Once again, Lee from Right-Thinking from the Left Coast illustrates why non-Christians often have problems with Christians:
You know how we always say that it is up top moderate Muslims to stand up and reclaim their religion from the extremists? Well, the same goes here. Until such a time as normal, logical Christians begin to denounce the abject stupidity of the anti-science fundamentalists, the wide brush of self-imposed ignorance will color everyone.
And how perfect that Mann Coulter would be a part of it. You know how we look at the left as if they're scum because of their "Bush = Hitler" or "Israel = Nazi" messages? This is just as bad, if not worse.
One final point: when you look at the number of people throughout history that have been killed in the name of Christianity, Hitler was a fucking piker.
- If you are going to throw scripture in our faces, be prepared for us to be able to respond to it.
- Be prepared to not like what we have to say when we turn it back on you.
- Christian scripture is somewhat complicated and not conducive to pithy soundbites.
- If you won't concede the fact that the crimes of institutional churches and the governments that controlled them are categorically condemned by and unsupported by scripture, then don't expect any of us to reciprocate on things like the crimes of pagan and atheistic states.
- Calling us anti-science because we disagree with you on a handful of scientific ideas is akin to calling someone racist against black people because they dislike one style of rap music.
- Many of us are converts to Christianity and chose this path after seeing the alternatives.
- We are not impressed by the "morality" that you create "rationally."
- We really wish you would stop selectively stealing from our scripture when you are trying to create your own morality.
- We are doubly unimpressed by your code of morality if it is blatantly self-serving, allowing you to be "righteous" in areas where you have no struggle, and be totally free where you are completely out of control.
- You may see being told what is right and wrong is a flaw. We see it as a feature. Some of us actually don't enjoy talking about morality and prefer to think about other things that are more interesting.
- Finally, we are incredibly unimpressed by those of you who are staunch advocates of Darwinian evolution yet believe in a light and fluffy religion-inspired morality. Here's a little secret: we think you're illogical and stupid. You cannot simultaneously appeal to a natural order as crude, capricious and vicious as Darwinian evolution as the fundamental truth of the biological order and yet appeal to a religion-inspired morality that is based on exact opposite characteristics.
You may also find that some of us were actually agnostics who subscribed to a naturalistic worldview built on Darwinian evolution. I happen to be one of those people. I have always had the deepest contempt for the beliefs and mental faculties of secularists, especially atheists, who cling to a belief in Darwinian evolution, yet espouse a universalist morality based on religion. I doubt this will ever change.
Wow, that was well said. Did you come up with the bullet points or are those quoted from somewhere else? I'd like to use them later in a post of my own if I may. Let me know.
Chris
Yeah, with the exception of the part that I quoted from his blog post, that's all mine. Feel free to quote my stuff if you want.
RE: evolution
Scientists Find Brain Evolution Gene
http://beepbeepitsme.blogspot.com/2006/08/scientists-find-brain-evolution-gene.html
Good commentary, Mike.
The premise of his first paragraph is off by a country mile, since violence-prone Muslims are not extremist; the touchy-feely, peace-loving ones are, & there are few enough of them.
denounce the abject stupidity of the anti-science fundamentalists
I suppose that "abject stupidity" would prove rather easy to illustrate; yet he doesn't offer a single example of such in his post. How convenient & typical.
when you look at the number of people throughout history that have been killed in the name of Christianity, Hitler was a fucking piker.
That's a lie, and even if it were true, it would be irrelevant. These atheist simpletons need to come to terms w/ the fact that just because someone does something in the name of Christianity, that doesn't make them a true Christian. I can climb up on a roof & start taking potshots at folks w/ a sniper rifle, in the name of Christianity. Does that make me a legitimate Christian?
Nice.
beepbeepitsme,
I am not looking to debate the merits of evolutionary theory. The gyst of this post and Lee's was about the philosophical implictions of evolution which exist independently of whether or not evolution be true or not.
Wes,
I have found that RTFTLC has gone down hill big time since Lee has really started getting vitriolic on these things. The man is a complete dumbass when it comes to his understanding of Christian teachings, history and the logic that he applies to them.
See, if I say to him and those like him that Christianity is different from Islam because the established church has no revealed authority to do those bad things, but Islamic scripture gives established religious factions that sanction, these people will draw moral equivalence. Nevermind the obvious fact that when the established church does these things, it is doing so without authority from God, and will even risk the wrath of God. Because the established church, aka a political body based on a religion, but not the exclusive authority or body of that religion, does those things, even though they are categorically condemned by the scripture, it is morally equivalent to the religion that supports these things.
It's motivated by pure hatred. You can make all of the admissions you want about how the established church is often turned into a satanic sockpuppet, just like the government is, but these guys don't care one bit. Then, if you actually condemn the RCC, for example, you become a bigot. It's a no-win situation.
when you look at the number of people throughout history that have been killed in the name of Christianity, Hitler was a ****ing piker.
A very old lie.
A simple camparison of the population of the world in the 20th century with previous centuries and our techincal ability to kill people now vice the middle ages easily refutes that idea.
I first heard this lie by my HS history teacher in the 70's. Back then I didn't know that teachers could be wrong.
In the 20th century alone, over 100 million people were killed by the secular or athiest state. Christianity doesn't even come close.
Even that 100M is considered to be a lowball estimate by some scholars who would put the number of people killed in secular wars, purges, etc. in the 20th century to be well over 150M. I'd guess that a more realistic figure of those killed by socialism in all of its variations would be 300-400M, possibly 500M if you count the disease, famine and poverty that it created.
100M might be what all organized religions, including cults, have killed since the beginning of time, which means that atheism is... *ahem* an "early bloomer..."
Studying biology (which I love, BTW) has done more to dispell the idea there's a causal chain directly linking me back to a pile of goop than any preacher ever has.
From the non-sequitor lifeforms called viruses to the idea that natural selection would inculcate physically inferior apes surviving to form our ancestors, what the dimestore intelligentsia revere as invontrovertible truth would nary last more than a day in a hypothetical court, were it to face basic legal scrutiny trusted to decide criminal and civil questions.
I have noticed a trend. There are two types of people who really adhere to evolution: those who know A LOT about biology (generally the true "experts") and those who know little more than the equivalent of BIO101. Most people in between seem to be very dubious about its accuracy. We know from bell curves and things like that this behavior is pretty normal for other sets of extremes relative to the behavior of those in the normal section.
I don't dispute there are are regressive patterns seen in mammals, amphibians, sponges, insects, and worms. The same as I don't dispute that humans briefly develop and then lose gills, while still in the womb.
What I dispute, as any actual adherent to the scientific method will, is that the sum of all experiments total up neatly and incontrovertibly the way algebra and arithmatic do. True sceince is reproducibility, nothing more. It doesn't "belong" to ideological materialism, because materialism harbors foregone conlcusions, Same as Christianity. Thus making science distinct from either.
Isn't rich how we are taught growing up that science is supposed to be about objective observation, only to find out that many scientists are as skeptical of one set of conclusions as the very people that they are trying to debunk? It's not hard to see how some Christians do become jaded enough toward science to be called "anti-science."
As always, the real anti-science people are on the left. You don't see the average Christian objecting to science in general, just certain conclusions that some scientists have come to. I can't think of any area of science that normal, theologically-sound Christians have objected to except something that can be considered to devalue human life or be needlessly cruel to animals.
English Astronomer Fred Hoyle once said,
"I have always found it curious that, while most scientists claim to eschew religion, it actually dominates their thoughts more than it does the clergy."
Now this is true, but it is, by no means, evidence or proof that God has given us a divine spark or something. Because Scientists (and/or atheists) do not believe in God or a higher being per se, if they are curious in any way about their origins they must think about the idea of God or a higher being because there is nothing else in their view. The religious community, however, are adamant that a God exists and that Heaven and Hell exist. If they think about the possibility of there being no God, perhaps they feel guilty or scared that they will be punished for doing so. Which leads me on to another point:
Whilst I do not believe in God, I am open to the possibility that there is. People think that when they go to Heaven (or Hell) they will be united with their loved ones, or at least, there will be other people there. What a terrible misconception! If there is a God, and Heaven and Hell exist, it can only be a state of mind - not a physical place where physical entities dwell. We'd be able to travel there otherwise. So it must be a state of mind, meaning that they will not be interacting with people they knew in their life.
Another thought that I ponder incessantly is the idea of God and the Evolution theory. Now, evolution undoubtedly occurs, and most (even the religious cohort) wouldn't dispute this. But if there is a God, and we did evolve, at what point were we humans in His eyes? Apparently animals arent as loved by God as we are and they do not go to Heaven. But if we were, at one stage, animals like the chimps we see today, and then we crossed over, there must have been a precise point at which we started to have access to Heaven.
This is by no means an exhaustive look at God's sovereignty, but it is a collection of examples of God's sovereignty as they pertain to matters of life, death and natural forces. You see, there is a sort of "third way" between evolution and ID that is based on an understanding of God's sovereignty.
What is important here in terms of evolution is that if you read up on God's sovereignty you will see that evolution is nothing more than an illusion to a Christian with a proper understanding of God's sovereignty. There is nothing to my knowledge that says that God has stopped creating. Additionally, the deeper you get into it the more you realize that the "laws of nature" are God's will expressed, and as James 1:17 says (among other passages) "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows." In short, transpeciation has absolutely no impact on the Bible if you understand some of the New Testament doctrines.
As to the issue of heaven and hell, they are places and states of mind. One could be in a place that feels like hell and be in heaven if one is in communion with God. However, in practice... the two will line up unfortunately.
Sorry Mick. I don't buy it. Nothing suggests that god created at all...oh, apart from stories passed down hundreds of generations
Other than the perfection behind natural systems, you're right. The day that I believe the universe was created by accident and not by a conscious act is the day that believe that a junkyard twister can assemble a Ferrari from a bunch of pinto parts. The design of things is just too consistent to be the product of chance.
I don't expect you to believe me. Until 2.5 years or so ago, I wouldn't have believed half of this either. Just don't kid yourself that there is no evidence. There is also a lot of circumstantial evidence to support the resurrection of Jesus as well. As it says, let those with eyes to see, see.
You're using Paley's argument for Design. He argues that if something looks like it has been designed, then it must have a designer - this is an invalid argument. You use the example of a junkyard twister, he uses the analogy of the watchmaker. Both are poor examples.
Perhaps you could enlighten us with your "evidence" of Jesus' resurrection.
1) He was proven to be dead.
2) His tomb was guarded by a cohort of Roman soldiers and had the imperial seal of Rome placed over it, which meant an automatic death sentence for anyone who tampered with it.
3) His disciples suffered and some died for their for their faith in him. Why would they do this if they were after power, especially when they were out of power until around the fourth century?
4) No one disputes that the body was left in the tomb and unmolested.
5) If the authorities had the means to produce the body, they would have when the early followers of Christ were causing controversy among the Jews and some of the Greeks.
6) According to the Bible, there were no gentile followers of Christ right after the resurrection. Thus there is no reason to assume that the Roman cohort guarding the tomb had any loyalty to Jesus.
As I said, it is circumstantial evidence. I really am not looking to convince you of the veracity of Christianity. That is something you will have to do on your own, as I have had to do.
Ultimately the argument for some sort of creationism falls back on the fact that something has to exist outside of time in order for a universe like this to come into existance. Something had to create even the concept of a beginning in order for a beginning to exist; something had to create the atoms and energy that would form the foundation of the random processes if randomness is what spawned us. Being a code monkey, I tend to see a sort of order in the natural world that hints at a very elegant design and by design I mean simply the way it works. It is beautifully consistent and infinitely flexible while being perfectly tuned.
If you are interested in finding God, understand that all He expects you to do is reach out to Him. You might want to then say a prayer to Him genuinely asking Him to set you up with circumstances that will allow Him to work with you.
Believe it or not, I am actually pretty understanding of your position because I am a relatively recent convert. What finally convinced me was actually experiencing the liberating presence of the Holy Spirit in a real church and when I first saw the "veil" that Paul spoke of that clouds our perception of the world. I can't qualify or quantify these things, so I don't expect you to rationally accept them.
Now, one thing I hope we can agree on, is that you cannot empirically prove the existance of God. People try doing things like testing prayer's effects on sick people, but that treats God like a machine, not a sentient being. Surely you can agree that if God does exist, that God is not going to respond like an automaton to scientific inquiry, and in fact might go so far as to thwart human efforts to prove that He exists. Even when I was quite the non-Christian, I never understood why people wasted their time on such things.
I completely agree with you that if god oes exist, he does not operate like a machine.
Nor do I disagree that God can never be disproven - that is why religion will always be one-up on science. God can never and will never be disproven because whatever the scientists say, no matter how much evidence they compile, the religious community will always fall back on "God is outside space and time" or "You cannot comprehend God's magnifence" etc. What can science say to that - NOTHING! So of course God can never be disproven, but Im afraid I wont believe until He is actually proven. I cant believe in somehting that simply hasnt been disproven.
That's quite understandable, but there are philosophical questions like "where did everything come from" that you should try to understand. I say God because it is the simplest answer and the one that makes the most sense. Nothing of ours comes into existance without our working it, therefore it is not illogical to assume that a sentient force created everything around us, then created us.
If you want to know what it feels like to "see the truth," I can tell you what it's like for me at least. I just "know that it's true." It's not like a certainty that I know the basic laws of physics, but it's like a truth that lingers behind that is almost self-aware. The sometimes when I look at the world around me, I can feel the subtle presence of a spiritual veil. Paul spoke of a spiritual veil clouding our eyes. Again, it's all very subtle. It's a sort of knowledge that you can't explain in rational terms.
I'll pray for you. It's a hard process to get started on. If you do end up going there, you will be as surprised to find out how deeply warped a lot of Christian denominations, liberal and conservative alike, are as you will be to find out how amazingly beautiful and mysterious God actually is.
You cannot argue from the existence of the Universe to the existence of God - saying there must be a creator i.e. everything in the universe is dependent so the universe must be dependent, and then link this argument to the existence of God for two reasons. Firstly, it is called composition and is a fallacy - briefly the nature of the parts do not necessarily determine the nature of the whole, but more importantly, one cannot say that the universe must have a creator , therefore God exists, without God having a creator, and then there is an endless chain of creators. It is far more logical that the universe simply exists than that God does.
You cannot argue from the existence of the Universe to the existence of God - saying there must be a creator i.e. everything in the universe is dependent so the universe must be dependent, and then link this argument to the existence of God for two reasons. Firstly, it is called composition and is a fallacy - briefly the nature of the parts do not necessarily determine the nature of the whole, but more importantly, one cannot say that the universe must have a creator , therefore God exists, without God having a creator, and then there is an endless chain of creators. It is far more logical that the universe simply exists than that God does.
Good response. A brilliant answer!