Creationist - Evolution Belief spectrum

[Big Red 40]

14 hours ago, Landlord said:

 

 

 

The only hell references I see in the Revelations verses are about a 'lake of fire'. Can you explain to me what the lake of fire is, what it's purpose is, why people go there, and if they stay there for all eternity? Also, can you tell me which parts of Revelation I am supposed to read literally and which parts not?

Some references what Hell/eternity is according to the King James Bible . There isn’t one that totally lays it out but there are pieces of it in various verses . The Bible is that way in many cases . 

Mark Chapter 9- 43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the Fire that never shall be quenched: vs. 45 and 47 reference the same 
2 Thessalonians 1:9 - Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power

Revelation  21:8 - But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death

Edited January 26, 2018 by Big Red 40

[Guy Chamberlin]

2 hours ago, NM11046 said:

Ok guys, this is a somewhat simplistic question, but I see the theme in many posts (no matter the religious affiliation of the poster) that one is kind and does good things in their life as it's what christ said to do/bible says etc.  My question is why is it that we need a religious person or book to suggest that we're kind and do good?  

 

Like I said, simplistic but I feel like kindness, respect etc is a basic human trait.  Some are better at it than others, and because of my lack of belief in a god I  have to trust that karma plays out, and that honestly at the end of the day I feel better about myself and my fellow man when I'm being a good person.  I don't think that was motivated by church or religious teachings - it was how I was raised and how I now choose to live.

 

I believe almost every religion contains its own tiny variation to the Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

 

That's it. That's all you really need. Everything that comes after is superfluous. 

 

But then, that would eliminate the need for religion.

 

Unfortunately, there's a convenient balm in helping people feel superior to someone else. Even the downtrodden can feel superior to the hellbound sinner. But it's generally a fundraising technique. 

 

I think most people are kind. I really do. But we also get lazy. We kinda do want more out of life than we're willing to put into it. 

[Landlord]

 

On 1/26/2018 at 4:00 PM, Big Red 40 said:

Some references what Hell/eternity is according to the King James Bible . There isn’t one that totally lays it out but there are pieces of it in various verses . The Bible is that way in many cases . 

 

 

 

That's great, but here's what I asked:

 

On 1/26/2018 at 1:49 AM, Landlord said:

Can you explain to me what the lake of fire is, what it's purpose is, why people go there, and if they stay there for all eternity? Also, can you tell me which parts of Revelation I am supposed to read literally and which parts not?

[NM11046]

In case you missed it ... something on SNL about much of what we've been discussing.  Will Ferrel is tough to beat.

 

 

[NM11046]

Thought this was lovely:

 

[Making Chimichangas]

I used to believe that God created the universe and then took a hands off approach and just let it develop naturally without any further interfering.  (I'm a recovering former Catholic.)

 

However, being an atheist now, I tend to think that life just happened on Earth by random chance because of the (nearly) perfect conditions.  We're in the "goldilocks zone" of our star, water exists in liquid and solid form, we have moderate temperatures, with seasons, and a moon which keeps the planet stable in its rotation.  All of these things lead to life growing and evolving.  And the reason we don't see life (as we perceive it) to be on other planets is because the conditions are not right (in this case right being similar to Earth).

 

[RedDenver]

18 hours ago, Making Chimichangas said:

And the reason we don't see life (as we perceive it) to be on other planets is because the conditions are not right (in this case right being similar to Earth).

 

We've just begun finding planets in other solar systems in the last couple decades. And all indications for the ones we've found is that there's a LOT that are similar to Earth's conditions. The Fermi Paradox gets more difficult to understand as we learn more and more about the universe.

Far-Off Planets Like the Earth Dot the Galaxy

Quote

 

Astronomers reported that there could be as many as 40 billion habitable Earth-size planets in the galaxy, based on a new analysis of data from NASA’s Kepler spacecraft.

 

One out of every five sunlike stars in the galaxy has a planet the size of Earth circling it in the Goldilocks zone — not too hot, not too cold — where surface temperatures should be compatible with liquid water

 

 

[TGHusker]

19 hours ago, Making Chimichangas said:

I used to believe that God created the universe and then took a hands off approach and just let it develop naturally without any further interfering.  (I'm a recovering former Catholic.)

 

However, being an atheist now, I tend to think that life just happened on Earth by random chance because of the (nearly) perfect conditions.  We're in the "goldilocks zone" of our star, water exists in liquid and solid form, we have moderate temperatures, with seasons, and a moon which keeps the planet stable in its rotation.  All of these things lead to life growing and evolving.  And the reason we don't see life (as we perceive it) to be on other planets is because the conditions are not right (in this case right being similar to Earth).

 

And yet, others take what you have stated and see it as evidence of Intelligent Design.  The mathematical chance of our earth 'just happening' the way it did to create life is beyond reason.  So many factors involved - all which have to be 'perfect' to make life happen.  

This book for one talks about all of the unique scientific characteristics of earth & its placement in the universe that not only allows it to sustain life but to be a platform to observing the universe. 

The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery

https://www.amazon.com/Privileged-Planet-Cosmos-Designed-Discovery/dp/0895260654/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1520870817&sr=8-2&keywords=the+privileged+planet

from the inside of the book's jacket:

Quote

Is Earth merely an insignificant speck in a vast and meaningless universe? On the contrary. The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery shows that this cherished assumption of materialism is dead wrong. Earth is far more significant than virtually anyone has realized. Contrary to the scientific orthodoxy, it is not an average planet around an ordinary star in an unremarkable part of the Milky Way.

In this provocative book, Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards present a staggering array of evidence that exposes the hollowness of this modern dogma. They demonstrate that our planet is exquisitely fit not only to support life, but also to give us the best view of the universe, as if Earth were designed both for life and for scientific discovery. Readers are taken on a scientific odyssey from a history of tectonic plates, to the wonders of water and solar eclipses, to our location in the Milky Way, to the laws that govern the universe, and to the beginning of cosmic time.

In The Privileged Planet, you will discover:
Why the best scientific evidence refutes the misnamed Copernican Principle—the widely held idea that there is nothing special about Earth or its place in the universe
Why the sheer number and size of galaxies does not mean that Earth’s capacity to sustain life is the result of blind chance
How Earth is precisely positioned in the Milky Way—not only for life, but also to allow us to find answers to the greatest mysteries of the universe
Striking ways in which water doesn’t behave like most other liquids—and how each of its quirks makes it perfectly suited for the existence of creatures like us
The harmony of Earth and the Moon: how they work together to sustain Earthly life as one intricate system—and how that system produces the best solar eclipses where Earthly observers can see them
How Jupiter and Saturn protect Earth from cataclysmic destruction
How the laws and constants that govern the universe must be narrowly fine-tuned for the existence of any complex life

The Privileged Planet's astounding findings should lead any individual to reevaluate entrenched assumptions about the universe—and even to reconsider our very purpose on what so many have dismissed as nothing more than an accident of cosmic evolution.

 

[TGHusker]

I guess I'm on a book recommended reading track today.    I recently came across this book(below) and found it to be written by a former pastor, who got disillusioned about his faith -for some of similar reasons mentioned in posts above  - God being different than our expectations, acting differently,  or sometimes violating our assumptions & poor theology (Prosperity and Health 'gospel' - be aware of bad theology it can be a cruel taskmaster' as someone said).  This author decided that 'faith' didn't make sense anymore after experiencing a crisis of faith due to loss.  He decided that atheism must be right and began his research.  He wanted to be a 'believer' in his new found 'unbelief'.   After compiling his research, he asked some of the prominent  atheists to review his research to make sure he represented the atheist world view accurately.  He also meet regularly wt an atheist groups - in Florida.  Richard Dawkins who responded and members of the group all said he represented the atheist doctrine fairly. 

His conclusion:  He honestly lays out the arguments presented by Nietzche, Russell, Harris and Dawkins in their own individual chapters. After each chapter, he shared what was lacking in the positions of these men and why they fail to answer the big questions.  At the end of the book he summarizes the 50 or more arguments by these 4 men  into 10 major categories and gives a brief evaluation of each category.   In the end, he returns to his previously held faith- that while difficult, best answered life's biggest questions. 

 

His book is non-judgmental in the sense that he doesn't come out in a condemning way (atheists are bad) but he stress that we are all on a journey.  He still maintains friendship wt the atheist group.  He said of the 4, Nietzche's positions  was the most 'honest' and compelling - basically if you are going to be an atheist this is what it should look like practically.  But found it to be impossible to be lived out authentically.   

 

Thank God for Atheists: How the Greatest Skeptics Led Me to Faith

https://www.amazon.com/Thank-God-Atheists-Greatest-Skeptics/product-reviews/0736966285/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=one_star&reviewerType=all_reviews#reviews-filter-bar

 

This reviewer on Amazon does a better job than I in summarizing the book.

Quote

Thank God for Atheists" is an apologetics / worldview comparison book. It's a book that I can honestly see both atheists and Christians finding interesting. The author made every effort to accurately summarize the views of the atheists that he discussed in this book (Friedrich Nietzche, Bertrand Russell, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins). He offered the living authors the chance to read his summary of their views and comment on it (which Dawkins did), and he asked atheist groups to do the same with his summaries of the dead authors.

The author started by explaining his Christian upbringing and why he started looking for convincing reasons to believe God doesn't exist. Then he discussed the long history of skeptical thought--the people throughout history and the world who questioned the religions of their area. He took four authors that he thought best expressed the arguments for atheism and who came at it from somewhat different angles. He provided a short biography for the author, summarized his views, then addressed those arguments. If several authors had the same argument, he picked the one who expressed it the best and only responded to it once.

I felt that the author did a good job of explaining why he didn't find these views logically compelling even though he wanted to be convinced. His writing was concise and his reasoning was easy to follow. I appreciated his respectful tone as people are more likely to listen when they feel like their view has been correctly heard and respectfully considered. Christians who read this book will hopefully follow his example. I didn't always share his exact views, but I felt he did a good job of representing why Christians (and others) can find atheist arguments unconvincing. I'd highly recommend this book to those who want to dig deeper into the arguments for both sides.

 

[Making Chimichangas]

I want to pick up on what @KnappIc said.  The moment I realized I was atheist.  Well, it wasn't exactly a moment, more like a gradual process that made me say, "Ah, I am atheist."

 

First, I want to start off saying I literally had Catholicism forced on me.  My mom met and married this guy and next thing I knew I was being baptized, going to Catholic school, and just having religion forced on me.  My mom raised me to have a basic belief in god, but we weren't religious.

 

Over the course of high school, into the military, and on to UNL, I carried that Catholic ideology.  After graduating college and starting work, I got into bible study because I had thoughts and feelings that I thought I could pray away.  And as knapplc points out, very few christians actually read the bible and I was one of them at that point.  So I started seriously reading the bible and contemplating the words therein.  I hoped to find answers and all I found were more questions.  The more thought I put into what I read, the more I came to realize just how hollow, empty, and full of sh** the bible was.  There are the ever present contradictions and the fact that god is the equivalent of a manical, murderous, psychopath.  As I read, it made no sense to me how a god that supposedly loved me would send me to hell for all eternity for one sin.  That's like well kid, you stole a piece of gum, you'll spend the rest of your life in prison.  It made no sense.  The passages where god says believe in me and I will give you rain in season, make you prosperous, etc...But if you don't then I will set your enemies against you, I will make your effort in vain, etc.  Basically, believe in me or I will make your life a living hell.  That's not love, compassion, or goodness.  Those are threats, coercion, and blackmail.  

 

But what really gets me is how supposedly a loving god sits idly by while children are born with brain cancer and other horrible birth defects.  How god sits by while people commit heinous acts and murder in "his" name.  How he allows human trafficking, slavery, corruption and just about every injustice to procede and does nothing about it.  

 

Put it this way, if you knew of a group of people who were going to commit a terrorist act and kill hundreds of people.  You knew who was going to carry out the attack, you knew when, where, and the bomb/weapon to be used.  And instead of stopping it, you let it proceed and happen.  Now let's say people found out afterward during the investigation that you knew all about it and did nothing.  Do you think people would adnire you?  Do think people would love and respect you?  No.  You would be a pariah and people would hate you.  But somehow "god" gets a pass.  Why?

 

If "god" wanted my love, worship, and awe then he should start acting like a loving caring god and not a malicious, hateful, ___ who doesn't give a damn.

 

For me, there are only two possibilities: 1) god doesn't exist and that's why the world is so f'ed up, or 2) god does exist and simply doesn't care.  All things being equal, I think #1 is far more likely than #2.

 

 

[Landlord]

15 hours ago, RedDenver said:

The Fermi Paradox gets more difficult to understand as we learn more and more about the universe.

 

 

It's not difficult at all to understand imo. The amount of technological power that would be at the hands of a civilization with the ability to communicate/travel across space will almost guarantee that civilization's destruction. Any other life in the universe likely either doesn't have the ability, or does/did have the ability but destroyed themselves first.

[RedDenver]

8 hours ago, Landlord said:

 

 

It's not difficult at all to understand imo. The amount of technological power that would be at the hands of a civilization with the ability to communicate/travel across space will almost guarantee that civilization's destruction. Any other life in the universe likely either doesn't have the ability, or does/did have the ability but destroyed themselves first.

That's a common argument, but we know that it's possible to reach a technological level of sending signals across space because we've been doing it for 80 years now; the paradox is that we haven't detected any of their signals given that there should be billions of other civilizations. Here's a good video explaining the paradox and possibly why it's true based on our understanding of how the universe has been developing: