I had one of those "eureka!" moments this morning reading a comment on a very long thread that has the theists and atheists playing tag wrestling. I'm not sure I had thought of it quite this way before.
Armstrongism, in a sense, seems to me to be a step toward atheism. It did a very thorough job of debunking and discrediting the mainstream religions. Anyone who sincerely joined WCG, as I did, first became convince[d] that the mainstream churches did not have god's truth. To us, only WCG had god's truth.
Then, along came Joe Tkach, who brought the shortcomings of WCG to our attention. In this sense, Tkach did us a big favor. He broke the hold the cult had over us. But, for many of us, once the spell was broken, the genie could not be put back into the bottle. We had already proven the mainstream churches were false. Now we saw WCG was also false. What then was true?
Maybe that explains a lot.
127 comments:
Gavin, as a person who remains committed to the way of life that I believe God revealed to me throught Mr. Armstrong, I have to agree with the premise of this article. If a person accepts what he has learned from the Church's teachings, then it would be very difficult to return to a life that you previously proved was wrong. Likewise, if you find yourself not believing in this way of life anymore, there really is no place to go. Mr. Armstrong always taught that there were only two ways, God's way and every other way. Unfortunately, many never understood God's way, and are blaming everyone else for it. Still others were abused and believed that was God's way as well. It is really a sad state of affairs.
Gavin suggests our discussion in the god/nogod debate is akin to "tag wrestling."
How depressing the host has so little concern for deeply held views. Maybe that is why he chooses to not engage in the debate?
Gavin
Are admitting you're an athiest? He He
Hmmm, well it looks like Herbert and Joe did their part in getting rid of religion on all sides, and if there is a Devil, I feel sure that he has been counting his souls, all the way to the bank.
That should win the award for "Best Observation of the Year"!
There is not much that I could add to that. It is the fundamental truth that most have embraced since Tkach shot down the wcg.
In my view, most ex-wcg are embracing militant atheism which has its roots in Marxism. At the same time it is as though they are
embracing a new religion that in America we call liberalism. Those who find themselves agreeing with the far left of the political spectrum. The party that embraces the concept of collective socialism and despises those who have a faith.
These folks have married into a completely opposing view from what they held dear when attending the wcg. These leftist views are in complete opposition of Armstrong-ism and are in actuality, a rebellion against the concept of all religions. At the same time, these former associates of the wcg, unknowingly are rejecting the principles behind the United States constitution. One of the virtues the founding fathers had was tolerance. It is what helped to pull together this great nation and to keep it together.
The second lot of people are your run of the mill atheists that just don't care if their friends or family or even society embraces the concept of a greater power. These folks realize that religion is here to stay and accept that fact.
The third lot of ex-wcg reject Armstrong-ism but embrace another religion. Some are in your face and others just quietly go about their lives just trying to do what is right.
The forth lot in which I am a member is the deist. As I look at the world, the concept of life, I sense something behind all this.
Wiki states: "Deism is a philosophical belief in the existence of a God on the basis of reason, and observation of the natural world alone. Deists generally reject the notion of supernatural revelation as a basis of truth and religious dogma. These views contrast with the dependence on divine revelation found in many Christian,[1] Islamic and Judaic teachings."
I could not agree more with the statement above.
As a deist:
I reject the bible.
I reject Christ.
I reject the notion of a father that kills off his son to save others through a sadistic barbaric act.
I reject the notion that a higher power answers personal prayer.
I reject the idea that a god intervenes in the affairs of men.
I reject creationism.
I reject all those who come in the name of a god.
I reject constructive deism.
I accept critical deism as the rational end of independent thought.
Without a doubt, HWA/WCG destroyed the credibility of mainstream religion for most of us. But, that was not the end of the destruction. Basically, they systematically destroyed every element of a person's normal support system that did not emanate from "God's True Church". This included doctors, educators, counselors, therapists, science, the news media, help organizations such as Alcoholics Anonymous, the entertainment industry, professional sports, politicians, the military, the world monetary system, businessmen, historians, and our own "carnal" relatives, friends, and neighbors.
We were deliberately backed into a corner, with no place except WCG to go. The object was to make WCG our all purpose single source for everything related to our lives. One of the largest challenges of the leaving process became learning to trust once again. As we all know, the paranoia and damage can require years to repair, and one of the greatest residual problems was that they had even created an aversion or distrust towards therapy in most of us.
Manipulation on such a grand scale is typical of false teachers. Manipulation is their substitute for the transformation which scripture teaches that the Holy Spirit is supposed to accomplish in a Christian's life. False teachers can angrily scream "God's Government" all they want, but by substituting themselves, and usurping or faking the functions of the Holy Spirit, these false teachers do end up destroying their followers' ability to believe in or trust God.
Their faking of the gift of prophecy over a period of decades is just one case in point!
In my own personal journey, as I relearned that I could trust, or at least could manage my expectations regarding elements of a normal support network, I never imagined that I could return to belief in God. In fact, it always shocked me when I would hear that a former church friend had left, and had begun attending a charismatic church, or the Catholic Church, or one of the many Protestant churches. I could not fathom how this would be possible, and for the individual to retain his/her sincerity. It was only decades later, when I realized that the whole function of religion was the seeking of a personal relationship with God, that I was able to make the final transition in my trust restoration process.
So long as a church is providing good scripturally based spiritual nourishment, and is non-intrusive, one can freely carry on such a personal relationship. That way, all of the trust is placed directly in God, who has the capability of bypassing the church corporate.
BB
Your question sounds very much like that of Pontius Pilate's.
I tend to stay out of the theist-atheist debate, because it is one that neither side can prove, disprove, or win. I come down on the side of the theists because of logic, not evidence.
As for your question AND dilemma, it is an old one. Everyone, it seems wants to be "right". Who can blame them? But, if some are right, then others have to be wrong. Right?
Not necessarily. God's mercy and Christ's sacrifice cover an awful lot! I believe that God is very sensitive to our plight. The real problem is that the idea that virtually anyone and everyone can and will be saved seems sort of boring in our highly competitive world. But, when you think about it, it is actually fantastic!
There will be a lot of time and plenty of real estate for everyone. Who could not be excited about this? Your experience just requires that you think differently than you have in the past. It really is a "EUREKA" moment! And you are ahead of most others.
Wow! That's not only incredibly powerful, but incredibly true too. That is exactly the thought process for many people who first came out of traditional Christianity and then, later, out of Armstrongism.
Ironically, I've noticed that some others have gone in what would have to be considered the diametrically opposite direction: Roman Catholicism.
Yes, Armstrongism can be a step toward atheism, because Armstrongites have so ingrained in them that Armstrongism = Bibleism = God exists. But Armstrongites, former Armstrongites and former Bible believers might do well to keep in mind that if there is a God he/it/she/they was, or were, there long before the Armstrongs and long before the Bible. A belief in someone or something that could be called God need not be related to Herbert W., the Bible, Christianity, Judaism, Jesus or any religious notion or icon we can bring to mind. Seems to me this is a significant point that goes missing in debates about God's alleged existence or nonexistence. God does not need to be the God of the Bible. For that matter, God does not need to be a being. God the Being is just another God in our own image.
Eureka
"Then, along came Joe Tkach, who brought the shortcomings of WCG to our attention."
so they are shortcomings because Tkach says so?
how do you know that Armstrong lied to you but Tkach didn't? because Tkach says so?
I know why Byker Bob is here, he's hungry, hungry for the Plain Truth that is rational atheism. Sure, he's thumping that bible as never before but it's his nagging subconscience that keeps him coming back for more rebuffs of scientific truth from the rationalists.
JD Wrote:
....if there is a God he/it/she/they was, or were, there long before the Armstrongs and long before the Bible. Exactly!PT-Editor James said...
In my view, most ex-wcg are embracing militant atheism which has its roots in Marxism. Atheism does not have its roots in Marxism. There were atheists long before Carl Marx.
In my experience only about 10-15% of those leaving Armstrongism go through an atheist phase.
Often its not so much being atheist to the idea of a God, but rather atheist to God portrayed by radical conservative fun-day-mental-ism. Atheist ask very good and probing questions, its a shame more religious people don't listen to what they are asking.At the same time it is as though they are embracing a new religion that in America we call liberalism. Those who find themselves agreeing with the far left of the political spectrum. The party that embraces the concept of collective socialism and despises those who have a faith.Turn off Rush Limbaugh, stop taking the Oxycontin, open the windows, and look around you.
God is not a Republican. The majority of Christians in America are of the "Liberal" variety. The conservatives are just louder. These folks have married into a completely opposing view from what they held dear when attending the wcg. And that's a bad thing?These leftist views are in complete opposition of Armstrong-ism.....You betcha!.....and are in actuality, a rebellion against the concept of all religions. This is where your train of thought goes completely off the rails!At the same time, these former associates of the wcg, unknowingly are rejecting the principles behind the United States constitution. Oh quite the opposite! Most of them are HUGE supporters of the Constitution now that they can vote!
Not true, Dr. Tkach, that's pure unbridled enthusiasm! I'm just sharing some of the awesome cool things I've been learning. In the mean time, it's really quite faith-strengthening being hassled by atheists and Armstrongites.
By the way, have you ever picked up a book on Old Earth Creationism?
I posted some comments on that topic over at As Bereans Did, in response to the post regarding teaching the Bible in public schools. It's a hot topic in the Christian community.
Blessings 2U!
BB
“Joe Tkach … broke the hold the cult had over us. But … we had already proven the mainstream churches were false. Now we saw WCG was also false. What then was true?”
This is a brilliant observation, and wonderfully succinct. But mainstream Christianity is not completely false, and the WCG was never completely wrong. There’s redeemable value on both sides.
Armstrong did expose pagan elements in mainstream Christianity. But in the thrall of rejecting pagan traits, we tended to reject or overlook some true values. We observed Biblical holydays, but abandoned the human soul. When we think we don’t have souls, we deny them proper nourishment. Who can endure life without a healthy soul? We embraced unconscionable errors concerning divorce and remarriage, medicine, governance and free thinking. Could Jonas Salk have developed the polio vaccine under WCG leadership?
We simultaneously ignored millions of mainstream Christians who work hard and strive to love neighbor as self, who avoid theft, murder, adultery, and who are in virtually all significant ways superior people. Old pagan elements will have to go a long way before they invalidate mainstream Christian dedication to high morality and ethics. Worshipping on Sunday is a whole lot better than not worshipping. I’ve known Sabbath and Holyday keeping Christians who could lie like rugs and turn alley cat morality into a personal art form. Don’t think our children didn’t notice.
On the other hand, Herbert Armstrong did restore, at least for non-Jews, a wide assortment of Biblical forms and teachings – but he misapplied so many of them, not realizing his errors, that he produced a second generation, many of whom now reject organized religion altogether. They’ve never seen truth applied right and abhor what they’ve seen. They naturally want to throw baby and bathwater out together. A little bit of knowledge soured a whole generation on God and the Bible – and we dared to call this frightfully uneven mix of foul and sweet “the truth.” No wonder so many of our kids want no part of it. Some accuse the kids of copping out, but we set it up for them.
Unfortunately Herbert Armstrong was blissfully unaware of the Noahide system, also called the Rainbow Covenant, upon whose principles James stated that non-Jews need not observe the whole law. If only Armstrong had known…
One Pasadena minister told me that during a period of ten years not one Big Sandy Imperial High School graduate remained in the church. How’s that for a legacy? It proves to me that misapplication of the Bible can cause far more harm than good. I hope God goes easy on such as we on Judgment Day.
For me the bottom line is that there is truth out there, waiting in churches, synagogues and public libraries, on the tongues of priests, ministers, rabbis, teachers, friends and acquaintances. One can find what one searches for. But as Dr. Charles Dorothy once told me after class at AC many years ago, “Beware of the man who says he knows.”
"Men create gods. That is the way it is in the world. Men create gods, and worship their creation. It would be better for the gods to worship men!"
1979 was a traumatic year of change for me, as we exited wcg. We joined cgi, and remained there for 17 yrs, leaving only over that matter of unexercised church discipline.
But that experience in cgi served as a filter to the toxic elements of wcg. Of course, it wasn't perfect - we continue to learn.
The wrongs of hwa were largely excised - especially on church governance, and all of us were free to think.
Gone was false 'christianity' replaced with a semblance of 'truth' without submitting to the faith of atheism.
Byker Bob said, "Without a doubt, HWA/WCG destroyed the credibility of mainstream religion for most of us. But, that was not the end of the destruction. Basically, they systematically destroyed every element of a person's normal support system that did not emanate from "God's True Church". This included doctors, educators, counselors, therapists, science, the news media, help organizations such as Alcoholics Anonymous, the entertainment industry, professional sports, politicians, the military, the world monetary system, businessmen, historians, and our own "carnal" relatives, friends, and neighbors."
MY COMMENT - Thank you Byker Bob! No truer words were ever spoken.
Richard
The Herbie Cult of the False Prophets of Doom have done their part to drive a wedge between many would-be christains and The One True God. The Herbie Cults have always worshiped Gods creation instead of it's Creator. God did create the law the the Herbie cults base their religon on. Some how missing the part that Our Savoir came and died so we could have a relationship with God, eliminating the need to further abserve out-dated laws and rituals. The Herbie cults wanted control of your mind so the used fear and manipulation of scripture to gain that control. Once you understand FREEDOM THROUGH GRACE they lose that control. All the thousands of lives, and families that Herbie, and his false prophets of doom ruined will see justice at the resurection when Billy Graham will lecture HWA about how to be a real follower of Jesus Christ.
Byker Bob says, "Without a doubt, HWA/WCG destroyed the credibility of mainstream religion for most of us. But, that was not the end of the destruction. Basically, they systematically destroyed every element of a person's normal support system that did not emanate from "God's True Church". This included doctors, educators, counselors, therapists, science, the news media, help organizations such as Alcoholics Anonymous, the entertainment industry, professional sports, politicians, the military, the world monetary system, businessmen, historians, and our own "carnal" relatives, friends, and neighbors.
We were deliberately backed into a corner, with no place except WCG to go. The object was to make WCG our all purpose single source for everything related to our lives."
Bob, for many years I tried to understand what happened to my family of origin back in 1959, and your words, as far as I have quoted them above, represent my conclusion exactly. The additional tragedy is the helplessness of caring individuals who saw Armstrong's victim's pushed beyond their ability to be helped.
Gavin, here's my conclusion re: Armstrong/Tkach and atheism: Armstrongism ignored or explained (away) "difficult scriptures." My disconnection with the WCG began with a growing conviction that we were simply wrong about matters of law &/law or grace, the Holy Spirit, etc. I spent a few blissfully happy years as an Episcopalian before coming to realize that the fundamentalist position is indefensible. Once I realized that, the path to agnosticism and eventually atheism seemed, and for me was, inevitable.
So in that sense, I guess I agree with you. Either the Bible is the inspired word of God or it is not. If it is, one course of action is required. If it is not, then Christianity (& Judaism & Islam) is a house of cards.
Byker Bob's wild ride: Christian - Skeptic - Christian - Skeptic [future]
James said...
>>Wiki states: "Deism is a philosophical belief in the existence of a God on the basis of reason, and observation of the natural world alone. Deists generally reject the notion of supernatural revelation as a basis of truth and religious dogma. These views contrast with the dependence on divine revelation found in many Christian,..."<<
James>>I could not agree more with the statement above.<<
While you are "free" to assert your agreement without argument, I am sure that members and lurkers would benefit, if you would be so kind as to advance a logical and coherent argument in support of your assertion. In addition, your credibility as a serious polemicist would be greatly enhanced.
That's very insightful and how I would describe my own experience of coming from Fundamentalist Christianity, into WCG. Once seeing the pagan, and they are, origins of most practices , the Jewish Christian mode that can be discerned out of the NT seemed more accurate. This of course assumed that those like Peter, James, John and Paul were all on the same team. They are not. They all had a different spin on the gospel , who Jesus was or wasn't and the story of his life and meaning. Joe fell back into what I came out of thinking that was correct. WCG or GCI is wrong again having just reinvented the wheel of error afresh.
James is the author of the rejected Jewish Christian experience and meaning of Jesus and Paul is the winning author of the Gentile version we have today. All churches get confused when they try to wed the two men into one coherent belief system when it cannot be done. Paul and James had two conflicting gospel interpretations of Jesus life. Paul won and the rest is history.
Atheism or agnositicism has grown out of this obvious conflict for those who do their hard work to see it. Add to this the fact of both animal and human evolution as understood in the last twenty years, not the last 200 and we have some major challenges as to meaning and purpose.
Bible readers will be come more boistrous over the years and damaging to their members in the long run. Bible students will show up less and less in the pulpit lest they be terminated for changing the old old story with new new facts.
Perhaps just letting the four noble truths of Buddhism inform us will help restore some real balance and reality to how life works for us all
Your posting is logical and well spoken with one glaring flaw. If you truly rejected Armstrongism, then you would no longer believe that there are such absolutes as Complete Truth and Complete Lack of Truth.
Likewise, if you find yourself not believing in this way of life anymore, there really is no place to go .
Hogwash. I have found a better way through a relationship with Jesus Christ and fellowshipping with believers who have the same. Something I never saw in the WCG (except maybe after the changes).
Without a doubt, HWA/WCG destroyed the credibility of mainstream religion for most of us. That is absolutely correct. He did a good job brainwashing us that there's a vast satanic conspiracy that has hijacked the gospel and that ALL the world religions, including Christianity, are deceived satanic institutions. It took a long time for me, but I slowly started seeing the larger Christian body as all part of the one true church. The "true church" doesn't have to have "church of God" in its name- it has to have Jesus at the center of worship.
The bottom line? HWA's teachings were so off track that it is no wonder that people who leave end up in the pit of atheism or even gnosticism.
"How depressing the host has so little concern for deeply held views. Maybe that is why he chooses to not engage in the debate?"
I'm sure people with tin foil hats, who live in constant fear of UFO abductions, also have "deeply held views".
After a while, it becomes difficult to separate the lunatics from the merely deluded.
Hey, looking at it from a Catholic perspective, Protestantism in general is a step towards atheism. Herbert Armstrong didn't really say anything about "the churches of this world" that the Protestants haven't been saying about their parent Catholicism since 1517.
PT-Editor James wrote:
"In my view, most ex-wcg are embracing militant atheism which has its roots in Marxism."
You're quite wrong in this observation, James - and please study your history books: atheism predates Marxist theory by many, many centuries. Are you actually trying to imply that there were no unbelievers before the mid 19th century?
I have to agree this statement is largely true. However I can't really agree that it was Joe Tkach "who brought the shortcomings of WCG to our attention". He attempted to of course, but for those who (like me) were too deeply entrenched in that belief system his attempts were feeble at best. It was easier for people like me to accept that the spin-off groups like LCG and UCG were holding on to the "faith once delivered".
However there IS a newer source who is much more effective at debunking the spin off groups than any other I'm aware of - in spite of the fact that he represents one of them. He is none other than RCG's David C. Pack.
Briefly, he claims to be not only an Apostle, but THE "Messenger to Laodicea" and THE "Watchman for Israel". He does not claim to be one of the "Two Witnesses", but he does claim that they will arise within his church group, and that they will be trained by and answer to him. He also claims that his group, and ONLY his group will be in the "Place of Safety".
Several years ago I made the effort to study quite a bit of his literature and sermons. I can tell you that he does a VERY effective job of discrediting and debunking most of the spin-off COG groups and their leadership. He usually doesn't mention them by name, but if you know anything about them you can usually figure out who he's talking about.
For me, this was a real eye opener. David Pack basically debunks the COG's in much the same way (and with just as much effectiveness) as Herbert Armstrong debunked the mainstream Christian churches. And like HWA, the extreme personality cult which has developed around his person serves to effectively debunk his own group.
What's left? Well, pretty much nothing. If mainstream Christianity is bunk, and the COG's are also bunk, there's really nothing left. I admit still believe many of the same things I always did. But I no longer have any faith or confidence in either God or in any of those who claim to represent Him. I admit this position is ambiguous and not particularly satisfying - it definitely leaves an unfilled void.
I guess all I have left is life, family, friends and whatever work my hands find to do. Perhaps in time I'll realize that is enough, and nobody can expect any more.
"I tend to stay out of the theist-atheist debate, because it is one that neither side can prove, disprove, or win. I come down on the side of the theists because of logic, not evidence."
Wow. That's one contradictory sentence there. Also false. One can have plenty of legitimate reasons to believe in a God, but logic is not, and cannot, be one of them.
It's interesting that many of the theists here are in seeming awe of the "insight" of the writer of the original post. I suspect that the reason is that Armstrongism has another strike aginst it as being so evil that it led to atheism, the most despised thought there can be--to a theist.
Suprise!
Atheism preceded Armstrongism!
In fact, we are all born as atheists. That is, we are born lacking belief in any gods. It isn't a system or a faith. (Yeah, like baldness is a hair color).
To have a religion while growing up one must be indoctrinated by parents, teachers, other kids who were indoctrinated, etc. Religion does not come by rational thought or logic. It's all subjective and emotional.
In my case I was born an atheist, raised by unchurched parents, and suffered the loss of a parent in an accident. I then turned to the Christian religion to help aid my solace. I became an Armstrongist at 30 while I was ignorant, gullible and wanting easy answers. Dr. Armstrong had them. He taught the Bible. My conversion was simply giving in to emotionalism.
I was an Armstrong sock puppet for 25 years. I began to wake up when Tkach started dumping everything I had held to be true. Thanks to him I started asking more questions. I began to stir up my ability to critically think, a horrible state for a Christian!
I then learned the Bible is filled with absurdities, contradictions, false prophecies and massive misology.
I then read some books on atheism and learned I'd been lied to even about that! There really is no proof of any gods! We are all atheists in denying some gods. I just lack belief in one more than you do.
Yes, Armstrong did bash other religions. They ARE absurd. Armstrongism just happened to advocate one aberrant form of the Christian religion. There are many more aberrant forms all drawing strength from the absurdities of Christian basics.
And some former followers of the JWs, the Mormons, the SDAs, the Roman Catholics, the Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit-Predestinarian-Baptists, the Methodists, the Lutherans and hundreds of other Christian religions have left and become atheists. They have returned to the former state of having no belief in any of the gods because they found religion is simply a huge scam.
Now, THAT explains a lot.
To some degree personality enters into this picture. There are people who will never change their minds once their minds are made up.
So they made up their minds that traditional Christianity was wrong (based on a mis-characterization by HWA)and now they have made up their minds that Armstrongism is wrong. So they now have no recourse -- except perhaps to be less intransigent. Now that's a novel idea.
-- Neo
Bamboo bends and Leonardo,
For your enlightenment, what is militant atheism? The key word here is "militant."
I am sorry that you did not understand the concept. I should have linked to the term "militant atheism."
Now back to Bamboo bends. First let me state that I have visited many forums, and blogs that express a leftist view, politically speaking. I have also received a bit of hate mail from Christians on the subject of politics. In their view the web site poses a threat to the United States for what they consider is an atheist viewpoint.
Now you wrote: Turn off Rush Limbaugh, stop taking the Oxycontin, open the windows, and look around you. God is not a Republican.
Well I know God is not a republican. God is nothing that anyone here really knows. The concept I have of a higher power is not your concept, and does not come from some lame book.
Your insult as to getting off the "Oxycontin" was not well received by me. I know folks who have or have had a drug problem. To make fun of people who fight an addiction is a slap in the face. Not only to the addict, but to those who have loved ones in such a predicament. My emphasis as to addiction would be one of love and support. I would not be making fun of an individual who is attempting to overcome the addiction in order to better their life. However, I do not expect you to live up to my morality. That is your issue.
Now a reply to Tom Mahon.
Tom pens: "While you are "free" to assert your agreement without argument, I am sure that members and lurkers would benefit, if you would be so kind as to advance a logical and coherent argument in support of your assertion. In addition, your credibility as a serious polemicist would be greatly enhanced."
Tom, I see what you have put up on your blog. You ridicule people and show no respect toward others. Go away.
The Other Kind of Preachers Kid said ".....you would no longer believe that there are such absolutes as Complete Truth and Complete Lack of Truth."
Is that statement absolutely true?
Anonymous 5:29 said "so they are shortcomings because Tkach says so?
how do you know that Armstrong lied to you but Tkach didn't? because Tkach says so?
In my case, the answer is a resounding "NO". When I was sitting in WCG services, listening to Tkach on tape saying "everything is optional", I couldn't believe my ears. And I did not agree. But I REALLY couldn't believe my ears when I talked with other brethren about it after services. It turned out their religious beliefs were all over the spectrum. I had thought we "all spoke the same thing" and were all with the program. I certainly was "with the program" up until that sermon. But it turns out most of the people sitting in services with me all had their own beliefs.
I did NOTHING because "Tkach said so". The guy was obviously lying. At least HWA was a convincing liar. This guy wasn't even convincing.
After that sermon, I "held fast" to my beliefs. I started attending UCG and some GCG/LCG and LRCG. But after that experience, no longer did I accept the teachings of the ministers at "face value". I questioned all things. And the answers were not adequate. So, for me, the genie was "out of the bottle".
I agree that Tkach "did us a favor" in one sense. But in another sense, Tkach did a very unethical and dishonorable thing. He was in a position of having complete, dictatorial power over a church with a certain set of doctrines. When his beliefs changed to mainstrem beliefs, the ethical thing would have been for him to resign from WCG and join a church that reflected his new beliefs. He did not. Instead, he imposed his beliefs on the entire WCG, forcing all the true believers to leave while he stayed. Then he sold off all the assets, which were the fruits of many years' accumulated efforts of the true believers, and used the proceeds to pay himself and his loyalists large salaries. That was unethical and immoral.
Shame on us. HWA set up the church as a complete dictatorship and we went along. Then when the next guy took over, he used his dictatorial powers to take all we had.
Still, I'm conflicted. I detest Tkach for what he did. But, in one sense, his actions started me on the road to being cult-free. Hallelieujah!
The Skeptic
Sorry Skeptic,
You make it seem as if Joe Tkach did it all by himself. He didn't. And the job of a leader is to lead, not to resign. Sometimes the paths that one must go down seem dangerous or unpleasant. That doesn't make them unnecessary.
And to Russell, of course belief in God, His existence and power, is eminently logical! Everything I said is true. People like you are the very reason that I avoid the evidentiary debates over theism/atheism. The theism/atheism debate is generally based on false assumptions about God, and therefore can never be resolved.
"...the job of a leader is to lead, not to resign. Sometimes the paths that one must go down seem dangerous or unpleasant. That doesn't make them unnecessary."
I bet they say that about Robert Mugabe too!
"The theism/atheism debate is generally based on false assumptions about God, and therefore can never be resolved.."
No they aren't. They are based on the question of the existence of God, not assumptions about him or her. And since Christians can never provide any proof for god, the issue is resloved. Except in the minds of Christians.
The Apostate Paul
Larry:
There is no scientific or physical evidence for God. Thus any belief in God is not based on logic or any kind of scientific fact. Period. There is no room for discussion on this point, there is no waffling, and there is no wiggle room. That is simple fact. The fact that you are claiming otherwise speaks volumes.
There is no scientific or physical evidence for God. Thus any belief in God is not based on logic or any kind of scientific fact.It is very logical to conclude that there is a God. What you are seeking is scientific proof. You don't need scientific proof in order to employ logic.
You see, Russell and Paul, you are both dead wrong. You are ignoring a basic axiom of forensic and scientific investigation:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
You are both operating under the "assumption" that proof of God's existence should be findable if He exists. Well, since when? And, who says?
Suppose, for the sake of argument, God doesn't WANT His existence to be provable scientifically? I can certainly understand why. That would negate the necessity for faith.
The simple fact is: the issue is far from resolved.
Only in your mind, Larry.
larry said . . .
Suppose, for the sake of argument, God doesn't WANT His existence to be provable scientifically? I can certainly understand why. That would negate the necessity for faith.----------------------------
It would also negate the necessity of having a human priest, preacher, minister etc. picking your pocket to preach the gospel.
The Bible says Abraham had faith in the promise but then Abraham was spoken directly to by God. So, he didn't have to have faith in God's existence, did he?
But then, we don't even know if God spoke to Abraham at all, do we? No, we only have the writer and composer of Genesis' word on it.
So, Larry, it boils down to you having faith in the MEN who wrote the book and that's all.
"You see, Russell and Paul, you are both dead wrong. You are ignoring a basic axiom of forensic and scientific investigation:"
Forensic and scientific? I didn't know there were two types of investigation. However, this is a good idea- perhaps we can call "proof for God" and Creationism/Intelligent Design as
"spiritual investigation." It has its own rules. No evidence neccessary.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
I agree. Therefore, leprechauns exist. Really. Prove me wrong. No really- explain how this does not apply to the existence of leprechauns. If no evidence of your god can be found, yet this doesn't disprove the existence of your god, then can't we say the same about leprechauns? We can't provide any evidence, yet according to you, this doesn't mean that they don't exist.
"You are both operating under the "assumption" that proof of God's existence should be findable if He exists. Well, since when? And, who says?"
Well, that's the way reality works. Or would you be completely fine with your bank refusing to provide you with concrete proof that you were a million dollars over-drawn in your account?? Or would you have no qualms about swallowing plutonium radiated cow dung if the doctors assured you that it would cure cancer- without any evidence to support it? Would you buy a new car without taking a look at it, perhaps even a test drive? Would you?
Probably, yes.
"Suppose, for the sake of argument, God doesn't WANT His existence to be provable scientifically?"
So...he will kill us if we dont' believe in his existence yet he refuses to provide us with ANY evidence that he does exist. Scary. Sounds like he is hankering for some killin.
"The simple fact is: the issue is far from resolved."
Just as the existence of Thor is resolved. Prove Thor doesn't exist, wanker! Feel his hammer! My imaginary being will reduce your imaginary being to a whimpering sexual plaything! Prove me wrong!
Ha Ha!
The Apostate Paul
Reminds me of a Colin Mochrie name:
"I'm ThorButNotComplaining"
How to File an IRS 501(c)(3) Complaint
If you believe a church is guilty of violations you can file a complaint with the IRS; go to: http://lds501c3.wordpress.com/2008/10/29/how-to-file-an-irs-501c3-complaint/
Churches who engage in political activism must be very careful in those activities. They could face losing their tax exempt status if they violate regulations! Section 501(c)(3) of US Code Title 26, which governs tax-exempt organizations, reads (emphasis added): (3) Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.
Paul said,
"So...he will kill us if we dont' believe in his existence yet he refuses to provide us with ANY evidence that he does exist. Scary. Sounds like he is hankering for some killin."
WHOOAAAA!!! Where did you ever that idea? God is always completely fair. He is not going to hold anyone responsible for knowing something that they didn't or were not allowed to know. That is a human idea, not God's.
Jesus Christ (while He was dying on the cross, mind you) asked His Father to forgive the very people who were murdering Him. And these people probably should have known who He was and what they were doing. God is NOT terrorist, He is above all things, merciful and kind.
Apparently, there is just way too much misinformation out there.
And Russell, MY mind is very sharp. Thank you.
Guess that's another thing that there's no evidence for, so I have to take on faith, Larry. :-)
This is a response and criticism to ExAndriod (Sat. 9:50am). I know my response will not be perfect, but I feel compelled to say my piece in regards to that comment. I do not wish to be malicious but I feel compelled to respond.
Before I begin my criticism I first of all I wish to say that I am glad you are now out of Armstrongism and hope that all is well. I hope that your healing is going well and that you are happy. I am very sorry that those evil men took advantage of you. You, and just about everyone else, here were caught in the whirlpool of Armstrongism far more severely than I was so I can barely imagine what it must have been like to have been caught up in such a terribly abusive system as you have been. But despite such facts I will say my criticism.
My main purpose in the blogosphere is to tell the truth as I know it about Armstrongism. But I just have to respond here to that previous response.
And now here's my criticism:
"In fact, we are all born as atheists. That is, we are born lacking belief in any gods. It isn't a system or a faith."
This is a false analogy. We are also born not knowing that the earth is round, or why the sky is blue, or what science is. Is that natural? I am sorry to say it but this is a false analogy. This is not a good argument for your position I am afraid.
There is a complete difference between not knowing whether there is a God or not, or actively deciding to embrace the position of atheism and to actively reject any contrary position. These are different things.
"To have a religion while growing up one must be indoctrinated by parents, teachers, other kids who were indoctrinated, etc."
So atheism is natural? It is as natural as reading. One be taught how to read. One must also be taught how to actively embrace the position of atheism, which is not to be confused with a child's ignorance. Those are two different things.
There, I have said my piece. To end on a positive note I just would like to say that I wish you all the best for everything.
PT Editor James got all bent out of shape when someone wrote:
"Turn off Rush Limbaugh, stop taking the Oxycontin, open the windows, and look around you. God is not a Republican."
Minister of Propaganda Rush Limbaugh is to the Imperialist Republicans as Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels was to the Nazi Party.
Rush Limbaugh lies, totally mocks, invents, and distorts at every opportunity, to make the Imperialist Cheney Torture Party look dandy.
So, you are saying that mentioning the facts that Rush Limbaugh is on drugs to make him feel chipper while propagandizing, or on drugs to make him feel like he has a real fun penis, is off limits?
Oh, well. I'm sure, just as there were many who believed and defended Joseph Goebbels, many today stand up for and defend his modern incarnation, Rush Limbaugh.
RedFox712, I'm glad that you were able to point out the falseness of that analogy. Actually, all of us are born knowing nothing at all, yet how many of us would consider that to be the natural state?
Genesis 1 was never seriously called into question by thinking people in the Judeo-Christian world until Darwin advanced his theory of natural selection. Since Darwin, atheists and other non-believers have been taking great solace in alternative explanations for what we see around us, explanations which do not involve God.
That they are able to do this is due partly to the fact that Darwinian evolution seems so logical, and so plausable. It is only when the mathematicians, specifically the branch which concerns itself with probability, "countercheck" Darwinism that it begins to fall apart. In fact, these statisticians often have serious scientists speculating as to whether the first original and simplest of life forms came from outer space.
The universe is thought to be between 13 and 15 billion years old. The earth, possibly 4 billion. Yet the first fossils containing life forms appear approximately 3.8 billion years ago.
Scientists postulate that amino acids, jolted by some form of catalyst, formed spontaneously generated protein chains, giving rise to the first primitive life forms. Darwin did not treat this topic. He assumed simple life, and sought to explain how the life forms as we know them sprang from the original simple forms.
Dr. Gerald Schroeder, astrophysicist, informs us that it is not plausible that the requisite simple life forms arose by chance. There are 20 different types of amino acids used in forming proteins. The probability of accidentally duplicating the required two identical protein chains, each with 100 amino acids is 1 chance in twenty to the 100th power. This becomes problematic when we realize that there have been less than 10 to the 18th power seconds in the 15 billion years since the Big Bang.
To develop a single protein by chance, we would need 10 to the 110th power trials to have been completed each second since the start of time. The feed stock for the reactions would require 10 to the 90th power grams of carbon, yet the entire mass of the Earth (including not just carbon, but all elements) is only 6 x 10 to the 27th power grams. The entire mass of the universe could not provide feed stock necessary for these trials.
Clearly, chance could not have been the driving force which produced the basic proteins in bacteria and human life! And, this is just the first in a sequence of many improbable events which would have been required to produce life as we know it today.
Probability would seem to indicate that an initiator, or guider of the process was required. If that is true, a person would need to decide who or what that guide might have been, and what he, she, or it requires of us, if anything.
I'm sure our buddy Paul Ray would choose a leprechaun or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but I'm comfortable with the God of the Bible, myself.
BB
redfox712 said that I was using a false analogy. He said it twice. And he is wrong twice.
He's reading into it to frame an argument he wants to attack. He is right in that his response is not perfect.
Well, I said nothing about using any analogy. If he disagrees, he should just say so as an opinion. It isn't kind to put words into the mouth of the one you are debating.
Again, we are all born atheists. It is our natural mental state. One doesn't have to embrace atheism as an act of will. There are many people who have no belief in any of the gods. That is just the way they grew up. Some just feel that is the more logical position. Some don't ever give it a thought so they are atheist by default.
So, in my post I was born an atheist. I adopted a form of theism to aid my loss of a parent.
I made a big mistake.
After I left the WCG I studied the arguments against theism and decided the arguments trumped theism. So now I am once again an atheist as I was born but now I actively embrace it. I made a conscious and critical decision to do so. I still have no belief in any of the gods but it is now a considered position.
Yes, the child must grow up to be taught many things. He can grow up to believe in many foolish things as well as many wise and life-enriching things. Growing up to be indoctrinated in many of the absurdities of religion is quite sad.
Well spotted Gavin.
This is a very insightful comment.
BykerBob, write this down while you're at it:
-------------------------------
The basic timeline is a 4.54 billion year old Earth, with (very approximate) dates:
3.8 billion years of simple cells (prokaryotes),
3 billion years of photosynthesis,
2 billion years of complex cells (eukaryotes),
1 billion years of multicellular life,
600 million years of simple animals,
570 million years of arthropods (ancestors of insects, arachnids and crustaceans),
550 million years of complex animals,
500 million years of fish and proto-amphibians,
475 million years of land plants,
400 million years of insects and seeds,
360 million years of amphibians,
300 million years of reptiles,
200 million years of mammals,
150 million years of birds,
130 million years of flowers,
65 million years since the non-avian dinosaurs died out,
2.5 million years since the appearance of the genus Homo,
200,000 years since humans started looking like they do today
Russell Miller said...
Guess that's another thing that there's no evidence for, so I have to take on faith, Larry. :-)
Now, by gawd, that's funny there!
redfox712 said...
So atheism is natural? It is as natural as reading.------------------------------
Reading is not natural, it has to be learned.
We are all born with no knowledge of gods and fairytales, that's natural.
We learn about those things later, therefore, they are not "natural" but learned.
ExAndroid said...
redfox712 said that I was using a false analogy. He said it twice. And he is wrong twice.------------------------------
Absolutely. Both redfox and BB are confusing "natural" unlearned innocence with "ignorance".
They are wanting to say a person is born ignorant. I'm wondering if they even know the meaning of that word.
A person is born not believing in gods (atheist), because they certainly aren't born believing in gods (theist).
Nobody is born with knowledge of gods and fairytales, they learn those things later - it is not necessary to learn what you are born with - no knowledge of gods.
Russell and Corky,
You guys are a bundle of laughs! I guess I lack your sense of humor.
I will just have to remain content with being at the top of the evolutionary tree.
My pen landed in a particular location, at a particular angle.
To get my pen to drop in that exact location by chance, "we would need 10 to the 110th power trials to have been completed each second since the start of time."
Wow!
My pen is super-amazing.
And to think that I thought I *only* just dropped my pen!
Corky,
I have no problem with the historical figures you have provided. At first glance, they appear consistent with the information which my own studies have provided.
What I am saying, is that if Darwinian evolution is counterchecked by mathematicians skilled in probability studies, probability is against the events you have listed happening simply as a result of random circumstances acting in accordance with the laws of nature.
This is why some prominent paleontologists have speculated that life on planet earth would need to have been "seeded" from extraterrestrial sources.
Also, scientists who are professing atheists and agnostics freely admit that any sort of major missing links for which science has been instructed to look for the past 150 years have not materialized.
I do believe in evolution, myself, not just the Darwinian variety. I also believe in the Big Bang. It just seems very obvious that both processes had some external guidance along the way, if you catch my drift.
BB
"Also, scientists who are professing atheists and agnostics freely admit that any sort of major missing links for which science has been instructed to look for the past 150 years have not materialized."
Ida.Go ahead, Bob, get your preachin' hat on. I didn't let your propagandizing comment through on ISA so, here, plug those two ID apologetics tomes you've been "reading" here.
Pen Dropper:
With those odds, you didn't even take care of the bacteria!
But, humor me. Now drop your bong, an egg, your mom's false teeth, a condom, the KJV Bible, your entire chess set, a teaspoon of salt, a firecracker, your grandfather's 1960 Buick, the collated stack of papers representing your brother's doctoral thesis, and anything else you can think of which could be made to land in the most unlikely position. In fact, spent the next 50 years of your life doing so! Throw a bunch of surplus airplane parts into the wind, and see if they assemble themselves into a 747Jumbo Jet!
Even if all of these things land in exactly the correct preplanned spot, you haven't even begun to approximate the odds against everything you see around you having happened purely by accident.
It's not just one incredible accident we are trying to explain away here, but thousands and thousands of them, all in the proper sequence.
BB
BB, what you may not realize is that you just threw out the first three chapters of the bible, which ruins the rest of the salvation story.
The "missing links" thing. Everytime a missing link is found, and many have been, it creates two more gaps that you want to be filled also.
That's never going to happen with every living thing (so far only the horse and man) because not all living things left any fossils.
There is certainly no reason to think that it was a "guided" evolution - too many extinctions. There are more extinct species than there are living species today. Why were the extinct species "created" by evolution? Just for God's entertainment at watching them all die?
I didn't throw anything out, Corky. So, no, you didn't trip me up. But, I can see where you could make that type of remark about the stereotypical straw man Christian that you guys use as your model to ridicule.
I happen to believe that some form of the evolutionary process is every bit as much a part of the God ordained laws of the universe as are the laws of physics. I also believe that when God was sure that the earth was ready for mankind, He created Adam and Eve, and they broke the one commandment, and fell. So, the Bible is still safe for mankind.
BB
Oh, Aggie! You have such awesome power! I could just swoon!
BB
"I also believe that when God was sure that the earth was ready for mankind, He created Adam and Eve, and they broke the one commandment, and fell."
Well, it's an interesting personal mythology, to be sure, but woefully past its best before date. Original sin? Really Bob? You really are drinking the Kool-Aid.....
"I also believe that when God was sure that the earth was ready for mankind, He created Adam and Eve, and they broke the one commandment, and fell."
---------------------------------
Then you believe that Adam and Eve were created just 6,000 years ago and we all came from them?
What are you going to do about civilizations that are older than that and the fact that other humans have been on the planet for about 200,000 years?
According to the bible, death was inherited from Adam's death sentence and death did not exist before Adam sinned.
If you can believe the original sin doctrine, and it is biblical, then you have left yourself open to believe everything else in the bible is literal.
If you think Genesis 1-11 is allegorical only, as some Christians do, then there is no way to understand it and you can make up what it means as you go along.
However, Jesus and the apostles believed it was literal.
BykerBob saith . . .
Throw a bunch of surplus airplane parts into the wind, and see if they assemble themselves into a 747Jumbo Jet!
----------------------------------
If you knew anything about evolution and Abiogenesis, you would also know that life on this planet is not by such an impossible "chance" like what you describe.
To those of us who know better, it's an insult to repeat such creationist drivel.
Corky,
You might be relying on stereotypes as your main resource for evaluating my beliefs. Or, it is also possible that you are attempting to make the Bible, and belief in God and Jesus Christ appear as ridiculous as possible.
I believe that God did literally create Adam and Eve, and that they were the first "God conscious" beings, the first beings who were capable of spiritual death, or eternal separation from God. It seems ridiculous believe that the Bible meant that they were the first beings capable of physical death, because we have the fossil evidence of the prehistoric species, evidence which an all-knowing God would know in advance that humans would eventually discover.
The Genesis account was written in such a timeless manner that pre-twentieth century humans could have a basic outline of the creation process, and could understand how they had come to be in existence. In the twenty-first century, we have some choices that the primitives did not enjoy. We can use science to fill in the blanks, expand upon the Genesis record, and have a greater understanding of God. Or we can use science to convince ourselves that everything we see around us happened by chance, without a God.
While I hate to get crude about this, I believe that generally people base their belief or non-belief on the things which they would like to do with their penises and vaginas. That has not changed much throughout history, as it dates clear back to the pre-captivity Israelites, when worshipping Asherah, the fertility goddess, meant participating in ritual prostitution or orgies as part of the services. God's set apart people were commanded to be chaste.
BB
I think you need to read your bible there, BB, especially Romans 5:12.
"While I hate to get crude about this, I believe that generally people base their belief or non-belief on the things which they would like to do with their penises and vaginas."
That is absolutely disgusting, and a vile untruth, Bob.
Romans 5:12-14:
"12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come."
The Gospel of Philip:
"Truth didn't come into the world naked but in types and images. Truth is received only that way."
Can't get much clearer than that, for an exhortation on the allegorical interpretation of the scriptures.
Purple Hymnal said...
"While I hate to get crude about this, I believe that generally people base their belief or non-belief on the things which they would like to do with their penises and vaginas."
That is absolutely disgusting, and a vile untruth, Bob.
---------------------------------
I think I have to agree with PH about that, Bob.
Actually, generally speaking, believers base their beliefs on their emotions and unbelievers base their beliefs on evidence.
Your desire to fornicate has nothing whatever to do with someone else's belief or disbelief in a god. So, speak for yourself because I think you are alone in this one.
Aggs,
I don't give any weight to any apocryphal gospels. I believe that the educated ones who were on the scene during that time in history were able to discern what was of value (inspired), and what belonged in their equivalent of the dumpster.
As far as the Romans scripture which you quoted goes, my understanding is closely linked with the Epistle to the Galatians. I believe that the law was fulfilled, or done away with by the work which Jesus Christ did on the Cross at Calvary. I believe that the laws which Father God wants for the New Covenant are written in our hearts.
We have a lot of fascinating Bible studies over at WCG Alumni Forum. There is a special Bible Folder there. We have discussed this topic within the last several months. Check it out, if you are interested.
BB
Corks,
Understanding evolution is only half of what is necessary to have faith in your atheist religion. Cross checking it with math provides the other half. The case for evolution is not as strong amongst the plant kingdom, or the simplest of life forms as it appears to be for animals.
Scientists have attempted to generate life in test tubes since the Stanley Miller experiments of 1953, who combined amino acids. So far, their results have been far from life. IOW, no abiogenesis.
Darwinian evolution is based on mutation (which is technically an error in the reproductive code and generally produces inferior offspring), and random selection, or survival of the fittest. Most of the man on the street type evotionists whom I've met have so much faith in these processes and probability that they view them as being nearly akin to the very careful and short term process which gave us Santa Gertrudis cattle.
BB
"Understanding evolution is only half of what is necessary to have faith in your atheist religion."
Do you require faith to disbelieve in leprechauns?Do you view your lack of belief in Thor as a religion in itself?
"Cross checking it with math provides the other half. "
What math? Math disputes the fossil record? Interesting. Please explain.
"The case for evolution is not as strong amongst the plant kingdom, or the simplest of life forms as it appears to be for animals."
For the sake of argument, let's all pretend that you are right (which I don't think you are); so what? What is your point?
"Scientists have attempted to generate life in test tubes since the Stanley Miller experiments of 1953, who combined amino acids. So far, their results have been far from life. IOW, no abiogenesis."
Oh Zeus, give me patience. Sigh.
MIller did not combine amino acids. He mixed water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen and added heat and a bit of electricity and voila- organic compounds formed, but more importantly, amino acids- the building blocks of proteins. No divine hand necessary. Later experiments by others, using ammonia and hydrogen cyanide, produced adenine, a DNA nucleotide.
Secondly, "life," according to abiogenesis, is nothing more than self-replicating molecules and very primitive "cells." As I have posted on Corky's blog before (which I assume you read), science has reproduced these events. Simple compounds forming higher order/complex molecules. Self replicating molecules. Self assembling membraneous vesicles. All in the test tube, so to speak. It doesn't prove abiogenesis happened, but it does prove that it CAN happen. Unlike Kreationis/ID.
"Darwinian evolution is based on mutation (which is technically an error in the reproductive code and generally produces inferior offspring), and random selection, or survival of the fittest."
Can you provide any evidence to support the claim that mutations "generally" produces inferior offspring? Where did you pull that one from? Did you just make it up?
Random selection? Did you make that up? It's natural selection and it isn't random. And it's not survival of the fittest.
"Most of the man on the street type evotionists whom I've met have so much faith in these processes..."
You don't have to have faith in these processes (which you have managed to mangle almost beyond recognition); you can watch them in action.
The Apostate Paul
"While I hate to get crude about this, I believe that generally people base their belief or non-belief on the things which they would like to do with their penises and vaginas."
Welcome to Stupid Country.
Care to back that little gem with a bit of evidence?
Think about it, Bob. If one "disbelieves" in God for the purpose of sex, then that person obviously believes that they need to escape the condemnation and pusnishment of God, right? Which means they believe in God, Bob. Follow me? I mean what's the point? Pretending God doesn't exist so you can escape God's punishment, a punishment which believe will happen? That's stupid. No Bob, what people do is believe in God and do what they want to anyway. Most people who don't believe in God DON"T BELIEVE in God. Sex isn't a factor in belief because they DON"T BELIEVE in the first place.
Sigh. I mean, let's say Joe wants to indulge in gay sex. If Joe believes in God and sin and all that, then he is in a pickle. He has three choices:
1) Don't indulge in gay sex cause God will kill him.
2) Indulge in gay sex and hope God won't kill him, or make up a new sanitized version of God.
3) Reject God; not disbelieve in God, but refuse to follow his Big Rules
Atheism isn't an option because Joe OBVIOUSLY BELIEVES in God since his plan to have gay sex is coinciding with a decision about God. And Joe knows that pretending to be an atheist so he can have hot gay sex isn't going to change the fact that God will punish him. In fact, he will be worse off- having hot gay sex and not believing!
I mean, here's Joe:
"Hmmm. Want gay sex. God sez no. Hmmmm. I know! I'll stop believing in God, and that way, he won't exist anymore, and I can have hot gay sex without fear of punishment! Joe, you are one smart dude!"
Bob has not only entered Stupid Country, but has planted his flag and begun work on a cabin.
The Apostate Paul
So not only do you neither amend nor apologize for your vile and disgusting untruth about unbelievers, that has disquieted at least two vocal members of this board, you then put the icing on the cake with an altar call for that festering cess-pit of intolerance, closed-mindedness, and sheer WTFery?
What universe are you in, Bob? I want to make sure the TARDIS has it listed firmly under Do Not Want.
BB, I don't see how you could have so much wrong in so short a message.
I think you are pulling my leg, yankin' my chain, joking. Quit it.
Paul "Apostate" Ray":
Regardless of your contentions, experiments in abiogenesis have never moved forward from the monomer stage. No polymers, no RNA, just a bunch of as yet unproven theories as to how this might occur. I'll keep watching the news at 5, though.
How would you address a quotation such as this? "At each step as we go from simple to more complex compounds, we are in a sense swimming upstream in the flow of entropy. The result is that the likelihood of the disintegration of a newly formed organic compound is much greater than the likelihood of its formation"
Also, math = probability. It's a blind test, or check point of the theory, and applies to the theory. Unless you believe that the fossil record is equal to the theory. You seem to equate the two.
There is no question that a fossil record exists, and although it is what it is, researchers and theorists have had the option of organizing collections of specimens for presentation in various ways, each of which have had specific implications, or leave implied or intended impressions on those who view them. Still, regardless as to how the record is organized, it is missing many of the critical intermediate stage examples which would substantiate Darwin's theory. People have been trained to look or anticipate these for the past 150 years. Do you have, or know of a specific example of a gradual, or slow evolution of a new species from one that predates it? I mean one with real fossils, and not hypotheticals filling critical gaps? You'd expect that there would be at least one with a nearly complete set.
What would cause serious (Nobel prize-winning) scientists to theorize that life started somewhere in outer space, and was somehow transported here? Sounds as if there is still incredible cause for uncertainty in the scientific community.
Random=accidental. Natural selection implies a system working with the guidance of the laws of the universe, seemingly intelligently designed. Where did these laws come from? Did they also evolve? If you have faith that they were already there, then how would that be different from my faith that God was already there. To me, Planet Earth seems to be an island of exception to the laws of entropy.
Lastly, by way of personal observation, why do you always have such an angry tone to your posts? I thought science was supposed to be dispassionate, and follow an evidentiary trail.
BB
Aggie,
There is certainly nothing offensive about male and female reproductive organs, or applying a little of ol' Siggie to human spirituality. But, alas, maybe you prefer Jung. In any case, I have no plans to apologize. We all have our personal standards, and on my scale of relative offensiveness, blasphemy would be vastly more offensive.
BB
"I don't give any weight to any apocryphal gospels. I believe that the educated ones who were on the scene during that time in history were able to discern what was of value (inspired), and what belonged in their equivalent of the dumpster."
Really? Then why were the votes so close in many cases? "Revelation" barely squeaked into "scripture". "The Didache" and "The Shepard of Hermas" lost out by the narrowest of margins. The oldest complete bibles in existence, the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus, consist of a set of books that is mostly the same as today's bible but different by a few books. Why do you think that is?
It seems you make several convenient assumptions to justify your chosen belief system. You're putting total faith in a group of people you don't even know. You call them "the educated ones who were on the scene during that time". Right, that inspires confidence. Better to call them "those in high religious positions at the time who had much self-interest to preserve". We have no idea how educated they were, nor in most cases who they were, nor what their interests were.
Also, several "Apocryphal" books are in the Catholic bible but not the Protestant bible. What say you of that? Who's right?
The fact is, if you were to show a group of experts in ancient cultures ten religious writings from the same era, five of which are currently considered "scripture" and five of which aren't, these experts would not be able to tell you which five were "scripture". There is just no qualitative difference between them.
This should come as no surprise. At the time the New Testament was written, the votes had not yet been taken as to what was scripture and what was not. There was just a vague idea of what was scripture - the Torah was most honored, then the "Psalms", then the "Prophets". What books were included was rather nebulous. As a result, there are several instances in the New Testament of "scripture" being cited, but the quotes are from books that are not in today's bible. The gospel/epistle writers thought these books were scripture. A couple hundred years later, the voters thought otherwise.
Go figure.
The Skeptic
Okay Bob, Science doesn't know everything down to the last detail and is always discovering new things. Science doesn't know all the answers (yet). However, in fact, answers are found faster than an individual can keep up with and understand them at the same time.
On the other hand, Religion has all the answers - God did it.
About 75% of people in the US are satisfied with that answer.
Thankfully, not all are satisfied with that answer, else we wouldn't know a lot of stuff today that we didn't know a couple of hundred years ago.
How can one know if something is true or not? Truth is falsifiable. Just as science is falsifiable, history is falsifiable, math is falsifiable etc.
God, on the other hand, is not falsifiable, a religion itself is not falsifiable. Fairies or ghosts or anything else that does not exist are falsifiable. That's what makes them not real, non-existent, faith etc.
The Bible, the only source for knowledge of your God, can be falsified - and has been - and that's why a real atheist cannot return to the fairy tales contained therein.
So, when you preach about your beliefs and ignore facts to the contrary - what shall we think of you and your beliefs?
The western world has advanced too far to ever go back to "the dark ages" - unless, of course, Islam really does take over the world like the Muslims intend to do. Then you'll be happy, I suppose. But no, you'll want your freedom from that religion, won't you?
You were free of it at one time, so you say, but evidently not. Atheist don't mean to offend you or your beliefs, we just don't want to be preached to anymore. Especially about things we know are not true.
"Lastly, by way of personal observation, why do you always have such an angry tone to your posts? I thought science was supposed to be dispassionate, and follow an evidentiary trail. "
"Byker" Bob- when I infer that you are a foolish, intellectually dishonest git who lives in Stupid Country, I'm not angry (exasperated, perhaps, at your intellectual laziness); I am making a dispassionate observation, after having reviewed the evidence.
Stay tuned at 11.
The Apostate Paul
(who regularly uses his real name, Paul Ray so there should be no surprise...I've never tried to hide anything, "Byker" Bob)
Indulge me in one more synopsis. As I've stated elsewhere, I happen to be one of the Christians who believes that evolution is one of God's tools.
In a court of law, reasonable doubt is very important. I believe that there is enough reasonable doubt in what has been outlined here previously to where many logically thinking and totally sane people would make allowance for God:
1) Mathematicians inform us that the sequence of events which led to human life is beyond reasonable probability. Yet, we know life exists, not by just one single defiance of this probability, but due to a plethora of them.
2) When we examine the fossil record, and plot it against the presumed time in which species developed, there is a phenomenon known as "punctuated equillibrium". This means that early development of species involved many relatively quick changes following first appearance, with the species then experiencing very minimal change for millions or billions of years following. In other words, on the species level, the evolutionary process started quickly, and then remained stable. Evolution did not happen at a fixed rate, as one would assume if it were an unguided process. Could something have provided this jump-start?
3) The universe around us is moving to a condition of entropy. The earth would seem to be an island of exception to this general rule. Life on earth appears to be adequately sustained by the narrow, finely tuned band of conditions on the planet, and capable of regeneration.
4) The matter of the laws of physics. Non-believers never question where these laws came from. They believe that they always existed, just as I believe that God has always existed.
These four factors, and there are probably more, constitute reasonable doubt that the creation process could have taken place without outside assistance or guidance from a Creator.
BB
“Regardless of your contentions, experiments in abiogenesis have never moved forward from the monomer stage. No polymers, no RNA, just a bunch of as yet unproven theories as to how this might occur. I'll keep watching the news at 5, though.”
I. In the sixties it was proposed that RNA, or a primitive version of RNA, may have played a large role in abiogenesis. In 1986 it was discovered that RNA just didn’t serve as a go-between for DNA and protein synthesis, but actually had enzymatic activity. Pretty cool, considering RNA is just a string of ribonucleotides. They found that it could cleave bonds and that ribosomal RNA could splice itself. This was illuminating because it strengthened the RNA theory- RNA could have served as the informational code but since it could cleave and splice exons from itself, it could hypothetically replicate on its own, too. And this could lead, eventually, to primitive protein synthesis. At least this was the theory.
(Nature, Vol. 319 Feb. 20, 1986 “The RNA World”)
The Apostate Paul
II. But so what? Just a theory, and completely unsubstantiated- at least in 1986. But over the last “40 years” as you put it, progress has been made to back up this theory with hard evidence.
In February of this year, a paper was released (Science, Vol. 323 Feb. 2009 “Self-Sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme”) which showed that strands of RNA could self-replicate, producing copies of each other in the absence of “proteins or other biological material.” These are just strands of ribonucleotides, yet they have the ability to self-replicate. Pretty amazing. This proves that RNA can self-replicate- something that many people laughed at when it was hypothesized way back when.
The Apostate Paul
But so what? Just a theory, and completely unsubstantiated- at least in 1986. But over the last “40 years” as you put it, progress has been made to back up this theory with hard evidence.
In February of this year, a paper was released (Science, Vol. 323 Feb. 2009 “Self-Sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme”) which showed that strands of RNA could self-replicate, producing copies of each other in the absence of “proteins or other biological material.” These are just strands of ribonucleotides, yet they have the ability to self-replicate. Pretty amazing. This proves that RNA can self-replicate- something that many people laughed at when it was hypothesized way back when.
But so what? Those strands of RNA were synthesized in the lab. Still doesn’t prove anything unless somebody can show that RNA ribonucleotides can self assemble into an RNA strand. Simply put, can an RNA strand assemble itself??
This was demonstrated in 1973 and 1996. These two papers show that activated RNA ribonucleotides can POLYMERIZE to form RNA.
(Nature Vol. 381 1996 “Synthesis of long pre-biotic oligomers on mineral surfaces.”/J. Mol. Evol. Vol. 2 1973 “Catalysts for the self polymerization of adenosine cyclic 2’3’-phosphate.”)
Now what was that you said??
“No polymers, no RNA, just a bunch of as yet unproven theories as to how this might occur…”
Yes. Anyway. Well, again, so what, the un-impressed may say- we’ve watched as “unliving” molecules assemble themselves into RNA, and we’ve seen this “unliving” RNA self-replicate itself. But where do the ribonucleotides come from? Can the RNA “bases,” so to speak, assemble themselves?? Good question. Until earlier this month, the answer would have been no.
In the May 14 issue of Nature (Nature Vol. 459 May 14, 2009 “Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions”) it was demonstrated that mixing compounds that have been previously theorized to have existed in the much ridiculed “prebiotic soup,” such as inorganic phosphate and cyanamide and others, ribonucleotides spontaneously formed (among many other complex molecules).
So, let’s review. RNA ribonucleotides can spontaneously assemble. RNA ribonucleotides can spontaneously POLYMERIZE to form RNA. RNA strands can self-replicate.
That’s incredible. And it validates the outlandish theory of 1986’s “The RNA World. This doesn’t say that abiogenesis happened, but that it can happen- the mechanism hypothesized long ago is a fact now. And now that we know that it can happen, this lends weight to whether abiogenesis could have happened (Kreationism hasn’t even left the starting gate- it’s still trying to prove that the RNA (God) even exists).
Your last post contained some real gobstoppers (you still haven’t clarified the mutation mess) but this takes the cake. Bob, did you read this off of a Kreatard website, or did you make it up?? Do you know how to use Google? I found all this by using Google in about an hour. I don’t understand how you can make these claims without investigating them a bit first. Unless you read it off a Kreationist website and trusted them.
So here are three courses of action for Bob the Kreationist (or ID or God Evolutionist- all the same, really):
1) Bob will ignore this entire post and points made and bring up another refuted Kreationist criticism.
2) Bob will acknowledge this post but will basically say that it doesn’t prove, or mean, a thing.
3) Bob will apologize to himself for being intellectually lazy and hopefully learn from this little experience.
The Apostate Paul
”How would you address a quotation such as this? "At each step as we go from simple to more complex compounds, we are in a sense swimming upstream in the flow of entropy. The result is that the likelihood of the disintegration of a newly formed organic compound is much greater than the likelihood of its formation"”
I’ll let these gentlemen address it, as it has been addressed and addressed and addressed over and over and over and over:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html
“Also, math = probability. It's a blind test, or check point of the theory, and applies to the theory. Unless you believe that the fossil record is equal to the theory. You seem to equate the two.”
The fossil record is evidence that supports the theory. How does math fit in? The fossil record shows that evolution happened. How does probability fit in?
“There is no question that a fossil record exists…”
In other words, the fossil record in the context of supporting evolution is just a bunch of Darwinists arranging a bunch of fossils to support their biased, pre-conceived view. In other words, a slight conspiracy? I used the think the same. But it is not simply looking at some skeletons and arranging them based on imagined similarities to other skeletons. It’s so much more complex. Donald R. Prothero’s book, “Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters” is excellent in that not only does it show how the fossil record supports evolution, but explains how fossils are formed, answers criticisms and misconceptions about the fossil record, and explains why the fossil of something that looks like a small horse is an ancestor of a primitive whale.
“Do you have, or know of a specific example of a gradual, or slow evolution of a new species from one that predates it? I mean one with real fossils, and not hypotheticals filling critical gaps? You'd expect that there would be at least one with a nearly complete set.”
I have, and know. Read Prothero. But you won’t will you? Because you aren’t really asking for evidence, you aren’t searching for the truth. You could care less about what the fossil record really shows.
”What would cause serious (Nobel prize-winning) scientists to theorize that life started somewhere in outer space, and was somehow transported here? Sounds as if there is still incredible cause for uncertainty in the scientific community.”
Number one, I don’t know. I’m not one of them- besides not winning a Nobel.
Number two, there is uncertainty in every aspect of science, from chemistry to physics to molecular biology. It’s called “We don’t know everything and that is why we are doing science in the first place.” It’s science, Bob.
According to your logic, I should view the cell with suspicion because we don’t know everything about the cell. Maybe the cell is just a Darwinian conspiracy!
”Random=accidental. Natural selection implies a system working with the guidance of the laws of the universe, seemingly intelligently designed. “
Says who? Seemingly? You do have a bad habit of making incredibly unsubstantiated statements.
“Where did these laws come from? Did they also evolve? If you have faith that they were already there, then how would that be different from my faith that God was already there. To me, Planet Earth seems to be an island of exception to the laws of entropy.”
You believe that if your god hadn’t created gravity, we’d all be floating around in space??? Bob, I just sometimes shake my head at the things you say.
The Apostate Paul
I'm currently reading a book entitled "The Ascent of Man" by J. Bronowski. This is an excellent book that chronicles the progress of man throughout history. I would recommend it to all, as pleasurable, informative reading. The book is very much "mainstream" and is not controversial - it's basically the accepted consensus views of scientists, written in layman's terms.
The book is not focused on evolution but of course it touches on the subject of evolution. Darwin didn't get it 100% right, of course. He knew nothing of heredity, genetics and many other things that we have learned since he wrote. The book speaks of the opposition Darwin and Wallace faced at that time. The book's conclusion: "The theory of evolution is no longer a battleground. That is because the evidence for it is so much richer and more varied than it was in the days of Darwin and Wallace".
Is this proof? No. But it's the view of the scientific community. Is this new? No. The book was written in 1973. Evolution was a settled issue by then and still is.
There is plenty of proof out there. Is it simple enough to present in one post? Of course not. Evolution is not self-evident.
But neither is the heliocentric solar system. It is not self-evident that planet earth is moving at high speed and rotating at the same time. Why don't we fly off? Why, when we drop something, does it fall straight down? Nothing about this seems obvious. Yet we all accept it. All of these questions were raised when the theory first was posited, and all have been satisfactorily answered.
It's the same with evolution. Honestly, religionists, you're looking mighty silly on this one. Schoolchildren in this day and age learn about evolution by the 4th grade, and they get all these questions answered. It's just not a debatable issue, and hasn't been for at least 40 years.
The Skeptic
"Evolution was a settled issue by then and still is."
What many people do not realize is that evolution was accepted at the turn of the century- in Europe and America. It was the rise of fundamentalist christianity culminating in the Scopes trial that changed all that- after the Scopes trial, evolution in America took a backseat until many years later (the fifties, I think). Hell, even I grew up without evolution being taught. Like many, I thought evolution was some radical liberal heathen ideology that only gained acceptance in the last few decades. You know- some old crackpot idea from the 1800's that the liberal communists of the sixties had revived. Not true. Evolution was accepted prior to Scopes, and taught in American schools.
I received my undergrad degree in the South. My exposure to evolution was a 15 minute overview in biology class, with the teacher offering to show more evidence in her office (she wasn't stupid- she needed the job and so kept her mouth shut). I don't remember anything at all about evolution in high school.
I have had to study evolution on my own in the past two years. That shouldn't be.
The Apostate Paul
It seems that many are willing are all too willing to find and gush over some(however dubious) material that supports their viewpoint.
Want to believe that Jesus might have ridden a dinosaur?
NO PROBLEM! There's plenty of "scientific-sounding evidence" from the creationist propagandists for that one.
Want to believe that the Grand Canyon was formed in just a few days?
NO PROBLEM! There's plenty of "scientific-sounding evidence" from the creationist propagandists for that one, too.
Want to believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old?
NO PROBLEM! There's plenty of "scientific-sounding evidence" from the creationist propagandists for that one, as well.
Their arguments have grown more slick over time, in order to not appear as unreasonable as they are.
Of course, they also have less slick arguments like, "Feed your mother a bunch of aluminum and jet fuel and see if a jumbo jet comes flying out of her ass!"
As far as the "beyond reasonable probability" argument used, click here for an idea as to why that assertion doesn't hold up.
From that article:
"Now if we shuffle this deck of cards for a long time and then examine the particular ordering of the cards that happens to result, we would be justified in concluding that the probability of this particular ordering of the cards having occurred is approximately 1 chance in 10 to the 68th power. This certainly qualifies as minuscule.
Still, we would not be justified in concluding that the shuffles could not have possibly resulted in this particular ordering because its a priori probability is so very tiny. Some ordering had to result from the shuffling, and this one did.
Nor, of course, would we be justified in concluding that the whole process of moving from one ordering to another via shuffles is so wildly improbable as to be practically impossible.
The actual result of the shufflings will always have a minuscule probability of occurring, but, unless you're a creationist, that doesn't mean the process of obtaining the result is at all dubious."
"As I've stated elsewhere, I happen to be one of the Christians who believes that evolution is one of God's tools."
So in other words, you hold fast to exactly the same belief you held, when you were in the church.
Yeah, you've really escaped into "New Testament Christianity", there Bob.....
I'd like to amend one thing I said earlier - I really shouldn't have said "religionists" look silly on this issue. Most religious believers accept evolution. Certainly the Catholic Church and the mainstream Protestant Churches do not see a conflict between their faith and evolution. So, I apologize to the majority of christians. Only a small portion of christians, mostly in the U.S., actually look silly on this issue.
The Skeptic
"Their arguments have grown more slick over time, in order to not appear as unreasonable as they are."
They have been using the same arguments for decades- and those arguments have been debunked countless times. Yet they will continue to use the same old arguments for decades to come.
The Apostate Paul
"Only a small portion of christians, mostly in the U.S., actually look silly on this issue."
Yet this small portion has managed to skew the public perception of evolution to the point that we rank almost last in a poll of industrialized countries who accepted evolution. I think Corky also threw out a percentage of Americans who doubt evolution took place. This is pathetic. The only country that ranked lower than us in the poll was Turkey- which also has a vocal Kreationist (albiet Islamic) population.
The Apostate Paul
Seems like there's a lot of dust in the air. Jesus riding a dinosaur? Statements like that are just plain ignorant, and don't contribute to the discussion or debate. I don't pretend to know anyone from, or anything about the WCG or splinters these days, and haven't for over thirty years, but I seriously doubt that even those folks believe in young earth creationism. It's too easily debunked. Why even bring such things up, if nobody here has espoused them?
Let me restate my position. I believe in evolution. I believe that the universe is somewhere between 13 and 15 billion years old. I believe that the earth is more than 4 billion years old. And, I believe in evolution. I just happen to believe that it was a very guided process. We covered theistic evolution at AC in second year Bible, and the WCG's official position was that God used "gap theory" creationism, not any type of evolutionary process. Evolution was referred to as "Satan's counterfeit". So, my beliefs are neither in keeping with those of mainstream Christianity, nor old school WCG theology. They are also hardly original.
I have no intentions of running around chasing my tail, or responding to the barage of strawmen that people have set up. Anyone who retains half of what they read will realize that 95% of this barage doesn't apply to any posters on this site. There is no reason to respond to things of which one has been accused of believing, but in which one does not believe.
I will investigate the new information which Paul Ray has provided regarding the synthesis of rna in a test-tube, although that is still an intermediate step. Dna is far more complex, so it's still going to be necessary to watch the news at 5 for a while longer. And, something like an amoeba or hydra would be the next step following the synthesis of dna.
BB
"
Random=accidental. Natural selection implies a system working with the guidance of the laws of the universe, seemingly intelligently designed. Where did these laws come from? Did they also evolve? If you have faith that they were already there, then how would that be different from my faith that God was already there. To me, Planet Earth seems to be an island of exception to the laws of entropy."
Leave science to the big boys, bob. You have no idea what you're talking about.
The planet earth is not an exception to the laws of entropy. The laws of entropy state that any closed system will tend towards disorder. The solar system is a closed system - and there is a huge mass of hydrogen burning about 93 million miles away from us that is providing the power to allow all of these natural processes to occur. This closed system is indeed tending towards entropy, because the amount of energy needed to sustain the natural processes of earth is incredible. Eventually the sun will blow up and entropy will win.
The rest of your quasi-scientific prattle is just as uninformed. You have no idea what natural selection is either and are insisting on applying design to it, particularly when with your background as an agnostic you almost certainly know better. There are credible explanations for every step of the beginning of life, including the spontaneous emergence of amino acids from the primordial soup. We've had billions of years to evolve, and that's plenty of time. There is no need for a designer, and there is no need for design.
You also apparently don't understand the principles of E(8) symmetry, the symmetry breaking at the beginning of the universe and the emergence of physical laws based upon the reuption and cooling of the universe from a many-dimensional manifold, and you obviously certainly don't understand quantum theory nor how those physical laws actually emerged. That's OK, it's still being discovered, and the actual mechanisms behind it are a theory that has less evidence behind it than evolution does. But you don't understand even what's being discovered, and you wouldn't understand it even if you were capable of understanding it, because you choose not to.
Go back to the credulous and go on about all the "intelligent design" crap to people who will lap up your every word. But don't challenge the informed and certainly don't challenge scientists, because they will whoop your bike-calloused ass.
Anyone interested in reading a fascinating series of articles covering evolution from several different angles should get ahold of the January 2009 edition of Scientific American. Great stuff and fun reading!
The Skeptic
Bob,
"Guided Evolution" is probably the most reasonable position a religious person can take regarding this matter. I didn't realize that was your position until now.
You are mistaken, however, if you think "guided evolution belief is not in line with mainstream Christianity. Having been raised Catholic, I can tell you that "guided evolution" is exactly their belief. I would guess the same holds true for the mainstream Protestant groups.
The Skeptic
BykerBob, it seems you have misinterpreted my post. I was not saying that YOU believe in 'Young Earth Creationism'.
I brought up a few things that 'Young Earth Creationists' believe, as examples of which are the result of believing a certain way and using 'bad science' to back up those beliefs.
I believe it was relevant to bring up since what you are epousing also relies on improperly applied science.
As I stated, creationist propaganda has become more slick. Often, now it is comprised of arguments which are, at first glance, less "out there" than some of their other arguments. Yet, the propagandists' "proven by mathematics" assertion is simply another example of someone believing something and trying to shoehorn what is actually dubious scientific credibility (masquerading as reasonable scientific interpretation) into it.
Hey, believe what you want. But please be careful about calling those beliefs, "mathematically proven" when they are not.
To be fair, Christian Creationists are far from the only ones who try to pretend that their beliefs have properly applied science behind them. (I've seen it big time in the Nuage Movement, too, for example.)
Russell,
I've seen the latest science compared to the creation narrative in Genesis, and they reconcile quite well. I agree with the science right up to the point where scientists rule God as being an unneccessary part of the process. The only flaw that I've uncovered with regard to science, or the scientific method is that as a discipline, science has not developed to the point where it can detect God. It is now playing catch-up, processing the universe around us, determining how God accomplished everything.
BTW, to yourself, Paul, and several others: Why do you guys lace your information with verbal put-downs? I've always been taught that people who do that are taking the easy way out because they realize that they have a weak case. Even if you don't have a weak case, the personal putdowns make it appear weak.
BB
Byker Bob said...
The only flaw that I've uncovered with regard to science, or the scientific method is that as a discipline, science has not developed to the point where it can detect God. It is now playing catch-up, processing the universe around us, determining how God accomplished everything.-----------------------------
If God doesn't exist I can hardly see how science will ever develop to the point where it can detect GodSo, how do you assume that science is playing "catch up"? Because you assume a God exists? Wow! Scientist should be knocking on your door to find out this awesome truth.
Well, I hope he's not the God of Christianity.
"He"? . . . Nevermind. I just had thoughts of x and y chromesomes there but I'm past it now. But did you know that if a virgin actually did have a baby without a male that the baby would be female?
For some reason, I don't think spirit sperm counts as male sperm. Besides that, the Holy Spirit in the Bible is definitely feminine.
However, God had to have a son who became a god because every other Lord God of ancient times had a son who became a god - can't let the pagans get too far ahead, now can we?
Today, people try to force the Bible to agree with science facts by calling in allegory etc. But if the first 11 chapters of Genesis is allegory, the whole bible is. In which case, it can be made to mean anything but what it says.
In other words, it can't be understood and may as well be thrown in the trash.
Bob sez:
"Let me restate my position. I believe in evolution."
Bob also sez:
"I believe that God did literally create Adam and Eve, and that they were the first "God conscious" beings, the first beings who were capable of spiritual death, or eternal separation from God."
So all life supernaturally evolved, except a literal Adam and Eve, which were created by magic?
When were Adam and Eve created? How do you reconcile this with the Bible? How do you reconcile this with the fossil record? What parts of evolution needed "guiding," and which parts didn't? Have you been smoking dope and watching Battlestar Galactica?
Bob said earlier:
"Regardless of your contentions, experiments in abiogenesis have never moved forward from the monomer stage. No polymers, no RNA, just a bunch of as yet unproven theories as to how this might occur. I'll keep watching the news at 5, though."
I provided evidence (the actual journal articles) to the contrary, which I summarized:
"RNA ribonucleotides can spontaneously assemble. RNA ribonucleotides can spontaneously POLYMERIZE to form RNA. RNA strands can self-replicate."
This showed that Bob is intellectually lazy (doesn't want to do a simple Google search to see if his opinion on what science has and hasn't discovered just might be wrong)
So anyway, I made the following predictions as to how Bob would respond:
"1) Bob will ignore this entire post and points made and bring up another refuted Kreationist criticism.
2) Bob will acknowledge this post but will basically say that it doesn’t prove, or mean, a thing.
3) Bob will apologize to himself for being intellectually lazy and hopefully learn from this little experience."
Looks like Bob chose #2!
Bob responds:
"I will investigate the new information which Paul Ray has provided regarding the synthesis of rna in a test-tube, although that is still an intermediate step."
Yep. No apology for making a completely false statement. No embarrassment. Totally misses the point.
Oh, and all that RNA stuff doesn't mean anything. Typical Kreatard/ID modus operandi. Make wild, unsubstantiated claims, display a lack of understanding of what is being criticized, mischaracterize what is being criticized, and demand evidence while offering none on their part- and then, when evidence is provided, shrug it off as meaningless and demand more. This has been going on for over a hundred years. It's pathetic.
"Dna is far more complex, so it's still going to be necessary to watch the news at 5 for a while longer."
That's right Bob, if I were making the claim that this proves that abiogensis occurred. Which I didn't:
"This doesn’t say that abiogenesis happened, but that it can happen- the mechanism hypothesized long ago is a fact now. And now that we know that it can happen, this lends weight to whether abiogenesis could have happened"
"And, something like an amoeba or hydra would be the next step following the synthesis of dna."
No, something much more simple than that. Probably primitive "cells." Rudimentary "DNA" with RNA and maybe primitive protein enzymes all in a very simple "membrane." Hmmm.
The Apostate Paul
"I've seen the latest science compared to the creation narrative in Genesis, and they reconcile quite well."
I don't really expect an answer, but....
What "latest science?"
I didn't know science corroborates magic.
The Apostate Paul
"if a virgin actually did have a baby without a male that the baby would be female"
Just another bible error, Corky.
Actually, the whole virgin birth thing is a bible error. The anonymous author of "Matthew" could only read Greek, so he relied on the Septuagint Old Testament. In his data-mining, he found a verse in Isaiah that said a young women would bear a child and the child would do great things for the chosen people. Although the whole context of that verse shows that this "prophecy" was meant for the time it was written, "Matthew" chose to interpret it to mean the future messiah. And, although the Hebrew said "young woman", "Matthew" could only read Greek, and the Greek word also meant "virgin". So, "Matthew" thought the messiah needed to be born of a virgin so he wrote it that way.
After all, the anonymous author ("Matthew") writing the story can write it any way he likes. The virgin birth angle worked well for "Matthew"; this way he could have god born of a virgin just like his competitors! And he even had an old testament verse that supported the story (sort of, if you twist the meaning and if you use the septuagint).
Hey, it's good enough for believers. After all, Matthew only wrote what god told him to write. And if god inspired it, it's true and infallible. If we don't get it, that's our weakness, not god's nor Matthews'.
Whew, am I glad to now be cult-free. My mind feels so much more free this way. No more mental gymnastics required, thank god.
The Skeptic
Hey Paul, I like magic.
Of course, real magic is hard to come by and the fake magic is just entertainment.
Once upon a time a magic man healed a blind man, but alas, the leaders of the community knew the blind man's parents and they didn't realize that their son was blind.
So straightway, the leaders go to the parents of the "blind" man and ask if their son was blind from birth.
However, the parents didn't say "yes", they said that the boy was old enough to speak for himself.
Is it just me or does that sound like fakery going on to you too?
The original post said:
"We had already the mainstream churches were false. Now we saw WCG was also false. What then was true?"
Why not look outside of the parameters of religion for a change? You might find what you are looking for.
Two words: Statistical analysis. It's used hand in hand with science all the time. Such mathematical processes are what is used to predict events which are based on the laws of physics and probability.
Beliefs are a funny thing. Some people mature through a lifetime, and their beliefs expand, and grow. They challenge their beliefs, and entertain new ideas. Others get locked into the proverbial three lock box, and end up spending their entire lives locked into and defending a particular philosophy. Where is the excitement in life if one stops exploring?
My own opinion is that the human mind is like a parachute in that it only works when it is open. As much as they'd like to convince us otherwise, we cannot rely on others to verify whether our own minds are open. "Open" becomes a position relative to them, and their particular views or understanding. As an example, to a Satanist, I would appear to be very closed minded. But, why would the Satanist's opinion even matter? And, why would I even waste the time debating his agenda with him? Better to be out around the pool, or doing yardwork. Enjoying some of the blessings of creation.
If there is one thing I've learned from my years on these blogs and forums, it is this: Don't get involved in arguments and discussions with Armstrongists, conspiratorialists, or atheists. The discussions will never end, and will always be based upon and shaped by their agendas. I prefer freedom from man made agendas. Such agendas always end up being used to control. I'm just so glad that there is a God, and that He frees us from man's arbitrary control!
BB
Byker Bob,
Why do you keep coming back for abuse?
Byker Bob said...
I prefer freedom from man made agendas. Such agendas always end up being used to control.
-----------------------------------
You should take your own advise.
unbelief in fairytales has no agenda, it's just an unbelief.
Religion, OTOH, has an agenda, and that is to convert people to belief in fairytales.
Unbelievers don't care what kind of silly s**t you believe, just so long as you don't preach it to us.
There is plenty of information out there that shows how the good tool "statistical analysis" is bastardized into quasi-probabilistic reasoning, in order to give a "scientific" appearance to what is actually 'bad science'.
Such is bastardizing is routinely done by propagandizing creationists.
Does the above viewpoint indicate that I have a "closed mind" and live in a "three lock box" and "spend my entire life locked into and defending a particular philosophy"?
Of course not, Bob!
Does the above viewpoint indicate that I find no "excitement in life" and that I have "stopped exploring"?
Of course not, Bob!
BB Said:
"I'm just so glad that there is a God, and that He frees us from man's arbitrary control."
Yet your faith in a god actually began as faith in the superiority of some man. Maybe even faith in yourself.
"Two words: Statistical analysis. It's used hand in hand with science all the time. Such mathematical processes are what is used to predict events which are based on the laws of physics and probability."
And how does the "latest science" of "statistical analysis" corroborate the Genesis account (and you still haven't explained how you reconcile your belief in evolution with the Genesis account)???
"They challenge their beliefs, and entertain new ideas. Others get locked into the proverbial three lock box, and end up spending their entire lives locked into and defending a particular philosophy. Where is the excitement in life if one stops exploring?"
You've got to be kidding, right? You actually believe that you and other religionists are the ones who challenge their beliefs? When is the last time you challenged your (unfounded) belief in god? When was the last time you entertained new ideas on the subject of your god?
Defending a philosophy? Stopping exploration??
I can't imagine a better description of religionists than what you have just written.
My laptop is overheating due to the irony of your words.
"My own opinion is that the human mind is like a parachute in that it only works when it is open."
Captain! Irony explosion on deck 6! She's going to break apart!
"And, why would I even waste the time debating his agenda with him? Better to be out around the pool, or doing yardwork. Enjoying some of the blessings of creation."
Well, you aren't debating Satanists, Bob. You are debating scientific evidence and rational inquiry, not an "agenda."
"Don't get involved in arguments and discussions with Armstrongists, conspiratorialists, or atheists. The discussions will never end, and will always be based upon and shaped by their agendas."
It depends upon what you are discussing. If you are discussing the very existence of your god, or whether evolution happened, or whether there is evidence to support the mechanisms of abiogensis, then the discussion ends when you are presented with evidence, or you cannot provide any. In your mind, the discussion never ends because you think evidence is meaningless.
The Apostate Paul
Ex Android said...
BB Said:
"I'm just so glad that there is a God, and that He frees us from man's arbitrary control."
Yet your faith in a god actually began as faith in the superiority of some man. Maybe even faith in yourself.
-----------------------------------
Yet Bob is under some man's "arbitrary control", because he has accepted on the authority of men that the bible is the word of a god who no one can prove to even exist.
That's pretty arbitrary, I'd say.
However, maybe someday when Bob discovers that he can be a good boy all by himself, he'll throw away the crutch of superstition.
Then maybe we can discuss things on AW other than Bob.
I've fried the hard drive in the PC which I use for internet access. This post is being typed on one of the computers in my local library.
Perhaps there is another believer who can entertain the atheists during my absence. In the mean time, it looks as if I'll have more time for Bible study. Hallelujah!
Enjoy!
BB
"someday when Bob discovers that he can be a good boy all by himself, he'll throw away the crutch of superstition."
Check out the universal perversity of Rome before the influence of Christianity. Christ is the standard that has raised mankind from the pits.
"Check out the universal perversity of Rome before the influence of Christianity. Christ is the standard that has raised mankind from the pits."
---------------------------------
Actually, mankind wasn't raised from the pits by Christianity. It was the birth of freedom and democracy that did that.
Christianity is responsible for what is called the thousand year time of "the dark ages" though. I certainly wouldn't call that raising mankind from the pits.
Anonymous, that's one of the dumber comments I've ever heard. Ever heard of the inquisition or dark ages? And if you think that "Christ" got rid of the perversity" - think again. Catholic priests and little boys, as just one example.
Check out the universal perversity of Rome before the influence of Christianity. Christ is the standard that has raised mankind from the pits.
Fri Jun 05, 05:55:00 PM NZST
Good point, anonymous. Also, the perversity and lack of value for human life exhibited by modern communists.
Just as there are many interpretations of the Bible, Shakespeare, the US Constitution, and various other substantive works, there are also multiple interpretations of the scientific record, and body of discoveries and theories.
What we are dealing with here on AW, amongst what I've called our "WCG" atheists, is a very narrow and conservative interpretation of science, one which would appear to rule out any possibility of God. Yet, this is not the only interpretation. The fact that there are numerous Christians, who are also scientists, should speak volumes on this topic. Of course, considering the embedded and involuntary precepts we all unfortunately share, it would not surprise me in the least if our "WCG" atheists did not refer to these as "scientists falsely so-called" Also, in keeping with those same embedded habit patterns, seemingly anyone who fails to kow tow to the "no god" agenda, is lampooned, referred to as a Kreatard, and is branded as being stupid, or ignorant. Not a member of the "one true church" of science!
So, no, this need for disbelief in God goes deeper than science itself. It is the direct result of having been presented with a false and unacceptable working concept of God by false teachers.
To the Christian, it doesn't matter how loud or taunting a handful of dimestore wannabe scientists become. Perhaps if these were bonafide, recognized scientists, whose names appear in Who's Who, or Wikipedia, one could then consider them to be some of the big boys of science that one had to be awfully brave to tangle with. But, they're not. You're just as likely to get truth from some know it all regular at your local bar or tavern as from these guys. One of the bitter lessons I've learned from Armstrongism is that one must be very cautious about those one allows to be one's influences. A person can't go wrong by sticking with Jesus for spiritual information, and with accredited, bonifide experts for secular information.
BB
BB, To the Atheist, it doesn't matter how loud or taunting a handful of dimestore wannabe Christians become. Perhaps if these were bonafide, recognized Christians, whose names appear in Who's Who, or Wikipedia, one could then consider them to be some of the big boys of Jesus that one had to be awfully brave to tangle with. But, they're not. You're just as likely to get truth from some know it all regular at your local bar or tavern as from these guys. One of the bitter lessons I've learned from Armstrongism is that one must be very cautious about those one allows to be one's influences. A person can't go wrong by sticking with their heart for spiritual information, and with accredited, bonifide experts for secular information.
Mr. Science feels bad for you, Byker Bob.
The fact is, there ARE "bonafide, recognized scientists, whose names appear in Who's Who, or Wikipedia" who say that the "scientific proof" of creationist theory that you adhere to is simply "statistical analysis" bastardized in order to give a false impression of scientific legitimacy where in fact no scientific legitimacy exists.
In fact, Mr. Science knows of lots of Christians who express their wish that the 'creation scientists' would quit using bad science, because they feel that it makes the Christian community as a whole look foolish.
Mr. Science sees that you said is wrong to use the "Jesus rode a dinosaur" example on this blog, but Mr. Science disagrees with you, because there are Christian scientists who say that it is absolutely proven scientific fact that dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark, and that they roamed the earth 2,000 years ago with Jesus.
Mr. Science knows x-wcg'ers, who are now in mainstream Christianity, who believe that.
Mr. Science also knows x-wcg'ers who are now in mainstream Christianity, who don't believe that.
Also, Mr. Science would like you to know that there are lots of mainstream Christians whose attitudes are NOT "the direct result of having been presented with a false and unacceptable working concept of God by false teachers", who do NOT believe in the legitimacy of the "scientific proof" you are clinging to so tightly.
Is the "science" behind the "Jesus rode a dinosaur" theory any better than the "science" behind the "proof" you read about and now believe?
Mr. Science says it is not any better. And there are "bonafide, recognized scientists, whose names appear in Who's Who, or Wikipedia" who also say that it is not any better.
BTW, Mr. Science still loves you, even when you use the "Satanists" comparison, when describing those who disagree with your "scientific proof", Byker Bob!
“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics” (Disreaeli)
There really is no point in going any further. When people twist your words, and then throw them back at you expecting you to defend their twisted version of them, you really can't conduct an honest debate.
I have to confess a certain amusement, though. Some of the atheists are parrotting some of the sayings which I, a then agnostic, originated ten years ago on many of these sites. And, they don't even know where they came from!
Will the last Christian posting here please grab the Bible on the way out?
See all of you atheists in the Kingdom! What you don't realize yet is that God isn't willing to lose anyone. He's got the keys to open any of our minds, and He can and does use atheism as a tool to bring people back to Him. I believe that He probably has a special soft spot in His heart for all of the victims of Armstrongism.
BB
BB,
I would be interested to read the sayings you originated ten years ago that some atheists on this forum are informally quoting.
Post a Comment