(via)
Recent Comments
- Michael: The bill does not apply to religious organizations for the... on Mr. Conservative on religion and politics
- Isilzha: I need that as a tattoo! on Can I hear an Amen?
- Paul: I’m not sure that Obama’s compromise will work with... on Mr. Conservative on religion and politics
- Mahousniper: And then people wonder what the harm of religion is. on John Piper and Divine Command
- Paul: No excuse for being a combatant either on John Piper and Divine Command
- Leland Somers: These people are consistent, logical and take the text as meaning... on John Piper and Divine Command
Funny $&#!@ From 9 Laughs
I'm one of the contributors to 9 Laughs:
Subscribe by Email
Archives
In the grown up world this is called “anxiety rambling”. This might qualify as the most rambling, anxiety filled video you have ever posted.
Alex is a ‘drive-by’ poster. He has nothing of any value to say and no intellectual courage, so he tosses off a quick attack and then runs like the chickenshit he actually is.
Feel free to ignore him.
I’d like to add that his being the first poster on so many threads on a blog he can’t stand shows a very unhealthy obsession.
You’re pretty wound up there, Alex. Try masturbating, maybe. Relieve some of that tension.
I started watching this video a week or so ago and got pulled away, so i’ll finish now. I thought his description of how he explained the lost chromosome pair in humans was very interesting, if anybody has a futher link on that particular topic I’d be interested. Miller also didn’t rub me the wrong way the Dawkings tends to, I found him to be thoughtful presenter.
Miller is very careful not to be insulting to theists, being a Catholic himself. It can make the excellent information he has to share more palatable to Christians. I, for one, and glad he exists.
Ty
I’d like to add that his being the first poster on so many threads on a blog he can’t stand shows a very unhealthy obsession.
____________________________
Feel free to count the number of articles on the blog and the actual number of times I have been the first person to respond and then gladly wear the embarrassment of your nonfactual claim. Yawn. Are all you atheists reduced to exaggeration when found without answers?
You feelin’ better now, sport? Did you take my advice and squeeze a quick one off?
:)
“Miller is very careful not to be insulting to theists, being a Catholic himself.”
mark: Ive listened to Ken Miller speeches and debates on the net and I am trying to figure out why the dude is a christian and if he believes in a literal translation of the bible.
“Ive listened to Ken Miller speeches and debates on the net and I am trying to figure out why the dude is a christian and if he believes in a literal translation of the bible.”
I can’t speak to his reasons for being a Catholic.
But he is definitely not a biblical literalist. Many Catholics aren’t, though.
Ty
You feelin’ better now, sport? Did you take my advice and squeeze a quick one off?
:)
______________________________
Ah yes, the atheist found with nothing but a sex joke and lacking the integrity to provide evidence for their claim. So, show me where I “consistently” am the first person posting and you might have something valid to say, otherwise you are reduced to 8th grade sex insults. Nothing new here.
Yawn.
Teleprompter
Evidence for a claim?
____________________
Yes junior, and here is the claim by Ty
____________________
Ty
I’d like to add that his being the first poster on so many threads on a blog he can’t stand shows a very unhealthy obsession.
__________________
Now either you or junior can show me the evidence that I am the first poster on “so many threads”. Right, you can’t, junior can’t and no one else can’t. You cry about unsubstantiated claims yet dismiss yourself and your friends from providing evidence of their own. Hypocrites to the max. How many threads are here? How many? And how many am I the “first poster” to? Right, a claim without evidence. You sure make lousy atheists…hahahaha!
Re: alex
DNFTT, especially the ones so far up their own arses.
Hey Alex, nice to see you taking an interest.
So, did you find a source for your claim that mutation can’t introduce new genetic information? You know, the claim that you consistently use to disprove the effects of evolution? The one that’s contrary to information theory as well as common sense? It sure would come in handy in this discussion.
Evidence! Cool – a theist who believes in evidence. Since you are in the mood to discuss evidence I will re-ask my questions you never answered in the cartoon thread. Can’t wait to hear the evidence supporting your arguments.
Here they are:
_________________________________________________
@ Alex
“The point of the comic is that he cannot, and obviously does not, recognize or appreciate the distinction of different theologies and his only recourse is to set up a straw man in a comic strip to support his claims.”
Ok – fair enough – please explain to us why any given theology is right. (I assume yours is some form of Christianity, but I may be wrong in that.)
Why should I believe in any God?
Why should I believe in your version of God?
Alex also apparently has no reading comprehension.
“So many” != “consistently”
“So, did you find a source for your claim that mutation can’t introduce new genetic information? You know, the claim that you consistently use to disprove the effects of evolution?”
Naw, that would require actually reading scientific information, and that’s far too risky to a belief system as delicate as his.
As I said, chickenshit.
Is anyone hear going to critique or comment on the actual vid at the top?
Looks interesting, but I won’t have time to sift through the whole 2 hour lecture any time soon. For those who found this very compelling, could someone please summarize what Ken Miller’s most compelling points against ID are?
Thanks!
And still no evidence for the claim against me…just anxiety prone ramblings of atheists.
Yawn.
Let me know when the claim of Ty can be demonstrated.
Nice clip! I just watched through it.
The chromosom-fusing was very interesting. It was a point where evolution could have been proven wrong, but it wasn’t. This doesn’t make it right, necessarily, but it does make it more credible.
I think that evolution so far has came up with enough evidence supporting it to consider it fact until otherwise proven.
Thanks for sharing the clip, Daniel!
I’m only a third way through, but I really liked his revision of the “warning” sticker on the science book.
“You criticize evolution without trying to be knowledgeable. You deal with the nature of the presentation instead of the ideas from the presentation of itself.”
Yup. But he belongs to an authority based belief system. Attack the prophets and you defeat their message. It’s the same limp stuff over and over again.
To attack the beliefs themselves, he’d have to educate himself. And as I’ve said, his belief system is far to fragile to be exposed to anything like that.
That’s why he resorts to drive by attacks and semantic jerking off. I mean, that’s what he’s got.
Ken Miller is a hero of mine. His testimony at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial in 2005 was pivotal in the victory for evolution against intelligent design. I’ve seen him already, so I won’t slog through this video, but I can say that he’s a brilliant scientist and is totally persuasive in his pro-Darwin views, despite being a practicing Catholic.
Going to McDonalds doesn’t make you a hamburger anymore than calling yourself a catholic or practicing some aimless traditions make’s you “redeemed” and One…again.
A divided mind produces a conflicted self and the fruit thereof is…rotten.
Oh how long, how long…
The Whole man is in agreement with God, not at odds with Him. The restored man believes God. When one acts and speaks contrary to Him we know they are not united in spirit with Him.
You mistake my words for judgment, I am merely pointing out the conflicting message, thats all.
How can two walk together…unless they be agreed? Amos 3:3
“We” meaning those who belong to Him, in spirit. Its a spiritual union, its an inner kingdom. He has joined Himself to our spirit, the deepest part of us. He wants to manifest His life through us.
Its pretty easy to tell when one is not yet reconciled, living in union. I do not condemn anyone, merely speak the truth about the intended union life of Christ within. When we are not aligned, living as one (just as Christ said we would) then the result is always a striation, tearing away.
What is so healing to us is when we are fully surrendered, at peace, in agreement. That requires that we first know and trust the nature/character of God.
I dont know anything Richard…except Him. He is all I know, all I want to know. He has become my life, lives His life through me…not because I am anyone special, no quite the contrary…but just because I am foolish enough, childish enough to believe and receieve the things of the Kingdom.
We all need light, truth…He says ” I have no greater joy than to know my children are walking in truth” 3 John 1:4.
Truth is literally a Person, so when we walk “in” truth we are walking in union life with Christ.
Sorry so long…JC
We (believers) dont walk (live) by (our own) sight, but by faith.
What does this mean? Or, what is faith…really? And why would one want to live by it? What is the benefit, the value?
Can He be trusted? What is His true nature/character like?
Science is good, I have no problem with science. I am personally fascinated by quantum physics, we wouldnt believe it if science hadnt “proved” it to us.
Hmm…believing in something we cant see? How foolish huh? lol
Sehro-
No, we first come to Him by the witness of the inner light. Not so much an external print (bible), but an internal blue…print. Does that make any sense??
He said “you search the scriptures in hopes of finding me, eternal life, but you wont come to me that you may receive it”.
The only way to come to Christ is internally, for the kingdom of Heaven is…within us. Luke 17:21
The spiritual journey moves from an external life to an internal life.
We tend to get Jesus mixed up with religion, but its a spiritual/inner life that He offers, not an external, religious rule keeping kinda thing.
I knew nothing of the “bible” when His spirit began to inquire of mine…so no it is just as I said…respectfully speaking.
The world associates Christ with religion because they do not understand the true message & offer that He makes.
I absolutely loved that video.
Thanks for posting it daniel.
Some time ago, there has been a christian group in the netherlands who have put together some money to print a leafer about wanting to have the bibles creation story be taught alongside evolution in schools.
Besides just being generally appaled by the idea, i had been contemplating how i could really respond to it.
Why was it such an appaling idea to me, besides the fact that i don’t believe in any gods, or am very much convinced that the bible is the produce of men, and not “the word of god”.
now i found why.
thanks.
Miller speaks about what “might” have happened or “must” have happened. He uses hypotheses as if they are facts. Speculation. “Anxiety Rambling”.
Hey, guys,
I haven’t had a chance to listen to the whole video yet. But, as far as I know Dr. Miller is a committed Christian believer. His faith is pretty well known.
There are tons of Christians out there who feel that Scripture was not given to be a modern day science textbook in the first place, and who see no conflict in their faith with some form of theistic evolution.
And, of course there are others who subscribe to ID.
It’s just not a huge issue for me either way.
I personally feel that my faith as a Christian is centered in a relationship with Jesus Christ, not based in the interpretation of Genesis.
Well I’m quite happy that I took the time to watch the entire video. Great discussion and debunking of ID/Creationism.
Well, I for one found this video fascinating. I watched almost the whole thing (skipped a few questions at the end), and expecting to hear the same arguments for science against religion, I was surprised to hear about brand new scientific discoveries that I’d never heard of. This is why I love science, it’s always fresh. While creationist and ID arguments are always rehashings of old ones, science can basically just reply “well, have you seen the latest findings?”
I was also amazed at how clearly deceitful the ID movement is, quite literally the snake in the garden of Eden trying to get us to take a bite out of the stupidity-apple and forsake science and everything its given us. It is really scary how this movement will stop at absolutely nothing to make others believe what they believe, whether the people even knows it or not! They’re essentially trying to actively rewrite reality!
I’m skeptic at heart, and I will, honestly, accept any rational scientific theory that could replace evolution, if it held up to scientific standards. This is why I watch both creationist and scientific videos almost every day, always trying to see if any one side is stronger. What I’ve found is science being able to consistently explain everything, and religion repeating the same old arguments over and over again, as if the mere repetition will gain them any more credibility. Science becomes more and more complex, more and more detailed and more and more reasonable, while religion is still stuck at different versions of “God did it, that’s why”.
So thank you for this fantastic video, which has science yet again teaching me things I didn’t know before, and also explaining why they are correct.
Hi, Restless,
It’s ok! I don’t mind you challenging me. :) By relationship, I mean trust, and confidence.. loving care. Don’t think I have all the answers, though. As the Scripture says, “We see through a glass darkly.”
But, speaking of science forums, has anyone read, “The Language of God,” by Francis Collins? He’s the head of the Human Genome Project, and one of the world’s leading scientists. Formerly Dr. Collins was an agnostic/ atheist, but then came to faith. He’s written this book, a scientist presents evidence for belief.
One of his arguments is rooted in the big bang theory of the origin of the universe which most scientists currently accept. He reasons that because the universe is not eternal, but began at a certain point in time that nature could not have created itself. He elaborates concerning this, and discusses the complexity of life in general which in his mind does point to intelligent design. (Athough I believe that Dr. Collins is a theistic evolutionist.)
And, of course since this guy is working at the cutting edge of the study of DNA, the whole book is really fascinating. Regardless of where you come down in the whole faith question, I think it’s worth a read.
She doesn’t have one anymore. Jesus told me I’m hotter and he likes me better than he does her.
This is a great lecture, but I have to say, I had to listen to it with the window minimized because he looks exactly like Bill O’Reilly. It’s very jarring to hear intelligent, thoughtful things coming out of a replica of Bill O’Reilly’s mouth.
Alex has been such a loving Christian, I’m… I’m… feeling moved.
The rambling and drive-by hostility and ad hominem attacks and refusal to answer anything direct or say anything direct are giving me that gentle nudge toward God’s love…
All that pure reason and pure love is what I needed… it’s all so clear and pure and simple now… I’m swayed… the love… I can feel it… I’m converted at last… I think I’m turning Christian…
Thanks for talking with me too, Restless D. :) Yes, there are times I can sense the presence of God, not always. I think that He’s there guiding my life.
There was a time when I was agnostic, and for me coming to faith was a process. I struggled with tons of questions, alot of issues, and tried my best to be objective at coming to truth.
Of course, now as a Christian, seeing all of this from the other side, I think that God was using all of this to bring me to Himself.
Your comment about Leviticus kinda relates to the discussion I”ve been having with Daniel over there on the thread about the tragedy of Christian marriage.
Scripture is not given to be read like a scout handbook.
I personally think that God intentionally makes all people in His own image, for a high purpose. This includes GLBT people. We should rejoice in our differences, IMO.
Have you ever looked at the websites, “Evangelicals Concerned,” or “Inclusive Orthodoxy?” If you have time, look under the parts that address these “clobber verses, ” and tell me what you think.
I would try to link you myself, but I”m technologically challenged. (laughing)
@Alex
In the critical thinking world, what you do is referred to as “nonsense vomiting”. Your posts might qualify as the most nonsensical, vomit filled comments I have ever had the pleasure to witness.
Please keep up the good work; you brighten up the dullest of days with your laughter invoking drivel.
It’s priceless.
I must say though, the way you dodge the issue, while skillful, is a little obvious at times. Like getting hit in the head with a flying anvil. Please try to be more subtle in future. I realise you have to dodge the issue, but tricking your opponent is the major strength of that tactic. Don’t ignore it!
All the best,
Hi, Bill,
I don’t know that I can communicate an objective, empirical evidence to you. Part of faith is an inner witness, based also in my own experience. I can point to how a relationship with God in Jesus has changed my life in very postive ways. But, we don’t each other personally, so how can you know that I”m telling the truth? How would you know my heart?
There is evidence outside of biblical sources, and the works of the early church fathers that Jesus really existed. You can check out the writings of Josephus, Tacitus the Roman historian, Pliny the Elder..
I would reason that if the incarnation is true, Jesus certainly wants a relationship with all of us. That’s certainly the witness of the NT. And, if it’s not, I’m being pretty foolish, since my whole life would be built on a lie.
My best shot for now, Bill. Hope it helps, and thanks for challenging my thinking here, guys. :)
Bill, I’ll try my best. You have my mind tied up in knots, here. (laughing)
You see, it’s not so much that I think the OT is unreliable, while every word of the New is to be accepted as the literal truth, but rather, I think there is a variety of literature that makes up the Bible, from straightforward, historical narrative, to allegory, and pure symbolism.
I think Genesis is poetry which does convey some pretty important truths, but not given to be a modern day science textbook. How do I know this? Well, one clue for me is just in the nature of the text, and the type of language used. How can there be light, and even the concept of day before the sun??
On the other hand, for example, the gospel of Luke begins in a very straightforward way:
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellant Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. Lk. 1:1-4.
I think when the NT was written there would have still been both friendly, and hostile witnesses around to confirm, or deny it’s veracity. It does seem to me, naturalistic bias aside, something momentous must have occurred to cause the explosive growth of the early church in the faith of persecution. I believe this was the reality of the resurrection of Jesus.
Bill, have you read anything written by people like C.S. Lewis, “Mere Christianity,” maybe?? He really explores in greater depth some of the objective evidence for Christian faith. Certainly if the NT records are accurate Jesus implies that He is more than a mere man, and there are tons of Scripture that talk about the awesome love of God in Christ, that He wants a relationship with us.
These are some of my absolute favorite verses:
“Who shall seperate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness of danger or sword?…No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, now anthing else in all creation, will be able to seperate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Rom. 8:35-39.
God so loved the world, that He gave His one, and only Son, that whosoever trusts in Him, will never persish, but will have eternal life. Jn. 3:16.
And, hey, that life starts in the here, and now. It’s just not “pie in the sky, after you die.”
Bill, I would say that my faith is based in what I feel is objective evidence, as well as an inner conviction of truth which I think is given by God’s spirit. It’s more than just a feeling, though.
Are you able to understand? I do want to add that I don’t think faith means the absence of any doubt. Christians definitely don’t have every answer. I mean God isn’t something we can present empirically in a test tube for sure. :)
@Alex
So you don’t have anything to actually contradict what was said then?
Sorry … should have added that in the real world this is called “doging the issue” and your post may be the best case of doging the issue that you have yet posted — and boy have you posted some big ones.
Alex,
How about you try *actually listening* to what people have to say instead of dismissing them offhand and then making up excuses to ignore them?
Why don’t you listen to the *merits* of the ideas presented?
None of us will take you seriously if you just sit there and complain about the most inane and irrelevant details instead of addressing the points which were actually presented.
Think about that before the next time you post.
You really expect us to believe that you watched this entire video?
Alex- It doesn’t really matter HOW he talks, it matters WHAT he says. And WHAT he says is right on!
You, on the other hand, are totally off.
I made the mistake of taking a drink right before reading this comment. It almost came out all over my monitor.
Would you like to reply to Ken Miller yet?
You’re the one who’s been “found without answers”.
You have no valid criticism, and yet you project your avoidance of the issues being discussed onto us…sad.
Would you like to address the topic, or just keep shifting the discussion onto something irrelevant or inane?
Evidence for a claim? You have yet to say *anything* substantive whatsoever.
Yawn, indeed.
How about you say something relevant to what we’re actually discussing? Got any valid criticisms of Miller’s points? Or not?
Alex,
No, the first thing that was claimed in this thread was that Ken Miller is “anxiety rambling”.
It is *you* that cannot find any evidence of *your claim*.
You are being deceitful: you used an ad hominem to attack Ken Miller, and then you still gave no evidence for it.
And then you switched the focus to Ty? Why should I believe anything you say — you are slippery and not trustworthy.
“You cry about unsubstantiated claims yet dismiss yourself and your friends from providing evidence of their own. Hypocrites to the max.”
I haven’t made any claims, Alex. Ty is not my colleague…not my homie…not my friend. No offense to him. ;)
I’m a free-thinker. I never made an accusation about you. Why are you misdirecting Ty’s claim onto me?
You are a hypocrite because you lied…and then called us hypocrites. You are shameful.
1. Why is Ken Miller “anxiety rambling”? Answer the question!
He doesn’t have to be the first to be one of the most pointless and obnoxious.
I’m not feeding him, so much as giving him his own medicine and making him swallow it.
I am watching it right now. It is very lengthy. But there is a lot of great evidence for evolution presented.
Hehe… this tends to happen when an idiot makes an absurd statement. All attention is drawn away from the topic.
Alex,
I’m waiting for you to demonstrate your claim against Ken Miller.
Forget Ty – I am not Ty – what is the validity of your claim against Ken Miller?
If you were actually watching his presentation, perhaps you would understand how evolution actually worked. Or is that too scary to consider?
1. What is “anxiety rambling?”
2. How is Ken Miller doing this?
3. Why is this even important? Isn’t that just a very lame ad hominem attack?
By the way, Ken Miller isn’t even an atheist, he’s a Catholic. So you can throw out that ad hominem.
Trying actually listening to what someone is saying for a change. I challenge you to just watch the first 30 minutes and then get back to me on evolution.
Your repetitive “yawn” is very hostile.
Nothing but hostility there.
Quit “yawning” ya hostile attack-slinger. It’s yer beddie time!
I don’t even get what Alex means by “anxiety rambling”.
Miller is a professor and seems very good at speaking in front of crowds in a clear and concise manner.
I have a strong urge to make a really bad joke, but I’ll let is pass.
Ad hominem would be against his person, my description of his presentation isn’t against his person, it is against the presentation, not essentially his person. How is it anxiety rambling? Obviously it is qualified by a criteria to which I hold. That is called personal opinion. I find he rambles and demonstrates a great deal of anxiety. You are quite free to disagree.
See below for my response, I hit the wrong reply button.
Alex
Well, you have not addressed the substance of the presentation and instead you invent excuses to avoid it. That is my beef.
You criticize evolution without trying to be knowledgable. You deal with the nature of the presentation instead of the ideas from the presentation of itself.
… but yet you have stilled failed to tackle what is actually presented in the presentation and instead have tried to move the thread to an entirely different topic. If you can not or will not tackle this issue then please be honest and just say so.
…
So, you’re saying that your first statement was an outright lie? Or do you mean that you’re the only person in “the grown up world”?
Alex Guggenheim: How is it anxiety rambling? Obviously it is qualified by a criteria to which I hold. That is called personal opinion.
It’s called a few other things.
Rambling (ha), name-calling, pretense that your own opinions are somehow fact by slinging around polysyllabic psychobabble, ad hominem attacks.
Yes, “against the presentation” is ad hominem here, because it is vague name-calling, not a fact, such as saying Miller jingles change in his pockets or talks too fast, or doesn’t face the audience: you know, something non-attacking and fact-oriented and well, you know.. oh, I guess you don’t… specific!
But alex doesn’t “do” factual or specific.
Before he does that, I’d really like to know what the heck “anxiety rambling” even is.
How are we supposed to judge evidence for a claim when we don’t even know really what the claim is?
Do you have any basis whatsoever for your apparent assumption that Dr. Miller is not, as you put it, “redeemed”? After all, it is long accepted and stated by not only mainstream Christianity, but also yourself, that such a status is a personal decision. Logically, if follows that the only person who could state the situation truthfully would, by your own definition, be Dr. Miller.
Oddly I associate his above statement about attacking the presentation more on dodging the topic like you mentioned more rather than a thought out attack to try and convince us that his argument is a valid one.
Would you mind defining the collective “we” used in your comment?
I couldn’t think of a better way to feign collective opinion than to use the collective “we”.
So now “we” judge people?
That seems to be a rather Imperious ‘We’ there, if you ask me.
In what way is he ‘at odds’ with the Judeo-Christian god? He’s merely describing observable incidences and discoveries in his particular field. Things one can see with one’s own eyes, and understand with even a basic grasp of the principles of science.
Is believing in evolution “contrary to Him”? Why? For that matter, why would god create so much evidence forevolution if it never really happened? Is he really that deceitful?
We can see the results of quantum experimentation. See the double slit experiment.
Also, you very much live by sight (sub: observation), as you would not even know of the Judeo-Christian god or the messiah character Jesus of Nazareth without written record of their purported existence having been written.
I find that my particular internal blueprint, as you put it, is composed solely of genetic base pairs.
Just a note:
“No, we first come to Him by the witness of the inner light…”
vs.
“The spiritual journey moves from an external life to an internal life.”
Your own statements have the unfortunate side-effect of self-contradiction.
I will continue to maintain that, without the initial creation of the scriptures to which you subscribe, you would not know of Jesus of Nazareth, nor would you be a member of the religion based upon him.
As for the differentiating between the terms ‘religion’ and ‘personal relationship’, I will stick with the common, public, and well-defined former term, as it far better describes the scenario in which not only you, but millions like you find yourselves.
Whoever Christ is and whether he is religion or not…
I’m curious, John. I haven’t figured this one out from your comments: Are you somehow not agreeing with Miller (and many others here) about evolution being correct? And if so, on what grounds?
Not accusing anyone, just curious.
So yet again you really have nothing of any substance to say. If you can not or will not argue against what is said then please just state that.
Well.. if there is one thing that’s pure speculation and absolutely no fact, it’s religion.
At least science has proof.
religion has none.
Alex speaks about what he “imagines” happening. He uses name-calling and ad hominem attacks as if they were facts. Rambling. “Nonsense”.
They always forget that, don’t they?
Religion has no facts? Did you borrow this claim from an 8th grader. Even Ingersoll would be embarrassed by such a juvenile claim. Yes, religion’s tenets are not always scientifically provable and a matter of faith but to say there are no facts attached to religion is just dramatic exaggeration because the reality that it does is too painful for your soul.
Yes there was an Apostle Paul, yes there was a King David, yes there was….oh wait, why bother with facts since you don’t believe any exist other than those that support your echo chamber of considerations.
The Bible says that there was an Apostle Paul and a King David…oh wait, just because something’s in the Bible doesn’t make it a fact.
And even if those were true, it still wouldn’t make Christianity true.
Yes, there are facts, Alex; many of them are wrong. Six day creation? No.
Also, I challenge you to find one consistent account of Jesus’s life among the four Gospels. You will find that the narratives are wildly inconsistent.
I haven’t looked into the facts. But let’s say that Paul and King David and Jesus etc existed. How is that a proof of religion?
I am not trying to talk down to you. I want to hear your argument for it.
Well sounds like you’ve got a bad case of anxiety rambling to me.
Paul, King David, even jesus could indeed be historical individuals.
That has nothing to do with faith.
The fact that i exist doesn’t prove that god exist.
If there was a man called paul who believed in a god, doesn’t mean that this god is real, because some other man wrote about this man paul believing in god.
Heresay Your Honour!
“personally feel that my faith as a Christian is centered in a relationship with Jesus Christ, not based in the interpretation of Genesis.”
Ok – what evidence do you have that:
1. You are actually having a relationship with someone you can’t communicate with in any verifiable way? (ie.. that jesus exists)
2. Even if he did exist, and you could communicate with him, that jesus wants a relationship with you?
Hi Grace
“my faith as a Christian is centered in a relationship with Jesus Christ”
If you don’t mind
Define relationship exactly?
I never get what it means when Christian’s claim a “relationship” with God or Jesus…… & why u choose Jesus & not God to have relationship with?
Different to people having “relationships” to music, nature, art etc?
I have a friend who is a professional painter who is a Deist and is convicted that the power of the Universe is guiding his brush.
“….of course there are others who subscribe to ID.
It’s just not a huge issue for me either way.”
Surely if you seek truth rather then ignorance then this should bother you?
I just don’t get how people come up with personal versions of Christianity & can in their deepest feelings KNOW that they have some how got it right…. Against All the other:
Religions
Non Believers
Different versions from their own faith
Evidence
Experts in theology
I might have feelings about many things, but for answers you seek experts in the field.
The problem with religion is…. There are hundreds of thousands contradictory “experts” in religious “Truth”
What do you think globally is the number is individuals claiming to be experts in religious truth or certain of their exact personal religious truth?
When broken down to the finest details…..
How many of these view contradict each other?
Hmmmm…I don’t think that the word “relationship” is scientifically quantifiable. Neither is personal feelings. So long as Grace is not pushing that Genesis is a literal interpretation of reality and she doesn’t push her feelings onto others, then I, for one, applaud her. Thank you, Grace. :)
I’m with alphonsuspeck here. I see no need to “debunk” her personal belief, especially not when she’s not even arguing against us. I think she has a perfectly valid point in that faith is perfectly fine if you keep it close, keep it personal. It’s the people who are trying to rewrite our view on reality by forcing their interpretation of belief on us that we should focus on, and worry about.
Touche’. At least you can engineer something clever, but of course not God, no not him, all this surrounding us that is systematic, orderly and predictable is purely by chance not design…oh yeah, except for the buildings, cars, factories, and products that all yell out design, just not nature…it’s has all magically happened by…chance…snicker snicker.
@Alex
So then try and put forward an argument that isn’t just “I don’t understand so it must be god that did it” i.e. what you’ve just put forward.
Oh and the reason that god can’t engineer anything is because he doesn’t exist — how would you expect an entity that doesn’t exist to be able to engineer anything? It’s much like asking why Sherlock Holmes can’t fix my TV.
@ Alex
http://www.wimp.com/intelligentdesign/
Oh yeah, all the good things can be held up and admired…but what about stupid “design”?
I highly recommend Teleprompter’s link on “Stupid Design”.
Funny!
Well if thats good enough for you, then great. As for me I am looking forward to hearing Grace’s answers to the questions.
“clearly deceitful the ID movement is”
And these are the same individuals claiming to be fighting for morality. Makes me laugh.
Bravo!
Well Crowed!
Fair enough – she is entitled to believe anything she wants. I’m just exploring whether her beliefs are rational. Since she posted them here I expect she was expecting some discussion on the topic, so what’s the harm in asking?
I’m genuinely interested in her answers.
@Martin
“I see no need to “debunk” her personal belief”
If someone posts on an Atheist website that they have a relationship with Jesus then they have good reason to expect a response.
Why don’t you go to a science forum and post that you have a personal belief and utter conviction that the moon is made of cheese and see what happens……
People who have claim personal relationships with imaginary friends other then Jesus or God tend get termed as crazy……
If someone had posted that they have a personal relationship with their dead great great grand father who they never even met…. would you not think that was a bit strange and consider challenging or asking for more information?
I post on religious forums sometimes and get heavily ganged up on……. BUT I’m asking for that by posting there.
“especially not when she’s not even arguing against us.”
Us???
You and alphonsuspeck both make similar points
“So long as Grace is not pushing that Genesis is a literal interpretation of reality and she doesn’t push her feelings onto others, then I, for one, applaud her.”
“I think she has a perfectly valid point in that faith is perfectly fine if you keep it close, keep it personal.”
A touch condescending maybe?
Sounds like you implying…. I don’t believe any of that nonsense but if you feel the need to be delusional just keep it to yourself & I won’t challenge you.
Where do you too draw the line? People can have PERSONAL religious view that they keep to themselves and live terribly unhappy lives because of these convictions. Is that ok just if they don’t push their views onto other people?
Original Sin is a good example of this.
Moderates also frequently end up with skewed ‘personal’ views on topics like abortion and homosexuality etc specifically from their ‘personal’ religious views.
In the end personal views have the right to be challenged Esp. when posting on an Atheist website & esp. when it is rapped up in the danger that is organised religion.
I do respect peoples personal views & but feel i have the right to challenge, just like you have challenged me that i have been unfair challenging her.
I was also asking a genuine question to help my understanding
I really don’t get exactly what people mean when they say relationship to Jesus/God
“Sounds like you implying…. I don’t believe any of that nonsense but if you feel the need to be delusional just keep it to yourself & I won’t challenge you.”
Funny, because that’s exactly what I’m saying. I just tried to be more tactful :)
Faith, to me, is meaningless. It doesn’t help me, personally, the least bit. However, I can understand and respect that others don’t feel the same way. I have no need to tell people how to live their lives, what to think and feel. I really don’t care, as long as it doesn’t affect me or society in a negative way.
As far as I’m concerned, Grace was merely expressing support towards Miller, and those of us who fight against a misinterpreted Bible as being taught as scientific in any way, shape or form. The fact that she mentioned her personal beliefs is probably due to exactly the fact you mention, that this is an atheist site and a lot of atheist readers. I don’t have to state that I’m an atheist, because I have “home field” advantage. I absolutely respect her for disclosing her opinion on religion in general, so that there are no misunderstandings further on.
If you want to attack anyone who ever expresses faith or belief in anything, fine. I just don’t think Grace’s comment warranted such attacks.
No comparison!
No comparison between going on a website that prefers reason and evidence and spouting one’s “faith”, vs. going on a science website and spouting one’s “faith” that the moon is made of cheese.
Oh, wait…
Maybe they are exactly the same type of non-fact-based spouting!
You just shot yourself in the foot, defending Grace’s “faith” and attacking the similar act of going on a science website to say the moon is made of cheese.
No, but I do expect people to have a general knowledge of what they’re talking about before they criticize something.
Alas – It appears another thesit is going to ignore my questions.
Is it me?
Yeah, Grace. Cough up something sensible to back up this imagined “relationship”.
And about this “relationship” of yours?
Given that his reasons for becoming a Christian have nothing to do with science and more to do with CS Lewis, I’m not sure why you think the fact that he’s a scientist have much to do with anything. The fact that he later found some fields of science that he’s not studied and doesn’t know much about that he thinks might support his beliefs isn’t terribly convincing.
Yeah, being a geneticist means that he knows no more of the early conditions of the universe than any other layman. In fact, anyone who’s read a half-dozen pop-sci books on the subject can dispense with his arguments pretty easily. There’s really no reason to invoke a creator for the Big Bang; you can do it if you like, and no-one can really prove you wrong (yet – give it 20 years and we might know far more about it), but it’s not science.
He really isn’t. We’ve been sequencing genomes for what, 20 years, now. The human genome is an important one, to be sure, but it’s just grunt-work with using decades-old techniques and tools. He’s not even the first person to sequence the human genome – Chris Ventnor beat him to it by several years.
The people putting together new organisms gene by gene, or working out how DNA self-arranges, they’re on the cutting edge of DNA research.
Hey Grace
Thanks for your reply!
I kind of guessed you implied trust and loving care etc in the relationship, but do you believe he is ‘with’ you, do you feel his presence? Does he guide your thoughts and actions & do does he get anything from you?
Why Jesus and not God?
“As the Scripture says, “We see through a glass darkly.””
Scripture also says:
Kill Homosexuals
“If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
And many many other horrific things, I hope u have the common sense and secular moral values to just pick and choose “the nice passages” though!
Sorry…. I have to ask….. As well since you brought it up ;)
If you defer to famous scientist and research and to bring you the truth, then surly a critical overview would give you the best indication of what scientists believe.
At least 97% of the members of Royal society (top science society in the UK) & at least 93% of the members of The National Academy of Sciences (top science society in the USA) don’t believe any of the doctrines of Christianity and are non believers.
The top scientists… & out of the maximum 7% & 3% of believers in these societies there would be an exceptionally strong likelihood that they would all have different versions of what religious truth is & essentially contract each other. I would also think it highly likely that if tested on all particulars Ken Miller & Francis Collins would have different ideas on the nature of God and the Bible and religious ‘truth.’ If your correct in saying Collins believes in ID then they definitely do!
Is this not relevant when seeking truth?
Otherwise it looks like it starting with:
Whatever Religious Truth: What facts can I find that back this up
Rather then
Here is the available evidence: What conclusions can I draw from this
If someone started with ‘Truth’ and only looked for evidence to support I sure one could get a case together to “prove” or have faith that The Life of Brian is a true historical account!
Martin, I think you hit right on it. I’ve never had a problem with Christmas manger displays on private property, or quiet faith of Christianity for oneself.
I am having huge mega-problems with them interfering with the teaching of science; with interfering with a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy (often while at the same time making prevention birth control harder to obtain, rather than easier); with interfering with sex education: these and other actions that clearly don’t qualify as “as long as it doesn’t affect me or society in a negative way.”.
Two Atheists walk into a bar…
… ouch — it was an iron bar.
Oh, and it’s also worth pointing out that in genetics, where Collins does know the science, he doesn’t see any place for God; he believes that absolutely no supernatural interference was needed to go from protocells to humans via naturalistic evolution. It’s only in fields where he’s untrained and not an expert that he thinks he can find evidence for God, while the people who are experts in those fields think he’s wrong.
No, Bill, there is mounting evidence that it isn’t you. I’ve seen John C and alex ignore your direct questions.
As far as I can tell, “anxiety rambling” is more of his ad hominem attacks and spouting name-calling. He can’t back up something, which he just spewed out on impulse, as primary or objective language that points to a real-world process.
Grace,
I appreciate your willingness to continue this conversation, but I don’t think you have actually answered my questions. If you can, I would really appreciate it if you could take a shot at answering.
Here they are again so you don’t need to scroll up.
What evidence do you have that:
1. You are actually having a relationship with someone you can’t communicate with in any verifiable way? (ie.. that jesus exists)
2. Even if he did exist, and you could communicate with him, that jesus wants a relationship with you?
“And, if it’s not, I’m being pretty foolish, since my whole life would be built on a lie.”
Which is why its so hard to objectively look at the facts or if you do look at them…then take them seriously.
But if you do change your mind…the rest of your life doesn’t have to be built on a lie.
Grace,
Thanks for the answers. Please indulge me a few follow up questions.
If I understand correctly, you are saying that you know Jesus wants a relationship with you because it is written in the new testament. Yet, earlier in this thread you seemed to say that the old testament was not a reliable account of creation, and evolution was. How do you know that the new testament is reliable given the admitted unreliability of the old testament?
Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be saying that you “feel” your relationship with jesus and therefore you know it exists. Do you accept that kind of evidence for other things in your life as well? If you “feel” that an investment is safe do you sink you money in to it, or do you objectively analyze risk before you do?
Why does jesus’ historical existence (if it’s real) point to his divinity or desire to have a relationship with you?
I really do appreciate your willingness to actually answer querstions.
Bill
That sums it up. I think, and it seems similar to thoughts of other posters here, that it is built on a lie.
Or at the very least, something completely unverifiable as true.
Which is the point I made when I said Jesus isn’t interested in a relationship with you any more; he told me he thinks I’m much more interesting and he likes me better.
My “faith” is exactly and precisely as verifiable as yours.