Religious inconsistency? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate News And Just About Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Religious inconsistency?
in Religion

By ih8shartsih8sharts 50 Pts
Why do religious people always thank god for the positive things in their lives, but never blame him for the negative things? If he has a plan for everybody, wouldn't he be responsible for both aspects of their lives?
someone234with_all_humilityBaconToesEvidence



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • Good point. I am religious and I blame her for both. She gives the hardships because she is sadistic. She only gives the good parts to con us into think we deserve them. God is a very sadistic being that values intelligence and courage above all other traits. She designed reality to favour the smart and the courageous (both at once, not one without the other).
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • @someone234 It is quite an accomplishment to be faithful to a god you consider sadistic.
    I am curious why you keep with your religion if you have such a gloomy view of your deity.
  • @ih8sharts Because in the end she is a slave to her own programming too. God's god is the randomness we call nothing but she calls fate (the script of destiny, the coding of the matrix). God didn't code herself, she is not 'truly omnipotent' in that she didn't make herself be what she is.

    Her impulses drove her to create what she has created the way she's created it.
    MajoMILSdlGMGV
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • @someone234 Why is devotion to a "sadistic slave" better than atheism?
  • @ih8sharts atheists deny her existence. They are wrong. If you don't worship her, she doesn't reward you. Enjoy that too.

    I didn't win the first tournament of this site by accident. I didn't get my opponent in the first round of this current tournament to forfeit either, I may even have no challenge in the second round due to 'circumstance' either.

    She rigs stuff for the truly intelligent and courageous, you can't win as many wars as Genghis Khan or Napoleon did without rigging. Sure Napoleon ended up outsmarted and conned into his demise, that's because he was becoming less intelligent AND LESS courageous than he used to be.

    You can laugh at me, call me this or that. I am a brave genius and there are few like me.

    In time I will do things no other human has done, but time is the key point. Who I am and what I really can do are not important. For now I want to stay relatively anonymous.

    If I do get exposed here to who I really am, I may talk a bit less. Intelligence matters more than courage in her scaling.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • @someone234 Fantastic Trump impersonation. Congrats.
  • @ih8sharts I did not impersonate Trump. 
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • ih8sharts said:
    Why do religious people always thank god for the positive things in their lives, but never blame him for the negative things? If he has a plan for everybody, wouldn't he be responsible for both aspects of their lives?
    Your argument is flawed, assume that everyone blames God for negative life events.  As for the God of the Bible, this is not what is taught at all and anyone with a little bit of understanding would not blame God. We can look to Jesus who was human and felt pain and sorrow.  The night before he was to be taken by authorities. He prays the following...

    Mat 26:39-42: 
     He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, "O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will. Then He came to the disciples and found them sleeping, and said to Peter, "What! Could you not watch with Me one hour?  Watch and pray, lest you enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak."  Again, a second time, He went away and prayed, saying, "O My Father, if this cup cannot pass away from Me unless I drink it, Your will be done."  

    This was recorded to give us an example how we are to face events that one might find as insurmountable. It is obvious Christ was scared, we see Christ falls to his face to pray, and he asks his Father twice to "let this cup pass" meaning he would prefer not to be killed, but if it is His will it will be done.  

    Paul told the Thessalonians...Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, in everything give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. (1Thes 5.16-18).  We are to give thanks in all things. If your idea is that people only pray to God for good things to happen to them, your sadly wrong. People who don't know God pray for nothing but good things.  It's just not what the Bible teaches.  

    Also, deciding what is negative and what is positive is a matter of perspective.  What is negative for one person, may very well be a positive experience for another.


    anonymousdebater
  • People do the oddest things, in the name of religion.


    Some people stand around in pointy buildings, singing songs whilst wearing their best hats.

    Bizarre!


    Seriously though.

    Your proposition is fundamentally flawed.

    Most of the time, people religious or otherwise just get on with their lives without giving any regard to the possibility of godly intervention.

    Good things and unpleasant things, just have to be dealt with as they occur and accepted for what they are.


    Your average religious person, only thinks about their god every now and then. 

    Most of the time religion is only about the performance of rituals.
  • @Fredsnephew My ritual is winning.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • edited April 9
    People do the oddest things, in the name of religion.


    Some people stand around in pointy buildings, singing songs whilst wearing their best hats.

    Bizarre!


    Seriously though.

    Your proposition is fundamentally flawed.

    Most of the time, people religious or otherwise just get on with their lives without giving any regard to the possibility of godly intervention.

    Good things and unpleasant things, just have to be dealt with as they occur and accepted for what they are.


    Your average religious person, only thinks about their god every now and then. 

    Most of the time religion is only about the performance of rituals.
    I take it that you are not "religious"? Whether it's religion or not people do ritualistic behaviors (mean repeated behaviors) in many facets of life.  Some people make eating a ritual, for some it's their work, other might be Sunday afternoon football. Anything can be ritualistic and to someone on the outside, those things may look weird or dumb.  How is singing songs in a building any more bizarre than going to a concert?  Other than it's not your kind of music.

    I believe if you understand the bible correctly, there are no longer miracles that happen today (I know some claim they do, but there is biblical evidence to say otherwise) since Moses, God has never spoken directly to man. Throughout the Old Testament, He spoke to prophets in dreams, through angles and other means. In the New Testament, God communicated with His Son, but after the cross, the Holy Spirit was sent to speak to the apostles and some men on what it was they were to do in order to establish the New Testament church.  With that being said, once John wrote the book of Revelation, God had revealed all that mankind need to know in order to receive Heaven in the afterlife.  

    Since all has been revealed, there is no need for God to interact with man, it is now up to man to accept Him and His way or reject them.  As far as life events, James in chapter one says we are to pray for wisdom, in order to know how to deal with temptation and life events.  It's not that we are miraculously given wisdom, but there is such a thing known as God's providence. Meaning kind of an indirect way He might help you, for instance, you're struggling with an issue in life, you pray and ask for wisdom and guidance.  A few days later you read a passage or bump into a person who helps solve your dilemma.  Was that by chance, or coincidence, or by God providence?  Don't know, I just know I asked for help and I've got something to help me resolve my issue.  Again, I can't say for sure how it came about, but I was seeking an answer and asked for an answer.  So, it does not really matter, the how, either way, I'm thankful that I've now put something behind me and move on.

    But as far as divine intervention, the bible does not teach that, nor do I believe it happens.  Some may want to believe it happens...but no.

    "Your average religious person only thinks about their god every now and then."
    • I would not say that, if fact, I would say if a person only thinks about God every now and then, they are not a religious person.  Bible clearly teaches that we should make God and Christ a part of our everyday lives.  Does not mean you go to church every day.
    "Most of the time religion is only about the performance of rituals."
    • This is a misnomer as well, at least from my experience.  "Rituals" per say only account for perhaps 1/4-1/3 of the time most of the time is spent teaching or learning.  The only acts of worship spoken of in the Bible are...praying, singing and communion.  Other than that it's teaching/preaching.  
    • Now there are churches out there who pervert the scriptures and do some weird things, I don't believe those rituals to be part of the teachings of the Bible.
    Have you ever been to a church?  If so, what was the name of the church?  





  • I'm not remotely religious.

    I was supposedly christened as a Anglican Christian.

    But that decision was made by two pretty atheistic parents.

    Christening was regarded as a traditional requirement rather than a religious necessity.

    I was therefore not brought up in a religious environment and as a consequence of this I was not religiously conditioned, so inevitably I ended up with no specific mental regard for religion.

    I would suggest that how we conduct ourselves in later life is directly connected to how we are conditioned in our formative years.

    That is to say. We are either taught to be religious or not taught to be religious.


    What I was trying to point out and with specific reference to the opening proposition, was that most ordinary folk who might consider themselves to be religious, do not spend every waking moment thanking or rebuking their god for things that either go right for them or badly for them.

    Just like me probably, most people just get on with their lives and move on to the next moment in time.


    In referring to religious rituals. 

    I was simply trying to suggest that for most non devout people who nonetheless regard themselves to be of a particular faith. Religion is chiefly about the intermittent performance of ritualistic actions rather than an obsessive relationship to a god in every aspect of their daily lives.



  • I'm not remotely religious.

    I was supposedly christened as a Anglican Christian.

    But that decision was made by two pretty atheistic parents.

    Christening was regarded as a traditional requirement rather than a religious necessity.

    I was therefore not brought up in a religious environment and as a consequence of this I was not religiously conditioned, so inevitably I ended up with no specific mental regard for religion.

    I would suggest that how we conduct ourselves in later life is directly connected to how we are conditioned in our formative years.

    That is to say. We are either taught to be religious or not taught to be religious.


    What I was trying to point out and with specific reference to the opening proposition, was that most ordinary folk who might consider themselves to be religious, do not spend every waking moment thanking or rebuking their god for things that either go right for them or badly for them.

    Just like me probably, most people just get on with their lives and move on to the next moment in time.


    In referring to religious rituals. 

    I was simply trying to suggest that for most non devout people who nonetheless regard themselves to be of a particular faith. Religion is chiefly about the intermittent performance of ritualistic actions rather than an obsessive relationship to a god in every aspect of their daily lives.
    I partially understand where you're coming from, some might disagree with me, but I don't believe in infant baptism. This came about from a man named Augustine who was a Christian theologian and philosopher from Numbai.  His philosophy would have an impact on the future doctrines that men developed through the Reformation period. His concept of the fall of man or the original sin, basically says the world is sin and from the day you enter into the world you are sinning.  This doctrine led to some being concerned about their children dying in a sinful state. So the church's (Catholic, and later adopted by others) was to allow infant baptism.  No examples of the baptism of infants can be found in the New Testament.   

    "I would suggest that how we conduct ourselves in later life is directly connected to how we are conditioned in our formative years."
    • I know many want to believe this to be true, that being conditioned at a young age leads to one being religious.
    • From my observations, it not completely normative, I know of several who are raised in the church by their parents and when they become adults they stop participating in religion.  I've seen several who were not associated with any religion growing up but found themselves drawn to God.  I've known young adults who the only reason they attended church was because of their parents.  So it's a hodgepodge when it comes to religion. I would say your parent's daily actions have more of an impact on you than attending church once or twice a week growing up. 
    "That is to say. We are either taught to be religious or not taught to be religious."
    • Like I say, I've seen it go both ways, and for the most part, the claim does not hold because there has been a decline in the number of Christians numbers of the recent 20-30 years
    • I believe there is a lot of indoctrination within the public school system and college/university system.  Especially within the universities.  Many professors take a lot of liberty of pressing their worldview upon their students and it has had an effect on the US.  I've had good and bad teachers, so not all of them do so, some foster a true learning environment.
    • I remember helping my daughter with her final project in a philosophy/logic class.  Her assignment was on Soren Kierkegaard and his position on the fall of man. So the students could affirm or deny Kierkegaard, so she decided to deny.  She called me in a panic because she was having a hard time understanding Kierkegaard.  So I have her some pointer on how I thought she could disprove his position. She turned in her paper, her professor supposedly read it and he told her, she had presented some argument that he had never heard before (I assume he meant she had a good argument) but, she was still wrong.  She got A in the class, but she was also ridiculed for trying to defend the Bible.  I helped her to try and deal with it, but it was upsetting to, especially being a shy person.  It was not the fact that the professor disagreed with her view of the Bible, but it was the assault on the personal character.  She felt embarrassed and belittled the entire semester.  My daughter is very shy and struggles with rejection by others.  She's OK today and is starting her doctorate program this spring.  Perhaps maybe the whole experience helped make her a stronger person.  However, whatever your belief system is, no one should be made to feel ashamed of their beliefs.  It's fine to discuss and cordially disagree with each other, but when you start belittling or make fun of someone.  In my opinion that is unethical.
    • A person must have their own convictions if it is not there own at some point their belief system will fall apart and depending on the person could have a very negative effect. 
    "Most ordinary folk who might consider themselves to be religious, do not spend every waking moment thanking or rebuking their god for things that either go right for them or bad for them."
    • I would agree, I believe if you are "religious" you may think of you "God" a various point throughout the day, but not every conscious moment. Most people unless they are a priest or a monk, basically a person who has made religion their profession in life. Do not have religion on their mind 24/7. The periods of time that most people look for help, comfort, guidance, etcetera. Is at low points in their life.  During periods of tragedy, times of loss of a loved one. dealing with a terminal illness and so on.  Those are the periods of time a person is closest to their God.  
    "Just like me probably, most people just get on with their lives and move on to the next moment in time."  
    • Understand, most people you meet, we can tell if they are religious or not.  If they are, they will pray in private and like you say, keep moving on.  It calls resiliency and often religion help's people be more resilient, that my friend is a fact.  I'm in the military, and whenever we spin up to go to a war zone.  Leadership starts stressing to people to be resilient and to look for help from each other, a loved one, or your God.  Many of men/women have overcome what appeared to be insurmountable odds due to their faith.
    "I was simply trying to suggest that for most non-devout people who nonetheless regard themselves to be of a particular faith. Religion is chiefly about the intermittent performance of ritualistic actions rather than an obsessive relationship to a god in every aspect of their daily lives."
    • Understand, key word there is non-devout, to any outsiders often one's actions will present themselves as being peculiar.
    • There is a group, that they call the charismatic movement, they tend to beleive in and practice faith healing, speaking in tongues, and jumping around like they are possessed.  I'm sure not all of them do those things, but they are known to them.  I don't tend to believe these things to be true, but who am I to say.  To attend a church like that would be very foreign to me. 
    Thanks for clarifying your points that you made.  Good thoughts!  :)



  • I'm not remotely religious.

    I was supposedly christened as a Anglican Christian.

    But that decision was made by two pretty atheistic parents.

    Christening was regarded as a traditional requirement rather than a religious necessity.

    I was therefore not brought up in a religious environment and as a consequence of this I was not religiously conditioned, so inevitably I ended up with no specific mental regard for religion.

    I would suggest that how we conduct ourselves in later life is directly connected to how we are conditioned in our formative years.

    That is to say. We are either taught to be religious or not taught to be religious.


    What I was trying to point out and with specific reference to the opening proposition, was that most ordinary folk who might consider themselves to be religious, do not spend every waking moment thanking or rebuking their god for things that either go right for them or badly for them.

    Just like me probably, most people just get on with their lives and move on to the next moment in time.


    In referring to religious rituals. 

    I was simply trying to suggest that for most non devout people who nonetheless regard themselves to be of a particular faith. Religion is chiefly about the intermittent performance of ritualistic actions rather than an obsessive relationship to a god in every aspect of their daily lives.
    I partially understand where you're coming from, some might disagree with me, but I don't believe in infant baptism. This came about from a man named Augustine who was a Christian theologian and philosopher from Numbai.  His philosophy would have an impact on the future doctrines that men developed through the Reformation period. His concept of the fall of man or the original sin, basically says the world is sin and from the day you enter into the world you are sinning.  This doctrine led to some being concerned about their children dying in a sinful state. So the church's (Catholic, and later adopted by others) was to allow infant baptism.  No examples of the baptism of infants can be found in the New Testament.   

    "I would suggest that how we conduct ourselves in later life is directly connected to how we are conditioned in our formative years."
    • I know many want to believe this to be true, that being conditioned at a young age leads to one being religious.
    • From my observations, it not completely normative, I know of several who are raised in the church by their parents and when they become adults they stop participating in religion.  I've seen several who were not associated with any religion growing up but found themselves drawn to God.  I've known young adults who the only reason they attended church was because of their parents.  So it's a hodgepodge when it comes to religion. I would say your parent's daily actions have more of an impact on you than attending church once or twice a week growing up. 
    "That is to say. We are either taught to be religious or not taught to be religious."
    • Like I say, I've seen it go both ways, and for the most part, the claim does not hold because there has been a decline in the number of Christians numbers of the recent 20-30 years
    • I believe there is a lot of indoctrination within the public school system and college/university system.  Especially within the universities.  Many professors take a lot of liberty of pressing their worldview upon their students and it has had an effect on the US.  I've had good and bad teachers, so not all of them do so, some foster a true learning environment.
    • I remember helping my daughter with her final project in a philosophy/logic class.  Her assignment was on Soren Kierkegaard and his position on the fall of man. So the students could affirm or deny Kierkegaard, so she decided to deny.  She called me in a panic because she was having a hard time understanding Kierkegaard.  So I have her some pointer on how I thought she could disprove his position. She turned in her paper, her professor supposedly read it and he told her, she had presented some argument that he had never heard before (I assume he meant she had a good argument) but, she was still wrong.  She got A in the class, but she was also ridiculed for trying to defend the Bible.  I helped her to try and deal with it, but it was upsetting to, especially being a shy person.  It was not the fact that the professor disagreed with her view of the Bible, but it was the assault on the personal character.  She felt embarrassed and belittled the entire semester.  My daughter is very shy and struggles with rejection by others.  She's OK today and is starting her doctorate program this spring.  Perhaps maybe the whole experience helped make her a stronger person.  However, whatever your belief system is, no one should be made to feel ashamed of their beliefs.  It's fine to discuss and cordially disagree with each other, but when you start belittling or make fun of someone.  In my opinion that is unethical.
    • A person must have their own convictions if it is not there own at some point their belief system will fall apart and depending on the person could have a very negative effect. 
    "Most ordinary folk who might consider themselves to be religious, do not spend every waking moment thanking or rebuking their god for things that either go right for them or bad for them."
    • I would agree, I believe if you are "religious" you may think of you "God" a various point throughout the day, but not every conscious moment. Most people unless they are a priest or a monk, basically a person who has made religion their profession in life. Do not have religion on their mind 24/7. The periods of time that most people look for help, comfort, guidance, etcetera. Is at low points in their life.  During periods of tragedy, times of loss of a loved one. dealing with a terminal illness and so on.  Those are the periods of time a person is closest to their God.  
    "Just like me probably, most people just get on with their lives and move on to the next moment in time."  
    • Understand, most people you meet, we can tell if they are religious or not.  If they are, they will pray in private and like you say, keep moving on.  It calls resiliency and often religion help's people be more resilient, that my friend is a fact.  I'm in the military, and whenever we spin up to go to a war zone.  Leadership starts stressing to people to be resilient and to look for help from each other, a loved one, or your God.  Many of men/women have overcome what appeared to be insurmountable odds due to their faith.
    "I was simply trying to suggest that for most non-devout people who nonetheless regard themselves to be of a particular faith. Religion is chiefly about the intermittent performance of ritualistic actions rather than an obsessive relationship to a god in every aspect of their daily lives."
    • Understand, key word there is non-devout, to any outsiders often one's actions will present themselves as being peculiar.
    • There is a group, that they call the charismatic movement, they tend to beleive in and practice faith healing, speaking in tongues, and jumping around like they are possessed.  I'm sure not all of them do those things, but they are known to them.  I don't tend to believe these things to be true, but who am I to say.  To attend a church like that would be very foreign to me. 
    Thanks for clarifying your points that you made.  Good thoughts!  :)

    Thanks for your rational response.
  • Well, why do some atheists declare that God is bad because of the bad things that occur, without regarding the good things that happen?
    with_all_humility
  • @anonymousdebater ;

    Atheists do not believe in the existence of a god. 

    It is impossible to attribute characteristics to something that does not exist.
    ih8shartswith_all_humilityPogue
  • @anonymousdebater ;

    Atheists do not believe in the existence of a god. 

    It is impossible to attribute characteristics to something that does not exist.
    anonymousdebater had an excellent question.  I've been to several atheists sights and have been reading some of their material.  There is no attempt to try and understand anything.  If something conflicts with their belief system it's just automatically assumed it's false, without any further investigation.  Also, the same arguments keep showing up, this says that and show me this and show me that.  But when asked the same questions pertaining to something they hold true "dark matter" no response crickets in the room.  


  • ih8shartsih8sharts 50 Pts
    edited April 9
    @with_all_humility

    "There is no attempt to try and understand anything"

    Since there is no way to either prove or disprove the existence of god, why waste time looking for either?

    As an atheist, I don't mind religious people as long as they are not actively trying to recruit me. I show them the same courtesy.
    with_all_humility
  • edited April 9

    ih8sharts said:
    Why do religious people always thank god for the positive things in their lives, but never blame him for the negative things? If he has a plan for everybody, wouldn't he be responsible for both aspects of their lives?
    "If He has a plan for everybody" 

    Paul is speaking to Jews here in Romans

    Rom 11:5-8: So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace.  But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise, grace would no longer be grace.  What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written, "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day.

    Then Paul speaks of the Gentiles (everybody but Jews) being graphed into the Lord's tree.  The hardened Jew in 5-8, are the broken branches here.

    Rom 11:13-20:  Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry.  But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree,  do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you.  Then you will say, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in."  That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear.

    1Pe 1:1-2:  Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you.

    1Pe 1:3-5: Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

    2Ti 2:10  Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.


    As for the statement that He has a plan for everybody, I don't see where the New Testament teaches that only those who are followers of Christ will receive eternal life.  All others will not...

    However, I could be mistaken.  ;)



  • BaconToesBaconToes 189 Pts
    Well, why do some atheists declare that God is bad because of the bad things that occur, without regarding the good things that happen?
    Haha, funny. I wouldn't blame your God for the good or bad things that happen, merely because of the fact that there is no evidence for his existence. But...the catch is that you Christians think he is infallible, the perfect being, and we are here to question the morality of your God's actions.
    ih8shartsPogue
    i fart cows
  • edited April 9
    ih8sharts said:
    @with_all_humility

    "There is no attempt to try and understand anything"

    Since there is no way to either prove or disprove the existence of god, why waste time looking for either?

    As an atheist, I don't mind religious people as long as they are not actively trying to recruit me. I show them the same courtesy.
    There is no way to prove non-life to live either, but evolutionist believes it happened, to say otherwise would lead to intelligent design or some other higher form of creator.  Everyone wants to point to a bacterium becoming resistant to antibiotics as proof of evolution but after 200,000 or more lifecycles, we still have bacteria in the dish.

    IMO we all have bias and it takes a concerted effort to remain objective and I rarely encounter such persons.  I'm not trying to push my religion or beliefs on anyone, but the disingenuous attitudes in debates get old.  When I'm possed a question I will answer it to the best of my ability. However, very few atheists reciprocate the same courtesy when asked tuff questions. Here is an example https://debateisland.com/discussion/1381/question-for-anti-science-evolutionists ;

    I don't mind atheist people there is no doubt in my mind that most are good honest people, I just like good honest discussion, I'm not here to sell anything.  I'm just trying to learn from different perspectives.
    ih8sharts
  • BaconToes said:
    Well, why do some atheists declare that God is bad because of the bad things that occur, without regarding the good things that happen?
    Haha, funny. I wouldn't blame your God for the good or bad things that happen, merely because of the fact that there is no evidence for his existence. But...the catch is that you Christians think he is infallible, the perfect being, and we are here to question the morality of your God's actions.
    I'm not trying to answer for anonymousdebater, I'm just intrigued by your statement. "we are here to question the morality of your God's actions."  Who appoints who as being the moral authority?  Who is the we? Where did morality come from if the first place?  How do we know it's bad to steal or kill someone?  There has to be an authority somewhere correct?  If there is no God, then how can you say He did immoral things?

    Who gets to deem anyone person's actions as immoral, according to Darwin it should be the survival of the fittest...Is that what guilds man's morals?  Who gets to tell us how we are to live our lives and behave in society?  I apologize for all the questions, but I'm at a loss as to were morals begin and end when there is no defined authority putting them into existence? 
  • @with_all_humility ;

    The human species has evolved with an innate ability to memorize and utilize information.

    All our achievements and principles are as a result of this ability.

    We are able to make collective decisions, which give order to our societies.

    We are also able to make collective decisions, which we accept as giving distinction between right and wrong.

    Fundamentally, these decisions are nothing more than concepts or notions. 

    That is to say: In reality, morality does not  exist.

    Therefore, something that is simply a product of our imagination, does not require the approval or validation of a higher authority.


    ih8sharts
  • ih8shartsih8sharts 50 Pts
    edited April 10
    @with_all_humility

    " I apologize for all the questions, but I'm at a loss as to were morals begin and end when there is no defined authority putting them into existence?"

    Morality is a theoretical concept. It is a collection of accepted behavior that is often disregarded as soon as it affects a person or their loved ones personally.

    My morality equation stands as follows. The more fervent a believer (either pro or anti something) the less I trust their conviction to their cause and therefore them, because, if you are certain about something, you do not need confirmation or acceptance from others.
  • Perhaps you missed science class, so I'll refresh your memory

    @with_all_humility

    "There is no way to prove non-life to live either, but evolutionist believes it happened, to say otherwise would lead to intelligent design or some other higher form of creator.  Everyone wants to point to a bacterium becoming resistant to antibiotics as proof of evolution but after 200,000 or more lifecycles, we still have bacteria in the dish."

    No, we didn't "believe" it happened. In the scientific world, we do not blindly accept any idea(psst... God), the ideas and theories have to go through a rigorous system that includes repeated experiments and observations(psst... God). What you said after that makes noooooo sense at all. I wouldn't bother to waste my time teaching you, so I'll just give you some articles to educate yourself.
    http://emerald.tufts.edu/med/apua/about_issue/about_antibioticres.shtml
    https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/antibiotic-resistance-mutation-rates-and-mrsa-28360

    "IMO we all have bias and it takes a concerted effort to remain objective and I rarely encounter such persons.  I'm not trying to push my religion or beliefs on anyone, but the disingenuous attitudes in debates get old.  When I'm possed a question I will answer it to the best of my ability. However, very few atheists reciprocate the same courtesy when asked tuff questions. Here is an example https://debateisland.com/discussion/1381/question-for-anti-science-evolutionists ;"

    Well, I am not those few "atheist," that does not like to answer "tuff" questions. I frequently challenge myself on this site to debate the opposing views. So what I say on this site doesn't really mean that I believe in it. 

    I don't mind atheist people there is no doubt in my mind that most are good honest people, I just like good honest discussion, I'm not here to sell anything.  I'm just trying to learn from different perspectives.

    Well, I was going to teach you philosophy on the word "good," but alas, nevermind.
    Pogue
    i fart cows
  • edited April 11
    @with_all_humility ;

    The human species has evolved with an innate ability to memorize and utilize information.

    All our achievements and principles are as a result of this ability.

    We are able to make collective decisions, which give order to our societies.

    We are also able to make collective decisions, which we accept as giving distinction between right and wrong.

    Fundamentally, these decisions are nothing more than concepts or notions. 

    That is to say: In reality, morality does not  exist.

    Therefore, something that is simply a product of our imagination, does not require the approval or validation of a higher authority.


    Fred,

    So, you have failed to answer my question, on who it is that determines right from wrong. You claim that morality does not exist, but yet how does a mother know that it would be wrong to abandon her child like lesser animals do.  Where does that come from? How does a mother know to nurture her child? If a mother does not take of her child, we say it is immoral, and social services come in. It cannot be explained away as being animal instinct because we as mankind can reason to do or not to do something, calling this free will.  

    According to an evolutionist, we survive to pass along some genes and to perpetuate the species, by means of "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" How then can we explain what causes a person to put him/herself in harm's way in order to save another person?  How is it that small child of often knows he/she has done something wrong, without anyone telling them it was wrong?  Why do people lie and hide in do what is called immoral acts? 

    Why do I have a conscience that drives me crazy when I've done something wrong.  How many judges have given stiffer punishments because a person doesn't show remorse?  What causes my stomach to nauseate when I've been in a battle zone in Afghanistan...it was not because I was afraid to die.  What made tears come down the side of my face when I visited by troops in the hospital?  Did I imagine these things?

    I have debated several on this site on the immorality of the Bible, telling me that slavery is immoral. Who determines this stuff?  You state "these decisions are nothing more than concepts or notions." I like your word choice of notion, which is defined as a conception of or belief about something.  Where does that belief you speak of come from in your conscience?

    You speak of being able to make collective decisions, which give order to our societies.  Who are the collective decision makers? Why is POTUS threating Assad for using chemical weapons, Assad is not part of our society? What guilds our conscience to determine this is wrong and should not be done?  Where does our standard of right and wrong come from?  If I follow your standard there is no standard, but yet our world is full of standards.  When you go to buy gas for your vehicle, a standard has been set on what a gallon is, how much it is to cost, and it is tested and certified by the government. When you attended school, there were standard that had to meet in order to advance, there was a standard for evaluating and grading one's ability to learn.  You have the standard of the scientific method to tell you if something exists or not, and you try and bind that standard to me and those like me. So, I believe your logic to flawed, and that morality does exist and does have a standard, like the rest of the world. The question is what is the standard and who defines it?  

    You speak of principles in the begin your response, are principle not standards?  A principle is defined as a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.  However, according to the scientific method what is true today, may not be true tomorrow. [1] That’s not much of a foundation, I’m a construction inspector for the USAF, if I don’t ensure the foundation for the building is solid, then I’m going to have a building that is going to fail in a few years.  So too are principles, if they arbitrary and not set in a solid foundation of truth, then you have a condition in which disorder may ensue.  


    Some phycology evolutionist believes instinctive urge systems are coupled with the ability of humans to predict future consequences of our actions and make choices to maximize not just short-term but also long-term gain. Moral decision-making is thus informed by the biology of social attachments but is governed by the principles of decision-making more generally. These entail not so much looking for the right choice but for the optimal choice, based on satisfying a wide range of relevant constraints, and assigning different priorities to them.  They say this does not imply that morals are innate. It implies that the capacity for moral reasoning and the predisposition to moral behavior are innate.  

    So, if morals are supposedly not objective or transcendent, then why does it feel like they are? We seem to implicitly feel things as being right or wrong, rather than just intellectually being aware that they conform to or violate social norms. 

    Thus, it is claimed our systems of moral reasoning and conscience tap into, or more accurately emerge from and are grounded in emotion. Can you explain how evolution brought about such a complex system of reasoning, that can by choice be overridden to do something that our conscience tells us is immoral, versus an animal instinct the drives the mind to perform a particular action for survival?


    Frans de Waal of the Yerkes Primate Center has, on the basis of his observations of primates, shared his answer to the question, “Where did morality come from?” De Waal is an atheist, in his book, The Bonobo and the Atheist asserts that morality evolved as humans evolved. He further holds that humans eventually invented a religion in order to codify a blueprint for moral behavior. 

    De Waal, having observed chimps and bonobos for years, says that they display empathy, fairness, altruism, grief, and guilt. De Waal writes, “Some say animals are what they are, whereas our own species follows ideals, but this is easily proven wrong. Not because we don't have ideas, but because other species have them too.” Thus, in the usual approach taken by evolutionists in explaining biological similarities, common designs are claimed as evidence for evolution rather than for a common Designer. Thus, de Waal believes that apes possess the “basic building blocks” for morality, those “seeds of morality” that flowered in humans evolving from ape-like ancestors.

    De Waal does not claim that chimps are actually moral, as they are often extremely violent with each other and with humans. They “are ready to kill their rivals.” And “they sometimes kill humans or bite off their face.” Therefore, he is “reluctant to call a chimpanzee a ‘moral being.’”  

    Nevertheless, he writes, “There is little evidence that other animals judge the appropriateness of actions that do not directly affect themselves. In their behavior, we recognize the same values we pursue ourselves. I take these hints of community concern as a sign that the building blocks of morality are older than humanity, and we don't need God to explain how we got to where we are today.” Note here that de Waal is considering human beings as animals too, just the sentient sort that can judge the appropriateness of what they do. This error, the view that humans are merely highly evolved animals, is the root of de Waal’s erroneous position.

    Evolutionists generally believe that the fact that we exist is self-evident proof that we evolved from simple ancestors through a long process of molecules-to-man evolution. Likewise, the fact that humans have a sense of moral judgment and standards of moral behavior is taken as prima facie evidence that such morality is also a product of evolution. The question for the evolutionist is not “whether” evolution occurred but to trace its steps. Thus, as an atheist and an evolutionist, de Waal is thinking about which came first, morality or belief in God. But he never considers the possibility that an actual Creator created morality and life, and all that is.  Just like many on this debate site. 

    Because apes sometimes exhibit behavior we would interpret as guilt or shame, de Waal concludes that human morality springs from within and that somewhere along our evolutionary path we evolved a religious tendency in order to effectively apply that moral sense to regulate society. De Waal claims, “The moral law is not imposed from above or derived from well-reasoned principles; rather it arises from ingrained values that have been there since the beginning of time.

     

    In an article titled “Where Morals Come From” writer Zachary Young. Originally published in KidSpirit’s Ethics and Morality issue. States…

    “Is morality like the laws of physics, ironclad dicta from nature? Or is morality like language, where there is no “right answer” but different languages that different groups of people speak?”   

    He goes on to say, “Today, much of the discourse is centered around the two most well-known paradigms: classical theism and atheism.  Let us assume that the actions of Nazi Germany in the Holocaust were “wrong.” Although this is often cited as a prototypical example of what is “wrong,” it does not answer the question of what “wrong” really means, nor does it explain where “wrong” comes from. This is what I seek to do in this article.

    As a result of human free will, morality has an important difference with physical laws. While it is impossible to violate the laws of nature, humans can violate moral laws. Although the law of gravity prevents us from jumping to the moon, we may choose whether to follow moral laws. However, by the theist tradition, those traditions will be judged decisions in worlds to come.

    Centrally, classical theism is universalist. In a universalist moral scheme, if two people have different opinions about the morality of an action, both cannot be right — there’s only one right answer. Similarly, if two cultures have different standards of morality, both cannot be correct (in fact, maybe both are incorrect!). This is just as if two people calculate the gravitational force between two objects differently: only one person can be correct because there is only one answer. 

    The theist view is often critiqued for being irreconcilable with science. In return, backers of classical theism will attempt to reconcile it with science, often successfully. For argument’s sake, this article will accept that classical theism may be reconciled with science; however, there are other key weaknesses of classical theism.

    Mankind has discovered scientifically observable, testable and replicable explanations for many physical phenomena, ranging from gravity to genetics. In the case of gravity, our knowledge has progressed from an abstract sense of a force causing things to drop, to a simple mathematical formula given by Newton, to a better understanding of quantum and relativistic effects of gravity.

    Moral laws cannot be tested in this sense. In the classical theist paradigm, moral laws result solely from the reading of the holy text.  However, universalism decrees that, when they conflict on morality, they can’t all be right! In classical theism, most people rely on the text that they have been taught, but why should one accept blindly that the text that they are born with is correct and the others are wrong? Blind acceptance (Note: Bible does not teach blind faith, this is a fallacious argument) here does not do anything to help humankind. Had Copernicus merely accepted that the universe rotated around the Earth, had the founding fathers accepted the political state of affairs in Colonial America, the physical and mental condition of mankind would be far worse. Moreover, the concept that one believes something just because their parents believe something is to be repulsive: one of the fundamental and good principles of our society is that one should be able to set a totally divergent course from his or her parents if he or she chooses, in order to lead a better life. 

    This is certainly not to say that the Bible is without moral worth. The teachings of the prophets and their moral principles are certainly worth understanding and, perhaps, if observations of the world indicate that they lead to good ends, worth following. However, it would be necessary to understand why they lead to good ends, rather than simply to blindly accept them.

    Of course, not all forms of theism teach blind acceptance, hence the careful use of the term “classical theism.” In response to this critique, defenders of theism may draw on other forms of theism, but these forms of theism are often, in fact, closer to the third form of moral philosophy, yet to be introduced.

    Theism has been the dominant paradigm in the Western tradition since the Roman era. However, since the Scientific Revolution, atheism has also won many followers. It is difficult to single out one system of morals, as there are many that fall under the umbrella term “atheist.” But without any sort of deity, without anything outside of the laws of physics, how can there be good?

    The laws of mathematics demonstrate the difficulty of defining what is “good” in a system entirely based on natural laws. We examine Euclidean (high school) geometry as a case. Every fundamental principle (“axiom”) of Euclidean geometry can be found in an appendix of your high school geometry textbook. Every theorem of Euclidean geometry, no matter how complicated, follows by application of these axioms. But can we speak of any Euclidean result as “good” or “bad”? We can speak of geometric results as aesthetically pleasing — “beautiful” — but beauty is in the eye of the beholder; it is not a “good” of the geometric system. Because the Euclidean system itself simply exists in nature, there is no “good.” 

    In the same sense, if the universe and everything in it, including us, follows solely by the laws of nature, how can there be good or bad? There can be good or bad in the eye of a beholder of the universe, but we are not beholders of the universe, only elements, in the same way, that a triangle is not a beholder of geometry. But according to atheism, such a beholder of the universe does not exist. 

    There are elements of atheism that may be an inspiration for the moral paradigms that we will develop, however. Many atheist traditions teach supremacy of science. We see them as correct in presuming that the scientific method of observation is perhaps the most, if not the only, reliable tool. To develop a different moral philosophy, we may use this as a foundation for trying to understand ourselves.

    Much of what we are as beings can be explained by science. Application of the methods of science can explain the evolution of the universe, according to the known laws of physics and mathematics, from the Big Bang until recently. Science provides an explanation for the development of galaxies, stars, heavy elements, planets, the formation of life and evolution of species. And yet science seems to singularly fail at explaining the human reason. This force, though difficult to define, separates humans from animals. It includes human consciousness (rather than just react in accordance with our instincts, we can actually think and make decisions) and with it the ability to develop morality systems. The ability to engage in conscious thought makes us realize this unique ability.

    Not only is reason unexplained by current science, this essay considers human reason unexplainable by science. It may appear faulty to claim something as unexplainable, given how much was not understood until science discovered it. In the days of Kepler, who could have predicted the physics of Einstein? However, there is no presumption of progress in science. Currently, science is incapable of answering questions about the origins of morality, and there are not even tools to answer these sorts of questions. For now, the state of science leaves us with the hypothesis that reason and its accompanying morality is a supernatural force, a force operating along axes different from those familiar physical axes, a force that allows us to accurately feel purpose in life.

    These lines of thought are characteristic of Deism. Deism includes a belief in some sort of God, but in contrast to classical theism, that belief in God is based on the application of human reason and science, rather than on divine revelation. Deism leads to a profound moral philosophy that explains and incorporates elements of both classical theism and atheism and leads to an understanding of morality that integrates with our intuition.

    Deism was born and flourished in the Enlightenment, in the 17th and 18th centuries, primarily in Europe and North America. Many of the founding fathers of the United States considered themselves to be deists or believed in elements of deism as parts of their personal moral philosophies. Examples include Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and George Washington. Besides a lens from which to understand our own morality, deism offers a useful window into the historical thought behind the founding of our country.

    Deism is based upon the foundational principle that reason is a good thing. We view every human as a recipient of the gift of reason, the gift that allows us to come up with our own ideas, to discover what is right and what is wrong. Unlike the force of observation, the reason is a force of ideas.

    When talking about reason, it makes sense to discuss the ideas of good and bad. The supernatural force that imparted this nature to us had a purpose in giving this gift to us. Since human reason is good, the purpose must be to further the reason of all humankind. Actions for this purpose are right and actions against it are wrong, which is consistent with our natural feeling that actions such as genocide are wrong.

    Since our actions can be affected by environmental and genetic factors, all people’s actions do not produce equally good results. Nonetheless, in this exposition of Deism, the existence of reason itself is a good thing. Furthermore, the reason is binary: all objects either possess reason or lack it. The binary presence of this gift in a person makes us all equal in a spiritual sense. Whereas environmental and genetic factors are of course responsible for the human conduct, they are physical forces and it does not make sense to speak of them as good or bad. They just are. They do not affect the fundamental goodness of human reason. The presence of reason justifies the statement that, yes, in a deep sense, all men are created equal.

    The principle that all men are created equal allows some logical development of Deist morality. It becomes easy to explain in more basic terms why the Holocaust was bad. No human has any more inherent worth than any other human, and human reason is a good thing, so we may call murder, let alone the Holocaust, wrong.

    There are exceptions to the general rule that the destruction of human reason is wrong. In the case of two of modern history’s exemplary evildoers, Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Laden, the destruction of reason is justified. While the inherent capacity to reason, for any being, including these two, is inherently good, in these two cases, the goodness is corrupted by experiential and genetic factors, which lead to morally flawed ideas. The danger posed by these individuals necessitated that great effort is made to prevent further commission of evil.

    Since the exercise of reason is dependent upon information, and in that sense is a science, it is impossible to know for sure that something is wrong, because it is impossible to know if our interpretation of information is correct. This is just as it is impossible to know whether gravity holds in all cases, but the mere fact that every time we drop an object it falls suggests as to what this law of nature really is. In the same way, the mere fact that we have observed so many times the exercise of reason by so many people suggests the fundamental moral law that all men are created equal, as equally reasoning beings. Thus, deism falls in between universalism and its antonym, relativism.

     In summary, deism is consistent with our intuition in the cases already examined. It views science as the one central tool that man can trust, and in fact, is based on science. Rather than pure universalist, this worldview permits the learning and development of our views from new sociological observations, but at the same time, it gives us a concrete purpose in life, which atheism may struggle to do. Supplementing the forces of nature, reason includes ideas, causes and, most importantly, purpose. We as people are given a mission in life and the capability to use ideas to extend this mission.

    Deism provides a nuanced answer to our questions about the origins of morality. Morality is like logic in that there are laws of morality — but just not in the tangible way that we can observe in the everyday sense. The basic rules of logic are testable by observation, and they have held up untold times, although this does not necessarily mean that they hold in every situation. The basic rules of morality are testable using reason, together with information from the real world. The required input, which is subjective, makes reason like language in some sense, but logic dominates. However, it is far more complicated to test moral laws than to test physical laws, which means that moral laws are more likely to be challenged by new observations. We as people are in essence scientists operating not only in the observable physical realms but also with dimensions in the spiritual realms. Much as we seek to discover laws in the physical realms, we also seek to discover laws in the spiritual realms.

     My own journey, leading from theism to atheism to deism, has enabled me to reach a better understanding of the meaning of life and my duty to it, and I have chosen. Many others have of course faced down this choice. Some have reached my same conclusions and can phrase it far more eloquently than I can. In the words of President John Adams:

     “...I must study politics and war, so that my sons may have the liberty to study mathematics and philosophy...”

     When he wrote this, Zachary Young was a sophomore at Harvard University. He also does research on defense-related topics. He is from New York City.

     

    In conclusion, according to an atheist scientist and a Harvard student humans do have a sense of right and wrong, and we usually call that sense a conscience. In Romans chapter 2 Paul explains how the moral standards people tend to impose on others prove they have a concept of right and wrong for which they are responsible, and that moral standard comes from a Deity and is written in every human mind (Romans 2:14–16). But our propensity to ignore our conscience and to wrong leaves our moral sense—our conscience—marred, sometimes even seared (1 Timothy 4:2). Romans 1:18–28 indicates how the process of sinful rebellion hardens people’s hearts against morality.

    Our selfish nature and our marred perception of right and wrong make our conscience an imperfect guide to morality. Therefore, we need a standard in order to measure against; to truly know right from wrong and God’s authoritative standard provides man such a standard. 

    Humans have a great tendency to anthropomorphize animal behavior, interpreting animal actions in accord with our human thoughts. But animals are not human, as de Waal acknowledges. They do not actually abstractly judge the appropriateness of their actions. If the nature of the animals or the conditioning imposed by interaction with humans or animals produce behaviors we can label in human terms, we should recall that the abstract interpretations are our own and prove nothing about the moral status of the animals. 

    Deism is an attempt to answer the unanswerable, but in actuality makes man the “deity” and only aides in comforting the natural desire for man to look to a supreme being for wisdom and guidance in discerning right from wrong in a moral conflict.  Neither Zachary Young or Frans de Waal conclusively prove origins of morality, the human conscience and the ability to reason good from bad.  However, at least they acknowledge there is good and bad as well as 

    What we want to know is why we have a conscience, a moral sense, then perhaps we only have to look at the eyewitness account of our origins provided by the Creator. And if we want to know whether there is a universal standard of morality, we should understand that the Creator of all people provided a single standard authoritative yardstick of morality in the Bible (Micah 6:8).  

    “He has told you, O man, what is good; And what does the LORD require of you. But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God?”

  • ih8sharts said:
    @with_all_humility

    " I apologize for all the questions, but I'm at a loss as to were morals begin and end when there is no defined authority putting them into existence?"

    Morality is a theoretical concept. It is a collection of accepted behavior that is often disregarded as soon as it affects a person or their loved ones personally.

    My morality equation stands as follows. The more fervent a believer (either pro or anti something) the less I trust their conviction to their cause and therefore them, because, if you are certain about something, you do not need confirmation or acceptance from others.
    Morality is a theoretical concept; really, you can read my response to Fred, I actually provide three perspectives one from an evolutionist, an atheist, and a diest who are all highly credentialed people and while they believe differently on where morality comes from...at least they all acknowledge the existence of morality.  

    You say a collection of acceptable behavior, again who or what defines a behavior as being acceptable?  

    Your moral equation does not appear to be an equation, it actually appears to be a moral standard, because you define what you believe to be as an acceptable measure of person's trust and the value of a conviction.  

    You then say "if you are certain about something, you do not need confirmation or acceptance from others."  Well, there are approximately 2,300,000 people in prison who believed the same thing as you do.  However, there was a justice system that deemed their actions as immoral and warranted incarceration and I'm not sure what relevance this has in the particular debate that you purpose of why people thank God for the positive (good) in their life and not blame him for the negative (bad).
  • BaconToes said:
    Perhaps you missed science class, so I'll refresh your memory

    @with_all_humility

    "There is no way to prove non-life to live either, but evolutionist believes it happened, to say otherwise would lead to intelligent design or some other higher form of creator.  Everyone wants to point to a bacterium becoming resistant to antibiotics as proof of evolution but after 200,000 or more lifecycles, we still have bacteria in the dish."

    No, we didn't "believe" it happened. In the scientific world, we do not blindly accept any idea(psst... God), the ideas and theories have to go through a rigorous system that includes repeated experiments and observations(psst... God). What you said after that makes noooooo sense at all. I wouldn't bother to waste my time teaching you, so I'll just give you some articles to educate yourself.
    http://emerald.tufts.edu/med/apua/about_issue/about_antibioticres.shtml
    https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/antibiotic-resistance-mutation-rates-and-mrsa-28360

    "IMO we all have bias and it takes a concerted effort to remain objective and I rarely encounter such persons.  I'm not trying to push my religion or beliefs on anyone, but the disingenuous attitudes in debates get old.  When I'm possed a question I will answer it to the best of my ability. However, very few atheists reciprocate the same courtesy when asked tuff questions. Here is an example https://debateisland.com/discussion/1381/question-for-anti-science-evolutionists ;"

    Well, I am not those few "atheist," that does not like to answer "tuff" questions. I frequently challenge myself on this site to debate the opposing views. So what I say on this site doesn't really mean that I believe in it. 

    I don't mind atheist people there is no doubt in my mind that most are good honest people, I just like good honest discussion, I'm not here to sell anything.  I'm just trying to learn from different perspectives.

    Well, I was going to teach you philosophy on the word "good," but alas, nevermind.
    Hello Bacon,

    "No, we didn't "believe" it happened." That's interesting here are some quotes from scientist and evolutionist to the contrary.
    • F.M. Wuketits, an evolution theorist, writes: “We pre-suppose the essential correctness of biological evolution, yes, we assume that evolution is universally valid.”
    • (I love this one) French molecular biologist, Ernest Kahane, “It is absurd and absolutely preposterous to believe that a living cell could come into existence by itself; but, notwithstanding, I do believe it because I cannot imagine anything else.
    • B. Rensch states “It is not necessary to assume a mysterious guiding principle for the purposefulness observed in the structure and life of all organisms…neither was a wise Creator necessary for their origin” (In other words, there is no plan in evolution, nor is there any purpose, to admit otherwise is to imply a creator as state in previous post) 
    • Dr Sean D. Pittman says, “Obviously then, without access to absolute knowledge, a degree of faith remains when one holds a particular position to be true - be it a "religious" or a "scientific" position.” …” A theory is, therefore, a faith and a faith are therefore a theory.[1]” 
    • Kenneth Miller, in his book, Finding Darwin’s God, references a very interesting research study. Barry Hall, a Biologist, deleted the lactase genes in certain E. coli bacteria. These genes produced and regulated the production of a lactase enzyme called b-galactosidase. What this enzyme does is break apart a type of sugar molecule called lactose into two smaller sugar molecules called glucose and galactose — both of which E. coli can use for energy production. Obviously then, without the genes needed to make this lactase enzyme, the mutant E. coli were no longer able to use lactose for energy despite being placed in a lactose enriched environment, unless of course, they evolved a new enzyme to replace the one that they lost.  And sure enough, they did just that.  In just one or two generations this E. coli successfully evolved a brand-new gene that produced a new lactase enzyme.

      Aha! Evolution in action yet again!  Most descriptions of Hall’s experiments stop right here, including the one found in Miller’s book.  However, Hall went on, he deleted the gene again.  The newly evolved gene as well, to see if any other gene would evolve the lactase function . . . and nothing happened! Despite tens of thousands of generations with large population numbers and high mutation rates, no new lactase enzyme evolved.  Hall himself noted in his paper that these double mutant bacteria seemed to have “limited evolutionary potential.[2]

    You say "Well, I am not those few "atheist," that does not like to answer "tuff" questions. I frequently challenge myself on this site to debate the opposing views. So what I say on this site doesn't really mean that I believe in it."  
    • I think that is great, we should have some great discussions then, I don't believe a debate is about proving oneself to correct, but to present the best argument or most convincing.  It is said that iron sharpens iron, so one mind sharpens another.  I look forward to your future responses. 
    • I would enjoy hearing your philosophy on the word "good", I'm a sponge for learning.  So, why did you give up?  :'(


    [1]Truth, The Scientific Method, and Evolution, Sean D. Pitman M.D., August 2003

    [2]Hall, B.G. 1982. Evolution on a petri dish — the evolved b_-galactosidase system as a model for studying acquisitive evolution in the laboratory. Evolutionary Biology 15:85-150.



  • BaconToesBaconToes 189 Pts
    edited April 11
    @with_all_humility
    "'No, we didn't "believe" it happened.'" That's interesting here are some quotes from scientist and evolutionist to the contrary.
    • F.M. Wuketits, an evolution theorist, writes: “We pre-suppose the essential correctness of biological evolution, yes, we assume that evolution is universally valid.”

      Haha, when I google this quote, I cannot find any books or article that this was found from, perhaps you can tell me? When I google it, I found plenty of anti-evolution articles having this quote. Hmmmm...
    • (I love this one) French molecular biologist, Ernest Kahane, “It is absurd and absolutely preposterous to believe that a living cell could come into existence by itself; but, notwithstanding, I do believe it because I cannot imagine anything else.

      Same thing as above.
    • B. Rensch states “It is not necessary to assume a mysterious guiding principle for the purposefulness observed in the structure and life of all organisms…neither was a wise Creator necessary for their origin” (In other words, there is no plan in evolution, nor is there any purpose, to admit otherwise is to imply a creator as state in the previous post) 

      Evolution isn't a "plan." Evolution is the survival of the organism that has the ability to adapt to it and survive and the death of those who couldn't. (psst... Natural Selection, adaptive traits...) I'll give a simple image so you can understand. Image result for example of evolution
      This is also how antibiotics and bacterias work in a nutshell.
    • Dr Sean D. Pittman says, “Obviously then, without access to absolute knowledge, a degree of faith remains when one holds a particular position to be true - be it a "religious" or a "scientific" position.” …” A theory is, therefore, a faith and a faith are therefore a theory.[1]” 

      *sigh* A theory in the scientific world "is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment"
      https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Religious+faith
    • Kenneth Miller, in his book, Finding Darwin’s God, references a very interesting research study. Barry Hall, a Biologist, deleted the lactase genes in certain E. coli bacteria. These genes produced and regulated the production of a lactase enzyme called b-galactosidase. What this enzyme does is break apart a type of sugar molecule called lactose into two smaller sugar molecules called glucose and galactose — both of which E. coli can use for energy production. Obviously then, without the genes needed to make this lactase enzyme, the mutant E. coli were no longer able to use lactose for energy despite being placed in a lactose enriched environment, unless of course, they evolved a new enzyme to replace the one that they lost.  And sure enough, they did just that.  In just one or two generations this E. coli successfully evolved a brand-new gene that produced a new lactase enzyme.

      Aha! Evolution in action yet again!  Most descriptions of Hall’s experiments stop right here, including the one found in Miller’s book.  However, Hall went on, he deleted the gene again.  The newly evolved gene as well, to see if any other gene would evolve the lactase function . . . and nothing happened! Despite tens of thousands of generations with large population numbers and high mutation rates, no new lactase enzyme evolved.  Hall himself noted in his paper that these double mutant bacteria seemed to have “limited evolutionary potential.[2]

      Since I am very limited in the field molecular biology, but I did a little internet snooping and found these interesting articles.
      http://www.detectingdesign.com/galactosidaseevolution.html
      https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12717342-900-science-can-bacteria-direct-their-own-evolution/
      https://phys.org/news/2013-02-evolution.html


    I don't know what to say, I do not know why these "scientist" said those things, but maybe perhaps they were paid by religious believers?

    And please do not tell me that you think that fossils are fake, carbon dating is misleading, and scientists are a bunch of liars.
      i fart cows
    • I agree that if one believes in a higher being, then one must blame that said being for the good and bad things. If they are only responsible for the good in that persons life, what is responsible for the bad?
      BaconToes
    • edited April 12
      BaconToes said:
      @with_all_humility
      "'No, we didn't "believe" it happened.'" That's interesting here are some quotes from scientist and evolutionist to the contrary.
      • F.M. Wuketits, an evolution theorist, writes: “We pre-suppose the essential correctness of biological evolution, yes, we assume that evolution is universally valid.”

        Haha, when I google this quote, I cannot find any books or article that this was found from, perhaps you can tell me? When I google it, I found plenty of anti-evolution articles having this quote. Hmmmm...
      • (I love this one) French molecular biologist, Ernest Kahane, “It is absurd and absolutely preposterous to believe that a living cell could come into existence by itself; but, notwithstanding, I do believe it because I cannot imagine anything else.

        Same thing as above.
      • B. Rensch states “It is not necessary to assume a mysterious guiding principle for the purposefulness observed in the structure and life of all organisms…neither was a wise Creator necessary for their origin” (In other words, there is no plan in evolution, nor is there any purpose, to admit otherwise is to imply a creator as state in the previous post) 

        Evolution isn't a "plan." Evolution is the survival of the organism that has the ability to adapt to it and survive and the death of those who couldn't. (psst... Natural Selection, adaptive traits...) I'll give a simple image so you can understand. Image result for example of evolution
        This is also how antibiotics and bacterias work in a nutshell.
      • Dr Sean D. Pittman says, “Obviously then, without access to absolute knowledge, a degree of faith remains when one holds a particular position to be true - be it a "religious" or a "scientific" position.” …” A theory is, therefore, a faith and a faith are therefore a theory.[1]” 

        *sigh* A theory in the scientific world "is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment"
        https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Religious+faith
      • Kenneth Miller, in his book, Finding Darwin’s God, references a very interesting research study. Barry Hall, a Biologist, deleted the lactase genes in certain E. coli bacteria. These genes produced and regulated the production of a lactase enzyme called b-galactosidase. What this enzyme does is break apart a type of sugar molecule called lactose into two smaller sugar molecules called glucose and galactose — both of which E. coli can use for energy production. Obviously then, without the genes needed to make this lactase enzyme, the mutant E. coli were no longer able to use lactose for energy despite being placed in a lactose enriched environment, unless of course, they evolved a new enzyme to replace the one that they lost.  And sure enough, they did just that.  In just one or two generations this E. coli successfully evolved a brand-new gene that produced a new lactase enzyme.

        Aha! Evolution in action yet again!  Most descriptions of Hall’s experiments stop right here, including the one found in Miller’s book.  However, Hall went on, he deleted the gene again.  The newly evolved gene as well, to see if any other gene would evolve the lactase function . . . and nothing happened! Despite tens of thousands of generations with large population numbers and high mutation rates, no new lactase enzyme evolved.  Hall himself noted in his paper that these double mutant bacteria seemed to have “limited evolutionary potential.[2]

        Since I am very limited in the field molecular biology, but I did a little internet snooping and found these interesting articles.
        http://www.detectingdesign.com/galactosidaseevolution.html
        https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12717342-900-science-can-bacteria-direct-their-own-evolution/
        https://phys.org/news/2013-02-evolution.html


      I don't know what to say, I do not know why these "scientist" said those things, but maybe perhaps they were paid by religious believers?

      And please do not tell me that you think that fossils are fake, carbon dating is misleading, and scientists are a bunch of liars.
        Haha, when I google this quote, I cannot find any books or article that this was found from, perhaps you can tell me? When I google it, I found plenty of anti-evolution articles having this quote. Hmmmm...
        • Understand your concerns, I'm on the road this week, but when I get back home to my library I'll find the exact source for you.  With that being said, it's no different than what I usually encounter in these debates.  I often get a claim about the Bible and the only place I find that claim is on an atheist website.  Which 99.99% of the time is a misquote or a verse pulled out of context in order to prove a point. However, there is nothing wrong with questioning the quote.
        • So the shoe is on the other foot, per say.  

        Evolution isn't a "plan." Evolution is the survival of the organism that has the ability to adapt to it and survive and the death of those who couldn't. (psst... Natural Selection, adaptive traits...) I'll give a simple image so you can understand. 
        • You don't have to be simplistic for my sake, I'm not the most educated person, but I have more education than the average bear (psst..I have four degrees).  For the record, I don't dispute microevolution or mutations in living things.  However, "eye's roll to the back of my head" microevolution does not prove macroevolution.  
        • So in your illustration, you started with bugs, and there's a mutation that takes place, and you end up with what???  Ummm bugs, so your bugs mutated, where is a change in Genre, where's a fish to amphibian or lizard to mammal?  
        • This reminds me of the famous Peter and Rosemary Grant study of finches on the Galpyicos Islands. During there 20+ years fo study of the finches on the island.  They found that during times of drought finches would mutate a 4-5% growth in their beaks, those finches that did not have beak growth many died because of not being able to feed on larger more robust seeds. However, during heavy rain season, the finches' beaks would decrease in size and become smaller, most likely because of availability of small/soft seeds.  Finally, the observer during normal climate seasons the finches' beaks would return to normal size.  Is this evolution?  Or is it Intelligent Design (ID)? I would argue ID, this is a merely environmental adaptation that is programmed into all living organisms.  For instance, since we wear shoes all the time our feet soles are fairly soft. However, tribes in Africa who climb extremely ruff and sharp barked coconut trees, have very thick and hardened skin on the bottom of their feet, that would probably rival the sole of a boot.  Is that evolution? (psst. NO)

        *sigh* A theory in the scientific world "is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment"

        • I hear what you're saying, but that's not what Richard Dawkins says...Check out video 1
        • Also, be sure to check out video #5, just newly publish research on Orphan genes
        https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Religious+faith (hey, appreciate the definition you sent)

        • Definition 2. Confident or unquestioning belief in the truth, value, or a person, idea, or thing = Faith
        • So evolution is based on faith as well. 
        • Also, notice definition 4. faith - loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person; Do you not have Faith in the scientific method and evolution?

        Other perverted definitions in science - 
        • Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true”. Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
        • Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.  (The one keyword they conveniently leave out here is all Theories also have assumptions that have to be made in order for the Theory to be plausible. If a Theory did not have any assumptions, it would then be a scientific law.)

          Assumption: a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof. [6]  Wow, that sure does sound awfully close to a person believing/accepting there is a God...without proof???

        I don't know what to say, I do not know why these "scientist" said those things, but maybe perhaps they were paid by religious believers?   :D
        • You're pretty funny, got to get those jabs in, touché) (As stated above I'll get you the direct references.  It's no different than pulling stuff off your atheist websites.
        And please do not tell me that you think that fossils are fake, carbon dating is misleading, and scientists are a bunch of liars. 
        • No, I don't believe anybody to be purposely lying "yet", fossils are real, and scientist maybe correct or maybe misinterpreting information.  
        • The point on the carbon dating is not so much the date, but the fact that 14C is in objects that evolutionist says there should not be any 14C in. Example: Coal sample pulled from vein 1000's feet underground, no evidence of any cross-contamination for other radioactive isotopes. When processed by the most advanced 14C dating equipment, 14C is found in levels too high to be from contamination.  How does that happen, coal is supposed to be millions of years old?

        [1] - Dawkins Evolution is an only theory

        [2] - Dawkins finds out there is no tree of life

        [3] - Scientist admit no evidence for museum drawing

        [4] https://evolutionnews.org/2018/04/a-panicked-scientist-a-privileged-planet/

        [5] https://evolutionnews.org/2018/04/a-pattern-problem-brochosome-proteins-encoded-by-orphan-genes/

        [6] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com
        Evidence
      • EvidenceEvidence 789 Pts
        I agree that if one believes in a higher being, then one must blame that said being for the good and bad things. If they are only responsible for the good in that persons life, what is responsible for the bad?


        @jklassen19 So we are to blame God for the good, and the bad? Sounds kind of one sided don't you think; blame, blame, for the good: "dad, it's you who bought me the car, if you haven't, I would not have been able to drive to the bar, get drunk, and gotten into that accident!" ..

        "And the man said, The woman whom thou (God) gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat."
      • pocopoco 88 Pts
        @ih8sharts How many negative things in our lives are God's fault, or that He, not us, has had anything to do with our present predicament? 
        God blessed us with certain talents, & it only makes sense to  thank God for them when things go right?  When it's all broken down to it's bare essentials, when things go bad, are we, or some other human, the ones that aare totally responsible?  So, why would I blame God for my or someone else's actions, when God has nothing to do with my or other's poor choices made?
        Evidence
      • MayCaesarMayCaesar 565 Pts
        I think it is a property of human psychology: when we have a positive image of someone, we tend to dismiss their negative sides and focus on the positive sides. I will give a couple of examples.

        When you are in love with someone and considering marrying them, will them, for example, will you criticize them for every flaw they have - or will you, instead, try to rationalize those flaws, considering them a part of their uniqueness and not flawness? The answer is obvious.

        Another example. As someone who has lived in quite a few dictatorships, I always saw the same pattern: when the nation experienced positive economical growth, social achievements and so on, then people credited the dictator for it - but when the nation was going downhill, they would blame foreign nations, other ministers, people in general, but almost never the dictator. If the dictator has created a positive image of themselves in people's minds, then blaming the dictator for anything just does not feel right.

        We can see the same with populists such as Trump and their voter base: every achievement is attributed to them, while every failure is the fault of Trump's opponents, the media, immigrants, China and whatever else.

        ---

        It is the same here. People are supposed to have free will - and yet, the negative outcomes of the use of that free will is their own fault, while the positive outcomes are the product of God's charity. The God is to thank for creating this world and all of its beautiful sides, but things like violent crime or world wars are the people's doing.

        Rationalization and rationality are incompatible, and rationalization tends to be prevalent when worshiping someone/something.
      Sign In or Register to comment.

      Back To Top

      DebateIsland.com

      | The Best Online Debate Experience!
      2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

      Contact us

      customerservice@debateisland.com
      Awesome Debates
      BestDealWins.com
      Terms of Service

      Get In Touch