Question for religious folk

[bodminman]

@soveryapt - Nope you're not on my list! LOL

 

The support groups we're create by myself and my wife along with some friends of our who we had met through another group. There are around 250 members between the 2 groups and sadly this is increasing on a weekly basis.

[Garacesh]

That's my point, they might have been convinced, but they had their free choice, they could have chosen to not do it .. take the Heist by Derren Brown as a great example - he took perfectly innocent people and made them hold up an armoured van, did they have a choice? Yes, they knew that was wrong to do, but still it was something they did (by the way, not saying Derren is the devil here, I quite like his work to be fair) ..

 

It's the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the ability to know the difference instead of living in God's design if you like .. they chose to want to know what this all was, we are, by the very nature of our being, sinful ..

Personally, I think (hypothetically saying the story is true, for sake of ease) it's better that way. I'd much rather know what good and evil was (*) and decide on my own actions. Let's face it - my virtues are worthless if I don't know what evil is. Can I say I'm a 'good' person if I don't know what not being good is?

 

* everybodies moral compass is different, anyway.

[Willott]

.. didn't the Devil/Snake convince Eve to eat from - what the Bible itself declares - the Tree of Knowledge?

Does it not logically follow, then, that God wishes us not to have knowledge, and in fact, our free will comes not from God, but from the original sin itself? And does it not follow from that, then, that if we are to agree that free will and independence are positive things, that the creature described as the embodiment of all evil is in fact, not so, and instead is the one responsible from releasing us from the shackles of slavery to God?

(Heck, maybe we'd be happier being mindless slaves, but that's a different discussion. I'm sure most Christians would agree Free Will is a good thing)

 

That's what I understand the Bible to say, anyway. I'm not trying to cause arguments, that's just my interpretation of it. Maybe God and the Devil do exist, and the Bible's one big smear campaign

 

I think from my understanding, the tree of knowledge gave all knowledge, not that God wishes us to have no knowledge. Consider schooling (I really have got to stop using schools as an example)... if on the first day of school, a student was given knowledge of everything, so that they no longer needed to be there, but still had to be there (it's school after all, you do your time...) - what have they really learned, and what will they do (act out, misbehave, be bored, come out with no life skills), if the student goes through school learning, then they are occupied, happy etc - this is seen in some footballers of today - pit a £100k a week footballer against someone who gets paid £20k, the likelihood is that the person who has to put most effort into living will be the most rounded. (please note, this is talking about ideal students, not every student).

 

From that, I believe that God wants us to work for our knowledge, to develop ourselves, not to be handed everything - yes, I know this is just good morals, but I'm not saying that it's specific to Christians. And that, by free will, we can choose whether to do the work, or not.

[ht6]

A couple of things I'd like to say. I believe that science and faith go hand in hand. I think that God is the who, the what, and the why. And science is the how it all fits together.

 

Anyhow, my first comment would be for those saying that it's not free-will as God already knows the outcome. God does not see time like we see time. He is not sat at the end of the 'time string' watching back on us, but rather sees time from a totally different viewpoint to us where he can see past, present and future, all of the time. An American pastor called Chuck Missler explains this well. I'm sorry, I'm not the best at getting my views across.

 

Secondly, evolution. I thought (and excuse my ignorance here, I'm really not up on things) that DNA (EDIT) was found to be a digital code, not an analogue code? And if so, doesn't this disprove evolution? With an analogue code things can adjust gently over time, but surely with digital code one minute we would have a second nose, and then all of a sudden we don't?

Edited May 22, 2013 by ht6

[Jawloms]

Can we clear up the free will thing? I know what my wife will do before she does it in certain situations, that doesn't mean I have removed her free will to do it.

[Greenbeast]

Secondly, evolution. I thought (and excuse my ignorance here, I'm really not up on things) that evolution was found to be a digital code, not an analogue code? And if so, doesn't this disprove evolution? With an analogue code things can adjust gently over time, but surely with digital code one minute we would have a second nose, and then all of a sudden we don't?

 

er, WTF!?

 

how is evolution digital in any way, shape or form?

[ht6]

I think from my understanding, the tree of knowledge gave all knowledge, not that God wishes us to have no knowledge. Consider schooling (I really have got to stop using schools as an example)... if on the first day of school, a student was given knowledge of everything, so that they no longer needed to be there, but still had to be there (it's school after all, you do your time...) - what have they really learned, and what will they do (act out, misbehave, be bored, come out with no life skills), if the student goes through school learning, then they are occupied, happy etc - this is seen in some footballers of today - pit a £100k a week footballer against someone who gets paid £20k, the likelihood is that the person who has to put most effort into living will be the most rounded. (please note, this is talking about ideal students, not every student).

 

From that, I believe that God wants us to work for our knowledge, to develop ourselves, not to be handed everything - yes, I know this is just good morals, but I'm not saying that it's specific to Christians. And that, by free will, we can choose whether to do the work, or not.

 

I'm not sure this is how it reads. My take is that the tree of knowledge is knowledge of everything, good and bad. Adam and Eve were in paradise, with no knowledge of the good and bad of the world, just that they were happy. Then the devil persuaded them to take a bite, and what can be seen cannot be unseen, and that is why we have to deal with good and bad today - but one day we will return to that paradise.

 

I'm also of the viewpoint that the Bible (OT especially) is very poetic, and should not be read literally in a lot of places - for example, did Adam and Eve really bite from the forbidden fruit, or was this just a way to get the situation down on paper that could be easily understood?

[ht6]

er, WTF!?

 

how is evolution digital in any way, shape or form?

 

Sorry, said I wasn't best at explaining my thoughts. Anyway, meant DNA as digital code.

[Garacesh]

Can we clear up the free will thing? I know what my wife will do before she does it in certain situations, that doesn't mean I have removed her free will to do it.

I think you're mixing two arguments there. Free will, and 'God's plan'. @X-13 is arguing one cannot have free will if God has planned our actions (although the earlier analogy of having a basic plan could be applied, the question still stands, is it truly 'free will' if there's a fixed goal, however general? Or is it just 'sorta-kinda-you're-allowed/able-to-do-only-certain-things-so-long-as-the-outcome-is-the-same'? Because that's how it reads to me)

I personally am arguing the Devil - if the Bible is to be believed - gave us the ability to chose our own actions and think for ourselves. Something, it seems, God had not intended for us.

[Willott]

The support groups we're create by myself and my wife along with some friends of our who we had met through another group. There are around 250 members between the 2 groups and sadly this is increasing on a weekly basis.

 

My belief would be that this is where God's will shows itself - using your skills to provide support to others, and in so doing receiving support from them.

 

Thank you for setting up those groups - in the event that I ever need the support I know that is it there.

[soveryapt]

Can we clear up the free will thing? I know what my wife will do before she does it in certain situations, that doesn't mean I have removed her free will to do it.

 

Totally .. knowing what someone is going to do does not remove their choice to do it .. free will is the persons choice in the first place .. now, if you (to use the same example) knew what your wife was going to do and stopped her from doing it, that is a removal of her free will ..

[Greenbeast]

Sorry, said I wasn't best at explaining my thoughts. Anyway, meant DNA as digital code.

 

just because DNA has discrete positions does not mean it has not evolved. Besides, there is no one 'gene' for a nose, so the addition, removal or change in a single gene would not cause a second nose to appear or disappear

[Jawloms]

I think you're mixing two arguments there. Free will, and 'God's plan'. @X-13 is arguing one cannot have free will if God has planned our actions (although the earlier analogy of having a basic plan could be applied, the question still stands, is it truly 'free will' if there's a fixed goal, however general? Or is it just 'sorta-kinda-you're-allowed/able-to-do-only-certain-things-so-long-as-the-outcome-is-the-same'? Because that's how it reads to me)

I personally am arguing the Devil - if the Bible is to be believed - gave us the ability to chose our own actions and think for ourselves. Something, it seems, God had not intended for us.

 

If I had a plan, and I knew what people were going to be doing, I'd know who to use, when and how in order to achieve my plan, so yes, free will does exist and based on knowing what people are going to do of their own free will, you can still end up with the result you wanted.

[Willott]

I think you're mixing two arguments there. Free will, and 'God's plan'. @X-13 is arguing one cannot have free will if God has planned our actions (although the earlier analogy of having a basic plan could be applied, the question still stands, is it truly 'free will' if there's a fixed goal, however general? Or is it just 'sorta-kinda-you're-allowed/able-to-do-only-certain-things-so-long-as-the-outcome-is-the-same'? Because that's how it reads to me)

I personally am arguing the Devil - if the Bible is to be believed - gave us the ability to chose our own actions and think for ourselves. Something, it seems, God had not intended for us.

 

Fixed goal for the world - in my belief the fixed goal is that we shall all go to God's Kingdom, however, there is still free will in this - I believe that we can choose to believe in Jesus as the son of God and follow Him, and by believing we gain entry to God's Kingdom.

[sted]

Secondly, evolution. I thought (and excuse my ignorance here, I'm really not up on things) that DNA (EDIT) was found to be a digital code, not an analogue code? And if so, doesn't this disprove evolution? With an analogue code things can adjust gently over time, but surely with digital code one minute we would have a second nose, and then all of a sudden we don't?

 

from what i understand dna is sort of like binary butwith 4 characters t,a,g,c the same pairs repeat so iirc t is always paired with an a g with c (not 100% sure on the order). But its such a long code and no one "bit" does one thing (not to mention rna iirc which also encodes stuff about you dna isnt the whole answer). it would be like getting the binary code for a word document altering one character and expecting lots of words to change. Odds on you will change a single character somewhere in the document from a to say z but the bulk of the document remains unchanged and as you read it you would either not notice or auto correct the fault. Same with dna most minor changes make no difference some make a huge and destructive difference (so if i altered a single digit in the header code of a word doc it might be unreadable). DNA is not just a list of switches that say blue eyes brown hair its lots of linked code that all affects the rest.

[Willott]

FFS.

 

Same source material, two completely different interpretations.

 

I refer you to the study of the MMR vaccine causing Autism...

[X-13]

I refer you to the study of the MMR vaccine causing Autism...

 

Which was proven to be made up.

[sted]

I refer you to the study of the MMR vaccine causing Autism...

 

i dont think anyone is saying science never gets things wrong but at least there is a method for examining and testing findings and in theory when something can be disproved you learn almost as much by being wrong you move on adjust your theories and test the new set. People are people so they pick questions to suit their needs etc and we have evolved to spot patterns wether they are meaningful or not which can send people down the wrong path.

Edited May 22, 2013 by sted

[ht6]

i dont think anyone is saying science never gets things wrong but at least there is a method for examining and testing findings and in theory when something can be disproved you learn almost as much by being wrong you move on adjust your theories and test the new set.

 

Faith can be examined too. In fact the Bible is one of the most scrutinised books ever, and yet, here we are 2000 years later with a massive following and 'not-a-whole-lot' of evidence disproving it.

 

It's a game of opinions (or faith is another term), and it takes as much faith to be an atheist as it does a man of the cloth.

[Garacesh]

It's a game of opinions (or faith is another term), and it takes as much faith to be an atheist as it does a man of the cloth.

 

No.

Atheism is not faith. Why I do not believe in your God is not the same reason I do not believe in a different deity. This is something I admittedly get a little hot-headed about because I do my best to put my arguments forward in a logical, fair manner and am open to discussion. To be told that Atheism is a system of faith and not a system of logic insults me.

 

Atheism is not the faith there is no God. It is the lack of faith in any and all deities.

There is

by QualiaSoup on this subject. I would recommend it. Edited May 22, 2013 by Garacesh

[Willott]

This has sparked my interest out of a video going round from sky news of a woman who lost her dog after the Oklahoma tornado and the dog appearing as she's being interviewed.

 

Essentially all the comments are thanking god for answering her prayers and what not, lots of comments going to similar effect, as well as the woman in the video thanking god. What i can't grasp is how someone can thank a deity after such an event?

 

I mean if "God" caused that dog to be alive and found, then why not everyone else such as the children that are missing or dead? Why thank god for saving one life but taking another? Why thank god for saving someone and not curse him for causing the tornado?

 

It probably makes sense to a religious person but as an atheist/agnostic (i sometimes like to play with ideas making me agnostic but generally have a strong opinion that we're on our own haha) i just can't understand the thought pattern that follows when someone thanks god for something AFTER a catastrophic event?!

 

After all my other posts, I guess I should reply to OP... in the instant, thanking for a positive. I would hope as a fellow Christian that before they found the dog, and after they have been praying that God would reveal His plan - to support those affected, however it may be.

[pcstru]

I refer you to the study of the MMR vaccine causing Autism...

 

The difference with Science is that science is a method that is self correcting *by design*. A scientific theory can always be falsified if it is not true - all it takes is one piece of evidence and bang, the theory is overturned. Scientists spend their time actively trying to disprove their theories - not as some seem to think, sitting in their labs thinking of experiments that will prove them (infact you can't prove a theory - proof a that level is something you can only do in mathematics).

[sted]

Faith can be examined too. In fact the Bible is one of the most scrutinised books ever, and yet, here we are 2000 years later with a massive following and 'not-a-whole-lot' of evidence disproving it.

 

It's a game of opinions (or faith is another term), and it takes as much faith to be an atheist as it does a man of the cloth.

 

can it so jesus fed the 5000 for instance how can you prove or disprove it 1000's of years after the fact from what at best is 3rd hand documentary evicence. Christmas has sheperds birthing lambs but is in december iirc lambs are born nearer march so christmas pretty much cant be in december

[pcstru]

Faith can be examined too. In fact the Bible is one of the most scrutinised books ever, and yet, here we are 2000 years later with a massive following and 'not-a-whole-lot' of evidence disproving it.

There is not a lot of evidence that disproves fairies live at the bottom of my garden or that bigfoot is alive or that a giant teapot orbits the earth with a pixie inside dispensing magic pixie dust to those that deserve it. The call to "prove it doesn't exist" is the refuge of the illogical and irrational. By all means have faith and belief, but recognise them for what they are and know how they are different from science and rational scepticism.

It's a game of opinions (or faith is another term), and it takes as much faith to be an atheist as it does a man of the cloth.

 

No, it does not.

[ht6]

No.

Atheism is not faith. Why I do not believe in your God is not the same reason I do not believe in a different deity. This is something I admittedly get a little hot-headed about because I do my best to put my arguments forward in a logical, fair manner and am open to discussion. To be told that Atheism is a system of faith and not a system of logic insults me.

 

Atheism is not the faith there is no God. It is the lack of faith in any and all deities.

There is

by QualiaSoup on this subject. I would recommend it.

 

Faith: Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

 

As in a leap of faith. You take the leap in the 'faith' that you land safely.

 

So yes, it does take faith to be an atheist. Since you can't prove there is no God, it takes a leap of faith to believe that there is no God. Like it takes a leap of faith for me to believe there is a God.