Jump to content
Kingdom of Adventistan

2 Tenets of Atheism


Gail

Recommended Posts

Originally Posted By: cardw

It is the social instinct, not the 10 commandments that inform us that it is wrong to murder.

Remember the golden rule is SELF referenced not BIBLE or GOD referenced.

Do unto others as YOU would have them do unto YOU.

I guess that's the reason that the former Soviet Union did so well in the murder of over 40,000,000 of their own citizens.And the Kymer Rouge was so successful in filling the killing fields with bodies. Those were both societies where the state prohibited the God of heaven from ministering to His people. Many other societies can be given as examples also.

You have dodged the point. Your example is a fallacy anyway. It doesn't account for the vast majority of atheists who don't murder and the great number of Christians who do. Christians make up the highest percentage of people in prison. I'm not using that as an argument that Christianity is bad, only that your point is fallacious.

These are all examples of totalitarianism not atheism, since atheism makes no statement about values.

You need to address the point that the golden rule is self referenced.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 400
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • cardw

    115

  • John317

    49

  • doug yowell

    42

  • Twilight

    38

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Other than, I guess, showing whether or not there has been time for it to take place.

Let me be specific: what is your response to Thomas Baillieul's point, which is based on citations from a number of published research papers in the relevant field, that there is no strong evidence that the halos Gentry examined were caused by short-half-life polonium rather than some other long-half-life radioactive element?

Let's see if we can focus on the evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: cardw
It is the social instinct, not the 10 commandments that inform us that it is wrong to murder.

Remember the golden rule is SELF referenced not BIBLE or GOD referenced.

Do unto others as YOU would have them do unto YOU.

But there are millions who never shared that social instinct you speak of. The Japanese who went into China in the 1930s and raped the city of Shanghai never believed they were doing wrong. They recorded and photographed what they did and were proud of it.

According to evolutionary theory, if and when people lack this "social instinct," they are not doing wrong in any objective sense. And those whose crimes are never discovered and are never punished in this life have no reason to believe that they did any wrong.

When does being wrong stop anybody from doing evil?

Even Jesus states that what you do is what counts not what you say you believe. You are debating with Jesus.

You are asking for a 100 percent compliance of this social instinct. Christianity has no compliance on that level. In fact when you compare atheists to Christians today, Christians behave worse.

Now if we are looking at the presence of this social instinct in Japan I would point out that they didn't kill their own people. To go to war, Christian or not, you have to dehumanize or vilify your enemy.

Christians and atheists and every other group does this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Gary K
Oh, and what I specifically said there was overwhelming evidence for was the suppression of ideas that refute evolution and make the argument for creation stronger. I love how you create straw man arguments by twisting what I say completely out of context.

I really did expect better of you.

I WAS saying there isn't overwhelming evidence for suppression. What he is calling suppression is nonsense. His position is presented so incompletely that it is a waste of time to even consider it further. Until he has further evidence there is no point.

The link that Bravus gave so completely negates his position that any further discussion is not necessary. That is not suppression. It's lack of evidence.

Really? Since when do unsupported assertions refute physical evidence? Not in any form of logic I've ever seen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: cardw
I WAS saying there isn't overwhelming evidence for suppression. What he is calling suppression is nonsense. His position is presented so incompletely that it is a waste of time to even consider it further. Until he has further evidence there is no point.

The link that Bravus gave so completely negates his position that any further discussion is not necessary. That is not suppression. It's lack of evidence.

Really? Since when do unsupported assertions refute physical evidence? Not in any form of logic I've ever seen.

Since you don't seemed to have followed the links in Bravus' post I'll provide it here.

Article on problems of Gentry theory with bibliography

This article is not assertions at all. It is well thought out reasoning with a lot of referenced evidence including hot links right in the article. There is a long bibliography at the end for you to check his facts even further.

This is far superior than anything presented by Gentry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you ever read Jack London's book, The Sea-Wolf? Jack London was a great American writer of the early 20th century. He was also an evolutionist, atheist, and socialist. He wrote in his book about a character named Wolf Larsen, the captain of a seal-hunting schooner. London was greatly influenced by Darwin, Marx, and Neitzsche, the father of modern atheism. He put his understanding of the implications of evolution and atheism into the mouth of Wolf Larsen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you ever read Jack London's book, The Sea-Wolf? Jack London was a great American writer of the early 20th century. He was also an evolutionist, atheist, and socialist. He wrote in his book about a character named Wolf Larsen, the captain of a seal-hunting schooner. London was greatly influenced by Darwin, Marx, and Neitzsche, the father of modern atheism. He put his understanding of the implications of evolution and atheism into the mouth of Wolf Larsen.

Are you saying the a novel defines what it means to be an atheist?

One can take the implications that there is no god an infinite number of ways. There is no one path.

The Sea-Wolf is a romantic adventure with an exaggerated analytic demon like protagonist. It makes good literature, but poor philosophy.

These exaggerated characters are useful in morality tales, but no one is really like these polarized characters. Each of us contains some aspects of each. It is what it means to be human.

I wish you would quit referring to atheism as a system of thought. Identify the philosophy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you ever read Jack London's book, The Sea-Wolf? Jack London was a great American writer of the early 20th century. He was also an evolutionist, atheist, and socialist. He wrote in his book about a character named Wolf Larsen, the captain of a seal-hunting schooner. London was greatly influenced by Darwin, Marx, and Neitzsche, the father of modern atheism. He put his understanding of the implications of evolution and atheism into the mouth of Wolf Larsen.

Originally Posted By: cardw
Are you saying the a novel defines what it means to be an atheist?

No, a novel is a fiction, an illustration.

Originally Posted By: cardw
One can take the implications that there is no god an infinite number of ways. There is no one path.

Yes, I agree-- it is a completely individual matter. For some people, such as Nietzsche, atheism leads to a jettising of all Christian values. In fact, he turned the values of Christ on their head. There are no absolutes.

Originally Posted By: cardw
I wish you would quit referring to atheism as a system of thought. Identify the philosophy.

Atheism itself is not a system of thought, but atheism does lead to various systems of thought, just as Christianity and belief in the God of the Bible leads to various systems of thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been many an atheist who has realized and accepted the following tenets of Christianity regarding creation:

Quote:
B.Science and the Bible

“Rightly understood, both the revelations of science and the experiences of life are in harmony with the testimony of Scripture to the constant working of God in nature.

“In the hymn recorded by Nehemiah, the Levites sang, ‘Thou, even Thou, art Lord alone; Thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and Thou preservest them all’ (Neh. 9:6).

“As regards this earth, Scripture declares the work of creation to have been completed. ‘The works were finished from the foundation of the world’ (Heb. 4:3). But the power of God is still exercised in upholding the objects of His creation. It is not because the mechanism once set in motion continues to act by its own inherent energy that the pulse beats, and breath follows breath. Every breath, every pulsation of the heart, is an evidence of the care of Him in whom we live and move and have our being. From the smallest insect to man, every living creature is daily dependent upon His providence … .

“He who studies most deeply into the mysteries of nature will realize most fully his own ignorance and weakness. He will realize that there are depths and heights which he cannot reach, secrets which he cannot penetrate, vast fields of truth lying before him unentered. He will be ready to say, with Newton, ‘I seem to myself to have been like a child on the seashore finding pebbles and shells, while the great ocean of truth lay undiscovered before me.’

“The deepest students of science are constrained to recognize in nature the working of infinite power. But to man’s unaided reason, nature’s teaching cannot but be contradictory and disappointing. Only in the light of revelation can it be read aright. ‘Through faith we understand’ (Heb. 11:3)” (Ed 130–134).

Dederen, R. (2001, c2000). Vol. 12: Handbook of Seventh-Day Adventist Theology (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; Commentary Reference Series (452). Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Association.

I have never seen anyone able to refute the above.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Atheism itself is not a system of thought, but atheism does lead to various systems of thought, just as Christianity and belief in the God of the Bible leads to various systems of thought.

This doesn't really say anything about the values of atheists since both Christianity and atheism can apparently lead to systems of thought we would consider to be harmful.

It is become obvious to me that rules, philosophies, and ideologies don't define or control behavior.

Values are held by the way we deeply feel about what gives each individual meaning. That is why I believe empathy is the best ability we have as humans to define values and Jesus seems to agree with this.

When anyone tries to define meaning by reason alone we have Calvinism or some type of atheistic mechanism. Both methods justify cruelty from a rationalistic socialism or authoritarianism. And we find that other than Jesus, the Bible utilizes this authoritarian rationalism to justify various acts of cruelty to those considered "evil."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: John317
Atheism itself is not a system of thought, but atheism does lead to various systems of thought, just as Christianity and belief in the God of the Bible leads to various systems of thought.

This doesn't really say anything about the values of atheists since both Christianity and atheism can apparently lead to systems of thought we would consider to be harmful.

It is become obvious to me that rules, philosophies, and ideologies don't define or control behavior.

Values are held by the way we deeply feel about what gives each individual meaning. That is why I believe empathy is the best ability we have as humans to define values and Jesus seems to agree with this.

When anyone tries to define meaning by reason alone we have Calvinism or some type of atheistic mechanism. Both methods justify cruelty from a rationalistic socialism or authoritarianism. And we find that other than Jesus, the Bible utilizes this authoritarian rationalism to justify various acts of cruelty to those considered "evil."

Atheism is a religion; it is a system of thought centered around the thought that there is no God, and that we are here because of "evolution."

It is The Word of God alone that gives to us an authentic account of the creation of our world. In the formation of our world, God was not indebted (dependant) upon preexistent substance or matter. As we are told in the Bible: "For the things which are seen, were not made of the things which do appear." (Heb 11:3). “The theory that God did not create matter when He brought the world into existence is without foundation. In the formation of our world, God was not indebted to preexisting matter. On the contrary, all things, material or spiritual, stood up before the Lord Jehovah at His voice and were created for His own purpose” (8T 258, 259).

IF we are talking about true science; we would not even be talking about anything contrary to the word of God, because BOTH have the same Author. This is something I have always believed, even as a child in grade school, and I had to do a project on The Theory Of Relativity. Even then, I could sense that a correct understanding of both, (science & God's Word) would always prove them to be in harmony. Truth, whether or not it is in nature, or in revelation is harmonious with itself, IN ALL IT'S MANIFESTATIONS.

Now, we have scientists, geologists, teachers, etc who without the aid of God's Word in understanding Creation truth, keep coming up with new and variant reasons for why something in God's Word is not true; and why His Word allegedly contradicts "science."

Atheists will find themselves quite incapable of measuring the Creator and His works by their own imperfect knowledge of science, and so, as we see here, they question the existence of God; or, atleast can be seen denying His creation truth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Gary K

Really.... Either you didn't actually read all the evidence, or you're dissembling.

Gentry had been posting for 2 years under the same credentials and suddenly, 2 weeks after he posts papers promoting creation, his credentials are suddenly bad.

The lawyer for the Los Alamos National Laboratory lied about the published rules for being able to publish papers there. There was nothing in the published policies that she said there was. And, Gentry had sufficient credentials from his body of previous work. He'd been involved at a high level in some very prestigious scientific organizations.

It was suppression pure and simple. No doubt about it. The stalling, the lying, and the transfer of the publishing of scientific papers to a private institution that can deny anyone the right to publish for no reason at all is the proof.

It was suppression of evidence just as surely as Hubble's suppression of evidence was because the conclusion his evidence led to was "intolerable" to him. Gentry's work was suppressed for the same reasons. Creationism is a conclusion "intolerable" to many, including you.

I think you are misinterpreting what intolerable means. In Hubble's case I think he was confronting the metaphorical conflict of one of the many paradoxes we encounter in the pursuit of knowledge. Hubble obviously was fascinated with the wonder of exploring the universe.

Papers are generally published on merit, not credentials. So this debate on credentials is simply a red herring. If his theories lack evidence, then all the other dialog is irrelevant.

Here is a quote by Hubble that reveals how he felt about science and values.

Quote:
Positive, objective knowledge is public property. It can be transmitted directly from one person to another, it can be pooled, and it can be passed on from one generation to the next. Consequently, knowledge accumulates through the ages, each generation adding its contribution. Values are quite different. By values, I mean the standards by which we judge the significance of life. The meaning of good and evil, of joy and sorrow, of beauty, justice, success-all these are purely private convictions, and they constitute our store of wisdom. They are peculiar to the individual, and no methods exist by which universal agreement can be obtained. Therefore, wisdom cannot be readily transmitted from person to person, and there is no great accumulation through the ages. Each man starts from scratch and acquires his own wisdom from his own experience. About all that can be done in the way of communication is to expose others to vicarious experience in the hope of a favorable response.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: LifeHiscost
And BTW, how many atheist people would be safer if everyone would take seriously God's advice, Thou shall not murder? The hatred of God goes far deeper than meets the eye.

God blesses! peace

This is why atheists hate the concept of god because Christians make statements like this.

It basically states that an atheist can't figure out that murder is bad without believing in god. Or that people need a Bible to tell them that murder is a bad idea.

When our leaders use this type of thinking to make foreign policy or declare that global warming isn't going to happen because god put a bow in the clouds or rationalize the continued pollution of the planet because god is going to destroy it anyways, religion becomes a blight to society.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you don't seemed to have followed the links in Bravus' post I'll provide it here.

Article on problems of Gentry theory with bibliography

This article is not assertions at all. It is well thought out reasoning with a lot of referenced evidence including hot links right in the article. There is a long bibliography at the end for you to check his facts even further.

This is far superior than anything presented by Gentry.

This guy's main argument is that Gentry didn't unquestionably accept that all evidence leads to evolution. He has a real problem with Gentry because Gentry's work disputes the "vast body of existing evidence". That sounds remarkably like the scientific community's response to Bretz's work with the Missoula Flood, and Coperincus' work with the solar system.

I gave you and Bravus a link to Gentry's online book that goes into much deeper detail of his research and findings than his video can go. It refutes this guy's assertions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To Hubble the evidence led him to a conclusion that was not good or agreeable to him, or he was incapable or bearing or enduring the logical conclusions to which the evidence led him. Quite clearly it means he hated the conclusion that the evidence led him to understand to be true. How can that be considered to be anywhere close to being objective? Since that's a rhetorical question, I'll answer it. It can't be considered as being objective.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: cardw

Since you don't seemed to have followed the links in Bravus' post I'll provide it here.

Article on problems of Gentry theory with bibliography

This article is not assertions at all. It is well thought out reasoning with a lot of referenced evidence including hot links right in the article. There is a long bibliography at the end for you to check his facts even further.

This is far superior than anything presented by Gentry.

This guy's main argument is that Gentry didn't unquestionably accept that all evidence leads to evolution.

You need to provide evidence for this claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

(tried to PM you, Richard, but your mailbox seems to be full. Might be able to delete some old messages. Just wanted to say I'm gonna step back from this hydra and stop hacking for a while...)

I don't blame you....

a>

Link to post
Share on other sites

The God I believe in can't be 'prohibited' from anything, after all, I thought we all believed He is 'in charge'.

God's capacity to be sovereign over His creation allows for the lawless to exercise their free will, to the hurt of His own family, something which the Godless do not extend to their fellow human beings. As to understanding fully His magnificent patience is beyond this disciples feeble intellect, except to know without question, not only His good intent to save even the worst offender, but His ability to take the worst damage done and work it for eternal benefit to all those who do not persist in separating themselves from Him.

"But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive."Genesis 50:20 NKJV

And nothing could be more evident of that fact than the death of His Son in order that the worst offender might find mercy.

"Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!"Matthew 18:7 NKJV

God blesses! peace

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Gary K

No, everyone needs a conscience, an educated conscience.

Talk about an assertion without evidence or reasoning.

Originally Posted By: Gary K
The only logical reason for people to have a conscience is because they were created with one as evolution denies morality as a part of the evolutionary process. It only goes by self-interest, what is good for the individual organism, and morality is that which points to the good of all things.

This is a typical god of the gaps argument. Suffering, reason, and the evolution of the human mind can certainly provide a framework for co-operation and the development of empathy.

It is quite simple to observe that if humanity had not developed a collective co-operation with each other we would have been wiped out a long time ago since we are neither the strongest or the fittest individually

And quoting the Bible does not constitute evidence of anything.

Ummm, your argument doesn't address morality. It doesn't address right and wrong. It only addresses whether something is good, as in feels good or feels bad(suffering), or is otherwise good, not moral or immoral, for the individual organism.

You're arguing from a viewpoint of an absence of morality, and the conscience is all about morality and whether an action is right or wrong in and of itself. Does humanism always consider murder to wrong? Nope. That defeats your argument right there. There are no moral absolutes in humanism which is developed from evolution. There is no thou shalt not commit murder in humanism. There is only what a majority might agree to at any point in time. If the majority doesn't agree that murder is wrong, then it isn't wrong. I've been told this time, after time, after time, after time, in debates on morality, and been taught it in college classes on ethics and morality.

Our existing laws on murder in this country are based on Judeo-Christian thought, and thus descend from the morality found in the Bible. Our Constitution and Declaration of Independence are based on Protestant theology too. Your very freedoms are the result of Biblical ideas and concepts.

The above is the proof of my assertion as to the need of a conscience for each individual.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummm, your argument doesn't address morality. It doesn't address right and wrong. It only addresses whether something is good, as in feels good or feels bad(suffering), or is otherwise good, not moral or immoral, for the individual organism.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:
Laws against murder are far more ancient than the Bible.

Prove it. You make dozens of such quips without providing the evidence which you yell loud and clear for from everyone else here.

You know if you would just do a little google search you would save yourself some embarrassment. I really get tired of being one of the few that actually provides some evidence.

A simple search for the oldest laws came up with this link...

Code of Ur-Nammu

One of the first laws listed is

1. If a man commits a murder, that man must be killed.

This is from the city of Ur where Abraham was reported as coming from. This predates the mosaic law by quite a few years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...