Apology from the Christians

[Robby]

There is a famous work in the early church in which Athenagorus gave
an Apology (reason, defense) *for* the Christians to the Roman
Emperor. I am playing off of that and giving an apology *from*
Christians.

I seek to apologize (that is, confess a wrong, say sorrow, ask
forgiveness) for the behavior of many Christians. I realize that I
cannot speak for anyone nor justify any unjust actions performed by
other people, but as a Christ follower (I prefer not to use the term
Christian b/c it's meaning has become so thwarted) I would like to
speak on behalf of many Christ-followers that I know that feel the
same way.

I am apologizing to those who have been mistreated by Christians,
those whose beliefs have been ridiculed, those who have been put down
and degraded by Christians in the name of God ... this is a horrible
outrage to me, and to God. It is sad that there are many who claim to
worship Jesus, yet live and act differently than He did while on
earth. There are many who don't know how to respectfully, if even
vehemently, disagree with someone, and yet maintain love and
acceptance for the individual, while rejecting the belief system that
person adheres to. This is sad and immature, and I am sorry that many
hurtful things have been said and done to people who believe
differently.

I am truly sorry. I want to tell you who are reading this that I
genuinely care about you as a person, no matter who you are, and I
hope the best for you.

[Drafterman]

Being sorry and apologizing often go hand-in-hand. However, there are
ways in which they differ. You can be sorry for things that aren't
your fault. However, you cannot apologize for something that isn't
your fault unless you intend to speak for someone.

With this in mind we immediately run into a contradiction. This is,
obstensibly, an "apology" from "the Christians" yet, right off the
bat, you say "I realize that I cannot speak for anyone nor justify any
unjust actions performed by other people". Unfortunately you cannot
have it both ways. While I certainly appreciate the sentiment - that
you have observed the behavior of your fellow Christians and are
ashamed - your lack of ability in being able to speak for them makes
this apology impotent.

You acknolwedge that wrongs have been done, but unless that viewpoint
can be made official in the eyes of Christianity, it means little.
Everyone that commits those wrongs will continue to commit them. So
long as those wrongs are committed, defense (and sometimes
retaliation) is in order. The knowledge that a few Christians are
"sorry" about this is little comfort. Reading your internet post will
provide little support, even of the emotional kind, should a horror
like "Palin 2012" ever come to pass.

The worst part is that, despite your sorrow, you are an accomplice in
this behavior. This may certainly surprise you and I'm sure your first
inclination would be to vehmently deny it. It is, quite unfortunately,
true. It is often claimed that the perpetrators of the behavior you
condemn here, the "fundamentalists" the "dominionists" are a small,
yet vocal, minority. They do not accurately reflect "true" Christian
values and the attention they get is disproportionate.

The question here, of course, is how these people become celebrities?
The answer is: people *want* to hear them. Yes, some portion of their
attention is negative attention. Like the kind Rush Limbaugh and
Howard Stern get. Yet as much negative attention as these people get,
their positive fan bases are magnitudes larger. So these people,
despite allegedly being inaccurate minorities, have power in the fan
base that grants them the public ear. And even if you explicitly
disagree with these public figureheads, you are tied, linked, by
degrees of separation to their fan base and, through this connection,
lend them power. Even if this support is illusory, perception is a
powerful thing. People are more likely to do something if they believe
it is aligned with majority belief. So, even if the fans of these
extremists are in the minority, they have the perception that they are
not, and this illusion empowers them to commit these acts. In the eye
of the media and the public, silence is tantamount to consent. Your
post on the internet, while not "silent" is nevertheless lost admid
the loud and constant cachophony of the extremist Christians that has
saturated many media outlets.

So what are you to do? There is only one thing you can do: address the
Christians you seek to apologize for. Your apology is wasted on us,
for reasons I already mentioned. Thus, the only possible good it can
serve is to break the illusion that you implicitly support the
extremists. Whatever you choose to call yourself, you *are* a
Christian and so are *they*. You are all in the same camp. If you
don't like the way they make your camp look, then you need to address
it with them, not us.

[Joanna]

Thanks for the reply, but don't assume I have never addressed this
with Christians either. You had zero basis on which to make the
assumption. And the apology doesn't have to be wasted on you unless
you don't want to accept it, though you make valid points about the
vocal extremists. Either way, thanks for the thoughts, I appreciate
the time and thought you took to respond.

[Drafterman]

On Sep 22, 8:37 pm, Joanna <robert.christ...@sebts.edu> wrote:
> Thanks for the reply, but don't assume I have never addressed this
> with Christians either.

I didn't. Nor did I claim that you haven't. But it's a fact that
offerring an apology to atheists is not addressing it with the
Christians. Maybe when you've fixed the root of the problem we can
talk about who owes who an apology but so long as the behavior is
continuing apologies represent only misplaced effort.

> You had zero basis on which to make the
> assumption. And the apology doesn't have to be wasted on you unless
> you don't want to accept it,

It's a waste for all of the reasons I highlighted. If you disagree,
then I'm prepared to discuss that, but I have to know in what way you
think my reasons aren't sufficient to demonstrate the point.

> > it with them, not us.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Joanna]

I understand what you're saying, but the point is this - when someone
makes a sincere apology, even if you see many reasons to reject it,
you still have a simple choice to make ... you can acknowledge a
sincere attempt, if feeble, and accept it; or you can articulately
list all the reasons why you will not. I understand your reluctance,
but I think the attempt was still worthwhile. Thanks for the
discussion.

[Drafterman]

On Sep 25, 8:38 pm, Joanna <robert.christ...@sebts.edu> wrote:
> I understand what you're saying, but the point is this - when someone
> makes a sincere apology, even if you see many reasons to reject it,
> you still have a simple choice to make ... you can acknowledge a
> sincere attempt, if feeble, and accept it; or you can articulately
> list all the reasons why you will not.  I understand your reluctance,
> but I think the attempt was still worthwhile.  Thanks for the
> discussion.

Apparently you *don't* understand what I'm saying. What the point
*actually* is is this:

1. Unless you are going to speak for all Christians (which you say you
can't) then you can't apologize on behalf of all Christians.
2. Even if you were going to speak for all Christians, unless you can
get them to agree that their behavior merits apology, then this whole
act, however, sincere, is pointless.
3. Actions speak louder than words. That you feel bad about your
fellow Christians is little consolation when they are picketing
funerals, calling for the deaths of doctors, and trying to get their
draconian laws enacted by the government.

I have already articulated these reasons, if you are confused about
them, then that's fine, we can discuss that, but you are wrong if you
are implying that I have not articulated my reasons.

If you think this "attempt" was worthwhile, I'd be interested in your
explanation as to how.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Joanna]

(here's a thought ... this probably isn't the best post on a *debate*
site, since it wasn't really a topic to be debated, but since I
did ... here goes ... =)

Here's why I believe the attempt was worthwhile:

1) as a Christ follower I am called to love people, all people, no
matter what they say or believe or practice (even if I disagree with
them)
2) since I cannot control what others do, but I can control what I do,
I choose to do something loving (apologize for wrongs done), even
though it is an imperfect act, and cannot change the past.
3) not only can I not control other people's wrong actions, I also
cannot control people's reactions to this post, but that shouldn't
stop me from posting it if I think it can be a display of the love of
Christ (which I do), even if it is not received how I would have
wished.
4) so it was worth it because I believe it was a loving thing to do,
and as I Christ follower I am called to love people.
5) I am also realizing as I write this, what I *can* do is apologize
for myself ...

So, even though none of these were done to you specifically, I am
sorry for the times I have thought atheists are crazy for not
believing what I believe. I am sorry for the times I have made
assumptions about people without knowing their background or
influences they've had in their lives. I'm sorry for the times I have
not stood up against injustice in my community. I am sorry for the
times I have acted like I have it all together (I don't). *And* ...
if I truly believe what I say I believe about the Bible, then I am
sorry I have not done more to lovingly and wittingly explain these
things to others (you're probably not gonna like that one). All of
these I am currently in the process of changing so I don't have to
make these apologies again.

[Drafterman]

On Oct 2, 8:48 pm, Joanna <robert.christ...@sebts.edu> wrote:
> (here's a thought ... this probably isn't the best post on a *debate*
> site, since it wasn't really a topic to be debated, but since I
> did ... here goes ... =)
>
> Here's why I believe the attempt was worthwhile:
>
> 1) as a Christ follower I am called to love people, all people, no
> matter what they say or believe or practice (even if I disagree with
> them)

Can you explain how writing up a misplace apology (that you admit you
can't give anyway) shows your love more than actually doing something
about it with the people whose behavior you are trying to apologize
for?

> 2) since I cannot control what others do, but I can control what I do,
> I choose to do something loving (apologize for wrongs done), even
> though it is an imperfect act, and cannot change the past.

That's a cop out. If it was impossible to influence other people then
there would be no such thing as rhetoric or politics. In short, this
apology is nothing more than a "feel good" measure where you can make
yourself feel good while not actually doing anything constructive. How
does that show how you love us?

> 3) not only can I not control other people's wrong actions, I also
> cannot control people's reactions to this post, but that shouldn't
> stop me from posting it if I think it can be a display of the love of
> Christ (which I do), even if it is not received how I would have
> wished.

I don't see how this is a display of love. Rather, I think, you feel
bad being lumped in with the Christians who (in your mind) act poorly.
You don't like people thinking of you like that, so your "apology" is
a way to separate yourself. "No no, *they're* bad, *I'm* good, you can
like me!"

> 4) so it was worth it because I believe it was a loving thing to do,
> and as I Christ follower I am called to love people.

I question your conception of love. If a person or group of people
were harassing or abusing someone I loved, you can be assured that I
would do whatever was in my ability to stop them and prevent its
continuation and that would not include a pathetic apology for those
people while letting it continue.

[Joanna]

Now I remember why I stopped discussing with you ... it doesn't go
anywhere and you don't listen anyway. Despite what you've said below,
I already stated that I *have* and continue to take steps to work
against the very thing I was apologizing for. IF this attempt was ALL
I was doing, you might have an argument below, but you don't because
you are (again) making assumptions about what I am or am not doing
about this in other arenas. Shame on you, you highly articulated
brilliant thinker, unfounded/unwarranted assumptions don't get you
anywhere in an argument (except backtracking, which I'm certain you
won't do ... way too much arrogance and anger). Also I forgot that
it's worthless to try to be respectful and loving in these
discussions; those attempts are lost on someone who's not really open
and honest, but rather just wants a place to express his pent up
anger. And you can question my concept of love all you want, but you
and your worldview don't even have any grounds for love, so how could
you question it (unless with an honest open mind which desires to
actually have its thinking refined ... again, that's clearly not
you). I'm sure you'll have plenty to react against here, but I'm
really not sure I'm going to spend any more time discussing with
someone as closed minded as you. And I truly am sorry for whatever
happened to you that makes you this way, I'd be happy to pray for you
if you'd like. Oh, and last thing ... do you *really* think I need to
get on an atheist discussion board and post an apology to make myself
feel good? I have better things to do with my time, and making myself
feel good really isn't a life goal of mine. Again, poor assumption,
you don't even know me ... at all. (though I'm sure you think you do)
And what about the apologies for myself? Didn't know where to go with
that? Too transparent for you? Anyway, have fun with this. And if
you ever want to let down your guard a little and have a more honest
respectful discussion, let me know.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Drafterman]

On Oct 3, 10:55 pm, Joanna <robert.christ...@sebts.edu> wrote:
> Now I remember why I stopped discussing with you ... it doesn't go
> anywhere and you don't listen anyway. Despite what you've said below,
> I already stated that I *have* and continue to take steps to work
> against the very thing I was apologizing for. IF this attempt was ALL
> I was doing, you might have an argument below, but you don't because
> you are (again) making assumptions about what I am or am not doing
> about this in other arenas. Shame on you, you highly articulated
> brilliant thinker, unfounded/unwarranted assumptions don't get you
> anywhere in an argument (except backtracking, which I'm certain you
> won't do ... way too much arrogance and anger).

Who's not listening? I already said I'm not making assumptions about
what you are or are not otherwise doing. All I am commenting on is
this apology.

>  Also I forgot that
> it's worthless to try to be respectful and loving in these
> discussions;

First, if I had to choose between something that was polite, but
pointless, or rude but effective, I'll take the effective one any day
of the week.
Second, I consider your conception of "love" to be abnormal.

> those attempts are lost on someone who's not really open
> and honest, but rather just wants a place to express his pent up
> anger.

In what way am I not being open or honest?

> And you can question my concept of love all you want, but you
> and your worldview don't even have any grounds for love, so how could
> you question it (unless with an honest open mind which desires to
> actually have its thinking refined ... again, that's clearly not
> you).

Ah, now we get down to it. So only Christians can love, that's it?
Basically you're saying that only a third of the population is capable
of love. Everyone else is just faking it?

> I'm sure you'll have plenty to react against here, but I'm
> really not sure I'm going to spend any more time discussing with
> someone as closed minded as you.

We're not having a discussion because all your content on doing is
hurling accusations at me. I agree that would make any attempt at
conversation pointless.

> And I truly am sorry for whatever
> happened to you that makes you this way,

I doubt it.

> I'd be happy to pray for you
> if you'd like.

Do you think before you type? Why would I like you to pray for me?

> Oh, and last thing ... do you *really* think I need to
> get on an atheist discussion board and post an apology to make myself
> feel good?

It would seem so.

> I have better things to do with my time, and making myself
> feel good really isn't a life goal of mine.

Whether or not you've consciously articulated it as a goal is
irrelevant. The only possible outcome of your "apology" is to give you
emotional satisfaction. It won't change the behavior you're
apologizing for, it doesn't actually help atheists in any measurable
capacity.

> Again, poor assumption,
> you don't even know me ... at all. (though I'm sure you think you do)

Again, I can only comment on the apology, and that's all I have
commented on. Your claims are baseless.

> And what about the apologies for myself?  Didn't know where to go with
> that?  Too transparent for you?  Anyway, have fun with this.

This thread is about your apology from the Christians (even though you
don't want to speak for them). Anything else is an off topic
diversion. Too many times I have been side tracked down some tangent.
So now I'm bad because I want to stay on topic?

>  And if
> you ever want to let down your guard a little and have a more honest
> respectful discussion, let me know.

Sometimes the truth hurts feelings. I will always choose truth over
politeness. In what way do you think I'm not being honest?

> ...
>
> read more »

[Joanna]

I think you're being dishonest by not accepting my honesty. Or maybe
guarded is a better word than dishonest? I said I was truly sorry for
whatever happened to you. You replied "I doubt it." I said I would be
happy to pray for you (and yes, of course I thought before I typed it,
it was supposed to be funny, though sincere if you were to want that,
by the way, I have prayed for you, and will continue to ... because
despite your doubts, I genuinely care about you as a person, even
though I don't know you. and in my system, when you care about someone
you pray for them). Maybe it's ok to acknowledge when someone seems to
be genuine in their concern for you. And, I must say, the false
dilemma thing again? Come on. You don't have to choose between polite
but pointless or rude but effective. In fact, I would say the vast
majority of effective communicators are not rude. (Whereas, the vast
majority of atheists I've discussed with are) And, I would say my
personal apology is not off subject - the title is "Apology from the
Christians." Well, I am one, and there's an apology, not off subject,
just not something you want to deal with. Oh, and this: "The only

possible outcome of your "apology" is to give you emotional

satisfaction." Come on man ... how can you possibly make that
accusation? Can you see inside my heart and judge my motives? I
don't think so ... all you can say is that it is your opinion/
perception that that is the case, anything else is ridiculous and
unfounded. About the love thing, that is off topic, but I'd be happy
to discuss that with you in another thread if you like. Take care man.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Drafterman]

On Oct 9, 1:33 pm, Joanna <robert.christ...@sebts.edu> wrote:
> I think you're being dishonest by not accepting my honesty. Or maybe
> guarded is a better word than dishonest? I said I was truly sorry for
> whatever happened to you. You replied "I doubt it."

Yes, and I do, because you don't know me. You don't know who I am, or
what my experiences are. Those things are non-existent in your mind,
ergo they cannot evoke an emotional response. Perhaps you have
invented your own personal conception of what these things may be, but
they are your creations, not based no reality.

> I said I would be
> happy to pray for you (and yes, of course I thought before I typed it,
> it was supposed to be funny, though sincere if you were to want that,
> by the way, I have prayed for you, and will continue to ... because
> despite your doubts, I genuinely care about you as a person, even
> though I don't know you.

Except you cannot "care" for that which you don't know. You know that
I exist, and - perhaps - you have a general caring for the well being
of people. But that's it, and that's far from caring about me as a
person. You don't know me as a person, ergo (again) you cannot have an
emotional response without something to respond to. Whatever it is you
are responding to is in your imagination.

> and in my system, when you care about someone
> you pray for them). Maybe it's ok to acknowledge when someone seems to
> be genuine in their concern for you.

Ok, I'll acknowledge it when it seems that way.

> And, I must say, the false
> dilemma thing again? Come on.  You don't have to choose between polite
> but pointless or rude but effective.

I did not present the two as a false dilemma, I merely expressed what
my focus was on. Yes, one can be honest and polite, but that is not
always possible. So rather than worry about cramming the square peg of
honesty when politeness presents itself as a round hole, I focus on
honest. If it happens to be polite, then ok, if not, then oh well. The
point is, honesty is more important, and should be the focus. In light
of this, you have revealed that you care more about politeness.

> In fact, I would say the vast
> majority of effective communicators are not rude.  (Whereas, the vast
> majority of atheists I've discussed with are)

The problem is that what is polite and rude is subjective and
dependent on the recipient of said communication. And I refuse to
allow the "effectiveness" of communication to be ruled by the person
with the thinnest skin.

> And, I would say my
> personal apology is not off subject - the title is "Apology from the
> Christians." Well, I am one, and there's an apology, not off subject,
> just not something you want to deal with.

Which is only relevant if you admit to being one of the Christian's
whose behavior you are apologizing for. Are you?

> Oh, and this: "The only
> possible outcome of your "apology" is to give you emotional
> satisfaction."  Come on man ... how can you possibly make that
> accusation?

I think I was explicit in my reasoning there. I'll restate it:

The "apology" is not going to deter any Christian from stopping the
behavior you are apologizing for.
The "apology" is not going to matter to any atheist.
Ergo, the only effect is the one it has on you.

> Can you see inside my heart and judge my motives?

I was not talking about motives, I was talking about consequences.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[philosophy]

Hi D-man
I'd like to open up a can of worms here. I have always wondered
what the use of apology is in such circumstances. We (Australians)
had a very open "sorry day" for our Aboriginal citizens. Now, I am
quite prepared to say that I feel sorry that anyone (non
discriminatory)
has been pained by bad government decisions which impacted on them
individually and collectively in a negative fashion. That goes for
wars etc.
I am sorry that they feel so bad.

However, the best way to say "sorry" for things like children being
misappropriated etc. can only be done by not repeating the offense.
To me, rhetoric is absolutely meaningless and useless if on one hand
people are saying sorry, and yet the behaviour continues.

I will say sorry to a person if it will make that person feel better,
but
not necessarily have any impact on me. I am only interested in saying
sorry if I can actually either change my own behaviour, or if I can
help effect a realization and change in others so that behaviour is
not repeated.
Cheers

> ...
>
> read more »

[Drafterman]

I completely agree and this is why one of the first things I did here
was to differentiate between being sorry and apologizing.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Joanna]

On Oct 9, 2:26 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 9, 1:33 pm, Joanna <robert.christ...@sebts.edu> wrote:
>
> > I think you're being dishonest by not accepting my honesty. Or maybe
> > guarded is a better word than dishonest? I said I was truly sorry for
> > whatever happened to you. You replied "I doubt it."
>
> Yes, and I do, because you don't know me. You don't know who I am, or
> what my experiences are. Those things are non-existent in your mind,
> ergo they cannot evoke an emotional response. Perhaps you have
> invented your own personal conception of what these things may be, but
> they are your creations, not based no reality.
>

Ok, I understand what you are saying. Consider this, the details are
of course non-existent, b/c like you said I don't know you. But pain/
frustration/hurt ... those are universal human experiences. I have
experienced them, and I think it's fair to say that everyone has to
some extent or another. So, though I do not know specifics, I
understand that you've been hurt, like I have, like most people have
to some extent or another, and I AM genuinely sorry about it, like I
would be/am for anyone else in the world ... b/c I care about people,
genuinely. (though it's hard to demonstrate this to someone I don't
have any interaction with other than on this discussion board ... and
you seem to have an aversion to those attempts, not that I can blame
you ... but all I can do is try to be real)

> > I said I would be
> > happy to pray for you (and yes, of course I thought before I typed it,
> > it was supposed to be funny, though sincere if you were to want that,
> > by the way, I have prayed for you, and will continue to ... because
> > despite your doubts, I genuinely care about you as a person, even
> > though I don't know you.
>
> Except you cannot "care" for that which you don't know. You know that
> I exist, and - perhaps - you have a general caring for the well being
> of people. But that's it, and that's far from caring about me as a
> person. You don't know me as a person, ergo (again) you cannot have an
> emotional response without something to respond to. Whatever it is you
> are responding to is in your imagination.
>

here we just simply disagree - I think I can care for what I don't
know, beyond just imagination, I know you exist, that you're a human
(at least I think, ha, ha, ok, poor attempt at humor), and ... uh,
well, that's all I need to know in order to care about someone. This
may seem odd to you, but I don't know if it's fair for you to just
tell me I really don't care about you, when I say I do. I can say I
do, you can say I don't ... back and forth, I understand your
reasoning, but I believe the love that Christ followers are called to
show to all people sometimes goes beyond reason. (which is why I
started this discussion, b/c it is unfortunate that many people have
only been only to love when it makes sense to them ... and at other
times they have done great harm ... which is what I am sorry for)

> > and in my system, when you care about someone
> > you pray for them). Maybe it's ok to acknowledge when someone seems to
> > be genuine in their concern for you.
>
> Ok, I'll acknowledge it when it seems that way.

That's fair. And I understand that it would be hard to acknowledge
that with someone who doesn't know you.

>
> > And, I must say, the false
> > dilemma thing again? Come on.  You don't have to choose between polite
> > but pointless or rude but effective.
>
> I did not present the two as a false dilemma, I merely expressed what
> my focus was on. Yes, one can be honest and polite, but that is not
> always possible. So rather than worry about cramming the square peg of
> honesty when politeness presents itself as a round hole, I focus on
> honest. If it happens to be polite, then ok, if not, then oh well. The
> point is, honesty is more important, and should be the focus. In light
> of this, you have revealed that you care more about politeness.
>

Fair, and I agree, honesty is more important. And I probably do care
too much about politeness sometimes, which is one reason why this
discussion has been good for me.

> > In fact, I would say the vast
> > majority of effective communicators are not rude.  (Whereas, the vast
> > majority of atheists I've discussed with are)
>
> The problem is that what is polite and rude is subjective and
> dependent on the recipient of said communication. And I refuse to
> allow the "effectiveness" of communication to be ruled by the person
> with the thinnest skin.
>

Fair enough.

> > And, I would say my
> > personal apology is not off subject - the title is "Apology from the
> > Christians." Well, I am one, and there's an apology, not off subject,
> > just not something you want to deal with.
>
> Which is only relevant if you admit to being one of the Christian's
> whose behavior you are apologizing for. Are you?
>

Here's what I admitted to:

"So, even though none of these were done to you specifically, I am
sorry for the times I have thought atheists are crazy for not
believing what I believe. I am sorry for the times I have made
assumptions about people without knowing their background or
influences they've had in their lives. I'm sorry for the times I have
not stood up against injustice in my community. I am sorry for the
times I have acted like I have it all together (I don't). "

... so, again, I think it's relevant. And, as I emphasized before, I
have recognized my wrong behavior and have changed it (and am still
changing it)

> > Oh, and this: "The only
> > possible outcome of your "apology" is to give you emotional
> > satisfaction."  Come on man ... how can you possibly make that
> > accusation?
>
> I think I was explicit in my reasoning there. I'll restate it:
>
> The "apology" is not going to deter any Christian from stopping the
> behavior you are apologizing for.

Can you prove that? Can you say conclusively that if another
Christian sees this discussion that there's no way it could deter
their behavior? I think you'll have a hard time proving that.

> The "apology" is not going to matter to any atheist.

Ok, there's the point of difference - you can't speak for all
atheists, you can only say that the apology has had no effect on YOU,
so for the chance that it could have an effect on an atheist who were
to read it (and I don't think you can argue conclusively that it
couldn't, unless you knew every atheists and could speak for them,
which you've clearly illustrated can't be done) means that your last
line of reasoning is not necessarily true.

> Ergo, the only effect is the one it has on you.
>
> > Can you see inside my heart and judge my motives?
>
> I was not talking about motives, I was talking about consequences.
>

Ok, call it motives or consequences ... either way, you can't say what
effect this apology has on me, or whether I was only apologizing out
of self-interest. You have no way to prove that, only your opinion.
If that is your opinion, then ok, all I can do is disagree.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Drafterman]

On Oct 12, 7:37 pm, Joanna <robert.christ...@sebts.edu> wrote:
> On Oct 9, 2:26 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 9, 1:33 pm, Joanna <robert.christ...@sebts.edu> wrote:
>
> > > I think you're being dishonest by not accepting my honesty. Or maybe
> > > guarded is a better word than dishonest? I said I was truly sorry for
> > > whatever happened to you. You replied "I doubt it."
>
> > Yes, and I do, because you don't know me. You don't know who I am, or
> > what my experiences are. Those things are non-existent in your mind,
> > ergo they cannot evoke an emotional response. Perhaps you have
> > invented your own personal conception of what these things may be, but
> > they are your creations, not based no reality.
>
> Ok, I understand what you are saying.  Consider this, the details are
> of course non-existent, b/c like  you said I don't know you.  But pain/
> frustration/hurt ... those are universal human experiences.  I have
> experienced them, and I think it's fair to say that everyone has to
> some extent or another.  So, though I do not know specifics, I
> understand that you've been hurt, like I have, like most people have
> to some extent or another, and I AM genuinely sorry about it, like I
> would be/am for anyone else in the world ... b/c I care about people,
> genuinely. (though it's hard to demonstrate this to someone I don't
> have any interaction with other than on this discussion board ... and
> you seem to have an aversion to those attempts, not that I can blame
> you ... but all I can do is try to be real)

Thank you for proving my point. You don't care about me, you care
about this idea you've constructed in your head about me.

[Joanna]

Thank you for proving *my* point ... you wouldn't budge even if you
were starting to be convinced that I really do care about you. You
don't have to be this guarded bro.

praying for you, Robby

> ...
>
> read more »

[Drafterman]

On Oct 13, 10:15 pm, Joanna <robert.christ...@sebts.edu> wrote:
> Thank you for proving *my* point ... you wouldn't budge even if you
> were starting to be convinced that I really do care about you.  You
> don't have to be this guarded bro.

Uhm, that point can only be proven once I'm convinced that you really
do care about me, which I'm not, because you don't know me. What you
*do* care about is this conception you have about me (which you
admitted, so I'm wondering why you're still arguing the opposite).

What is your conception of me based on?

[Joanna]

My conception of you is based on common human experience. Everybody
hurts (REM even sang a song about it), pain is a part of every human
experience. I care about people who are hurting ... therefore I care
about you. The logic isn't that complicated; believing that someone
could care about someone they don't even know is. And that's ok. I
can't force you to believe me, all I can do is try to explain where
I'm coming from. Well, it seems like we've probably gotten as far as
we're going to get on this one. I'm cool with stopping here unless
you have any other thoughts to add. But I hope to discuss more with
you in the future; I really appreciate the challenging perspective you
bring. Peace man.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Drafterman]

On Oct 14, 12:25 pm, Joanna <robert.christ...@sebts.edu> wrote:
> My conception of you is based on common human experience.  Everybody
> hurts (REM even sang a song about it), pain is a part of every human
> experience.  I care about people who are hurting ... therefore I care
> about you.  The logic isn't that complicated; believing that someone
> could care about someone they don't even know is.  And that's ok.  I
> can't force you to believe me, all I can do is try to explain where
> I'm coming from.  Well, it seems like we've probably gotten as far as
> we're going to get on this one.  I'm cool with stopping here unless
> you have any other thoughts to add.  But I hope to discuss more with
> you in the future; I really appreciate the challenging perspective you
> bring.  Peace man.

You talk about logic but it's clear you haven't thought things
through. You're using inductive logic in which case you should
probably research the phenomenon of the black swan.

[philosophy]

On Oct 15, 2:25 am, Joanna <robert.christ...@sebts.edu> wrote:
> My conception of you is based on common human experience.  Everybody
> hurts (REM even sang a song about it), pain is a part of every human
> experience.  I care about people who are hurting ... therefore I care
> about you.  The logic isn't that complicated; believing that someone
> could care about someone they don't even know is.  And that's ok.  I
> can't force you to believe me, all I can do is try to explain where
> I'm coming from.  Well, it seems like we've probably gotten as far as
> we're going to get on this one.  I'm cool with stopping here unless
> you have any other thoughts to add.  But I hope to discuss more with
> you in the future; I really appreciate the challenging perspective you
> bring.  Peace man.

Hi Joanne
I don't get to read posts every day, so sorry for butting in. I'd
just
like to point out one thing to you. You are talking in global
generalities
which are vague enough to encompass the Buddhist idea of suffering.
Buddhism is based on a concept that everyone suffers (your concept of
hurt) and that the only way to really get rid of that suffering is to
put the
drive of desire behind you. Once the desire part of the psyche is
under
control, then the (mental) suffering becomes less.
These concepts are not really in the Christian dogma in the same
sense.
What they have is the concept of "love". This can be interpreted in
many ways, but one would have to concede that what they are talking
about is "unconditional love" most probably shown by dogs to their
owners - nonjudgemental etc. This is not really addressing suffering
as discussed in Buddhism.
I think one of the "difficulties" I have with Christianity is the
tendency
to claim things for Christianity that really don't exist in its
teachings.
So, I am happy to give credit to Buddhism for the concept of suffering
and hurt, rather than to Christianity.
Cheers

> ...
>
> read more »

[Robby]

No worries about butting in, I like to hear from other people. (my
name is Robby, my wife accidentally messed up something with our email
and now it has her name) I've studied a little Buddhism and am
familiar with their teachings on suffering. But I'm not sure if I'm
ready to concede that they "get credit" for the concept. And in fact,
suffering is very much a part of Christ's teachings, and the teachings
of the whole Bible. One huge difference is that Christ followers
don't seek to eliminate desire or empty our minds in order to escape
suffering, rather to understand where suffering comes from, endure it,
be refined by it, and trust God in the midst of it. I don't want to
doubt your understanding of Christianity, but, here are a few places
in the Bible that teach on suffering ...

Job 36:15 "But those who suffer he delivers in their suffering; he
speaks to them in their affliction."

Isaiah 53:4-5,10 "Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

10 Yet it was the Lord's will to crush him and cause him to suffer
(this passage is a prophecy about Jesus)

Matthew 16:21 "From that time on Jesus began to explain to his
disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the
hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that
he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life."

John 16:33 "In this world you will have trouble, but take heart, I
have overcome the world." (Jesus speaking)

Acts 9:16 "I will show him how much he must suffer for my name." (this
is Jesus, speaking of Paul)

Philippians 1:29 "For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ
not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him"

I Peter 2:21 "To this you were called, because Christ suffered for
you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps."

James 1:2 "Consider it pure joy whenever you face various trials,
knowing that the testing of your faith develops perseverance."

Just to mention a few, so clearly suffering is part of Christian
teaching. Besides, I don't think anyone needs a religion to point out
that people hurt in this world, watch the news, read the paper, talk
to a few honest people on the street ... it's pretty evident. But the
point was not whether people hurt, or who gets credit for recognizing
it, it was whether he could believe that I truly care about him as a
person even though I don't know him (and the reason I care is because
I care about hurting people, and everyone qualifies). Thoughts?

> ...
>
> read more »

[philosophy]

On Oct 15, 12:09 pm, Robby <robert.christ...@sebts.edu> wrote:
> No worries about butting in, I like to hear from other people. (my
> name is Robby, my wife accidentally messed up something with our email
> and now it has her name) I've studied a little Buddhism and am
> familiar with their teachings on suffering.  But I'm not sure if I'm
> ready to concede that they "get credit" for the concept.  And in fact,
> suffering is very much a part of Christ's teachings, and the teachings
> of the whole Bible.  One huge difference is that Christ followers
> don't seek to eliminate desire or empty our minds in order to escape
> suffering, rather to understand where suffering comes from, endure it,
> be refined by it, and trust God in the midst of it.  I don't want to
> doubt your understanding of Christianity, but, here are a few places
> in the Bible that teach on suffering ...
>

Okay let's look at suffering.

> Job 36:15 "But those who suffer he delivers in their suffering; he
> speaks to them in their affliction."

What does this mean? To me it's like current management talk, it
says nothing constructive.

>
> Isaiah 53:4-5,10  "Surely he took up our infirmities
>        and carried our sorrows,
>        yet we considered him stricken by God,
>        smitten by him, and afflicted.

Says nothing about suffering.

>
>  5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
>        he was crushed for our iniquities;
>        the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
>        and by his wounds we are healed.

Says nothing about suffering.

>
>   10  Yet it was the Lord's will to crush him and cause him to suffer
> (this passage is a prophecy about Jesus)

Yes, not about people in general.

>
> Matthew 16:21 "From that time on Jesus began to explain to his
> disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the
> hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that
> he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life."

Yes, about Jesus - not about people.

>
> John 16:33 "In this world you will have trouble, but take heart, I
> have overcome the world." (Jesus speaking)

Says nothing about suffering.

>
> Acts 9:16 "I will show him how much he must suffer for my name." (this
> is Jesus, speaking of Paul)

Yes, nothing about the average person.

>
> Philippians 1:29 "For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ
> not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him"

Not interested in suffering for Christ. I'm interested in the average
person.

>
> I Peter 2:21 "To this you were called, because Christ suffered for
> you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps."

Again, not interested in suffering for Christ as some payback to him.

>
> James 1:2 "Consider it pure joy whenever you face various trials,
> knowing that the testing of your faith develops perseverance."

Not interested in suffering for Christ.
So far Robby you have nothing about the suffering of an average
person. So, perhaps rather than my not knowing about Christianity
it is really you not following where I am coming from.

>
> Just to mention a few, so clearly suffering is part of Christian
> teaching.  Besides, I don't think anyone needs a religion to point out
> that people hurt in this world, watch the news, read the paper, talk
> to a few honest people on the street ... it's pretty evident.  

Absolutely, so you don't need religion to state the obvious. In other
words
religion has no point unless it can show you how to overcome the
every-
day trials and tribulations.
Oh, and remember that Buddhism is older than Christianity, and that
just as Christianity was a reaction against Judaism, Buddhism was a
reaction against the older Hindu religion.

> But the
> point was not whether people hurt, or who gets credit for recognizing
> it, it was whether he could believe that I truly care about him as a
> person

Huh? He's dead Robby - if you are talking about Jesus.
Or are you talking about D-man here?

> even though I don't know him (and the reason I care is because
> I care about hurting people, and everyone qualifies). Thoughts?

If you care about people in general, then fair enough - up to a point.
If you care about people in general then make sure of one thing -
you don't go out and kill anyone because your country calls you to
fight a war; that you help people no matter what religion or not ,
they
belong to; that you give of yourself and your money without telling
people about it; that you go out and invite the homeless into your
house and feed them - that's caring, Robby. Do you do that?

> ...
>
> read more »

[Robby]

It does, but only for those who can be humble and honest enough to
admit that they need it.

> Oh, and remember that Buddhism is older than Christianity, and that
> just as Christianity was a reaction against Judaism, Buddhism was a
> reaction against the older Hindu religion.
>
> > But the
> > point was not whether people hurt, or who gets credit for recognizing
> > it, it was whether he could believe that I truly care about him as a
> > person
>
> Huh? He's dead Robby - if you are talking about Jesus.
> Or are you talking about D-man here?

yes, talking about D, and it is only your opinion that Jesus is dead,
not proven fact, and there's significant evidence that actually points
the other way (but that's off topic).

>
> > even though I don't know him (and the reason I care is because
> > I care about hurting people, and everyone qualifies). Thoughts?
>
> If you care about people in general, then fair enough - up to a point.
> If you care about people in general then make sure of one thing -
> you don't go out and kill anyone because your country calls you to
> fight a war; that you help people no matter what religion or not ,
> they
> belong to; that you give of yourself and your money without telling
> people about it; that you go out and invite the homeless into your
> house and feed them - that's caring, Robby.  Do you do that?
>
>

Yes, I do that. All of those in fact. Thanks for asking. I really
don't need you to give me a lesson on caring bro. I take my faith very
seriously, and by that I don't mean I throw dogma and religious jargon
around ... I put it into practice. The Bible has plenty to say about
average person and their experience, including the pain that we
experience, where it comes from, and what the answer to it is. Those
were just snippets, out of respect for your time I didn't write a
whole research paper on it. And, no offense, but based on what you've
said, I think I have ample reason to doubt your understanding of
Christianity. But I don't perceive that you really have any interest
in learning anything else about it, like everyone else on this group
I've encountered, which is fair, but it may prohibit us understanding
each other, which is part of my goal of being on here. Peace.

> ...
>
> read more »

[philosophy]

That works both ways Robby - understanding, I mean.

Look, I will be upfront with you. I am not interested in the nonsense
preached in the pulpits on Sundays. In my experience Christians
usually
are only Christians when they want to be. Now, you may be different.
I
am quite prepared to accept that you are. As you say you take your
faith
seriously. Fine, I will accept that at face value.

I am simply pointing out to you that the text you are citing can be
read
differently from the way you are "intending" it to mean. It is text.
You have
interpreted that text to mean a certain thing. From your point of
view
the text fits in with your perception of what your belief is. Just
remember that your opinion is subjective.

I will play "the devil's advocate", as the
saying goes. I will do this because it is necessary for any of us
to see text and religions in a wider fashion. The major problems with
religions
come when the texts and teachings are taken in a very specific and
narrow
way. This, I would submit, is Fundamentalism and Fundamentalism
causes
most of the problems between peoples in this world.

So, are you okay with this?
If you are, we can talk, and if you're not, then I suggest we just
call it quits.
Cheers

> ...
>
> read more »

[Robby]

Absolutely. That's been one of the ways I've benefited from being on
here. It's not cool for me to think I understand the atheistic
worldview just b/c I know that they don't believe in God. I'm happy to
understand more (that's why if you look back at my earlier posts I
only asked questions), but I also have to be honest about the fact
that I passionately desire for atheists to believe in God, and more
specifically, in Jesus as God and the way of salvation. I just don't
want to approach the discussion with meanness, assumptions, arrogance,
and empty claims (which I fear has been done in the past). And I won't
see this time as a waste if no one ever changes their mind about their
beliefs. So, I'm here to learn, and gain a better understanding of
what you believe, and in the process be challenged and refined in my
own beliefs, and ... maybe share something that will help someone else
better understand the teachings of Christ. (am I making sense?)

> Look, I will be upfront with you. I am not interested in the nonsense
> preached in the pulpits on Sundays. In my experience Christians
> usually
> are only Christians when they want to be.  Now, you may be different.
> I
> am quite prepared to accept that you are. As you say you take your
> faith
> seriously.  Fine, I will accept that at face value.
>

I appreciate that. I've had similar experiences with Christians,
which is why I'm passionate about taking my faith seriously and
encouraging other Christ-followers to do the same.

> I am simply pointing out to you that the text you are citing can be
> read
> differently from the way you are "intending" it to mean.  It is text.
> You have
> interpreted that text to mean a certain thing. From your point of
> view
> the text fits in with your perception of what your belief is.  Just
> remember that your opinion is subjective.
>

I understand my opinion is subjective (somewhat), but please hear me
out ... it is difficult to do sometimes. I do believe strongly in
absolute truth, and that what the Bible says is absolute truth. Now,
I'm just saying that to be honest, I can discuss in such a way that
does not come across that way. I'm not prepared to say "what I
believe is good for me and what you believe is good for you." But I
understand I can't force this truth on anyone else, and I can't even
attempt persuasion unless the person is up for the discussion, if not,
it's just rude and pointless. So, I am completely prepared to respect
other people regardless of their beliefs. As for my opinion being
subjective, I will admit that my interpretation of a text is
subjective, but I believe that we can in fact discern and interpret
the author's original intent. And that original intent I accept as
objective truth. (hope I'm not garbling this up too bad)

> I will play "the devil's advocate", as the
> saying goes.  I will do this because it is necessary for any of us
> to see text and religions in a wider fashion. The major problems with
> religions
> come when the texts and teachings are taken in a very specific and
> narrow
> way.  This, I would submit, is Fundamentalism and Fundamentalism
> causes
> most of the problems between peoples in this world.
>

I think I see where you're coming from, and I guess I then fall under
that definition, but I would submit the problems are not coming from a
narrow interpretation, but from a misplaced application of the
interpretation (ex: someone interprets that the Bible says abortion is
wrong, they then go to an abortion clinic and hold up signs that say
terrible things about the doctors, and haggle them, and worse in some
cases ... I would say: correct interpretation, wrong application. That
application has caused problems in the world. A healthy application
of this narrow interpretation would be to volunteer at a pregnancy
support services center, or to write a respectful, articulate letter
to your senator stating your belief.) What are your thoughts? Is it
fair to divide it out like that?

> So, are you okay with this?
> If you are, we can talk, and if you're not, then I suggest we just
> call it quits.
> Cheers

I hope I've done a decent job explaining myself above, thanks for the
opportunity. I'd love to keep talking if you don't think I'm too
narrow, if so I understand. Thanks man, peace. (it may be after the
weekend before I'm back on ... lots going on ... some cool stuff you
would probably like!)

> ...
>
> read more »

[philosophy]

But that is the ONLY belief they have in common.
Granted they tend to have similar behaviours in that they tend
to be skeptical, always questioning, tend to be rational in their
approach
to life and probably secular humanists as well. BUT there is no dogma,
there is no belief system and there is no world view. Everyone of
them
is just a person who does not believe in a God.

> I'm happy to
> understand more (that's why if you look back at my earlier posts I
> only asked questions), but I also have to be honest about the fact
> that I passionately desire for atheists to believe in God, and more
> specifically, in Jesus as God and the way of salvation.  

Okay, so you want to change their minds. Why? So they can be
saved? If that is what you want for them, you must believe that
somehow their lives will be changed for the better. Am I wrong?

> I just don't
> want to approach the discussion with meanness, assumptions, arrogance,
> and empty claims (which I fear has been done in the past). And I won't
> see this time as a waste if no one ever changes their mind about their
> beliefs. So, I'm here to learn, and gain a better understanding of
> what you believe, and in the process be challenged and refined in my
> own beliefs, and ... maybe share something that will help someone else
> better understand the teachings of Christ. (am I making sense?)

You appear to be very passionate about your belief system, and that
is
fine. What I don't understand is the need you have burning in your
brain
to change others. May I ask how old you are (general decade will be
fine).
I'm also interested in your wanting to know what I believe. Two
questions:
Believe about what? and Why?
See, that last sentence of yours "help someone to better understand
the teachings of Christ" shows me that you are pursuing your
own agenda. Now, I'm not saying it's wrong of you to do so, I am just
pointing out that when I (as an atheist) read something like that, it
indicates to me that:
1. There is a need in you to push your own agenda.
2. You are not prepared to accept the fact that I don't believe or
even
have any drive to want to believe in God or Jesus.
3. I interpret from the statement that you presume I have not read
the
Bible for myself, and somehow you are going to "teach" me something
I don't know.
4. You do not have enough respect for me as a person to accept my
decision about your God.

>
> > Look, I will be upfront with you. I am not interested in the nonsense
> > preached in the pulpits on Sundays. In my experience Christians
> > usually
> > are only Christians when they want to be.  Now, you may be different.
> > I
> > am quite prepared to accept that you are. As you say you take your
> > faith
> > seriously.  Fine, I will accept that at face value.
>
> I appreciate that.  I've had similar experiences with Christians,
> which is why I'm passionate about taking my faith seriously and
> encouraging other Christ-followers to do the same.

Okay, a couple of questions/
1. When did you "get Christ"?
2. How can you hope to encourage others to be any different
from what the Bible teaches? ie. the lying, the murder, the rape,
the double-speak, the interpretations for the benefit of self?

>
> > I am simply pointing out to you that the text you are citing can be
> > read
> > differently from the way you are "intending" it to mean.  It is text.
> > You have
> > interpreted that text to mean a certain thing. From your point of
> > view
> > the text fits in with your perception of what your belief is.  Just
> > remember that your opinion is subjective.
>
> I understand my opinion is subjective (somewhat), but please hear me
> out ... it is difficult to do sometimes.  I do believe strongly in
> absolute truth, and that what the Bible says is absolute truth.

Let's get something straight. If I follow anything it is a statement
made that says "There is no religion higher than truth". It does not
say absolute truth, that's your qualification. Robby, truth exists,
but
when you put a human into the mix, it become relative to that person.
There is no such thing as absolute truth - particularly not in your
holy book - mate, it's full of holes! So, I suggest you start
thinking
seriously about that statement and start considering what I have said.
I will give you one example, and you can then search your mind for
more. Let's take a simple rock. What is the truth about that rock?
Where did it come from? What is it made of? What minerals or
bacteria does it contain? Is it of earth, or did it come from another
planet (meteor or something else)? What is it that we observe
when we look at it with our eyes? What do we observe when we
look at it through a microscope? What sort of atoms, protons and
neutrons make up its composition? At what rate do these rotate at?
Is the rock volcanic? If so, which volcano did it originate from?
How long with it take to disintegrate into its primary particles?
Are you in any way understanding where I am going with this?
All of the above are aspects of the truth about a simple rock.
There are many more things about a simple rock I have not even
posed in questions to you. I reiterate. There is no such thing
as absolute truth when it comes to human beings. Our brains
are not absolute. They can't comprehend it. The most we can do
is to question ourselves and our existence and what we do etc.,
and make decisions about these things. Meanwhile, truth
exists despite us.

> Now,
> I'm just saying that to be honest, I can discuss in such a way that
> does not come across that way.  I'm not prepared to say "what I
> believe is good for me and what you believe is good for you."  

Why not? What is so hard in acceptance?

> But I
> understand I can't force this

relative

> truth on anyone else, and I can't even
> attempt persuasion unless the person is up for the discussion, if not,
> it's just rude and pointless.  

Again, why not learn to accept others, instead of taking on the role
of
prosthelizing?

> So, I am completely prepared to respect
> other people regardless of their beliefs.

Actually, this statement seems false, considering what I have just
been pointing out to you. 

> As for my opinion being
> subjective, I will admit that my interpretation of a text is
> subjective,

Let's go back your opinion being subjective. Fine. So is mine.
All of our opinions are subjective. Agreed?
All our opinions about text are subjective. Agreed?
All our opinions we write down are subjective. Agreed?
In fact, there is nothing that we perceive in this world,
and we have our own opinion about, which is not
subjective. Agreed?

> but I believe that we can in fact discern and interpret
> the author's original intent.  

That Robby. is gobblygook.
You are choosing to believe that you can discern and interpret
a person's original intent. That is a very brave and dangerous
game to play. You could claim to discern and interpret my
original intent two threads ago. You would have probably been
wrong. Again, why can't you just accept. Don't interpret. Don't
discern. Remember, every statement made has at least two
meanings....... the one that is meant, and the one we think
that is meant.

>And that original intent I accept as
> objective truth.

That is ridiculous. The original author could not possibly be
any more objective than we can. His was a subjective opinion.
It has nothing to do with truth. You are leading yourself up a
very, very dangerous garden path.

> (hope I'm not garbling this up too bad)

a bit - hope I cleared that up.

>
> > I will play "the devil's advocate", as the
> > saying goes.  I will do this because it is necessary for any of us
> > to see text and religions in a wider fashion. The major problems with
> > religions
> > come when the texts and teachings are taken in a very specific and
> > narrow
> > way.  This, I would submit, is Fundamentalism and Fundamentalism
> > causes
> > most of the problems between peoples in this world.
>
> I think I see where you're coming from, and I guess I then fall under
> that definition, but I would submit the problems are not coming from a
> narrow interpretation, but from a misplaced application of the
> interpretation (ex: someone interprets that the Bible says abortion is
> wrong, they then go to an abortion clinic and hold up signs that say
> terrible things about the doctors, and haggle them, and worse in some
> cases ... I would say: correct interpretation, wrong application. That
> application has caused problems in the world.  A healthy application
> of this narrow interpretation would be to volunteer at a pregnancy
> support services center, or to write a respectful, articulate letter
> to your senator stating your belief.)  What are your thoughts? Is it
> fair to divide it out like that?

It makes more sense than grabbing a gun and shooting a doctor.
I'm not sure I really understand your point, though.

>
> > So, are you okay with this?
> > If you are, we can talk, and if you're not, then I suggest we just
> > call it quits.
> > Cheers
>
> I hope I've done a decent job explaining myself above, thanks for the
> opportunity. I'd love to keep talking if you don't think I'm too
> narrow, if so I understand. Thanks man,

woman, please :-)

> peace. (it may be after the
> weekend before I'm back on ... lots going on ... some cool stuff you
> would probably like!)

Good, tell me about it.

Oh, and just for your consciousness Robby, I only mentioned religion
once, and it was a quote from someone else :-)

[Robby]

Hmm, I must say, I didn't really expect that reaction. Perhaps I
didn't explain myself very well (or perhaps I did and it's just
offensive?). I guess I was just trying to be extremely honest. I
understand that you don't believe in God, and that I cannot force that
on you. So, it's not that I think I'm here to teach you or persuade
you, I can't try to do that unless you're open to it. But, the honesty
piece was - it's part of my belief system to persuade others to
believe as well; I can't deny that, if I did I would be a hypocrite,
but that doesn't mean that we can't discuss (in my mind). And I think
I can still respect you and not belittle you in our discussions based
on our different beliefs. So, that still leaves the question - why am
I here? To learn and share. Here's the thing, I'm not so arrogant to
think that there's nothing I can learn from you. I think there's
plenty I can learn from you. And so I appreciate you writing back.
So I guess that's why I wondered why you reacted so strongly when I
said something about helping others understand more. I didn't mean it
in an arrogant preachy way, just mutually sharing what we believe and
gaining insight into our differing worldviews. I really didn't think
that seemed offensive. Sorry it came across wrong. We can go
wherever you want from here, or nowhere. But help me out here ... did
I explain myself better? And if so, is that really a terrible way to
look at it? Robby

> ...
>
> read more »

[philosophy]

On Oct 19, 11:56 am, Robby <robert.christ...@sebts.edu> wrote:
> Hmm, I must say, I didn't really expect that reaction.

What reaction? I did not react, I merely responded.
I am not angry with you if that is what you are suggesting - I
am just being honest. Look Robby, you can't claim honesty
for yourself alone, and I know you don't intend to, but you are
going to have to be honest with me, or I will "appear" to be
annoyed, whereas in reality I am not. I concede I am blunt,
but that should not surprise you.
When I use words to describe appearances they may seem to
reflect feelings - they don't. I do not have any feelings about
god, as the entity is a nonentity for me. So, I look at the content
and the intent behind what is being said.
Can you see that by me being able to take the emotion of
god out of the equation, that I am able to see things from an
unemotive point of view?
Now, Robby, let's continue the discussion, and can you please
go back and answer the questions I put to you in the last
thread? Don't get hung up on something that's not important.
Cheers

> ...
>
> read more »

[Robby]

Sure thing, probably in a couple days. Got family coming in. Hope you
are well. Peace.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Robby]

"You appear to be very passionate about your belief system, and that
is fine. What I don't understand is the need you have burning in your
brain to change others. May I ask how old you are (general decade
will be

fine).I'm also interested in your wanting to know what I believe. Two

questions:Believe about what? and Why?"

What you believe about life, your worldview. Why? B/c I don't want to
make assumptions or pretend I know what someone believes b/c of the
way they are labeled. I want to ask questions/discuss, and find out
for myself. Also, understanding people helps me better know how to
love people. And loving people is central to my worldview and life's
purpose. (I'm 30, 31 in a few days! yikes!)

"Okay, so you want to change their minds. Why? So they can be
saved? If that is what you want for them, you must believe that
somehow their lives will be changed for the better. Am I wrong?"

No, you are right, completely right. Of course I think their lives
would change for the better! Why else would I share? So I can feel
better about myself? or check off some religious to do list? or earn
some status with God? NO, those are all ridiculous and would be self-
centered. Let's be honest, if I am going to be true to what I say I
believe (not be a hypocrite), and what I believe is that there are
consequences for not believing in and submitting to God, then it would
be very unloving of me not to share that with others.

> ...
>
> read more »

[philosophy]

On Oct 25, 7:02 am, Robby <robert.christ...@sebts.edu> wrote:
> "You appear to be very passionate about your belief system, and that
> is fine. What I don't understand is the need you have burning in your
> brain to change others.  May I ask how old you are (general decade
> will be
> fine).I'm also interested in your wanting to know what I believe.  Two
> questions:Believe about what?  and Why?"
>
> What you believe about life, your worldview. Why? B/c I don't want to
> make assumptions or pretend I know what someone believes b/c of the
> way they are labeled. I want to ask questions/discuss, and find out
> for myself.  Also, understanding people helps me better know how to
> love people. And loving people is central to my worldview and life's
> purpose. (I'm 30, 31 in a few days! yikes!)

Life - my total existence. I have lots of ideas, beliefs if you like.
It
depends on the topic. You say worldview. That is simple if you are
taking on a human worldview. I believe I am the same as every other
human being, no better no worse. I approach everyone from that
level playing field perspective. Over time they show me what they
are. For many, it's not pretty. Now if you throw the rest of the
environment in there, we as humans are hopeless. I feel so strongly
about it that I think the dimunition of species habitat is a major
problem.
So, I sold up in the city and went to the country. I own 30 odd acres.
I live on a small amount of the land and the rest is habitat for the
wildlife. It's called putting your money where your mouth is :-)

Asking questions is good. Putting your world view into action is
better. In other words we can all have our "belief systems", but
it's what you do with them that will be the telling factor as to what
sort of person you really are.

What do you mean by love? ie when you say "loving people"?
Happy birthday for a few days hence. You mentioned your wife...
do you guys have kids?

>
> "Okay, so you want to change their minds. Why? So they can be
> saved? If that is what you want for them, you must believe that
> somehow their lives will be changed for the better.  Am I wrong?"
>
> No, you are right, completely right.  Of course I think their lives
> would change for the better!  Why else would I share? So I can feel
> better about myself? or check off some religious to do list? or earn
> some status with God?  NO, those are all ridiculous and would be self-
> centered.  Let's be honest, if I am going to be true to what I say I
> believe (not be a hypocrite), and what I believe is that there are
> consequences for not believing in and submitting to God, then it would
> be very unloving of me not to share that with others.

Ummm. let's see.... What God? Are we talking God the father,
God the son, or God the Holy Ghost?
Please define what you believe God to be, so we are on a basic
understanding here. What are the consequences of not believing
in, and submitting to this God?

This could become an interesting discussion.

Oh, and just so I am aware, what denomination of Christianity
do you follow, or are you Muslim or Jew?

> ...
>
> read more »

[Robby]

That sounds really cool. Do you do any farming? Composting? I'm
starting a small compost, and gonna do a garden in the spring (we just
moved here), gonna see if the neighborhood kids want to help (so they
can do something besides rot their brains on video games (sorry,
rant)), and then partake of the harvest.

> Asking questions is good. Putting your world view into action is
> better.  In other words we can all have our "belief systems", but
> it's what you do with them that will be the telling factor as to what
> sort of person you really are.
>
> What do you mean by love?  ie when you say "loving people"?
> Happy birthday for a few days hence.  You mentioned your wife...
> do  you guys have kids?
>

> What do I mean by love? a quote: "do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility, consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to his own interests but also to the interest of others." ... so, I was driving down the street the other day, pouring rain, saw a man walking w/ his cat wrapped up in his coat, stopped and gave him a ride, way out of my way ... and missed my prayer meeting. I think it was more important in that instance to DO something that showed love, than go to a meeting where we would pray about loving people. (not bragging on myself, just an example) Another example: My heart was recently was broken by someone I admire ... instead of holding a grudge, I still love that person, call him, pray for him, genuinely care about him.

Thanks, today's the day actually ... had pizza and ice cream, watched
a movie w/ my wife, fun stuff. One little boy, one on the way! You?

>
> > "Okay, so you want to change their minds. Why? So they can be
> > saved? If that is what you want for them, you must believe that
> > somehow their lives will be changed for the better.  Am I wrong?"
>
> > No, you are right, completely right.  Of course I think their lives
> > would change for the better!  Why else would I share? So I can feel
> > better about myself? or check off some religious to do list? or earn
> > some status with God?  NO, those are all ridiculous and would be self-
> > centered.  Let's be honest, if I am going to be true to what I say I
> > believe (not be a hypocrite), and what I believe is that there are
> > consequences for not believing in and submitting to God, then it would
> > be very unloving of me not to share that with others.
>
> Ummm. let's see.... What God?  Are we talking God the father,
> God the son, or God the Holy Ghost?
> Please define what you believe God to be, so we are on a basic
> understanding here.  What are the consequences of not believing
> in, and submitting to this God?
>

What I believe to be God: basically, the God of the Bible. The Creator
of everything and everyone. All good, all knowing, all loving, all
powerful. A personal God, who cares about the lives and thoughts and
hurts and behaviors of people on earth. Revealed 2,000 years ago in
Jesus of Nazareth, still revealed today through the Holy Spirit. The
consequences of not believing ... may not seem bad ... He gives them
what they want - they will be separated from Him forever.

> This could become an interesting discussion.
>

I agree.

> Oh, and just so I am aware, what denomination of Christianity
> do you follow, or are you Muslim or Jew?
>

I'm not big on denominations. I like to think of myself as Bible based
(ok, but since there are different interpretations of the Bible, I
line up most closely with Baptists)

> ...
>
> read more »

[philosophy]

No farming - I work off site. Hope to retire soon.
Good idea to get the kids involved. They need something to actually
achieve at - composting, growing their own veges. Ever thought of
permaculture? That would introduce some animals.

>
> > Asking questions is good. Putting your world view into action is
> > better.  In other words we can all have our "belief systems", but
> > it's what you do with them that will be the telling factor as to what
> > sort of person you really are.
>
> > What do you mean by love?  ie when you say "loving people"?
> > Happy birthday for a few days hence.  You mentioned your wife...
> > do  you guys have kids?
>
> > What do I mean by love? a quote: "do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility, consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to his own interests but also to the interest of others." ... so, I was driving down the street the other day, pouring rain, saw a man walking w/ his cat wrapped up in his coat, stopped and gave him a ride, way out of my way ... and missed my prayer meeting.  I think it was more important in that instance to DO something that showed love, than go to a meeting where we would pray about loving people. (not bragging on myself, just an example)  Another example: My heart was recently was broken by someone I admire ... instead of holding a grudge, I still love that person, call him, pray for him, genuinely care about him.
>

Where does the quote come from?
Of course I would agree with you about helping the man.
You are talking to an atheist, so the prayer meeting would mean
nothing to me, sorry.

Doing things is the way to go. Secular humanism is all about
that, so you have no quarrel with me about that either. I guess
it's the reasons why one actually does the thing in the first place.
The problem I have is what is "behind" the doing. If you are
doing this just to feel that you have done the "right" thing, then
there is a problem there. If you are doing this so that you can
tick off your good deed for the day, then there is a problem
with it. If you did this because you were concerned about
the man and his cat, and you wanted to make their life a little
easier, then you have no problem with me about it.

Sounds like a nice little family. Don't "make" the kids believe
in the sky fairy. Allow them the latitude to make up their own
minds. No, I have been there done that - no kids. I teach
them all day, so it's nice to get home to the peace and quiet.

Now we get down to the nitty gritty. I don't believe in the
God of the OT, which I presume you mean "creator" god.
How old do you believe this creation of his to be?
What do you mean by "revealed 2000 years ago in J"?
J was a Jew. His God, I presume, is your God. Please
explain your jingoism. Jesus was a man who died.
You're already separated from him. I don't follow your
logic. Please explain.

Since I have come this far down the thread, I have
picked up that you are a Christian. You talk about
prayer meetings - how often do you go? Do you go
to church? If so, what is the name of your church
and how many people go to it?

Trust you had a great birthday, and have many more.'

> ...
>
> read more »

[Robby]

On Oct 27, 7:57 am, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> On Oct 27, 1:14 pm, Robby <robert.christ...@sebts.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 25, 7:06 am, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 25, 7:02 am, Robby <robert.christ...@sebts.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> No farming - I work off site. Hope to retire soon.
> Good idea to get the kids involved.  They need something to actually
> achieve at - composting, growing their own veges.  Ever thought of
> permaculture?  That would introduce some animals.
>

> would love that, but no room for animals, small yard ... but a friend of mine just bought ten chickens and is teaching the kids in his neighborhood how to take care of them, get eggs, etc.

>

> > > What do I mean by love? a quote: "do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility, consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to his own interests but also to the interest of others." ... so, I was driving down the street the other day, pouring rain, saw a man walking w/ his cat wrapped up in his coat, stopped and gave him a ride, way out of my way ... and missed my prayer meeting.  I think it was more important in that instance to DO something that showed love, than go to a meeting where we would pray about loving people. (not bragging on myself, just an example)  Another example: My heart was recently was broken by someone I admire ... instead of holding a grudge, I still love that person, call him, pray for him, genuinely care about him.
>
> Where does the quote come from?
> Of course I would agree with you about helping the man.
> You are talking to an atheist, so the prayer meeting would mean
> nothing to me, sorry.
>

The quote is from Philippians 2:2,3 (a letter from Paul to the
Christians in Philippi, written around 60 AD)

> Doing things is the way to go. Secular humanism is all about
> that, so you have no quarrel with me about that either.  I guess
> it's the reasons why one actually does the thing in the first place.
> The problem I have is what is "behind" the doing.  If you are
> doing this just to feel that you have done the "right" thing, then
> there is a problem there.  If you are doing this so that you can
> tick off your good deed for the day, then there is a problem
> with it.  If you did this because you were concerned about
> the man and his cat, and you wanted to make their life a little
> easier, then you have no problem with me about it.
>

I'm with you ... with an addition to that line of thought. I do it
because I'm concerned about the man and his cat AND because I want to
show God's love to people.

> Sounds like a nice little family.  Don't "make" the kids believe
> in the sky fairy. Allow them the latitude to make up their own
> minds. No, I  have been there done that - no kids. I teach
> them all day, so it's nice to get home to the peace and quiet.
>

Question ... if you did have kids and one of them was going to grab
the stove b/c it was bright and pretty ... and you saw them moving
their hand toward the stove, and you truly believed that if they touch
it they are going to hurt themselves very badly (other people may not
believe this to be true, but it is your conviction) ... do you stop
them? Or let them make up their own mind about how healthy their
decision is? If I'm convinced of what I believe I'm going to teach it
to my children (besides the Bible instructs me to do so, so not to
would make me a hypocrite. Hypocrites are often the reason people have
a bad taste in their mouth about religion) But, with that said ... I
am going to explain that they have to make up their own mind ... they
can't just believe what daddy believes - they have to own it. So I
think there is some wisdom to what you are saying.

> Now we get down to the nitty gritty.  I don't believe in the
> God of the OT, which I presume you mean "creator" god.
> How old do you believe this creation of his to be?

roughly 6,000 years ... I'm a young earth guy ... long and interesting
discussion

> What do you mean by "revealed 2000 years ago in J"?
> J was a Jew. His God, I presume, is your God.  Please
> explain your jingoism.

Please forgive the "jingoism" (what is that?! =) ...what I mean is
that Jesus was a real man, a human, who claimed to be God, so He
revealed the character of God. Yes, He was a Jew, and yes His Father
is my God, but He was a revelation of God.

 Jesus was a man who died.
> You're already separated from him.  I don't follow your
> logic. Please explain.
>

Yes, Jesus died. And physically I may be separated from Him, but
spiritually I am united with Him. Because I believe that Jesus also
rose from the dead (wow, there's an outrageous claim). In fact, it is
only through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus that I am able
to have a relationship with God. This is central to God's story.

> Since I have come this far down the thread, I have
> picked up that you are a Christian.  You talk about
> prayer meetings - how often do you go?  Do you go
> to church?  If so, what is the name of your church
> and how many people go to it?
>

I go to a very small church, one that I am actually helping start.
We've only been meeting for a couple months. We meet in my house
sometimes and in my friend's house sometimes. We pray regularly at
our meetings, plus my friend who is helping me start the church and I
pray together weekly. (the prayer meeting I was headed to the other
day is not with my church) I really like the way we are doing church
right now ... we all bring some food, share a meal together, talk
about life, get honest with each other, study God's Word, pray, laugh,
think (yes, some Christians still do that ;-), ponder ... and
genuinely care for one another. We also brainstorm creative ways to
contribute to the well being of our city. (we recently had a service
day where we went to a local park and cleaned all the tables and
grills)

> Trust you had a great birthday, and have many more.'
>

Thanks a bunch, I hope to!

[philosophy]

On Oct 30, 1:15 pm, Robby <robert.christ...@sebts.edu> wrote:
> On Oct 27, 7:57 am, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 27, 1:14 pm, Robby <robert.christ...@sebts.edu> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 25, 7:06 am, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 25, 7:02 am, Robby <robert.christ...@sebts.edu> wrote:
>
> > No farming - I work off site. Hope to retire soon.
> > Good idea to get the kids involved.  They need something to actually
> > achieve at - composting, growing their own veges.  Ever thought of
> > permaculture?  That would introduce some animals.
>
> > would love that, but no room for animals, small yard ... but a friend of mine just bought ten chickens and is teaching the kids in his neighborhood how to take care of them, get eggs, etc.
>
> > > > What do I mean by love? a quote: "do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility, consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to his own interests but also to the interest of others." ... so, I was driving down the street the other day, pouring rain, saw a man walking w/ his cat wrapped up in his coat, stopped and gave him a ride, way out of my way ... and missed my prayer meeting.  I think it was more important in that instance to DO something that showed love, than go to a meeting where we would pray about loving people. (not bragging on myself, just an example)  Another example: My heart was recently was broken by someone I admire ... instead of holding a grudge, I still love that person, call him, pray for him, genuinely care about him.
>
> > Where does the quote come from?
> > Of course I would agree with you about helping the man.
> > You are talking to an atheist, so the prayer meeting would mean
> > nothing to me, sorry.
>
> The quote is from Philippians 2:2,3 (a letter from Paul to the
> Christians in Philippi, written around 60 AD)

I thought it had to be Paul. I honestly don't know why they call
this religion Christianity. It's more Paulianity.

>
> > Doing things is the way to go. Secular humanism is all about
> > that, so you have no quarrel with me about that either.  I guess
> > it's the reasons why one actually does the thing in the first place.
> > The problem I have is what is "behind" the doing.  If you are
> > doing this just to feel that you have done the "right" thing, then
> > there is a problem there.  If you are doing this so that you can
> > tick off your good deed for the day, then there is a problem
> > with it.  If you did this because you were concerned about
> > the man and his cat, and you wanted to make their life a little
> > easier, then you have no problem with me about it.
>
> I'm with you ... with an addition to that line of thought. I do it
> because I'm concerned about the man and his cat AND because I want to
> show God's love to people.

Okay, let's look at a small bit of God of the OT, the only bit I can
actually relate to. The rest is really terrible stuff, and turns me
right off. God is supposed to be found "within" a person, and
the persons body is supposed to be a temple of God. Would
you agree with that summary.

>
> > Sounds like a nice little family.  Don't "make" the kids believe
> > in the sky fairy. Allow them the latitude to make up their own
> > minds. No, I  have been there done that - no kids. I teach
> > them all day, so it's nice to get home to the peace and quiet.
>
> Question ... if you did have kids and one of them was going to grab
> the stove b/c it was bright and pretty ... and you saw them moving
> their hand toward the stove, and you truly believed that if they touch
> it they are going to hurt themselves very badly (other people may not
> believe this to be true, but it is your conviction) ... do you stop
> them? Or let them make up their own mind about how healthy their
> decision is?

I think there are times when one has to appear to be cruel to be kind.
In this literal example you have given above, when a child is in
physical danger, if I could get there in time, I would. If it meant
hurting the child a bit in the process, I would do it. The bigger
picture is to make sure the child does itself no physical harm.
Children will do things you have told them not to do, simply
because they want to "test things out from thermselves".  

> If I'm convinced of what I believe I'm going to teach it
> to my children (besides the Bible instructs me to do so, so not to
> would make me a hypocrite. Hypocrites are often the reason people have
> a bad taste in their mouth about religion)  But, with that said ... I
> am going to explain that they have to make up their own mind ... they
> can't just believe what daddy believes - they have to own it. So I
> think there is some wisdom to what you are saying.

This is a different set of circumstances. I would hope that they
would not be physically hurt by picking up the Bible to read it.
That said, what is between the pages is a worry. Look at the
Muslims, they believe in their book, and yet they enact their
belief in such a way as to cause harm to others. Look at the
story of Abraham. He took his son and was going to harm
him because God told him to do it ................ stuff God. Those
are mind games.
Look at the people who join the armed forces so they can "Kill"
for God and country.

>
> > Now we get down to the nitty gritty.  I don't believe in the
> > God of the OT, which I presume you mean "creator" god.
> > How old do you believe this creation of his to be?
>
> roughly 6,000 years ... I'm a young earth guy ... long and interesting
> discussion

Have you studied any geology, paleantology or fossils?
If so, how do you come up with this figure?
If not, where have you got that figure from?

Just as a matter of interest, do you believe in what you are
told, or just because it's the "accepted" thing to understand?
Or, do you make up your mind for yourself? Remember
there is nothing scientific in creation science. They have
just highjacked the name 'science', and are perpetrating a fraud.
Is that what you want to be associated with? Is that what
you want to teach your kids? More to the point, is that
what you want your decendants to know their grandfather
for, or their great grandfather for? A lie?
Do you read books besides the Bible? If so, I can give you
some references.

> > What do you mean by "revealed 2000 years ago in J"?
> > J was a Jew. His God, I presume, is your God.  Please
> > explain your jingoism.
>
> Please forgive the "jingoism" (what is that?! =) ..

Get out your dictionary young man.
In the case I have used it is, the 'ism' relates to an attitude
of mind, and the jingo relates to a zeal of belief, used in
the idea of patriot or religion.

> what I mean is
> that Jesus was a real man, a human, who claimed to be God, so He
> revealed the character of God.  Yes, He was a Jew, and yes His Father
> is my God, but He was a revelation of God.

Yes, but you are using the word God here to refer to something not of
this earth. You are referring to the God of the OT, are you not?
What about a different meaning of God?

>  Jesus was a man who died.
> You're already separated from him.  I don't follow your
> > logic. Please explain.
>
> Yes, Jesus died. And physically I may be separated from Him, but
> spiritually I am united with Him.  

That's a subjective belief.

> Because I believe that Jesus also
> rose from the dead

another subjective belief.

> (wow, there's an outrageous claim),
not at all. If you understand the "jingoism" of the time, the
tribe he belonged to, and the sect he was a part of, and their
practices, it makes total sense, and has nothing to do with the
literal interpretation you are giving it. Your literal interpretation
is the one that is the outrageous claim.

> In fact, it is
> only through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus that I am able
> to have a relationship with God.  This is central to God's story.

Yes, and the literal interpretation you are giving it, is a load of
codswhallop. However, given the political situation these people
were living through and their methodology of speaking to one another,
the double-speak, it is totally understandable. Oh, you have mixed up
the two God's here, the one of the OT and the one of the NT.

>
> > Since I have come this far down the thread, I have
> > picked up that you are a Christian.  You talk about
> > prayer meetings - how often do you go?  Do you go
> > to church?  If so, what is the name of your church
> > and how many people go to it?
>
> I go to a very small church, one that I am actually helping start.
> We've only been meeting for a couple months. We meet in my house
> sometimes and in my friend's house sometimes.  We pray regularly at
> our meetings, plus my friend who is helping me start the church and I
> pray together weekly. (the prayer meeting I was headed to the other
> day is not with my church)  I really like the way we are doing church
> right now ... we all bring some food, share a meal together, talk
> about life, get honest with each other, study God's Word, pray, laugh,
> think (yes, some Christians still do that ;-), ponder ... and
> genuinely care for one another.  We also brainstorm creative ways to
> contribute to the well being of our city. (we recently had a service
> day where we went to a local park and cleaned all the tables and
> grills)

And, what design does your ground floor have?
Is it the standard design you would find, like a preacher up the
front,
with a central aisle, and the pews across the front?

I think it is a good thing to get yourselves out of your own homes,
there is safety in that. From another point of view, however, that
is when you "lose" the communion of community.

The care and love you describe is not only found in those
practicing the two commandments of the Christian message. It
is also found in secularism and other religions. There is nothing
special there, although I know you want to think there is.

Your aim is to bring the love of God to me, so as to "change
my mind, and get me into the fold".
while my aim is to simply help you think. I have no other agenda
than that.

[Robby]

Hey, sorry it took me a while. I was speaking at a conference over the
weekend. As far as the agenda ... I like you refining my thoughts.
Gonna have to be super brief on this one ... need to spend time
chillin' with my sweet wife tonight. But I will say this, yes, I have
thought through my beliefs thoroughly, and continue to do so. And I
could possibly throw the same question back to you ... your
"Paulianity" comment sounds a lot like a trendy, Dan Brownism. Also,
let's be fair about what we call subjective. You called my belief in
the resurrection subjective, but then challenged me as to whether I
wanted to be remembered for "a lie" ... your stance that Christianity
is a lie is also subjective, but you stated it as fact. So ... young
earth, evolution, Paul's influence on Christianity, the resurrection,
church life ... we're into some good stuff here! Maybe we should take
one topic at a time? Also, thanks for the vocab lesson ... gonna try
to work "jingoism" in sometime this week =)

[philosophy]

On Nov 2, 12:26 pm, Robby <robert.christ...@sebts.edu> wrote:
> Hey, sorry it took me a while. I was speaking at a conference over the
> weekend. As far as the agenda ... I like you refining my thoughts.
> Gonna have to be super brief on this one ... need  to spend time
> chillin' with my sweet wife tonight.  

Good. You can get back to me when you are ready and have some time.

> But I will say this, yes, I have
> thought through my beliefs thoroughly, and continue to do so.

Again, good.

> And I
> could possibly throw the same question back to you ... your
> "Paulianity" comment sounds a lot like a trendy, Dan Brownism.

I wouldn't know, I've not read his work, although I believe he
has a new film out?

> Also,
> let's be fair about what we call subjective. You called my belief in
> the resurrection subjective, but then challenged me as to whether I
> wanted to be remembered for "a lie" ... your stance that Christianity
> is a lie is also subjective, but you stated it as fact.

Only because I have studied both sides, and have come up with a
conclusion based on the balance of probability that it is a lie. Of
course my opinion is subjective. Very few opinions are objective.

> So ... young
> earth, evolution, Paul's influence on Christianity, the resurrection,
> church life ... we're into some good stuff here!  

> Maybe we should take
> one topic at a time?  

If you wish. You pick. Best to start at the beginning, though, or we
may get muddled up.

> Also, thanks for the vocab lesson ... gonna try
> to work "jingoism" in sometime this week =)

Good. Practice makes perfect, they say.
You and your wife enjoy yourselves. You need to have time
together, especially when you have children. It's sometimes hard
to get away from them, and have the "alone" time that is necessary.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Robby]

Ok, back, sorry it took so long. I agree let's start at the
beginning. You mentioned that there's nothing scientific about
creation science. Can you clarify for us both ... what is a good
definition of "scientific?" What makes something scientific? (sorry
short post, but I feel we should establish this before we move on)

> ...
>
> read more »

[Drafterman]

Start with observations.
Develop a hypothesis to explain those observations.
A good hypothesis would have the following properties:

Falsifiability - There exists a set of observations which would prove
the hypothesis false.
Testability - Its falsifiability can be tested.
Simplicity - It contains no unnecessary elements
Scope - It can be used to explain multiple instances of the observed
phenomenon.
Predictability - the hypothesis can be used to make predictions with
regards to future instances fo the observed phenomenon.
Conservatism - the hypothesis fits with existing scientific theories.
If it conflicts with existing scientific theories, then the hypothesis
should have some advantage that warrants its acceptance. For example:
it offers a better explanation, it explains observations other
theories don't, it lacks some flaw other theories have.

Once a good hypothesis is developed, then it is repeatedly tested for
falsifiability. If falsified, then it is either discarded or modified.
If not, then our confidence with it grows with each test. Once that
confidence grows enough, successful predictions are made, it will be
considered a theory.

Creation Science fails on several points:
It isn't simple. It includes unnecessary elements (namely god).
It offers nothing by way of predictability.
It conflicts with existing scientific theories without offering any
advantage.

On the other hand, it is falsifiable and testable. It just happens
that tests have shown it to be false. This means it needs to be taken
back to the drawing board and reengineered. Creationists are unwilling
to do this because they aren't really in search for an explanation for
observations, they are trying to get science to acknowledge a
conclusion that they have predetermined to be true.

In order to do good science, you must be willing to have your
hypothesis proved false. Science can't advance if things are assumed
to be true regardless of evidence to the contrary.

[Robby]

Very thorough. Thank you. So how does evolution stand up to the same
criteria?

> ...
>
> read more »

[Drafterman]

On Nov 9, 3:06 pm, Robby <robert.christ...@sebts.edu> wrote:
> Very thorough. Thank you.  So how does evolution stand up to the same
> criteria?

It's falsifiable. In fact, many of the things creationists say
*should* happen with evolution would actually disprove evolution if
they did happen. (For example, the existence of "croco-ducks" or a
fish giving birth to a cat, these things would disprove evolution).
It's testable. Evolution happens every time an organism gives birth
giving countless opportunities for observations to arise that would
disprove evolution. The world is our labratory.
It's simple. The entire theory of evolution can be rendered as
"descent with modification".
Scope. Evolution explains the diversity of all life on Earth.
Predictability. Knowledge that evolution happens has allowed for many
advances in medical science.
Conservatism. Evolution fits with what we already know about biology
and genetics.

[Robby]

On Nov 9, 3:38 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 3:06 pm, Robby <robert.christ...@sebts.edu> wrote:
>
> > Very thorough. Thank you.  So how does evolution stand up to the same
> > criteria?
>
> It's falsifiable. In fact, many of the things creationists say
> *should* happen with evolution would actually disprove evolution if
> they did happen. (For example, the existence of "croco-ducks" or a
> fish giving birth to a cat, these things would disprove evolution).

how would that disprove evolution?

> It's testable. Evolution happens every time an organism gives birth
> giving countless opportunities for observations to arise that would
> disprove evolution. The world is our labratory.

how does evolution happen every time an organism gives birth?
certainly you don't mean macro-evolution? and there have been
observations that arise to seriously bring the theory into question
(irreducible complexity). But it seems a bigger issue than that is
the lack of observation - no one has ever observed a species evolving
into another species, nor has there been conclusive historical
evidence for such (though there have been fraudulent attempts at such.
Such as: Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in England,1912, 41 years
later found to be a fraud. The skull was found to be of modern age.
The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of
age, and the teeth had been filed down. Also ... Nebraska man, Java
man, Orce man, Neanderthal) The world is indeed our laboratory, but
as yet the labodratory has failed to provide an conclusive evidence to
support the hypothesis of evolution.

> It's simple. The entire theory of evolution can be rendered as
> "descent with modification".

It seems that the requirement of billions of years calls the
simplicity into question.

> Scope. Evolution explains the diversity of all life on Earth.
> Predictability. Knowledge that evolution happens has allowed for many
> advances in medical science.
> Conservatism. Evolution fits with what we already know about biology
> and genetics.

that's a pretty blanket statement that is not hardly agreed upon by
all scientists. in fact, it is fallacious for people to assume/claim
that all leading scientists buy into the evolutionary theory.

You mentioned above that creation has unnecessary parts (namely god).
It sounds like you are simply rejecting this aspect of the theory, and
not really providing any reason as to why God is unnecessary.

Another question, a very foundational question I think: where did
everything come from? I know that's simple, but I haven't heard a good
explanation from an evolutionary perspective. So I was wondering your
thoughts - where did the first matter on earth come from?

(sorry it took me a while to get back to you)

> ...
>
> read more »

[Drafterman]

On Nov 12, 8:30 am, Robby <robert.christ...@sebts.edu> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 3:38 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 9, 3:06 pm, Robby <robert.christ...@sebts.edu> wrote:
>
> > > Very thorough. Thank you.  So how does evolution stand up to the same
> > > criteria?
>
> > It's falsifiable. In fact, many of the things creationists say
> > *should* happen with evolution would actually disprove evolution if
> > they did happen. (For example, the existence of "croco-ducks" or a
> > fish giving birth to a cat, these things would disprove evolution).
>
> how would that disprove evolution?

Because evolution says that organisms change "over time", not
instantaneously.

>
> > It's testable. Evolution happens every time an organism gives birth
> > giving countless opportunities for observations to arise that would
> > disprove evolution. The world is our labratory.
>
> how does evolution happen every time an organism gives birth?

Because evolution, simply put, is "descent with modification." So long
as an organism produces descendents, and those descendents have the
capability of being geneticially different from its ancestors,
evolution will happen.

> certainly you don't mean macro-evolution?

The distinction between "macro" and "micro" evolution are primarily
used by people who have no clue what they're talking about thinking
one can happen but not the other. "Macro" evolution is nothing more
than multiple instances of "micro" evolution. No, "macro" evolution
does not happen within a single generation, but evolution is not
constrained to this arbitrary distinction.

> and there have been
> observations that arise to seriously bring the theory into question
> (irreducible complexity).

Irreducible complexity presents no problems for evolution.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html

> But it seems a bigger issue than that is
> the lack of observation - no one has ever observed a species evolving
> into another species,

This is completely false:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

Your statement here shows that you haven't actually done any research
into the matter. My bet is that you go to anti-evolution websites and
copy arguments from there, rather than looking into what evolution
actually is and says. How can you expect to get accurate information
from sites whose goal is to disprove evolution by any means necessary,
rather than trying to discover how the universe really is? (Answer:
You can't).

> nor has there been conclusive historical
> evidence for such (though there have been fraudulent attempts at such.
> Such as: Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in England,1912, 41 years
> later found to be a fraud. The skull was found to be of modern age.
> The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of
> age, and the teeth had been filed down. Also ... Nebraska man, Java
> man, Orce man, Neanderthal)  The world is indeed our laboratory, but
> as yet the labodratory has failed to provide an conclusive evidence to
> support the hypothesis of evolution.

On the contrary, there are mountains of evidence for evolution, which
is easily researchable:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

So the question is, why haven't you research it? How can you possibly
claim to be in a position to critique a theory you haven't even
bothered to learn about?

>
> > It's simple. The entire theory of evolution can be rendered as
> > "descent with modification".
>
> It seems that the requirement of billions of years calls the
> simplicity into question.

To observe certain degrees of change, perhaps. But evolution happens
with each generation. You simply need to witness the birth of a child.

>
> > Scope. Evolution explains the diversity of all life on Earth.
> > Predictability. Knowledge that evolution happens has allowed for many
> > advances in medical science.
> > Conservatism. Evolution fits with what we already know about biology
> > and genetics.
>
> that's a pretty blanket statement that is not hardly agreed upon by
> all scientists.

Irrelevant.

> in fact, it is fallacious for people to assume/claim
> that all leading scientists buy into the evolutionary theory.

I didn't claim any such thing. I simply said that evolution fits in

with what we already know about biology and genetics.

>

> You mentioned above that creation has unnecessary parts (namely god).
> It sounds like you are simply rejecting this aspect of the theory, and
> not really providing any reason as to why God is unnecessary.

That's not my job. It's your job to show why he is necessary.

>
> Another question, a very foundational question I think: where did
> everything come from?

This is out of the scope of evolution.

> I know that's simple, but I haven't heard a good
> explanation from an evolutionary perspective.

That's because it is out of the scope of the theory of evolution.

> So I was wondering your
> thoughts - where did the first matter on earth come from?

I don't know. As far as I can tell, "I don't know" is the most
appropriate answer at this point in time, given our knowledge about
the universe.

[Robby]

I'm so sorry bro ... not ignoring you, our computer has been messed
up, I'm using a friend's right now. He's about to leave, I'll get back
to you when I have access. As for the "why haven't you
researched" ... that's part of what I'm doing right now. I'm not
saying my mind is made up on the matter, just that I haven't seen any
conclusive evidence. If you have some, I welcome it. I want to follow
the truth. I'll look at the links you posted and get back to you.
Thanks, Robby

> Irreducible complexity presents no problems for evolution.http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html

>
> > But it seems a bigger issue than that is
> > the lack of observation - no one has ever observed a species evolving
> > into another species,
>
> This is completely false:http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
>
> Your statement here shows that you haven't actually done any research
> into the matter. My bet is that you go to anti-evolution websites and
> copy arguments from there, rather than looking into what evolution
> actually is and says. How can you expect to get accurate information
> from sites whose goal is to disprove evolution by any means necessary,
> rather than trying to discover how the universe really is? (Answer:
> You can't).
>
> > nor has there been conclusive historical
> > evidence for such (though there have been fraudulent attempts at such.
> > Such as: Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in England,1912, 41 years
> > later found to be a fraud. The skull was found to be of modern age.
> > The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of
> > age, and the teeth had been filed down. Also ... Nebraska man, Java
> > man, Orce man, Neanderthal)  The world is indeed our laboratory, but
> > as yet the labodratory has failed to provide an conclusive evidence to
> > support the hypothesis of evolution.
>
> On the contrary, there are mountains of evidence for evolution, which
> is easily researchable:
>

> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.htmlhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.htmlhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

> ...
>
> read more »

[Drafterman]

On Nov 16, 11:22 am, Robby <robert.christ...@sebts.edu> wrote:
> I'm so sorry bro ... not ignoring you, our computer has been messed
> up, I'm using a friend's right now. He's about to leave, I'll get back
> to you when I have access.  As for the "why haven't you
> researched" ... that's part of what I'm doing right now. I'm not
> saying my mind is made up on the matter, just that I haven't seen any
> conclusive evidence. If you have some, I welcome it. I want to follow
> the truth. I'll look at the links you posted and get back to you.
> Thanks, Robby

It's obvious that the sources of your information are anti-evolution,
creationist apologist websites. Do you seriously believe you are going
to get the unbiased truth from web pages whose sole purpose is to try
and disprove evolution, no matter what?

Unless the answer to this question is "No", then we're not going to
get anywhere. Most people arguing against evolution are only doing so
because they have the preconceived notion that evolution contradicts
creationism and creationism is necessarily correct. Looking for the
truth and assuming the truth are opposites. You cannot be looking for
the truth unless you are prepared to be wrong.

The fact that you are getting your information from sources who have
made it ther job to reinforce your assumptions suggests to me that you
aren't prepared to be wrong. Ergo, you despite what you are telling me
and yourself, you have not prepared yourself for an honest search of
the truth.

If you want to learn about evolution, then get it right at the source:
the scientists actually researching it.

Good places to go:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

For any "objections" or critques of evolution, take a look at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

It is perhaps the most comphrensive list of claims made against
evolution, and every single one is refuted. If you have some
objection, see if it's on the list, then read the refutation.

> >http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.htmlhttp://www.talkorigin...

[Robby]

On Nov 16, 11:47 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 11:22 am, Robby <robert.christ...@sebts.edu> wrote:
>
> > I'm so sorry bro ... not ignoring you, our computer has been messed
> > up, I'm using a friend's right now. He's about to leave, I'll get back
> > to you when I have access.  As for the "why haven't you
> > researched" ... that's part of what I'm doing right now. I'm not
> > saying my mind is made up on the matter, just that I haven't seen any
> > conclusive evidence. If you have some, I welcome it. I want to follow
> > the truth. I'll look at the links you posted and get back to you.
> > Thanks, Robby
>
> It's obvious that the sources of your information are anti-evolution,
> creationist apologist websites. Do you seriously believe you are going
> to get the unbiased truth from web pages whose sole purpose is to try
> and disprove evolution, no matter what?
>

I find it a little bit funny that in light your above accusation
(which I think is fair), the first link I clicked below brought me to
"Welcome to Evolution 101! ... by the Understanding Evolution Team."
How is that different from what you accused me of doing?

> Unless the answer to this question is "No", then we're not going to
> get anywhere. Most people arguing against evolution are only doing so
> because they have the preconceived notion that evolution contradicts
> creationism and creationism is necessarily correct. Looking for the
> truth and assuming the truth are opposites. You cannot be looking for
> the truth unless you are prepared to be wrong.
>

I am prepared to be wrong.

> The fact that you are getting your information from sources who have
> made it ther job to reinforce your assumptions suggests to me that you
> aren't prepared to be wrong. Ergo, you despite what you are telling me
> and yourself, you have not prepared yourself for an honest search of
> the truth.
>
> If you want to learn about evolution, then get it right at the source:
> the scientists actually researching it.
>

I will, but these aren't the only scientists who are researching it.
And the fact that other scientists have a predisposition to believe in
God does not necessarily negate their work in the field. The
assumption there is that the *necessarily* allow their predisposition
to determine their research, which is an unfair assumption, no matter
how convinced you may be that this is the case. Besides, the number
of scientists who have actually turned *from* evolutionary theory to
alternative theories which include a Creator cannot be ignored. These
were people with a predisposition toward evolution, but had to abandon
it based on their research.

> Good places to go:http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

>
> For any "objections" or critques of evolution, take a look at:http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
>
> It is perhaps the most comphrensive list of claims made against
> evolution, and every single one is refuted. If you have some
> objection, see if it's on the list, then read the refutation.
>

Will do.

And as for my question on origins ... it may not be within the scope
of evolution, but it is clearly within the scope of our discussion
about the (non)existence of God. Your answer is weak. You can't just
punt on that one and act like it doesn't matter. Science has zero
valid theories for the origin of life on earth (if I'm wrong, show me,
and yes, I've researched) ... and the scientists who have been the
most honest about it begin to move toward theistic conclusions. You
say it is my job to show why God IS necessary. Well, we'll start
right there - origins. Your answer is "I don't know." My answer is
God. How is your answer better than mine?

Alright, I'm off to do some evolution homework ... from your unbiased
hyperlinks. Found out today my computer is probably fried (maybe
there isn't a God ... a loving God wouldn't let that happen to me ...
j/k). But I'm visiting family for a few days so I should be able to
access this til Friday. Hope you are doing well.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Drafterman]

On Nov 18, 11:58 am, Robby <robert.christ...@sebts.edu> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 11:47 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Nov 16, 11:22 am, Robby <robert.christ...@sebts.edu> wrote:
>
> > > I'm so sorry bro ... not ignoring you, our computer has been messed
> > > up, I'm using a friend's right now. He's about to leave, I'll get back
> > > to you when I have access.  As for the "why haven't you
> > > researched" ... that's part of what I'm doing right now. I'm not
> > > saying my mind is made up on the matter, just that I haven't seen any
> > > conclusive evidence. If you have some, I welcome it. I want to follow
> > > the truth. I'll look at the links you posted and get back to you.
> > > Thanks, Robby
>
> > It's obvious that the sources of your information are anti-evolution,
> > creationist apologist websites. Do you seriously believe you are going
> > to get the unbiased truth from web pages whose sole purpose is to try
> > and disprove evolution, no matter what?
>
> I find it a little bit funny that in light your above accusation
> (which I think is fair), the first link I clicked below brought me to
> "Welcome to Evolution 101! ... by the Understanding Evolution Team."
> How is that different from what you accused me of doing?

Because I'm accusing you of getting your information from a source
designed to disprove evolution under the (arguable) notion that it
contradicts creationism and creationism must be right at any costs.

In response I gave you a source to explain what evolution is and isn't
and the support for it in the interest of valid science.

Yeah, you're right. Those are exactly the same.

>
> > Unless the answer to this question is "No", then we're not going to
> > get anywhere. Most people arguing against evolution are only doing so
> > because they have the preconceived notion that evolution contradicts
> > creationism and creationism is necessarily correct. Looking for the
> > truth and assuming the truth are opposites. You cannot be looking for
> > the truth unless you are prepared to be wrong.
>
> I am prepared to be wrong.
>
> > The fact that you are getting your information from sources who have
> > made it ther job to reinforce your assumptions suggests to me that you
> > aren't prepared to be wrong. Ergo, you despite what you are telling me
> > and yourself, you have not prepared yourself for an honest search of
> > the truth.
>
> > If you want to learn about evolution, then get it right at the source:
> > the scientists actually researching it.
>
> I will, but these aren't the only scientists who are researching it.

Well, no. I'm not suggesting that you have to personally interview
every single scientist involved with evolutionary theory. But the
criticisms you presented aren't from scientists honestly involved in
what evolution actually is.

> And the fact that other scientists have a predisposition to believe in
> God does not necessarily negate their work in the field.

I didn't say it did.

> The
> assumption there is that the *necessarily* allow their predisposition
> to determine their research, which is an unfair assumption, no matter
> how convinced you may be that this is the case.  Besides, the number
> of scientists who have actually turned *from* evolutionary theory to
> alternative theories which include a Creator cannot be ignored.

I agree. But since there are no scientifically valid atlernative
theories, then there can't be any scientists that have turned from
evolutionary theory to them, can there?

Now, there are certainly people who have turned from evolutionary
theory, since there is not scientifically valid alternative, they are
simply abandoning science. Once they do that, we can ignore them.

> These
> were people with a predisposition toward evolution, but had to abandon
> it based on their research.

Which only calls into question their "research".

>
> > Good places to go:http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01http://www.tal...

[Robby]

what about the last question?

[Drafterman]

"Your answer is "I don't know." My answer is
God. How is your answer better than mine?"

Because it's more accurate.

[Robby]

Weak answer. That only represents your opinion. That's like saying
"because it is" Can you give me any *reason* why your answer is
better?

Here's where I'm at: the evolution discussion is huge, and I'm
uneducated on the topic, but learning (thanks for the links). But, it
is possible to still believe in God and agree with evolution. So,
that's not really where our focus needs to be. However, the origin of
life (not how it has evolved, but how it got here in the first place)
seems to hit the God question a lot harder. So ... what've you got?

And, concerning those who have turned to a theistic possibility for
origins ... all you did was call into question their "research"
That's easy. I call into question your research. Ha, there, I win.
Showing flaws in their research is a different matter.

[Drafterman]

On Nov 23, 2:51 pm, Robby <robert.christ...@sebts.edu> wrote:
> Weak answer.

By what measure?

> That only represents your opinion. That's like saying
> "because it is" Can you give me any *reason* why your answer is
> better?

Yes, I can, and I did: it's more accurate. It reflects the fact that
we don't actually know.

>
> Here's where I'm at: the evolution discussion is huge, and I'm
> uneducated on the topic, but learning (thanks for the links).  But, it
> is possible to still believe in God and agree with evolution.  So,
> that's not really where our focus needs to be. However, the origin of
> life (not how it has evolved, but how it got here in the first place)
> seems to hit the God question a lot harder.  So ... what've you got?

The first thing you must realize is the origin of life is outside the
scope of evolution. Evolution is not concerned with, nor talks about
the origin of life. Evolution operates basis of life already existing
and is agnostic toward how it came to be.

The subject of how life arose is abiogenesis. There are plenty of
hypothesis, and we have made many strides in experimentally
determining how life *could* have arose, science has yet to produce a
definitive theory about how life *did* arise on Earth.

In short: we don't know.

Addendum: yet.

>
> And, concerning those who have turned to a theistic possibility for
> origins ... all you did was call into question their "research"
> That's easy. I call into question your research. Ha, there, I win.

If you think so. If you were interested in truh, you wouldn't.

> Showing flaws in their research is a different matter.
>
> On Nov 20, 8:38 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Your answer is "I don't know." My answer is
> > God.  How is your answer better than mine?"
>
> > Because it's more accurate.
>
> > On Nov 19, 9:40 pm, Robby <robert.christ...@sebts.edu> wrote:
>

> > > what about the last question?- Hide quoted text -

[Robby]

On Nov 23, 4:11 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 23, 2:51 pm, Robby <robert.christ...@sebts.edu> wrote:
>
> > Weak answer.
>
> By what measure?
>

In that it doesn't actually offer any solution. But really more
because I just don't like your answer. It leaves us at a standstill
in what I think is one of the most crucial questions in the God
discussion.

> > That only represents your opinion. That's like saying
> > "because it is" Can you give me any *reason* why your answer is
> > better?
>
> Yes, I can, and I did: it's more accurate. It reflects the fact that
> we don't actually know.
>

Forgive me ... Driving down the road yesterday I realized what you
meant by this - you are correct. You are more accurate in saying you
don't know than I am in saying God is the answer. Because you can be
certain that you don't know. Whereas I can be very convinced that it
was God but probably not certain (in the Cartesian sense), though I
feel certain enough of the answer to base my worldview on it. But,
your not knowing doesn't strengthen your case for atheism, nor provide
any disproof for theism.

>
> > Here's where I'm at: the evolution discussion is huge, and I'm
> > uneducated on the topic, but learning (thanks for the links).  But, it
> > is possible to still believe in God and agree with evolution.  So,
> > that's not really where our focus needs to be. However, the origin of
> > life (not how it has evolved, but how it got here in the first place)
> > seems to hit the God question a lot harder.  So ... what've you got?
>
> The first thing you must realize is the origin of life is outside the
> scope of evolution. Evolution is not concerned with, nor talks about
> the origin of life. Evolution operates basis of life already existing
> and is agnostic toward how it came to be.
>

I understand, that's why I made a distinction between the two
(beginning with "However" above). I don't have much interest in
further discussion of evolution until I am more educated on the
matter. Plus, it doesn't get to the heart of the God question, which
is where I'd like to stay focused if that's ok.

> The subject of how life arose is abiogenesis. There are plenty of
> hypothesis, and we have made many strides in experimentally
> determining how life *could* have arose, science has yet to produce a
> definitive theory about how life *did* arise on Earth.
>
> In short: we don't know.
>
> Addendum: yet.
>
>
>
> > And, concerning those who have turned to a theistic possibility for
> > origins ... all you did was call into question their "research"
> > That's easy. I call into question your research. Ha, there, I win.
>
> If you think so. If you were interested in truh, you wouldn't.

You are correct. I was being sarcastic. The point is, I can call your
research into question, but it doesn't mean anything. In the same way
that your calling their research into question doesn't mean anything.
It just means you question their research. Fine. That's why it
followed it with what I have below. ("Showing flaws is a different
matter")

So, on evolution - could be true, I'll keep reading. But there are
theistic evolutionists, so even if I grant you evolution, it doesn't
resolve the God question. So I'm ok with leaving that one alone. On
origin of life (not evolution) ... you don't know. So, we're done
there. But is it fair to say that with a little honesty you might be
willing to admit that this presents problems for atheism?

End with this question (you may have heard this line of reasoning
before, but I'm curious about your perspective) ... Do you know
everything there is to know in the world? (I already know the answer
to that, you've admitted that you don't, besides you seem like a
fairly level headed bloke, so I can't see you making that claim
anyway). No. Ok, what percentage of the knowledge in the world do
you think you have? (maybe 50%? that would seem high? But, you're
pretty smart, maybe more? Maybe less?) Let's go with 75%. Is it
possible that the evidence for God exists in the other 25% of the
knowledge in the world?

On another note ... Thanksgiving coming up here. You guys have any
significant fall holidays? Do you do anything for Christmas (I
realize the implications, but let's be honest, it's way more of a
cultural holiday than a religious one)? New Years? Any fun plans?
I'm hoping for snow. I want to go skiing at some point this winter.

Peace Mr. Philosophy.

[Drafterman]

On Nov 24, 2:02 pm, Robby <robert.christ...@sebts.edu> wrote:
> On Nov 23, 4:11 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Nov 23, 2:51 pm, Robby <robert.christ...@sebts.edu> wrote:
>
> > > Weak answer.
>
> > By what measure?
>
> In that it doesn't actually offer any solution.

This implies that there must be a solution we know about. What do you
feel is the appropriate answer when we don't actually know?

> But really more
> because I just don't like your answer.

Truth is not determined by what is emotionally unpleasant to you.

> It leaves us at a standstill
> in what I think is one of the most crucial questions in the God
> discussion.

You have it backwards. You only look for an answer when you don't have
one. What leaves you at a standstill is when you jump to an answer and
then unilaterally conclude it as correct without the possibility of
reevaluation.

>
> > > That only represents your opinion. That's like saying
> > > "because it is" Can you give me any *reason* why your answer is
> > > better?
>
> > Yes, I can, and I did: it's more accurate. It reflects the fact that
> > we don't actually know.
>
>   Forgive me ... Driving down the road yesterday I realized what you
> meant by this - you are correct. You are more accurate in saying you
> don't know than I am in saying God is the answer.  Because you can be
> certain that you don't know.  Whereas I can be very convinced that it
> was God but probably not certain (in the Cartesian sense), though I
> feel certain enough of the answer to base my worldview on it.  But,
> your not knowing doesn't strengthen your case for atheism, nor provide
> any disproof for theism.

You weren't asking for either of those. You were asking why the answer
"I don't know" is better than "God did it".

The situations aren't the same and it is inappropriate for you to
depict them as such. I have provided you with two very good resources
with regards to the actual research done on evolution whereas you've
simply say that people have done research and abandoned evolution.

>
> So, on evolution - could be true, I'll keep reading. But there are
> theistic evolutionists, so even if I grant you evolution, it doesn't
> resolve the God question. So I'm ok with leaving that one alone.  On
> origin of life (not evolution) ... you don't know. So, we're done
> there.  But is it fair to say that with a little honesty you might be
> willing to admit that this presents problems for atheism?

I'm not sure I understand why it should.

>
> End with this question (you may have heard this line of reasoning
> before, but I'm curious about your perspective) ... Do you know
> everything there is to know in the world?

Nope.

> (I already know the answer
> to that, you've admitted that you don't, besides you seem like a
> fairly level headed bloke, so I can't see you making that claim
> anyway).  No.  Ok, what percentage of the knowledge in the world do
> you think you have?

I don't know.

> (maybe 50%? that would seem high? But, you're
> pretty smart, maybe more? Maybe less?) Let's go with 75%. Is it
> possible that the evidence for God exists in the other 25% of the
> knowledge in the world?

No, no it's not. This is the "God of the gaps" philosophy and really
doesn't hold water. If you want to invent a new god-concept then, by
all means, do so. But we are talking about a concept that has existed
for thousands of years. This God has been depicted as having
interacted with the world and its inhabitants in very deliberate ways:

How he created the universe and populated it with stars, planets and
organisms.
The origin of life.
Flooding the world.

Etc.

That we don't know the answers to all questions does not prohibit us
from ruling things out. We can state, with certainty that:
The universe did not evolve in a manner depicted in Genesis, no matter
how figurative your interptetation.
Humans did not descend from a single couple.
However life came about, the Bible does not depict a viable option.
There was never any global flood.

These are just examples. They are examples of fictional events. Myths.
Thus any being that is described as having performed them is also
fictional.

>
> On another note ... Thanksgiving coming up here.  You guys have any
> significant fall holidays?  Do you do anything for Christmas (I
> realize the implications, but let's be honest, it's way more of a
> cultural holiday than a religious one)?  New Years?  Any fun plans?
> I'm hoping for snow.  I want to go skiing at some point this winter.
>
> Peace Mr. Philosophy.

I'm not Philosophy, so I can't speak to that. But I live in America.

>
>
>
>
>
> > > Showing flaws in their research is a different matter.
>
> > > On Nov 20, 8:38 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "Your answer is "I don't know." My answer is
> > > > God.  How is your answer better than mine?"
>
> > > > Because it's more accurate.
>
> > > > On Nov 19, 9:40 pm, Robby <robert.christ...@sebts.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > > what about the last question?- Hide quoted text -
>

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Robby]

WHOA! Weird ... all this time I thought I was still talking to
Philosophy (whom I'm pretty sure lives down under) ... but it's been
Drafterman ever since the start of the evolution talk. I didn't even
bother to look to see who had replied. Well, Drafterman, nice
chatting with you. Philosophy, are you still out there? I'd love to
get your take on some of this.

(But, Drafterman ... about your "gaps" accusation ... I guess I don't
know why our gaps are any more significant than your gaps. Atheism
has plenty of gaps as well, but it seems like the "I don't know" or
"it doesn't matter" give you a free pass to not answer tough questions
about your worldview.)

[philosophy]

On Nov 25, 12:03 pm, Robby <robert.christ...@sebts.edu> wrote:
> WHOA! Weird ... all this time I thought I was still talking to
> Philosophy (whom I'm pretty sure lives down under) ... but it's been
> Drafterman ever since the start of the evolution talk. I didn't even
> bother to look to see who had replied.  Well, Drafterman, nice
> chatting with you.  Philosophy, are you still out there? I'd love to
> get your take on some of this.
>
> (But, Drafterman ... about your "gaps" accusation ... I guess I don't
> know why our gaps are any more significant than your gaps.  Atheism
> has plenty of gaps as well, but it seems like the "I don't know" or
> "it doesn't matter" give you a free pass to not answer tough questions
> about your worldview.)

Yes Robby, I'm here. I've read your discussion with D-Man, and really
he has the bases covered. He's a highly articulate and honest person,
I don't know that I can lend anything more to the discussion. I will
say
a couple of things though.

Atheism doesn't really have any holes in it. There is no dogma etc. It
is simply a non belief in a god (and by extension, the Abrahamic god
in particular). I think you are getting yourself slightly confused.
You
are arguing from the basis of a bible, and your belief in same. D-Man
doesn't hold that belief. His "platform", if you will, is science.
He is
arguing known and probable facts based on the known. Your
platform is the unknown. Can you see how difficult it can be? My
suggestion to you on this matter is very simple. Take on board what
is known, read what you can, and then you will be able to more
clearly see (and perhaps get an even deeper understanding)
your religious base.

The second things I'd like to say is that D-Man has not accused you
of anything. He's just pointing out that there is a belief out there
which matches your statement, called "God of the Gaps" philosophy.
Now if you haven't heard of it, try and find out more about it. Once
you have done that you will be able to discuss this philosophy with
D-Man from a more "informed" perspective.

I'll hand you back to D-Man, and will pop in at times to "take a
look".
Cheers
Oh, and you are both right and wrong about me.
Right, I live in Australia - wrong, I'm not a Mr, but a Miss.

[Drafterman]

On Nov 24, 9:03 pm, Robby <robert.christ...@sebts.edu> wrote:
> WHOA! Weird ... all this time I thought I was still talking to
> Philosophy (whom I'm pretty sure lives down under) ... but it's been
> Drafterman ever since the start of the evolution talk. I didn't even
> bother to look to see who had replied.  Well, Drafterman, nice
> chatting with you.  Philosophy, are you still out there? I'd love to
> get your take on some of this.
>
> (But, Drafterman ... about your "gaps" accusation ... I guess I don't
> know why our gaps are any more significant than your gaps.  Atheism
> has plenty of gaps as well, but it seems like the "I don't know" or
> "it doesn't matter" give you a free pass to not answer tough questions
> about your worldview.)

You misunderstand two things:

1. God of the gaps mean that theists keep shoe-horning their concept
of god into our gaps in knowledge. In our early history we didn't know
how the following things worked:

Lightning
Volcanoes
Birth
Floods

So our primitive ancestors, lacking in knowledge. Simply said: "God
did it".

As we increased in knowledge those gaps (our ignorance) grew smaller
and smaller. We discovered and learned how those things worked so the
answer ceased to be "God did it". But there are (and always will be)
unanswered questions. So there will always be gaps in our knowledge.
But those gaps are not opportunities for you to shoe horn a god into.
If history is an indication, it is only a matter of time before we
find out what the non-god answer is.

2. I am not using "I don't know" to avoid answering questions. I am
using "I don't know" because it is the best, most appropriate answer
for the questions you are asking. "I don't know" *IS* the answer.

[Robby]

I think I see what you are saying, but I guess I fail to see why the
gaps in science (I mean, what science cannot explain) aren't as much
of a problem for the atheist, as the "gaps" for a theist. (other than
just "we don't know but one day we will" ... to which I could say ...
well, I think today we understand more about God than we ever have and
the more time we have, the less gaps we'll have, until there are none)

> The second things I'd like to say is that D-Man has not accused you
> of anything.  He's just pointing out that there is a belief out there
> which matches your statement, called "God of the Gaps" philosophy.
> Now if you haven't heard of it, try and find out more about it. Once
> you have done that you will be able to discuss this philosophy with
> D-Man from a more "informed" perspective.
>

Well put, advice taken.

> I'll hand you back to D-Man, and will pop in at times to "take a
> look".
> Cheers
> Oh, and you are both right and wrong about me.
> Right, I live in Australia - wrong, I'm not a Mr, but a Miss.
>

Well, I feel stupid ... not sure why I made that ASSumption. =) Thanks
for chiming in MISS Philosophy.

D-man, I've got family here, gonna go chill with them, I'd like to
respond to you some time over the weekend. Also, let me emphasize
that I don't think you guys are idiots for not believing the way I do
or seeing the world the way I see it. (I only say that because a lot
of Christians seem to take the condescending tone when talking to non-
Christians. I'm not one of them.) You both seem to be very
intelligent, and I appreciate you taking the time to discuss with me.

Peace.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Robby]

Let me get this straight - you don't know everything (and reasonably,
not even half of the knowledge it the world), you weren't there at the
beginning of the world, you weren't there when the flood allegedly
happened, you don't know anyone who was there, you don't even know
anyone who knew anyone who was there, there are many educated
scientists who believe in some of the things you say "with
*certainty*" didn't happen, in fact there are some who used to believe
they didn't and now believe they did, there is evidence in the world
(yes, intepreted, though you disagree with the interpretation) that
points to the possibility of these things ... and YET, you say with
*certainty* (like absolute, 100%) that there's no way any of these
things happened. I'm at least honest enough to admit I might be
wrong, though I am very convinced at this point that I am not. Come
on man ... you are in the vast minority of people in the world who
don't believe in God ... and yet you are certainly right ... and
everyone else is just ... dumb? I think it is arrogant for you to
think you can rule those things out.

[Robby]

On Nov 25, 2:04 am, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:

> On Nov 25, 12:03 pm, Robby <robert.christ...@sebts.edu> wrote:
>
> > WHOA! Weird ... all this time I thought I was still talking to
> > Philosophy (whom I'm pretty sure lives down under) ... but it's been
> > Drafterman ever since the start of the evolution talk. I didn't even
> > bother to look to see who had replied.  Well, Drafterman, nice
> > chatting with you.  Philosophy, are you still out there? I'd love to
> > get your take on some of this.
>
> > (But, Drafterman ... about your "gaps" accusation ... I guess I don't
> > know why our gaps are any more significant than your gaps.  Atheism
> > has plenty of gaps as well, but it seems like the "I don't know" or
> > "it doesn't matter" give you a free pass to not answer tough questions
> > about your worldview.)
>
> Yes Robby, I'm here.  I've read your discussion with D-Man, and really
> he has the bases covered.  He's a highly articulate and honest person,
> I don't know that I can lend anything more to the discussion.  I will
> say
> a couple of things though.
>
> Atheism doesn't really have any holes in it. There is no dogma etc. It
> is simply a non belief in a god (and by extension, the Abrahamic god
> in particular).

I understand what you are saying, in principle, but, practically, I
think atheism is just as much of a religion as any other, with its
gods, dogma, creeds, and the like. I would have to do some research
to substantiate that, but I'm just sharing my opinion (... though I
can say, that I think the passion with which people debate on sites
like this points in favor of my hunch).

 I think you are getting yourself slightly confused.
> You
> are arguing from the basis of a bible, and your belief in same. D-Man
> doesn't hold that belief.  His "platform", if  you will, is science.
> He is
> arguing known and probable facts based on the known.  Your
> platform is the unknown. Can you see how difficult it can be?  My
> suggestion to you on this matter is very simple.  Take on board what
> is known, read what you can, and then you will be able to more
> clearly see (and perhaps get an even deeper understanding)
> your religious base.
>
> The second things I'd like to say is that D-Man has not accused you
> of anything.  He's just pointing out that there is a belief out there
> which matches your statement, called "God of the Gaps" philosophy.
> Now if you haven't heard of it, try and find out more about it.

No, I'm familiar with it, but I just read up on it to make sure. It's
about what I thought ... I comment further in my reply to D.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Robby]

On Nov 25, 2:04 am, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:

> On Nov 25, 12:03 pm, Robby <robert.christ...@sebts.edu> wrote:
>
> > WHOA! Weird ... all this time I thought I was still talking to
> > Philosophy (whom I'm pretty sure lives down under) ... but it's been
> > Drafterman ever since the start of the evolution talk. I didn't even
> > bother to look to see who had replied.  Well, Drafterman, nice
> > chatting with you.  Philosophy, are you still out there? I'd love to
> > get your take on some of this.
>
> > (But, Drafterman ... about your "gaps" accusation ... I guess I don't
> > know why our gaps are any more significant than your gaps.  Atheism
> > has plenty of gaps as well, but it seems like the "I don't know" or
> > "it doesn't matter" give you a free pass to not answer tough questions
> > about your worldview.)
>
> Yes Robby, I'm here.  I've read your discussion with D-Man, and really
> he has the bases covered.  He's a highly articulate and honest person,
> I don't know that I can lend anything more to the discussion.  I will
> say
> a couple of things though.
>
> Atheism doesn't really have any holes in it.

Sorry ... one more thing. I think atheism does have holes in it.
One's worldview should be able to account for what we experience as
humans, and I think atheism fails to do so on several counts. Failure
to have some sort of explanation for the things you see/experience in
the world souns like gaps to me.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Robby]

> That we don't know the answers to all questions does not prohibit us
> from ruling things out. We can state, with certainty that:
> The universe did not evolve in a manner depicted in Genesis, no matter
> how figurative your interptetation.
> Humans did not descend from a single couple.
> However life came about, the Bible does not depict a viable option.
> There was never any global flood.
>
> These are just examples. They are examples of fictional events. Myths.

You say these are "myths" ... what is your basis for that claim?

> Thus any being that is described as having performed them is also
> fictional.
>

I heard the other day that Barack Obama swalled two Republicans
whole and washed em down with an imported beer ... I have now decided
that I don't believe in Barack Obama (based on your reasoning).

[Robby]

On Nov 25, 8:34 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 24, 9:03 pm, Robby <robert.christ...@sebts.edu> wrote:
>

>
> You misunderstand two things:
>
> 1. God of the gaps mean that theists keep shoe-horning their concept
> of god into our gaps in knowledge. In our early history we didn't know
> how the following things worked:
>
> Lightning
> Volcanoes
> Birth
> Floods
>
> So our primitive ancestors, lacking in knowledge. Simply said: "God
> did it".

Cool, so now we know how lightning works ... I still say God did it,
now we just know how He did it. How does understanding how it works
prove that God didn't do it? I have a decent understanding of how a
blender works ... does that prove the blender was intentionally and
specifically put together by someone ... on purpose, for a purpose?

>
> As we increased in knowledge those gaps (our ignorance) grew smaller
> and smaller. We discovered and learned how those things worked so the
> answer ceased to be "God did it". But there are (and always will be)
> unanswered questions. So there will always be gaps in our knowledge.
> But those gaps are not opportunities for you to shoe horn a god into.
> If history is an indication, it is only a matter of time before we
> find out what the non-god answer is.
>

Now, allow me to point out something you may not understand - the
"gaps" are not always just fill ins due to lack of understanding. You
seem to be not taking revelation into account. (this may be lost on
you b/c it is talk of the supernatural) God has revealed certain
things about Himself, about humans, and about the world. The reason
people said God was involved in the miracle of birth was not just
because they didn't understand it, but because the Bible teaches that
He is. (Psalm 139) The picture you've painted of primitive ignorant
people standing around not knowing what to say ... it's not entirely
accurate. There's a faith element that comes in here, and faith does
not necessarily equal blind ignorance with no desire for
understanding. In fact, I would say faith has done more to inspire a
desire for knowledge, rather than squelch it.

[Drafterman]

Nothing is absolute. But the possibility is so small that it need not
be considered.

> I'm at least honest enough to admit I might be
> wrong, though I am very convinced at this point that I am not.  Come
> on man ... you are in the vast minority of people in the world who
> don't believe in God ... and yet you are certainly right ... and
> everyone else is just ... dumb?  I think it is arrogant for you to
> think you can rule those things out.

Except a vast majority of the people *don't* believe in your God.
Christians only account for a third of the population.

[Drafterman]

On Nov 27, 1:55 pm, Robby <robert.christ...@sebts.edu> wrote:
> > That we don't know the answers to all questions does not prohibit us
> > from ruling things out. We can state, with certainty that:
> > The universe did not evolve in a manner depicted in Genesis, no matter
> > how figurative your interptetation.
> > Humans did not descend from a single couple.
> > However life came about, the Bible does not depict a viable option.
> > There was never any global flood.
>
> > These are just examples. They are examples of fictional events. Myths.
>
> You say these are "myths" ... what is your basis for that claim?

Because they meet the definition of the word "myth"

>
> > Thus any being that is described as having performed them is also
> > fictional.
>
>    I heard the other day that Barack Obama swalled two Republicans
> whole and washed em down with an imported beer ... I have now decided
> that I don't believe in Barack Obama (based on your reasoning).

You've seemed to missed the point of my reasoning.

[Drafterman]

On Nov 27, 1:57 pm, Robby <robert.christ...@sebts.edu> wrote:
> On Nov 25, 8:34 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 24, 9:03 pm, Robby <robert.christ...@sebts.edu> wrote:
>
> > You misunderstand two things:
>
> > 1. God of the gaps mean that theists keep shoe-horning their concept
> > of god into our gaps in knowledge. In our early history we didn't know
> > how the following things worked:
>
> > Lightning
> > Volcanoes
> > Birth
> > Floods
>
> > So our primitive ancestors, lacking in knowledge. Simply said: "God
> > did it".
>
> Cool, so now we know how lightning works ... I still say God did it,
> now we just know how He did it.

Perfect example of God of the gasp.

> How does understanding how it works
> prove that God didn't do it?  I have a decent understanding of how a
> blender works ... does that prove the blender was intentionally and
> specifically put together by someone ... on purpose, for a purpose?
>
>
>
> > As we increased in knowledge those gaps (our ignorance) grew smaller
> > and smaller. We discovered and learned how those things worked so the
> > answer ceased to be "God did it". But there are (and always will be)
> > unanswered questions. So there will always be gaps in our knowledge.
> > But those gaps are not opportunities for you to shoe horn a god into.
> > If history is an indication, it is only a matter of time before we
> > find out what the non-god answer is.
>
> Now, allow me to point out something you may not understand - the
> "gaps" are not always just fill ins due to lack of understanding.

Except they are.

> You
> seem to be not taking revelation into account.  (this may be lost on
> you b/c it is talk of the supernatural)  God has revealed certain
> things about Himself, about humans, and about the world.

Yeah, he revealed himself to Mohammed through the archangel Gabriel,
right?

[Robby]

(sorry I sent so many messages before, I'll try to put them back
together ... unless you think it helps to keep different streams of
thought in different messages?)

>Nothing is absolute. But the possibility is so small that it need not
be considered.

So, there is a possibility. I agree.

>Except a vast majority of the people *don't* believe in your God.
Christians only account for a third of the population.

Stay on topic, we're not talking about differences in religion, just
the question of whether a god exists.

> You say these are "myths" ... what is your basis for that claim?

Because they meet the definition of the word "myth"

And what is that definition? What parts of the story fit? Another
relevant question, are you an expert in mythology? Is that the basis
of your claim? Your aptitude in the field of mythology? If you claim
they are myth, I'd like to know that you have some credentials for
recognizing mythology (and don't throw out some answer like "common
sense").

> > Thus any being that is described as having performed them is also
> > fictional.

> I heard the other day that Barack Obama swalled two Republicans
> whole and washed em down with an imported beer ... I have now decided
> that I don't believe in Barack Obama (based on your reasoning).

You've seemed to missed the point of my reasoning.

No, I think I just took your reasoning and put it in another
context ... sounds kinda silly in my story. I think it's the same in
your story. Perhaps your reasoning failed to give me a *reason* to
think God is fictional.

> > Cool, so now we know how lightning works ... I still say God did it,
> > now we just know how He did it.
>
> Perfect example of God of the gasp.
>

Not according to your definition. If I'm not mistaken, you said the
reason people attributed things to a god was because they didn't
understand them ("As we increased in knowledge those gaps (our

ignorance) grew smaller and smaller. We discovered and learned how

those things worked so the answer ceased to be "God did it" ").

>
> > Now, allow me to point out something you may not understand - the
> > "gaps" are not always just fill ins due to lack of understanding.
>
> Except they are.

Do you realize that "except they are" doesn't really help me any. You
failed to make a point there.

>
> > You
> > seem to be not taking revelation into account.  (this may be lost on
> > you b/c it is talk of the supernatural)  God has revealed certain
> > things about Himself, about humans, and about the world.
>
> Yeah, he revealed himself to Mohammed through the archangel Gabriel,
> right?

Is this really on topic? I'm not sure what you're asking here. But my
answer would be "no."


One thing Miss Philosophy and I did that I thought was beneficial to
discussion was to share a little about what's going on in life ...
kinda reminds us that we're both human and just because we disagree on
this doesn't mean we may not share other similarities. Have a good
weekend? I did. Got a lot of yard work done today, father in law and
brother in law helped. Wife is feeling flu-like symptons ... and
she's pregnant ... kinda scarey. I hope she feels better. Peace.

[Drafterman]

On Nov 28, 10:30 pm, Robby <robert.christ...@sebts.edu> wrote:
> (sorry I sent so many messages before, I'll try to put them back
> together ... unless you think it helps to keep different streams of
> thought in different messages?)
>
> >Nothing is absolute. But the possibility is so small that it need not
>
> be considered.
>
> So, there is a possibility. I agree.

Many things are possible. It's "possible" that the center of the Earth
is made of dark chocolate.

>
> >Except a vast majority of the people *don't* believe in your God.
>
> Christians only account for a third of the population.
>
> Stay on topic, we're not talking about differences in religion, just
> the question of whether a god exists.

It certainly matters whether or not people agree if you are going to
bring them up at all. If a bunch of people came to you, telling you a
story about a hit and run, but all the details differ, you're going to
doubt them. You are trying to use the multitude of beliefs as evidence
for a single thing when they aren't talking about a single thing.

>
> > You say these are "myths" ... what is your basis for that claim?
>
> Because they meet the definition of the word "myth"
>
> And what is that definition?

"a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or
hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a
natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or
demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature."

> What parts of the story fit?

The parts involving traditional and legendary stories, usually
concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable
basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially ones that are
concerned with deities or demigods and explain some practice, rite, or
phenomenon of nature.

> Another
> relevant question, are you an expert in mythology? Is that the basis
> of your claim? Your aptitude in the field of mythology? If you claim
> they are myth, I'd like to know that you have some credentials for
> recognizing mythology (and don't throw out some answer like "common
> sense").

That's not relevant at all. See: argument from authority.

>
> > > Thus any being that is described as having performed them is also
> > > fictional.
> > I heard the other day that Barack Obama swalled two Republicans
> > whole and washed em down with an imported beer ... I have now decided
> > that I don't believe in Barack Obama (based on your reasoning).
>
> You've seemed to missed the point of my reasoning.
>
> No, I think I just took your reasoning and put it in another
> context ... sounds kinda silly in my story.

Actually it doesn't. It is perfectly reasonable for you not to believe
in the Barack Obama you described. Indeed, there is no person named
Barack Obama that swallowed two Republicans whole.

> I think it's the same in
> your story. Perhaps your reasoning failed to give me a *reason* to
> think God is fictional.
>
> > > Cool, so now we know how lightning works ... I still say God did it,
> > > now we just know how He did it.
>
> > Perfect example of God of the gasp.
>
> Not according to your definition. If I'm not mistaken, you said the
> reason people attributed things to a god was because they didn't
> understand them ("As we increased in knowledge those gaps (our
> ignorance) grew smaller and smaller. We discovered and learned how
> those things worked so the answer ceased to be "God did it" ").

Exactly, and as we learned about those things, people continued to
cram God into the smaller and smaller places of our ignorance.

>
>
>
> > > Now, allow me to point out something you may not understand - the
> > > "gaps" are not always just fill ins due to lack of understanding.
>
> > Except they are.
>
> Do you realize that "except they are" doesn't really help me any. You
> failed to make a point there.

Well, it's the very definition of "gap" that I'm using here.

>
>
>
> > > You
> > > seem to be not taking revelation into account. (this may be lost on
> > > you b/c it is talk of the supernatural) God has revealed certain
> > > things about Himself, about humans, and about the world.
>
> > Yeah, he revealed himself to Mohammed through the archangel Gabriel,
> > right?
>
> Is this really on topic? I'm not sure what you're asking here. But my
> answer would be "no."

Then you're not taking revelation into account. It's on topic because
*you* brought up the issue of revelation. I'm simply pointing out that
you aren't taking revelation into account either.

[The Belly Bionic]

On Nov 29, 2009, at 5:05 AM, Drafterman wrote:

> On Nov 28, 10:30 pm, Robby <robert.christ...@sebts.edu> wrote:
>> (sorry I sent so many messages before, I'll try to put them back
>> together ... unless you think it helps to keep different streams of
>> thought in different messages?)
>>
>>> Nothing is absolute. But the possibility is so small that it need
>>> not
>>
>> be considered.
>>
>> So, there is a possibility. I agree.
>
> Many things are possible. It's "possible" that the center of the Earth
> is made of dark chocolate.

I like to refer to this as the "Butt Monkey Question." It's
*possible* that monkeys might fly out of my butt at any second. You
can't prove they aren't going to, and if I say they have you can't
prove they didn't because you aren't here. However, I seriously doubt
that anyone would try to argue that monkeys actually *did* fly out of
my butt just because you can't definitively prove they didn't.

The Belly Bionic
belly...@gmail.com

[Robby]

On Nov 29, 5:05 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 10:30 pm, Robby <robert.christ...@sebts.edu> wrote:
>
> > (sorry I sent so many messages before, I'll try to put them back
> > together ... unless you think it helps to keep different streams of
> > thought in different messages?)
>
> > >Nothing is absolute. But the possibility is so small that it need not
>
> > be considered.
>
> > So, there is a possibility. I agree.
>
> Many things are possible. It's "possible" that the center of the Earth
> is made of dark chocolate.
>
>
>
> > >Except a vast majority of the people *don't* believe in your God.
>
> > Christians only account for a third of the population.
>
> > Stay on topic, we're not talking about differences in religion, just
> > the question of whether a god exists.
>
> It certainly matters whether or not people agree if you are going to
> bring them up at all. If a bunch of people came to you, telling you a
> story about a hit and run, but all the details differ, you're going to
> doubt them. You are trying to use the multitude of beliefs as evidence
> for a single thing when they aren't talking about a single thing.
>

It is a single thing - the question of whether *a* god exists or not.
And the fact that almost all cultures in all times in all places have
held this *single* belief in common is something that must be
accounted for. People may differ on who that god is and how he has
revealed himself, but belief in a god is a single thing.

>
> > > You say these are "myths" ... what is your basis for that claim?
>
> > Because they meet the definition of the word "myth"
>
> > And what is that definition?
>
> "a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or
> hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a
> natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or
> demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature."
>
> > What parts of the story fit?
>
> The parts involving traditional and legendary stories, usually
> concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable
> basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially ones that are
> concerned with deities or demigods and explain some practice, rite, or
> phenomenon of nature.
>
> > Another
> > relevant question, are you an expert in mythology? Is that the basis
> > of your claim? Your aptitude in the field of mythology? If you claim
> > they are myth, I'd like to know that you have some credentials for
> > recognizing mythology (and don't throw out some answer like "common
> > sense").
>
> That's not relevant at all. See: argument from authority.
>

The argument from authority is if I said, "my pastor said the Bible's
true, he would know, so it's true." I'm not an expert on fallacies,
but I don't think it applies here. I think it is completely relevant
to know whether you have an authority to make a claim about myths.
Anybody can google a definition for one. How many myths have you read?

>
> > > > Thus any being that is described as having performed them is also
> > > > fictional.
> > >    I heard the other day that Barack Obama swalled two Republicans
> > > whole and washed em down with an imported beer ... I have now decided
> > > that I don't believe in Barack Obama (based on your reasoning).
>
> > You've seemed to missed the point of my reasoning.
>
> > No, I think I just took your reasoning and put it in another
> > context ... sounds kinda silly in my story.
>
> Actually it doesn't. It is perfectly reasonable for you not to believe
> in the Barack Obama you described. Indeed, there is no person named
> Barack Obama that swallowed two Republicans whole.
>
> > I think it's the same in
> > your story. Perhaps your reasoning failed to give me a *reason* to
> > think God is fictional.
>
> > > > Cool, so now we know how lightning works ... I still say God did it,
> > > > now we just know how He did it.
>
> > > Perfect example of God of the gasp.
>
> > Not according to your definition. If I'm not mistaken, you said the
> > reason people attributed things to a god was because they didn't
> > understand them ("As we increased in knowledge those gaps (our
> > ignorance) grew smaller and smaller. We discovered and learned how
> > those things worked so the answer ceased to be "God did it" ").
>
> Exactly, and as we learned about those things, people continued to
> cram God into the smaller and smaller places of our ignorance.
>

You still haven't responded to the reality of highly educated people,
who understand the former mysteries, and still attribute them to God.
That's not your god of the gaps theory. That's learning how God's
world works and attributing Him with the appropriate honor and
recognition.

>
> > > > Now, allow me to point out something you may not understand - the
> > > > "gaps" are not always just fill ins due to lack of understanding.
>
> > > Except they are.
>
> > Do you realize that "except they are" doesn't really help me any. You
> > failed to make a point there.
>
> Well, it's the very definition of "gap" that I'm using here.
>
>
> > > > You
> > > > seem to be not taking revelation into account.  (this may be lost on
> > > > you b/c it is talk of the supernatural)  God has revealed certain
> > > > things about Himself, about humans, and about the world.
>
> > > Yeah, he revealed himself to Mohammed through the archangel Gabriel,
> > > right?
>
> > Is this really on topic? I'm not sure what you're asking here. But my
> > answer would be "no."
>
> Then you're not taking revelation into account. It's on topic because
> *you* brought up the issue of revelation. I'm simply pointing out that
> you aren't taking revelation into account either.
>

I am taking revelation into account. Comparing Mohammed's story to
the stories of the biblical authors will show marked differences and
provide ample reason to doubt the validity of his receiving a message
from God.

>
>
>
> > One thing Miss Philosophy and I did that I thought was beneficial to
> > discussion was to share a little about what's going on in life ...
> > kinda reminds us that we're both human and just because we disagree on
> > this doesn't mean we may not share other similarities.  Have a good
> > weekend?  I did. Got a lot of yard work done today, father in law and
> > brother in law helped.  Wife is feeling flu-like symptons ... and

> > she's pregnant ... kinda scarey. I hope she feels better. Peace.- Hide quoted text -
>
Guess you're not up for any personal chat ... doesn't surprise me, but
I though I'd give it a shot. Hope you are doing well, praying for you,
Robby

[Drafterman]

On Nov 30, 2:01 pm, Robby <robert.christ...@sebts.edu> wrote:
> On Nov 29, 5:05 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 28, 10:30 pm, Robby <robert.christ...@sebts.edu> wrote:
>
> > > (sorry I sent so many messages before, I'll try to put them back
> > > together ... unless you think it helps to keep different streams of
> > > thought in different messages?)
>
> > > >Nothing is absolute. But the possibility is so small that it need not
>
> > > be considered.
>
> > > So, there is a possibility. I agree.
>
> > Many things are possible. It's "possible" that the center of the Earth
> > is made of dark chocolate.
>
> > > >Except a vast majority of the people *don't* believe in your God.
>
> > > Christians only account for a third of the population.
>
> > > Stay on topic, we're not talking about differences in religion, just
> > > the question of whether a god exists.
>
> > It certainly matters whether or not people agree if you are going to
> > bring them up at all. If a bunch of people came to you, telling you a
> > story about a hit and run, but all the details differ, you're going to
> > doubt them. You are trying to use the multitude of beliefs as evidence
> > for a single thing when they aren't talking about a single thing.
>
> It is a single thing - the question of whether *a* god exists or not.

But they aren't talking about a single thing. They are talking about
different gods. Multiples.

> And the fact that almost all cultures in all times in all places have
> held this *single* belief in common is something that must be
> accounted for.

You are overgeneralizing in an attempt to hijack people's beliefs to
support your conclusion. The fact is, belief in Jehovah is different
than a belief in God, which is different than a belief in Allah, which
is different than a belief in Vishnu, Odin, Ra, Zeus, etc. etc. It is
most certainly not a "single" belief. You might as well be saying,
"Well, everyone has had a belief in *something*, therefore everything
is true!"

> People may differ on who that god is and how he has
> revealed himself, but belief in a god is a single thing.

But it isn't belief in a god, it is belief in multiple gods.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > You say these are "myths" ... what is your basis for that claim?
>
> > > Because they meet the definition of the word "myth"
>
> > > And what is that definition?
>
> > "a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or
> > hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a
> > natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or
> > demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature."
>
> > > What parts of the story fit?
>
> > The parts involving traditional and legendary stories, usually
> > concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable
> > basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially ones that are
> > concerned with deities or demigods and explain some practice, rite, or
> > phenomenon of nature.
>
> > > Another
> > > relevant question, are you an expert in mythology? Is that the basis
> > > of your claim? Your aptitude in the field of mythology? If you claim
> > > they are myth, I'd like to know that you have some credentials for
> > > recognizing mythology (and don't throw out some answer like "common
> > > sense").
>
> > That's not relevant at all. See: argument from authority.
>
> The argument from authority is if I said, "my pastor said the Bible's
> true, he would know, so it's true."  I'm not an expert on fallacies,
> but I don't think it applies here.  I think it is completely relevant
> to know whether you have an authority to make a claim about myths.

The point is that you don't have to be an authority to make truth
claims. To say that I do is an argument from authority.

> Anybody can google a definition for one. How many myths have you read?

Many.

By assuming that god continues to exist in the places we have yet to
learn about. Still god of the gaps.

>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > Now, allow me to point out something you may not understand - the
> > > > > "gaps" are not always just fill ins due to lack of understanding.
>
> > > > Except they are.
>
> > > Do you realize that "except they are" doesn't really help me any. You
> > > failed to make a point there.
>
> > Well, it's the very definition of "gap" that I'm using here.
>
> > > > > You
> > > > > seem to be not taking revelation into account.  (this may be lost on
> > > > > you b/c it is talk of the supernatural)  God has revealed certain
> > > > > things about Himself, about humans, and about the world.
>
> > > > Yeah, he revealed himself to Mohammed through the archangel Gabriel,
> > > > right?
>
> > > Is this really on topic? I'm not sure what you're asking here. But my
> > > answer would be "no."
>
> > Then you're not taking revelation into account. It's on topic because
> > *you* brought up the issue of revelation. I'm simply pointing out that
> > you aren't taking revelation into account either.
>
>  I am taking revelation into account.

You just admitted you're not.

> Comparing Mohammed's story to
> the stories of the biblical authors will show marked differences and
> provide ample reason to doubt the validity of his receiving a message
> from God.

Why are the stories of the biblical authors the measure of truth,
here?

>
> > > One thing Miss Philosophy and I did that I thought was beneficial to
> > > discussion was to share a little about what's going on in life ...
> > > kinda reminds us that we're both human and just because we disagree on
> > > this doesn't mean we may not share other similarities.  Have a good
> > > weekend?  I did. Got a lot of yard work done today, father in law and
> > > brother in law helped.  Wife is feeling flu-like symptons ... and
> > > she's pregnant ... kinda scarey. I hope she feels better. Peace.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Guess you're not up for any personal chat ... doesn't surprise me, but
> I though I'd give it a shot. Hope you are doing well, praying for you,
> Robby
>
>
>

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>

[Robby]

Hey man, I appreciate your responses ... I'll put a few thoughts, but
then I'm probably gonna check out for the rest of the month, busy
times here ... wife due soon, Christmas season, work ... plus it's
good for me to step back and let things process a little. So, a few
thoughts below (but I don't want it to seem like I'm just trying to
have the last word and then checking out ... so, I'll keep it light)

I understand what you're saying, but I think you may be
misinterpreting what I'm saying. So, let me try this again. The
belief that some sort of god(s) exist can be lumped into a singular
phenomenon ... now that doesn't prove there's a god, that's not what I
was doing, but I think it is a factor in setting up a decent argument
for the existence of God. If you disagree, fine, but I think it's a
fair statement, and you haven't really shown me otherwise.

Yes, but sometimes the argument from authority is valid. Plus, when
we started talking evolution the first thing I got was a challenge to
my knowledge (or authority) of the subject. Sounds similar. What I
had in mind is C.S. Lewis's experience (I'm sure plenty of theists
have thrown his arguments at you ... fascinating man). He was an
atheist and literary scholar who also assumed the Bible (particularly
the Gospels) was myths ... until he took an honest look and had to
admit (as an expert in mythology) that these were different than myths
(though they *did* share many similarities), there was something
different about the character of these writings (now I can't speak to
his perspective on the OT, but he definitely saw the Gospels this way,
and since Jesus quotes often from the OT and took it as valid, I think
it's a fair extension). So, anyway, that was the picture I had in my
mind of someone who was an authority.

D-man, it seems like we've kinda come to the end of this one ... I've
enjoyed the chat. I'd love to reconnect with you after the new
year ... you can pick the topic. Merry Christmas. Miss Philosophy if
you're reading, Merry Christmas to you too (btw ... just met a guy
from Australia in Target the other day, thought of you! wild!)
(PS - if you respond I'll read it, but I won't be posting again til
January so if you ask questions and I don't answer em, I'm not
ignoring you.)

[Drafterman]

I have, you just refuse to acknowledge it. You are trying to use
beliefs for different gods in support of belief in a single, specific
god. This doesn't fly. Even if it did, the number of people that
believe something, in absolutely, positively NO WAY sets up a decent
argument.

No. It's never valid. Ever.

> Plus, when
> we started talking evolution the first thing I got was a challenge to
> my knowledge (or authority) of the subject. Sounds similar.

Only because you equated knowledge with authority. Knowledge is not
the same thing as authority.

> What I
> had in mind is C.S. Lewis's experience (I'm sure plenty of theists
> have thrown his arguments at you ... fascinating man).  He was an
> atheist and literary scholar who also assumed the Bible (particularly
> the Gospels) was myths ... until he took an honest look and had to
> admit (as an expert in mythology) that these were different than myths
> (though they *did* share many similarities), there was something
> different about the character of these writings (now I can't speak to
> his perspective on the OT, but he definitely saw the Gospels this way,
> and since Jesus quotes often from the OT and took it as valid, I think
> it's a fair extension).  So, anyway, that was the picture I had in my
> mind of someone who was an authority.

I'm sorry that you subscribe to gross logical fallacies (argument from
populary, argument from authority). These are basic issues that are
you to prevent you from making valid arguments about anything, not
just about God. I encourage you to study basic philosophy and logic. A
simple google search for "logical fallacies" is a good place to start.

>
> D-man, it seems like we've kinda come to the end of this one ... I've
> enjoyed the chat. I'd love to reconnect with you after the new
> year ... you can pick the topic.  Merry Christmas. Miss Philosophy if
> you're reading, Merry Christmas to you too (btw ... just met a guy
> from Australia in Target the other day, thought of you! wild!)
> (PS - if you respond I'll read it, but I won't be posting again til
> January so if you ask questions and I don't answer em, I'm not

> ignoring you.)- Hide quoted text -

A shame that you consider this the end when we haven't even really
started. You have made serious mistakes in basic logic and don't
understand what evolution is, yet you think you're done arguing about
god and discussing evolution.

If you care so little about actually knowing what you're talking about
or having a valid basis from which to argue, why are you even here?

[Robby]

this is why I don't really enjoy discussing with you bro. I never said
we were done, I said I'm taking a break. maybe you should read more
carefully. anyway, I hope you have a nice holiday season.

[Drafterman]

On Dec 2, 10:02 pm, Robby <robert.christ...@sebts.edu> wrote:
> this is why I don't really enjoy discussing with you bro. I never said
> we were done, I said I'm taking a break. maybe you should read more
> carefully. anyway, I hope you have a nice holiday season.

You said:

"D-man, it seems like we've kinda come to the end of this one ..."

If this is a break in which you intend to return, then this isn't the
end, is it? I think the problem lies with your poor word choice.