[Gem Windcaster]

This new direction is interesting because the other day I was experimenting in my mind with the thought what would happen if there suddenly was some sort of actual real proof that God existed (not that I expect there to be any at any time soon), something, anything tangible? Then what would happen to the theory of evolution, and what would happen to the believers in the theory? I am curious what you guys think, because then many of you would be in the same sort of place that you claim many Christians are in.

[Morgoth]

Absurd though that thought experiment may be, I don't see how it would change anything. The vast majority of Christians are quite able to believe in God while at the same time accept the theory of evolution. Unless God stepped up on a press conference and proclaimed that Evolution is all a hoax mind you, but I'm not holding my breath for that to occur.


I'm curious though as to how you manage to interpret this sentence in a way that makes sense:

Quote

I am curious what you guys think, because then many of you would be in the same sort of place that you claim many Christians are in.

[Illuyankas]

It would depend what form of proof. If you mean proof that he existed and the Bible is to this day one hundred percent correct? I'd first be thinking, shit, I consider women to be equal in value to men, I guess I'm fucked. I'd be too busy being concerned over the fact that God has been torturing hundreds of millions of people for eternity or altering the minds of hundreds of millions of people to enjoy watching a bunch of historical kings throw crowns at the feet of God and chant the same line over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over for the rest of existence to worry about why he faked all the evidence of dinosaurs and hominids.

What if he existed and the Bible is a collection of metaphors and generic rules that have changed over time? Then how much did he genuinely do? What if he created the process of evolution? Did he influence species during the process? What about all the new species that arose? Either that or evolution is false because he faked all the evidence, which strikes me as something I wouldn't believe a being of perfect goodness would do. And why would he do that? For what purpose?

Your suggestion is too vague.

[Cold Iron]

Cause, on 30 March 2010 - 11:16 AM, said:

Since Im mentioned by name I feel I must respond but first Id like to hear if you have a good argument for the postulation that the god of every holy scripture is an abstract concept and emotional image, not a supernatural being in the sci-fi sense.

How better to implant your ethical instruction than to make claims that they come from a god, a real entity in the heavens? I'm not saying that the intent wasn't there to teach god as real, I'm saying those in power, those who wrote the scriptures, had to see god differently. From millennial hindsight it is perfectly clear to anybody with literacy that scriptures are written by men and women with agendas. Shock! Those who claimed to be the biggest adherents, the most fervent believers must have been lying! They mustn't have believed in god at all! No, they believed. They knew the truth of what god is and has always been. God is in essence implanted cultural ideals, the answer that comes to you when you ask yourself what is right. Religions are by and large intended to be an instruction manual for using this entity; for tapping into it and unlocking the happiness that comes from perceiving yourself as the ideal member of your society, to look beyond your immediate desires and instead aim to act in the best interests of everybody.

But you modern atheists will say no, this is rubbish! The bible teaches about a being that we have no evidence exists! The smartest amongst you are perhaps arguing that there is no true ideal member of society, no set of decisions that can benefit everybody all the time, and sure this would be right but the point is to try. A theist will try to do the bidding of his god, will strive to be the perfect member of society. The cognitive dissonance Terez and others experience when they read the bible comes from the changes in cultural ideals over time. Is the biblical literalist supposed to be the perfect member of today's society or that of two millennia past in the Levant? An atheist is still capable of having ideals and striving towards them, but they lack the social network of establishing these ideals in their name alone, the public forum in which to educate and disseminate them. How many atheists congregate weekly to discuss issues of the day with strangers? How many atheists supplicate themselves to their ideals, kneel, bow heads, place hands over hearts and meditate on the best way to follow their ideals? If it is the content of the bible that bothers you then why not start the church of atheism? Or is the essence of atheism the denial of all ideals? If this is the case then explain to me how this is different to chaos and anarchy.

Sorry, I was on a roll.

[Morgoth]

Funny how all these prophets of old held the exact same beliefs you do now.

[Illuyankas]

Cold Iron, on 30 March 2010 - 10:47 PM, said:

God is in essence implanted cultural ideals, the answer that comes to you when you ask yourself what is right. Religions are by and large intended to be an instruction manual for using this entity; for tapping into it and unlocking the happiness that comes from perceiving yourself as the ideal member of your society, to look beyond your immediate desires and instead aim to act in the best interests of everybody.

But you modern atheists will say no, this is rubbish! The bible teaches about a being that we have no evidence exists! The smartest amongst you are perhaps arguing that there is no true ideal member of society, no set of decisions that can benefit everybody all the time, and sure this would be right but the point is to try. A theist will try to do the bidding of his god, will strive to be the perfect member of society. The cognitive dissonance Terez and others experience when they read the bible comes from the changes in cultural ideals over time. Is the biblical literalist supposed to be the perfect member of today's society or that of two millennia past in the Levant? An atheist is still capable of having ideals and striving towards them, but they lack the social network of establishing these ideals in their name alone, the public forum in which to educate and disseminate them.

We call it the internet.

Cold Iron, on 30 March 2010 - 10:47 PM, said:

How many atheists congregate weekly to discuss issues of the day with strangers? How many atheists supplicate themselves to their ideals, kneel, bow heads, place hands over hearts and meditate on the best way to follow their ideals? If it is the content of the bible that bothers you then why not start the church of atheism?

This is the single dumbest thing I've seen all day. Close to the dumbest thing in this thread. Churches are not required to form social contracts with everyone for the purpose of bettering yourself. Neither is religion. Performing rituals by rote is unnecessary.

Cold Iron, on 30 March 2010 - 10:47 PM, said:

Or is the essence of atheism the denial of all ideals? If this is the case then explain to me how this is different to chaos and anarchy.

IDEALS ARE NOT IRREVOCABLY INTERTWINED WITH RELIGION IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM

NOT IN THE FUCKING SLIGHTEST

YOU ARE MAKING THE MISTAKE THAT FORMING ANY KIND OF SOCIAL NETWORK RESULTING IN A GROUP OF PEOPLE COEXISTING SANELY IS IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT SOME FORM OF RELIGIOUS STRUCTURE GUIDING THEM

THIS IS SIMPLY UNTRUE, AS SOCIAL PRESSURES WOULD FORM THE NECESSARY STRUCTURES ANYWAY WITHOUT THE WASTEFUL BAGGAGE OF POINTLESS RITUALISTIC DETRITUS

I AM BACKING AWAY FROM THIS THREAD FOR NOW AS I AM VERY VERY ANGRY AT THIS ASSERTION AND FEAR FOR MY ABILITY TO REASON FURTHER

[Cold Iron]

Illuyankas, on 30 March 2010 - 11:06 PM, said:

We call it the internet.

The internet gives people the opportunity to air their ugliness anonymously, it's not the best place to chase ideals.

Illuyankas, on 30 March 2010 - 11:06 PM, said:

This is the single dumbest thing I've seen all day. Close to the dumbest thing in this thread. Churches are not required to form social contracts with everyone for the purpose of bettering yourself. Neither is religion. Performing rituals by rote is unnecessary.

Call it something else if you want but if it does what you describe then it's based on the idea of a church. The internet is not the place, nor are the courts, or the parliament. There is clearly still a hole that has not been completely filled by secular institutions, albeit that church attendance is down, it's by no means gone.

Illuyankas, on 30 March 2010 - 11:06 PM, said:

Cold Iron, on 30 March 2010 - 10:47 PM, said:

Or is the essence of atheism the denial of all ideals? If this is the case then explain to me how this is different to chaos and anarchy.

IDEALS ARE NOT IRREVOCABLY INTERTWINED WITH RELIGION IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM

NOT IN THE FUCKING SLIGHTEST

YOU ARE MAKING THE MISTAKE THAT FORMING ANY KIND OF SOCIAL NETWORK RESULTING IN A GROUP OF PEOPLE COEXISTING SANELY IS IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT SOME FORM OF RELIGIOUS STRUCTURE GUIDING THEM

THIS IS SIMPLY UNTRUE, AS SOCIAL PRESSURES WOULD FORM THE NECESSARY STRUCTURES ANYWAY WITHOUT THE WASTEFUL BAGGAGE OF POINTLESS RITUALISTIC DETRITUS

I AM BACKING AWAY FROM THIS THREAD FOR NOW AS I AM VERY VERY ANGRY AT THIS ASSERTION AND FEAR FOR MY ABILITY TO REASON FURTHER

This is why I posed it as a question, dear illy, atheism need not be the denial of all ideals but if one is going to take the idea of atheism beyond merely not believing in the supernatural and use it as a soap box from which to bash institutions such as I describe without considering their potential benefit then you are not just atheist but anarchist. If you are not, then why not do as I suggest and form an institution? As I said, you don't have to call it a church.

[Gem Windcaster]

Morgoth, on 30 March 2010 - 10:24 PM, said:

Absurd though that thought experiment may be, I don't see how it would change anything. The vast majority of Christians are quite able to believe in God while at the same time accept the theory of evolution. Unless God stepped up on a press conference and proclaimed that Evolution is all a hoax mind you, but I'm not holding my breath for that to occur.

I am not sure everybody would agree with you, since people have repeatedly suggested that the theory of evolution is not a belief or even close.

Morgoth, on 30 March 2010 - 10:24 PM, said:

I'm curious though as to how you manage to interpret this sentence in a way that makes sense:

Quote

I am curious what you guys think, because then many of you would be in the same sort of place that you claim many Christians are in.

People have claimed that the theory of evolution goes against Christianity. If there was evidence found of God's existence, many holding the theory of evolution to be true would be found in a similar place, where their beliefs would be questioned.

Illuyankas, on 30 March 2010 - 10:29 PM, said:

It would depend what form of proof. If you mean proof that he existed and the Bible is to this day one hundred percent correct? I'd first be thinking, shit, I consider women to be equal in value to men, I guess I'm fucked. I'd be too busy being concerned over the fact that God has been torturing hundreds of millions of people for eternity or altering the minds of hundreds of millions of people to enjoy watching a bunch of historical kings throw crowns at the feet of God and chant the same line over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over for the rest of existence to worry about why he faked all the evidence of dinosaurs and hominids.

What if he existed and the Bible is a collection of metaphors and generic rules that have changed over time? Then how much did he genuinely do? What if he created the process of evolution? Did he influence species during the process? What about all the new species that arose? Either that or evolution is false because he faked all the evidence, which strikes me as something I wouldn't believe a being of perfect goodness would do. And why would he do that? For what purpose?

Your suggestion is too vague.

I wasn't talking about the bible, just evidence of God's existence. What would irrefutable (in scientific terms)evidence that God exists do to the theory? Would anything change or would people just ignore it?

[Morgoth]

Gem Windcaster, on 30 March 2010 - 11:47 PM, said:

Morgoth, on 30 March 2010 - 10:24 PM, said:

Absurd though that thought experiment may be, I don't see how it would change anything. The vast majority of Christians are quite able to believe in God while at the same time accept the theory of evolution. Unless God stepped up on a press conference and proclaimed that Evolution is all a hoax mind you, but I'm not holding my breath for that to occur.

I am not sure everybody would agree with you, since people have repeatedly suggested that the theory of evolution is not a belief or even close.

Yes, and that applies to this how?

Gem said:

Morgoth, on 30 March 2010 - 10:24 PM, said:

I'm curious though as to how you manage to interpret this sentence in a way that makes sense:

Quote

I am curious what you guys think, because then many of you would be in the same sort of place that you claim many Christians are in.

People have claimed that the theory of evolution goes against Christianity. If there was evidence found of God's existence, many holding the theory of evolution to be true would be found in a similar place, where their beliefs would be questioned.

I'm curious as to when anyone in this thread have done so. I suspect more than anything that this is a rather poor attempt at a straw man from your side.

The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with religion. Most Christians accept the facts of evolution just as most others do. Whether God appeared tomorrow or not would have no effect on the theory. The fact that you still don't understand after page after page of explaining this simple distinction is sort of weird.

This post has been edited by Morgoth: 31 March 2010 - 02:12 AM

[Cause]

Gem Windcaster, on 30 March 2010 - 11:47 PM, said:

I wasn't talking about the bible, just evidence of God's existence. What would irrefutable (in scientific terms)evidence that God exists do to the theory? Would anything change or would people just ignore it?

If we found evidenc for gods existance but divorced from the bible. Than what are we talking about? If you dont mean the christian god than what possible pressure would his existence place on evolution?

Even though you say you are not talking about the bible I cant help but think you are still imagining a very christian centric view of god.

CI-Ill respond to you later

[Gem Windcaster]

Hmm your responses are very interesting.

@Morgy, indeed people have said that many times, in fact it's the main basis of this thread. But I guess it's a slippery slope when one starts to drag in things that has been said before in the thread, so I'll just leave it at that.

Cause, I find it interesting that you can't even speculate on the idea if there was evidence of the existence of God. Regarding your question what kind of evidence - in my experimental we only find evidence that God exists - it might be the God of the bible, and it might not. To be more precise: we find evidence that there are an omnipotent being that directly can affect our surroundings and ourselves.

Second question: what kind of evidence would affect the theory of evolution? What would be the last amount of evidence that would affect it - in a God sense?

[Cause]

Gem Windcaster, on 31 March 2010 - 12:38 PM, said:

Hmm your responses are very interesting.

@Morgy, indeed people have said that many times, in fact it's the main basis of this thread. But I guess it's a slippery slope when one starts to drag in things that has been said before in the thread, so I'll just leave it at that.

Cause, I find it interesting that you can't even speculate on the idea if there was evidence of the existence of God. Regarding your question what kind of evidence - in my experimental we only find evidence that God exists - it might be the God of the bible, and it might not. To be more precise: we find evidence that there are an omnipotent being that directly can affect our surroundings and ourselves.

Second question: what kind of evidence would affect the theory of evolution? What would be the last amount of evidence that would affect it - in a God sense?

I have either misspoken or you have misunderstood what I have said. My point to try be clearer is this: If we discover unequivocal proof for omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient being/s or god/s why should that have any affect on the veracity of the theory of evolution. Their existence need have no impact on the theory of evolution. Proof of their existence does not imply they created the universe, if they did perhaps they set up the laws that govern our universe and evolution occurred as a result in accordance with their plans. Proof of their existence would prove nothing except that they/it exist.

Without the bible or similar religious knowledge of them (Which would have to mean we have proof of which god exists and that his religion remains true to its origins) or the beings communicating with us directly their existence would ask more questions than they answer.

Without religion what is god, what does he mean. An omnipotent being who wants nothing from us and gives nothing to us might as well not exist for all the impact he will have on our lives.

If however your question is would I hold on to my belief in evolution in the face of god speaking into the minds of all humanity at once and telling us he created the world in seven days, evolution is a lie and he could prove it. Well I'd abandon evolution fast. I would have to consider very hard if he was worthy of my worship any ore than a negligent abusive father is worthy of the worship and love of his children. But if evolution was proven wrong of course I would abandon it. The existence of god on his own is not that proof however.

[Gothos]

Pretty much, in face of contradictory evidence, theories need to change or are abandoned. It's not really a new, seperate question here: it's still the old game of evidence and proof.
The existence of beings beyond our understanding (which doesn't neccesarily mean they are omnipotent) does not automatically imply intelligent design, creation, or anything else, for that matter. It's only what they would communicate to us that could change anything.

And, still, they just might be screwing with our heads anyway.

[Gem Windcaster]

Thank you, Cause and Gothos, Cause especially that was very eloquent and well put. This is exactly how I see it too, which is why my reasons for my criticism of the theory of evolution (or more precisely the common view of the meaning of the theory) has nothing to do with my faith.

[Terez]

And, if you will forgive me for repeating myself, it is also why you have no more reason to criticize the theory of evolution than you have to criticize the theory of plate tectonics. It defies logic that you would expend so much effort in this thread to make such a pedestrian point.

[Gem Windcaster]

Terez, on 03 April 2010 - 01:42 PM, said:

And, if you will forgive me for repeating myself, it is also why you have no more reason to criticize the theory of evolution than you have to criticize the theory of plate tectonics. It defies logic that you would expend so much effort in this thread to make such a pedestrian point.

Terez, darling, I've said this before too: I don't know enough about the similarities between the theory of evolution and the theory of plate tectonics to spend any effort on criticizing it. It is very possible that the theory of plate tectonics is partially speculation, bordering on crazy belief, but as far as I can see from the wiki page, it is very much grounded on actual day to day observations. Parts of it though I could probably argue it is a bit speculative, but it mainly falls in the same category as my arguments against parts of the theory of evolution, and why would I want to repeat myself so badly?

Thirdly, I don't see why it's a pedestrian point; it has been thrown in my face each time my arguments actually have made past the first line of rabid defense, like some last resort from some people in this thread (seemingly).

[Terez]

Gem Windcaster, on 03 April 2010 - 09:24 PM, said:

Terez, on 03 April 2010 - 01:42 PM, said:

And, if you will forgive me for repeating myself, it is also why you have no more reason to criticize the theory of evolution than you have to criticize the theory of plate tectonics. It defies logic that you would expend so much effort in this thread to make such a pedestrian point.

Terez, darling, I've said this before too: I don't know enough about the similarities between the theory of evolution and the theory of plate tectonics to spend any effort on criticizing it.

You don't have to know anything about the similarities between the two theories to argue about the validity of plate tectonics, or the lack thereof. You could know as much as this guy about plate tectonics. It's all good. You've admitted to not knowing much about the theory of evolution, yet you're here. A lot. Why? Go start a thread about the validity of plate tectonics, because we've been talking about evolution for a while and I imagine it's getting boring and/or tedious for some people. We could use the topic change.

Gem said:

It is very possible that the theory of plate tectonics is partially speculation, bordering on crazy belief, but as far as I can see from the wiki page, it is very much grounded on actual day to day observations.

And so is the theory of evolution. Probably even more so.

Gem said:

Thirdly, I don't see why it's a pedestrian point; it has been thrown in my face each time my arguments actually have made past the first line of rabid defense, like some last resort from some people in this thread (seemingly).

I think you are talking about something different now. But that's just me.

[Gem Windcaster]

Terez, on 03 April 2010 - 11:43 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on 03 April 2010 - 09:24 PM, said:

Terez, on 03 April 2010 - 01:42 PM, said:

And, if you will forgive me for repeating myself, it is also why you have no more reason to criticize the theory of evolution than you have to criticize the theory of plate tectonics. It defies logic that you would expend so much effort in this thread to make such a pedestrian point.

Terez, darling, I've said this before too: I don't know enough about the similarities between the theory of evolution and the theory of plate tectonics to spend any effort on criticizing it.

You don't have to know anything about the similarities between the two theories to argue about the validity of plate tectonics, or the lack thereof. You could know as much as this guy about plate tectonics. It's all good. You've admitted to not knowing much about the theory of evolution, yet you're here. A lot. Why?

Wow, that's very condescending, even for you. I could turn that around at you. Why are you here, if you already know everything and don't need other people's perspective?

Terez, on 03 April 2010 - 11:43 PM, said:

Go start a thread about the validity of plate tectonics, because we've been talking about evolution for a while and I imagine it's getting boring and/or tedious for some people. We could use the topic change.

I wouldn't mind that.

Terez, on 03 April 2010 - 11:43 PM, said:

Gem said:

It is very possible that the theory of plate tectonics is partially speculation, bordering on crazy belief, but as far as I can see from the wiki page, it is very much grounded on actual day to day observations.

And so is the theory of evolution. Probably even more so.

I disagree. Some of the theory of evolution is observable, but those aren't the parts I am criticizing. The parts I am criticizing are not observable.

Terez, on 03 April 2010 - 11:43 PM, said:

Gem said:

Thirdly, I don't see why it's a pedestrian point; it has been thrown in my face each time my arguments actually have made past the first line of rabid defense, like some last resort from some people in this thread (seemingly).

I think you are talking about something different now. But that's just me.

Well, whatever gives you the comfort of disregarding me, right?

[Silencer]

Civility, people...

[Terez]

I think I am being pretty civil.

Watch the straw men, Gem. I know you like them, but tearing them down gets tiresome.