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

[QuizzicalApe]

True but i can put myself in the atheistic evolutionism worldview consistently

You're actually putting yourself into what you think must be the worldview of an atheist who understands evolution. Not what that worldview is, but what you think it is. Through the power of a very limited capacity for empathizing with the beliefs of people different from yourself.

and it provides NO hope for life

this is a problem with your worldview

people who don't believe in god find lots of hope in life. They actually enjoy life. They enjoy tomorrows. They power through adversity.

You can't understand how.

That's because there is something wrong with your understanding.

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 truly can't understand why an atheist wouldn't randomly murder people lacking the fear of punishment? You are actually such a bad person that you don't understand why someone wouldn't be awful without punitive measures to prevent it? You can't even understand the concept?

That isn't Christianity. That's sociopathy.

You have a REALLY small mind compounded by years of brainwashing in uni and your own love for sin and hate of Jesus Christ.

you are quite right. my years in a christian high school and christian college and probably 16 years or so worth of theological education have truly brainwashed me.

I can play the speculation game too, though. If I were to base my opinion on you solely on what you've said here, I'd say that you're probably an extremely dangerous sociopath one moment of doubt in god away from a killing spree

it sounds a lot like the only thing keeping you from horrible and terrible activity is the notion that your creator will bring you terrible pain if you don't

if god sounded a mighty trumpet tomorrow and announced that hell was abolished and everyone was going to heaven no matter what, the argument you have laid out suggests that you'd probably trot around slaughtering people you didn't like

you sound like an absolutely awful person who is a hair's breadth from hell

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.

and you know this because you've already made up your mind and don't need evidence

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[QuizzicalApe]

it is worth noting, Sammy, that I haven't at any point here made claims against Christianity. I haven't sat here spouting vitriol against the kingdom of God. I haven't been bopping around the thread denying the Trinity, or the nature of Christ.

What I've done is tried to explain how an atheist might see the world. If you had been making ridiculous claims about Buddhists, or Muslims, or Zoroastrians, or Bahai'i, I would have been doing the same.

It is incredibly amusing to see you call someone small-minded.

 

[touchpause13]

Sammy would you like a decorative pumpkin to go with that strawman?

 

[Starry]

I can play the speculation game too, though. If I were to base my opinion on you solely on what you've said here, I'd say that you're probably an extremely dangerous sociopath one moment of doubt in god away from a killing spree

it sounds a lot like the only thing keeping you from horrible and terrible activity is the notion that your creator will bring you terrible pain if you don't

if god sounded a mighty trumpet tomorrow and announced that hell was abolished and everyone was going to heaven no matter what, the argument you have laid out suggests that you'd probably trot around slaughtering people you didn't like

you sound like an absolutely awful person who is a hair's breadth from hell

Watch out dude. If you're right, pushing his buttons might cause the guy to just snap and go around killing people.

 

[Nasrudin]

This idea that the absence of god is the absence of morality is very widespread and extremely entrenched in the minds of the religious. And the mechanistic thinking that must sustain this notion belies the social conditioning of religion itself.

But there is an interesting, if unintentional and incongnizant argument, being asked by this fear that the hinges would come off the doors of society in the absence of organizing principles that can be considered regardless of the merit of those principles.

For example the organizing principles of the family of Genghis Khan were basically submit or die--by the 10's of thousands in a single day....no matter. And yet the ancient trade routes that linked Asia and the near east and even the mud huts of Europe together were forged under that terribleness. The Mongols didn't care in the least what you thought or believed. And if they thought they could use your juju from your native god they would indulge it.

So it's an interesting question about the organizing nature of religion on society. The crusades themselves could be argued to have united the feudal tribes of Europe long enough for them to develop some of the science, art, and culture that existed under the purvey of less fanatical Islamic rulers of the time. Itself perhaps responsible for organizing the incestuous and blood thirsty tribes of the Arabian peninsula.

The problem of course is that we do not just have organizing principles or the absence of them but conflicting ones. Western progressives, most fiercely of all, will maintain at all costs that there is no conflict of principles between the culture of regressive, doctrinal Islam and western secular rule of law. And religious twits of all sorts make use of our principles of fairness and justice to dawn sheep's clothing when the act reguires it. Claiming persecution and racism and all manner of cowardliness. While at the same time telling us we're damned in hell.

These are cultural wars. Their organizing principles or ours are at stake. Ours ensures all of our mutual simulataneous coequal coexistence. Theirs ensures their primacy. Sometimes liberally. Sometimes honor killings for daughters who even hint at the noion of a possible dishonor of the faith.

Theology aside. This is real conflict for how our lives will be lived. In the only life that actually matters.

 

[Sammy777]

You truly can't understand why an atheist wouldn't randomly murder people lacking the fear of punishment? You are actually such a bad person that you don't understand why someone wouldn't be awful without punitive measures to prevent it? You can't even understand the concept?

If the atheism worldview is held consistently then their is no reason not to kill/murder/rape.

http://creation.com/suicidal-atheist-converts-to-christ

From the horses mouth (Jeffery Dahmer) being consistent with the atheism/naturalism/humanism worldview same to as with the Columbine high school shooters one wearing a shirt saying 'Natural selection'. So when the atheist says they wont do it because they know that is abnormal behavior they are being inconsistent in their worldview (like you). Just like the person who denies airs existence so is the atheist denying God of Genesis existence. The ability to deny airs/Gods existence hinges on the axiom that what one is trying to deny exists actually exists. BTW every evo biologist on earth is a 'pre conceptual' scientist.

http://creation.com/wm-provine-evolution-=-atheism-no-purpose

&#8216;Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear &#8230; There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That's the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.'

 

[Kahreek]

atheist can reason various thesis why killing is wrong, not like others who simply dont do it because they fear divine punishment.
I suggest some people to study a bit about sociology and learn a thing or two. Indiscriminate killing is unhealthy for any society. For a large number of reasons. A society which doesnt punish murder is weaker and has no chance surviving against another.

 

[Oo Cipher oO]

We believers, as a whole, need to stop damning everyone who doesn't agree with us. The reason the scriptures are so light on what happens after this life is so we keep focus on the here and now. We need to use every day of life we are given to be better and lift up our fellow man.

These "culture wars" are a red herring used by people on both sides that are so bitter and bent on dividing up the our country into two waring factions. The fact is that we don't have to fight these wars. We can get along. But both sides are busy dehumanizing each other as self-rightious zealots or godless socialists in order to frighten us into rising up against one another.

Are you personally friends with people that share different political leanings or religious traditions than you? Many people are. You can see there is so much more that connects us then makes us different. Stop listening to this culture war nonsense and realize we are better together then we are apart.

 

[QuizzicalApe]

If the atheism worldview is held consistently then their is no reason not to kill/murder/rape.

just because you reiterate a stupid idea you have doesn't make your idea less stupid or more true. Just because you choose to ignore the empathy inherent to a human being doesn't mean it stops being there.

From the horses mouth (Jeffery Dahmer)

who cares what dahmer thinks? I am not going to cite an Inquisition torturer as proof that Christians are cruel, or a Salem witchburner as proof they are inherently intolerant, or Fred Phelps as proof that they can not reasonably interact with other segments of society.

you do your cause no service if you try to explain the qualities of a horse by referring to zebras

being consistent with the atheism/naturalism/humanism worldview same to as with the Columbine high school shooters one wearing a shirt saying 'Natural selection'.

Natural Selection is the concept that the individuals best at making babies are going to leave the next generation more like themselves than like the individuals not good at making babies. Full stop.

that's natural selection. They probably wore the shirts because they were somewhat like you. IE, they didn't know what natural selection was but they thought that what they were doing was a pretty good example.

If school shooters waltz into a cafeteria and unload while wearing Deus Vult shirts, that isn't an argument against christianity

So when the atheist says they wont do it because they know that is abnormal behavior they are being inconsistent in their worldview (like you). Just like the person who denies airs existence so is the atheist denying God of Genesis existence. The ability to deny airs/Gods existence hinges on the axiom that what one is trying to deny exists actually exists.

you think other people are being inconsistent in their worldview because you ignore the axioms upon which others base their perspectives and think yours is the only possible axiom

BTW every evo biologist on earth is a 'pre conceptual' scientist.

you have no idea how research functions.

I sincerely hope that if you do end up in a field of healthcare, you are incredibly constrained by people smarter than yourself to ensure that you do not harm anyone.

Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear &#8230; There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That's the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.'

unsurprisingly, the rantings of random internet people have no more weight than your own ideas

modern evolutionary biology demonstrates allelic changes in populations over time and provides well-supported theories as to how those allelic changes are effected both on the level of DNA and the level of animal behavior.

anything beyond that which you attempt to read into it is *****ic fearmongering that betrays more about your own profound ignorance and ridiculous bias than it does about anything else

 

[QuizzicalApe]

sammy, assuming you aren't an example of poe's law, you are a very passionate twit. you have a profound persecution complex and an eagerness to put your ignorance on display in an argument entirely unnecessarily.

the whole point of all this isn't to make any argument against God being in His heaven.

it is entirely to say that you, personally, are a dummy.

your personal splinter faction of the christian faith embraces ignorance and likely preaches a few very distinct types of idiocy that they've tricked you into thinking is integral to your faith.

you personally and likely any congregation you associate with are a stain on a relatively long and interesting history of Christianity being associated with higher education and philosophy

 

[touchpause13]

Sammy have you ever actually conversed with an athiest before? are you willing to try and understand what life is like for an athiest or agnostic?

 

[Sammy777]

Just because you choose to ignore the empathy inherent to a human being doesn't mean it stops being there.

Sigh thats correct. When the atheist acknowledges they posses empathy they falsify naturalism (which claims matter+energy is all there is and ever will be).

modern evolutionary biology demonstrates allelic changes in populations over time and provides well-supported theories as to how those allelic changes are effected both on the level of DNA and the level of animal behavior.

Equivocation fallacy. You define 'evolution' to mean 'change in gene frequency' when the real meaning is 'the claim every living thing that is and ever was descended from a single organism which itself came from non living matter' which fails the first step of the scientific method, OBSERVATION.

anything beyond that which you attempt to read into it is *****ic fearmongering that betrays more about your own profound ignorance and ridiculous bias than it does about anything else

Through years of brainwashing you have come to associate the 'e' word with 'change in gene frequency' and nothing else (well maybe speciation too (which is a lateral/downward change)) and take by blind faith the real meaning of the e word (all life/common ancestor myth). You are indoctrinated.

 

[QuizzicalApe]

Sigh thats correct. When the atheist acknowledges they posses empathy they falsify naturalism (which claims matter+energy is all there is and ever will be).

An atheist acknowledging empathy would experience no contradiction because they would note that matter and energy can experience empathy because it is an emergent property of the structure of our brains.

Equivocation fallacy. You define 'evolution' to mean 'change in gene frequency' when the real meaning is 'the claim every living thing that is and ever was descended from a single organism which itself came from non living matter' which fails the first step of the scientific method, OBSERVATION.

Evolution is absolutely and 100% the change in allelic frequency within a population over time. Natural selection is a mechanism by which it occurs.

You actually have the incorrect definition of evolution stored in your brain.

The interesting thing about evolution is that it is separated entirely from the origin of life and the universe, which is why a massive number of Christians do not contest evolution's validity any more than they contest gravity's validity. If God shaped hundreds of species de novo and dumped them in a field, our understanding of the processes by which evolution occurs would still be true.

I think your confusion arises from the fact that since we have found evolution to be true, people are able to take a much deeper and more meaningful look into the inter-relationships between species over time.

The origin of life from nonliving matter is a separate matter entirely - abiogenesis. It is much less well understood than evolution, even though there are some solid things written about it.

Through years of brainwashing you have come to associate the 'e' word with 'change in gene frequency' and nothing else (well maybe speciation too (which is a lateral/downward change)) and take by blind faith the real meaning of the e word (all life/common ancestor myth). You are indoctrinated.

Evolution is the change in allelic frequency. Look it up. Read a textbook. This isn't even a matter of legitimate debate. It is just arguing over an established definition that you could easily read.

Your pastor and random geocities sites are not valid sources on scientific method or theory and you shouldn't trust them in areas in which they are not expert just because they reinforce your biases. You are actually displaying a perfect example of indoctrination. You are spouting falsehoods that you could easily recognize as false if you had done even the a bare minimum of actual reading on the topic.

 

[QuizzicalApe]

Ideally, this thread should allow non-believers to see that there is a sizable population of intelligent and devout people who find no contradiction between their work and their faith, because the two can have few to no areas of conflict. It should be an opportunity to show people that have biases against religious individuals that there does not need to be any inherent conflict between intellect and faith, because the two can not only coexist but intertwine and enrich eachother. There are very strong traditions of Christian intellectualism that have produced and continue to produce truly stunning minds and profound and influential thinkers.

This thread should not be used in the way that Sammy is using it: making an utter embarassment of oneself and casting an extremely negative light on faith

 

[Nasrudin]

We believers, as a whole, need to stop damning everyone who doesn't agree with us. The reason the scriptures are so light on what happens after this life is so we keep focus on the here and now. We need to use every day of life we are given to be better and lift up our fellow man.

These "culture wars" are a red herring used by people on both sides that are so bitter and bent on dividing up the our country into two waring factions. The fact is that we don't have to fight these wars. We can get along. But both sides are busy dehumanizing each other as self-rightious zealots or godless socialists in order to frighten us into rising up against one another.

Are you personally friends with people that share different political leanings or religious traditions than you? Many people are. You can see there is so much more that connects us then makes us different. Stop listening to this culture war nonsense and realize we are better together then we are apart.

Well, thank you for not damning us to eternal suffering. Of note I require no such apology or explanation as I have not engaged in such spell casting nonsense.

We--both you and I--share the valuation of a secular constituional republic. It's the additional values that religion insists on for the rest of us that are at issue. We would prefer to let the science dictate its best available evidence to students. Whereas your constituency organizes powerfully against it. We would maintain that equal protection under the law indicates that any 2 consenting adults should have the right to marry. And yet your constituency is mortally offended at such a premise. In some places, even in western, secular nations the very notion of equality and law has been subverted by instituting courts which rule separately by shariat law. These are wars of culture and ideas. Of course I am friends and family with religious people. That's precisely why I say war of culture instead of actual war. This is entirely appropriate. Where there is distinction and poor civic understanding of what a secular republic means and how it functions ideally let conflict of ideas attempt to solve it.

I get that many of your kind are harmless and to the extent that you ignore your faith's doctrines we are more similar than dissimilar.

What I disagree about is that conflict of ideas in public discourse is necessary. And in fact is a healthy indicator of free speech itself. Otherwise it just keeps persisting that being a person of faith means being given a free uncritical pass. Such that cult leaders of all kinds are taken seriously enough that they wield power for themselves and their god in the public sphere instead of being limited by the sacred principles of secular governance.

I speculate that the reason you find conflict of ideas so distasteful is that maintaining them requires too much energy when they are ridiculous in nature.

 

[QuizzicalApe]

It is probably unfair to project the worst excesses of Evangelical Christianity in the United States onto every good-faith poster in this thread who expresses religious belief.

There are a ridiculous number of branches off of the Christian faith, with widely varied views about and approaches to just about everything.

 

[Nasrudin]

Ideally, this thread should allow non-believers to see that there is a sizable population of intelligent and devout people who find no contradiction between their work and their faith, because the two can have few to no areas of conflict. It should be an opportunity to show people that have biases against religious individuals that there does not need to be any inherent conflict between intellect and faith, because the two can not only coexist but intertwine and enrich eachother. There are very strong traditions of Christian intellectualism that have produced and continue to produce truly stunning minds and profound and influential thinkers.

This thread should not be used in the way that Sammy is using it: making an utter embarassment of oneself and casting an extremely negative light on faith

It's very inconvenient for people who take vast liberalaities with scripture to be associated with those who do not. It's even more inconvenient when they are the majority of those who share any one particular moniker of faith.

Perhaps we are more similar than you think. Your probably just a half step from saying...this all bull**** when you encounter actual faith front and center. And that's ok. But just keep in mind this is why atheists are atheists and not just nameless skeptics. Because of all your inconvenient constituency.

 

[QuizzicalApe]

It's very inconvenient for people who take vast liberalaities with scripture to be associated with those who do not. It's even more inconvenient when they are the majority of those who share any one particular moniker of faith.

Perhaps we are more similar than you think. Your probably just a half step from saying...this all bull**** when you encounter actual faith front and center. And that's ok. But just keep in mind this is why atheists are atheists and not just nameless skeptics. Because of all your inconvenient constituency.

I'm not entirely sure what it is you think I believe or am advocating.

 

[Sammy777]

matter and energy can experience empathy because it is an emergent property of the structure of our brains.

Ad hoc ipse dixit bare assertion logical fallacy ( ie a made up myth).

In the naturalism worldview our brains can be reduced purely to chemical reactions which cant account for the existence of consciousness/emotions/empathy.

Evolution is absolutely and 100% the change in allelic frequency within a population over time. Natural selection is a mechanism by which it occurs.

You think 'change in gene frequency' is sufficient to explain the putative origin of all life on earth from a <200,000 nucleotide bacteria. Gene frequencies can change for billions of years no new genetic information arises (you know the necessary coding for brains/liver/kidneys/adrenals stuff that is impossible to arise via mutation but no one seems to care to much about the complete absence of a mechanism). Natural selection is ONE mechanism by which allele frequencies change. Hospitals are full of women 'changing allele frequencies' (giving birth).

The origin of life from nonliving matter is a separate matter entirely - abiogenesis. It is much less well understood than evolution, even though there are some solid things written about it.

Solid? Oh you mean more ad hoc after the fact ipse dixit bare assertion myths. No one was around for the origin of life on earth whatever someone believes about it. Even if a lab full of Phd chemists do make life it proves it takes intelligence to make life which is what Genesis claims all along.

Evolution is the change in allelic frequency

The entire evo topic is kept going by the most misunderstood term EVER- 'evolution'. "Change in gene frequency" is one definition BUT not the actual definition. Bait and switch logical fallacy (equivocation) is employed with stellar results by biology professors worldwide when lying to their students. 'Bait' with the 'e' word by using it in the context of 'change in gene frequency' then SWITCH the meaning to the ACTUAL meaning 'all life/common ancestor' once the fish is on the line so to speak. Ie i put an ad in the paper for a 2013 BMW for 50,000$ (BAIT) then when the person gets to my house i SWITCH the meaning of 2013 BMW to a micro machine BMW. I have baited with one definition of the term then switched to the other definition of the term. It is an illegal advertising SCAM. So every time the evolutionist says 'Evolution is scientific fact- just as scientific as gravity or electromagnetism' without defining the word 'evolution' you have no idea what they are talking about.

The greatest mass delusion ever: evolutionism.'

I would suggest reading 'Refuting evolution' or 'The greatest hoax on earth' by Dr Jonathan Sarfati demolishing evolutionism with science.

 

[Nasrudin]

I'm not entirely sure what it is you think I believe or am advocating.

Well, Idk, perhaps you could just tell me.

 

[Akali]

Vishu is the one true god. All other gods are hogwash.

You all need to get on the level of the Gita. The Bible is like a Baby's First Religious Text.

 

[QuizzicalApe]

Ad hoc ipse dixit bare assertion logical fallacy ( ie a made up myth).

In the naturalism worldview our brains can be reduced purely to chemical reactions which cant account for the existence of consciousness/emotions/empathy.

Why wouldn't that account for consciousness, emotions, or empathy? All three of those things are produced by the frontal lobe of your physical brain with the help of some other structures like the amygdala.

As I recall, you are largely self-educated in a number of sciences. I suspect you may have had a fool for a teacher.

You think 'change in gene frequency' is sufficient to explain the putative origin of all life on earth from a <200,000 nucleotide bacteria.

Yep.

Gene frequencies can change for billions of years no new genetic information arises

What makes you think that? There are well-characterized and well-understood errors in DNA reproduction that lead to the addition of new nucleotides, and that lead to currently existing nucleotides changing.

Combine those two, add millions of years, and baby, you've got a stew going.

(you know the necessary coding for brains/liver/kidneys/adrenals stuff that is impossible to arise via mutation but no one seems to care to much about the complete absence of a mechanism).

Unfounded assertion. Saying "this must be impossible" does not constitute impossibility.

Natural selection is ONE mechanism by which allele frequencies change.

Correct. Another is sexual selection.

Hospitals are full of women 'changing allele frequencies' (giving birth).

Okay, so you don't know what changing allelic frequency means. You referred to genes up above, though, so you have at least a vague sense of what an allele is. That's something, at least.

An individual birth does not change allelic frequency any more than a single snowflake blankets your driveway. Furthermore, a billion births doesn't change allelic frequency either unless there are some sort of selective pressures acting on the population. That's sort of the point. Without selective pressures, allelic frequencies don't change. You just keep on keepin' on.

Solid? Oh you mean more ad hoc after the fact ipse dixit bare assertion myths. No one was around for the origin of life on earth whatever someone believes about it.

A cool thing is that we're actually able to understand the past. As we grow in understanding of the natural world, we can start to recognize signs and traces consistent with Event X and say, "Mmm, it certainly seems as though event X happened."

We can even go a step farther and become scientific about it! We can hypothesize. If Event X occurred, then Evidence Y would exist in some geological strata. We then proceed to investigate. We can sample a stratum in question and observe its characteristics. If it does not align with our hypothesis, our hypothesis has been falsified and the null hypothesis has been left standing proud in its wake. If it aligns with our hypothesis, it is noted as a positive result and its signficance will be considered in a discussion section somewhere. It it is not proof itself for Event X, but gets chucked in a pile labelled "Support for Event X"

Even if a lab full of Phd chemists do make life it proves it takes intelligence to make life which is what Genesis claims all along.

The closest experiment to this was where the conditions which we think predominated in early Earth were recreated in an enclosure. Life didn't arise (it would have been incredibly shocking if it did, and completely not in line with any existing theories on the origin of life. Probably would have made everyone rethink what we think we know about life's origins). Some simple but interesting and biologically relevant molecules ended up being cludged together through happenstance. Neat stuff.

The entire evo topic is kept going by the most misunderstood term EVER- 'evolution'. "Change in gene frequency" is one definition

It is one definition in the sense that it is the actual definition of the phenomenon of evolution, yes.

BUT not the actual definition. Bait and switch logical fallacy (equivocation) is employed with stellar results by biology professors worldwide when lying to their students. 'Bait' with the 'e' word by using it in the context of 'change in gene frequency'

Entirely clever to use the actual definition as bait.

then SWITCH the meaning to the ACTUAL meaning 'all life/common ancestor' once the fish is on the line so to speak.

What makes you think that is the actual meaning of evolution? Evolution is clearly important to the idea you are describing, but just because a cog is part of a machine doesn't make the machine a cog.

So every time the evolutionist says 'Evolution is scientific fact- just as scientific as gravity or electromagnetism' without defining the word 'evolution' you have no idea what they are talking about.

Unless you ask them, or do the most outrageous thing possible for a person such as yourself posting in a forum for people wishing to become physicians: demonstrate even the most basic capacity for intellectual curiosity and self-education, identify reputable sources, and then read those sources.

I would suggest reading 'Refuting evolution' or 'The greatest hoax on earth' by Dr Jonathan Sarfati demolishing evolutionism with science.

Is there a reason that this chemist is particularly qualified to dispute the collected works of countless biologists?

 

[QuizzicalApe]

Well, Idk, perhaps you could just tell me.

I am distinctly areligious despite (or perhaps because of) a pretty lengthy and extensive theological education.

What I was advocating was civility, and good faith discussion. There's no need to be hostile with someone who says "let's not be dicks to one another" just because some people whose religious tradition branched off from his 800 years ago are dicks.

(the 800 bit is somewhat randomly chosen. There are so many religious traditions to be found in the labyrinthine branchings of the Christian religion's family tree that the actually number may be 40 years or 1900 years and he might be equally different from an Evangelical either way)

 

[Nasrudin]

I am distinctly areligious despite (or perhaps because of) a pretty lengthy and extensive theological education.

What I was advocating was civility, and good faith discussion. There's no need to be hostile with someone who says "let's not be dicks to one another" just because some people whose religious tradition branched off from his 800 years ago are dicks.

(the 800 bit is somewhat randomly chosen. There are so many religious traditions to be found in the labyrinthine branchings of the Christian religion's family tree that the actually number may be 40 years or 1900 years and he might be equally different from an Evangelical either way)

I see. But I'm not hostile. And if you notice I focus on contemptible items of theology that are so fundamental that lacking them would suck the meaning of the moniker the claimant maintains.

I'm a pragmatist. Engaging the individual whimsy of theists one by one would take an eternity. Which if it wasn't obvious I don't place much stock in.

 

[QuizzicalApe]

I also lean toward pragmatism. It's been a while since I've read the big names of pragmatic philosophy, but I had always been particularly taken with someone's stance on religion (I forget if it was Peirce or someone later...), but it boiled down to a big healthy dose of "whatever floats your boat and doesn't sink anyone else's." Which is to say, pragmatically speaking, there's no reason to "fight religion" for the mere sake of fighting it. There isn't some inherent wrongness to the concept of spirituality that I should deliberately seek to root out or harm... unless we are talking about a specific application of it which threatens to sink someone's boat.

I am all for someone being devout and religious if it helps them to found meaning, serenity, and joy. I think that is wonderfully positive and makes religion very beneficial for them.

I am completely people using religion to disrupt the education or wellbeing of individuals or populations.

 

[Nasrudin]

I also lean toward pragmatism. It's been a while since I've read the big names of pragmatic philosophy, but I had always been particularly taken with someone's stance on religion (I forget if it was Peirce or someone later...), but it boiled down to a big healthy dose of "whatever floats your boat and doesn't sink anyone else's." Which is to say, pragmatically speaking, there's no reason to "fight religion" for the mere sake of fighting it. There isn't some inherent wrongness to the concept of spirituality that I should deliberately seek to root out or harm... unless a specific application of it threatens to sink someone's boat.

I am all for someone being devout and religious if it helps them to found meaning, serenity, and joy. I think that is wonderfully positive and makes religion very beneficial for them.

I am completely people using religion to disrupt the education or wellbeing of individuals or populations.

You're the gentleman scholar then. I'll measure my words more carefully in conversation with you. We differ probably just in the gut feeling we have in the presence of the devout. Well that and your obviously much more well read on the matter. I support their right to engage in whatever they like.

But seeing intensification of religious fervor amidst the decay of urban and rural America makes me more than nervous. I don't share your optimism on the premise of a celestial final solution.

 

[QuizzicalApe]

You're the gentleman scholar then. I'll measure my words more carefully in conversation with you. We differ probably just in the gut feeling we have in the presence of the devout. Well that and your obviously much more well read on the matter. I support their right to engage in whatever they like.

But seeing intensification of religious fervor amidst the decay of urban and rural America makes me more than nervous. I don't share your optimism on the premise of a celestial final solution.

religious fundamentalism is sizable problem in the American political landscape, but hot damn we have nothing on the middle east, where religious fundamentalism has been coopted by rebels and radicals to serve as the fuel and the decoration for their all-terrain murdermobiles.

I use that to help keep things in perspective, although I'll admit it doesn't do much to make things like the Sammy's of the world trying to regulate things they don't understand for reasons they can't coherently articulate any less galling.

 

[Nasrudin]

religious fundamentalism is sizable problem in the American political landscape, but hot damn we have nothing on the middle east, where religious fundamentalism has been coopted by rebels and radicals to serve as the fuel and the decoration for their all-terrain murdermobiles.

I use that to help keep things in perspective, although I'll admit it doesn't do much to make things like the Sammy's of the world trying to regulate things they don't understand for reasons they can't coherently articulate any less galling.

True for the time being perhaps, but America won't fall well. You don't raise wolves to be pets. Religious heroism finds fertile soils in the stinking rot of America's race, drug, and corporate wars. Civil secular society is fragile. Our republic was given to us if we could keep it. Not because it is guaranteed.

Which is why I prefer its war of ideas now. And I don't mind futility or being irrationally confused with a vague fear of anarchy. I'm here to mix it up, enjoy irony and satire, and to live bohemian, while we still can. In fact, because we can.

 

[Sammy777]

What makes you think that? There are well-characterized and well-understood errors in DNA reproduction that lead to the addition of new nucleotides, and that lead to currently existing nucleotides changing.

Presumably you are referring to the neofunctionalization myth. You asserted no specific mechanism. Neofunctionalization exists in the mind of the daydreamer (the evolutionist) not in the natural world. There is no mechanism to explain the addition of new genetic information, not just copies of a chunk of existing information (trisomys).

Natural selection does what the name implies SELECTS from whats available, NS can influence allele frequencies. NS can explain the survival of the fittest NS can not explain the ARRIVAL of the fittest. You are back to the complete absence of a genetic mechanism (you say neofunctionalization which is a myth see above). Of course evolutionists are not too worried about this as long as one just BELIEVES hard enough (religion) then why even think about it? You reject observational science to believe all life common descent and embrace pseudo-science couldnt care less but evolution is not science.

An individual birth does not change allelic frequency

Yes a birth changes allele frequency, the kid doesnt have the exact same set of alleles as either parent hence some alleles are lost when the gametes combine and some go on. There is a 'change in allele frequency' which you call (equivocate with) 'evolution', if thats all the most dogmatic misunderstood term in the history of mankind meant then i would be an evolutionist.

You reject science and believe (religion) in abiogenesis (renamed from spontaneous generation to fool evolutionists). Again couldnt care less but abiogenesis is religion not science.

Depending on ones presuppositions/worldview depends what one INFERS about events in the past. For past events man has written history not science. No one was around for the origin of life on earth (Adam and Eve day 6 of creation they missed the significant action). You start with the presupposition (in your case and 99% of atheistic evolutionists by blind faith) Genesis is a myth, all life/common ancestor hence you INFER scenarios to fit your worldview.

Is there a reason that this chemist is particularly qualified to dispute the collected works of countless biologists?

No more than an unbrainwashed 5 year old can 'Ugh excuse me how do you go from non living matter to life through natural processes'? Game over thanks for coming good game.

BTW a common view people on this forum have is 'religion' (being defined mostly as Christianity) VS 'science' (with the standard fallacy of equating evolutionism with science and science with evolutionism). This is pure propaganda and just shows how much someone is influenced by TV/brainwashing. It is science (OBSERVABLE phenomena) VS pseudoscience (abiogenesis/evolutionism). Or religion vs religion (evolutionism vs creationism). Either way evolutionism fails on all counts. The myth:evolution.

 

[PhysMatMan]

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.

The point is more that you don't have anything but human instinct to guide you as to what is right. Humans do have animal desires and passions, so "it just feels right" doesn't seem like a very good system of moral values. True Christians don't believe that their religion is restrictive. For those who want to know moral truths that are deeper than just "feelings", Christianity offers a cohesive system. In that way, religion sets us free from living like chimps. Again, I have to play the determinism card. Does it really matter that someone rapes and eats people if particles forced them to do it? They're not really in control of their bodies. Having bad character is meaningless since we're not in control of that--physics is. Paraphrasing Hitchens, the new atheism is riding on the coattails of Christian morality. It's a double standard (fairly loose) to complain about cannibal tribesmen going to Hell for never knowing Christianity, and then praising oneself for choosing not to eat people with no moral guidance whatsoever. Did you discover a physical law that said "Eating people=wrong"? Maybe you could just argue that it hurts you in the long run because you'll go to jail, but then what if you're guaranteed not to be caught? Atheists complain about the Christian God always watching you, but this is an evolutionarily adaptive system because otherwise people will lie, cheat, steal, rape, and murder whenever they can avoid detection.

 

[Nasrudin]

The point is more that you don't have anything but human instinct to guide you as to what is right. Humans do have animal desires and passions, so "it just feels right" doesn't seem like a very good system of moral values. True Christians don't believe that their religion is restrictive. For those who want to know moral truths that are deeper than just "feelings", Christianity offers a cohesive system. In that way, religion sets us free from living like chimps. Again, I have to play the determinism card. Does it really matter that someone rapes and eats people if particles forced them to do it? They're not really in control of their bodies. Having bad character is meaningless since we're not in control of that--physics is. Paraphrasing Hitchens, the new atheism is riding on the coattails of Christian morality. It's a double standard (fairly loose) to complain about cannibal tribesmen going to Hell for never knowing Christianity, and then praising oneself for choosing not to eat people with no moral guidance whatsoever. Did you discover a physical law that said "Eating people=wrong"? Maybe you could just argue that it hurts you in the long run because you'll go to jail, but then what if you're guaranteed not to be caught? Atheists complain about the Christian God always watching you, but this is an evolutionarily adaptive system because otherwise people will lie, cheat, steal, rape, and murder whenever they can avoid detection.

Your lack of paraphrasing talent is surpassed only by the lily white purity of your conviction that without the work of Christians all humanity is a rudderless roving band of murderous lunatics.

 

[QuizzicalApe]

Presumably you are referring to the neofunctionalization myth. You asserted no specific mechanism. Neofunctionalization exists in the mind of the daydreamer (the evolutionist) not in the natural world. There is no mechanism to explain the addition of new genetic information, not just copies of a chunk of existing information (trisomys).

A trisomy is an incredibly massive genetic error and doesn't really correlate with what I was talking about, which refers to inserting noncoding areas into genes that do not result in protein alteration or truncation which later themselves are subjected to mutation until they code for something.

This isn't a myth, but rather the consequence of two well-understood basic types of mutation which are essentially "copy errors" when replicating the genetic code.

Natural selection does what the name implies SELECTS from whats available, NS can influence allele frequencies. NS can explain the survival of the fittest NS can not explain the ARRIVAL of the fittest.

Yeah, that are all true. Nobody would really contest that if they understood natural selection.

You are back to the complete absence of a genetic mechanism (you say neofunctionalization which is a myth see above).

You said it was a myth. You can't make a completely unfounded assertion based solely on your own ignorance of extremely rudimentary cell biology and then cite yourself.

Of course evolutionists are not too worried about this as long as one just BELIEVES hard enough (religion) then why even think about it?

The whole point of science is that everything posed must be falsifiable. The scientific method is entirely hinged on being willing to abandon anything if the evidence convincingly stacks up against it. It is telling that one of the insults you choose to levy against evolution is that it is so stupid it must be a religion.

If someone could pose a solid, convincing argument against our current understanding of evolution, if someone could just break it open and demonstrate that we were wrong this whole time, biologists would be tearing eachother apart to get that publication. They would end up being a major, major name in their field, and in the wake of that paper there would be a frenzy of publishing in an attempt to revisit what we knew.

You reject observational science to believe all life common descent and embrace pseudo-science couldnt care less but evolution is not science.

What is your basis in science, actually? You don't really seem to understand the ways that the scientific method can be applied to things that can't be observed directly and you don't seem to know what actually is pseudoscience (good examples are things like homeopathy or creation science). Do you have formal education at all beyond high school or are you entirely self-tutored in falsehoods?

Yes a birth changes allele frequency, the kid doesnt have the exact same set of alleles as either parent hence some alleles are lost when the gametes combine and some go on.

It's this sort of this which makes me doubt you have even a basic biology education. That single birth does not change the allelic frequency of the population, because across the entirety of the population that is a drop in the bucket conteracted by an equal and opposite drop somewhere else. It is sort of like a completely diffused gas in a container. Sure, individual molecules are moving, but they're all moving willy nilly and the end result is the gas just stays completely diffused unless something comes in to move the gas around in a more focused manner.

There is a 'change in allele frequency' which you call (equivocate with) 'evolution',

It isn't equivocation just because some *****'s wordpress blod told you that evolution meant something else. Have you ever considered looking into biology and finding out how they define evolution?

You reject science and believe (religion) in abiogenesis

Again, trying to equate science with religion to insult science. Curious

(renamed from spontaneous generation to fool evolutionists). Again couldnt care less but abiogenesis is religion not science.

Spontaneous generation is an idea from hundreds of years ago that meat could magically generate maggots, which some folks supposed because they didn't know how flies worked. It is pretty different from the idea that lipophilic molecules floating through a primordial soup came together to form lipid spheres that encapsulated self-replicating molecules to form protobionts.

If you think they're the same thing you're just sort of admitting you don't understand either.

Depending on ones presuppositions/worldview depends what one INFERS about events in the past. For past events man has written history not science. No one was around for the origin of life on earth (Adam and Eve day 6 of creation they missed the significant action).

Worth noting that Genesis actually contains within it two completely separate and different accounts of Creation that disagree on several points. Weird, that.

You start with the presupposition (in your case and 99% of atheistic evolutionists by blind faith) Genesis is a myth, all life/common ancestor hence you INFER scenarios to fit your worldview.

I actually started with the supposition that God created the heavens and the earth, in the existence of the father, the son, and the holy spirit, that christ was both god and man, that the holy spirit proceeded from the father and the son (sorry, orthodox church), etc.

No more than an unbrainwashed 5 year old can 'Ugh excuse me how do you go from non living matter to life through natural processes'? Game over thanks for coming good game.

Noting that you're operating at the same level of rational thought as a five year old seems about right. You actually might have a touch more introspection than I would have thought.

BTW a common view people on this forum have is 'religion' (being defined mostly as Christianity) VS 'science' (with the standard fallacy of equating evolutionism with science and science with evolutionism). This is pure propaganda and just shows how much someone is influenced by TV/brainwashing. It is science (OBSERVABLE phenomena) VS pseudoscience (abiogenesis/evolutionism). Or religion vs religion (evolutionism vs creationism). Either way evolutionism fails on all counts. The myth:evolution.

Pseudoscience would be things claiming to be science which do not adhere to the scientific method. You could easily pop into pubmed and look into major papers regarding evolution or abiogenesis and analyze them yourself, using what you know of research study design and statistics to determine whether or not they constitute a valid study design and appropriate analysis.

Or you could just keep saying things because they feel right to you, which is an example of blind faith that you accused others of.

Religion isn't naturally opposed to science or vice versa. I know more than one theologian-scientist, at least one of whom is ordained, and a biologist, and would happily explain evolution to anyone who asked.

I also have a rather fond memory of the director of the Vatican observatory giving a talk I attended wherein he was asked about Intelligent Design and he referred to it as religion dressing up in a science costume so it could try to attend science's parties.

 

[575097]

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?

I think it's a shame that many religious sects in the past have been obtuse to observation and fact and have shed a stigma over all believers that we must reject science to accept the possibility of an organizing force. I believe that religion and science can be wed perfectly. God works THROUGH science and not despite it. In the past three years I've studied everything from astrophysical theories to evolution and I haven't found one thing yet that has proven to me that there cannot be a God. A true scientist would accept that a conclusion as to whether God exists or not cannot be made based on any objective information that we have gathered thus far. THAT is where faith comes in. But to decide conclusively that there is no God is an equally large leap of faith, just in the opposite direction. So when it all comes down to it, it just depends on what you choose to believe.

I choose to believe that there is a purpose to our time here on this earth and that faith can help us understand that purpose.

http://mormon.org/eng

 

[QuizzicalApe]

The point is more that you don't have anything but human instinct to guide you as to what is right. Humans do have animal desires and passions, so "it just feels right" doesn't seem like a very good system of moral values.

Well, human instinct and a complex social structure that has developed over time based on what leads to a stable and quasi-functioning society, informed by and informing a long philosophical tradition regarding human behavior and rights.

True Christians don't believe that their religion is restrictive. For those who want to know moral truths that are deeper than just "feelings", Christianity offers a cohesive system. In that way, religion sets us free from living like chimps. Again, I have to play the determinism card. Does it really matter that someone rapes and eats people if particles forced them to do it?

Does it really matter that someone rapes and eats people if God fore-ordained it? That'd be a good question for a Calvinist, wouldn't it?

They're not really in control of their bodies. Having bad character is meaningless since we're not in control of that--physics is. Paraphrasing Hitchens, the new atheism is riding on the coattails of Christian morality.

It would have to be riding Christianity's coattails, because people being not in control of their actions or their fate because of determinism is a classic element of some Christian traditions. Calvinism, specifically, and its close relatives.

It's a double standard (fairly loose) to complain about cannibal tribesmen going to Hell for never knowing Christianity, and then praising oneself for choosing not to eat people with no moral guidance whatsoever.

Catholicism is pretty cool for holding the position that cannibal tribemen wouldn't go to hell for never knowing Christianity, because that would make God a jerk and definitionally, God is too cool to be a jerk. They don't use that phrasing, but it is the gist of it.

Did you discover a physical law that said "Eating people=wrong"?

It's called Kuru. And Kuru doesn't make cannibalism wrong, just unwise. Really, if someone wanted to eat my corpse after I died I wouldn't care. It's just a big old meat pile. Won't hurt me none. It might bug my family, so they'd have to consent since I wouldn't want their feelings hurt.

Maybe you could just argue that it hurts you in the long run because you'll go to jail, but then what if you're guaranteed not to be caught?

I assume you're talking about murdering and cannibalizing rather than just chewing on some guy who died of natural causes.

It hurts me in the long run because it damages the quality of my environment and my society. It we were all to behave like that, it would be directly dangerous to myself and my offspring. It's also something I wouldn't want to happen to me, so I would not want to do it to others. That's a pretty core piece of the social contract that is inherent to society. Let's not hurt eachother so we can all do our thing in peace.

Atheists complain about the Christian God always watching you, but this is an evolutionarily adaptive system because otherwise people will lie, cheat, steal, rape, and murder whenever they can avoid detection.

They wouldn't really complain about it because they don't think it happens.

 

[QuizzicalApe]

I think it's a shame that many religious sects in the past have been obtuse to observation and fact and have shed a stigma over all believers that we must reject science to accept the possibility of an organizing force. I believe that religion and science can be wed perfectly. God works THROUGH science and not despite it. In the past three years I've studied everything from astrophysical theories to evolution and I haven't found one thing yet that has proven to me that there cannot be a God. A true scientist would accept that a conclusion as to whether God exists or not cannot be made based on any objective information that we have gathered thus far. THAT is where faith comes in. But to decide conclusively that there is no God is an equally large leap of faith, just in the opposite direction. So when it all comes down to it, it just depends on what you choose to believe.

I choose to believe that there is a purpose to our time here on this earth and that faith can help us understand that purpose.

You, I like you.

 

[PhysMatMan]

Your lack of paraphrasing talent is surpassed only by the lily white purity of your conviction that without the work of Christians all humanity is a rudderless roving band of murderous lunatics.

Nah, I left my source purposely ambiguous. I think it's a decent paraphrase. I don't think humans are any more a rudderless roving band of murderous lunatics than I think wolves are. Humans (supposedly) have the ability of rational thought, though. Shall we use it just to conclude what we already know? We "know" that social contracts are self-serving evolutionary strategies to advance our genetics. So let's just act like the animals that we are. I'm legitimately curious about all of you atheist readers: when is the last time that you did something morally wrong and cared about it enough to change yourself for the better? Not just technically wrong like making a mistake on a test, but morally wrong (according to whatever morals you have).

You, I like you.

Why does no one love me?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhysMatMan View Post
The point is more that you don't have anything but human instinct to guide you as to what is right. Humans do have animal desires and passions, so "it just feels right" doesn't seem like a very good system of moral values.

Well, human instinct and a complex social structure that has developed over time based on what leads to a stable and quasi-functioning society, informed by and informing a long philosophical tradition regarding human behavior and rights.

But there's no physical basis for this! It's completely arbitrary. I get that you are trying to get the most out of life given what you have, but my argument is that if you peer deeper down the rabbit hole, it's contradictory. Sure you can live without thinking about your existence and morals, but this discussion is geared toward those content with a cursory existence.

Quote:
True Christians don't believe that their religion is restrictive. For those who want to know moral truths that are deeper than just "feelings", Christianity offers a cohesive system. In that way, religion sets us free from living like chimps. Again, I have to play the determinism card. Does it really matter that someone rapes and eats people if particles forced them to do it?
Does it really matter that someone rapes and eats people if God fore-ordained it? That'd be a good question for a Calvinist, wouldn't it?

That would be a good question for a Calvinist. While I do see the elements of truth in all religions (even atheism), I would prefer not to defend all offshoots of Christianity. I don't believe that God fore-ordains moral decisions, so I'm "off the hook" here.

Quote:
They're not really in control of their bodies. Having bad character is meaningless since we're not in control of that--physics is. Paraphrasing Hitchens, the new atheism is riding on the coattails of Christian morality.
It would have to be riding Christianity's coattails, because people being not in control of their actions or their fate because of determinism is a classic element of some Christian traditions. Calvinism, specifically, and its close relatives.

Yeah, I'm not a Calvinist.

Quote:
It's a double standard (fairly loose) to complain about cannibal tribesmen going to Hell for never knowing Christianity, and then praising oneself for choosing not to eat people with no moral guidance whatsoever.
Catholicism is pretty cool for holding the position that cannibal tribemen wouldn't go to hell for never knowing Christianity, because that would make God a jerk and definitionally, God is too cool to be a jerk. They don't use that phrasing, but it is the gist of it.

I essentially agree.

Quote:
Did you discover a physical law that said "Eating people=wrong"?
It's called Kuru. And Kuru doesn't make cannibalism wrong, just unwise. Really, if someone wanted to eat my corpse after I died I wouldn't care. It's just a big old meat pile. Won't hurt me none. It might bug my family, so they'd have to consent since I wouldn't want their feelings hurt.

Then my argument is not for you, but for atheists making their subjective moral judgments appear to be objective.

Quote:
Maybe you could just argue that it hurts you in the long run because you'll go to jail, but then what if you're guaranteed not to be caught?
I assume you're talking about murdering and cannibalizing rather than just chewing on some guy who died of natural causes.

It hurts me in the long run because it damages the quality of my environment and my society. It we were all to behave like that, it would be directly dangerous to myself and my offspring. It's also something I wouldn't want to happen to me, so I would not want to do it to others. That's a pretty core piece of the social contract that is inherent to society. Let's not hurt eachother so we can all do our thing in peace.

So your morality is "whatever hurts me in the long run is bad"? That is essentially Christian morality as well if you think about it with the correct lens.

Quote:
Atheists complain about the Christian God always watching you, but this is an evolutionarily adaptive system because otherwise people will lie, cheat, steal, rape, and murder whenever they can avoid detection.

They wouldn't really complain about it because they don't think it happens.

But they use it in their "objective" morality to criticize others. My point is that it's pointless for them to truly care what another person's morality is since both of you will soon be dead anyway. Even more than that, a living human is the physical equivalent of a dead person from a naturalistic viewpoint (not Christian). They both are just an ordered conglomeration of particles obeying physical laws. To be alive is to be dead.

 

[QuizzicalApe]

But there's no physical basis for this! It's completely arbitrary. I get that you are trying to get the most out of life given what you have, but my argument is that if you peer deeper down the rabbit hole, it's contradictory. Sure you can live without thinking about your existence and morals, but this discussion is geared toward those content with a cursory existence.

There's plenty of physical basis. We are physical creatures, made of matter, and we merry lumps of carbon and water have developed the social structure mentioned. Blammo! Physical basis.

And who doesn't think about existence and morals? Plenty of people religious and not, I imagine. Plenty of people religious and not also spend time exploring the vagaries of existential philosophy, and contemplate the nature of the world and our own position in it, pondering what it is to be human. Nobody has a monopoly on introspection and philosophy!

That would be a good question for a Calvinist. While I do see the elements of truth in all religions (even atheism), I would prefer not to defend all offshoots of Christianity. I don't believe that God fore-ordains moral decisions, so I'm "off the hook" here.

So are plenty of atheists, I imagine, for twofold reasons. One, in a purely physical world there is no need to default to material determinism because of quantum mechanic mumbo jumbo I don't understand which appears to allow for the occurrence of things happening for no reason and then unhappening, or preceding their own cause, and other stupid things which are dumb. Could little dumb things be happening in our brains that prevent strict material determinism? Yeah, sure, who knows.

Regardless, it doesn't matter. In a world of material determinism, nobody would go unpunished regardless. The act of punishing a criminal would be another thing occuring to an individual. If we are slaves to what has happened to us, that punishment may deterministically cause us to be less awful. At the very least, it would deterministically lock us in a cage to prevent us from deterministically stabbing someone else for the duration of our sentence. It's also a popular notion that punishment serves as a deterrant, which also would hold true in a deterministic world.

Practically, determinism or not, we'd keep on doing the same sort of junk either way, so it doesn't really matter in terms of human behavior and society.

Yeah, I'm not a Calvinist.

The point is that not only is it not a problem inherent to atheism, it's not even a problem exclusive to atheism. It's just a thing.

So your morality is "whatever hurts me in the long run is bad"? That is essentially Christian morality as well if you think about it with the correct lens.

Not mine, no, but I tried to express the response in a way that would make sense given what I saw as the implied premise of your post/questions. "Why would mere bipedal animals want to do X?"

Mere bipedal animals have great incentive to function together as happy little communities. It is an evolutionary advantage to be able to work together, and to help one another to succeed. Especially in small populations where you're all somewhat related to one another, albeit distantly. Your genes are their genes, and genes that make you help your tribe are genes that work for their own survival.

But they use it in their "objective" morality to criticize others. My point is that it's pointless for them to truly care what another person's morality is since both of you will soon be dead anyway. Even more than that, a living human is the physical equivalent of a dead person from a naturalistic viewpoint (not Christian). They both are just an ordered conglomeration of particles obeying physical laws. To be alive is to be dead.

Winking out of existence soon forever and ever is all the more reason to care about eachother. We'll be dead soon! This is all the time we'll ever have! Carpe diem! Love eachother! There may not be a tomorrow, so embrace and spread joy while you can. Be excellent to one another.

Also! To alive is to be dead is a riiiidiiiculous oversimplification. That's like saying a rock and some noodles are both matter obeying physical laws, so to be a rock is to be noodles. Better get to chomping on some bauxite ore for dinner, brosef.

Both of those things which we have said are so patently ridiculous that we should feel a little silly for saying them.

Matter has different properties. Rocks can't be eaten by humans. Noodles can.
Live humans are composed of dynamic, self-replicating, self-healing cells which comprise tissues which comprise organs which interact to sustain a brain that produces a conscious mind that guides the activity of the greater organism.

Dead humans just lay down for a while and get digested by bacteria and animals.

Big difference!

 

[494110]

I want to jump into this discussion. Twice I have been accosted on an airplane (of all places) by christians for being atheist. I didn't bring up the topic and I tried to change the subject with no avail. I don't have a problem with religion or those who use the teachings of their religion to better their lives.

I do have a problem with those who bring their religion up with complete strangers and proceed to force their religion on others. Is it not enough to be happy with yourself? Is it really necessary to push your beliefs on others? I feel as though some individuals almost need the acceptance of their religion by others to validate their own beliefs.

I'd like to believe that my experiences represent a small population of christians but I'm not sure.

 

[Sammy777]

Your religion is 'evolution' which you would have tried to force down someones throat at least once in your life. The difference is evolutionists take their religion by blind faith and the evolutionism religion is tax payer funded government indoctrinated religion (schools/unis).

I feel as though some individuals almost need the acceptance of their religion by others to validate their own beliefs.

100% evolutionists.

 

[QuizzicalApe]

You throw around the terms "blind faith" and "religion" because they must be insulting because they are what you get accused of, probably without fully realizing what is involved in those terms and definitely without understanding the opposing view well enough to correctly apply them.

I don't know if you're more or less a child in high school or what, but you certainly meet the intended definition of sophomore, so I'd buy it. You're passionate about something you have no real knowledge of, and with your passion has come absolute and unquestioning certainty in the rightness of anything that you've found on disreputable corners of the internet that agrees with your biases. You have no real education in any of the things you're insisting on talking about.

 

[Frank22]

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.

The greater subject of this thread is rather concrete and straight-forward (it is in the thread-title), and I see no reason why you would have to insert ambiguities and innuendos throughout your post. I do not know of anyone who doesn't value the beliefs of historical intellectuals, and especially of such minds as Gandhi and Albert Einstein.

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.

I have heard these sorts of claims made about him frequently; in fact, there are Facebook pages devoted to these beliefs.

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.

You are making a mistake so common it has been named - straw-man argument. You are trying to give the connotation that somehow my entire beliefs about Jesus or what I've said about him in this thread revolve solely around those historical quotes; I don't believe what I do on the basis of "random quotes, dude[,]" and you only hurt your own credibility when you try to subvert my views in the manner that you've done.

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.

Which is fine, because those quotes are auxiliary pieces of evidence supporting the greater subject in this thread (not the ambiguous pseudo-subject that you provided, but the question of whether Christian medical students can reconcile their profession with their religion).

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

That's fine, and I would encourage you to so with concrete responses rather than ambiguous, innuendo-laced meaningless drivel.

 

[QuizzicalApe]

The greater subject of this thread is rather concrete and straight-forward (it is in the thread-title), and I see no reason why you would have to insert ambiguities and innuendos throughout your post. I do not know of anyone who doesn't value the beliefs of historical intellectuals, and especially of such minds as Gandhi and Albert Einstein.

You offered those quotes as direct support for your claim that religious organizations are more likely to fund charitable efforts than non-religious organizations. Those quotes do not comment on or relate to that notion.

Full stop.

You are either trying to deliberately obfuscate your own error in choosing crappy support for your statement or you are getting confused as to the line of discussion we had been having.

I have heard these sorts of claims made about him frequently; in fact, there are Facebook pages devoted to these beliefs.

Oh, facebook pages.

You are making a mistake so common it has been named - straw-man argument. You are trying to give the connotation that somehow my entire beliefs about Jesus or what I've said about him in this thread revolve solely around those historical quotes; I don't believe what I do on the basis of "random quotes, dude[,]" and you only hurt your own credibility when you try to subvert my views in the manner that you've done.

I wasn't addressing your beliefs. At no point was I discussing your faith. I was discussing one completely singular issue: your claim that religious organizations are more likely to fund charitable efforts than non-religious organizations.

All this crap you are saying now is entirely you projecting perceived arguments onto me, and it is both ridiculous and tiring.

Which is fine, because those quotes are auxiliary pieces of evidence supporting the greater subject in this thread (not the ambiguous pseudo-subject that you provided, but the question of whether Christian medical students can reconcile their profession with their religion.

You offered those quotes as evidence for your claim that religious organizations are more likely to fund charitable efforts than non-religious organizations. The fact that they help you to reconcile your religion with your profession is nice, but if that's the reason you mentioned them it was a non-sequitur given the content of my post that you were replying to with those quotes.

At literally no point in my discussion with you was I attempting to discuss, or intending to give the impression of discussion, the core subject of the thread. I was contesting that singular claim of yours which I keep mentioning.

That's fine, and I would encourage you to so with concrete responses rather than ambiguous, innuendo-laced meaningless drivel.

You are having difficulties reading and following the flow of this discussion, perhaps because you either desire or expect hostility toward Christianity in this thread by default.

Since I think religion is completely compatible with the medical profession, that inclination you may be feeling is wrong and misguided in this case.

Please read critically, dude. I have made what I have tried to talk about with you incredibly clear in every single post I have made toward you.

 

[Frank22]

You offered those quotes as direct support for your claim that religious organizations are more likely to fund charitable efforts than non-religious organizations. Those quotes do not comment on or relate to that notion.

At least two of those quotes do relate to that notion; specifically, Napoleon's statement regarding Christ founding his empire upon love, and Gandhi's statement regarding Christ's sacrifice (gift) to humanity.

You are either trying to deliberately obfuscate your own error in choosing crappy support for your statement or you are getting confused as to the line of discussion we had been having.

Oh those are the only two choices?

Oh, facebook pages.

I don't know where you learned that making an innuendo somehow supports your view, but it does not. In fact, it only makes you appear obstinate and haughty; it is the hubris of the defeated.

I wasn't addressing your beliefs. At no point was I discussing your faith. I was discussing one completely singular issue: your claim that religious organizations are more likely to fund charitable efforts than non-religious organizations.

If we are having a debate (or a discussion) we are debating or discussing my beliefs and your beliefs; they do not necessarily have to relate to the central tenet's of Christianity. You also said this:

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.

You are now stating that those quotes are irrelevant to our discussion, as we have not discussed the greater subject of this thread. Of course, as I've already mentioned, the greater subject of this thread is relevant to our discussion, and thus so too are those quotes.

You offered those quotes as evidence for your claim that religious organizations are more likely to fund charitable efforts than non-religious organizations. The fact that they help you to reconcile your religion with your profession is nice, but if that's the reason you mentioned them it was a non-sequitur given the content of my post that you were replying to with those quotes.

If I were to believe what I do on the basis of those quotes, you would then be entirely justified in claiming I'm "appealing to authority" or whatever other accusations you've made about me, but the fact is that those quotes encapsulate little more than auxiliary evidence for the belief that Christ taught altruism and peace.

At literally no point in my discussion with you was I attempting to discuss, or intending to give the impression of discussion, the core subject of the thread. I was contesting that singular claim of yours which I keep mentioning.

You are having difficulties reading and following the flow of this discussion, perhaps because you either desire or expect hostility toward Christianity in this thread by default.

Or perhaps you didn't bother to read those quotes, given you claimed they make no reference to the peaceful teachings of Christ; a claim that is manifestly false.

Please read critically, dude. I have made what I have tried to talk about with you incredibly clear in every single post I have made toward you.

You've written a lot of "sort of, not really, kind of," type comments with a few innuendos interspersed. I wonder what the point is in making such comments other than simply saying something.

 

[494110]

Your religion is 'evolution' which you would have tried to force down someones throat at least once in your life. The difference is evolutionists take their religion by blind faith and the evolutionism religion is tax payer funded government indoctrinated religion (schools/unis).

For one, 'evolution' is a scientific theory, not a religion. The theory is based on explicit evidence perceived by our senses. We know there are holes in the theory and so we seek to explain them with evidence based data.

'Religion' is a belief and, as mentioned earlier, is the result of faith, not the senses. Any holes in a religious belief are explained by 'blind faith' and not explicit evidence perceived by the senses.

So, Sammy, you are the perfect example of a defensive christian who resorts to attacking your opponent rather than defending your own beliefs. I don't have a problem with christians but I do have a problem with people like you. Evolution is taught in schools because it is important for children to understand an evidence-based "life theory" that uses reason and rationale. Children are more than welcome to go to church, one of the most lucrative industries in the United States, to learn about creationism. The government may fund our schools but lets not forget the government's tie to religion. If the government were independent of religion, I, as a man, could legally marry my boyfriend and I'd never see the phrase "In God We Trust" every time I pull my wallet out.

 

[yellowhammer07]

I find it odd that evolution v religion is always purported to be a grand dichotomy. I am a born again Christian. I believe we were created by God, sin is a rebellion against the will of God, and Jesus Christ died as the propitiation for those sins for each of us personally, so that we could be reconciled with God's will. I also believe in evolution, dinosaurs, cavemen, the big bang, etc. I find no conflict between a mature and thoughtful understanding of the Torah/Bible and a mature and thoughtful understanding of science.

The problem is that often people read the Bible with a 2nd graders understanding and consideration, and others consider science from a 2nd graders educational level. If you are not a scientist, don't blast evolution b/c you are out of your depth. If you are not versed in theology etc. don't blast religions, b/c you are also out of your depth.

The real question is how much blind faith can you tolerate in your worldview. What caused the Big Bang? Either a creator or non-understood, non-supernatural events outside our universe. Eventually every worldview is founded on some degree of faith. I may be delusional (surely many of yours' conclusions) but I have very personal and vivid reasons for my faith in a Creator, specifically the Judeo-Christian God, so I rest my faith in Jesus Christ.

I judge no-one and do not like being judged. Sure, it is incumbent for me to try to expose you to the truth of Christ, but not to co-erce you. Genuine and reasoned Christians are not militant and not stupid. Neither are any of you on this board (or you shouldn't be). Let's not pretend like it.

All of us, as current or future physicians, should empathize with every worldview and be as non-judgemental as possible. No one has a monopoly on care, charity, or reason.

 

[494110]

i find it odd that evolution v religion is always purported to be a grand dichotomy. I am a born again christian. I believe we were created by god, sin is a rebellion against the will of god, and jesus christ died as the propitiation for those sins for each of us personally, so that we could be reconciled with god's will. I also believe in evolution, dinosaurs, cavemen, the big bang, etc. I find no conflict between a mature and thoughtful understanding of the torah/bible and a mature and thoughtful understanding of science.

The problem is that often people read the bible with a 2nd graders understanding and consideration, and others consider science from a 2nd graders educational level. If you are not a scientist, don't blast evolution b/c you are out of your depth. If you are not versed in theology etc. Don't blast religions, b/c you are also out of your depth.

The real question is how much blind faith can you tolerate in your worldview. What caused the big bang? Either a creator or non-understood, non-supernatural events outside our universe. Eventually every worldview is founded on some degree of faith. I may be delusional (surely many of yours' conclusions) but i have very personal and vivid reasons for my faith in a creator, specifically the judeo-christian god, so i rest my faith in jesus christ.

I judge no-one and do not like being judged. Sure, it is incumbent for me to try to expose you to the truth of christ, but not to co-erce you. Genuine and reasoned christians are not militant and not stupid. Neither are any of you on this board (or you shouldn't be). Let's not pretend like it.

All of us, as current or future physicians, should empathize with every worldview and be as non-judgemental as possible. No one has a monopoly on care, charity, or reason.

+1

 

[Starry]

All of us, as current or future physicians, should empathize with every worldview and be as non-judgemental as possible. No one has a monopoly on care, charity, or reason.

Wisest paragraph in this thread.

/thread.

 

[Nasrudin]

Wisest paragraph in this thread.

/thread.

Nonsense. I'm not saying the intention is bad. But it fails to account when people's world view are hostile towards you. There are world views that treat women as chattel. Seek domination of one group over another. And so on.

It is naive to imagine otherwise. And therefore it is the opposite of wisdom.

 

[yellowhammer07]

Why does it fail to account for those situations?

Your implied proposal seems to be: if a worldview is hostile to you, you need not empathize or understand. You may be freely be hostile in return. Correct me (gently) if that is wrong

I do not say that you shouldn't confront unreasonable people or defend yourself against slander, hate, etc. You should be measured, forgiving, and understanding in your response though.

Prov 15:1 - A soft answer turns away wrath, but grievous words stir up anger.

For the discussion at hand, no one (appears to) hold such unreasonable views as those you used as examples, so I would say that much of this 60± page debate was fueled by misrepresentation of each other and refusal to respect others' perspectives/experiences/worldviews. Not behavior becoming a profession that prides itself on empathy.

 

[Nasrudin]

Why does it fail to account for those situations?

Your implied proposal seems to be: if a worldview is hostile to you, you need not empathize or understand. You may be freely be hostile in return. Correct me (gently) if that is wrong

I do not say that you shouldn't confront unreasonable people or defend yourself against slander, hate, etc. You should be measured, forgiving, and understanding in your response though.

Prov 15:1 - A soft answer turns away wrath, but grievous words stir up anger.

For the discussion at hand, no one (appears to) hold such unreasonable views as those you used as examples, so I would say that much of this 60± page debate was fueled by misrepresentation of each other and refusal to respect others' perspectives/experiences/worldviews. Not behavior becoming a profession that prides itself on empathy.

Religion is a womb of extreme ideologies. And when not extreme by standards of violence often have a corrupting effect on secular governance. I wish it were not the case. But it is.

I'm glad you're all lovey dovey. Kisses and hugs back to you for that. But the sneering judgment, proselytizing condescension, and subversion of my friends' civil rights, by people using your name will not be tolerated, welcomed, or empathized with.

You're not my patient. We're fellow citizens of this country communicating our thoughts. Dissent and combat of ideas is fundamental to secular governance. Faith, not so much. If it bothers you to engage in this way, don't. But until a public figure could say the things that many of us here think without being vilified and ruined politically then this place and others like it will suffice.

Disagreeing with each other, even fiercely, is not something to be troubled by. And it has nothing to do with patient care. I will pray with my patients in whatever manner they would like and do it sincerely for their well-being. But there are scenarios where their cultural beliefs and traditions might transgress American law and standard of medical practice. In which case, their world view is irrelevant.

I don't speak in scriptural vagueries and am skeptical when people do. Generalizations about empathizing with everyone's point of view, no matter what they think, leaves me wondering where you stand on national socialism or female circumcision or any such barbarous creed the likes of meeting with empathy is submitting to defeat.