be prevented from experiencing free will?
-
I think my responses are just fine.
Oh please.
I already did. If the future were pre-determined.
I'm sure you do think your responses are just fine. But you're not reading the entirety of mine, so you're arguing against statements I haven't made.
Well, John, you entered this discussion, which you knew from the get-go was going to be populated by nonbelievers and those who value logic over religion. Then you called us annoying (which is pretty rude) for doing exactly what you knew we would do, which is to point out the lack of logic in many religious beliefs. How would you feel if atheists were to go to church, approach the pulpit, and tell the priest or preacher that he was annoying for discussing religion in a place specifically intended for religion?
Belief in God, because it is neither provable or disprovable, will always be a matter of faith. There are theologians who make a "logical" argument for the existence of God, so I would say your conclusion that logic is not used by believers is simply wrong.
But I fully admit no one can prove God exists, and no one will ever be able to proves so. By the same token, no one will ever be able to prove that God doesnt exist. The concept of 'God' is supernatural, which means beyond nature. We as human beings have no means of proving or disproving the existence of a supernatural being because we cannot escape or go beyond the existence we experience, which IS "nature".
You think that people who believe in God should care about your "logical" arguments, and as part of a discussion I'm sure we all do. But to constantly put down people who believe in God because they are not being "logical" is just the wrong track.
Answer:
Stated differently, if the future is knowable.
No. This is philosophy.
Where is Sandy mentioning God, religion or religious people?
She is discussing free will.
Nobody needs to. "I don't believe in God (yours, or any others) because there is no evidence for such" isn't a claim that gods (yours or any others) don't or can't exist. In the lack of evidence, the logical position is a lack of belief, especially when the claim ("There's a personal God who created the universe and killed all life on Earth except enough to create a serious genetic bottleneck, because he loves us, and commanded genocide because he loves all his children, and is extremely interested in what we do with our naughty bits, again because he loves us, and he answers our prayers except for when he doesn't, because he loves us.") is extraordinary.
Nobody put you down, John. We are pointing out the inconsistencies in your statements.
Do tell, what is the "logical" argument for God? Faith/belief by definition is illogical. If God, as a supernatural agent, is beyond nature, then it's utterly irrelevant to our natural universe and existence. God becomes a non-issue and pointless. But as has been said before, those making the affirmative claim logically bears the burden of proof. But we know some believers do not care about logic.
The existence of God (or more generally, the existence of deities ) is a subject of debate in theology , philosophy of religion and popular culture . [1 ] A wide variety of arguments for and against the existence of God or deities can be categorized as logical , empirical , metaphysical , subjective or scientific . In philosophical terms, the question of the existence of God or deities involves the disciplines of epistemology (the nature and scope of knowledge ) and ontology (study of the nature of being , existence , or reality ) and the theory of value (since some definitions of God include "perfection").
The Western tradition of philosophical discussion of the existence of God or deities began with Plato and Aristotle , who made arguments that would now be categorized as cosmological . Other arguments for the existence of God or deities have been proposed by St. Anselm , who formulated the first ontological argument ; Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and Thomas Aquinas , who presented their own versions of the cosmological argument (the kalam argument and the first way , respectively); René Descartes , who said that the existence of a benevolent God or deities is logically necessary for the evidence of the senses to be meaningful. John Calvin argued for a sensus divinitatis , which gives each human a knowledge of God's existence. Atheists view arguments for the existence of God or deities as insufficient, mistaken or outweighed by arguments against it, whereas some religions, such as Jainism , reject the possibility of a creator deity . Philosophers who have provided arguments against the existence of God include Friedrich Nietzsche and Bertrand Russell .
Again, people like you attempt to claim the "default'. I do not accept your claiming of the default.
What is the "default" John? Be specific!
You're talking philosophy. I'm talking logic.
You may wish to elaborate on how that looks and operates. Here or in its own column. It is a big point, too big a point, to be buried or tacked onto the end of a comment!
Not exactly something that can be easily described in a post since it requires a discussion of quantum physics.
Think of it this way, when we view a monitor from a normal distance, the colors, lines, etc. look entirely continuous and smooth. Very well ordered. But if we zoom into the pixels we see that what looks continuous is actually discrete. The continuity is an illusion.
Well as we move from atoms into subatomic particles we enter the realm of quantum dynamics where a particle has no specific location but is rather everywhere with a probability density (called: wave function) that conforms to where we would 'expect' it to be. And these particles are not actually little bits of substance but rather waves which flicker about. So our atoms are actually 'fuzzy' and we are, collectively, 'fuzzy'. But because we are at such a large scale (akin to be a normal distance from our monitor above) what we perceive is solid and continuous (even though it is not).
In a quantum reality is it even possible to understand truth? What if God alters reality by simply observing it?
How many people really read their own religious textbook and understand it? So why would they be able to comprehend actual science?
A large part of the abuse I have endured in my lifetime was because I had been indoctrinated to believe that a supernatural being required that I continually "forgive" my abusers. The teaching is that the victim is just as "sinful" and deserving of eternal punishment as any rapist, pedophile, murderer, etc. One of the reasons is that the victim has "thoughts" that are "sinful" to the ever-loving, perfect, Supreme Being. Those thoughts could entail just divorcing or never speaking to the abuser again, but they are "sinful" because we MUST forgive, submit, obey and even love our abuser. I view any religion with such doctrine as being abusive regardless of if it is led by a narcissist. This type of religion is about suppressing FREEWILL.
This is a pretty good example given by a man diagnosed with NPD on his take on how narcissists use religion to abuse others. This man has charisma that I found entertaining at first. I appreciate his candor at what is behind his mask because it has given me better understanding of the man I married, but now I watch in horror because it is all too personal.
His wife has a video about their life together. My empathy/sympathy lies totally with her.
Maybe because believing in a higher power or gods or goddesses seem to be part of human evolution and experience for thousands of years now, pretty much starting with the Egyptians.
Pretty much every culture and religion has a creation story or myth...Joseph Campbell in his lectures on PBS years ago explained this in simple terms. His insights helped me to come to terms with my non belief. Some very intelligent and educated people try to sell the story of creation science or intelligent design...why they deny and dispute the overwhelming evidence of a very old earth and evolution is beyond me. But I would hesitate to call such beliefs a form of mental illness. Hard core devout belief is a very real state of mind. I have known many devout people over the years, and they were very sane and rational. Millions of people experience it. What other chose to believe is not my concern.
Organized religion started well before the Egyptians. The first writings on religion are Sumerian, but with neolithic mega sites like Gobeki Tepe we know religions observations are much, much older than we've recorded until recently. Egyptians were the first recorded religion to have an afterlife and the first resurrection story with Osiris.
EDIT: The epic of Gilgamesh is Sumerian poetry from 2100BC in where Gilgamesh is the oppressive King of Uruk. The poems were recorded on a series of tablets. In the eleventh tablet there is the first recorded flood myth where Utnapishtim explains that the god Enki told him to build a boat to certain dimensions and take his family and craftsmen and "all the animals of the field" before a violent storm comes. The storm lasts six days and six nights after which "all human beings turned to clay". Ishtar weeps for the destruction of humanity and the other gods weep with her. Utnapishtim's boat lodges on a mountain top where he releases a dove, a swallow and a raven. When the raven fails to return Utnapishtim opens the arc and releases the animals and makes a sacrifice.
Wasn't Campbell a practicing Catholic? I really enjoyed that series and Bill Moyers's journeys with him.
I believe so.
Yes, what a silly species we are. Such belief was probably a way people explained the world around them as they saw it, as they lacked better understanding.
Perhaps that state of mind is the illness, as it must reject established facts or reality in favor of belief or dogma.
If you knew everything there is to know about the physical 'creation' of the universe? What would you know? You'd know physical processes, that mean exactly what?
It is the philosophical interpretations of such things that are really interesting.
Interesting ... absolutely.
Truth ... extremely unlikely.
That means I would know everything about the creation of the universe. Oh if only.
Interesting, sure. But philosophy is not fact.
Really? What is the meaning of the creation of the universe?
This might be the best explanation.
Yawn.
Wow, what a great rebuttal >sarc<
Now, do you have anything of actual value to add?
I think atheists care just as much about creation stories as the 'Christians' do, just in an opposite fashion.
All religions are human creations and cultural expressions. Each thinks they have a key to understanding God that the others dont. The truth is that if there is a God, there is only one God but many ways to express belief.
I went to Catholic school for 12 years. I dont remember exactly when , but fairly early on we kids understood that the Bible was not a literal accounting of God's intervention on earth, but a book of lessons and allegories and metaphors. The story of Adam and Eve has a meaning, but I never took it as literal truth.
When creationists want to impose their limited view on other people then I think it is time to say "no", but if they restrict their fanciful ideas to their own use I dont have big objections to it.
Basically the problem I have with religions is that they put forth fiction as truth and people not only buy it but act on it. In most cases the actions are benign, in a number of cases the actions are good, but in some cases the actions are bad (even horrific).
But there are denominations that do teach that the Biblical creation story, and indeed the entirety of the Bible, is literal truth. The only allegories allowed to be not true are the parables Jesus is said to have told. And these are the denominations that object to evolution being taught in science class, and who keep making proposals like teaching Genesis as science that actually get some traction.
I can't, and won't speak, for a whole class of people, but I can speak for myself as an atheist... And I just don't normally think about, or care about, religion at all, unless it's thrust in my face by others. That happens with too much frequency however.
I’ve always said that if religionists would stop trying to impose their beliefs on others they would never hear a thing from atheists. Atheists are generally reactionary.
True. There was an article in my newsfeed earlier this week where some Evangelical megachurch paster claimed once again only Christians should make laws.
Finally, creationism shares with autism an alleged lack of ability for irony.
So true. To reject every historic creation story that predates or parallels the one you have devoted yourself to, and call the others out as archaic, naive, primitive, etc. is the height of irony.
terminal thumperitis.
I would like to come at this from a different tack (way of dealing with something): Is our universe smart?
If not smart, why does our world appear to have endless possibilities to intellectual 'digestion' by humanity?
Where does all the earth's potential derive itself?
This may seem off-topic of creationism, but it 'folds' backward at some point. With that in mind, anybody care to attempt to answer?
Where does all the earth's potential derive itself?
Pick any answer you want to this question, and then apply the same question to that answer.
What kind of reply to the question is that? If you are not going to indulge or strengthen us why take the time to mock? This sort of question 6 is well within your wheel-house to accept and yet you spurn! I find it shocking and discouraging that nothing-absolutely nothing-can be learned from some who choose to mock instead of 'educate'! I mean this from my heart!
If you are not going to indulge or strengthen us why take the time to mock?
You can be such a drama queen. It’s not a mocking statement at all. It’s a statement about the reality that is as plain as the nose on your face. If something intelligent created the universe, then what created that something? Rinse and repeat for infinity.
You dodge the questions and 'rush' to conclusion. Thank you for not helping. I don't care what you think of me personally, Hal. And you managed to 'shoot the messenger' over educating the public. Rinse and repeat for infinity that!
Your approach is basically to tell me to shut the fuck up, because you know better. No attempt to inform/teach/share. And there it is, the "professor" who shames/stuns his/her students into silence for the duration of class.
Except I will not shut up.
One more thing: I have had great respect for your opinions even when we don't 'gel' but this lack of patience on your part when it comes to me trying to properly gauge and understand what atheism means to some atheists, without it invariably going 'south' is wearing/straining my patience.
As the saying goes there are no stupid questions! And though I am fully aware it is a 'saying' it ought to have value to the HEARER/READER. Let people ask in hope of receiving; without the quenching effect of 'throwing cold water' immediately taking over!
I don't care what you think of me personally, Hal.
I actually like you, CB.
Your approach is basically to tell me to shut the fuck up, because you know better.
Wow. I doubt that there is any member here who would agree with that statement based on my responses. Settle down.
Through our many interactions here you have made it abundantly clear that you are unwavering in your faith. That’s your prerogative, but it seems more to me that you will tie yourself into a pretzel to avoid admitting that statements like the one I expressed above are just common sense.
And I like you, Hal.
But I would be lying if I did not say that these discussions with my peers who are atheist leave me 'wanting.' Almost to a fault, there is a 'pall,' a piling on, an arrogance, that floods the zone and triggers defense posturing to begin. It's tiresome.
What I would like is to talk/read it out-without a 'helmet and body-protection' on. For instance, at this very instance, by virtual of adding comments, my initial 'thought' which I acknowledge was going somewhere possibly is RECEDING into forgetfulness - unaddressed and under-addressed.
This ought not be.
I wrestle with my faith and have accepted a great many distinctions made since 'talking/reading' my faith through the lens of/with atheists-and yet my faith still remains intact with a GREATER understanding of it and many practical realities and considerations-especially after watching what evangelicals have done to 'twist themselves into pretzels' as you say.
But, because people can be dull/dumb/devious/diabolical while in faith to God that does not mean or make faith in any way folly.
I should know because I have dedicated a large chunk of my otherwise potential SEX Life to a quiet life of celibacy. I know, I use that word (celibacy) a lot here, but it is needful to mention it when helpful to strengthen a point in discussions.
I have sensible reasons for asking a question/questions about the universe that surrounds us and its potential-which seems limitless and only held back by man's capabilities to grasp knowledge in a single or several 'sit-downs.'
So far humanity has not found an end to its creative abilities; and that is cause, at least to me, to wonder what/when/where/how/why the universe has so much to 'give.'
Finally, it is 'A-okay' to ponder questions, because it leads to some future understanding. Better to bring up 'puzzling' questions and thoughts in hopes of gaining understanding to hold them inside and just 'stew' on them and get no-where.
I just think that the right questions should be asked in a logical order. Axiomatic concepts can make many religious arguments moot.
For instance, many Christians will flat out disagree with the concept of matter out of nothing in a discussion about actual empirical experimental evidence of it happening. They will say that the subatomic parts that assembled themselves into the matter are also matter, thus it isn’t something from nothing. However, they do ascribe to an evidence-less concept of something from nothing at an infinitely supermassive scale - by a sentient entity that somehow must have always existed through the emptiness of space and time before time as we know it existed. Who knows what he was up to then. One thing is for certain though: he too had to get there somehow. Where does it end? How many gods of gods’ does one need to consider before admitting that belief in god must conclude that god created itself. How do believers let this jarring conundrum just wiggle out of their conscience?
Thank you. This is really helpful to sharing (together). I will do my best to respond appropriately.
The Christian faith has for our purposes two pillars.
1. Belief in God and Jesus Christ and Spirit (indwelling/but not 'overwhelming' individual will).
2. Faith as a type of certitude. That 'certitude' is not according to sight/seeing, but according to 'knowing.' A strange term for what Christian do but it works. That is, once believers come into this (great) faith; live as though it is so, because there is no other set of 'explanations' for what is happening to a body of believers collectively. And, so our search for direction. . . 'ends'/'lands' within the pages of a book named the Bible. As a result, we believe "it" to be so.
Now to God's 'birth' according to the scriptures. Listen! This is important: The Bible never attempts to explain the birth of God as God. Despite what you hear/read from some one who believes or delves into the origin of God - the Bible does not go that 'deep' within its pages. And furthermore, the Christian can not gather the knowledge of God's origin from any other source outside of the Bible.
What some attempt to do is 'rationalize' from what is written though-out the accounts of God in the book, a 'worldly explanation/logic' which reasons in this fashion:
If God exists, then God is the 'NECESSARY BEING/MOVER'. It is mere words attempting to explain acceptably something IMPLIED in the text without literal wording. That is, the bible does not call/label God "necessary being/mover." It is simply an understanding of sorts to facilitate moving a subject matter discussion forward about a beginning.
Bottom-line: Christians are allowed/permitted/taught even to speak in terms of faith and 'knowing' that they know—if that makes sense. So much so that over a period of time it becomes easier to speak/write without hesitancy and doubting. But were we to be open and honest (as I attempt to be here and in my own life), we, believers, are smart enough, or should be smart enough to admit that God, if there is God, has never CLARIFIED its origins to any man, woman, or child. Even Jesus did not bother with such an origin account for God.
Hope this helps clarify a 'difficult' and volatile point about how Christian-speak. If not feel free to inquire. I don't mind sharing with anybody.
Finally, I 'lapsed' into the same mode of talking about 'knowing' using similar Christian-speak. Now then, it has been through long hours of adjusting and disciplining my words that I have dropped (and encourage others) to be more precise in their claims, statements, and 'delivery.'
And yes, I will confide in you and others here that one of my biggest and 'best' complains about my faith in God is that many believers/leaders in this faith take too much for granted when speaking publicly about God. They take too many liberties and attempt to frustrate non-believers by their strong assertions before people who do not want what we consider ourselves 'having.' Don't get get wrong. Sharing/talking/writing about our faith with the world is one thing, but making demands and being insistent that others not experiencing what we 'do' is not right and better avoided.
That is where the biggest 'conflicts' have occurred and continual to happen to this very day.
the Christian can not gather the knowledge of God's origin from any other source outside of the Bible.
How convenient for that religion! So god is real because the Bible says so? That’s some Soviet/North Korean-esque level brainwashing. No offense but the rest of your response was an example of that pretzel thing you do to lead one into thinking an answer is coming but never does.
How do other religions differ?
You’d have to ask their adherents. I’m not a student of world religions. I’d rather take a bullet.
Indeed, ignorance is bliss.
And happiness is a warm gun.
[deleted]
[deleted]
"Thing I do" . . .it's depressing to think that you think so lowly of me. Sigh! I will get over it; I have no choice.
I tried to rise above the morass, but it ain't happening.
Other than in the Bible, go ahead and tell me where the Christian God originated. It is an issue for you and some others that Christians have a 'container' of books woven together into one—not a problem for me, per se.
BTW, after turning away from the Bible in my teens (left off church going/bible study/prayer meetings/choir rehearsals/ "the whole she-bang," et ceteras) I did not bother discussing or troubling anybody about my NON-BELIEF or Agnosticism. I simply was DISINTERESTED. It took me years after returning to faith (in the 90's) to eventually find my way to a discussion with atheists and believe me when I tell you I was shocked to find out that these sorts of discussions have been 'raging' since 'forever.'
Hope that fact clarifies that I am 'open' and do not have a set and planned theistic agenda. But it is what it is, nevertheless.
And again you 'apply' a distraction of insulting me (indirectly): Which am I "Soviet" (never been to Russia or read Russian Orthodox religious books (if that is the insinuation), and that I know of have no standard brainwashing which ties my belief system to being offensive to you or anybody else!
Hal, be condescending. It comes across a lot in these types of religion/non-religious 'talks.' It ought not to between reasonable people, but it is what it is.
As for "pretzel-ing" or the mere notion you have that Christians in general do 'that' to non-believers then, sigh, you don't get what I am trying to be open to share with you about the true inner working of this faith walk. What I will not do EVER is vainly and devolving into silliness try to pacify your 'need' to read the end of this endless discussion of faith by giving pat answers for things beyond my/your/the world's ability to 'close.'
This discussion, as they usually do should come with a disclaimer or "warning label" because in general they deteriorate rapidly into commenters trying to "one-up" each other and the real discussion falters and 'peters' to a stop. As it has done one again between us. It just refuses to 'fly' and keep equilibrium. Somebody has got be a 'dirty dog liar/clown/dumbass" before the session just dies under its own weight.
I tried. It is all I can do. If you can't 'hear' me, then know this: I damn sure am not able to 'hear' you.
It’s a simple question: did god create himself? Your non-answer and follow up word salad dissertation only proves that this is a question that you refuse to ask yourself.
Is nothing something?
The 'nothing' of science (as some use the term) is a zero energy state. It is absolutely NOT nothing. Nothing, by definition, cannot become something.
Do you know if the God you don't believe in is created? If so,then why won't you tell me about it. I want you to, you ought to, would you if you could. Oops! Another 'word salad dissertation' from me. No worries: Yours are always short, provocative, and even 'angry.' Moreover, you appear to not being able to relate to the concept of God being real for anybody. Thus, what use is it for me to continue this unreasonable interaction, Hal?
Oh the folly of those who can talk nicely about witches and sadists (which don't exist in my personal worldview), but always to a fault damn Christianity even when there is nothing to be lost but time rendered.
I am pretty sure I have not read any article on NT where atheists damn the supernatural believe in witchcraft, sadism, or worship of native spirits! No offense to any of those fine believers, but just mention Christianity or Old Testament Judaism and the sparks go up and never come down.
It's obvious. It's ridiculous. It's not critical thinking when done with prejudice and vengefulness.
There is no such thing as something coming from nothing.
The theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss wrote a book titled "A Universe From Nothing", creating the impression that the text would show the universe came from "nothing". But the book didnt show that. What Krauss called "nothing" was something. Krauss describes the process of the universe coming into being. A "process" requires SOMETHING that is acted on or transformed , thus a "process" takes place.
And anyway , something coming from nothing would be a supernatural concept in this existence, and thus would be a better argument for the existence of God than not.
Exactly... Matter cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change it's form.
Where do you see such beliefs imposing themselves on society in general?
In the USA, Christianity is the dominant category of religion and it heavily influences our society.
In nations such as Iran, Islam is the dominant category of religion and it heavily influences their society. I bet Iranians have little concern for Christianity but a strong concern for Islam's effect on their lives.
Correct!
I wish Krauss, et. al., would stop with the sensationalism and just explain science.
Kraus showed that it is possible for subatomic particles, which are the nearly infinitely small building blocks of quantum physics, to precipitate into matter under the right conditions. Until proven this was not considered possible. He was not implying that this is evidence that the universe came from the nothingness of a sea of subatomic particles, he was just pointing out that it cannot be ruled out. If the universe were precipitated from an infinite sea of unassembled, independent subatomic particles, one must wonder why a sentient creator would have created an infinite soup of these things to begin with. But beyond that, a religionist should first ask themself how god came into existence in the first place. Instead, religionists look beyond all that and focus on ridiculous concepts like god made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.
Do you know if the God you don't believe in is created? If so,then why won't you tell me about it.
Read that back to yourself and tell me if that makes sense. There is no god, I therefore cannot tell you how god was created any more than I can tell you how leprechauns are created - other than that they were both created exclusively in the mind of humans. If you think god is real then it is incumbent upon you to tell me how god was created. Or you could just continue to pretend it’s not important. Considering the supermassive impact that the concept of gods has imparted on humanity, it is absurd to consider such an obvious question as unimportant. If fifty billion dollars shows up in my bank account tomorrow morning, I assure that I won’t be able to waive away its origins to the authorities as unimportant.
No its not.
If believers want to be taken seriously, and be permitted to impose their religious concepts on those who want that answer, then yes it is.
Do you mean Satanists?
Because I have (blissfully) missed any discussion about anyone openly acknowledging that sadism should be practiced or worshipped.
By definition God , capital G is the Supreme Being and the creator of the universe. On what possible basis would someone who believes in God countenance a question about who created God?
If I believed that intelligent exolife exists, do you think it is unfair for someone to ask me to explain why I hold the belief?
Who created protons, neutrons, and electrons, dark matter, dark energy?
Why do you presume that these substances were created?
Simple logic. If there's a God, who/what created God? If you're going to claim there is God or God created everything with certainty, you invite challenge and will be challenged. Why shouldn't such beliefs and claims be questioned or challenged?
If you can describe a "subatomic particle" its not "nothing", is it?
The title of Krauss book was "A Universe From Nothing".
In our nomenclature, God is a supernatural being , in other words from outside "nature". Another description for nature is the existence we experience. God would come from outside of the existence that we understand and see. So, nothing we can understand created God. We have no frame of reference.
In short, you are stating that it is not possible for us to explain 'God' (our creator).
I agree.
But by that very same logic, it is not possible for us to even hold that there is a god (as in sentient creator).
Further, your logic ultimately argues that there is no possible way that the biblical depiction of God is anything other than human invention.
My statement/the point is NOT one about persecutions or the persecuted. Some atheists on NT have a strong unction to appear on articles like this one to reject and brutalize Christianity/Christians as a category under a pretext of a "talk." But, when talk begins so immediately does derision and tried and tested old word tropes/devices.
Consistency requires if Christianity and 'talk' of God and the Supernatural order God represents can be labeled myth and mocked endlessly, then supernatural 'talk' of witches, warlocks, ghosts, native spirits, or satanist figures, and all other UNPROVABLE paranormal entities should be given similar disputation. Atheists on NT do not debate these.
Be consistent across the board!
If the issue is persecution then do not condemn/mock/stamp down God, per se but go after the 'doers' of evil to humanity. They have a name in this country: Christian Nationalists.
If the issue is proof of the supernatural or lack thereof, then ask everybody who lists the supernatural among their beliefs to PROVE the paranormal of which they hold to, for CONSISTENCY sake.
That is, since there are to be no sacred cows on NT, then let there be no sacred cows.
As I noted, when people claim that the biblical God exists (and thus empower the Bible) they are tapping into a major facet that affects our society. In this regard, witchcraft does not hold a candle to Christianity in the USA.
I am agnostic on ghosts too. I know many people believe in ghosts but I have not seen evidence that would persuade me that they exist. They might exist, but I am not yet convinced. As with discovering God, it would be fascinating if we actually did have ghosts. I am certainly not against this being true ... just do not believe it.
That said, I remind you again, ghosts, witches, etc. are not driving legislation and directing our society. Christianity, however, has and is.
By definition, all gods are supernatural. As such, it is impossible for the supernatural or supernatural entity to be detected, much less demonstrated to exist. Any claims of existence are empty and baseless. And if we cannot understand God or whatever created it, we certainly cannot determine what god wants or thinks or accurately define its attributes, as some theists often do. The God of the Bible is then just a made up character.
There can only be one God, just as there can only be one "highest" mountain in the world. God is THE Supreme Being, not one of them . gods are cultural expressions unique to human history.
Because God is a supernatural being is precisely why it is impossible to ever prove or disprove the existence of God. Hence, faith.
So you don't consider the possibility there could be 2 or more equally powerful gods? But since god/s cannot be proven, there is no rational reason to accept they exist, especially if they are supernatural.
You are in error.
First, you position defies the Agnostic-atheist standard shared and communicated by 99.99 percent of atheist on NT. That is notable.
Second, You have made a positive assertion/statement: "There is no god." Now, how do you plan to prove it?
Third, I did not ask you about God being created, so don't blame me for your drawing you "in." I fully accept that God can not be proven to men/women/girls/boys at this time who do not have God in their souls. (Soul: which you highly probably do not believe in either.) I have not uttered any positive assertion about God for which I need explain God's "importance."
Lastly, if five dollars showed up in your or my bank account on any given day without a blank line item where the deposit derived, it is an abnormality and anyone would be concerned and seek an answer. Has nothing to do with this discussion, nevertheless.
But human beings are imposing the restriction that there be a supreme being. What if God is not a singularity?
We do not actually know the nature of God, and your earlier argument agrees, so why do we try to impose properties?
God = "that which created us (caused us to come into existence)"
The above does not presume anything other than we came into existence by some agency.
What were they before the Big Bang?
As you fully and completely know I stand in the 'gap' on NT defending suppressed and oppressed people due to the negative schemes, tactics, and strategies of Christian Nationalists in our country. No reminder is necessary.
You are AGNOSTIC about God and the Supernatural as it relates to the Christian faith and criticize its adherents at will for poor choices where such choices exist. That's find with me. I do likewise.
You are AGNOSTIC about witches, ghosts, and native American nature spirits. . . point blank. . . do you criticize these similar forms of religious practices for the same reason: There is no proof of what these adherents say and write about their belief systems.
Are you willing to call out other (lesser?) forms of official and unofficial religions and cults and critically think about such (lesser?) forms through atheist lens as mythical, mockable, and demand proof of their assertions? Yes or No.
Inquiring minds would like an answer, my friend.
In existence. Substance of some form existed prior to the Big Bang. It did not spring forth from nothing.
Why do you presume they were created?
I already addressed this @6.1.39
Also note that I do not criticize Christians. I challenge their beliefs and I explained why @6.1.39.
Now (as an example) if we have people attempting to secure tax breaks for homes that are bewitched or haunted, then you will see me raising an objection.
If you can describe a "subatomic particle" its not "nothing", is it?
I’m not necessarily arguing that it is. But why would the beginnings of the universe be these particles in the first place? Particles that have almost no affinity to become actual matter.
Sure, anything you say. Though I am perplexed as to how 'tax breaks' corresponds to 'proof of existence' of supernaturals on a discussion board.
I did not make that comparison.
You're correct you did not. I should have written this:
Though I am perplexed as to how 'tax breaks' correlates to a 'lack of proof of existence' of supernatural entities on an online discussion board .
The tax breaks was an example of how a religious / supernatural ideology could make an impact on society (instead of simply being a personal belief). Tax breaks is also a mild example. A harsher example is something like trying to force teaching religious / ideological notions as science (or, worse, truth).
Moving on and transitioning away from that. I agree with present science: The 'Adam and Eve' narrative of the Bible is not holding up to the evidence found in the ground beneath this planet's hills, mountains, caves, 'the Deep,' and et ceteras.
I take your comment to mean the Genesis account of creation (and not limiting to strictly the Adam & Eve story).
I will deal with these details in stages. Right now, I am solely listing the "Adam and Eve" (made from the dust of the ground) account based on the present of science of evolution. One can't easily explain how a great ape evolves into humankind and at the same says humanity is created distinctly from the dust. Exception: One understands that the animals themselves were created from the 'dust' also. (Note: I just saw something while writing this comment. I will have to 'flesh' it out after closing this comment out due to edit limitation.)
I don't want to get ahead of thinking this 'through' to my best.
Of course I agree that the wholesale creation of Adam and Eve contradicts modern science.
Well, there is the "exception" materializing in verse 19 above. Inherently all living things of this Earth got beginnings from the substance of this planet itself. Perhaps (may be, may be not) one could extend the 'book' courtesy of stretching the science to include humankind to be from the 'dust' through ancestry?
It is there to be considered. I am not prepared to say that it will. "The door is open!"
One can make the Bible read pretty much any way one wishes.
Still, there is a right way and a myriad of wrong ways to read the Bible. That said, when the Bible stops making sense to me I will speak up and out about it. (As I said before to Hal, "There are no stupid questions." - I believe in seeking, asking, and at some point receiving an answer -where possible. None of the original book writers of the Bible are living to re-question their text meanings, so the 'books' are what they are.
The next Genesis question that is staring down at this discussion: How did Adam scientifically evolve before Eve?
From a spiritual point of view- we go with the text as written. Doing so 'explains' the hierarchy we see: God/Man/Female/Offspring.
From a scientific point of view, a DNA question presents itself. (I think).
And TiG, I am not one of those people who is afraid to ask questions of the Bible, or who 'cave' to some writers' notion of biblical inerrancy. Even though I lend my support for the books of the Bible themselves as often as I can.
It seems that people disagree on what is right and what is wrong.
Not really a question since God would not be bound by the constraints of nature.
In evolution, entire groups evolve (not just an individual) so when a group of scientific Apes move to a different environment and adapt to said environment over time, the many, many generations later individuals might be so distinct from their ancestors as to be a new species.
The same tenants as are outlined in The Ten Commandments can also be found written in stone on ancient Babylonian and Egyptian temples and even cave walls that long predated the Christian Bible. That men should honor the gods, their elders, the holy days and must refrain from theft, murder, jealously and envy are near universal laws.
To love ones enemies was revolutionary...
According to the fucking Bible there is a punishment for violating a commandment.
According to the Bible, or not observing the day of the Lord was an offence punishable by death (Exodus Ch. 31 v15). (Google)
That's why everyone in the ICU dies on Sunday (when the medical staff is in church).
There were always universal truths in the ancient world. Religion character is made by organization of truths and addition of teachings and doctrine. That is, a bit of 'stream-lining' if you will.
It does not require a god to have morals...
Last I checked, no witch, Wiccan, sadist (not sure how that even made the list), or worshipper of native spirits has attempted to codify their religion into the laws governing me and mine. Most Wiccans or worshippers of native spirits with whom I've conversed are very accepting of other religions. If Christians would recognize the wisdom of "An it harm none, do as ye will", then maybe they'd face less pushback than they currently do.
I did not say that it did require a god, JBB. We do what is right in our own eyes and follow what is decided to be right in our local, state, and federal systems, too. The ancient world did the same as well.
The point, at least for now is not the 'troubles' of religion, even Christianity. There are voices here who will argue for proof of God and flat-out deny the supernatural-and the existence of a soul. Yet, when it comes to other types of people (of faith) there is not even a hint of disagreement about anything of significant. Nary a 'harsh' word or frown.
Now I am not one to complain about this, because I accept (as all you/us know) diversity to nearly the ng degrees.
But, I would be remiss to not make you and others aware of what is being 'forgotten' or ignored in these discussions.
You and others do not accept there is a God or Spirit (of any kind), but this forum would not know it when it comes to Wiccan, Sadism (fake or real), or Native American faiths. Again, to be clear, I am not offended by the good people here who honor these forms and fashions, but only the Three Big religions get grilled, put down, mocked "for days" here.
I call it as I see it.
And I, and others, are responding to your perception with our own "calls". We have explained our thought process. You're telling us that that's not really the point of why we argue against Christianity. To me, it seems silly that you discount OUR explanations of OUR thoughts. We know those better than you do.
With regards to discussions of other religions, rarely do those explaining them tell us that they are the arbiters of spiritual truth, or promoting their own creation myths as fact. They are generally explaining their beliefs, and we, or at least I, am interested in learning about those beliefs. It does not mean I share them. In the case of some, I can see their value, in promoting harmony in society and care of the environment, just as there is some value in "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
But hey, I guess you know my own mind better than I do, yes?
Also, sadism isn't a religion.
These 'discussions" on NT go on too long, well past whatever informational value they may have. Some of the same people who were making these same points 10-15 years ago on Newsvine are making them here. The same points. Its interesting and kind of fun to discuss religion and atheism now and then, but it just goes on and on past the point of diminishing returns.
Probably because the same people pushing the counterpoints are still doing so.
For example, those who hold the Bible divine are, IMO, demonstrably wrong. Yet they continue to do so. When one makes claims such as a 6,000 year old Earth (no-one has done that here, just an example), that claim should be challenged.
Also, the same basic political / ideological arguments are replayed — just with different players and issues. Nothing surprising here.
Crazy would be still reading interminable back and forths, especially when I do not fully agree with any of the participants...
Belief is intensely personal. Membership in our individual faiths is as much about cultural and family identity as personal adherence to dogma or religious cannon.
Religious fever is not a mental disorder though like fasting, sleep deprivation, drug use, meditation and other stimulus it can result in the psychic episodes, also known as "religious experiences", we see true believers use to reinforce their "beliefs".
You may as well argue with a 3 year old about the existence of elves and fairies.
You are not arguing with Bible scholars.
You are dealing with believers in magic...
Thr supernatural can be denied as there is no evidence of such and any affirmative claims of the supernatural cam and should be challenged. But I do not see Wiccans, Pagans, ect, professing their beliefs as fact nor pushing those beliefs on to others, unlike certain Christian believers or denominations. So if Christians are feeling some kind of pushback or resistance to their claims, perhaps they only have themselves to blame.
You can say what you wish and you certainly do. But don't tell me what I know and see happening. Because I have SAT here, watched it play out on different articles and blogs. I know and you know that I know that Christian Nationalism is a big problem. And, I am pretty sure that you know or should know that this problem is not what I am getting at here.
You and other atheists here enter ever or damn near every discussion about God and in varying ways 'condemn' the discussion taking place. It has become a 'routine' with its own cadence even. I know because often I am on the 'sharp point' of the attack! (Which I don't mind as much as one may think.)
You and other atheists here ask: "That's nice, prove it." when it comes to the Christian religion. You question the Bible- up; down; sideways. And that is fair. However, do you do the same to other religions about supernatural entities, types, and figures? No!
And the point that these religions don't offend is a good point, but it has not a thing to do with the attack on God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, and Bible that denies their very existence-until everything is UTTERLY PROVEN TO AN SCIENTIFIC EXACTING STANDARD.
That said, I don't have any interest or desire into carry this line of thought too much farther. Because the longer it goes, the more I will be MISUNDERSTOOD and make to appear as some monster who is against diversity of thought. And that of itself would be untrue/a lie.
I call it as I see it.
Actually I agree. See my comment at 6.1.74 before I read yours here.
Gordy started this discussion. You entered it. And then got offended for hearing what you knew you were going to hear.
Do you think we believe the Torah? The Quran? If there were Jewish people here telling us that their beliefs were "truth", we would also question them. Same with Muslims. In fact, in questioning the Bible, you do realize we are also questioning their scriptures, as well? They have a common origin, and we question the whole shebang. If we had any worshippers of Norse gods, or the Greek pantheon, we'd point out that we've figured out where thunder comes from, thanks, and that the sun doesn't need to be dragged across the sky by Apollo, but alas, such people do not participate here.
But this is a small, religiously homogenous community, and Christians are the vast majority of those we encounter. There is nobody else here telling us that their god is the only god, or getting upset with us for questioning their religion. If you want us to argue against another religion, maybe you should advocate for that religion, and we'll pick that apart, too. Would that make you happier?
When I see you write or seed an article: The Supernatural As A Mental Illness. . . then we can revisit this comment. Otherwise, nice dodging the point of my many comments on the subject of what I will call, "God abuse," and abuse of the supernatural as it relates to the Bible, but nary a word in protest of other religions 'expression' (which are given favoritism in these sorts of chats).
DISCLAMER: It bears repeating until ad-nauseam, so as not to be misunderstood, I hold no malice or disagreement, or 'disturbance,' with any other religious or religious affiliated group of persons on NT or beyond.
Now, that's just funny. The ultimate victimless crime.
Creationism is flat earth fundamentalism!
That is the topic. Not your personal belief.
If you felt attacked by this, that is on you...
I don't even know what this comment is attempting to say, but get a feeling that it lacks proper context, so I will repeat the sentence in its entirety:
JBB, if you can't help the discussion, no offense, then why bother?
We have been off the "Creationism as a mental illness" subject for about a 'thousand' comments. Sigh!
Maybe your God has a purpose for you other than as His Messenger. Maybe you should serve Him, um, differently...
Feed the hungry. Cloth the naked. Visit those in jail. Nurse the afflicted. Find something you are good at then hopefully you will find the peace you seek which so obviously evades you, as evidenced here.
I do not see the atheists here doing anything but engaging in logical discourse. Where are you seeing all this condemnation?
Christianity is the dominant form of religion in the USA. No surprise that discussions focus on Christianity. If you were in Iran (and could find a safe place to discuss such matters), Christianity would not be the focus but rather Islam.
If someone were to come onto this forum and profess that Allah is real and is the only true god, I would challenge them to back up their assertion. When someone claims to know the existence of the single most powerful entity possible, much less be able to speak for same, then ... yeah ... that claim should be challenged.
I expect to be able to 'talk' to atheists as a part of the function of this site. I expect to be able to share anywhere on NT. As many are fond of saying (when it suits their purposes): 'This is not a silo'- a place where only the few and faithful atheists get to hark on world religions without other voices added.
So yes, I entered. Is that a problem?
And you clearly have been able to do so. But to have a real discussion with atheists on this subject, one must put aside one's emotions. If not, the discussions degrade into shit.
If you want us to pick apart another religion, study up on one, tell us it's true, and let us have at it.
On Newsvine, I often "picked on" Islam. But we have no Muslims participating here, to my knowledge.
We do have people share the beliefs of Wicca on occasion, but in my experience, Wiccans seldom insist they know the truth about everything, generally accept science, and are pretty live-and-let-live. They tell us what they believe, but don't get pissed off if we don't agree.
I don't think we can say the same about all of the Christians who participate. Many don't get pissed off, but some do, and are annoyed by being asked to support their beliefs with evidence. That's a "them" problem. If they wish to be persuasive, they should provide arguments their audience will consider to be persuasive. Read the room. Don't tell a bunch of people who insist on hard evidence that they should believe you because of some old book, then try to play the victim when they aren't persuaded. This is not the persecution they're trying to convince themselves they experience.
Nobody is stopping you. But you can't expect to enter a discussion started by atheists, and expect to have your own religion handled with kid gloves by them.
Your points have been addressed by myself and others. Affirmative claims regarding the supernatural get challenged. It's that simple. I don't see "smaller" religions make such claims. Claims which some Christians or denominations make in abundance. And yet you seem to get irate when religious claims are challenged? What makes you think your or any religion is above scrutiny?
Emotions are part of the human condition. Why even try to ignore it. On that point, Christianity, indeed, religion draws on emotion. So exactly what am I SUPPOSED to feel when I see something I live for being ripped to shreds by people who care not for it in part or as a whole? What am I SUPPOSED to feel when I (and may be one other or several) try to explain our reason or if you wish, rationale, for supporting diversity and faith in a 'blended' form? And, atheists begin with "prove your faith" or it is myth, fairytale, leprechauns, "spaghetti monster orbiting stars," et ceteras hearing nothing of what is being added value or otherwise?
You have been to churches or Catholic mass, I think you have stated. Everything about religion hinges on faith through emotion!
It is not a foreign concept too hard to understand what is happening.
We're done with this exchange. I have delivered my view and you have done the same. It serves no good purpose for me anyway to continue. Do what you insist that you will. As long as I am permitted, I will speak my truth as you do yours. Cheers!
One can either control one's emotions and engage logically or avoid these discussions.
It does no good to engage others who will be brutally honest about their positions if this honesty triggers mostly emotional responses.
To a degree. And I find that to be problematic.
Sandy, I don't have to 'study up on another religion" and waste my time doing so just to bring it here for you and other atheists to say,
Which is beside the point and far and away from the fact that these people speak of the supernatural and of gods without pushback from you or others. But, you know what? This is a waste of time.
You're not interested in pushing back against their supernatural forms and fashions or their 'god/God/goddesses. It is what it is, yes it is.
I will take it on the 'chin' for what I have uttered about it up to this point. I'm a big 'boy' and I can take it. I am not a victim here and I won't be played as one.
Moving on. Got to go out!
Your views have been consistently addressed. Beyond that, you seem to be getting overly emotional about it. Emotional reactions do not lend to a logical or effective discourse.
You seem to be upset that your particular religion is having arguments made against it, while others aren't. You know, it takes two to make an argument. There is nobody here arguing in favor of those religions, and that's why they aren't being subjected to the same treatment as yours. If you want that to change, do your part.
That's because none of them are being pushed on me. Nobody expects me to accept them as true on the basis of emotion.
Nobody is doing that except for you.
Exactly.
I just googled for a list of superstitions that evidently some people still believe.
How many people are wary of Friday the 13th? Will take another route if they see a black cat? Etc.?
If you are not of that belief system, then you probably don't even know any of its "rules" and don't need to in order to live your best life.
When I was a Christian, I did not waste my time arguing with the non-believing heathens, who (in my Christian view) had not heard the proper Word (TRUTH) of God.
Because my usual default mind is in logic mode, I preceded to research and FACT CHECK them so I could show them the error of their ways. I could not refute their arguments unless I completely ignored science and recorded history.
Even as a logical person, I grieved the loss of my belief in a God that had watched me be orphaned as a baby, abandoned by my family, abused by adoptive family, and so on and so forth. I had been indoctrinated that all of that abuse was God's plan for me because He loved me.
I don't know how others have come to cling to their belief in the Christian God (and honestly may not want to since their belief could be a tool to control others by either a power stance or a poor little me victim stance), but arguing that their emotional state has to be respected as a basis for judging existence/reality may be one of the scariest aspects of the damage that can be caused by basing a person's life on "faith" instead of known facts.
I know what "sadism" is in context of this discussion. I 'fondly' remember the member of the Church of Satan on NewsVine (can't remember the 'handle' used to save my life. Er', that last part is an idiom). Also, Lisa Ling's "This is Life with Lisa Ling" points out in this short clip at least in part that the Church of Satan is really out to 'vex' Christian Nationalists for their hold on society.
I "get" it and have "got it" since those many years ago on NewsVine- a site which ended just before Trump was elected.
Here is a clip:
Compare:
The Truth Behind Modern Day Satanism
The point of the clips is for you and others to understand that I know that modern satanism are more paganism (self-gratification) with shades of political uprising than mythical and supernatural. Still, the imagery is noteworthy and worthy of mention in this context.
That satanist formerly with a group on NewsVine really had me going there for while. Now, I remember him fondly. He did not transition with us. . . or did he??!
I find it somewhat curious, that my Black Hebrew friend that I mentioned in a recent comment to TiG, we were just talking about the Church of Satan or more Satanism and its 'purposes' and I informed him of all I knew and had learned from my atheist friends from 'way back' on the usage of political "come-uppance' of the Church of Satan by its founder to teach meddlesome Christian Nationalists a lesson about religious freedom for all. Today, I am directly mentioning him here.
Sadism and Satanism are two entirely different things, CB.
And regardless, it's not atheists who buy into the Satan mythos. That's Christians. Pushing back against Satanism would be pushing back against Christianity. You believe in Satan, not us.
Actually, I will not deliver that message I intended. I will remember Christian 'charity' and peace is called for.
Do you do the same when minor religions come on the forum. I daresay, and I want to be cautious here: "Many" in quotes do not do the same to minor religions. I call it as I see it. I have no choice.
Christianity is what(ever) it is. Of course those minor religions are not dominant religions. In fact, you like the members here KNOW that I challenge my own faith and get in the virtual faces of Christian Nationalists where and when they appear on NT. With that as context, imagine my 'surprise' when atheists talk to me like I am some dumb 'clown' they have never heard or read comment about! It's ridiculous.
My atheists "friends" or whatever know where I stand or should know. So just to have to constantly 'rebuild' the narrative from scratch is vexing and upsetting. Give me the respect on these articles that I have earned by my 'work' on many subject matters. Because I ain't going to let nobody, I mean nobody, bust my chops about what I know to be suitable and appropriate to state publicly. Like it or lump it.
Moreover, this site does not need a Muslim to come talk about Islam because it would be more of the same. S/he will be 'swarmed' by condescending voices all determined to carve a piece off for themselves. And yes, to demonstrate their overused or under-exercised atheist 'chops.'
One last thing, if logic means consistency, then there is no and or but about it: Atheists should appear on minor religion articles and challenge what they read there. As of now -'they' do not. My strong apology for putting my friends in the minor religions on "front-street" but this is some unrelenting bull shit masquerading as critical thinking which literally shows up to damn Christianity for its success. Even though, not all Christians are creepy, meddlesome, and harmful to others.
This article was presented by an atheist, I gather for atheists, to come together and talk about Creationism as a mental illness. Why? How is initiating this type of article helpful or encouraging to Atheists? In my opinion, it is not. It is just a dig.
And no, I have no interest in telling atheist they suffer from mental illness just to return in-kind 'service.'
I don't know why you addressed this to me. Do you? Proof to me that I asked you on this article or this thread to believe "some old book" if not - locate and single out the "believer" who did. Because I know you don't believe what I believe for a long time time-in "triplicate.'
I did not get "irate" over religious claims. I seen to remember we were have a weird disagreement about when an APE is an APE.
It does not matter if you find it problematic. The greatest work is for us to exist together in peace, not by tearing each other down or trying to win by diminishing and mocking the other. Religion, for anyone who has ever cared to understand it is about people delivering themselves 'over' to a higher power and it is an emotional state of existing. Nothing to do about it but accept it. All religions about dieties involve people's emotion. Time to accept that fact, whether it makes for better discussion or not.
Or it may very well be that atheists and religionists are as far apart by design or force as today's conservatives and liberals.
As I have stated repeatedly, in the USA, Christianity is the dominant religion and the one that impacts society the most (by far). There is no comparing the impact of Christianity to any of the 'minor' religions.
Who is talking to you as though you are a dumb clown?
Did you read my opening post?:
You are mistaking candor for ridicule. Might be best that you steer clear of articles like this. You have spent way too much of your time complaining about being attacked when nothing of the sort has taken place.
Good grief CB, this has been explained repeatedly. You are clearly trying to engineer a gotcha (and a trivial one at that).
The same theme over and over. You act as though you have been attacked in this article.
I am done trying to reason with you.
I think you get my meaning and intent despite my confusing use of the word, "sadism" and satanism. Thanks for the 'catch' correction all the same.
Go with the larger theme of the comment. I know what Satanism is about in the way you know about it, I think. Though I ought to be careful with presumption around a room that is hard to 'read.'
Interesting, 'one' would have thought you would have shared the old name of the satanist on NewsVine to help a 'brother' put that to rest. See what I get when I assume good things. . . nothing. /s
The topic is creationism, yes? You do know that the account is written down in "some old book", yes?
Where in the paragraph you quoted do you see me saying that you, personally, expect me to accept the evidence of "some old book"? I do not. But I am quite sure that you realize that your religion, for which you frequently practice apologetics, is based on a bunch of old books. Or do you think that somehow Christians everywhere arrive at the same mythology via some sort of shared internal thought process?
Of course you do. You accused us of "abusing the supernatural".
Nobody here has been hard to read. We have all been quite literally saying what we think and explaining our reasons for thinking it. You have repeatedly refused to accept those explanations, or tried to claim them as persecution.
I do not remember the Newsviner of whom you speak.
Yes TiG, I vaguely remember your comment 1.1. So many comments have occurred since three days ago has it been? I agree with you. Forgive me, sometimes it is the collective "you" which needs to be invoked around here. And you a single atheist should not try to internalize everything I say about a good of atheists, plural.
As for this 'special setting' that I am constantly being reminded belongs to atheists-well, so what? We're old folks here we can handle a few backs and forths and people telling each other the truth about feelings as much as we can about logic!
Why are you interjecting for Gordy AGAIN! Damn. Can I pull Gordy's leg without interference. . . I am willing to wait on Gordy's return to laugh with me or at me!
You = me.
Atheists on NT don't mock, ridicule, "flying spaghetti monster," cuss God and gods,'castrate' Jesus, and so on and so forth? I say the collective "you" do it and I am not taking it back. We can end here or keep going. . . I will not take it back. Indeed, I have decided to point 'it' out from now on.
You obviously wish to believe so. However, all of the sentences preceding this refer to "Christians", as in plural, not you in particular.
How in the fuck can we castrate Jesus?
Such a ridiculous accusation is the result of you getting irate, which you say you don't do.
On a lighter note: Touché! (I saw this comment 'coming' and knew there was no way to avoid it.) Good come back! Peace out!
I am going to leave that question: "OPEN." Thank you for a good laugh at 6.1.115.
Let's end this hear and now.
Please allow me to be the asshole atheist that provides the condemnation to this "debate".
I don't believe in God.
But, if the Biblical God exists, He is a fucking Asshole.
According to the Bible, God has committed genocide. He drowned every living thing on the planet, except those on Noah's Ark. He "nuked" Sodom and Gomorrah. Butt, what's really fucked up is that He tortured the flying shit out of Job for being a loyal believer. Those acts (and many others) indicate that the Biblical God is an evil Motherfucker.
I don't believe in Heaven or Hell either. If Heaven is full of idiots like Pat Robertson, I would hate to be stuck there for all eternity. All of the good rock and rollers and comedians (like George Carlin) would be in Hell, so I'd much rather be there. Besides, I understand it's a dry heat.
BTW, I'm an equal opportunity blasphemer, so I condemn all idiotic religions (don't get met started on the fucking Qur'an).
I never said over religious claims. It's the replies to you which seem to get you irate, as the tone of your posts suggests.
Because he can and I am ok with it.
Are you just trying to play games then?
But I'm offended by your constant false perception of victimhood on articles like this. You fault people and claim we insult you when we call our your 'calling it as you see it' posts. Claiming your way is the only way and that everyone else is wrong and claiming that you know what we think and that we are wrong essentially. It's perplexing.
Saying you're essentially persecuted for days when you are in essence 'picking a fight' and then claiming victimhood. It's an endless cycle or is it called circular reasoning? Not sure.
Nice job from you all gangbanging on CB.
Thank you Gordy. That's perfect. The endless perception of victimhood is baffling.
Oh please! Maybe you should review all the posts John! CB posted and we replied. He is free to not post or leave anytime. That's how it works. His questions and points have been addressed, sometimes multiple times and we have been quite civil and patient in our responses.
You're welcome. I have noticed in certain discussions some seem to play the victim or, in a more extreme circumstance, have a persecution complex. Especially when it comes to religious topics.
Give me a break John. I always respect your opinion on everything just about and CB can speak for himself, he doesn't do it very well, but we're not gangbanging him.
I've read as much of this article comments as I care to. I'm not really into endless repetition.
I don't know of a word in the English language that could describe how vile the Biblical God would be if such a monstrosity actually existed.
According to the Christian religion, the men, who rape and murder, receive a "get of Hell free pass" as long as they repent before their death. However, all of the people who wouldn't dream of committing heinous acts against others are taught they are no better than rapists and murderers and therefore should not judge others. It is easy to see the type of men who benefit from this type of religious system.
Even though this is not news for me, it is still hard to imagine this level of cruelty ... especially towards one's own daughter. Just goes to show how belief systems can have such a profound impact on the 'reasoning' of some believers.
Unfortunately, this type of mindset is not uncommon where I was raised in the Bible Belt. Women/girls were taught their "place" and beatings by parents were not uncommon. Being molested/raped by brothers, fathers, grandfathers, fathers-in-law, etc., is whispered about with only the must trusted confidents.
The stats for known rape/sexual abuse in the US is atrocious. The US will never have a mentally healthy population if we don't protect our women and children from sexual predators.
Until we rid the US government of the American Taliban mindset, women/girls will continue to be molested/raped and mostly suffer in silence. The American Taliban would have us give birth to our rapist's child if we didn't want to be put on trial ourselves under the banner that their god wants it that way.
CB is getting the response warranted by his false claims of religious persecution.
And yet, here you are commenting.
Then your assertion is unfounded.
I just was chatting on Facebook with one of my college roommates. Her dad was a Methodist minister. Her sister is going through a lot of health problems and is married to an abusive deadbeat with an extremely toxic family. I asked what led her to marry this guy, and she said her sister felt like "damaged goods" because she'd been sexually abused as a teenager by several men in churches her father had pastored. Her father found a pregnancy test, and called her a slut. She turned down a really nice guy who asked her out, because she felt unworthy of him, and married a man who is physically and emotionally abusive to her and their kids.
No blame ever fell to the abusive men who "ruined" her, of course.
Gordy, I can laugh and be serious in the same comment. An ape is an Ape no matter its additional classification. You lost when you made that assertion. But, of course, the fact of an ape being an ape won. This is not about "you" - not everything is. Just admit it -quietly or publicly and move on.
I can be as 'amusing' with my comments as others can be and as 'hardball' too. It's all the same to. . . US!
Tessylo, I will be doing some self-examination on what is worthwhile bothering with on NT or not. I hope you do the same. Nice day!
Thanks JR! I am considering if I need a bigger virtual bed for all my "friends" in quotes to get a piece of me as often as they like. Okay, 'mob' when you read this I am being light-hearted right now.
someone should
Show one comment where I have attacked CB.
This article has over 400 comments. Someone has.
Well done, Gordy! You should post more often!
Not according to scientific taxonomic classifications. It seems you want to lump apes under one big umbrella, which is either being disingenuous or scientifically illiterate.
That makes no sense, as I never said anything was about me.
Thank you. I shall try. Time is my main limitation for posting. I'm contemplating another article. Perhaps something dealing with certain biblical claims like man being created in god's image or something like that. I'll flesh things out when I get enough time to sit down and do it.
Me too. This group holds nothing for me. Let them say what the "h" they wish about religion or whatever from now on.This is my FINAL COMMENT. Any directed in my direction. . .will not be remarked on.
You poor, poor victim.
There is none.
Exactly.
Candid disagreement is being recast as 'attack'.
And then playing the victim.
There are so many reasons that abused girls marry abusive men. After watching over a thousand hours of videos explaining toxic personality disorders, some of these guys are predators with Olympic gold medal winning skills if identifying abused women and "love bombing" them was a category.
I am going to reference some of what I have learned in the recent past that I can identify with on a personal level.
Abused children rarely, if ever, felt safe. The adults, who should have loved and protected them, were their abusers. So when abused children reach dating/marrying age, they are most likely looking for a sympathetic badass who will protect them and make them feel really safe. The "nice" guy may, or may not, have wound up to be abusive, but probably he did not qualify for the role of protector. The issue is that the abused child needs a protector from their own adult family even when they reach adulthood.
In most relationships, the abuser spends a lot of time listening to all of the trauma their target has endured. This is so it can be used against the target in the future.
The abuser doesn't really get brutal until they have ensured a strong trauma bond with their target and then they delight in trying to completely finish destroying the person who they had duped into trusting them. The target usually has NOWHERE and NO ONE to turn to because the abuser has been working behind their back to convince whatever friends and family that are left that the target is manic, manipulating, abusive and batshit crazy. Luckily, in my case, my husband has very few people who he hasn't offended or traumatized in some way. This kind of keeps him off balance on how much he believes he can get away with - otherwise I would already be dead. If a person hasn't lived this type of life, it is probably impossible to understand because I have actually lived it and didn't understand it myself.
This is why I am now trying to learn how and why brains are wired to be abusive or accept abuse as a way of life.....because I am wired to try to deal with life logically and shut down ALL of the emotions that I cannot safely deal with. In my life there are no safe spaces to deal with emotions. I deal by knowing that I am not alone, I am not the cause, and maybe, just maybe, I can share some part of what I have lived and learned to help others.
The testimonials are out there from women who have survived tremendous abuse or are still trying to get out of a abusive relationship. I am so very thankful that I can learn from the experiences of these women.
I am grateful for the numerous joys I have had and continue to have as I regain the self I was 27 years ago. I am lucky enough to be able to spend most of my time as I see fit so that allows me to read what I want, listen to what I want and spend time watching the cats, chickens, birds and butterflies and count my blessings.
There is little likelihood that society will ever blame abusive men for anything. The only safety for women is in being educated on what abusive men are, how to identify them and how to have zero contact if at all possible. One of the very last things that women should do (or be forced to do) is to reproduce with men with toxic personalities that could be passed down genetically to their children.
I suggest you introduce your college roommate to Little Shaman videos and see if she thinks they might help her sister. Little Shaman is one my favorite women to listen to because of her message and I find her cadence soothing.
Thank you. I hope you can find peace and safety.
Whatever. Your perpetual victimhood is tiresome. No one has attacked yet you repeatedly claim to the contrary.
You say it's not all about Gordy, yet you're making this all about you.
You say he lost, he didn't lose anything, you did. You are the one who is attacking and insulting others.
If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
The article is about flat earth fundies who deny science and believe the dumbest interpretation of ancient texts possible should be imposed as law. Those who defend such ignorance demand ridicule...
Where in this article did you read that?
Those who make up such shit demand ridicule.
LOL, too bad xtians are required to forgive, huh?
can you even imagine spending eternity surrounded by f'n thumpers? talk about hell...
That's my version of hell.
Wow, few here believe in Hell. Good for you Gordy.
What do YOU believe in, Drinker?
I believe in myself and my family.
Exactly, diversity isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be, heh?
Does that indicate you believe in Heaven or Hell?
Well, I believe that Heaven is in between my wife’s legs.
Diversity among Trumpers?
Let's see, I guess those haters can be divided into White Supremacists, Nazis, Fascists, anti-Semites, anti-Vaxxers, ignorant rednecks, misogynists, racists, homophobes, etc.
Cool.
The relevant questions is: Do you believe in creationism?
No, not in all, you?
Diversity is diversity, are you changing the definition?
Just so it's clear, I do not believe in a hell either.
No.
Didn't 6.1.166 indicate that there is even diversity among the Trump supporters?
sure there is, rich white people that are racists and stupid white people that are racists...
... just friends.
try saying that after spending 90 minutes in a born again evangelical madrasa one sunday...
I might just kill myself before I can last that long, Lol
meh, at least they won't nail you to a cross if you do that...
They wouldn't have a chance to. I might spontaneously combust if I walked in on such a setting. Like a vampire being doused with holy water, Lol
I think you are asking if our universe is sentient. I do not think that it is sentient in the sense that there exists a single sentience for the universe. Reality seems to be a complex set of interactions which manifest properties that we find meaningful (e.g. stars, planets, life).
I do not understand what you mean by 'digestion'. The endless possibilities make perfect sense to me. Given an extraordinarily complex reality (at the core, quantum dynamics) I would expect so many possibilities that it boggles the human mind.
I do not understand this question.
No. I am asking if our universe is SMART. I ask the question in this fashion, because when we observe that there is relative stability instead of relative chaos in the universe; that there is actual 'increase' from potential found in the earth (even to mankind 'discovering' the truth of how to leave 'home' and venture to other places off-world), that there is endless potential for man in a world that appears boundless. . . what can we IMAGINE all this potential for discovery 'says' about itself?
"Digestion" suggests a process by which humanity is continually learning something new about itself and new 'abilities' which it did not know before. Undoubtedly we are smarter now than we were before, but it begs the question: We are creatures of this earth/universe, we can only learn what is there to be 'taught.' That is, there appears to be endless potential power to discover what it is useful for.
How can a dumb universe arrange and manage an endless set of potentialities and 'discoveries' properly?
Per science, our universe is in a constant state of degradation; this is known as increasing entropy. During this large-scale net increase in entropy, forms do indeed emerge that are ordered. It is kind of like patterns that appear in clouds. Most of the time clouds are seemingly random but on occasion they combine in ways that are meaningful (to human) and functional (e.g. storms).
So while forms do emerge along the way, our universe is simply degrading.
Have you ever come across the computer simulation of Life? It is a simulation of interactions based on very simple rules which will at times produce seemingly intelligent constructs (like simple machines). It is a very simplistic way to try to imagine what is going on in the universe as a whole.
Without intending to argue, as I do understand entropy (the laws of thermal dynamics), the implication is that when a thing is wearing down or out it has seen better ("perfection"). So my issue is not the breaking down of our universe or planet, instead it is:
The WHY/What/How/Where/Who set of questions about such "perfection" principles being available to discover in the first place.
Let me give you a for instance to illustrate my question: I once mentioned to the NT 'family' that as humanity discovers what is 'out there' to be discovered- it strikes me that all the materials we find in the universe are being drawn out of a 'storehouse' of sorts-when 'unlocked.'
AKA: Wonders. (Without any religious connotation.)
To elaborate farther: I opined that at some point in the future (100 years or more) humanity will 'ascend' to the point which seems ridiculously impossible right not to being able (one day) to literally understand the "properties" of walking on air or on water (too fantastic to imagine - yet, so was electricity to the ancients).
Moving on.
With that kind of mindset offered in explanation,. . . it leads me to wonder why/what/when/who/where - why is so much potential KNOWLEDGE and POWER left to be understood and 'plundered' in a ("dumb") universe?
I am not sure we can say that the origin of the universe was perfect. It was uniform, dense and very uncomplicated. It was the triggering event that initiated the interesting stuff and started the process of interactions which made (and makes) the universe a very complex, diverse thing.
We do not know why our universe emerged as it did. Was it some divine entity that created what we refer to as the singularity and triggering it in such as way to ensure it will expand and interact as it has done? Or are we simply observing a universe that has resulted and attributing special meaning to what we see? If the universe had emerged differently, would some other form of life be asking the same questions? We do not yet know.
Your argument seems to be that emergent complexity means that the universe has a sentient intelligence behind it. As our understanding of science expands we typically are able to explain complexity as a natural byproduct of the interactions of reality. Thus complexity is not evidence of sentient intelligence. It is merely evidence that our universe is capable of (temporarily) producing complex forms (e.g. a star, a galaxy, life) to which we (human beings) attribute meaning.
That is not what I asked, "said," or meant. I am attempting to finesse from the readers if they have given any thought to why our "perfect" (in quotes) universe has all the properties to make human and animal like past/present/future doable and discoverable of wonders. For instance, had humanity never materialized as it has on this planet (alone as far as we know/project) why does our planet/universe have such potential to create what are "wonders" (in quotes) buried in its "nature/properties"?
What is all this worldly and universal potentialities available for if never put into 'action'?
What 'show' and use are these incredible 'powers' in the universe and within this planet we call home -if they were never harnessed through discovery?
Thus, I ask is the universe 'smart' (in single quotes)?
It's a fair consideration.
You are leading the reader to answer your own question from a faulty premise of "perfect". The universe does indeed have all the properties to make life, but does so under specific conditions. There is nothing magical or supernatural about life on one planet and not on another. When conditions are right for life it happens. Until then it doesn't. These things just are and don't require a why.
I put "perfect" in quotes and even identified my intent for doing so through common-sense emphasis that should direct all who know the grammar technique to take for granted our universe/world is not absolutely perfect, but relatively perfect. I don't know what else to do to make that clear-er.
Besides that, the word "perfect" in quotes is not the focus of my comment anyway. It is a 'vehicle' supporting the rest of the context of my comment.
Furthermore, I have not ASKED or concerned my comment up to this point with "magic" or the supernatural.
I asked several times now if the reader/s consider the universe to be 'smart' (in quotes).
Additionally, I gave my rationale by asking what is the universe 'doing,' on its own timetable, through possessing this incredible, amazing, wonderful, joyous, dangerous demonstration of potential power and dynamics if it is all for nought?
What is power dynamics for if not for use - by someone or something?
Now back to the question:
Is the universe 'smart' (in single quotes)?
What say you to this question, Evilgenius?
Or should I just accept your response at 6.2.7? Consider this critically. (What/When/Where/How/Who/Why.)
There is no requirement for the universe to be smart to function. It doesn't need to be smart in the sense there is some plan or purpose. A certain set of criteria exists for something to happen or it doesn't. Not having an intelligent design does not make existence less incredible, amazing, wonderful, joyous or dangerous. I find joy and wonder in a simple sunrise. I find amazement in the vastness of space and incredibly insignificant when counting stars. No God necessary.
EVEN IF I go beyond into contemplation of a who or why it makes little difference. Why would any intelligence that created something so complex with universes numbering beyond human comprehension care about life on one tiny planet revolving around a small remote sun near the end of an arm in one of them? If there is it will be further beyond our knowledge and understanding as anything can be. Unless of course we are in the matrix and then all bets are off.
You ask questions that can't be answered and honestly and no offense, quite petulantly.
Your whole attitude is quite child like and petulant in this regard. You don't like the answers so you get mad and think people should think the way you do.
Why do you insist on 'improving' on my question. I laid out the 'terms' and context of my question repeatedly throughout the asking of it.
Is this universe 'smart' (in quotes)? I beg of you to answer the question directly one way or the other from your point of view. It's not a trick question.
Can you speculate on an answer. That is all that is meant by the question. It was something "thoughtful" to consider. . . instead it has been turned into something sinister, angry, mocking, and. . . unanswered. Why did that occur?
I even mentioned at the 'beginning' that the question was attached to another 'outcome' and still no one answered it but instead 'stiff-armed' it until now when you show up to attack me, personally.
I mean it is evidenced by our being stuck on Earth that we do not communicate with the universe and it does not display its intellect (if any) in human ways.
It is a good question. You have insulted me and I will accept that (this time). I'll be a "child" for you - this time. Next time. . . .
Okay... No. The universe is not smart. Happy now?
How can I speculate on an answer when I really don't understand the fucking question???
You're playing the victim like someone else said. You may see it as an insult or an attack, but I see it as constructive criticism.
You're acting like everyone is out to get you.
You think it's a good question, but it is nonsensical and not answerable.
A lot of what you say, to me, really doesn't make a lot of sense, maybe that's just me.
Again, everyone is not out to get you because they don't answer your question how you want them to or don't understand you and asking it over and over again, doesn't make much sense.
Maybe it's a black thing or a Christian thing, Tessylo. . . . /s
We're done on this. This chat we're pretending to have is like a gnat buzzing around my mouth. I have a big enough 'pile-on' to off-load.' There will always be plenty of opportunities to call me names some other time. Bye.
Yes! Yes! Yes! I am happy! Moving on. I would argue that the universe. . . is SMART, after all it made you and the lot of us. . . and we are TERRIFIC!!!
Can I get 3 cheers for the universe that created humanity??
Whatever.
I read the short article on its site. I have a question. Where in the above 'article' and its original content does this author establish what he means by "mental illness"? Because I am a believer and as many/all of you know I get into disagreement with some religious people in my own faith (one commenter not seen here of recent comes to mind), and I know that I am not mentally ill about my religious belief system.
As for "Adam and Eve" I was not in the beginning to say it was or was not so. Now I have a question for the INFORMED among us. How long was the apes as a species around before humanity branched off from that creature? Please advise.
The article addresses the concept of denial. The mental illness part seems to be implied when denial is taken to an extreme, to the exclusion or rejection of established facts.
Thank you. Can you share information on how long apes were a species before humanity branched off from them? Save me some digging, if you know already!
Christians overall are desperately trying to inform the world that there is something spiritual (inside them) operating in this world, by virtual of their 'turning' to faith in God from their agnosticism and atheism (yes, some atheists convert to Christianity as we well know). There are varying justifications for this, but that is beyond the scope of this article and my comment.
The fact is we, believers, strive for changes and to live something of an "ideal" life based on faith (in God). Of course, our failures are 'renown' as a collective body. But, so are our successes as a body of believers.
The problem: We're all over the place and range of our believes, operating from an old set of texts and an inability to change it by modernization. BTW, "modernization, " has potential to do grave harm to an ancient/established belief system. Why am I writing this?
Because many Christians have common sense and an understanding that our faith documents are ancient and 'set' but what can we do we are 'compelled' by forces beyond our understanding to believe and "settle in our hearts" even as those people felt compelled to do so who founded the Christian faith in particular.
I am losing my train of thought, and will stop here.
Humans didn't branch off from apes. That seems to be a common misconception.
Great. All they have to do now is prove it.
You do you.
Maybe because the belief system is antiquated and outdated?
You tell me.
Is it common sense when some christians reject established science or facts in favor of dogma?
Okay, then why stop there, Gordy327? Are you saving the rest for some 'grand' moment or effect or presentation? /s What 'halted' you from educating the public? I repeat you 'nayed' the ape, but did not 'aye' the _____ ! Therefore, the thought is incomplete and wanting. BTW, I know the answer as it has been explained to me long enough to have 'misplaced' it but can be subject to recall. But why wait for recall. Look! Gordy327 is here and he knows the answer.
Question: Will Gordy share the answer with the rest of us?! Well, let's just hope and pray while we wait. /s
You should know of me well enough to know that I do not speak up or stand with Christians who deny science. But, I do stand up and speak up (I guess I have to) with Christians who incorporate modern science and Christian morality into their daily life routine.
Try to distinguish between the "me" you read here for years and the fundamentalists who reject science or facts in favor of dogma, why don't you. You would be saving the 'room' time and doing me and some others here a good service should you put forth the effort!
So. . . you agree that any extremists (in denial) among us are mentally ill people? That mental illness is a state of mind even when it is not put into action? Perhaps, these 'denialists' (in quotes) need medical/psychological help back to where exactly? In a diverse world is it reasonable for us all to be say - 'reasoned' atheists, Gordy? Where is the diversity in sameness?
Is it ever 'okay' to be diverse of thinking, even religiously so, since no one can explicitly deny God's existence anyway—and be harmless to his/her fellows?
Please elaborate. I want to understand what you and the author are really trying to 'say' to me and by extension us. Can you make it plain? Yes? No? Maybe?
If you're actually interested in knowing, then please skip the snark. Perhaps this will help your understanding.
Nope. No one has to prove a thing to you about the existence of "spirituality". People experience it, so it exists. You can call the experience whatever you like and they can call it whatever they like.
What do you think you are going to accomplish by reducing every human urge and emotion to the result of physical and chemical processes ?
Some people say love is nothing but a physical and chemical process within the brain. So what? People experience love as something else, and that is what matters.
It's simple logical debate: making the affirmative claim brings the burden of proof. It's that simple. And yes, every urge is a biochemical reaction. That's biology and reality. How one "experiences" that doesn't change that fact.
That is YOUR fact.
Reducing human emotions to biochemical reactions is sad.
And of course how we experience things matters, it is all we have. Who the hell ever takes solace that their grief about their parents death is meaningless because it is a simple biochemical reaction?
You can give your scientific reasons for why free will doesnt exist. Big deal. We experience free will every moment of our lives. No one will ever know how it feels to not have free will because that cannot be experienced.
So why should anyone care about the scientific conclusion that there is no free will? It is meaningless to how we live life.
It's just plain fact John. There is nothing magical, mystical, ect about emotions. They are products of neurological processes. I'm not sure why that is difficult for you or anyone else to accept. I'm not even talking free will. That is your Strawman. So fail to to see the relevance there.
Compare:
Thank you for sharing, Gordy. This interesting material in the fist link above was shared with this group by Hallux on Wednesday, April 26. And I was very appreciative of it—period. He stepped up and hit a 'homer' in sharing with us.
Now to the point: I have bolded the word, "ape" throughout corresponding links above.
At 7.1.2 Gordy wrote: Humans didn't branch off from apes. That seems to be a common misconception.
Well Gordy if correct, can you enlighten me, may be us, as to why said articles (similar to your own) is classifying Gibbons as apes?
Finally, these statements in red in the second link is hard for me to reconcile. Perhaps you can assist. Can you compare the red statements and explain what the writer is getting at?
It would be a big help to me and maybe one or two others here.
It basically means hominids like humans and apes share a common ancestor, which is what is seen the farther back on the evolutionary tree we go.
Oops, I apologize for not supply the reference link to the second quote @7.1.11 see here:
So some help here if you don't mind: Are Gibbons apes?
Yes but they are not Great Apes (from which human beings evolved).
Gibbons are a type of (lesser) ape of the Family Hylobatidae. Apes (as in great apes, chimps, and humans) are of the Family Hominidae. As a side note, gibbons share 96% DNA with modern humans.
I'm confused because the above is still open for interpretation/explanation. Is this quote above a true statement, TiG?
Additionally, if you agree Gibbons are lesser apes and humans evolved from greater apes , you disagree with the quote above, no?
We evolved from the Great Ape which evolved from Ape in general.
If we look at this phylogenetically we branched off from 'Great Apes', not 'Apes'. Our family is the hominidae 'Great Apes' and our super family is the hominoidae 'Apes'.
You will need to consult with Gordy to get a more specific answer.
Your statements appear to be inconsistent and irreconcilable with this 7.1.11 :
Compare:
So words change. That is allowable. But, Hominade includes all apes from which "hominid" is derived a separate modern subcategory, no?
Throughout the labeling processes, humanity are never removed from the category of APES, no?
When people say (or complain) we "evolved from apes," they are probably referring to modern apes. Humans and apes stem from the same evolutionary branch. They are of different species, genus, family, ect.. But they share a common ancestor. I'm nor sure why this is difficult to understand?
Do elaborate on why you wrote this, please.
Gordy just clarified. He was using the colloquial meaning for 'ape' as in what we might find in a zoo. A lot of people seem to think we branched off from monkeys ... I think that is what Gordy was referring to.
Exactly. I'm glad you get it.
I would take the position that there are some who never evolved, and they walk among us today. Some are even on NT posting and trolling regularly. We know who they are, don't we?
Okay, is a "Great ape " in the Ape family?
Do you agree or disagree with the first bullet point: ". . . and hominids " - yes, no, maybe? (HINT: the "superfamily" is HOMINOIDEA.)
Great apes are humans, gorillas, baboons and chimpanzees.
CB, you should more carefully read what I write. I already answered that question.
So to conclude: An ape is an ape is an ape. I fully understand the tree, TiG. But the discussion 'branches' off for a series on what constitutes an ape or some such thing when this ASSERTION was delivered: 7.1.2
Humans didn't branch off from apes. That seems to be a common misconception.
Evidently, this whole narrowly focused set of comments has PROVEN humans did branch off from a super family of apes! There is no "common misconception" as stated and thus the above assertion is false.
I have explained this too @7.1.21. Gordy was using 'ape' in a colloquial sense (as in what we would see in a zoo).
Oh please. How many 'wasted' steps in the process have you permitted to drag on, before admitting you misunderstood the stream of discussion. Don't pull a Trump! You could have self-corrected and moved on a 'thousand comments' ago! Instead TiG had to bail it out.
Why is any of that necessary? It's not helpful to the cause or our purposes on NT.
"Zoo" is only used 1 time (I did a search of article/comments). Nobody stated or imply anything about modern monkey (only three time in not in any context to lead to a misunderstanding about what a monkey is relative to an ape). Now come on. Own your 'work.' And let us move on.
This is not some clic where we have to lie to each other or band together against 'outsiders.' Y'all have known me too long for this kind of stunt!
I just applied common sense to his comment.
Forgive me for being so bold as to tell you, you should not have to 'man-plain' Gordy to anybody. Gordy is hear and can speak for himself! He is typing even now - evidence there is nothing wrong with his hands or his keyboard!
Gordy delivered an assertion and did not clear/communicate his real intent. He opted to 'let' you work it out. I'm okay with that. Finally to be clear, no one was talking about zoos or modern monkeys. I move we all end this here and now.
Answering a question is not mansplaining ... it is normal discourse.
What I see you doing is attempting to generate a largely meaningless gotcha. That is not helpful.
We can discuss religious matters objectively and cordially or we can behave badly. Let's try the former.
TiG you and I am are online friends, I have no, none, zilch, zero, blank, nada interest in playing 'gotcha' with you. Please don't introduce that into this discussion. Gordy, should have handled his own 'assertion' in discussion not let it languish for a 'thousand' comments. That's all I have to state about it. Peace, my friend.
TiG is free to speak for me, as he clearly understands what I am conveying. If he is in error in regards to what I am saying or meaning, I will certainly correct him on it. But I have not had to do that yet. TiG's elaboration of my post/s is accurate and I will allow it.
Well, I get that settles. . . it/that. I can move on.
We could/should consider becoming online friends too! Cheers.
I, and TiG, have tried to explain things as simple and clearly as I/we can. You're the one who keeps dragging on this particular line of dialog. I have to wonder if you're just being intentionally obtuse at this point?
Thanks for coming.
You're welcome and thank you for allowing me some of your time and company. I have other thoughts to to share when/where appropriate.
Alesi has been giving us the silent treatment for some 13+ million years, don't expect her(?) to open up anytime soon.
What? I don't follow? Is this humor. (BTW, usually I 'adore' your wit.)
Interesting. Thank you. Especially for taking time to share such useful/valuable information.
Incidentally, on that same website (right side column) is another article (title):
It is curious the many 'versions' and timelines that are involved in the many humanoid species. Just adds to the confusion if you ask me. That is not a 'complain' or denial, nevertheless.
Not a problem, I'm also good for useless/valueless info from Conservapedia.
Science is constantly updating itself as new evidence is found and studied. Scientists are human and prone to bias for any number of reasons so the data is studied, peer reviewed, studied some more and questioned over and over. Some gets accepted and some gets rejected all until other data is discovered.
Thank you. I presume you see some of my point, even though your comment treads lightly around the edges of the fact that there are many scientific voices talking about timelines, designations, and periods. That is not a complaint or denial of any of it, nevertheless!
I'm not treading lightly around the edges at all. I'm boldly stating the reasons why it looks that way. On top of the noise one would get wading through real scientific data are the various layperson's media articles that aren't are either reporting early data that has yet to be verified OR just plain sloppy and not reporting correct data. It's no wonder many people get things wrong or use incorrect data for to prove an incorrect point.
Being that I am not a scientist, it can be easy to hood-wink me or just confuse me with 'dazzling' scientific bull patty once those humongous numbers of hundreds of thousands, millions, tens of millions, and billions of years ago occur when explaining a small, insignificant piece of bone, jaw, or other body limb. That is all I am stating. I don't pretend to fully grasp who is qualified to write on behalf of science or where the consensus 'rest' on the materials. And, we have not even began to consider where the 'controversial materials' that get put into the stream end up being broadcasted and repeated. I'm just sayin'. That is not a complaint or denial of any of it, nevertheless!
The presented argument hinges upon a single word -- literal. And the word literal has lost all meaning in the age of 'they'. It's not surprising that dabblers in various scientific (and pseudo-scientific) endeavors perceive the word literal as a threat to their world view. A literal interpretation does evoke the concepts of responsibility and accountability; something to be avoided in the age of 'they'.
The author seems to be arguing that a literal interpretation of anything is a psychosis that needs corrective liberal interpretation. The creation story only serves as a hat rack upon which to hang refutation of a literal interpretation. Refuting one literal interpretation refutes all literal interpretations. That's flawed philosophy but a sound scientific method. The author is subliminally arguing that we do not live in a literal reality. But the consequence is there cannot be a literal truth.
When did that 'age' materialize? When I came here 2 years ago half the crowd was mired in the 'age' of We. It has been a source of mirth ever since.
The age of 'we' was too literal. Pop open a Bud Light and think about it.
Perish the thought, I'm a Canadian. I'll have some Wiser's 18 Y.O. instead knowing full well that as with a woman's breasts one is too few and 3 are too many.
Where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average.
Man created God in his image.
If God created man in His image, we would be invisible.
Ancient goat herders created the Bible. It is NOT a science book.
Creationism evolved into "Intelligent Design".
That sentence contains two oxymorons.
Since man created God, doesn't that imply man created the universe? Man the creator isn't limited by his creation. Man is above nature, morality, and truth. Reality is what man says it is.
Ancient goat herders were fucking ignorant.
They created God as an explanation for everything they didn't understand.
Ignorant people today still use God to explain shit they don't understand.
Q: Why did the tornado destroy that trailer park?
A: It was "God's will".
Q: Why do innocent babies die every day?
A: It's "God's will" (because God is a fucking Asshole).
Cuz kid's souls are like seedless grapes and He was hungry.
Do you mean the indigenous people that domesticated animals, invented farming, invented written language, created cities and civilizations, and reshaped the natural world without mechanization? The people who could navigate without GPS and could move ten ton stone blocks without machines aren't likely candidates for ignorance.
If ancient goat herders were fucking ignorant then there wouldn't be books to argue about. Ancient goat herders had an advantage that's been lost. They could observe, contemplate, and think which modern humans find difficult.
oooo you're gonna burn for that one
The gates of Heaven and Hell both have 'No Vacancy' signs.
That reminds me of something I saw on Facebook - regarding Fucker Carlson - it read -
"I can't help but wonder what Rush Limbaugh would say?"
"Ahhh! I'm burning, Ahhh!"
And come to incorrect conclusions.
What makes you think that was ther profession?
If you want an in-depth study of the writers and people of the Bible, below is a link to a course that I found informative and enjoyable to watch. I hope it answers your question about the who and why of the origins of the Bible.
These sort of seeds interest me with more agnostics trying to argue they’re correctness than theists.
I’ve been agnostic my entire life since an early teenager but remain puzzled by:
If an afterlife is part the belief, then one could argue that an evolutionary advantage might be relief from the stress that can accompany our awareness of mortality — inevitable death.
I strongly suspect that there have always been those who just didn't buy into whatever the priests or shamens were selling, but in recent times, say the past few centuries, I would attribute the growth of non-religiosity to the growth of science.
Heaps of studies have shown higher intelligence and/or higher educational attainment equating to lower religiosity. Here's one.
I recently read Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari, in which the case was made that cooperation among humans has always been dependent on shared myths/stories, especially in larger societies where people can't personally know and trust everyone else. So, not expressly religious beliefs, but some kind of shared story, ethos or philosophical understanding that can create a societal identity to which individuals who might be strangers to one another can feel they belong.
See the evolution vs. creationism "debate" for example, which I can't believe is still a thing in the age of genetics.
Shocking isn’t it?
The great bulk of Biblical scholars and leaders don’t take Genesis as some kind of literal book of cosmic history. Fundamentalist Evangelicals? Yeah, they often do. But as loud as they are, I think it’s important to remember that they don’t speak for a majority of Christians, much less all of us.
This video is not intended for theists:
Nice Video.
The definition of insanity is posting the same style of article over and over and expecting different results and effects to take place. How is doing that making a case for sound mental health? /s
This is newstalkers. The same thing could be said of nearly every article here, especially political ones.
The political ones seem quite numerous too.
Misses the point. But, carry on doing so. As a critical thinker I am pretty sure you are aware of what fairness and reasonability look like. This article, posted as 'bait' I guess to provoke mainly Christians - any will do is an insult piece. Nothing more. Call it out for what it is.
The author/writer does not tell us in the short portion pulled from the article or the linked article itself what about creationism (which he views as error and it could well be so) leads him to go to the drastic state of labeling with a serious charge of mental illness.
It's a mocking piece of writing. And since it misses its point - its unfulfilling as a document.
If you don't like this type of article, you shouldn't come by if you find it so unfulfilling.
It's like you're trying to pick a fight.
If you don't like satire on this subject, check out other articles more to your liking.
If that's how you choose to interpret the article, then that's on you. If you have an issue with it, then why are you here? You chose to join and comment.
It's 'bait.' So I bit down hard on it. Now what? Go ahead attack (me) I can take it. I have no choice. 'Reel' me in.
Not bait. That's your own opinion. Not sure why you think I would attack you. It's like you're trying to play the victim?
Thank you for your thoughts.
I find these articles educational, interesting and entertaining. Thank you for posting them, Gordy.
I found an article that you might enjoy and even use as reference material in the future.
You're welcome. Always happy to be of service
Because I recognize and agree with it does get monotonous having the same old, same old arguments, I do try to share new information/discoveries to these discussions if I am going to engage in them.
Earlier, I shared a Yale course on the history of the authors and people of the Bible. That course is based on archeological information that is over a decade old so I looked for something more contemporary to explain why historians know much of the history presented in the Bible is fiction.
Somebody asked me the other day (I know who it is but of course you all won't), he being a Black Hebrew born a serious question about homosexuality and during the talk, he asked me this: "What would the world look like without religion?" We talked for a while about that. (I said some positive things about morals without God, even invoking positive features of atheists.)
It does lead to a question: If someone proposes a world of logic, science, and critical thinking alone and without any religious influences, is such a world even feasible amongst humanity since our very existences appear to be on a spectrum?
(Departing now-out the door. Back later.
)
Star Trek answered that question.
As one's avatar might suggest.
Star Trek is fiction as men and women with pointed ears do not exist.
Thank you for pointing out the obvious. But it does answer your question.
Fictional worlds, by definition, have no experiences in reality. So now I will say to you: "That's nice-prove it."
The question being asked is a serious one for discussion as to how or how not such a world can exist. If anybody chooses to dignify it. But, if not well I understand as a lot is left unsaid around here, in my opinion.
Furthermore, I can be wrong and I feel sure you will correct me if possible. . . but, there has not been a sufficient set of STAR TREK episodes or a "Vulcan" series to confirm what a so-called, "Vulcan culture" is in its fullness.
By that standard, your question is meaningless and amount to nothing more than a 'what if.' So my reply was a perfect answer to your type of question.
Prove what exactly? I made no affirmative claim to be proven.
My answer was serious too, as it demonstrates how such a world can be possible. Religion becomes a non-issue and effectively goes by the wayside, much like the ancient Greek/Roman mythology.
It is incredibly easy for me to see how morality would continue to exist without religion. The morality of religions comes from human beings after all.
To me the interesting question is how many people are capable of operating without the comfort provided by their religion. That is, how many could deal straight on the with the likelihood that death is final and that we really will never see our departed fellow creatures again? Death is scary and unpleasant. Religion helps people deal with death. What happens if that comfort factor is not there?
Hard to say. I suspect most people would adapt (as we have adapted to knowledge that our earthly existence will indeed come to an end).
This is the question being asked for anyone willing to reply.
Your comment answers a world without religion and its possible effects. The question above is asking can we even get to such a place seeing that religion and irreligion are two sides on a spectrum.
On the topic of this life as illusion, I have a question: Are dreams and memories illusions about the illusion we live in?
Moreover, Apologetics leader, Ravi Zacharias, who fell in ignominy after his death, used to say if one truly believes this world is illusion: Step out in front of a bus.
Just sayin.
That is not at all what I would mean by illusion. Step in front of a bus and the physical reality will kill you. What killed you is perceived by us to be a bus. We think that the metal of the bus physically touched the skin and bones of your body. But in reality the atoms of the bus never touched your atoms. It was the force of those atoms which redirected your atoms (breaking bonds, etc.) that caused your death. If not for the forces binding atoms (and their parts) together, the bus could pass right through you and might not disrupt a single atom.
The illusion is one of large scale perception. What we perceive is a very simplified view of a complex, dynamic reality.
So yes, it can get tedious dropping out words all day long just to get to the nitty-gritty that in the case of a gunshot to the head: An illusion of 'lead' entering one's cranium is really what caused the illusion of blood splattering, thereabouts. Words facilitate communication.
Unfortunately, scientists haven't figured out how to time travel to the past so they can't actually prove the theory of evolution.
Fortunately, there is an ancient book that contains an eye witness account of how everything was created.
Rationality Rules.....or should.
An oldie, but a goodie. I loved Rad's videos and bookmarked this one to remind me to revisit her videos occasionally.
Test