Jump to content


Photo

Atheism & Satan


  • Please log in to reply
53 replies to this topic

#41 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 26 March 2017 - 09:57 AM

One of the things that Goku et al seem to forget is that Jeus is our creator/ savior. Not only that but He has a plan. I think sin is allowed to flourish just so we can see how bad application of Satan's way can get.

In every case it is not love that is causing all the problems but the opposiite (hate and evil).

Just about all governments institute at least some of the Ten comandments. They seem to realioze that if they didn't there woud be total chaos. As far as I know, there is no country that has made loving our brothers ( our fellow man) like we love ourself. Instead we observe the effect of everyone applying the law of survival of the fittest--the us v.s. them mantra popularized by the atheism/ evo contingent. Competitio instead of cooperation.

Jesus told His father as was mentioned in the gospels that He had kept all those that the father had given Him (to save) at the time He (Jeus Christ) walked the earth. He even mentioned it was planned that one of his own would betray Him (Jesus) as He and the Father had planned.

When I was an ESL teacher (English Second language) teacher I had students from all over the world. I had some students from the Middle East. One student called the US the Great Satan and proceeded to expouse his belief that he thought American had to much freedom. Commenting on our high crime rate he said, You Americans have to much freedom. In my country if you were caught stealing the first time they would cut your thumb off. For the second offenxe they would cut you hand off" I asked him why he came to a country he thought was the Great Satan? He told me that he had escaped his countryy by vacationing in Germany. If he had he stayed he would been forced into the military and put on the front line. I soon figured out the differnnce between Christianiity and his religious upbringing. Where Christianiiity wants each of us to not steal because that law is written in our hearts (mind) this young man didn't steal because if he did and got caught his hand would be taken off. A question came to my mind. What would happen with such people with no one constantly policeing them with threats of violence. I later found out that what I surmised was right. Many of them would do unethical things in their buisness ventures because no one was constantly observing them.

So this is a plan. God is Satan proofing us. That is one of the reasons he allows all of the mahem. We have memories and eyes to see. Even evo's see the result of evil but want to blame "love" for all the problems. It's really the creation of hate that is the real issue. I don't need anyone to threaten me with cutting my hand off if I steal. I don't steal because that law is written in my heart (my mind). I choose not to steal even when no one is looking. No. I do not think Americans have to much freedom. I think self rule is better than only not doing wrong because no one is watching. I read George Orwel's 1984 where big brother is constan watching--no thanks. I like my freedom and keeping the comandments voluntarily is a small price to pay for it.



#42 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 742 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 26 March 2017 - 07:29 PM

Would you rather have a tooth extracted, or would you rather keep the tooth in good condition and suffer no pain or loss?

There are many degrees of pain and loss possible in that scenario. Sure, prevention is best, but when tooth decay happens (as it pretty much inevitably does) what should we do?

“I don’t care, you’ve already failed” is a silly answer, but at least you’re not in the way.

“We shouldn’t teach children that a dentist can do a filling because they shouldn’t need them and knowing about them will make them not brush” is wrong. What you’ll end up with is children with tooth decay who have no idea what to do about it and end up having to resort to more serious measures once the problem gets bad enough. In trying to prevent teeth from being pulled you have produced a situation where more teeth will be pulled.

“You can’t have a dentist pull your infected tooth, you should have brushed more” is wrong and causing trouble. It’s way more about punishing people than it is a productive solution. More to the point, it isn’t likely to prevent the tooth from being pulled, it’s just going to prevent the tooth from being pulled safely by a professional. The thing that would have prevented the teeth from being pulled was a filling or a crown, which goes right back to having information about and access to services.
  • Goku likes this

#43 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,002 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 27 March 2017 - 01:45 AM

Not for you no. Create whatever you want to ceate. 

He said no man can serve two masters. If I was suppose to represent the general public, what if they wanted me to work for something Jesus opposed (like abortion)? See what I mean?
Jesus was mainly concerned with indiviual converts not the masses. Quality not quanity.

 

I would suspect that if you were a politician the people that voted you in would be aware of your anti-abortion stance. There are politicians that oppose abortion and want to make it illegal, what about them? As for constituents that want to do things you disagree with, the mark of a good leader is the ability to spearhead unpopular ideas for the greater good; reach out to the public and to your constituents to explain and convince them that you are right. If you lose the next election then you lose the next election.

 

One thing about abortion though, is that abortion is never forbidden in the Bible; it's just something man made up. In fact Numbers 5 explicitly allows abortion when the wife is not faithful. The Bible does not treat a fetus as a living, breathing, human being. Judaism, and recall Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi, treats a fetus for the first 40 days after conception as "mere fluid" which is commonly referred to as "water", and after this 40 day mark until birth the fetus is considered to be "a limb of the mother" which is commonly referred to as the "thigh". Only when the fetus takes its first breath of air, i.e. is born, is it considered to be human in the sense of you and me (before it breathes air it has no soul). This whole 'Jesus is against abortion' is something man made up.

 

Mike: I never said Dave was not a Christian. You don't agree that we are no lonmger going to play the game of "true" Christian and rather concentrate on what is and isn't Christian behavior?

I think this is a foolish test that I choose not to participate in.

 

But you were the one that said the things I was talking about, the list/test, were non-Christian behavior and then went on about how I wasn't being fair to Christianity. So I said okay tell me how the things on the list are against Christian behavior, and now you don't want to participate in that discussion?

 

This is a Democracy. So people are welcome to campaiogn and vote for what they want.

I don't think you understand the nature of beliefs. You are doing what you think because of your religion (belief system by another name). What's the difference? It's all just evo in action and evo will sort it out. Don 't you believe in evo? Have faith.

 

What am I supposed to think when Christians advocate something and say that they advocate it because of their Christianity?

 

You are ascribing attributes to a scientific theory which it does not have.

 

The majority rules in a democracy.

And aren 't you opposed because of your evo faith? Don't you have any faith in evo to sort it out? Teach both sides and stop trying to censor and control. That way people can make their own choice.
Why don't you want everything taught?

 

I don't oppose those things because of any "evo faith"; I oppose them because they are bad policy and I can demonstrate that they are bad policy. You will probably ignore this, but which ideas from the list do you think are good policy?

 

We don't teach "both sides" when it is obvious that one side is clearly wrong. For example we don't teach people the five classic elements according to the Greeks alongside the teaching of chemistry, and let students decide which one makes more sense to them.

 

Mike: I gues you expect us to think you have no motive. Get real!

 

I never said I didn't have a motive; but that you refuse to discuss your claim of me misrepresenting Christianity is interesting in of itself.

 

But according to youe worldview evo is responsible. Ask it why it evolved some of us as Christians? No one can fight evo and win! I am a victime of evo just like you are? Right? Why do you keep trying to blame us for what evo did (cause us to be Christians).

 

Evolution didn't make anyone become Christian. Evolution is a scientific theory with a specific purview of explanation; it is not some sort of God.

 

Mike: Again all this just evo in action. Shouldn't you be blaming evolution for all the mess. Since you don't believe in God and free choice am I not as a Christians what I evolved into--a victims of the process of evo? It only seems "Christians make choices but we are as Hawkings says robuts doing what our chemicals tell us to dol!

 

I never said we don't have any free will; I am undecided whether or not we have free will in any meaningful capacity.

 

Are you going to tell me what specifically is anti Christian behavior in the list?

 

Mikke: But that's the reality of the situation--what evolution has wrought. So what do you want me to do about it? Accept blame for evo does?

 

Well you said those things were against Christian behavior, so it would be nice if you explained why it is against Christian behavior, especially since I reckon most of the Christians on EFF at the very least sympathize with the issues raised on the list.

 

According to atheism/ evolution people do what they do because their chemicals cause them to--we are all victims of evo's mutations. You act like you think we have free choice?

 

Like I said, in a democracy aaall people have a say.

It's all just evo in action. Evo will sort it out and only the fittest will survuve. I guess you are hoping the fittest will be your side and all the Christians will die out because they are unfit. LOL :)

 

 

I don't know what free will or what democracy has to do with how the things on the list are not Christian behavior.

 

You do know that Christianity is on the decline, right? I once heard that since Christianity is on the decline and atheism and Islam are the two fastest 'religious' groups in the world, that means there is a 'spiritual' race between atheism and Islam for the soul of humanity.



#44 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,229 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 27 March 2017 - 03:12 AM

 

 

Popoi: “We shouldn’t teach children that a dentist can do a filling because they shouldn’t need them and knowing about them will make them not brush” is wrong. What you’ll end up with is children with tooth decay who have no idea what to do about it and end up having to resort to more serious measures once the problem gets bad enough. In trying to prevent teeth from being pulled you have produced a situation where more teeth will be pulled.

 

That doesn't follow, logically. Nor is it the point of the analogy. I was giving an example of how it is better to not get avoidable tooth extractions and brush rather than only get treatment and not brush at all. 

 

In this analogy, we imagine that this is the situation. (because that's all an analogy is) for example if I were to say, "imagine if a 12 foot human tried his strength against a 4 foot human" to complain, "there aren't any 12 foot humans" is to miss the whole point of an analogy.

 

Teaching children to brush their teeth properly and not telling them about dentists won't lead to them having more teeth pulled as it has been proven that teeth don't have to rot, there are many tribes which suffer little to no tooth decay mostly because of a lack of sugar which bacteria eat causing plaque acid. It is contradictory and inane to say that not educating people about tooth extractions will cause more of them. Not brushing at all, and only teaching about dealing with it later on (as the analogy describes prevention versus cure) is what leads to it.

 

Nor am I saying you shouldn't teach them about a dentist. If you read carefully So don't pretend the areas with education in birth control leads to birth control. It seems the Amish prove that it is not educating people in the Lord's wisdom which leads to a lack of it.

 

Don't pretend that the Christian message would lead to something worse. Society chose something worse - the pretence that humans are just animals, and you now you act like animals by murdering millions each year. Don't come knocking on the Lord's door to blame Him and his followers when the proverbial hits the fan - you deal with your own mess. Because that is what has caused the mess - a sinful, Godless world. 

 

 

 

Popoi: “You can’t have a dentist pull your infected tooth, you should have brushed more” is wrong and causing trouble. It’s way more about punishing people than it is a productive solution. More to the point, it isn’t likely to prevent the tooth from being pulled, it’s just going to prevent the tooth from being pulled safely by a professional. The thing that would have prevented the teeth from being pulled was a filling or a crown, which goes right back to having information about and access to services.

 

That isn't my argument so don't FAKE QUOTE me.

 

My argument specifically, was that if you have a Godless system that says, "don't brush your teeth", should you complain when the people that said, " brush your teeth religiously", have no interest in solving your problem when your tooth rots? For the cause isn't the Christian that doesn't educate, but the ones who teach you to rot your teeth.

 

Also, the cause of the rot isn't the lack of education about pulling teeth, anyway, because the rot was caused by not looking after the teeth. (shifting the blame) 

 

 

 

 

Popoi: The thing that would have prevented the teeth from being pulled was a filling or a crown

 

Pointless to the analogy and in fact not the true cause, because if there was no rot there would be no crown therefore no extraction. Think about it. The analogy merely pits prevention against cure, where each is mutually exclusive. Providing information extraneous to the analogy, seems to be something you struggle to understand, just is not germane to the point of an analogy.

 

 

 

Popoi:  In trying to prevent teeth from being pulled you have produced a situation where more teeth will be pulled.

 

So you believe if no brushing at all occurs, this will lead to less extractions? Since my analogy presents a dichotomous comparison, then I am comparing brushing to not brushing. (prevention versus cure).

 

You want to be true to the analogy to the point of OVERKILL, so then if we do that, then your side is recommending never brushing teeth, since the non-Christian, secular society, preach that s@x outside of marriage is okay. Therefore all fornication would be regarded as, "not brushing teeth".

 

See - do you think I don't know my own analogies?

 

So let's see the result of 100 children that scoff icecream and sugars all day long and are not told to brush their teeth, with those taught to do it fastidiously and eat less sugar. Let me get this straight - you are saying the ones that don't brush their teeth and are taught about tooth extractions, will have better teeth?

 

Is it better to be an alcoholic and just get liver disease, then get a liver transplant, or deal with the cause which is the alcoholism? (in an analogy, we PRETEND that this is the scenario. So objecting by saying the person could not necessarily get liver disease or whatever, would be extraneous, logically, you aren't permitted to change or add to the scenario because it is only hypothetical anyway. Why don't you get that?) The analogy only exists to show that it is clearly better to prevent a particular scenario than to try and cure it and just teach that it is okay to cause the problem. Try thinking by isolating, then you might have more success understanding the point of analogies.

 

Do you understand what I mean? Preventing the true cause, is wisdom. Giving a list of, "oops we cocked up by doing it Satan's way, so now lets blame the Christian for causing trouble", is nonsense.

 

If you want a Christian's true opinion on these issues - the answer we give is that people should seek the Lord, so that an inward change in the inner-man, then makes the individual make the right choices, by seeking true morality from God. For if you correct the heart, the whole body then follows.

 

If the shepherd is wayward then all the sheep are scattered. You can correct the sheep by chasing them, but if you correct the shepherd, then all the sheep will follow.

 

Many problems exist, but their true cure and prevention is found in addressing the sinful nature, which leads to all of those things to begin with. That is why the Amish don't have these problems to begin with.



#45 Galileo

Galileo

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • England

Posted 27 March 2017 - 04:56 AM

sure they could, just like their fellow atheists have pointed out.
they don't mind the mystical world of harry potter but comes thoroughly unglued over the likes of the bible.
a fine double standard wouldn't you say?

 

Only if they thought Harry Potter was real.



#46 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 742 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 27 March 2017 - 07:44 AM

That doesn't follow, logically. Nor is it the point of the analogy. I was giving an example of how it is better to not get avoidable tooth extractions and brush rather than only get treatment and not brush at all.

Sure, but that's a meaningless false dichotomy.
 

Teaching children to brush their teeth properly and not telling them about dentists won't lead to them having more teeth pulled as it has been proven that teeth don't have to rot, there are many tribes which suffer little to no tooth decay mostly because of a lack of sugar which bacteria eat causing plaque acid.

Wait, it's not because of brushing? Why is your solution to brush your teeth instead of to adopt the diet of those tribes? Would we see the same benefit if we adopted their brushing habits without adopting their diet?
 

It is contradictory and inane to say that not educating people about tooth extractions will cause more of them. Not brushing at all, and only teaching about dealing with it later on (as the analogy describes prevention versus cure) is what leads to it.

Not educating people about the full range of their options will have a worse outcome than only educating them about the best option when many people will not take that option.

Nobody is seriously advocating a complete lack of prevention.
 

Nor am I saying you shouldn't teach them about a dentist. If you read carefully[/font] So don't pretend the areas with education in birth control leads to birth control. It seems the Amish prove that it is not educating people in the Lord's wisdom which leads to a lack of it.

Just like the tribes above, the Amish are a special circumstance. You can't just say "Well look at them they don't educate and they don't have problems" without looking at how that solution works in a non-Amish context. We have, and it doesn't.
 

My argument specifically, was that if you have a Godless system that says, "don't brush your teeth", should you complain when the people that said, " brush your teeth religiously", have no interest in solving your problem when your tooth rots? For the cause isn't the Christian that doesn't educate, but the ones who teach you to rot your teeth.

As I said, if they had no interest in trying to solve the problem that would be silly but fine. The problem is that they have an interest in solving it but are doing it in a way that's counterproductive.
 

Also, the cause of the rot isn't the lack of education about pulling teeth, anyway, because the rot was caused by not looking after the teeth. (shifting the blame)

I don't care about blame. I care about harm reduction. Lack of education may not have caused the rot, but it can certainly help make it worse.
 

You want to be true to the analogy to the point of OVERKILL, so then if we do that, then your side is recommending never brushing teeth, since the non-Christian, secular society, preach that s@x outside of marriage is okay. Therefore all fornication would be regarded as, "not brushing teeth".

You can brush your teeth again after skipping a day. There are also things you can do that aren't as good as brushing but are still better than nothing (mouthwash, avoiding sugar, etc.) It's not an all or nothing thing, and neither is s@x outside of marriage.

To go back to the tribes you mentioned earlier, they're arguably doing a better job of prevention by not creating an environment that promotes bacteria in the first place. We could do a similar thing by abstaining from certain foods. The solution we typically go with is to brush regularly to cure the buildup of those bacteria, that is to say recognize that people are going to eat those foods but encourage that they do so in a reasonably safe way.
 

So let's see the result of 100 children that scoff icecream and sugars all day long and are not told to brush their teeth, with those taught to do it fastidiously and eat less sugar. Let me get this straight - you are saying the ones that don't brush their teeth and are taught about tooth extractions, will have better teeth?

You can't change multiple variables at once and expect to get a meaningful idea of the cause and effect relationships.

#47 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 27 March 2017 - 08:57 AM

You can brush your teeth again after skipping a day. There are also things you can do that aren't as good as brushing but are still better than nothing (mouthwash, avoiding sugar, etc.) It's not an all or nothing thing, and neither is s@x outside of marriage.

To go back to the tribes you mentioned earlier, they're arguably doing a better job of prevention by not creating an environment that promotes bacteria in the first place. We could do a similar thing by abstaining from certain foods. The solution we typically go with is to brush regularly to cure the buildup of those bacteria, that is to say recognize that people are going to eat those foods but encourage that they do so in a reasonably safe way.
 
You can't change multiple variables at once and expect to get a meaningful idea of the cause and effect relationships.

People brush their teeth and get cavities, so brushing their teeth is definitely not enough. Whatever these tribes do (their diet) is enough.

 

The correct analogy is thus:

Preaching people so they convert to that diet only would be the "abstinence only" education. 

Brushing your teeth and education about healthier food would be a full education.


  • Mike Summers likes this

#48 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 890 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 28 March 2017 - 12:54 PM

Only if they thought Harry Potter was real.

so, the bible should be removed because of what?
it might be real?
people might think it's real?
people might start taking the good parts and living by them?

or is it something more sinister, the attempted annihilation of all religion.

what do you make of what koonin did in post 125 (another thread), changed the wording of his paper to remove references to ID.
as a scientist, how do you feel about that?

#49 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,229 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 29 March 2017 - 02:44 AM

It's not about tooth brushing, or even full prevention. It's just to compare one preventative measure with a curative measure.

 

Obviously in reality, people can brush their teeth, have a healthy diet. (both) But the point of an analogy, is to present a hypothetical or pretend scenario which makes highlights something and makes it understandable.

 

Brushing teeth is preventative because it can prevent the build up of plaque.

 

But the analogy itself is of no importance, because it is only on the table to represent an example of prevention versus cure. Therefore to refute Popoi all I have to do is provide another analogy which is easy - what is the best thing to do, where we have two people arguing prevention versus cure - is the best thing to smoke, get lung cancer then get treatment for lung cancer, OR, is the other person correct, who says you should stop smoking?

 

This is what Popoi never seems to, "get", that if you refute an analogy, if the point the person was arguing is still correct, then your efforts to refute an analogy have done just that, and you have only refuted the analogy, but not the point the person was making.

 

My point is obviously correct, generally speaking prevention is better than cure because a lot of the problems that stem from not preventing X, cannot arise because X is prevented.

 

EXAMPLE; you won't have to abort a baby for reasons of not wanting it, if you are brought up in a Christian, Amish village, because nobody will be put into the position of not wanting a baby, in the correct setting. (The Amish aren't an example of perfection and I am not claiming it is impossible for an Amish person to do X, I am just showing that under certain circumstances, if the individual chooses by freewill, to choose prevention, then that means the issues of even considering an abortion for secular reasons, will never arise, if all people in the group are also of one mind, in following those biblical principles.)

 

So then the issues that people try to force Christians to choose from in this thread, from Driewerf's list, are issues that arise because there are no preventative rules in a secular society, whereas a Christian society would endorse them, meaning the answer from Christians would be to live in a Christian society that places God's wisdom first, and our answer isn't to say, after the proverbial has hit the fan, "you should do this, you should do that"....No - we said not to let your teeth rot, and you have done it, so why do you now insist on hearing our opinion about what you should do next? Our answer is you have to deal with the consequences of thinking you are smarter than God.

 

 

mike the wiz: But the problem is, sometimes Christians don't care about the world's problems.

 

Think about it this way as an analogy. Imagine if Hitler had won, and now the dicussion on the table was how to most efficiently kill people of other race, and you asked a Christian should they be hanged or shot.



#50 Galileo

Galileo

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • England

Posted 29 March 2017 - 03:49 AM

so, the bible should be removed because of what?
it might be real?
people might think it's real?
people might start taking the good parts and living by them?

or is it something more sinister, the attempted annihilation of all religion.

what do you make of what koonin did in post 125 (another thread), changed the wording of his paper to remove references to ID.
as a scientist, how do you feel about that?

 

The bible removed from what?

 

All I meant was that I thought it was a double standard if they were atheist and they thought Harry Potter was real but the bible wasn't real since to them both of them would probably be works of fiction.

I don't know what anything about Koonin and I don't know which thread you're referring to.



#51 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 890 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 29 March 2017 - 06:50 AM

I don't know what anything about Koonin and I don't know which thread you're referring to.

some science papers include a commentary section at the end, a sort of question and answer session, between the author and the reviewers.

i'm going to include the entire post, but the last comment is what we are interested in.

i was reading some of the material on my hard drive, and i came across the following commentary:

comment: In the first two paragraphs of "Background" we see that the tree concept is being contrasted to a rate concept (gradualism). That problem occurs throughout the paper. One cannot easily present rates plus mechanisms (Bangs) as alternatives to shapes (the tree). I don't really have a suggestion as to how to fix this problem of the present paper except for major recouching of the issues. But I do think that it needs to be fixed.

Author's response: This is an important point, and I attempted to make it explicit in several places in the revised manuscript. What I mean is not just a major difference in rate but a difference in mechanism. The underlying mechanism in tree phases of evolution is vertical inheritance resulting in cladogenesis. The underlying mechanism in inflationary stages is exchange, recombination etc such that organismal lineages do not exist. The paper is not just about the fallacy of gradualism (something that, indeed, has been emphasized by Gould-Eldredge, Cavalier-Smith and others).
- The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution.htm

uh, the fallacy of gradualism?
especially when it was emphasized by gould?
gould actually emphasized gradualism was a fallacy????
what was it that ayala said again, oh yeah:
We would not have predicted stasis from population genetics, but I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate.

hey, i thought gould didn't like to be quoted.
i suspect it isn't so much gould as it is the gradualists that doesn't want gould quoted.

comment: In each major class of biological objects, the principal types emerge "ready-made", and intermediate grades cannot be identified." Ouch, that will be up on ID websites faster than one can bat an eye.

authors response; Here I do not really understand the concern. I changed "ready-made" to "abruptly", to avoid any ID allusions and added clarifications but, beyond that, there is little I can do because this is an important sentence that accurately and clearly portrays a crucial and, to the very best of my understanding, real feature of evolutionary transitions.
- ibid.

there you have it folks, how scientific papers are typically "groomed" to remove all traces/ references to creationism/ID

#52 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 742 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 29 March 2017 - 08:20 AM

But the analogy itself is of no importance, because it is only on the table to represent an example of prevention versus cure. Therefore to refute Popoi all I have to do is provide another analogy which is easy - what is the best thing to do, where we have two people arguing prevention versus cure - is the best thing to smoke, get lung cancer then get treatment for lung cancer, OR, is the other person correct, who says you should stop smoking?

Not smoking at all is the best option, but in a world where people smoke, informing them about the less dangerous options available to them (nicotine gum, e-cigarettes, etc.) seems likely to produce a better outcome than not telling them anything other than "well you shouldn't have smoked". When you do that you get closer to the situation that most illegal drugs have, which is that people aren't able to take the precautions that would make what they're doing safer. That mostly doesn't mean they're going to stop doing it, it just means they're stuck doing it dangerously. When you give people the ability to take those precautions, the danger is reduced considerably.

The whole point of this is that comparing best and worst and declaring that if you can't have the best there's no point is foolish, because there are many options in between.
 

This is what Popoi never seems to, "get", that if you refute an analogy, if the point the person was arguing is still correct, then your efforts to refute an analogy have done just that, and you have only refuted the analogy, but not the point the person was making.

I don't want to blow your mind here, but most of my points were intended to apply to both sides of the analogy. I didn't think I was being that subtle about it.
 

My point is obviously correct, generally speaking prevention is better than cure because a lot of the problems that stem from not preventing X, cannot arise because X is prevented.

Whether it's better depends on the cost of prevention. Preventing car accidents by never driving will certainly keep you out of car accidents, but depending on where you live it's going to be a lot harder to go about your daily life. Instead, we've put a lot of work in to making cars safer to use to reduce the risk involved.
 

So then the issues that people try to force Christians to choose from in this thread, from Driewerf's list, are issues that arise because there are no preventative rules in a secular society, whereas a Christian society would endorse them, meaning the answer from Christians would be to live in a Christian society that places God's wisdom first, and our answer isn't to say, after the proverbial has hit the fan, "you should do this, you should do that"....No - we said not to let your teeth rot, and you have done it, so why do you now insist on hearing our opinion about what you should do next? Our answer is you have to deal with the consequences of thinking you are smarter than God.

For some people it's "You have to deal with the consequences, but not that way because we don't approve". I don't buy this notion that Christians can't/don't have an opinion beyond "Well you should have done it the right way first and now I don't care". The actual track record of people who say they are motivated by Christianity does not bear that notion out.

#53 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,229 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 29 March 2017 - 11:42 AM

 

 

Popoi: Not smoking at all is the best option, but in a world where people smoke, informing them about the less dangerous options available to them (nicotine gum, e-cigarettes, etc.) seems likely to produce a better outcome than not telling them anything other than "well you shouldn't have smoked". 

 

Which is a moot point, you should google what a moot point is. Why is it moot? Because the analogy doesn't exist in order to say that it is wrong to inform people about less dangerous options than smoking. The point of the analogy is to clearly show that the Christian worldview is the correct wisdom. To not smoke is wise, and it is stupidity to inhale smoke into the lungs.

 

Therefore with that in mind - what I am saying is that having to deal with the effects of a secular worldview which does not provide that wisdom to people, isn't my problem.

 

This does not mean I am saying you shouldn't give advice to people that choose to smoke or that the advice shouldn't be wise advice, it just means with a lot of the issues on Driewerf's list, really these issues only arise as problems to begin with, because of a secularised society which chooses anti-Christian methods which okay the sin, then say "now here might be a cure", rather than preaching to not sin or at least make foolish decisions, to begin with.

 

 

 

 

 

Popoi: The whole point of this is that comparing best and worst and declaring that if you can't have the best there's no point is foolish, because there are many options in between

 

But those, "many options" doesn't mean that there isn't a general truth to the axiom that prevention is better than cure. It is still provable, that certain problems will not arise if there is prevention.

 

Nothing you said changed the fact that if you don't smoke therefore you won't get lung cancer from smoking.

 

That is still correct, and that was my point - that logically it can be shown that it is better to not smoke than to smoke and then create a list of problems that arise from it, and ask the people who said "don't smoke" to give their opinions on what is best.

 

Very clearly, the way to deal with lung cancer is to not smoke, rather than get the cancer then get treatment. Whether you like it or not, obviously the prevention is the right way. In the same way, to deal with drunk driving, it is best to mutually exclude driving and drinking by saying to one's self, "I can either drink or drive, but not both". The answer isn't to drink and drive then pay for the damage you cause once you have crashed into someone's car. Obviously instead of getting STDs, it is best to not spread them to begin with, rather than treating them - and this is the whole issue, your secular, Godless society says it's fine to sin and do foolish things, then preaches to deal with them later on. Your education doesn't work, because in educated areas, the problems still exist, but they don't exist in the Amish Christian community. So put up or shut up - show that a Godless society does moral things rather than just moralising with empty words. The Amish don't have those problems - meaning their Christian morality genuinely solves those problems, whereas your worldly, curative measures, clearly don't work.

 

A Christian represents and stands for the Kingdom of God. That may be idealism from your perspective, but if the Christian as an individual, lives by following God genuinely, then this is a reality for the individual which means it can be a reality for the population, so our answer is a Christian answer; that looking to God and changing on the inside, is the key. That is why criminals that genuinely become Christian, don't go back to prison, for the heart of all these matters, is the problem of the sin nature.

 

 

 

Popoi: Whether it's better depends on the cost of prevention. Preventing car accidents by never driving will certainly keep you out of car accidents, but depending on where you live it's going to be a lot harder to go about your daily life. Instead, we've put a lot of work in to making cars safer to use to reduce the risk involved.

 

Well, I didn't claims there were no exceptions, besides this is not really the correct type of issue as it doesn't deal with ethics and we were discussing ethics. 

 

 

 

Popoi: For some people it's "You have to deal with the consequences, but not that way because we don't approve". I don't buy this notion that Christians can't/don't have an opinion beyond "Well you should have done it the right way first and now I don't care". The actual track record of people who say they are motivated by Christianity does not bear that notion out. 

 

Well, the law of the excluded middle can't apply can it, because a group isn't an individual.

 

In other words, the answer is in your question - to some people it matters, to some it doesn't. Like Mike said, politics isn't really something a lot of Christians care much about because Jesus didn't. It's not that we don't care about people, it's that some issues you feel you are being forced to have an opinion so that atheists can drag you into the debate just to condemn you for having an opinion that won't be the same as a secularists opinion.

 

Do I really care about G*y marriage? Hell no, I couldn't care less to be honest. Are you saying you want me to give an opinion? Should or shouldn't you allow it? My answer is, God is not going to physically stop if from taking place, as people are capable of freewill decisions He allows to happen. So then it is the choice and it is the matter of those making that decision, and the consequences only pertain to them. What difference does it really make, anyway? They are still going to be a G*y couple, so it seems to me an issue like that is irrelevant. 

 

Imagine if it was asked of me for another sin. "Mike, should or shouldn't people have the right to marry children, should two people aged 12 be able to marry, they're already having s@x?"

 

Lol - are you kidding me - what does it change? 

 

That's what a lot of these issues are like, it is like me coming up to you, and if you are an avid pigeon lover, saying to you, "I have murdered my pigeon for sport, do you think it is best to eat it or bury it?"

 

What would you say? "I don't give a crap you pigeon murderer, as the proverbial has already hit the fan either way!"

 

Lol!



#54 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 06 April 2017 - 11:54 AM

Most of the people that have read my writing know that I think we are all creators. In fact, what causes the most friction between two people are conflicts between the ideas we create in our minds, sell to ourselves and then try to sell to others.

Worse yet, there is the concept adversary (enemy) so that the avowed purpose of the adversary is to be in the business of creating the opposite of what another creator creates. This attitude results in the abuse of creativity. Why do that? Just because he or she can.

Here is how simple it is: Imagine your mind as a sophisticated word processor. You give it instructions and your creative element proceeds to bring into existence the things you tell it to in the form of ideas. People communicate internally with simple declarative sentences. Here's how it works: "I am an atheist." So then such a person created the idea of no God and then decides to go around selling to others that he has decided there is no God--because he says so. The lack of logic in such a statement is often missed and existence of beings external to the self is indeed possible. We know many such beings. Moreover, I have instructed my personal philosophy making machine to not limit who can exist. So, that way I am open to the existence of all beings. I don't buy the limits my fellow creator has created!

My fellow human is a creator possessing the same creative abilities I have (don't we a ll) and he has decided to play the roll of adversary--which I call abusing creativity. I can't out create him and they innntutively know that. Nevertheless they proceed to uncreated (oppose) everything I have created (probably a bit of an over-generalization0). If i create up, he or she creates down and offers it as a better creation while mine is bad or evil. It's neither just an alternative creation. Often one or both of us persue the idea that our creation is true and the other guy's creation is false. "We were created." "We evolved!"


Here is how I answer that question: What do both statements have in common? Both were "created" by intelligent beings. The lowest common decimator is intelligence and creativity! Someone is abusing their creativity by playing adversary!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users