Christian med students: how do you reconcile your religion with your profession?

[imperturbable]

This is kind of the problem I have with a lot of atheists. They sit around and spout off crap like this as if it's some super easy concept that everyone should be comfortable with. This is actually an incredibly difficult thing to wrap your head around on a personal level, which is it's so easy for so many people to buy into religions.

Sit around for a few minutes and think about your own non-existence. Actually think about it. Think about how you'll never experience ever again anything you've ever done. You'll never see anyone you ever loved, never think another thought. How the universe will keep going on for billions of years without you. Think about what you "existing" even means. This is a problem that has plagued philosophers for centuries, many of whom deny a person can ever understand what their own non-existence is considering everything you experience and think of is viewed through the lens of existence. Even when you try to rationalize it and write it off, realize that you're doing all this through the lens of your own consciousness and existence.

When you contemplate it for a while, you may realize that you're actually scared of dying now. Scared because you'll realize that, if you died crossing the street tomorrow, that's it. There's nothing left and won't ever be anything left. All the countless hours you spent working towards something in the future wouldn't ever matter. If you really buy into the idea that when we die, that's it, you have to be comfortable with the fact that you're less than a sh*tstain on the undies of the world. That's a very hard idea to be comfortable with and I think the people who say they're totally cool with that idea are bullsh*tting themselves and everyone they talk to.

Yeah and I know the old "I didn't exist before I was born and it didn't bother me then" which basically has no relevance to this situation.

What are you even talking about? No sh** it's a difficult concept; that's the whole reason everybody's still clamoring on about religion or the lack thereof. What I said was what I personally believe and never once did I claim that it was a "super easy concept." I've struggled with it for the majority of my life, and I agree with what you've said so far.

I think it's very hard for anyone, me included, to even imagine "nothingness," let alone accept it, but it seems to me like the most plausible scenario. The majority of us view life as some sort of sacred entity, yet somewhere this very minute, someone's father, mother, son, or daughter is dying and will be dead by sunrise - and nothing they did will have mattered to you or me, and we will never ever know who they were or what they did for a living or if they were nice people - and we will never, ever meet them. It has already occurred and has occurred countless times throughout history, yet we still hold onto some sliver of hope that our lives will be different and that death will take us to a better place.

Maybe it's not so much that people are cool with it as it is people accept it for what it is and move on. Life is not any less enjoyable or meaningful to me.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[calvnandhobbs68]

What are you even talking about? No sh** it's a difficult concept; that's the whole reason everybody's still clamoring on about religion or the lack thereof. What I said was what I personally believe and never once did I claim that it was a "super easy concept." I've struggled with it for the majority of my life, and I agree with what you've said so far.

I think it's very hard for anyone, me included, to even imagine "nothingness," let alone accept it, but it seems to me like the most plausible scenario. The majority of us view life as some sort of sacred entity, yet somewhere this very minute, someone's father, mother, son, or daughter is dying and will be dead by sunrise - and nothing they did will have mattered to you or me, and we will never ever know who they were or what they did for a living or if they were nice people - and we will never, ever meet them. It has already occurred and has occurred countless times throughout history, yet we still hold onto some sliver of hope that our lives will be different and that death will take us to a better place.

Maybe it's not so much that people are cool with it as it is people accept it for what it is and move on. Life is not any less enjoyable or meaningful to me.

Your first post was the typical, "I'm so much smarter than all you religious people" atheist type of post. Saying stuff like "I stopped believing in fairy tales and horror stories" or "I think life's better when you don't believe you have a 1UP when you die" doesn't make you any better than the holier-than-thou religious people. It's a serious and hard to accept subject that we can all discuss seriously.

 

[PhysMatMan]

Your first post was the typical, "I'm so much smarter than all you religious people" atheist type of post. Saying stuff like "I stopped believing in fairy tales and horror stories" or "I think life's better when you don't believe you have a 1UP when you die" doesn't make you any better than the holier-than-thou religious people. It's a serious and hard to accept subject that we can all discuss seriously.

On one hand I agree that atheists simply take a matter of fact view of their own mortality. On the other, I could imagine an atheist accepting it, especially in the final moments of death. However, I think the main issue is that atheists succumb to doublethink. They simultaneously believe their lives don't matter and that their own way of living is superior. You can't accept both. If you are a robot, then your life is meaningless no matter what you do. You can't make any more meaning than you've been programmed to have. You can't be any more superior than you've been programmed to be. It's like a boulder saying to a pebble, "I'm a big rock, and you are a small rock. You should be a big rock like me!" Size of a rock has no intrinsic meaning. The rocks didn't choose their size, and they can't change their size.

 

[mehc012]

This is kind of the problem I have with a lot of atheists. They sit around and spout off crap like this as if it's some super easy concept that everyone should be comfortable with. This is actually an incredibly difficult thing to wrap your head around on a personal level, which is it's so easy for so many people to buy into religions.

Sit around for a few minutes and think about your own non-existence. Actually think about it. Think about how you'll never experience ever again anything you've ever done. You'll never see anyone you ever loved, never think another thought. How the universe will keep going on for billions of years without you. Think about what you "existing" even means. This is a problem that has plagued philosophers for centuries, many of whom deny a person can ever understand what their own non-existence is considering everything you experience and think of is viewed through the lens of existence. Even when you try to rationalize it and write it off, realize that you're doing all this through the lens of your own consciousness and existence.

When you contemplate it for a while, you may realize that you're actually scared of dying now. Scared because you'll realize that, if you died crossing the street tomorrow, that's it. There's nothing left and won't ever be anything left. All the countless hours you spent working towards something in the future wouldn't ever matter. If you really buy into the idea that when we die, that's it, you have to be comfortable with the fact that you're less than a sh*tstain on the undies of the world. That's a very hard idea to be comfortable with and I think the people who say they're totally cool with that idea are bullsh*tting themselves and everyone they talk to.

Yeah and I know the old "I didn't exist before I was born and it didn't bother me then" which basically has no relevance to this situation.

I don't understand what your argument is here. OK, sure, death is scary. That's good, because logically there's not much reason for continued existence except that the alternative is primally terrifying. All the countless hours that I spend working towards my life's goals DON'T mean anything to anyone except to me, and therefore by proxy to the people who know me. And I'm fine with that. Really. I know it's hard to understand, but to me that's a hell of a lot more comforting than having some big judgemental, old fashioned person whose priorities I find questionable and his horde of minions *care* about me. First, the dude demands love or else...which makes me want nothing to do with him. Second, if he loves everyone, then to me his love is pretty much meaningless...so I'll stick with my transient, hard-earned love that I only get for as long as I put in the effort of doing well and being happy in this existence. At least it means something to me.

I guess I'm OK with death being scary. Nonexistence is terrifying, mostly because it's so FINAL. But I don't understand why that invalidates my perspective to you. Cobras are ****ing terrifying too, but there aren't any in my bed right now, so I'll worry about them when they come up.

 

[mehc012]

On one hand I agree that atheists simply take a matter of fact view of their own mortality. On the other, I could imagine an atheist accepting it, especially in the final moments of death. However, I think the main issue is that atheists succumb to doublethink. They simultaneously believe their lives don't matter and that their own way of living is superior. You can't accept both. If you are a robot, then your life is meaningless no matter what you do. You can't make any more meaning than you've been programmed to have. You can't be any more superior than you've been programmed to be. It's like a boulder saying to a pebble, "I'm a big rock, and you are a small rock. You should be a big rock like me!" Size of a rock has no intrinsic meaning. The rocks didn't choose their size, and they can't change their size.

Just because there is no afterlife doesn't mean that current existence is meaningless*. If anything it's almost more meaningful, because there is nothing else. This is it. This is the ONLY thing that matters.
Current existence is only automatically meaningless under atheism if you require someone other than the person living that life to validate its worth.

And hell yeah, I think that if pebbles and rocks could talk, they would argue over which size is better.

 

[Nasrudin]

On one hand I agree that atheists simply take a matter of fact view of their own mortality. On the other, I could imagine an atheist accepting it, especially in the final moments of death. However, I think the main issue is that atheists succumb to doublethink. They simultaneously believe their lives don't matter and that their own way of living is superior. You can't accept both. If you are a robot, then your life is meaningless no matter what you do. You can't make any more meaning than you've been programmed to have. You can't be any more superior than you've been programmed to be. It's like a boulder saying to a pebble, "I'm a big rock, and you are a small rock. You should be a big rock like me!" Size of a rock has no intrinsic meaning. The rocks didn't choose their size, and they can't change their size.

What is it exactly that your saying?

So far I'm getting that you think atheists have no meaning or purpose to their lives. I wouldn't say that about you even though we have different ideas about the hereafter and whether or not there's a cosmic caretaker of us all. I think your life has meaning in either case.

My way is superior only for me.

To your point about programming and free will. It's a pretty deep question. One I wonder about myself. Do we truly have free will? It seems even our genes get activated only under the right conditions. If I'm raised in a tense violent chaotic environment how much of my mental processes would be the same or different if it were otherwise. The whole structure of my personality may be radically different. Is that free will.

Truthfully I have psychological theories about the origins of my own atheism that pertain to understanding very early that adults and authority figures were only just older and bigger than me. That they didn't necessarily know what they were doing minute to minute.

Once your premise is people are just a half step from chimps. Sometimes worse. Then all if this stuff can be more easily seen as man made. Certainly not woman made, with the way they get treated in scripture.

So my angle on your angle is that you presume we're different because you believe some things I don't. Well whatever. It seems to me we're all subject to the same programming schemes. Maybe it's just an accident of disposition and circumstance that you believe the bible and I don't.

Either way. We both are going to seem arrogant to each other.

I'm tapping out. The truth is dismantling religious power is only of social purpose to me not theological. Reason being is I have no answers for you if you stop believing. This **** is an awe inspiring mystery to me. If I could be assured that nobody would tell me what kind of music or art is morally upright or that my little girl has to cover her face or that my gay buddy can't marry his partner....then this would all be friendly chuckles. I might even be anthropologically interested in your mythologies as a means to understand human culture. Etc. But.....people want answers....not mystery I guess. And who doesn't like a big powerful somethingorother that's not f@cking them over. It's just gonna be this way I guess.

Believe what you want to believe. If you're a good person that leaves others well enough alone about it, you're ok with me. Same goes for the rest of yous.

 

[PhysMatMan]

What is it exactly that your saying?

So far I'm getting that you think atheists have no meaning or purpose to their lives. I wouldn't say that about you even though we have different ideas about the hereafter and whether or not there's a cosmic caretaker of us all. I think your life has meaning in either case.

My way is superior only for me.

To your point about programming and free will. It's a pretty deep question. One I wonder about myself. Do we truly have free will? It seems even our genes get activated only under the right conditions. If I'm raised in a tense violent chaotic environment how much of my mental processes would be the same or different if it were otherwise. The whole structure of my personality may be radically different. Is that free will.

Truthfully I have psychological theories about the origins of my own atheism that pertain to understanding very early that adults and authority figures were only just older and bigger than me. That they didn't necessarily know what they were doing minute to minute.

Once your premise is people are just a half step from chimps. Sometimes worse. Then all if this stuff can be more easily seen as man made. Certainly not woman made, with the way they get treated in scripture.

So my angle on your angle is that you presume we're different because you believe some things I don't. Well whatever. It seems to me we're all subject to the same programming schemes. Maybe it's just an accident of disposition and circumstance that you believe the bible and I don't.

Either way. We both are going to seem arrogant to each other.

I'm tapping out. The truth is dismantling religious power is only of social purpose to me not theological. Reason being is I have no answers for you if you stop believing. This **** is an awe inspiring mystery to me. If I could be assured that nobody would tell me what kind of music or art is morally upright or that my little girl has to cover her face or that my gay buddy can't marry his partner....then this would all be friendly chuckles. I might even be anthropologically interested in your mythologies as a means to understand human culture. Etc. But.....people want answers....not mystery I guess. And who doesn't like a big powerful somethingorother that's not f@cking them over. It's just gonna be this way I guess.

Believe what you want to believe. If you're a good person that leaves others well enough alone about it, you're ok with me. Same goes for the rest of yous.

Just to clarify, I don't believe that atheists live meaningless lives, but I don't see how they can rationally validate their lives without sophistry. Of course, I believe that all persons have human dignity, which, in contrast, is not contradictory to my belief system.

 

[mehc012]

Just to clarify, I don't believe that atheists live meaningless lives, but I don't see how they can rationally validate their lives without sophistry. Of course, I believe that all persons have human dignity, which, in contrast, is not contradictory to my belief system.

I suppose I don't understand what you mean by 'validate their lives'.
Like, I have absolutely no ****ing clue what it is I'm supposedly missing there. Does my life need validation? My life just is.

 

[Nasrudin]

Just to clarify, I don't believe that atheists live meaningless lives, but I don't see how they can rationally validate their lives without sophistry. Of course, I believe that all persons have human dignity, which, in contrast, is not contradictory to my belief system.

I'm sorry but that's just not the case. I need no rational validation of my life other than....I'm here. And human dignity reaches it's pinnacle in secular constitutional republics. The values of which I hold sacred. Theocracies...not so much. The contradiction is yours.

Just to clarify.

Tap. I'm out. For reals.

 

[calvnandhobbs68]

I don't understand what your argument is here. OK, sure, death is scary. That's good, because logically there's not much reason for continued existence except that the alternative is primally terrifying. All the countless hours that I spend working towards my life's goals DON'T mean anything to anyone except to me, and therefore by proxy to the people who know me. And I'm fine with that. Really. I know it's hard to understand, but to me that's a hell of a lot more comforting than having some big judgemental, old fashioned person whose priorities I find questionable and his horde of minions *care* about me. First, the dude demands love or else...which makes me want nothing to do with him. Second, if he loves everyone, then to me his love is pretty much meaningless...so I'll stick with my transient, hard-earned love that I only get for as long as I put in the effort of doing well and being happy in this existence. At least it means something to me.

I guess I'm OK with death being scary. Nonexistence is terrifying, mostly because it's so FINAL. But I don't understand why that invalidates my perspective to you. Cobras are ****ing terrifying too, but there aren't any in my bed right now, so I'll worry about them when they come up.

Ha did I ever say that your perspective was invalid? Don't read things that aren't there bud.

Secondly, there's a huge area of space between Christian based religions and accepting that your consciousness will never continue on in any form after you die. There's a lot in between there and hopefully nobody is taking the simplistic view that "I don't believe in Christianity so guess I'm atheist!".

 

[imperturbable]

Your first post was the typical, "I'm so much smarter than all you religious people" atheist type of post. Saying stuff like "I stopped believing in fairy tales and horror stories" or "I think life's better when you don't believe you have a 1UP when you die" doesn't make you any better than the holier-than-thou religious people. It's a serious and hard to accept subject that we can all discuss seriously.

That's true. I was being pretty arrogant in my post. I forgot that it took years of introspection for me to accept "mortality" so to speak, but now that I have, I guess it hasn't been a big deal to me for a long time. It is a difficult subject, but stop fervently dismissing anyone that says they're "cool with it" just because you're still struggling with it. It's a tough pill to swallow but not impossibly so.

 

[PhysMatMan]

I suppose I don't understand what you mean by 'validate their lives'.
Like, I have absolutely no ****ing clue what it is I'm supposedly missing there. Does my life need validation? My life just is.

My point is that if you're a step away from being a chimp, you're also a step away from being a rock. If there's truly nothing special about humans, there's nothing special about any random collection of particles. The implication is that we're all rocks, and despite what the individual rocks may think, healing others doesn't mean anything, being nice to other rocks is of no value (even though a rock may think being destroyed is terrible, it is no different than not being destroyed), and convincing other rocks of any particular view is pointless. In the purely natural world, existence is the same as non-existence on the macro scale, so why are you so afraid of non-existence? Your particles will live on, just not in the highly ordered arrangement that we arbitrarily designate "life". You may have convinced yourself that you are okay with this--my argument is not for you then.

Here are some smileys for your viewing enjoyment:

 

[Sephiroth]

My point is that if you're a step away from being a chimp, you're also a step away from being a rock. If there's truly nothing special about humans, there's nothing special about any random collection of particles. The implication is that we're all rocks, and despite what the individual rocks may think, healing others doesn't mean anything, being nice to other rocks is of no value (even though a rock may think being destroyed is terrible, it is no different than not being destroyed), and convincing other rocks of any particular view is pointless. In the purely natural world, existence is the same as non-existence on the macro scale, so why are you so afraid of non-existence? Your particles will live on, just not in the highly ordered arrangement that we arbitrarily designate "life". You may have convinced yourself that you are okay with this--my argument is not for you then.

Here are some smileys for your viewing enjoyment:

I think what you're missing here is the concept of subjective meaning and value. It's pretty common, and a lot of people seem uncomfortable with it. It's suspected to be the reason there are a decent number (though mostly older) atheist philosophers still embracing moral realism.

 

[PhysMatMan]

I think what you're missing here is the concept of subjective meaning and value. It's pretty common, and a lot of people seem uncomfortable with it. It's suspected to be the reason there are a decent number (though mostly older) atheist philosophers still embracing moral realism.

Eh, I don't really care about how many people believe something as much as whether it's true or not. There are a lot of foolish philosophers, theist and atheist. I am arguing against subjective meaning and value under a purely natural world. If you are an atheist but also believe in supernatural forces or eternal ethical "propositions", then this discussion is not for you.

 

[RC4L]

4 things to consider

1) Belief in a god does not have to mean you believe in a religion

2) There is not a single bit of proof or evidence for the existence of any god

3) Not only is there no proof to support any religion, there is a mountain of evidence against it (contradictions, logical errors, things that go against common sense)

4) Someone who's a person of science (as we ALL are), should be familiar with what a hypothesis and a theory is and that EVIDENCE is needed. A lack of evidence (let alone evidence that shows the contrary) should quickly dismiss the notion of a god (let alone a religion) from the minds of people of science.

I agree with you on 1 and 3. Now when it comes to "God" and science the situation gets a little more complicated. To say that you can't believe in God if you have a mind of science is a very narrow minded point of view. "Science" is only a collective set of theories that has not been disproven and which gives us the most accurate way to describe life as we can thus far. We can't flatter ourselves by saying our manmade laws transcend those of the universe simply because we have made them. We are infinitely too small in intelligence and experience to dismiss a superior power. Now if you were to follow our own laws of science, it seems that the order of life is far too complicated to arise from nothing. The second law of thermodynamics states that the universe is constantly moving towards disorder, yet the incredible complexity and harmony of the machinery driving our universe is sophisticated beyond our wildest dreams. I cannot fathom how the beautifully designed machinery of a simple cell is the result of random occurrences in a primordial soup or that human emotions came from a single cell bacteria. I can't prove it, but it seems more likely that a higher power created these things than for them to arise from nothing.
Science can explain very little in reality and no human being can claim that they only believe in what science can prove. Whether you believe in God or not is a personal choice but regardless, you have absolutely no validity in saying there is no God. I believe in God because it makes more sense than there being none. I don't believe in a particular religion and I don't push my views on others because my view is only valid enough to dominate my thinking as is yours.

 

[Brain Bucket]

Every time I feel stupid, this thread makes me feel better.

 

[mehc012]

My point is that if you're a step away from being a chimp, you're also a step away from being a rock. If there's truly nothing special about humans, there's nothing special about any random collection of particles. The implication is that we're all rocks, and despite what the individual rocks may think, healing others doesn't mean anything, being nice to other rocks is of no value (even though a rock may think being destroyed is terrible, it is no different than not being destroyed), and convincing other rocks of any particular view is pointless. In the purely natural world, existence is the same as non-existence on the macro scale, so why are you so afraid of non-existence? Your particles will live on, just not in the highly ordered arrangement that we arbitrarily designate "life". You may have convinced yourself that you are okay with this--my argument is not for you then.

Here are some smileys for your viewing enjoyment:

I don't think I've ever felt so condescended at (and I just got out of a multi page debate with Frank). Just because those are the feelings YOU get out of contemplating eternity without afterlife doesn't mean I do so as well. Please don't attempt to invalidate my philosophy with "you've convinced yourself" comments. I personally think we are different from rocks precisely BECAUSE we can care about each other and act humanely. It's not "oh I'm a person, I should stop being a dick", it's "I am able to choose not to act like a dick, guess I'm a person". I don't care about the eternal scale because I feel zero need to validate my life on a scale beyond the scope of human existence, and my insignificance when compared to the universe doesn't make me feel like a rock.

Your comment is no different than the "if you don't believe in God, why not just kill people" refrain, and my response to that has always been (and continues to be): if all that's keeping you from murdering and/or allowing the suffering of others is the threat of eternal hellfire, maybe it's not MY morals that need to be under question.

 

[circulus vitios]

 

[PhysMatMan]

I don't think I've ever felt so condescended at (and I just got out of a multi page debate with Frank). Just because those are the feelings YOU get out of contemplating eternity without afterlife doesn't mean I do so as well. Please don't attempt to invalidate my philosophy with "you've convinced yourself" comments. I personally think we are different from rocks precisely BECAUSE we can care about each other and act humanely. It's not "oh I'm a person, I should stop being a dick", it's "I am able to choose not to act like a dick, guess I'm a person". I don't care about the eternal scale because I feel zero need to validate my life on a scale beyond the scope of human existence, and my insignificance when compared to the universe doesn't make me feel like a rock.

Your comment is no different than the "if you don't believe in God, why not just kill people" refrain, and my response to that has always been (and continues to be): if all that's keeping you from murdering and/or allowing the suffering of others is the threat of eternal hellfire, maybe it's not MY morals that need to be under question.

Okay, I see this is going nowhere--one last attempt to clarify. You are right--I wouldn't say you should kill people if you don't believe in God. Instead, I would ask "Why not?" You can of course say that you have your subjective atheism and all, but you can't have it objectively. Atheists who complain about immorality or hypocrites (they're the worst aren't they?), have no objective standing since objectively we're all rocks. Maybe you don't personally feel like a rock, but it doesn't change the fact that you're the sum of your parts (the same parts that make rocks). Actions such as caring for someone perhaps feel significant to you, but if you step outside of yourself they are no different from the actions of a symbiotic fungus and bacterium, which is why I view your position as a cleverly constructed contradiction, designed to simply keep you functioning.

You're still disregarding the free will side. You have the same free will of a rock, or do you have some other belief? If not, I don't have any idea what you believe and am slightly curious to know. If so, how can I choose to care for someone, irregardless of my beliefs? Technically, I'm only allowed to be a "dick" as much as my particles say I can. If we exist in a purely natural world, then you can't really blame me for my actions or beliefs (and I can't blame you either).

It's not my intention to be condescending (perhaps the parentheses add to this feeling?). As a seeker of truth, I am interested in how you justify your subjective meaning since I would totally be a nihilist "dick" if I didn't believe in the supernatural:

 

[JGimpel]

Frank22 goes into a phone booth, changes into his disguise and comes back to SDN as...UCSFx2017. I guess you can buy access to different usernames after all.

This thread was dead for 3 weeks and someone had to resurrect it to prove a point.

Bottom line is that you're medical scientists now and your practice is driven by empirical data. Religion has none, so there's no reason to believe in it. If you bring us a book of god(s) that is peer reviewed and the proof of these beings can be reliably reproduced all over the world, that would probably garner more respect than "you can't prove it doesn't exist, so therefore it exists."

100% Atheist and no reason to be otherwise, but who am I to judge?

 

[Akali]

Haha, yeah. Why did someone have to bring this thread back up for more argument? It's not like this thread is going to single-handedly solve the whole atheist vs theist conflict.

I wouldn't say I'm 100% atheist. I will convert for evidence. The second a god decides to show itself, bam, consider me a theist

 

[Sephiroth]

Eh, I don't really care about how many people believe something as much as whether it's true or not.

I'm glad we're on the same page there then, because an earlier post of yours was sort of an appeal to what makes you feel better, and that has no bearing on the veracity of a proposition.

If you are an atheist but also believe in supernatural forces or eternal ethical "propositions", then this discussion is not for you.

I am not - I was referring to how older philosophers who do this have erred. Not sure why you'd think I was.

I am arguing against subjective meaning and value under a purely natural world

Ok, here's the flesh of what we're getting at. This statement doesn't make sense. The whole point of subjectivity is it's based on an individual's position. You can go on about how well if this is the case we're just meaningless robots and whatever but it doesn't matter if you say we're "just programmed" to value certain things. The fact is we do value certain things and ascribe meaning to certain things, and that's all that matters. What I was getting at before is that a lot of people are uncomfortable with value and meaning only being subjective - they feel that value (and often morality, though that's another branch to go off on) must have some objective basis or they're worthless. They think that if their lives aren't given meaning by some overarching force or the like independent of what any person thinks, then any meaning anyone else ascribes to it is worthless. This is the hurdle that must be overcome to be at peace with a purely naturalistic world. There may be no ethereal force ascribing meaning and value, and there may be physical reasons behind our own inclinations, but that doesn't make them worthless. It probably wouldn't make a lot of sense to talk about valuing human life in a scenario in which no humans existed. But as it is we do exist and I do value that. It doesn't matter to me if someone else doesn't, or if there is nothing supernatural or eternal to underscore that value.

 

[mehc012]

Okay, I see this is going nowhere--one last attempt to clarify. You are right--I wouldn't say you should kill people if you don't believe in God. Instead, I would ask "Why not?" You can of course say that you have your subjective atheism and all, but you can't have it objectively. Atheists who complain about immorality or hypocrites (they're the worst aren't they?), have no objective standing since objectively we're all rocks. Maybe you don't personally feel like a rock, but it doesn't change the fact that you're the sum of your parts (the same parts that make rocks). Actions such as caring for someone perhaps feel significant to you, but if you step outside of yourself they are no different from the actions of a symbiotic fungus and bacterium, which is why I view your position as a cleverly constructed contradiction, designed to simply keep you functioning.

You're still disregarding the free will side. You have the same free will of a rock, or do you have some other belief? If not, I don't have any idea what you believe and am slightly curious to know. If so, how can I choose to care for someone, irregardless of my beliefs? Technically, I'm only allowed to be a "dick" as much as my particles say I can. If we exist in a purely natural world, then you can't really blame me for my actions or beliefs (and I can't blame you either).

It's not my intention to be condescending (perhaps the parentheses add to this feeling?). As a seeker of truth, I am interested in how you justify your subjective meaning since I would totally be a nihilist "dick" if I didn't believe in the supernatural:

If there's an afterlife, then wouldn't I be doing good people a service by killing them and sending them to heaven? The 80 years they lose is inconsequential to the eternity they have to live out in the afterworld (plus, heaven is better than this world anyway, right, so it's a win no matter what!).
If there's not an afterlife, murdering someone eliminates the majority of their potential existence.

Not that, of course, you can quantify ethics like that, but since you're trying so damn hard, I thought you might like the question.

At the end of the day, what makes you a dick here is that you insist on informing me of what my ethics/subjective-blah-blah-blah should be, based on what atheism means to you. Never mind the fact that it means something completely different to me, AND that I disagree with your conclusions anyway.

I understand what you're saying; I just think it's an idiotic circlejerk. You don't need to explain it to me further. I'm not trying to debate you on it. If that's what you atheism means to you, then good for you and I'm not surprised you aren't one.

 

[PhysMatMan]

If there's an afterlife, then wouldn't I be doing good people a service by killing them and sending them to heaven? The 80 years they lose is inconsequential to the eternity they have to live out in the afterworld (plus, heaven is better than this world anyway, right, so it's a win no matter what!).
If there's not an afterlife, murdering someone eliminates the majority of their potential existence.

Not that, of course, you can quantify ethics like that, but since you're trying so damn hard, I thought you might like the question.

At the end of the day, what makes you a dick here is that you insist on informing me of what my ethics/subjective-blah-blah-blah should be, based on what atheism means to you. Never mind the fact that it means something completely different to me, AND that I disagree with your conclusions anyway.

I understand what you're saying; I just think it's an idiotic circlejerk. You don't need to explain it to me further. I'm not trying to debate you on it. If that's what you atheism means to you, then good for you and I'm not surprised you aren't one.

All I will say is that good things can come from bad actions. In my view, you are certainly doing yourself a disservice by killing "good" people. I would argue against the latter half of your post, but since we're in complete misunderstanding, I'll end here.

 

[PhysMatMan]

I'm glad we're on the same page there then, because an earlier post of yours was sort of an appeal to what makes you feel better, and that has no bearing on the veracity of a proposition.

I am not - I was referring to how older philosophers who do this have erred. Not sure why you'd think I was.


Ok, here's the flesh of what we're getting at. This statement doesn't make sense. The whole point of subjectivity is it's based on an individual's position. You can go on about how well if this is the case we're just meaningless robots and whatever but it doesn't matter if you say we're "just programmed" to value certain things. The fact is we do value certain things and ascribe meaning to certain things, and that's all that matters. What I was getting at before is that a lot of people are uncomfortable with value and meaning only being subjective - they feel that value (and often morality, though that's another branch to go off on) must have some objective basis or they're worthless. They think that if their lives aren't given meaning by some overarching force or the like independent of what any person thinks, then any meaning anyone else ascribes to it is worthless. This is the hurdle that must be overcome to be at peace with a purely naturalistic world. There may be no ethereal force ascribing meaning and value, and there may be physical reasons behind our own inclinations, but that doesn't make them worthless. It probably wouldn't make a lot of sense to talk about valuing human life in a scenario in which no humans existed. But as it is we do exist and I do value that. It doesn't matter to me if someone else doesn't, or if there is nothing supernatural or eternal to underscore that value.

Sure, you can value whatever you want, but if we refer back to the op, we find someone upset at other people who value different things. I guess in this realm she can also value not valuing other's values, but it's just not a logical way to live, at least in terms of the general goals of most humans.

 

[physiologist]

Frank22 goes into a phone booth, changes into his disguise and comes back to SDN as...UCSFx2017. I guess you can buy access to different usernames after all.

This thread was dead for 3 weeks and someone had to resurrect it to prove a point.

Bottom line is that you're medical scientists now and your practice is driven by empirical data. Religion has none, so there's no reason to believe in it. If you bring us a book of god(s) that is peer reviewed and the proof of these beings can be reliably reproduced all over the world, that would probably garner more respect than "you can't prove it doesn't exist, so therefore it exists."

100% Atheist and no reason to be otherwise, but who am I to judge?

This. I feel like Christianity is so complicated, it fails Occam's razor in comparison to agnosticism. I don't get how someone could so fervently believe an unproven dubious source that is the bible, and not only that, but use it as a primary source and use quotes from it to justify things. That's like me using lines from Harry Potter or The Illiad to justify things. Like, taking sentences from the Illiad meant to be taken literally and enjoyed as a work of fiction or at the very most, philosophy, and claiming its God's decree. It seems so arbitrary. Like, anyone can claim to be God. I don't get it. Since when is the bible a peer-reviewed, replicated experimental paper.

It strikes me as nothing but a literary work, a work of fiction.

 

[Sephiroth]

Sure, you can value whatever you want, but if we refer back to the op, we find someone upset at other people who value different things. I guess in this realm she can also value not valuing other's values, but it's just not a logical way to live, at least in terms of the general goals of most humans.

huh? the op was about people reconciling science in their practice/pursuit of medicine with unscientific religious beliefs. What did subjective value have to do with that?

Anyway, your previous post seems to indicate you;re not grasping the idea of moving past objective value and understanding subjective value. Your supposed clever contradiction is only one in your head because you haven't grasped the idea of valuing something without concern for some ethereal intrinsicness to value. The answer may leave you unsatisfied, but that's just the programming you have making you feel like that. It doesn't mean it's not the right answer.

You're still disregarding the free will side. You have the same free will of a rock, or do you have some other belief? If not, I don't have any idea what you believe and am slightly curious to know. If so, how can I choose to care for someone, irregardless of my beliefs? Technically, I'm only allowed to be a "dick" as much as my particles say I can. If we exist in a purely natural world, then you can't really blame me for my actions or beliefs (and I can't blame you either).

Free will is a meaningless term - a pairing of buzzwords that make people feel better. What is "free will" even supposed to mean? We can define "will" on it's own, but "free" is not an adjective that stands on its own - it contains an implicit prepositional phrase. An item can be free of cost, a person can be free of capture... what specifically is a will free from that makes it a "free will", and how is that meaningful to anything at hand?

 

[Sammy777]

YEC here. I accidentally read Charles Darwins 'Origin of species' 1.5 years ago (wish i read it when i was in the womb). Previous to that i had read 500+ hours of medical literature in literature databases (NCBI). After reading OOS i quickly realised 1) Majority of atheistic evolutionists have not read it 2) The word 'evolution' has multiple meanings. Being familiar with scientific literature (its like breathing to me, reading it is what i do) i went back into the literature and my brain retro-actively realised what i had been looking at in those hundreds of hours worth of literature reading i had done whenever i came across the 'evolution' word in there-a delusion. Atheistic evolutionists religion is- the universe popped into existence from nowhere with no cause, life came from non living matter through natural processes, all life descended from a common ancestor. All 3 of those fail the first step of the scientific method-observation. The common atheistic evolutionist takes their religion by the height of blind ignorant dogmatic faith. In summary : It is ~6,000 years since Genesis 1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", the Garden of Eden/fall of man.

 

[NurWollen]

Those within the body of the church are saved. This includes those who make an effort to know truth and haven't been given a chance to reject salvation. No one is sent to hell, they choose it. If someone decides that they prefer killing others, stealing, and other society destructive actions to peace, love, and community, they are given that. Lucifer is called the great divider. By choosing to engage in activities that divide us, we are deciding that we don't want to live forever with God and the heavenly community.


Priests are not prevented from marrying--they just can't remain priests in the roman rite. They freely chose to join a society that has the discipline of celibacy (not a doctrine). St. Paul wrote "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion".

Just out of curiosity and way off topic, but could a Roman Catholic priest decide to get married, and then become a priest in the Greek rite or the Maronite rite etc?

 

[PhysMatMan]

Just out of curiosity and way off topic, but could a Roman Catholic priest decide to get married, and then become a priest in the Greek rite or the Maronite rite etc?

I'm not a scholar, but from the sources I've found, it seems possible although highly discouraged by both rites. I think some Anglican and Episcopal priests have converted to be married RC priests, though. It's important to note that no one is forcing people to become priests. There's no forced priestly labour camp that churns out celibate slaves.

huh? the op was about people reconciling science in their practice/pursuit of medicine with unscientific religious beliefs. What did subjective value have to do with that?

Anyway, your previous post seems to indicate you;re not grasping the idea of moving past objective value and understanding subjective value. Your supposed clever contradiction is only one in your head because you haven't grasped the idea of valuing something without concern for some ethereal intrinsicness to value. The answer may leave you unsatisfied, but that's just the programming you have making you feel like that. It doesn't mean it's not the right answer.

The OP has just recently stated that she doesn't understand how her classmates can reconcile religion and science, but if you operate under typical atheistic assumptions, it's obvious that her classmates have simply been programmed to operate with the two. Likewise, she's been programmed to not be able to believe in religion and maybe even to not be able to understand how religion and science can work together.

Certainly, you can say you value this or that, and that's your programming talking. Apparently, my programming tells me something else, which is why I wouldn't believe in absolute truth or empiricism as an atheist. If everyone has a subjective method of finding truth, but that method and valuation was brought about by programming, how can you trust the result? There may be a fault with the programming, but you are trapped within it, so you can't analyze it from the outside. Atheism says (in my view), "I'll just do whatever I was programmed to do, think whatever I was programmed to think, and argue what I was programmed to argue." There's no absolute truth being discovered here except by chance. That's my point to the op. If there's no supernatural "will", we are completely constrained by physics to a point where we can't know anything of our own accord, whether it's religion or science.

 

[Sephiroth]

The OP has just recently stated that she doesn't understand how her classmates can reconcile religion and science, but if you operate under typical atheistic assumptions, it's obvious that her classmates have simply been programmed to operate with the two. Likewise, she's been programmed to not be able to believe in religion and maybe even to not be able to understand how religion and science can work together.

Certainly, you can say you value this or that, and that's your programming talking. Apparently, my programming tells me something else, which is why I wouldn't believe in absolute truth or empiricism as an atheist. If everyone has a subjective method of finding truth, but that method and valuation was brought about by programming, how can you trust the result? There may be a fault with the programming, but you are trapped within it, so you can't analyze it from the outside. Atheism says (in my view), "I'll just do whatever I was programmed to do, think whatever I was programmed to think, and argue what I was programmed to argue." There's no absolute truth being discovered here except by chance. That's my point to the op. If there's no supernatural "will", we are completely constrained by physics to a point where we can't know anything of our own accord, whether it's religion or science.

Your programming analogy is getting seriously out of hand, and you're now conflating things very badly. Subjective value is nothing at all like "a subjective method of finding the truth". Subjective value just means that I value something and it doesn't matter why, I just do, and that's an individual sentiment for me or anyone else. Finding truth is something different entirely. Logic is not a subjective matter at all. It is an abstract description of how reality works. We may vary in our ability to apply it properly, but that is not reflective of logic itself. If logic didn't work or we couldn't use it properly, we wouldn't be getting any results for anything and we wouldn't be communicating on computers over the internet right now. Even more so, I really hate these "anti-logic" arguments because they are complete non-starters. Once you try to throw out logic, we can no longer meaningfully communicate.

And again, what is this supernatural "will" you are talking about? and how does it change things?

 

[PhysMatMan]

Your programming analogy is getting seriously out of hand, and you're now conflating things very badly. Subjective value is nothing at all like "a subjective method of finding the truth". Subjective value just means that I value something and it doesn't matter why, I just do, and that's an individual sentiment for me or anyone else. Finding truth is something different entirely. Logic is not a subjective matter at all. It is an abstract description of how reality works. We may vary in our ability to apply it properly, but that is not reflective of logic itself. If logic didn't work or we couldn't use it properly, we wouldn't be getting any results for anything and we wouldn't be communicating on computers over the internet right now. Even more so, I really hate these "anti-logic" arguments because they are complete non-starters. Once you try to throw out logic, we can no longer meaningfully communicate.

And again, what is this supernatural "will" you are talking about? and how does it change things?

I don't advocate throwing out logic--I'm simply working toward a contradiction. You can't have logic and atheism (time for the flame war). Okay, let's be done with the subjective value aspect. Let's talk instead about the op's problem with religion and science (or not, this debate is getting pretty long and numerous posters have shown up to complain about this thread's continued existence ). I agree that the op is entitled to her views and "values". From an atheist viewpoint, I don't see how you can blame religious people for being "stupid" if everyone is just how they are. The world is just how it is. The future is already defined. Science just is. It can't be better than religion because they are just certain collections of particles in a person's mind or the world in general. Maybe you FEEL that science is better. That's fine, but don't tell me that you KNOW it's better if you want to be intellectually honest about the true state of affairs.

I've mentioned how I interpret the supernatural will earlier. I can't of course define it perfectly, but here goes: every person has "soul", a supernatural object associated with their natural body. This soul is not subject to natural laws (causality, starting conditions, etc). The soul is the part of the person that can make decisions differently even given the same natural starting conditions. It allows a person's will to be "free". You are not forced to take all the cookies by your programming. Despite growing up a communist, you may eventually decide to become a capitalist, but you didn't have to. Here we can go into a deep philosophical discussion on free will, but that is best left for another time. All you have to know is that a supernatural will breaks the programming constraints (had to bring it up one more time )

 

[Nasrudin]

I agree that your circular William Lane Craig style of argumentation is skilled only in that it confuses by only abiding its own premise and therefore avoids confrontation with another point of view. So if you are going to stick to it there's no point in continuing the objectiveness of morality and how can it only be supernaturally endowed line of thinking since we don't subscribe to the supernatural and believe that ethics and law in dialectical relationship is superior to faith for determining moral value.

I think you're right given the above--the OP's question might be more fruitful.

What worries me about science and religion mixing is not that it can't be done skillfully and simultaneously but that it can. Whatever you think about the truth of your supernatural assertions they amount to a final solution of partitioning the human race. The ones who did what they we're supposed to according to X over here the other ones who didn't over there. Such that there is always the potential, inherent in such a pattern of thought, to view the infidel or the apostate or the heretic or the damned as an enemy of god. Certain minds will always go to excess given that license, as they yearn to be reunited with their god as a hero.

It worries me that such minds will gain the capability to engineer biological weapons or learn to refine weapon-grade radioactive elements and the like. The achievements of science are bringing these questions to our doorstep with apocalyptic ramifications.

I think so far we've only been aided by religiosity being traditionally regressive in its deployment of the intellect and making use of its own merit based talent.

Really the threat of science accompanies any dogma religious or secular. And it's something worth thinking about.

Religion and medicine seems hardly to be an issue outside of caring for gay parented families or women's reproductive rights. Not small issues at all. But at least a step down from apocalyptic. Medicine is as much a service art as a science and if the religious are motivated to serve then they may be of ideal rather than questionable mind state.

 

[nankk000]

I hate when people throw out generalizations. How do so many of you know that Christians don't read the bible!??? I was born in the church. First accepted Christ when I was 5 after I asked my mom some questions, and first started to really understand what Christianity was when I was 15 when I chose to be baptized. At first I had what the bible said fed to me by my pastors and small group leaders, then when I was in college I was frustrated because I feel like I didn't have the wisdom or understanding or peace that these people had. The I joined a summer small group of girls around my age (early 20s) who were just wise beyond their years and I realized that they disciplined themselves to study the bible, and reflect on it, and write about it. My point is Christianity is a process that lasts for your whole life and has different stages of maturity. It took me 20 years to start reading and understanding the bible like I should and yes it's a complex text but if you really read it (old and new testament) it's not contradictory at all. I think it's crazy that people are like ooooh Christians are so intolerant, what jerks they are! But it seems to me that many people are equally intolerant to Christians. I thought we were supposed to be the "intolerant" ones. To the OP I would suggest maybe telling your classmates how you feel and asking them these questions. I'm sure they'd be open to the conversation and that you would learn a lot. And btw, this one guy from history named Luke was a physician. Seeing that he was one of the 12 disciples, I would say it's possible to reconcile Christian faith with being a physician. I also want to add that there is this weird idea that Christians are supposed to be perfect never ever sinning is a big misconception. That is why people become Christian, because we as humans are deeply flawed and need Jesus. We recognize that he lived a perfect life and died as a sacrifice for our sins (as opposed to us going to a temple and giving animal sacrifices up to God whenever we messed up). The bible says if we judge other people than we will be judged as well and to forgive people as He forgave us. So, Christians believing that it is a sin to do something and maybe slipping up at some point and doing it is not being hypocritical, it is being human. As long as they sincerely repent, renounce their ways and seek to live a righteous life, they are doing as God wants them to.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but Luke was not one of the 12 disciples right? Wasn't he one of the people who preached alongside Paul?

 

[Chrissisissi]

That's true. My mistake. My point was this man clearly did not have a problem reconciling his faith with medicine and he is a prominent figure in the bible. Picky picky picky.

 

[Sammy777]

The common problem atheists make is thinking their religion (evolution) is science. Hence they see a conflict between science (because they think evolution is science) and bible (there is a conflict between evolution and Genesis either all life evolved from a common ancestor or mankind was created in the image of God). Evolution is religion hence it is religion (evolution) vs religion (YEC) except evolution religion is taxpayer funded government enforced religion. Time didnt exist before 6000 years ago. It is ~6,000 years since Genesis 1 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth', Garden of Eden/fall of man. Evolution is an attempt to explain the natural world without reference to the God of Genesis. Why? Because mankind sinned against his creator in the Garden of Eden and is still sinning against him today. Evolution gives someone the (false) sense that there is no God, no one to be accountable to, man can live his life the way he wants, man is the highest authority and intelligence in the universe, man answers to no one when he dies.

 

[mehc012]

The common problem atheists make is thinking their religion (evolution) is science. Hence they see a conflict between science (because they think evolution is science) and bible (there is a conflict between evolution and Genesis either all life evolved from a common ancestor or mankind was created in the image of God). Evolution is religion hence it is religion (evolution) vs religion (YEC) except evolution religion is taxpayer funded government enforced religion. Time didnt exist before 6000 years ago. It is ~6,000 years since Genesis 1 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth', Garden of Eden/fall of man. Evolution is an attempt to explain the natural world without reference to the God of Genesis. Why? Because mankind sinned against his creator in the Garden of Eden and is still sinning against him today. Evolution gives someone the (false) sense that there is no God, no one to be accountable to, man can live his life the way he wants, man is the highest authority and intelligence in the universe, man answers to no one when he dies.

You can be an atheist and not believe that evolution is a sound theory. Atheism ≠ supporter of evolution.

The issue atheists have is NOT that evolution and religion are incompatible. It's that religion often involves making judgements, conclusions or decisions and policies based on faith that we don't share.

 

[Sammy777]

You can be an atheist and not believe that evolution is a sound theory. Atheism ≠ supporter of evolution.

It is the rare atheist who is not 100% emotionally attached to their religion (evolution) and who wouldnt lie and deceive someone for it.

The issue atheists have is NOT that evolution and religion are incompatible. It's that religion often involves making judgements, conclusions or decisions and policies based on faith that we don't share.

Says the person who believes (in your case by blind faith) the universe popped into existence from nowhere with no cause, life came from non living matter through natural processes, all life descended from a common ancestor. All 3 are NOT testable, NOT repeatable, NOT observable NOT science.

The common problem atheists make is thinking their religion (evolution) is science.

 

[mehc012]

It is the rare atheist who is not 100% emotionally attached to their religion (evolution) and who wouldnt lie and deceive someone for it.



Says the person who believes (in your case by blind faith) the universe popped into existence from nowhere with no cause, life came from non living matter through natural processes, all life descended from a common ancestor. All 3 are NOT testable, NOT repeatable, NOT observable NOT science.

The common problem atheists make is thinking their religion (evolution) is science.

You're making things up; I have not once in this thread referenced evolution or said that the earth popped into existence from nowhere with no cause.

Stop making up straw man arguments and then yammering on about those.

Even if I DID believe exactly as you say, it would not change the fact that religion is based on blind faith. Some crucial differences which you are overlooking: 1. Belief in evolution does not attempt to dictate morals or rules of behavior and conduct to current people. 2. Theories can be updated as new evidence comes in; faith-based beliefs persevere in the face of evidence. This is a HUGE, critical difference. 3. Not testable/repeatable, sure...but still more consistent with what HAS been observed, tested, and repeated in our universe than a god.
One purpose of testing and repeating things is to be able to extrapolate from what has been observed and be able to predict/explain what is difficult to replicate or directly measure. Hell, that's pretty much the only purpose.

Now, to be clear, I am not saying that I have any particular attachment to evolution or the big bang or anything. I definitely believe in evolution as we can currently directly observe it, and therefore it seems to be the most viable theory we currently have for what happened previously. But that's the extent of it. I have no real opinion on the Big Bang or the generation of organic molecules on ancient earth. I honestly don't care; I find questions of the origin of the world boring and pointless. Some people don't believe in God...and see no need to replace him with any other explanation.
I just can't stand your poorly worded, poorly reasoned, needlessly acerbic comments.

 

[Sammy777]

Belief in evolution does not attempt to dictate morals or rules of behavior and conduct to current people.

If someone believes the bible is a myth, there is no God, man was not made in the image of God, homo sapien sapiens share a common ancestor with bacteria that worldview provides NO basis for morals, ethics, 'good' 'bad', 'right', 'wrong', justice etc. When the atheist acknowledge they possess innate morality they falsify their own worldview (only mankind being made in the image of God can predict the existence of such things). Its only by being inconsistent in their worldview can the atheist hold to it (and they are). To add another point an atheistic evolutionist doctor saving someone life with a genetic disease is being inconsistent with their worldview. If being 100% consistent they would kill people with genetic diseases (survival of the fittest). Again they are inconsistent in their worldview hence the atheists ability to live in creation.

Theories can be updated as new evidence comes in; faith-based beliefs persevere in the face of evidence. This is a HUGE, critical difference.

Oh you mean like spontaneous generation renamed abiogenesis to preserve the atheists creation myth. Your religion is abiogenesis, all life common descent and the big bang. To each his own religious beliefs but those 3 particular religious beliefs are a burden on mankind and the scientific method (step 1 OBSERVE phenomena).

3. Not testable/repeatable, sure...but still more consistent with what HAS been observed, tested, and repeated in our universe than a god.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh man. Abiogenesis is NOT consistent with biogenesis (to be fair to the atheistic evolutionist they dont believe life comes from non living matter through natural processes in the present, they just believe it happened once, 'long long time ago far far away' (just like a fairytale) in the unobserved and unobservable (NOT empirical science) past. Chuck in E=mc2 too relating to the atheist believing the entire universe popped into existence from nowhere with no cause.

One purpose of testing and repeating things is to be able to extrapolate from what has been observed and be able to predict/explain what is difficult to replicate or directly measure. Hell, that's pretty much the only purpose.

Well based on observation and experiment the big bang, abiogenesis and all life common descent are out the door then.

Now, to be clear, I am not saying that I have any particular attachment to evolution or the big bang or anything. I definitely believe in evolution as we can currently directly observe it, and therefore it seems to be the most viable theory we currently have for what happened previously.

Which definition of 'evolution'? (rhetorical question). You use equivocation logical fallacy every time you say the e word.

But that's the extent of it. I have no real opinion on the Big Bang or the generation of organic molecules on ancient earth. I honestly don't care; I find questions of the origin of the world boring and pointless. Some people don't believe in God...and see no need to replace him with any other explanation.

That is the entire point of evo ( an attempt to replace God of Genesis as creator of the universe and life to get rid of accountability). The evo lie started in Genesis 3 FWIW (feel free to ask more if you want).

I just can't stand your poorly worded, poorly reasoned, needlessly acerbic comments.

 

[Nasrudin]

If someone believes the bible is a myth, there is no God, man was not made in the image of God, homo sapien sapiens share a common ancestor with bacteria that worldview provides NO basis for morals, ethics, 'good' 'bad', 'right', 'wrong', justice etc. When the atheist acknowledge they possess innate morality they falsify their own worldview (only mankind being made in the image of God can predict the existence of such things). Its only by being inconsistent in their worldview can the atheist hold to it (and they are). To add another point an atheistic evolutionist doctor saving someone life with a genetic disease is being inconsistent with their worldview. If being 100% consistent they would kill people with genetic diseases (survival of the fittest). Again they are inconsistent in their worldview hence the atheists ability to live in creation.



Oh you mean like spontaneous generation renamed abiogenesis to preserve the atheists creation myth. Your religion is abiogenesis, all life common descent and the big bang. To each his own religious beliefs but those 3 particular religious beliefs are a burden on mankind and the scientific method (step 1 OBSERVE phenomena).




HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh man. Abiogenesis is NOT consistent with biogenesis (to be fair to the atheistic evolutionist they dont believe life comes from non living matter through natural processes in the present, they just believe it happened once, 'long long time ago far far away' (just like a fairytale) in the unobserved and unobservable (NOT empirical science) past. Chuck in E=mc2 too relating to the atheist believing the entire universe popped into existence from nowhere with no cause.



Well based on observation and experiment the big bang, abiogenesis and all life common descent are out the door then.



Which definition of 'evolution'? (rhetorical question). You use equivocation logical fallacy every time you say the e word.




That is the entire point of evo ( an attempt to replace God of Genesis as creator of the universe and life to get rid of accountability). The evo lie started in Genesis 3 FWIW (feel free to ask more if you want).

I just can't stand your poorly worded, poorly reasoned, needlessly acerbic comments.

What's your view of the Torah or the Quran? Are they fraudulent?

You're confusing Spencer and social Darwinism with the scientific theory of evolution. One deals with how finches develop different size beaks on different islands and the like and the other is a philosophy which makes metaphorical use of the science.

Also...so antibiotic resistance. I don't find its processes described anywhere but in scientific literature. The whole interaction depicts natural selection, thus proving the usefulness of the concept. That what science does. Even your religious colleagues would concede that.

Badgering with the notion of evolution and atheism being religious notions only makes you look foolish. Evolution is a work in progress that has yet nor likely ever will describe convincingly the origins of life on earth.

It's just that most sensible people don't go describing arcs built by centuries old men and a garden with talking snakes as the answer being most plausible.

 

[Sammy777]

What's your view of the Torah or the Quran? Are they fraudulent?

The Torah is the first 5 books of the old testament yes the Quran is a rip off of Genesis.

One deals with how finches develop different size beaks on different islands and the like and the other is a philosophy which makes metaphorical use of the science.

Lol variable beaks sizes is variation/adaptation. Finches produce finches but there is a variety of finches.

Also...so antibiotic resistance. I don't find its processes described anywhere but in scientific literature. The whole interaction depicts natural selection, thus proving the usefulness of the concept. That what science does. Even your religious colleagues would concede that.

Lol you made no molecular assertion as to how antibiotic resistant bacteria have anything to do with the claim that all life descended from a common ancestor. A loss of function mutation may confer antibiotic resistance then natural selection can kick in. Loss of information.

It is science Vs pseudo-science (evolution). Science wins. Pseudo-science (evolution) loses.

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=5565

 

[Nasrudin]

The Torah is the first 5 books of the old testament yes the Quran is a rip off of Genesis.



Lol variable beaks sizes is variation/adaptation. Finches produce finches but there is a variety of finches.



Lol you made no molecular assertion as to how antibiotic resistant bacteria have anything to do with the claim that all life descended from a common ancestor. A loss of function mutation may confer antibiotic resistance then natural selection can kick in. Loss of information.

It is science Vs pseudo-science (evolution). Science wins. Pseudo-science (evolution) loses.

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=5565

So let me see if I got you so far:

• evolution is a mythology and not a scientific theory
• the bible is a factual, literal document including Genesis
• natural selection fits biblical principles but is completely inconsistent with the evolutionary framework
• The Torah is an old outdated document, thus Jews are damned eternally in hell
• The Quran is a bootleg knockoff, thus Muslims are damned eternally in hell
• Everyone else, but especially atheists, are damned eternally in hell

It's just I need to understand where you're coming from first. There's just such a strange variety of what the religious are absolutely certain about. It's important to know where your absolutes are before returning fire with the sort of missives your barraging us with.

 

[Sammy777]

1,2,3 correct. 4. The Torah is the old testament i made no comment about Jews. 5. Correct about the Quran i made no comment about Muslims. 6. I made no such comment. Excellent example of your imagination at play (like with evo).


I believe Genesis 1:1-31 took place ~6,000 years ago in 6 plain days (just normal days like we experience today). God created everything 'Good' and 'Very good' (God didnt create death, disease, cancer etc) Adam and Eves sin introduced cancer, death, suffering etc into creation. Noahs flood ~1,700 years after creation, God kills everybody except 8 people. Tower of babel not long after Noahs flood. +2,300 years to Jesus+2000 years to today. The evo lie was started by the serpent in Genesis 3 to fool mankind -Adam and Eve didnt sin (heck they never existed), therefore there is no such thing as sin, therefore Jesus didnt die on the cross for the sins of mankind. With one lie Christianity is left in the rubbles without even mentioning Jesus name. The lie:evolution.

I would suggest a book in that link (ie Dr Jonathan Sarfati 'Refuting evolution') demolishing evolution with science.

 

[Nasrudin]

1,2,3 correct. 4. The Torah is the old testament i made no comment about Jews. 5. Correct about the Quran i made no comment about Muslims. 6. I made no such comment. Excellent example of your imagination at play (like with evo).


I believe Genesis 1:1-31 took place ~6,000 years ago in 6 plain days (just normal days like we experience today). God created everything 'Good' and 'Very good' (God didnt create death, disease, cancer etc) Adam and Eves sin introduced cancer, death, suffering etc into creation. Noahs flood ~1,700 years after creation, God kills everybody except 8 people. Tower of babel not long after Noahs flood. +2,300 years to Jesus+2000 years to today. The evo lie was started by the serpent in Genesis 3 to fool mankind -Adam and Eve didnt sin (heck they never existed), therefore there is no such thing as sin, therefore Jesus didnt die on the cross for the sins of mankind. With one lie Christianity is left in the rubbles without even mentioning Jesus name. The lie:evolution.

I would suggest a book in that link (ie Dr Jonathan Sarfati 'Refuting evolution') demolishing evolution with science.

I'm simply making correlative efforts to understand your perspective by stating other literal assertions in the Bible which manages to condemn the entirety of the earth's inhabitants besides the followers of Jesus Christ--not this other fellow from Nazareth everyone seems to forget.

If you are literal about the creation story surely you must admit that all non-Christians are doomed for an eternity. I've found getting this on record does much to illustrate comparatively how an atheist and a strong theist views his/her fellow creatures.

Please. Don't bother with links. I'm not going frolicking in your nonsense with my scant precious time on this earth. You can make your references' assertions yourself and that will suffice for me. I will take your word for it.

 

[Sammy777]

Man sinned in the Garden of Eden and God will judge sin when we die (which you dont believe because you are an atheist). I asked Jesus forgiveness of my sins, im forgiven (your not, you dont even believe sin exists). If you wanted to you could get out a bible and look up all the bible verses on hell and see what it says yourself. Ps evolution is not science.

 

[Nasrudin]

Man sinned in the Garden of Eden and God will judge sin when we die (which you dont believe because you are an atheist). I asked Jesus forgiveness of my sins, im forgiven (your not, you dont even believe sin exists). If you wanted to you could get out a bible and look up all the bible verses on hell and see what it says yourself. Ps evolution is not science.

Ok friend. I do not condemn you to eternal suffering. I wish you success in all your endeavors in the hereafter.

And, may it please the court, I rest my case.

 

[Bear Grylls]

Man sinned in the Garden of Eden and God will judge sin when we die (which you dont believe because you are an atheist). I asked Jesus forgiveness of my sins, im forgiven (your not, you dont even believe sin exists). If you wanted to you could get out a bible and look up all the bible verses on hell and see what it says yourself. Ps evolution is not science.

Hey man,

From a fellow Christian (Roman Catholic), you're making Christianity sound ridiculous. I don't normally say things like this, but I would check out Catholicism if I were you. Science, faith, and reason can go hand in hand. I just don't see success for you within the scientific world with your thought processes.

I suggest you read this whole wiki, and you read it well: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution

p.s. Theistic Evolution is not at arms with any of the Church's teachings. The reality of Adam and Eve are even upheld.

 

[Sammy777]

Im not sure whos more delusional, atheistic evolutionists or theistic evolutionists. All life common descent claim undermines the very purpose for Jesus dying on the cross for the SINS of MANKIND. Of course you have made the standard fallacy of equating evolution with science and science with evolution. I just don't see success for you within the scientific world with your thought processes.

 

[PhysMatMan]

Im not sure whos more delusional, atheistic evolutionists or theistic evolutionists. All life common descent claim undermines the very purpose for Jesus dying on the cross for the SINS of MANKIND. Of course you have made the standard fallacy of equating evolution with science and science with evolution. I just don't see success for you within the scientific world with your thought processes.

Don't you think that a God who set up some initial conditions from which Earth and life arose over the course of billions of years is infinitely more powerful than a God who had to instantiate life at each point? Your views do not conform to the scientific process of extrapolation and unnecessarily limit God.