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

[touchpause13]

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.

You are also making the fallacy of equating evolution with athiesm.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[mehc012]

You are also making the fallacy of equating evolution with athiesm.

Among many, many others.

 

[Sammy777]

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.

My opinion is meaningless (so is yours). Genesis says otherwise. I believe Genesis. Does it make you uncomfortable that not everyone believes all life came from a fish? BTW extrapolating current trends (decline in fitness every generation from germ line cell mutations, natural selection, speciation) leads to extinction and run backwards puts an upper age limit on the genome in tens of thousands of years.

You are also making the fallacy of equating evolution with athiesm.

Even Dawkins says believing evolution leads to atheism. The atheist has no other choice. They must believe evolution.

Among many, many others.

Ipse dixit bare assertion fallacy.

 

[Brain Bucket]

Hi,

I'm an agnostic to whom the concept of religious faith is quite foreign, so bear with me. While I can understand and appreciate faith in those who "don't know better" (ie patients), it is completely beyond me how medical students, most of whom were undergrad bio, can retain their faith when they have studied evolution, etc.

I go to a southern medical school and am surprised by how large a proportion of my class is not only Christian, but devout. Like 2/3 of the class attend the weekly fellowship, and genuinely believe in the craziness that is the resurrection, the Virgin Mary, prophets, etc. while the profs go on about the importance of evidence-based medicine.

Can someone care to explain this to me? How can I best connect with my fellow classmates when religion is such a large part of their lives, yet something I hold so much contempt for (I genuinely feel that religion is the biggest impeder of progress.) Can someone explain the mindset, like how they/you reconcile your field and religious beliefs?

kudos on this epic troll.

 

[Nasrudin]

My opinion is meaningless (so is yours). Genesis says otherwise. I believe Genesis. Does it make you uncomfortable that not everyone believes all life came from a fish? BTW extrapolating current trends (decline in fitness every generation from germ line cell mutations, natural selection, speciation) leads to extinction and run backwards puts an upper age limit on the genome in tens of thousands of years.



Even Dawkins says believing evolution leads to atheism. The atheist has no other choice. They must believe evolution.



Ipse dixit bare assertion fallacy.

I don't object to the associative link between atheism and evolution anymore than it and the table of elements. While they may not be the same thing, they do make sense in conversation with each other.

I must say I enjoy your biblical literalism more than all the modernist religious people who think they can have it both ways--talking out of both ends of their mouth at once: you're going to hell...but...this Darwin fellow is really making sense....presto chango....the bible is really just spiritual literature...you just have to know how to interpret it correctly as we do.....not all those fools who believe it literally.....

It's much easier to make coherent sense out of your point of view.

But your sources for analysis of evolution are clearly more subversive than accurate. Natural selection can lead to extinction and maladaptive characteristics to future conditions. And they can do the opposite. This sort of cold neutrality of nature is very repulsive to your sort of mind. Which is why you feel so pressed to be creative with your interpretations of natural science.

Thinking that what you're doing is logical and evidence based in so doing is a testimonial to your faith rather than your skills in analysis I'm afraid.

But cheers man. I like someone who actually possesses the conviction of the Iron Age authors of their religious texts. It's refreshing in our circles. And it's very uncomfortable for scientifically oriented Christian apologists that you represent probably the majority of American Christians in disposition and thought.

 

[SunDevilDoc]

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 believe this is the stupidest thing Ive ever seen, if it is in fact a truthful belief and not an effort to get responses like this, in which case Ive succumbed to a troll. Shame on me

 

[Sammy777]

I must say I enjoy your biblical literalism more than all the modernist religious people who think they can have it both ways--talking out of both ends of their mouth at once: you're going to hell...but...this Darwin fellow is really making sense....presto chango....the bible is really just spiritual literature...you just have to know how to interpret it correctly as we do.....not all those fools who believe it literally.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAbpfn9QgGA

But your sources for analysis of evolution are clearly more subversive than accurate. Natural selection can lead to extinction and maladaptive characteristics to future conditions. And they can do the opposite. This sort of cold neutrality of nature is very repulsive to your sort of mind. Which is why you feel so pressed to be creative with your interpretations of natural science.

Thinking that what you're doing is logical and evidence based in so doing is a testimonial to your faith rather than your skills in analysis I'm afraid.

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/3/961.long

Thus, although there is considerable uncertainty in the preceding numbers, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the per-generation reduction in fitness due to recurrent mutation is at least 1% in humans and quite possibly as high as 5%.

I would strongly suggest

http://austore.creation.com/catalog/genetic-entropy-mystery-genome-p-1003.html

But cheers man. I like someone who actually possesses the conviction of the Iron Age authors of their religious texts. It's refreshing in our circles. And it's very uncomfortable for scientifically oriented Christian apologists that you represent probably the majority of American Christians in disposition and thought.

Evo is the epitome psychological study in propaganda and group psychology.

2 more:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17708768

In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2733669/?page=1

 

[mehc012]

Even Dawkins says believing evolution leads to atheism. The atheist has no other choice. They must believe evolution.

OK, but being an atheist does not necessarily lead to believing that evolution lead to our current diversity of life (I'm using this phrasing because you seemed confused earlier when I tried to differentiate between 'evolution we have directly observed' and 'the evolution you are talking about).
EVEN IF Darwin was right in that statement (which, for the record, he's not...plenty of people believe in both the christian God and that evolution was the source of diversity on earth), your conclusion is not supported. It's an if statement, not an iff

Atheists have plenty of choice. They can do as you say, they can have their own theory, they can believe that we just don't know, or (and this is my personal fav) they can just not give a ****.

 

[Nasrudin]

Again. The Christians love putting on the masquerade of deism. It frees them to engage in modern ethics, philosophy, culture, and science. But it's a slippery mental slight of hand that one plays to reduce the cognitive dissonance any thinking person would have engaging with Iron Age scripture in a modern world.

Even if you can maintain your ramparts defending the ridiculous and very common notion of gods procreating special human heroes. Or that evolutionary science still has a lot of explaining to do therefore Jesus is Lord. You must....must....account for the eternal bliss you and your tribe are destined for while the rest of us are damned to suffering. And be convincing that that is not the most puerile twisted self-serving nonsense ever created.

To be taken seriously ethically. All religious factions scrambling for moral superiority must do this. And must not ever escape again the criticism with which they now face in civilized parts of the world.

 

[JGimpel]

 

[HeyNumber2]

I am a strong Christian and find that if one reads the Bible with an open scientific mind many conflicts can be resolved. Especially with the understanding that it was written by people with a limited scientific world view.
For example, God created Adam from dust vs. a largely carbon based (dust) primordial "slime" spontaneously became life. To me the two accounts seem like they could easily be two different perspectives of the same event. If our brains and consciousness are essentially just electrical impulses, the universe is thousands of times more complex than our brains:matter and anti matter, dark matter, etc etc. I can not scientifically disprove that there is some type of sentience in it. In fact, in billions of galaxies filled with matter and energetic anomalies that are not yet understood, logic tells me that believing the minute human brain on the planet earth is the highest form of consciousness in the universe is absurd. That the human brain is the highest and only form of consciousness capable of creativity, organization, etc seems a statistical impossibility.

I personally believe the judeo-christian faith is my limited effort at conceptualizing this statistical likelihood. In fact everytime I hear someone like Hawkings talk about cosmology I'm awestruck by the fact that we can discuss these energetic anomalies, and believe in matter existing in dimensions beyond our own (this is the very foundation of the big bang) yet believing that there may be a superior sentience behind any of these processes is seen as crazy. The Bible says God is a God of order, and for some reason the universe follows a beautiful set of laws. You say it's arbitrary, I say it's a function of this sentience, but at the end of the day the universe still obeys laws. Isn't it really splitting hairs to argue about the cause of this? Isn't there a thin line between it does it it this way because of chance versus because it "just does" or because it was sentiently programmed to? And as to your no evidence of God making people of faith irrational argument.

As a high level computer scientist, When I look at the universe I see one of the most beautiful computer programs ever written, with parameters we discover every day. You believe it programmed it self (sky net style) I believe a program is evidence of a programmer. Order is evidence of an organizer. There are many medications we have no clue what their mechanism is, but the result is proof that a mechanism exists even if we don't know what it is. I study genetics and am told every day, this is poorly understood but we think it works like this because of this result. I think our universe is a result that points to a sentient power behind it. Even Einstein conceded to this probability.

And as a ps, I get along great with my Jewish, atheist, agnostic, etc classmates. This is a personal journey, and when asked, I offer a similar explanation to what I wrote here. If I am not asked, I just try my best to live quietly by the tenets of my faith: charity, faith, love, selflessness, and humility.

 

[Sammy777]

Someone at one point told me about playing semantics with the translation of Genesis 1:2's Hebrew word "hayah" as either "became" or "was". If it's translated as "became", then the verses are "In the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth. And the Earth became without form, and void..." That single word "became" can mean a passage of time and change. This is where you can put dinosaurs and the passage of millions of years.

Compromisers attempt to smuggle 'billions and billions' of years into Genesis because they think 'science' (propaganda on TV) has proven the earth is billion of years old. Death before sin is heresy.

 

[mehc012]

Compromisers attempt to smuggle 'billions and billions' of years into Genesis because they think 'science' (propaganda on TV) has proven the earth is billion of years old. Death before sin is heresy.

Wat? I have no clue what you mean by that...unless you mean it literally, in which case wow, what an absurd statement.

 

[Sammy777]

You are an atheist. You do not believe the bible. A christian who dogmatically holds the earth is billions of years old puts death before Adam and Eves Sin (ie Hugh Ross). Genesis claims mans sin bought death into the world hence the christian who puts death before sin accuses God of making cancer, death, disease, pain, suffering etc and then calling it 'Good' and 'Very good'.

 

[mehc012]

You are an atheist. You do not believe the bible. A christian who dogmatically holds the earth is billions of years old puts death before Adam and Eves Sin (ie Hugh Ross). Genesis claims mans sin bought death into the world hence the christian who puts death before sin accuses God of making cancer, death, disease, pain, suffering etc and then calling it 'Good' and 'Very good'.

It does not put any HUMAN death before Adam and Eve's sin.

 

[MrAwesom]

Even if you can maintain your ramparts defending the ridiculous and very common notion of gods procreating special human heroes. Or that evolutionary science still has a lot of explaining to do therefore Jesus is Lord. You must....must....account for the eternal bliss you and your tribe are destined for while the rest of us are damned to suffering. And be convincing that that is not the most puerile twisted self-serving nonsense ever created.

.

Everything is not just Black or White , you know.

If you want to be narrow minded and interrupt each letter of the bible literally , ignoring social/intellectual/spirtual etc etc etc etc environment at the time when the book was written then just ignore what i wrote/write.

Otherwise try looking at the big picture of the text (supposing that you actually read it) otherwise this is really pointless.

To me a non-believer with christ-like actions is thousands of times better than a christian with non christ-like actions.

To be taken seriously ethically. All religious factions scrambling for moral superiority must do this. And must not ever escape again the criticism with which they now face in civilized parts of the world

And here am i thinking that Christianity helped create and emphasize the moral values of our modern civilized society under all those hundreds of years.

Values that are still shared by billions despite the fact that they were created 2000 years ago.

OMG Thank you , though , for enlightning me that they should not escape.

 

[Nasrudin]

Everything is not just Black or White , you know.

If you want to be narrow minded and interrupt each letter of the bible literally , ignoring social/intellectual/spirtual etc etc etc etc environment at the time when the book was written then just ignore what i wrote/write.

Otherwise try looking at the big picture of the text (supposing that you actually read it) otherwise this is really pointless.

To me a non-believer with christ-like actions is thousands of times better than a christian with non christ-like actions.



And here am i thinking that Christianity helped create and emphasize the moral values of our modern civilized society under all those hundreds of years.

Values that are still shared by billions despite the fact that they were created 2000 years ago.

OMG Thank you , though , for enlightning me that they should not escape.

To the extent that you and heynumber2 are Diests and therefore not black and white about the Final Solution of judgment day or the rapture based on adherence to dogma then we have no quarrel. You are more like Einstein and Jefferson if you are. And in which case I don't understand your objections to the undermining of the Virgin Birth story or anything that would condemn more of the earth's inhabitants than it would save.

It is black and white. Precisely because the adherence proposed by your respective faiths demands that it be so. If you, like me, don't see it that way than you have nothing to be bothered about with the atheist criticism.

But I suspect otherwise. Of all Christians feigning the Diest position in argument and when in conversation with the more sophisticated facets of their lives--like debate, science, culture, history, etc.

It remains as simple for me as it was when I was a child. I loved and still do love looking at globes and maps. And when told by my Espicopalian--perhaps the most nominal of Christians--priest that accepting Jesus Christ as the son of god and the savior of man was necessary to go to heaven and have eternal life, I didn't smile at my own fortune while fawning over my protectors in the afterlife. I looked at the map of the earth and put my finger on the birthplace of Jesus. One tiny little backwater, barely civilized province of Ancient Rome. And thought. It can't be that a just god would judge everyone throughout time based on the rumors and stories of a person who lived in this one little place. How would all these other people not even born be expected to take the word of conquistadors and friars.

That is the theology of christiandom. Unequivocal. Black and white. If you disavow it why do you get offended by its proper criticism?

A true Diest suffers nothing under the satire of atheists. If s/he be in fact, true.

 

[JGimpel]

[YOUTUBE]xfoMXDoNmY4[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Akali]

From a fellow Christian (Roman Catholic), you're making Christianity sound ridiculous.

Have you actually read the Bible? It doesn't need anyone's help to make it sound ridiculous.

 

[Chrissisissi]

Today I got a scholarship for talking about how my walk with the lord helped shape my decision to become a physician in my personal statement. So it looks like medicine and Christianity can go together, and it can also shave a little bit off your student loans. Thank you Jesus

 

[tantacles]

Today I got a scholarship for talking about how my walk with the lord helped shape my decision to become a physician in my personal statement. So it looks like medicine and Christianity can go together, and it can also shave a little bit off your student loans. Thank you Jesus

This is the first compelling argument I have ever heard for Christianity.

 

[Jibby321]

Have you actually read the Bible? It doesn't need anyone's help to make it sound ridiculous.

This^

 

[JGimpel]

have you actually read the bible? It doesn't need anyone's help to make it sound ridiculous.

+1000

 

[Bear Grylls]

Have you actually read the Bible? It doesn't need anyone's help to make it sound ridiculous.

Yes, have you?

 

[brianmartin]

As a believer, I feel like I have a reason to be in this profession. In my view, God gave us physicality and free will--we can be injured and hurt. It feels good to help people in that way. God's love for us is unbreakable and it only makes sense to demonstrate that love to others in any way we can. It almost doesn't matter how we do it, just that we do. I am an old earth creationist, and many people in the church are as well. I've seen a lot of bible interpretation in this thread, but few are grasping the big picture--that when God came to Earth in human form, his main point was basically to end "religion" as humans had created it. Jesus (real name Yeshua) turned most human concepts upside down, and he was killed for it. For now, in this life, I have chosen to believe he was resurrected. Before you scoff, every person reading this thread will eventually have a patient with a terminal diagnosis that mysteriously resolves. At that moment you will face a crossroads in life--do you embrace the mystery and choose to find out what's really going on? Or will you hole up, harden yourself, and retreat into a cold world of "scientific facts". I think the real question here is, how does anyone do this job withOUT faith?

 

[Starry]

At that moment you will face a crossroads in life--do you embrace the mystery and choose to find out what's really going on? Or will you hole up, harden yourself, and retreat into a cold world of "scientific facts". I think the real question here is, how does anyone do this job withOUT faith?

I'm confused. Whats the difference between finding out what's really going on and searching through scientific discoveries/research/publications? ...isn't it the same thing?

Am also perplexed at the meaning behind your last sentence. How? By being alive. Why is faith necessary?

 

[QuizzicalApe]

It is always so weird when I see someone think that folks find some moral imperative in "survival of the fittest". It is just something that happens in nature. Rain naturally falls and makes people wet, that doesn't mean an atheist finds it unethical to offer an umbrella.

 

[RosettaStoned]

After this whole thing it sure would be a shame to just end up worm-food. No thanks lol

 

[mehc012]

After this whole thing it sure would be a shame to just end up worm-food. No thanks lol

Which is why I plan on being incinerated...er, I mean, cremated. Go out in a blaze of glory and all that. Plus, the idea of being all preserved and/or rotting in a hole forever is just weird.

 

[Oo Cipher oO]

This whole idea of constantly reconciling my religion is odd and doesn't make much sense to me. My belief and faith is a part of me, just as much as my skin, my arms, or my eyes. How can I be asked to modify this natural and central part of my life to accommodate my profession?

My faith defines me and how I see and interpret the world. I'm sure it will affect the kind of physician I will be in the future, it's part of what makes me who I am. But my religion doesn't mean I can't become a competent and capable physician to my patients. To those that believe one can't be a man or woman of faith and science, there are many thousands of us providing daily evidence to the contrary.

 

[Frank22]

This whole idea of constantly reconciling my religion is odd and doesn't make much sense to me. My belief and faith is a part of me, just as much as my skin, my arms, or my eyes. How can I be asked to modify this natural and central part of my life to accommodate my profession?

My faith defines me and how I see and interpret the world. I'm sure it will affect the kind of physician I will be in the future, it's part of what makes me who I am. But my religion doesn't mean I can't become a competent and capable physician to my patients. To those that believe one can't be a man or woman of faith and science, there are many thousands of us providing daily evidence to the contrary.

I believe that the decline of Christianity in America is a good thing today, largely because it weeds out nominal, wishy-washy Christians who know little or to close to nothing about their religion. If a person claims that his or her religion need not be reconciled with science into a coherent, logical framework of reality than I would argue that this person does not believe in the objective truth his or her religion purports to provide. It should be noted that the aforementioned reconciliation need not be provided by the person in order to believe in the objective truth of his or her religion, but he or she need only believe that such a reconciliation exists. You may not know how the theory of evolution can be reconciled with the creation account provided in the Book of Genesis, but in order to be a Christian as defined by Jesus of Nazareth you should certainly believe that such a reconciliation exists.

I would like to make a few points regarding the creation account made in the Book of Genesis.: First of all, one will note that the text states "God said let there be..." ten times. Ten here is an allusion to the ten commandments later given to Moses on Mt. Sinai. Seven is another important number in the Book of Genesis; more specifically, it represents the Sabbath, and the covenant it represents between God and humanity. When humanity fails to observe the Sabbath, we spoil the principle of cohesion that unites us with the one triune God. Thirdly, one will note that the creation accounts of orthodox Judaism are multitudinous; most people are familiar with the main creation story involving Adam and Eve, but the fact that there are many others is indicative of an understanding on part of the ancient rabbinic communities that Old Testament scripture (as contradistungished with New Testament historical accounts) propagates God's truth in exoteric tales and stories necessary for salvation rather than scientifically abstract terminology which would have been nearly impossible for the layperson of such a day to understand. The New Testament, while thematic as well, contains historical documents by eyewitnesses and biographical accounts of the Christ, and as such has a much more historically concrete basis from which it flows; namely, the thaumaturgy practiced by the Christ, his miraculous virgin birth, and his death and subsequent resurrection should be regarded as literal truth by Christians.

 

[Oo Cipher oO]

I believe that the decline of Christianity in America is a good thing today, largely because it weeds out nominal, wishy-washy Christians who know little or to close to nothing about their religion. If a person claims that his or her religion need not be reconciled with science into a coherent, logical framework of reality than I would argue that this person does not believe in the objective truth his or her religion purports to provide. It should be noted that the aforementioned reconciliation need not be provided by the person in order to believe in the objective truth of his or her religion, but he or she need only believe that such a reconciliation exists. You may not know how the theory of evolution can be reconciled with the creation account provided in the Book of Genesis, but in order to be a Christian as defined by Jesus of Nazareth you should certainly believe that such a reconciliation exists.

I would like to make a few points regarding the creation account made in the Book of Genesis.: First of all, one will note that the text states "God said let there be..." ten times. Ten here is an allusion to the ten commandments later given to Moses on Mt. Sinai. Seven is another important number in the Book of Genesis; more specifically, it represents the Sabbath, and the covenant it represents between God and humanity. When humanity fails to observe the Sabbath, we spoil the principle of cohesion that unites us with the one triune God. Thirdly, one will note that the creation accounts of orthodox Judaism are multitudinous; most people are familiar with the main creation story involving Adam and Eve, but the fact that there are many others is indicative of an understanding on part of the ancient rabbinic communities that Old Testament scripture (as contradistungished with New Testament historical accounts) propagates God's truth in exoteric tales and stories necessary for salvation rather than scientifically abstract terminology which would have been nearly impossible for the layperson of such a day to understand. The New Testament, while thematic as well, contains historical documents by eyewitnesses and biographical accounts of the Christ, and as such has a much more historically concrete basis from which it flows; namely, the thaumaturgy practiced by the Christ, his miraculous virgin birth, and his death and subsequent resurrection should be regarded as literal truth by Christians.

I get what you are saying and I agree how faith and science can be combined in a logical framework. But doubting the literal or historical accuracy of the bible is not the same as modifying your beliefs. I don't think a belief that God literally created the world in 7 days is really that important. It does not affect how I act or think. One can easily say that those type of passages are figurative or inaccurate or whatever with no change really to ones central beliefs.

When a core belief is challenged, say the veracity of the Resurrection, with contrary evidence faith will be the one believers will choose. If someone had compelling evidence that Jesus died and stayed dead in that tomb it would not be so easy to modify that into a logical framework. That's why some people have a hard time with evolution because it seems to them to contradict a core belief that we were created in God own image. So which belief do you think gets modified? The belief in Gods creation or the evolution evidence? In my experience the evolutionary evidence is modified in the persons mind so it still fits in the framework of Gods creation. Thus the central belief remains intact.

My main point is I do not have a crisis of faith everytime I learn something contrary to my religion.

 

[Sammy777]

What someone believes about origins defines them. Made in the image of God, God gave 10 commandments to obey, God judged sin on Noahs flood-then man has to answer to someone when they die. Came from a bacteria which itself came about by purely natural processes by mistake-no one to answer to when die. One of those 2 provides no reason to not climb a clock tower with a sniper rifle. See "What If Serial Killer Jeffrey Dahmer Had Found God Earlier?" on youtube. Jeffery Dahmer saw it logically. Evolution is THE (not 'a') lie started by the serpent in Genesis 3. The lie:evolution.

 

[touchpause13]

What someone believes about origins defines them. Made in the image of God, God gave 10 commandments to obey, God judged sin on Noahs flood-then man has to answer to someone when they die. Came from a bacteria which itself came about by purely natural processes by mistake-no one to answer to when die. One of those 2 provides no reason to not climb a clock tower with a sniper rifle. See "What If Serial Killer Jeffrey Dahmer Had Found God Earlier?" on youtube. Jeffery Dahmer saw it logically. Evolution is THE (not 'a') lie started by the serpent in Genesis 3. The lie:evolution.

I'm an athiest and I don't murder people because I don't want to murder people. If the only reason you don't murder rape and eat people is because a religion tells you not to, I think that says more about your character than mine.

 

[futuremddo]

I'm an athiest and I don't murder people because I don't want to murder people. If the only reason you don't murder rape and eat people is because a religion tells you not to, I think that says more about your character than mine.

This is my new line whenever anybody challenges me about morality!

Since we're having a discussion with Christians here, I'm genuinely interested in your answer: How do you know that the Bible is more true than the Koran or Torah and how is God more true that Zeus, etc.? Is it just something that you feel inside? Not attacking, just wondering. I went through a period when I was younger where I really tried really really really hard to be a Christian, but it just didn't work out because I realized that I just couldn't say "The Bible is right and the Koran is wrong" with any certainty!

 

[QuizzicalApe]

What someone believes about origins defines them. Made in the image of God, God gave 10 commandments to obey, God judged sin on Noahs flood-then man has to answer to someone when they die. Came from a bacteria which itself came about by purely natural processes by mistake-no one to answer to when die. One of those 2 provides no reason to not climb a clock tower with a sniper rifle. See "What If Serial Killer Jeffrey Dahmer Had Found God Earlier?" on youtube. Jeffery Dahmer saw it logically. Evolution is THE (not 'a') lie started by the serpent in Genesis 3. The lie:evolution.

Generally, people don't kill each other because the ability to experience empathy is baked into our brains and killing someone is a crappy thing to do to them. If the only thing stopping you from murdering people is fear of punishment you are probably a pretty crummy person.

 

[Frank22]

I'm an athiest and I don't murder people because I don't want to murder people. If the only reason you don't murder rape and eat people is because a religion tells you not to, I think that says more about your character than mine.

I believe that Sammy is using a hyperbole to make his point more explicit; not all atheists may be out killing people because they don't fear the afterlife, but they certainly have less incentive to preform kind acts and avoid wickedness as well. Perhaps it is for that reason why the vast majority of relief organizations and charities are funded by religious (especially Christian) organizations.

 

[touchpause13]

I believe that Sammy is using a hyperbole to make his point more explicit; not all atheists may be out killing people because they don't fear the afterlife, but they certainly have less incentive to preform kind acts and avoid wickedness as well. Perhaps it is for that reason why the vast majority of relief organizations and charities are funded by religious (especially Christian) organizations.

I perform kind acts because I believe it's the right thing to do. Which one could argue is an example of true altruism because I do not think I will be rewarded for these actions.

Your point about organizations is moot seeing as how small the population of atheists is in the US. Yall have a much larger base and therefore can create more organizations.

 

[QuizzicalApe]

I believe that Sammy is using a hyperbole to make his point more explicit; not all atheists may be out killing people because they don't fear the afterlife, but they certainly have less incentive to preform kind acts and avoid wickedness as well. Perhaps it is for that reason why the vast majority of relief organizations and charities are funded by religious (especially Christian) organizations.

Perhaps, or it may be a function of how relatively common and sizable such organizations are. Regardless, it is speculation based on correlation

 

[Frank22]

Perhaps, or it may be a function of how relatively common and sizable such organizations are. Regardless, it is speculation based on correlation

Actually it is rather evidently a ramification of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Napoleon Bonaparte once said of him "I know men and I tell you that Jesus Christ is no mere man. Between Him and every other person in the world there is no possible term of comparison. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and I have founded empires. But on what did we rest the creation of our genius? Upon force. Jesus Christ founded His empire upon love; and at this hour millions of men would die for Him."

Albert Einstein would also say of him "As a child, I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."

Mahatma Gandhi also said of the Nazarene "A man who was completely innocent, offered himself as a sacrifice for the good of others, including his enemies, and became the ransom of the world. It was a perfect act."

He was a pretty extraordinary man.

 

[QuizzicalApe]

Julius Caesar died like 40 years before the birth of Christ. Also those quotes were all non sequitur given what we were talking about

 

[Frank22]

Julius Caesar died like 40 years before the birth of Christ. Also those quotes were all non sequitur given what we were talking about

That quote was from Napoleon Bonaparte, and I have no idea why I wrote Julius Caesar. I think knowing who Jesus was and what he taught is a seminal topic in relation to our discussion, so those quotes (from some of the greatest secular people in history) most certainly are pertinent to our discussion.

 

[QuizzicalApe]

To the greater discussion of the thread, yes, but not the topic of analyzing the correlation between religiosity of organizations being linked to charitable missions when controlling for other variables. Unless a historical figure is quoted referring to that and is also noted backing up the assertion with evidence, it doesn't have much to do with anything. They are just opinions.

 

[Frank22]

To the greater discussion of the thread, yes, but not the topic of analyzing the correlation between religiosity of organizations being linked to charitable missions when controlling for other variables. Unless a historical figure is quoted referring to that and is also noted backing up the assertion with evidence, it doesn't have much to do with anything. They are just opinions.

You immediately contradict yourself when you state that those quotes are relevant to the greater discussion of this thread then state that they are "just opinions." That is like saying Michael Jordan was just a basketball player; it does not capture the fact that some of the greatest minds in history were fascinated by Christ and believed him to be an extraordinary man. One cannot say that about him if he was the masochistic, violent, insane pseudo-prophet the Hitchens' and Dawkins' of this world make him out to be. You also ignore the fact that the issue of the correlation between religiosity and altruism is relevant to the greater discussion of this thread, and as an immediate byproduct the abovementioned quotes.

 

[QuizzicalApe]

You immediately contradict yourself when you state that those quotes are relevant to the greater discussion of this thread then state that they are "just opinions." That is like saying Michael Jordan was just a basketball player; it does not capture the fact that some of the greatest minds in history were fascinated by Christ and believed him to be an extraordinary man. One cannot say that about him if he was the masochistic, violent, insane pseudo-prophet the Hitchens' and Dawkins' of this world make him out to be. You also ignore the fact that the issue of the correlation between religiosity and altruism is relevant to the greater discussion of this thread, and as an immediate byproduct the abovementioned quotes.

Not really a contradiction. The greater subject of the thread is basically regarding each person's personal religious experience. If you find that the opinions of historical figures are relevant to your personal religious experience that makes them relevant by default.

Also, while I am not familiar with the work of Hitchens or Dawkins, I doubt many people perceive the historical/literary figure of jesus as some bloody killer, outside of a gnostic gospel or two.

Random quotes still aren't relevant to the link between religion and altruism, dude. It might feel good in your gut to make that connection but it doesn't actually support the argument. You are making a mistake so common it had been named - appeal to authority. A little worse than the normal appeal to authority though since the quoted figures don't even share your argument. They are just saying Christ was remarkable and you are contorting that into support for your argument.

I am not hostile to religion by any means, I am just critiquing your logic in this particular assertion.

 

[BBlue777c]

So how did this go down more or less. The taking on the sins of the world. God had to transmute the soul of his son--does he have a divine mother?--into his sperm and through the imperforate hymen of Mary who by all the best historical accounts was mother to a large brood and part of a large clan.

Or just transplant the embryo. Being an advanced being by 1st century technological standards. Was Jesus aware he was the son of god while he biding his time in the womb. To present--ta-dahhhh!--himself as a miracle. What did his brothers think, conveniently diminished and erased from history by Paul and others unknown to the clan of Jesus. This is fantastical stuff. Marvel would be proud.

And all that to which I say no thanks. I'm responsible for my own actions. I don't need the crucifixion of some poor Jew to allieve me of my own conscience. To mean that I can molest children but if I repent and accept him into my heart all can be well again.

That's an insane doctrine.

Is there an afterlife for people who don't like any of this nonsense or is it really the hell your books depict. Tell me where I'm bound for an eternity for saying to hell with god. I'd like to hear the real fundamentalism in your doctrines for a change outside of all this modern extra textural capitulations and compromising in the public sphere while you know the basic tenets are there in bold face. Lies if you're asking me.

Am I destined for hell?

Well, I think most people atheist or otherwise believe in forgiving others to an extent. Your little brother pulled your hair as a child, but now he's more mature and has come to a realization about how his actions have affected you. Or maybe he still pulls your hair but wishes he could control himself. Do you forgive him? Do you continue to foster a relationship with him? As for the immorality of molesting children, how did you determine this? You and the children are going to be eternal nothingness in a (relatively) short time. What does it matter how much harm you cause others if you can get away with it? Your conscience is only a poor animal's conditioned response. Your individual particle's determine your meaning and future. Stop pretending that you're not a robot until you can give an adequate argument for free will.

"Aha! I'm so much smarter than those religious. They're sorry saps who want to be eternal sticks in the mud. But I know better since I was programmed to know better! I get more enjoyment out of life because I was programmed to get more enjoyment out of life. My experiences are inherently more meaningful because they have been programmed to be more meaningful

 

[Oo Cipher oO]

This is my new line whenever anybody challenges me about morality!

Since we're having a discussion with Christians here, I'm genuinely interested in your answer: How do you know that the Bible is more true than the Koran or Torah and how is God more true that Zeus, etc.? Is it just something that you feel inside? Not attacking, just wondering. I went through a period when I was younger where I really tried really really really hard to be a Christian, but it just didn't work out because I realized that I just couldn't say "The Bible is right and the Koran is wrong" with any certainty!

You are likely to get a different answer from different people but it's not about trying to prove other religions wrong and then going with the last one left standing. Religious texts tend to contradict one another to varying degrees. The bible disagrees with Greek mythology by saying there is one God. The Koron disagrees with the bible about the divinity and atonement of Jesus by saying he was just a prophet and did not really die for the sins of mankind.

As I read the bible I came to learn and understand Jesus. The teachings were beautiful and timeless and had practical applications thousands of years later. Many religious skeptics may agree with me up to this point. The difference comes when you get into the theology of why all of us as sinners need the sacrifice of Jesus to one day return to home to Gods presence. That's when you have to decide if Jesus was telling the truth when he called himself the Son of God or not. Jesus did go around and preach love and forgivness and many great ideas but he also set up religious observances and called men to lead the believers after his death. That's were religion comes in.

I don't have to prove every other belief system false in order to feel good about my decision to be a Christian.

 

[Sammy777]

How do you know that the Bible is more true than the Koran or Torah and how is God more true that Zeus

Someone else said the same thing. The Torah is the first 5 books of the old testament of the Hebrew bible (which i believe obv because i am a biblical creationist). The Quran is a rip off of Genesis.

I perform kind acts because I believe it's the right thing to do. Which one could argue is an example of true altruism because I do not think I will be rewarded for these actions.

The atheism/naturalism worldview if held consistently is a moral vacuum. If man descended from ecoli in your intestines then their should be no such thing as 'right' or 'wrong' 'good' or 'bad', ethics, justice, morals so when the atheist acknowledges they do have those things they falsify their own worldview, only mankind being created in the image of God can account for the existence of such things. It is only by being inconsistent in their worldview can the atheist live in creation (and they are-beautifully). I would suggest all doctors buy and read Dr John Sanfords 'Genetic Entropy and the mystery of the genome' on the analysis of germ line cell mutations in mankind and the decline in fitness which falsifies neodarwinian paradigm (unless of course someone just wants to believe (religion)).

 

[QuizzicalApe]

The atheism/naturalism worldview if held consistently is a moral vacuum. If man descended from ecoli in your intestines then their should be no such thing as 'right' or 'wrong' 'good' or 'bad', ethics, justice, morals so when the atheist acknowledges they do have those things they falsify their own worldview, only mankind being created in the image of God can account for the existence of such things. It is only by being inconsistent in their worldview can the atheist live in creation (and they are-beautifully).

The origin of mankind is irrelevant to right, wrong, good, bad, ethics, justice, or morals.

You simply think it is a centrally important issue because the axiom upon which you base your world view is the existence of God. You absolutely can not conceive of a worldview not based on that same axiom, so it boggles the everloving crap out of your mind to even consider people thinking of it.

Humanity has spilled countless gallons of ink generating reams of philosophy that examine morality, justice, right, wrong, good, and evil, much of it in no way dependent on the existence of a God.

The fact that you feel the way you do as expressed in your post isn't you perceiving the limitations of other people's worldviews. It is you perceiving other people's worldviews through your limitations.

 

[Sammy777]

You absolutely can not conceive of a worldview not based on that same axiom, so it boggles the everloving crap out of your mind to even consider people thinking of it.

True but i can put myself in the atheistic evolutionism worldview consistently and it provides NO hope for life nor any reason (other than the innate sense of morals/ethics in mankind <----because made in the image of God) to not do whatever one wants in the present with no thought of any ultimate accountability (as Jeffery Dahmer said on youtube, the Colombian high murderers writing about 'selecting out' people, countless others). You have a REALLY small mind compounded by years of brainwashing in uni and your own love for sin and hate of Jesus Christ. A psychological study on suicide/depression if could be done would show THE correlation between what one believes about the origin of mankind and propensity towards suicide/depression.