Science vs. Creationism

[babe]

Can you expound a little more on this statement?

Also, a few questions.

Are you a believer in pre-destination?
Do you believe I can never lead a righteous life because I'm an Atheist and believe in science?

Thanks for your time.

context, man. .. . context. Has a lot to do with our thinking, and our decisions.

I believe we make choices within context, and are accountable in the the judgment of God, who puts our choices in their context when judging. And who can be merciful, compassionate, and a lot of other generous things. . . . I think God has plans based on a lot of understanding of us, though we may either disappoint Him or make Him deeply grateful we chose better than He thought we might. . . .

While Jesus said belief on faith is a virtue that God has great compassion on, and unbelief has consequences we won't really enjoy. . . . He also taught that we will be judged righteously, that is to say, on our true merits. I know some athiests who have some principles and seem like pretty decent folks. Some have done me great goodness. I love them for that.

I would probably at this point, refer to you OB, even though I might disagree with him on a lot of things. Seems to make the effort to have a moral compass. I would ask some questions about how he ranks himself as different or better than some specific religionists. But the "no moral compass" is an extreme statement. "inadequate moral compass" or "relatively less reliable moral compass" woujld probably the kind of language I'd use, with specific reasons, and then accept rebuttals on their merits, as best I could. . . .

Overall, I view our "context" as a "test" of a sort. A test of our character. I also view the merits of religion as I embrace it to be manifold. We have choices, and with choices we get results It is possible it make choices for good or bad reasons, for good or bad will. I will admit that in many cases Christians and other "religious" folks have bad reasons and bad intentions/will and consider they will probably not serve as good examples of the faith. I see the same thing with any group of committed believers in whatever ideas/ideologies. I accept that some "athiests" can have a lot of good reasons or good will.

I just think that, after all the God I believe in seems to have done, in my estimation, it would be a shame for me to not love Him.

 

[babe]

You really shouldn't rely on vague notions put forth by the enemies of a culture to describe them.

well, I can't think of any people in history who didn't rub some neighbors the wrong way, but generally I feel the folks with clubs and spears to come over the town to raid a village are somehow perhaps not being the best neighbors.

Are the raids on coastal towns attributed to Vikings mere fictions?

 

[PearlWatson]

Godless countries like Denmark, Norway or Sweden seem to do much better than very religious country like USA in most morality related situations ( crimes, teen abortions, stds, etc ) and in general happiness. We beat that topic to death, being religious does not make you automatically good person and vice versa.
For example I once was fishing in Norway. You come to river, there is a simple box with licence tickets rolled in some roll, you leave your money in a box, peel ticket off and go. None of godless norvegians ever consider just taking ticket without paying or stealing the box with cash. Heck most of their houses used to not have any locks until some immigration from African and Asian countries started to happen. Doubt that would work that well in highly religious Carolina states lol.
So please, rest that "no God no morality" case, real world situations proved it wrong long time ago.

atrocious assumptions and reasoning but amusing nonetheless

While living under godless rule did you get to chose your educational/career pursuit?

 

[One Brow]

Are the raids on coastal towns attributed to Vikings mere fictions?

Vikings raided coastal towns, and Viking coastal towns were raided by other groups. It's a European tradition.

 

[One Brow]

I would probably at this point, refer to you OB, even though I might disagree with him on a lot of things. Seems to make the effort to have a moral compass. I would ask some questions about how he ranks himself as different or better than some specific religionists. But the "no moral compass" is an extreme statement.

I believe that moral systems based on the ethics of compassion, consent, opportunity, and dignity are superior to moral systems based on the ethics of following a set of spelled-out rules, so I try to use the former. I think that both religious and non-religious people use the first sort of system, and that both religious and non-religious people use the second sort of system. Three years ago I might have guessed that religious people were more inclined toward the second sort of system, but I don't think that anymore.

 

[MVP]

While living under godless rule did you get to chose your educational/career pursuit?

Yes and it was free. I paid nothing for my education and actually was getting paid small scholarship.

 

[MVP]

atrocious assumptions and reasoning but amusing nonetheless

Its facts my dear friend. As Metallica sings " Sad but true"

 

[VINYLONE]

VJ whats up bro

Hope all is well

Do you like watching Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Lawrence Krauss etc etc own religious people ? So many great Youtube vids of those guys and other scientists intellectually annihilating religious people

Even though its not a fair fight its great entertainment

Matt,

I'm doing well.

I was always a fan of the late Mr. Hitchens but I don't really listen to those other folks. My Atheism is a very personal outlook and since I've made my peace with it, I don't need any sort of daily affirmation of it. I'm also not a fan, at all, of the New Atheists.

 

[carolinajazz]

Just to continue destroying Carolinajazz myths... what happened to aboriginal Australian people after flood? How did they repopulated? Are they newly evolved from Noah's relatives which somehow inhabited Australia 4000 years ago after the flood? How about Japanese? American natives? Inuits in Greenland? So if you believer of Noah's ark myth relatives of Noah's ark survivors somehow migrated all over the world and changed their skin color, eye shapes, hair, etc to turn into today's variety of nations and races in just a 4000 years?
Honestly, tales about leprechauns, trolls, unicorns, vampires and werewolves are way more believable...

When the sperm cell from a man unites with the egg cell of a woman, a new human life is conceived even though the parents are of different races. Yet within that very small cell are thousands of genes, the transmitters of hereditary traits. These traits reflect characteristics seen in the parents or other ancestors.

According to the Bible, all humans descend from Noah, through his three sons Shem, Japheth and Ham. Genesis chapter 10 lists 70 descendants of Noah saying: “From these the nations were spread about in the earth.” (Genesis 10:32) One of the many ways in which these nations have been classified is with reference to skin color. In the skin of all normal humans is a blackish brown pigment called melanin.

Noah and his three sons all had a measure of this dark pigment. From Shem came the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Jews and the Arabs who vary from fair to light-brown skin. The descendants of Japheth, who include the Indo-European races, vary from light skin to dark brown. As for Ham (meaning swarthy or sun-burnt), some, but not all, of his descendants had dark skin. The Egyptians, with light-brown skin, descended from Ham’s son Mizraim. Ham’s son Canaan, who was cursed by God because of bad conduct, was the forefather of the light-skinned Canaanites.

In agreement with this, Dr.*Hughes, a professor of anthropology at the University of Toronto, said: “On every continent, and in every geographically defined race, there is a considerable range of variation in .*.*. skin pigmentation, .*.*. the Tamils of South India are considered by many anthropologists to be members of the Caucasoid [white Indo-European] major race, yet in skin pigmentation they are darker than many African Negroes.”

All divisions of mankind have a dark pigment in their skin, some to a lesser, others to a greater extent.

Understanding the genetic principle, knowing how millions of variations occur, we can see why these variations exist, and that all, nevertheless, comprise one human race, one family. There are great differences in some respects, minor differences in most respects. But there is a sameness in human nature everywhere, and all can intermarry and have children. They are all of one kind.

 

[MVP]

When the sperm cell from a man unites with the egg cell of a woman, a new human life is conceived even though the parents are of different races. Yet within that very small cell are thousands of genes, the transmitters of hereditary traits. These traits reflect characteristics seen in the parents or other ancestors.

According to the Bible, all humans descend from Noah, through his three sons Shem, Japheth and Ham. Genesis chapter 10 lists 70 descendants of Noah saying: “From these the nations were spread about in the earth.” (Genesis 10:32) One of the many ways in which these nations have been classified is with reference to skin color. In the skin of all normal humans is a blackish brown pigment called melanin.

Noah and his three sons all had a measure of this dark pigment. From Shem came the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Jews and the Arabs who vary from fair to light-brown skin. The descendants of Japheth, who include the Indo-European races, vary from light skin to dark brown. As for Ham (meaning swarthy or sun-burnt), some, but not all, of his descendants had dark skin. The Egyptians, with light-brown skin, descended from Ham’s son Mizraim. Ham’s son Canaan, who was cursed by God because of bad conduct, was the forefather of the light-skinned Canaanites.

In agreement with this, Dr.*Hughes, a professor of anthropology at the University of Toronto, said: “On every continent, and in every geographically defined race, there is a considerable range of variation in .*.*. skin pigmentation, .*.*. the Tamils of South India are considered by many anthropologists to be members of the Caucasoid [white Indo-European] major race, yet in skin pigmentation they are darker than many African Negroes.”

All divisions of mankind have a dark pigment in their skin, some to a lesser, others to a greater extent.

Understanding the genetic principle, knowing how millions of variations occur, we can see why these variations exist, and that all, nevertheless, comprise one human race, one family. There are great differences in some respects, minor differences in most respects. But there is a sameness in human nature everywhere, and all can intermarry and have children. They are all of one kind.

What a load of rubbish instead of simple answer to simple question.
Again... what happened to Aboriginal people, Natives of Americas, Inuits of Greenland and Japanese people after flood. How exactly the same people and cultures ended up inhabiting those areas again?

 

[Hekate]

I believe that moral systems based on the ethics of compassion, consent, opportunity, and dignity are superior to moral systems based on the ethics of following a set of spelled-out rules, so I try to use the former. I think that both religious and non-religious people use the first sort of system, and that both religious and non-religious people use the second sort of system. Three years ago I might have guessed that religious people were more inclined toward the second sort of system, but I don't think that anymore.

Why the change in the thought? I ask because I do think more religious people than non-religious people have rigid rules about life.

 

[One Brow]

Why the change in the thought? I ask because I do think more religious people than non-religious people have rigid rules about life.

I read a few of blogs written by atheistic feminists, and the bile they receive from other atheists regarding feminism is usually worse that what they get from religious people.