Jenesis on 5/12/2007 at 00:13
Quote Posted by paloalto90
Justice itself would be based on Love.There is no seperation.
I'm not sure where you're going with that in relation to what I posted. I can't even tell if you're agreeing with me or giving me a one-line rebuttal. God's love is inherent in him - God is love without any reference to anything outside himself, with Father, Son, and Spirit loving one another. God has to be just only because his creations do evil, thus giving rise to something that requires justice. So God's justice, whilst flowing from his nature, is prompted by human sin. God cannot stand evil because of the absolute purity - the holiness - of his love, thus his love brings judgement, but also brings the delaying of that judgement so that many can be saved. So, assuming you're saying what I think you're saying, I think I agree with you.
On another point - 'my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?': in addition to what jtr7 and fett said, Jesus is actually quoting the first line of (
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm%2022&version=31) Psalm 22, announcing that this psalm, written by David almost about a thousand years before, is describing what is happening on the cross. Indeed, much of what the psalm describes actually happens to Jesus - the end of (
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm%2022:16;&version=31;) verse 16 is an obvious one, but compare also (
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm%2022:7-8;&version=31;) verses 7 and 8 with (
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2027:42-43;&version=31;) Matthew 27:42-43. Matthew is the only one to include v43 - Matthew seems to have been writing with a Jewish audience in mind, and so often takes time to show his readers that Jesus fulfils Old Testament prophecy. There's also (
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm%2022:18;&version=31;) verse 18, which is noted as happening to Jesus in all of the gospels, with (
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2019:24;&version=31;) John 19:24 making the link explicit.
Spaztick on 5/12/2007 at 02:15
Quote Posted by demagogue
I've always thought that evolution was a bogey in the argument between religion and science. It doesn't really play as important a role in the argument as people seem to think.
Esp when you get a feel for the idea that, to quote that maxim that always seems so clever to me for some reason "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", all the major steps of evolution are repeated with every birth. What's the relevance of what happened millions of years ago when every human birth, probably 10 times every second of every day, reaffirms all the major punchlines that evolution is supposed to: life is driven by naturalist laws from start to finish. Forget about evolution; creationists really have to assert they don't believe in natural birth if they want to keep their argument, and you can watch the whole process over and over, thousands of times a day, in as close detail as you'd like.
If you yourself were born in a completely naturalistic way, molecules coming together, once you accept that, then I don't really see how much more adding a
further naturalist mechanism that puts it in place adds anything new. All the major "damage" has already been done to the thesis that life involves non-naturalist laws. Even if it were a different mechanism, it was really a mad scientist putting it together, or like Bertrand Russell like to ponder, the whole universe (our memories and all) was thrown together like this 5 minutes ago by happenstance ... all of that is beside the point to the fact that the world we live in right now, including every human birth, is determined by naturalist laws.
You'll have to clarify what you're trying to convey to me. What I'm reading is that since the laws of nature are set in and make events occur, such as birth, that a supernatural or metaphysical being or set of laws aren't apparent or in place.
As for Haeckel, I thought his work on the theory of recapitulation had been discredited, either wholly or partially.
I do agree with you though, the theory of (macro)evolution isn't that important anyway in the grand scheme of things. Eventually it'll be proven true or discredited given enough time, although knowing people the argument could go on indefinitely with people saying that for the theory to be (dis)proven you would need even more time. In 200 million years if we're around and still the same humans with 2 eyes, 2 hands with 4 digits and a thumb each, etc. I think people would have long stopped caring whether or not we evolved from another species. By then we'll have found something different to argue about.
Thirith on 5/12/2007 at 08:12
In a good and fair world, Christianity's greatest enemies should be people like that (or the "bananas are proof of intelligent design!" guy - or indeed George W.). Well, I think they are, at least of the kind of Christianity that I would wish for. Richard Dawkins is at best an amateur when it comes to being an enemy of Christianity... (Judging from Dawkins' attempts at humour and wit in The God Delusion, the fundies also beat him hands down at being funny - although that's hardly intentional on their part.)
catbarf on 5/12/2007 at 11:09
(
http://youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg)
All I can say is OWNED.
And nonetheless, it's a valid point. In the words of Stephen Roberts: 'I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.'
Thirith on 5/12/2007 at 11:19
Quote Posted by catbarf
All I can say is OWNED.
You think so? To my thinking (and I'm pretty sure I would have thought that too when I was still an agnostic), Dawkins' answer is facile rhetorics. He doesn't answer the question, he just goes for ridicule.
If that means "OWNED", then the argument is all about style over substance, form over content. "I make some clever remarks without answering your question, therefore I win." Brilliant...
And it is perfectly possible to believe that all faiths strive for an adequate representation of the divine (provided it exists), and to have specific reasons for believing that one of them is less imperfect at representing the divine. But like so often when he 'argues' against God, Dawkins doesn't actually engage with the argument. He's so much better at arguing
for a non-deistic world view than at arguing
against God; in the latter case he tends to be facile and dismissive - which you can only do with any intellectual honesty if you've actually addressed the strongest counter-arguments, but he doesn't do that - but when it comes to his argument for a non-deistic world view, he's so much more persuasive.
Edit: And it would have to be on the internet that adolescent snark is taken to be genuine wit.
fett on 5/12/2007 at 13:20
These people drive cars and breed. If there is a God, help us all.
Thirith on 5/12/2007 at 13:27
If ignorant but very verbal fundies are God's idea of a joke, then He's got one mean sense of humour.
Talking of fundamentalist crazies: I so can't decide whether (
http://www.warrenellis.com/?p=5361) this gang is hilariously funny or scary as hell. Perhaps both.
DaveW on 5/12/2007 at 15:58
Quote Posted by Thirith
You think so? To my thinking (and I'm pretty sure I would have thought that too when I was still an agnostic), Dawkins' answer is facile rhetorics. He doesn't answer the question, he just goes for ridicule.
If that means "OWNED", then the argument is all about style over substance, form over content. "I make some clever remarks without answering your question, therefore I win." Brilliant...
Not really. Watch it again - he makes an extremely valid point. People saying "What if you're wrong" should stop and think "What if
I'm wrong?". There are hundreds of gods and religions to choose from - and they happen to believe in, say, Christianity. There's a far higher probability they're wrong than an atheist is, because there's a sudden leap of faith to believe in a supernatural being. Whereas there isn't to believe the Big Bang theory/evolution.
Thirith on 5/12/2007 at 16:34
Quote Posted by DaveW
Not really. Watch it again - he makes an extremely valid point. People saying "What if you're wrong" should stop and think "What if
I'm wrong?". There are hundreds of gods and religions to choose from - and they happen to believe in, say, Christianity. There's a far higher probability they're wrong than an atheist is, because there's a sudden leap of faith to believe in a supernatural being. Whereas there isn't to believe the Big Bang theory/evolution.
Everything you write after "extremely valid point" I agree with - but Dawkins doesn't seem in the least willing to use the "What if you're wrong?" question as a two-way thing. I consider myself a doubting Christian, and I am very willing to consider that I'm totally wrong about my notion of God and my general belief that He exists. For all we know, the woman who asked "What if you're wrong?" may not be a Christian, or she may be willing to accept that she's wrong.
I can give you reasons that I at least consider somewhat less dumb than "Coz the bible says so, idiot!" why I believe in God, but I think that a handful of the atheists I know and respect have valid reasons why they don't believe. But that doesn't change that Dawkins does not answer the question. Both sides of the argument should be able to deal with that question, I'd say. It's not enough to say, "No, you're *it*!"
