An Open Letter to All Young Christians - Please Convince Me.

Wait wait
am I going crazy
or is it just me

you actually like MLP?
Or do you just so happened to know her name?

 

I believe you mean, "incest".

'Inter' and 'Intra' are prefixes used to denote whether (essentially) something is inside or outside. Inter-marital based sex would mean having sex outside one's marriage. Intra-marital sex would be only having sex with someone you're married to.

Do you not think it's a bit disturbing that your perfect god chose 'incest' as his best method for humans to procreate initially? That he sat and watched a mother sleep with her son, or father with his daughter, with complete indifference. It gets better, that he thinks this is the *best* way to start human life?

I mean... he even admits he made a mistake when he decides to commit mass genocide on almost every organism on the planet, because of the imperfect humans he created in the first place. He sounds... incompetent and evil.

I'll step in on his behalf. I hope he *DOESN'T* like your answer. We have long discarded barbaric and unethical practices that are condoned in the Bible. Thank goodness. If anyone here submits that forcing humans to have incest to repopulate the world, before indiscriminately drowning almost every being on the planet (because of a few bad apples *buddum tish*), and that this is a good thing? It's the work of a perfect god? I would be intellectually outraged.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 18, 2016, Original Post Date: Apr 18, 2016 ---

Hang on, let me just finish my BIG MAC and APPLEjack pinkie-PIE here.

Okay, we're good.

Do you need some PEGASUS-stance, mate? I mean... is it your eQUESTria to fAUST yourself as a brony, or what? You sound like a damn LUNAtic. If I see you flUTTERshy another word about these damn ponies? So help me, I will ring your sweetie-BELLe.

We clear?

 

debatheist i swear to god
i will find you one day
and give you a bear hug
and hopefully crack your ribs

 

First off, we may be on opposite sides of the arguement, but I believe we can debate on this topic without attacking each other. I do not intend to debate on theological questions, but scientific evidence. I look forward to the debate between us, @TheDebathiest as I am curious to see the reasoning of one who is obviously intelligent, but against me.
In reality, the scientific "evidence" for Macroevolution is debatable.

Geological Column: The most cited evidence for either side, it can be argued either way. The apparent progression in some areas is obviously intriguing to Creationists, but everyone seems to "forget" the Cambrian Explosion, where a layer of rock contains members from every major animal phyla in a section of rock where only simple life forms are expected by macroevolutionists. Thus, the geological column is inconclusive.

Genetics: I am most interested to hear your reasoning on how Mendelian genetics offers support to Macroevolution, as the "simple" life forms have less genetic code than most multicellular organisms. Thus, there has to be a way for genetic code to be added. Any Neo-Darwinist or one who holds to Punctuated Equilibriam will explain that mutation in the genetic code results in the differences, yet every observed mutation in genetic code that we have seen to this date has destroyed genetic code instead, giving support to Creationism.

Structural Homology: Originally used as evidence for Macroevolution in On the Origin of Species, this area now offers it's support to Creationism. The structures found within various organisms, including the human arm, bat wins, etc. are remarkably similar, which leads to the conclusion they are related. However, it is now known that the coding for these structures is caused by different proteins in various creatures.

Again, I look forward to the scientific exchange between us. I am not arguing that "Something is in the Bible, it must be true." The same goes for any book of faith. I am merely looking at the scientific evidence present in the world around us.

 

@kcschmidt -- First off, we may be on opposite sides of the arguement, but I believe we can debate on this topic without attacking each other. I do not intend to debate on theological questions, but scientific evidence. I look forward to the debate between us, @TheDebathiest as I am curious to see the reasoning of one who is obviously intelligent, but against me.

Awesome. Though I would like to clarify that disproving Evolution or "Darwinistic" Evolution (Evolution by natural selection) would not prove Creationism. To prove Creationism, you would need to... well, prove it. A boring tautology, but one that might be worth stating. Because there arn't only 2 possible accounts for the diversity of life. There are an infinite amount. The one that is currently the most substantiated is the 'Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection', aka 'Darwinism'. Having said that, species changing from one to another over time, is considered a fact. Which is Evolution. Not identical to Darwinism, which goes on to explain how Evolution occurred.

With this in mind, if you're here to try and argue the case for Creationism, I think you should do so independent of Evolution. Even if you disproved Darwinism tomorrow (and received a Nobel Prize for doing so, no doubt) then the answer to the diversity of life would be, "We don't know". It wouldn't be, "A god did it". Until such a claim was proven/demonstrated.

In reality, the scientific "evidence" for Macroevolution is debatable.

I'm going to have start by asking what you mean by 'Macroevolution'. This is a term that I've only seen used by fundamentalist Christians, and not by the scientific community. As it's typically a distinction without a difference. With that in mind, could you give us your definitions of Macro and Micro evolution?

As for the evidence itself? I compiled a list of my own approximately 6months ago, going through the evidence that I am currently aware of.

DNA/Genes - There's a gene found in all mammals, 'FOXP2'. If you count the number of genetic differences in the DNA code then it forms a hierarchy. A family tree. The closer we think we're related, the fewer differences in the genetic code. This is what scientists often mean when they say "We're ~99% genetically identical to a chimpanzee".



(Please start at 8:41)

Artificial Selection - Humans guiding the evolution of other animals. We've domesticated dogs, bred horses and greyhounds to produce better performers, and bred particular strains of fruit and vegetables to give us better produce. Bananas being one of the best examples. This is human-guided evolution, by breeding desirable traits. With artificial selection, humans are choosing the characteristics they want to breed. With natural selection, nature is choosing the characteristics. That is to say, the traits that give the organism a better chance to survive, have a higher chance of passing on their genetic material to the next generation.

Chromosome 2 - Humans have 23-pairs of chromosomes. Chromosome-2 is the second largest, and a result of end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes. (With Neanderthals and Denisovans having 24 pairs) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)

Vestigial Limbs and the Evolution of Eyes -These are creatures that have 'useless' limbs or organs. Fish with limbs that resemble tiny feet/legs, or mammals that have toes that are position high on their feet that don't provide benefit to the individual. The best or most popular example? The human appendix. One day, it did have a purpose. To assist in breaking down tough food, from the days where we were hunters. Wisdom teeth, too. There are other examples listed in the video provided.



(Please start at 20:00)

The human eye is often cited as a problem for evolution, when this couldn't be further from the case. This video explains it much quicker and more effectively than I could.



(Please start at 1:08)

Ring Species - Species are defined by their inability to interbreed. If they can't mate and produce offspring, they're not of the same species. Ring species, is where an animal in one location, can breed with the animals in the 'location' next to them. Then, these animals can breed with the animals adjacent to them. etc. Eventually, when the locations loop back round, the animals are unable to breed, showing a change in species. This is because the slightly differing environments offer different environmental pressures, which leads to very small evolutionary changes. Eventually leading to a change in species.



A simpler way to imagine it? Red can breed with Orange. Orange can breed with Yellow. Yellow with Green. But Red and Green cannot breed with one another. Which essentially shows us that there have been some evolutionary changes from one organism to the next.

Fossil Record - This one speaks for itself. We have bones and fossils that show the way that creatures have evolved over time. Great Apes to modern humans is a typical example, but here's a quick one of the modern horse.
https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/spg/show_picture.pl?l=english&rais=1&oiu=http%3A%2F%2Fmayhewbiology.com%2FWorksheets%2FEviden19.jpg&sp=0889031415e4c9f713e02bf3c4d1557

The evolution of Bacteria (+Fruitflies) - This is real, observable evolution happening before our very eyes. Firstly, there's a paranoia surrounding the evolution of bacteria. Diseases that were once treatable, but have evolved to become immune to the existing vaccines. A legitimate threat to humanity. It's why a doctor will insist that you finish your medication, days after feeling better. Because if only a few cells of the bacteria survive, the few that were JUST strong enough to survive the power of the treatment will multiply to create a generation of bacteria will be much stronger than before. Basically, those outliers that were only JUST strong enough, will now become the 'norm'. And the new outliers of this generation will be much stronger. We've also witnessed changes in species of fruit fly, though that's a little more boring.

Dormant Genes from Ancestors - A brief explanation, is that some species have dormant genes that seem to make no sense without Evolution. Birds having genes that code for teeth. They're "off" right now, but if we prompt a little mutation to turn these genetic switches "on"? Viola. We see birds with teeth. Adding more fuel to the fire that they evolved from reptiles.

Please start at 8:16



This might sound cliche, but any of these would be sufficient to prove that creatures evolve without human interference. That they change over time, to become new species. If you were able to debunk any of these, you'd probably be front page news, in a *lot* of places.

Geological Column: The most cited evidence for either side, it can be argued either way. The apparent progression in some areas is obviously intriguing to Creationists, but everyone seems to "forget" the Cambrian Explosion, where a layer of rock contains members from every major animal phyla in a section of rock where only simple life forms are expected by macroevolutionists. Thus, the geological column is inconclusive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

Wikipedia seems to suggest that while it's a controversial event, it's still consistent with Darwinism. Nothing there seems to suggest that it's evidence for the Christian hypothesis for the diversity of life. If you could find some and link me to it, I'd genuinely appreciate it.

Genetics: I am most interested to hear your reasoning on how Mendlian genetics offers support to Macroevolution, as the "simple" life forms have less genetic code than most multicellular organisms. Thus, there has to be a way for genetic code to be added. Any Neo-Darwinist or one who holds to Punctuated Equilibriam will explain that mutation in the genetic code results in the differences, yet every observed mutation in genetic code that we have seen to this date has destroyed genetic code instead, giving support to Creationism.

You might have to help me out here, as I might be missing something. I've just looked up "Mendlian genetics" in Wikipedia, but it doesn't seem to be the sort of thing that you're talking about. Though I could be glazing over it. Care to help me out?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendelian_inheritance

Though, how does what you've said support Creationism? It's probably worth it if you describe what you mean by 'Creationism' too. I've heard many definitions from many different Theists. Even different definitions from the same branch of Theism. Could you define it for me? Or what it means to you?

Structural Homology: Originally used as evidence for Macroevolution in On the Origin of Species, this area now offers it's support to Creationism. The structures found within various organisms, including the human arm, bat wins, etc. are remarkably similar, which leads to the conclusion they are related. However, it is now known that the coding for these structures is caused by different proteins in various creatures.

Again, I'm left scratching my head a little. How does this support Creationism?

Again, I look forward to the scientific exchange between us. I am not arguing that "Something is in the Bible, it must be true." The same goes for any book of faith. I am merely looking at the scientific evidence present in the world around us.

If you're trying to convince me that Creationism is true, I believe you're going the wrong way about it. If Evolution were debunked tomorrow, I would be in a state of ignorance. "I don't know" would be my answer to, "What is the best account for the diversity of life?".

Take 'Gravitational Theory' for instance. If it were disproved, I wouldn't know what caused large objects of mass to attract much smaller ones. It may or may not be Pixies, Leprechauns, Zeus, Thor, Rotan, Hephaestus, Allah, Vishnu... etc. I wouldn't know. The time to believe in something, is when we have good evidence and good reasons to believe it. Without those, I'm left with no other option but to see all of these "explanations" (hypotheses) as unsupported conjecture.

At the top of your post, you said that you wern't interested in discussing Theology. Can I ask why this is the case? I think that might add a lot to this discussion. If you have any scientific evidence for your specific strand of Creationism, could you provide some in the form of links to sources and data?

Apologies for the lengthy post, it might be a bit of a slog to get through. Though I appreciate your contribution to this thread. Long may it continue.

 

I mean I'm not young I guess but @Tasmiki asked me about this like yesterday so here's his rendition of my explanation for why I pray to God on occasion.

'Some people pray to their god, but not to wish for things that they want, but just to have a voice that listens in a world that has many busy people that just don’t have the time of day to listen. This is what some people pray for, the hope that the ears of an omnipotent being are hearing and always listening. When people are going through hard times, this is what some people turn to when there is nothing left to turn to. Praying for items or other things to please you may not work, but the real reason of God is not to give tangible objects that will be worn away in a few thousand years, but it is to share memories with him when you are feeling low and converse with him in a way that you can not do with any human, but somehow still feels normal in a way. To talk and be listened to, with no outside input. This is what I believe real prayer is.'

I use religion primarily because it stresses me to keep feelings bottled up inside, even if I'm praying to no one, I am praying to something that I have convinced myself is real, therefor in my mind it exists. This helps tremendously when I have something bothering me, feelings, emotions, hope, things like that. To me, God always listens. He's never busy and he's always ready to hear me out. You can't find ANYONE else like that. Anyone living anyways. He may or may not act upon what I say, probably not because I don't ask for anything, but also because in my mind, I don't believe he intervenes. He just listens.

That's why I love praying in particular, but God, though I'm not too particularly learned in what goes along with it. I've been doing this for like two years only, and I'm pretty unfamiliar with the church, although the women there are nice and invite me for dinner sometimes.
@TheDebatheist I know you know this, as it's your thread, but feel free to question, tear apart, anything you want. Be forewarned most of my answers might be skewed by my unknowing about anything that goes along with Christianity.

 

I was gonna come on and tell you my teacher was impressed about the way I debated with you and put this in my answer to the question. He said you made great points about what religion was really about, so thank you for this answer. It helped my homework and enlightened me about what some people might really believe in. And thanks for using the part that I sent you, there was alot more to the actual answer but I only sent the part that actually was about what Qaws told me about to him.

 

I tend to avoid discussions on Theology because it so easily debatable. One passage of the Bible can be interpreted many ways. In addition, I agree that quoting the Bible on a scientific point is rather repetitive. "The Bible says so" is not good enough.
I am not trying to prove Creationism is correct, I am merely questioning the validity of Macroevolution.
For all those who do not know the difference between micro and Macroevolution, micro evolution would be the gradual development of natural selection from one species to another, such as a bird slowly becoming finches, robins, eagles, etc. Macroevolution refers to major changes in species, such as a fish becoming a mammal.
The reason Structural Homology could be used as evidence for Creationism is, if you think from a designer standpoint, does a builder not use similar structures if he finds one that works?
Also, there is the probability of life springing by random chance. The most basic protein of life, Ribonuclease, is made of 124 amino acids. If the sequence were 1 acid off, it would be unable to function properly. If you only work with the 17 amino acids within Ribonuclease, the chance of it forming the proper sequence is 1 in 10 to the 152nd power. How then, is the chance of even this one protein forming from random chance possible?
My apologies on the genetics error. I seemingly mistyped "Mendelian genetics," named for George Mendel.

I must admit, no one has ever even been able to counter my first argument before. You have my respect for that, along with the obvious intelligence behind it all. I thank you for calmly debating this.

 

I just don't cite the parts that I disagree with, which mostly includes quite a bit of the Old Testament-Numbers 5 for example.

I generally believe the scientific account on topics like evolution, but I believe that God caused the Big Bang.

I never said we were supposed to. This is a straw-man. But I digress. If you believe in a God/Gods who judge(s) you for what you do, then you might do more good in your life/lives.

I don't, actually. If my belief is misplaced and there is a Hell, then it is Satan's domain and not God's.

No, and some. More studies have shown that if you believe you can do something, be it with divine aid or not, you are more likely to be able to do it.

No, but yes. Life ain't fair, but God somewhat dulls the pain of weltschmerz.

He shows himself to us in all that is good and beautiful in life, and I believe this. We just have to appreciate it.

Nope. Btw, you have to capitalise the G in God.

Having been exposed to both the Biblical worldview and the scientific one, I chose to believe what I believe of my own free will, thank you very much.

Right now the scientific side of me is shouting at the top of its metaphysical lungs "THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE". Okay, you win, scientific side. That is just slightly impossible.

 

@TheDebathiest I understand your opinion on the matter but I have proof that the Heavens and the Earth were created 6,000 years ago and not 4.5 billion and proof against what Evolutionist believe. First of all, the magnetic field around the Earth has been shrinking over time and at 4.5 billion years, the Earth would be unfit to live in. Second the Earth couldn't possibly made through Big bang theory or collecting dust, due to the fact that the big bang would stir up dust and little water could come from comets fit to drink. Dust will collect but then can't form a planet of this size.

 

I mean, I have a hard time believing God would deliver his message in a small part of the Middle East while at the same time people from the other side of the world would wait over a thousand years before receiving his "important" message. It just seems that if his message was so important, then it would have been delivered in a way for everyone to understand. But it wasn't. Everyone follows something different. Which brings up the question of which religion, if any, is correct. I think we're well past the argument of whether or not God is real. We should be debating the validity of religion itself if we are to have this type of discussion.

 

I think religion was created, whether seriously or not, as something to explain the paranormal.

This is why science is displacing religion, because we can know explain why it rains, or why there's lightning. Now that we know why things happen we don't have to make stuff up to explain it.

 

@XxX_SpiderStrike_XxX -- Wouldn't religion be able to stay relevant forever?

The trend seems to be that religions come and go. There are many lists of old gods that almost no-one believes in any more, out there. Here's one of them. http://www.godchecker.com/

Are you trying to look stupid here?

By the way, can you please take a short online IQ test? I legitimately want to know your iq.

This is not acceptable in what is supposed to be a civil conversation. Both of these are incredibly insulting and patronising remarks. Please do not say things of this ilk in the future. The goal of this thread is to allow people to talk about their beliefs openly. These comments encourage the contrary, along with adding nothing of merit to the conversation.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 19, 2016, Original Post Date: Apr 19, 2016 ---

@BlackJackMiller5 -- Get over yourself.

Get over yourself. Go read a book, take a class or twenty. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

...blockheads on the internet.

Again, these comments are way out-of-line. Please refrain from insulting people in this thread, merely for talking about their own beliefs. This isn't the first time I've politely requested that you stop talking down to people, as if they're something on the bottom of your shoe. If this happens again, I think I have no choice but to report you. I beg of you, allow people to contribute to this thread without being insulted.

I don't particularly like you,

Don't worry, the feeling is mutual. As I don't particularly like me either.

Also, for future reference, you can link videos at certain times using the Share tab, like so.

I appreciate the advice, but I have already tried this trick multiple times. It seems to be a problem with this forum, as I did link my videos from the "Share" tab, to no avail. Thanks for the tip though.

 

This right here. Moreso, to explain why we're here and what is around us. It explained why the earth was the earth, the sea was the sea, why the sun and moon and clouds and stars moved in the sky, why we got sick, etc. It wasn't until we had a good understanding of our surroundings that we began to refute religion.

Ah, there it is. White-knighting? Political Correctness? I can't quite put my finger on it, but this right here is why I don't like you. I'd like to like you but then you come back with this. Makes it hard to get along with you, sadly.

Perhaps my comments are snarky, but they aren't said for no reason. Forgetting to capitalize the "g" in God is a simple oversight and doesn't warrant a response. Who cares? The other commenter does in fact need to "read a book"(read:learn about these things), because they don't understand magnetic fields or the Big Bang, the finer points of gravity, or water forming on Earth. I can understand not knowing these things, but I'd hope they'd at least trust the many scientists, geologists, astronomers, etc that dedicated their entire lives to figuring out how all these things work, rather than a 2,000 year old book.

I've never heard of Xenforo having issues with timestamps on Youtube. Sucks if that's the case.

[EDIT] Pretentious was the word I was looking for. I won't let it get in the way of things, though. Doesn't have a place here.
[DOUBLE EDIT] I don't even think pretentious is the right word. It's a moot point, honestly.

 

Thank you sir

while my comments were actually somewhat out of line, anyone that believes the world is 6,000 years old is undeniably stupid. I am sorry I am not as big of a liberal as you are because clearly you were raised to believe you are "special" because of your sensitivity.

I said "i legitimately want to know your iq" to someone and you said it was an "incredibly insulting and patronising response"

How exactly is it incredibly insulting? I want to know how intelligent he is according to a test; is that really too much to ask?

And asking "are you stupid" was not even intended to be an insult, it was a question, because you cannot be in your right mind to think that the world is actually 6,000 years old. You want to have a civlized discussion?

sure, but don't come in here with claims more ludicrous than holocaust denial.

I'm sure my comment had no effects on him at all - if you could tone it down a bit with the sensitivity that'd be great

 

Ignoring the insults and such, I must point out that carbon dating is inaccurate if the object is more than a few hundred years old. This is because in order to correctly carbon date an object, you must know the general amount of carbon in the atmosphere at that time. The atomic bombs changed that amount significantly, but we can estimate for a few thousand years before because we can estimate it from annual growth rings on trees.
Again, this is a civil conversation, so please refrain from calling others "stupid."

 

Hi @Legend Released . Nice to see a new face. I hope we can have a productive conversation, engaging with what one another has said.

I'd just like to clear up a few things if I may.

@TheDebathiest I understand your opinion on the matter but I have proof that the Heavens and the Earth were created 6,000 years ago and not 4.5 billion and proof against what Evolutionist believe.

"Evolutionists" typically don't believe "Heavens" exist.

"Evolutionists" don't believe that the Earth was "created".

Evolution tries to explain the diversity of life. I.e. Once there is life, how do get millions of species? It has nothing to do with the origin of life, or the origin of the universe.

First of all, the magnetic field around the Earth has been shrinking over time and at 4.5 billion years, the Earth would be unfit to live in.

Could I ask you to provide a source for this? A study, or some data?

Even if what you're saying is true, and that the Earth is MUCH younger than we currently think it is? It would only lead us to conclude that... well, the Earth is young. Not:

- That the universe is young

- That Heavens exist

- That a deity "created" the universe

These are all separate claims, each one requiring their own proof.

Second the Earth couldn't possibly made through Big bang theory or collecting dust, due to the fact that the big bang would stir up dust and little water could come from comets fit to drink. Dust will collect but then can't form a planet of this size.

I promise that I'm not trying to sound offensive here, but whoever has taught you what The Big Bang is, has done a great disservice to you. Because I've never seen it described in the way that you are describing it. Could you help me out here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence

Everything else aside, if I mix water and dust, the dust will (over time) sink due to differences in density levels. Essentially, molecules of dust are heavier than molecules of water, and they'll eventually separate. Not only that, but the water we drink is "fit to drink" because of 'The Water Cycle'. Where H2O evaporates, and the dirt/dust is left behind. The water vapor forms clouds, which then eventually turn back into water droplets when it gets too cold, or when the cloud's pressure is too high.

Regarding the formation of stars and planets? I'll just redirect you to NASA. They're far more qualified than I am, and describe it better than I can.

http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/how-do-stars-form-and-evolve/

Even if you could disprove this tomorrow, and we no longer accepted The Big Bang as the best explanation for the origins of the universe? Then we be left in a state of 'not knowing'. The options arn't, "The Big Bang" or "The Christian God Did It". There are an infinite number of possibilities. Which is why each explanation (hypothesis) would need to prove why they are right, instead of just proving 1 explanation wrong. If the science is wrong, the answer becomes "We don't know". To accept Christianity's explanation, it would need to be demonstrated. If you evidence of YEC, could you present some for me?

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 20, 2016, Original Post Date: Apr 20, 2016 ---

Hi @CaveSpiderSam . I can't remember if our last conversation concluded terribly, or not. I don't have you blocked, so I guess it couldn't have been *that* bad? Benefit of the doubt anyway. Thanks for the contribution. Let's get into it.

I just don't cite the parts that I disagree with, which mostly includes quite a bit of the Old Testament-Numbers 5 for example.

I believe that this crystallizes my original 'point'. The fact that you disagree with some of the Bible, shows that you don't get your morals from the Bible. To be able to disagree/agree with moral pronouncements, you must already have a moral system pre-formed. Prior to reading it. i.e. You can't reject Biblical passages, without having an extra-Biblical reason to do so.

I generally believe the scientific account on topics like evolution, but I believe that God caused the Big Bang.

This seems to be a bit of a swerve. The intention was to gauge your conflict on Science vs Religion. Though, asking the question with a little less ambiguity never hurts. With that in mind, I'd like to pose more direct questions. Do you believe in the account of genesis, or do you believe in The Big Bang? Do you believe the Earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old, or do you believe that it is closer to 4,500,000,000 years old?

What I'm trying to get at, is... What do you do when science contradicts your faith? Or moreover, elements of the religious doctrine, in which you believe. Why?

I never said we were supposed to. This is a straw-man. But I digress. If you believe in a God/Gods who judge(s) you for what you do, then you might do more good in your life/lives.

Yeah this question was really poorly formed, and a tad arrogant. Seems like it was more than a year ago when I used to talk like that. Poor stuff. I apologise. We can skip this one.

I don't, actually. If my belief is misplaced and there is a Hell, then it is Satan's domain and not God's.

Doesn't God have control over the actions of Satan? Would it not disturb you, that your god created Hell, created Satan, gave him free-will and then absolves himself of any suffering causes by Satan? I think this would be an interesting line of thought. Regardless, you don't believe in a literal Hell. So we can move onto the next question if you wish.

No, and some. More studies have shown that if you believe you can do something, be it with divine aid or not, you are more likely to be able to do it.

If I'm not mistaken, that means you believe prayer to be a placebo? I don't believe that prayer's ability to do 'good', justifies it's use -- if there are better options available.

Prayer is almost always not the optimal choice, if you believe that it's just a placebo. Why pray to help the homeless, when you can get out there and help them yourself? Why pray to do well in your tests, when you could spend that time revising or resting? Why pray for better health or wealth, when you could be actively taking steps to do so?

This is why I believe, despite there being no doctrine or dogma? Being an Atheist is a great life choice. You make more proactive decisions not only for your own life, but for others as well.

As the old saying goes, "2 hands working do more than 1,000 clasped in prayer.".

No, but yes. Life ain't fair, but God somewhat dulls the pain of weltschmerz.

I'd argue the contrary. I feel much more content that the ills of the world are the result of some cosmic chaos, rather than an indifferent god. It's much easier to come to terms with the universe as it is, as an Atheist. Knowing that child rape is a gross misfortune. Rather than the the result of god that chooses not to intervene. Free-will or not, I certainly would step in. And I submit that you would too.

He shows himself to us in all that is good and beautiful in life, and I believe this. We just have to appreciate it.

We might have to dial this back for a second, though I understand this upcoming line of questioning might receive some hostility. What do you mean by "Show"? What does that word mean to you? Because when I say that word, I mean... To demonstrate, to prove, to see it before out very eyes. When I see the beauty of nature, I say to myself... "WOW, that is incredible. Nature is amazing.". However, it seems to me, that when you look at nature? You say something akin to, "WOW, that is incredible. God is amazing.". Am I in the right ballpark here? How do you 'see' God in nature? How do you know that it's a god?

Also, what about the abhorrent and disgusting parts of life? I think it's rather unfair to give your deity credit for all/most of the good/beautiful, and then absolve him of the bad. When I pack of lions eat a gazelle alive, does that not make you squirm a little? When we know that he had to choice just to make everyone a vegetarian from the get-go?

Nope. Btw, you have to capitalise the G in God.

So you havn't seen or heard him? Can I ask how you know that he exists, if this is the case?

Ahh yes, slip of the tongue. I should have said "a god" or "God". My mistake.

Having been exposed to both the Biblical worldview and the scientific one, I chose to believe what I believe of my own free will, thank you very much.

I understand that you think you're making a free choice. Obviously, I don't believe this to be the case, and I'd like to explain why. Without diving into, "Beliefs arn't subject to the will" and "Libertarian Free-will categorically doesn't exist", I'd like to submit a thought-experiment.

When a young boy is born to Muslim parents, do you think that he has an equal chance of being an Atheist, a Christian, or a Muslim, when he becomes an adult?

I'm going to assume that the answer is 'No', just for arguments sake, if not for what I feel like is a common sense answer.

What if I then told you that he was born in Saudi Arabia? Does he chances of being a Muslim when he hits adulthood increase or decrease?

Again, I think the answer is pretty clear cut here. No.

What if I then said, that his parents would only teach him about Islam, and not about Christianity or Atheism? Does his chances increase or decrease, or being a Muslim?

Having said all of that, this young man might claim the exact thing you have. That he's free to believe as he wishes. He's aware of the science, and of Atheism and Christianity. But he chooses to believe in Allah, and that there is nothing circumstantial about it. Even though the data shows that this is anything but the case.

With that in mind, what makes you think that you are any different? If you were born in Saudi Arabia, do you think that you're still believe in the Christian god? What if you were born in an African tribe that claims not to even have the concept of a god?

Point being, you are a product of your genes and your environment. Your belief in a god, the Christian god, is due to good/bad fortune. To geography. The same goes for me. It seems incredibly unlikely that I'd be an Atheist if I were born in Iraq. Your Christianity is a testament to your geography and moreover, your upbringing.

Right now the scientific side of me is shouting at the top of its metaphysical lungs "THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE". Okay, you win, scientific side. That is just slightly impossible.

I apologise, but I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Do you believe in Adam and Eve? In Noah's Arc? Some Christians do and some don't. Why are they wrong, and you're right?

I look forward to hearing your response Sam. I hope we can maintain the level of civility we have been seen thus far.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 20, 2016 ---

I mean I'm not young I guess but @Tasmiki asked me about this like yesterday so here's his rendition of my explanation for why I pray to God on occasion.

Hi Qaws. The 'young' bit was probably a mistake. I created this thread well over a year ago now, and would do this differently if I had the chance. Excuses aside, let's look into it what you've said. I appreciate your contribution regardless the outcome of this conversation.

'Some people pray to their god, but not to wish for things that they want, but just to have a voice that listens in a world that has many busy people that just don’t have the time of day to listen. This is what some people pray for, the hope that the ears of an omnipotent being are hearing and always listening. When people are going through hard times, this is what some people turn to when there is nothing left to turn to. Praying for items or other things to please you may not work, but the real reason of God is not to give tangible objects that will be worn away in a few thousand years, but it is to share memories with him when you are feeling low and converse with him in a way that you can not do with any human, but somehow still feels normal in a way. To talk and be listened to, with no outside input. This is what I believe real prayer is.'

I'm going to try and condense this post, as I think it helps both of us. It also gives you guys the chance to correct any misinterpretations on my end.

So @Tasmiki believes in a god, because they want to have someone to 'be there' for them when things get tough. As humans cannot fulfill this need all the time, and a deity can -- they choose to believe in a god for this sake (and possibly others). God does not typically answer prayers that desire material goods, because the existence of such objects are finite. Whereas the memories you can share with a deity, can be infinite (providing one also believes in an everlasting afterlife). To pray, is to communicate with a being in an unearthly way. To add something to your life that no other human can.

Am I about 'right' here? Either of you, please feel free to set me straight. I'd like to discern what both of you believe, before tackling anything in a big way.

I use religion primarily because it stresses me to keep feelings bottled up inside, even if I'm praying to no one, I am praying to something that I have convinced myself is real, therefor in my mind it exists. This helps tremendously when I have something bothering me, feelings, emotions, hope, things like that. To me, God always listens. He's never busy and he's always ready to hear me out. You can't find ANYONE else like that. Anyone living anyways. He may or may not act upon what I say, probably not because I don't ask for anything, but also because in my mind, I don't believe he intervenes. He just listens.

Again, I'm going to try and do the same here. Please correct and tweak as necessary.

So you believe in a god, primarily, because he is an incredibly useful coping mechanism. If such an entity exists, then you have someone that can 'be there' for you in ways that humans cannot. Your god does not intervene in human affairs, merely he oversees them. As well as being this 'father figure'/friend that assists you in dealing with complex emotions.

That's why I love praying in particular, but God, though I'm not too particularly learned in what goes along with it. I've been doing this for like two years only, and I'm pretty unfamiliar with the church, although the women there are nice and invite me for dinner sometimes.

Before we tackle any 'meat' of what you believe, I would like to promote the cliched, 'find your own path' line of thinking. You sound more like a Deist than a Christian. Someone that believes in a god, but not necessarily in the whole 'organized religion' aspect of it. To me anyway. Each to their own, of course. I just think it might be worth stating that a belief in a god, even one similar to the Christian god, does not require a belief in the religious doctrine that often comes with it.

I know you know this, as it's your thread, but feel free to question, tear apart, anything you want. Be forewarned most of my answers might be skewed by my unknowing about anything that goes along with Christianity.

No no mate, don't worry about that. It's as much your thread as it is mine. So long as it remains civil and polite, feel free to criticize and dissect anything I've said too. We can't improve ourselves without being shown where we're wrong, and I want to be right as much as I can! Let's keep it civil and productive. I don't mind talking about anything so long as it stays that way.

Having said all that, I have 1 important question to ask both of you before we go any further.

Do you care whether or not what you believe is true?

i.e. Are you satisfied with holding highly consequential beliefs that are false, because they are sometimes useful?

Again, thanks for posting in the thread. I appreciate it.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 20, 2016 ---

There are many ways of dating ancient artifacts. There are too many to list here, so I have to redirect you to the Wiki page I'm afraid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_methodologies_in_archaeology

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 20, 2016 ---

@kcschmidt -- I tend to avoid discussions on Theology because it so easily debatable. One passage of the Bible can be interpreted many ways.

I think there are some aspects of the Bible that are disagreeable, yet unambiguous. I'd like to talk about them, though I'm happy to skip it if you wish. We already have a lot to talk about anyway.

I am not trying to prove Creationism is correct, I am merely questioning the validity of Macroevolution.

Then I think this conversation would have fared better as it's own thread. This particular one was designed for Theists to try to convince me of Theistic claims, or to rebut some criticisms I have of theirs. Nevermind, as it's no big deal.

For all those who do not know the difference between micro and Macroevolution, micro evolution would be the gradual development of natural selection from one species to another, such as a bird slowly becoming finches, robins, eagles, etc.

I'm afraid that I'm going to need some clarification here. Finches, Robins and Eagles *are* birds. Also, what you've just described is just 'Evolution'. It's not given it's own label in science. If one species "turns" into another, then that is defined as a 'Speciation Event'. AKA, Evolution.

Macroevolution refers to major changes in species, such as a fish becoming a mammal.

I'm quite confused here. Just to ensure that we're not talking past one another, how do you define a "species"? As far as I know, in science, if 2 beings can mate to produce offspring, then they are of the same species. If they can't, they are considered to be different species. What you're talking about seems to be 'Classes of Animals'. (E.g. Fish, Mammals, Reptiles, Insects, etc.) If anyone has taught you that Evolution is when a Reptile turns into an Insect, you have been grossly misled. All Evolution is, is a change over time from one species to another. That's all it is. Or, as Wikipedia puts it: "Evolution is change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations.". Can Reptiles "turn into" Birds over time? Sure, given the right environmental pressures. Though this would take millions of years, and require specific conditions for it to take place.

The reason Structural Homology could be used as evidence for Creationism is, if you think from a designer standpoint, does a builder not use similar structures if he finds one that works?

I don't believe that Structural Homology is evidence for Creationism. Reason being, it is sufficient with a creator, but not necessary/consistent. Explanations need to be sufficient and consistent for them to be accepted as credible. If I can give you a quick example, I'd appreciate it.

If I lose my wallet today, what could have been the cause? There an endless amount of hypotheses that one could submit. One of them could be, "What if magical invisible Pixies stole it?". Well, is it sufficient? Sure. If invisible pixies existed with magical powers, could they have stolen my wallet? Absolutely. Is it consistent with the universe as we know it though? No, it isn't. As the existence of magical invisible Pixies has yet to be demonstrated to exist, we can provisionally rule out that explanation for my missing wallet.

In this sense, a creator would need to be demonstrated before he/she/it were used as an explanation for the diversity of life.

I'm guessing that you believe in the Christian god, right? What could stop a Muslim, Hindu, or Sikh from claiming that Structural Homology is consistent with their explanation for the diversity of life? Because (as they might argue), "wouldn't the Muslim/Hindu/Sikh creator not use similar structures if they found one that works"?

Also, there are multiple examples of incredibly poor design, as to all but rule-out an intelligent creator. The nerves of the human eye obstructing light (i.e. Our eyes being wired backwards), and the fact that we have 1 hole in which we have to breathe and eat from. Introducing the possibility that humans can choke to death. Some creatures in the animal kingdom don't have this problem though, as they have 1 hole for breathing and 1 for eating. (Snakes being the best example)

Also, there is the probability of life springing by random chance.

But that is not Evolution (as I know it anyway). Again, I fear as to where you're getting this information from. The origins of life, and the diversity of life are two very different questions. Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. It merely explains the diversity of life, once life has arose.

The most basic protein of life, Ribonuclease, is made of 124 amino acids. If the sequence were 1 acid off, it would be unable to function properly. If you only work with the 17 amino acids within Ribonuclease, the chance of it forming the proper sequence is 1 in 10 to the 152nd power. How then, is the chance of even this one protein forming from random chance possible?

I promise that it's not "random chance". Evolution is anything but random. I'd be willing to explain why, once we tackle a few other things, if that's okay?

More importantly, can I ask where you're getting this information from? Who taught you about Evolution? You don't have to say if you don't want to, obviously. Whoever it may be, it not doing a good job though.

My apologies on the genetics error. I seemingly mistyped "Mendelian genetics," named for George Mendel.

I believe that I've already tackled this point in my first reply, where I linked you to the Wikipedia page regarding Mendelian genetics. It doesn't seem to 'fit' with what you're describing. Could you help me out a little here?

I must admit, no one has ever even been able to counter my first argument before. You have my respect for that, along with the obvious intelligence behind it all. I thank you for calmly debating this.

While I genuinely appreciate the compliment, and respect you in equal measure for being willing to talk about issues like these (especially in such a manner)! I would be lying if I said that I didn't feel disheartened by your reply. You havn't addressed the evidence given for Evolution. Can I ask why? I understand that not everyone has the desire or free-time to spend hours on this kind of thing. Don't worry, I'm not going to lampoon you for shorter replies. I am disappointed though, that you havn't acknowledged anything in my evidence for Evolution. Each of which being strong enough to support it on their own. This, along with the way you're describing Evolution itself, leave me a little unsettled. Though I understand that making me feel this way was not your intention, nor do I apply much (if any) blame onto you for this.

If you could at least comment on it, I'd really appreciate it. And thank you again for getting involved in the discussion thus far. Long may it continue. Also, I apologize for the trolls in this thread. They're just looking to get under your skin.

 

@TheDebatheist cos you wrote so much, I cant be bothered to cut out all of the rest of the things in the huge reply you just made, but that is not my point of view. That is completely what I understood Qaws to believe in God for. None of that part of my answer was from my point of view. My point of view is very different in itself, which I cant share here on the forums, if I knew who you were ingame I would tell you but I cant do it from here. So what you said basically is correct, but not from my point of view, from Qaws'. My point of view is completely different, but I wanted some information on what another person believed in prayer in order to help me with some Religious Studies homework. I wrote that piece that he put here on the forums, but it was about him. Sorry for making that a bit too long, but yeah. Also congratulations, I for the first time saw this thread yesterday and I think it is a great thread and the way you reply with no trolling or even basic 'ad hominem' (I hope I used that in the right context) responses to some of the ideas that have been shared on this thread.

 

Heh

 

@Tasmiki -- @TheDebatheist cos you wrote so much, I cant be bothered to cut out all of the rest of the things in the huge reply you just made,

The elements of my posts that are addressed to you are actually quite short. The majority of my post is directed towards others.

but that is not my point of view. That is completely what I understood Qaws to believe in God for. None of that part of my answer was from my point of view. My point of view is very different in itself, which I cant share here on the forums, if I knew who you were ingame I would tell you but I cant do it from here. So what you said basically is correct, but not from my point of view, from Qaws'. My point of view is completely different, but I wanted some information on what another person believed in prayer in order to help me with some Religious Studies homework. I wrote that piece that he put here on the forums, but it was about him. Sorry for making that a bit too long, but yeah.

No worries!

Also congratulations, I for the first time saw this thread yesterday and I think it is a great thread and the way you reply with no trolling or even basic 'ad hominem' (I hope I used that in the right context) responses to some of the ideas that have been shared on this thread.

Thank you very much, I appreciate it. If you'd ever like to share your beliefs, I'd be more than happy to listen and engage. My alias everywhere is the same as it is here too. "TheDebatheist".