|
On September 15 2013 17:53 Luthier wrote:
Amen brother! It's great to see another Christian here on TL. I went through some serious periods of doubt during my life but after I came across this Christian writer called Lee Strobel who actually went an interviewed hundreds of Christian scientists explaining why evolution is wrong and how Jesse really did walk this Earth, it really strengthened and confirmed my faith.
I challenge anyone who is a non-believer to read a Lee Strobel book - any of them - and still tell me they don't at least accept that there is a possibility that God is real.
I really hope that your blog helps those who do not believe into giving their hearts to God. I wish you all the best brother.
I mean, Lee Strobel is just a Christian journalist reporting on what other people claim. It's the people he's talking to in his book that are making a case for intelligent design, and I've heard most of them before, e.g. Michael Behe's idea of "irreducible complexity," Robin Collins discussing the anthropic principle, etc. And for the record, I still don't think for a second that any of this really defeats the ever-increasing pile of evidence in support of evolution.
|
On September 16 2013 01:11 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2013 17:53 Luthier wrote:
Amen brother! It's great to see another Christian here on TL. I went through some serious periods of doubt during my life but after I came across this Christian writer called Lee Strobel who actually went an interviewed hundreds of Christian scientists explaining why evolution is wrong and how Jesse really did walk this Earth, it really strengthened and confirmed my faith.
I challenge anyone who is a non-believer to read a Lee Strobel book - any of them - and still tell me they don't at least accept that there is a possibility that God is real.
I really hope that your blog helps those who do not believe into giving their hearts to God. I wish you all the best brother. I mean, Lee Strobel is just a Christian journalist reporting on what other people claim. It's the people he's talking to in his book that are making a case for intelligent design, and I've heard most of them before, e.g. Michael Behe's idea of "irreducible complexity," Robin Collins discussing the anthropic principle, etc. And for the record, I still don't think for a second that any of this really defeats the ever-increasing pile of evidence in support of evolution.
:rollseyes:
What a typical atheist reply.
Just because you are unable to address anything I said, doesn't mean you can just make bold statements as if they are fact. I might as well say there is an ever-increasing pile of evidence in support of intelligent design. What do you say to that then?
|
Figures that people can justify slavery. I guess I could go into the actual despicable acts that your just and loving god performed but even then you could justify them. If you believe the bible is true then you should have went through a very serious moral dilemma. Most rational beings in this day and age will be opposed to those ancient laws since such explicit cruelty is deemed amoral by the general public. There are stronger points though to be found elsewhere in the bible. According to Revelations God is going to come down and slaughter everyone who doesn't believe in him because they must be "wicked" for not accepting him. It seems this loving god has a thing for genocide. Any worldly political leader making such threats would be a monster.
We can also look at Genesis, what pissed god off was the fact that people could decide whats good and bad for themselves and he had to make sure they would die.
" And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” (Gen 3:22)
It seems like god only wants mindless obedient slaves and anyone else should be put to death. This god character sounds like a villain for much of the book and he despises anyone who can see it or disagree with his judgement. If you want to advocate a slave state ruled by a despot you better be expected for the world to hate you. Don't be hypocritical about it. Following Jesus means you are an enemy of this world. You must be prepared to share Christ's suffering. Its a serious, morbid subject and virtually every Christan group I've seen ignores these issues and will adamantly insist the biblical god is actually a nice guy who loves you. I hope you all keep your faith when you suffer like any true believer has. Think what would have happened to Job if he were to curse god in his hardships...
|
On September 16 2013 05:12 Luthier wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 01:11 ChristianS wrote:On September 15 2013 17:53 Luthier wrote:
Amen brother! It's great to see another Christian here on TL. I went through some serious periods of doubt during my life but after I came across this Christian writer called Lee Strobel who actually went an interviewed hundreds of Christian scientists explaining why evolution is wrong and how Jesse really did walk this Earth, it really strengthened and confirmed my faith.
I challenge anyone who is a non-believer to read a Lee Strobel book - any of them - and still tell me they don't at least accept that there is a possibility that God is real.
I really hope that your blog helps those who do not believe into giving their hearts to God. I wish you all the best brother. I mean, Lee Strobel is just a Christian journalist reporting on what other people claim. It's the people he's talking to in his book that are making a case for intelligent design, and I've heard most of them before, e.g. Michael Behe's idea of "irreducible complexity," Robin Collins discussing the anthropic principle, etc. And for the record, I still don't think for a second that any of this really defeats the ever-increasing pile of evidence in support of evolution. :rollseyes: What a typical atheist reply. Just because you are unable to address anything I said, doesn't mean you can just make bold statements as if they are fact. I might as well say there is an ever-increasing pile of evidence in support of intelligent design. What do you say to that then?
I respect your views but I don't think you're in a position to argue about the quantity of evidence supporting intelligent design. You have already internally denied evolution for reasons which are bullshit, despite the massive amount of evidence supporting it. And what do you have to show for it, some interviews from "scientists" who aren't biologists?
Please, you're a prime example of confirmation bias.
We've all got existential questions that, most reasonable people would admit, we haven't solved. I would urge you to go back and revisit evolution while keeping in mind that you don't need evolution to be invalidated for your religion to be true. The scientific community does have a consensus despite certain largely irrelevant dissidents. You need more than a few shoddy counter arguments to disprove a solid theory.
I think it's sad that you christians so desperately want evolution to be false, many will actively spread BS arguments against it and others will be willing to take to believe the weakest arguments just because they're convenient. Time to be adults IMO.
|
On September 16 2013 05:58 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 05:12 Luthier wrote:On September 16 2013 01:11 ChristianS wrote:On September 15 2013 17:53 Luthier wrote:
Amen brother! It's great to see another Christian here on TL. I went through some serious periods of doubt during my life but after I came across this Christian writer called Lee Strobel who actually went an interviewed hundreds of Christian scientists explaining why evolution is wrong and how Jesse really did walk this Earth, it really strengthened and confirmed my faith.
I challenge anyone who is a non-believer to read a Lee Strobel book - any of them - and still tell me they don't at least accept that there is a possibility that God is real.
I really hope that your blog helps those who do not believe into giving their hearts to God. I wish you all the best brother. I mean, Lee Strobel is just a Christian journalist reporting on what other people claim. It's the people he's talking to in his book that are making a case for intelligent design, and I've heard most of them before, e.g. Michael Behe's idea of "irreducible complexity," Robin Collins discussing the anthropic principle, etc. And for the record, I still don't think for a second that any of this really defeats the ever-increasing pile of evidence in support of evolution. :rollseyes: What a typical atheist reply. Just because you are unable to address anything I said, doesn't mean you can just make bold statements as if they are fact. I might as well say there is an ever-increasing pile of evidence in support of intelligent design. What do you say to that then? I respect your views but I don't think you're in a position to argue about the quantity of evidence supporting intelligent design. You have already internally denied evolution for reasons which are bullshit, despite the massive amount of evidence supporting it. And what do you have to show for it, some interviews from "scientists" who aren't biologists? Please, you're a prime example of confirmation bias. We've all got existential questions that, most reasonable people would admit, we haven't solved. I would urge you to go back and revisit evolution while keeping in mind that you don't need evolution to be invalidated for your religion to be true. The scientific community does have a consensus despite certain largely irrelevant dissidents. You need more than a few shoddy counter arguments to disprove a solid theory. I think it's sad that you christians so desperately want evolution to be false, many will actively spread BS arguments against it and others will be willing to take to believe the weakest arguments just because they're convenient. Time to be adults IMO.
First you say you respect my views, when call me biased and say my reasons are bullshit? I think that speaks for itself and invalidates any credibility you have in this debate.
I can't imagine what your problem is, but I'm certainly glad it isn't mine. Hope you feel better soon.
|
On September 16 2013 06:35 Luthier wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 05:58 Djzapz wrote:On September 16 2013 05:12 Luthier wrote:On September 16 2013 01:11 ChristianS wrote:On September 15 2013 17:53 Luthier wrote:
Amen brother! It's great to see another Christian here on TL. I went through some serious periods of doubt during my life but after I came across this Christian writer called Lee Strobel who actually went an interviewed hundreds of Christian scientists explaining why evolution is wrong and how Jesse really did walk this Earth, it really strengthened and confirmed my faith.
I challenge anyone who is a non-believer to read a Lee Strobel book - any of them - and still tell me they don't at least accept that there is a possibility that God is real.
I really hope that your blog helps those who do not believe into giving their hearts to God. I wish you all the best brother. I mean, Lee Strobel is just a Christian journalist reporting on what other people claim. It's the people he's talking to in his book that are making a case for intelligent design, and I've heard most of them before, e.g. Michael Behe's idea of "irreducible complexity," Robin Collins discussing the anthropic principle, etc. And for the record, I still don't think for a second that any of this really defeats the ever-increasing pile of evidence in support of evolution. :rollseyes: What a typical atheist reply. Just because you are unable to address anything I said, doesn't mean you can just make bold statements as if they are fact. I might as well say there is an ever-increasing pile of evidence in support of intelligent design. What do you say to that then? I respect your views but I don't think you're in a position to argue about the quantity of evidence supporting intelligent design. You have already internally denied evolution for reasons which are bullshit, despite the massive amount of evidence supporting it. And what do you have to show for it, some interviews from "scientists" who aren't biologists? Please, you're a prime example of confirmation bias. We've all got existential questions that, most reasonable people would admit, we haven't solved. I would urge you to go back and revisit evolution while keeping in mind that you don't need evolution to be invalidated for your religion to be true. The scientific community does have a consensus despite certain largely irrelevant dissidents. You need more than a few shoddy counter arguments to disprove a solid theory. I think it's sad that you christians so desperately want evolution to be false, many will actively spread BS arguments against it and others will be willing to take to believe the weakest arguments just because they're convenient. Time to be adults IMO. First you say you respect my views, when call me biased and say my reasons are bullshit? I think that speaks for itself and invalidates any credibility you have in this debate. I can't imagine what your problem is, but I'm certainly glad it isn't mine. Hope you feel better soon.
I respect your views but you're wrong about stuff, it's ok.
I used to be as aggressive as you about different views when I was immature, angry and insecure. You don't need to say stuff like "typical atheist post" and suggesting that I have a problem. It just shows that you're not willing to discuss things, you just want to preach. There are smarter ways to go about these things.
Anyway, cheers. And yes I respect your views, just not how you get to them <3 
|
don't pretend to respect his views. What he thinks is silly. We are men of action, lies do not become us
|
On September 16 2013 06:50 sam!zdat wrote:
don't pretend to respect his views. What he thinks is silly. We are men of action, lies do not become us
I respect religious people so long as their views are internally consistent. My last and current gf considered themselves Christians and while I'm fairly certain they're wrong, I respected them because they were smart enough NOT to try to dismiss science with non-science. The denial of evolution is absurd, and it's a tool that Christians give to themselves to confirm their faith, specifically their faith in some literal scripture jank.
What I always say is, if there is a God, if there is a creator, he "designed" our universe and he "designed" life so that it would at least overwhelmingly look like evolution has occurred. There's no getting around that - the principles of evolution have empirical evidence supporting them. All they've got are shoddy arguments which are, in essence, blinders.
However, wiser Christians, in my opinion, will look at the evidence with an open mind and they'll come to the conclusion that, either, like I said, God made it look like evolution happened, or God created the universe, perhaps with evolution in mind. These, while false in my opinion, are significantly more intellectually honest than THERE'S NO EVOLUTION BECAUSE (insert some poorly constructed argument based on numerology and a misunderstanding of statistics here).
Also, honest Christians will not allow themselves to be particularly easy to convince to shit which conveniently supports their way of thinking. We're all guilty of being biased to a certain extent, we all fall victim to confirmation bias whether we like it or not... but when it's about evolution, it seems to be overwhelming. Why is it possible for those people to dismiss the heaps of evidence backing evolution, with such bad arguments?
Let your religious views adapt to the times! The existence of the phenomenon of evolution doesn't invalidate Christianity. It's just further proof that the scripture cannot be taken literally at every turn.
|
On September 16 2013 05:12 Luthier wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 01:11 ChristianS wrote:On September 15 2013 17:53 Luthier wrote:
Amen brother! It's great to see another Christian here on TL. I went through some serious periods of doubt during my life but after I came across this Christian writer called Lee Strobel who actually went an interviewed hundreds of Christian scientists explaining why evolution is wrong and how Jesse really did walk this Earth, it really strengthened and confirmed my faith.
I challenge anyone who is a non-believer to read a Lee Strobel book - any of them - and still tell me they don't at least accept that there is a possibility that God is real.
I really hope that your blog helps those who do not believe into giving their hearts to God. I wish you all the best brother. I mean, Lee Strobel is just a Christian journalist reporting on what other people claim. It's the people he's talking to in his book that are making a case for intelligent design, and I've heard most of them before, e.g. Michael Behe's idea of "irreducible complexity," Robin Collins discussing the anthropic principle, etc. And for the record, I still don't think for a second that any of this really defeats the ever-increasing pile of evidence in support of evolution. :rollseyes: What a typical atheist reply. Just because you are unable to address anything I said, doesn't mean you can just make bold statements as if they are fact. I might as well say there is an ever-increasing pile of evidence in support of intelligent design. What do you say to that then?
I mean, which one do you want to discuss? Irreducible complexity? Michael Behe has talked about that idea for a good long time now, and it's a thought-provoking enough idea, but it assumes that an adaptation that is used for a particular purpose originally evolved for that purpose. The standard example he would bring up is that of the bacterial flagellum: it's a complex cellular "motor" composed of many biochemical parts, each of which is essential in functioning as a motor. Because it's highly unlikely that all those pieces were evolved simultaneously, the flagellum evolving wholesale as a motor from nothing is unlikely.
But typically in such cases, the adaptation probably evolved for another purpose with only some of those pieces present, and then became useful for the modern purpose once the other pieces developed. For instance, some bacteria (including, I think, the ones which caused the Black Plague, although I'm not certain) have a rigid structure which contains most of the components of the bacterial flagellum – but not all of them. Behe is right that without all the pieces it can't act as a motor; but it does act for other purposes (if I recall, the bubonic plague bacterium uses it as a needle to inject other cells with toxins).
To clarify, since you objected to the term, when I say "pile of evidence," I mean that there is strong geological, astronomical, and biological evidence for:
-Earth being at least 4 billion years old.
-the universe being at least 13 billion years old.
-organisms evolving into drastically different organisms over time, with intermediate organisms which leave a fossil record.
-organisms going extinct.
-humans being related to apes if you go back far enough – if you go back even further you can find humans' last common ancestor with pretty much any organism you can name.
Now "intelligent design" isn't so much one hypothesis as a broad umbrella term for a collection of narratives ranging from 6-day creationism to the Great Chain of Being. Some of these narratives don't dispute some of the above evidence; most dispute at least one. Not all Christians dispute any of them, though; many believe that things like the theory of evolution are not affronts to their religion, but a window into the miracle of how God created the world. I would say they are Christians, but do not believe in the narratives usually termed "intelligent design."
|
you can't tell someone you respect their views and then paraphrase them beginning with 'herpderp'.
nobody's views are internally consistent but we don't have to go there
|
The moral of the story is that Lee Strobel does not really have anything good to say.
|
On September 16 2013 07:26 sam!zdat wrote:
you can't tell someone you respect their views and then paraphrase them beginning with 'herpderp'.
nobody's views are internally consistent but we don't have to go there
That's fair and I'll edit that out, but I want to reiterate that it's not Christianity that I don't respect, rather, it's some of the little things that they lie to themselves about in order to keep their faith intact.
From my perspective, it's ok to be wrong - but try to be wrong gracefully. I should have said that I respect most of what constitutes his views, but the denial of evolution requires such an incredible amount of willful ignorance I can't actually take it seriously.
|
yes the mistake that both atheists and fundamentalists make is that they think being true is the point of religion. So atheists think they have a knockdown case against religion by pointing out that it obviously isn't true, and fundamentalists accept their logic and attempt to twist their tradition into knots in order to make it 'true.' both sides miss the point
|
On September 16 2013 07:26 farvacola wrote:
The moral of the story is that one would have more pleasure sticking their finger into a pencil sharpener than discussing religion on TL.net.
edit: Can we all just unequivocally say that denying evolution is utterly asinine regardless of whether one is or is not religious? I've actually met atheists that didn't believe in evolution and other "hot topic" North American science stuff like global warming. Trying to reduce North American anti-scientific attitudes to Christianity like some people do all over this forum is just as stupid, as is reducing religious thought into some "irrational" mode of thought or whathaveyou. Both the anti-scientific attitude and the dichotomizing of science/religion and the corresponding rational(scientific)/irrational(religious) dichotomy is pretty much a cultural victory of the historical reactionaries (the fundamentalist reaction against the legacy of the Enlightenment and Liberal Protestantism; the Feynman acolytes and New Atheist reactionaries against Anglo fundamentalism) and the political demagogues that abuse this environment.
|
On September 16 2013 07:51 sam!zdat wrote:
yes the mistake that both atheists and fundamentalists make is that they think being true is the point of religion. So atheists think they have a knockdown case against religion by pointing out that it obviously isn't true, and fundamentalists accept their logic and attempt to twist their tradition into knots in order to make it 'true.' both sides miss the point
My question then would have to be what exactly is the point?
If both sides are missing it, enlighten both sides.
|
it's about anchoring a universe of symbolic meaning
|
I'm a bit skeptical about that kind of Tillichian theology, tbh.
|
I have no idea what your theology is koreasilver.
I don't know who tillich is. I just think that's what religions do. They make metanarratives
|
Ah, well Tillich was one of the eminent philosophers of the 20th century. His influence has waned considerably since his death but he was one of those great German intellectuals that spread out to Western Europe, England, and America that were either expelled from Germany by the Nazis or actively fled Germany after the Nazis took power. Tillich was one of the earliest persons to be expelled. In the context of Protestant theology Tillich and Barth are often contrasted, with Tillich seeking continual universality and plurality while Barth being the face of the rebellion against Liberal Protestantism ("neo-orthodoxy", "dialectical theology", "theology of crisis", etc. are some of the labels for this broad movement. Tillich's own personal label for Barth and his affiliates was "neo-Reformation", as Tillich thought their theology simply wasn't truly dialectical). I was a very avid Tillich reader and a large part of Tillich's thinking deals with symbols and myth and in this way he's sometimes seen as the liberal par excellence although I think that's kinda wrong since Tillich departs from Schleiermacher in his own way, and he still did take Barth seriously despite all their differences.
As for myself, I dunno. Theologically I'm closest to Kierkegaard but I have a lot of disagreements with him. Similar relationships with Augustine and Luther. I dislike the Catholics in general, from Aquinas to Marion (even though I respect them). I think Nietzsche is a theologian par excellence, but I think the Altizer inspired Death of God theologians went wrong even if they did/are doing very important work. I think Christians as a whole are still not reading enough Jewish thought and that this is one of the bigger holes in Christian thought. I'm still a student so I don't want to say I even really have my own theology, but these are some of my leanings. I'm not a theologian or a philosopher or whathaveyou. I'm just a student. Philosophically I think Levinas and Derrida are the most important philosophers of the 20th century but I have a large interest in Hegel and recently Deleuze.
|
ah I read a little about barth and I have a book of his that I haven't read yet.
you might be interested to check out a book called 'god interrupted' by ben lazier who was one of my lecturers at reed. It's about gnosticism and pantheism in jewish thought in interwar europe. I thought it was really interesting.
I am still very ignorant about history of theology though trying to learn more. Because I want to work on philip dick's religious thought and I guess I have to know something about theology then
don't be modest ks you are a gentleman and a scholar and you can be theologian and philosopher if you damn well please
edit: I love hegel but dislike derrida a lot. I am skeptical about deleuze but I have not read his solo work. Mostly I just read too much zizek
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
