atheism doubled since 2001

[Job]

Punisher wrote:

<quoted text>Well this is sort of a newer spin on the old themes, yes?
In reality it means anyone can pick up the Bible, read it and whatever they conclude it to mean is true due to their immediate personal relationship with this God.
One thing that fascinates me now about Xtianity and the neo-modern conversion process...there are no intermediate steps. One goes from lost to SAVED in a flash. Unfit to fit with a claim. Like an obese person making claims of being thinner now based on their projected future weight losses.
Just on a practical level as a Believer yourself, dont you think these instantaneous claims of Salvation, set in stone, sort of strike you as disingenuous? Sort of a cheapening of what should on some level take a little, maybe a lot of extra-curricular activity to achieve, that in reality no one in the Bible, not even Jesus said that one could be Saved (the Big Save, not a little save) in an instant, and that it was fully guaranteed by Heaven when someone makes the claim about themselves...?

How instantaneous do you think the salvation was for the thief on the cross, who Jesus made very clear: "Today you will be with me in Paradise"? What may have been the thief's extra-curricular activity that gave him this apparent 'undeserved' "free-pass"? Or did he do something during that time (from verbal rejection to acceptance) that made him 'deserving'?

[angelinaUK]

Job wrote:

<quoted text>
I hope all is well with him.

He's had a tough few months but is thankfully doing OK now.

[Punisher]

Job wrote:

<quoted text>
I read the whole article, and for starters I have a problem with this snippet:
"If, for example, someone were to come up with a robust God hypothesis that suggested observational tests to evaluate its validity, then rest assured, scientists would be hopping all over it — what better way to the vaunted goal of scientific fame and glory than documenting the existence of God? Indeed, scientists have already applied their wares to testable hypotheses along these lines, such as whether intercessory prayer is effective, and have thus far come a cropper."

2. What I think many scientists are 'rejecting' is the conclusions drawn by creation 'scientists'.

As an example, there are fully qualified scientists who make 'scientific' cases for the Genesis account of creation, including a young earth, and a global flood. The fact that gods are stomping their feet, or bowling to create sounds of thunder is a gimme. Trying to study 'intercessory prayer' would be another waste of time. Intercessory prayer is not a formula where one can study it's effectiveness. Since in practical terms, praying is making a request from an intelligent being, whether it's answered or not depends on the decision of the intelligent being. If the request is refused, does that mean prayer/requesting is ineffective?
The problem seems to be that creation scientists either test, study the possibility of immediate creation/young earth, global flood etc. because of their upbringing in Christianity, or they became a believer and faced with the challenge of Biblical creation and evolution, or they had a sincere desire to justify evolution (or at least remain neutral) and couldn't do it. So the problem is this "cross road" that is faced, and having to deal with a scientific community that does not want to deal with this "cross road".
Since the Bible is considered a myth, many seem to want to immediately dismiss creation scientists, and focus on what can be 'easily' dismissed as myth (gods stomping on the ground to produce thunderous noise, etc.).
So the point is, forget about trying to study things like intercessory prayer among non-scientists, and consider what actual scientists are maintaining concerning Biblical creation.

2. They are rejected because no Creationists can make any real claim outside of religious faith that a Creator was involved. The claim can be made, but it remains an article of faith, not science. If science is to remain true to the scientific method, it HAS to reject claims that can not be tested in any real way.

Creation "science" HAS to figure a way to find and test for creation and not just keep making the claim.

If they can prove a young earth - scientifically - they have to do it, and not just keep making claims that it is...

No matter how you try and finagle things, this wedging creationism into anything scientific is nothing but what Xtianity has been doing for centuries - forcing its POV where its not needed and in fact not welcome...

[Gillette]

Job wrote:

<quoted text>
What I think many scientists are 'rejecting' is the conclusions drawn by creation 'scientists'. As an example, there are fully qualified scientists who make 'scientific' cases for the Genesis account of creation, including a young earth, and a global flood.

No, that is not correct. Their cases may SEEM to be scientific to you and other Christians (which is very much the propaganda point of these Christian creationist institutes, etc.). But actually, their cases are Christian apologetics, using sciencey-sounding language.

They are so because they begin with the assumption (as conservative Christians) that the Bible story is literally true, then they see how they can try and shoehorn the vast scientific evidence into that mold. The vast majority of the evidence they cannot fit, so they just ignore or discard it.

In other words, a scientist goes wherever the evidence leads him (within the limits of the scientific method), while a creationist tries to uses bits and pieces of scientific evidence to 'prove' an a priori religious idea or belief.

[Punisher]

Job wrote:

<quoted text>
How instantaneous do you think the salvation was for the thief on the cross, who Jesus made very clear: "Today you will be with me in Paradise"? What may have been the thief's extra-curricular activity that gave him this apparent 'undeserved' "free-pass"? Or did he do something during that time (from verbal rejection to acceptance) that made him 'deserving'?

Damn, I wish I could lay bets on what replies will be...I knew you'd pull the thief on the cross card.

I think the thief is a wholly specious example. You're talking about direct - verifiable (as far as the story goes) contact with Jesus in the FLESH. As he walked the Earth. I would allow that Jesus in such circumstances could and did save people instantly.

What I'm talking about and I think you know this - is/are claims made post-Jesus on Earth. Made by the person about themselves, NOT by Jesus. Jesus can certainly make the claim as he's the one who can write the actual ticket.

This is not a new topic/question...can a Believer truly make a claim of absolute salvation about themselves...? IMO, no. As being saved - thru Faith - is not supported as a One-off action.

[Punisher]

Job wrote:

<quoted text>
1. I don't normally use the term 'supernaturalist', but used it mainly because it was used in one of Roland's posts.
2. I don't have any personal desire to relegate the word 'supernaturalist' to believers (as I don't normally use the word).
But as far as maintaining that God has specified that the Bible is 100% of God/God inspired, we 'are' allowed to use logic. Allowed to 'think'. One question to ask is, does what happened to the Apostle Peter, when told he recieved divine revelation from God, happen today among what we term "Christians"? If so, this means an 'absolute' divine revelation from God. If one believes that this happened to them, is there any reason to suggest that maybe the Bible is not the entire Word of God? If what happened to Peter and the apostles 'was' accurate, then can we trust the rest of what is stated in the Bible? Would verses like the one I mentioned, and John 3:16 be the only accurate portions? Or, if the majority is accurate, is it possible that maybe one of the books of the prophets, or one of the epistles shouldn't be there? That maybe one day we will find out that every book was inspired by God, except that 'one' somewhere in the OT that just snuck in there, but shouldn't be there, but God allowed it?
These are valid questions, but in my opinion, there's no reason to suggest that the Bible in it's 'entirety' is not, or has portions not inspired by God.
And that's my view of Creationism. There's no reason for me to suggest, as theistic evolutionists do,(at the risk of being a heretic) that God used evolution in our creation.

Its always been my POV that since Jesus NEVER mentions a Bible, anything similar to such a thing, as HIS one and ONLY Book - that the Bible is nothing but a Book compiled by men to only help them in a Church-like organization to teach a right line of story. The book was compiled for that purpose - to define the story line.

[Big Al]

Job wrote:

<quoted text>
What I think many scientists are 'rejecting' is the conclusions drawn by creation 'scientists'. As an example, there are fully qualified scientists who make 'scientific' cases for the Genesis

“Advocates of the ideas collectively known as “creationism” and, recently,“intelligent design creationism” hold a wide variety of views. Most broadly, a “creationist” is someone who rejects natural scientific explanations of the known universe in favor of special creation by a supernatural entity.…No scientific evidence supports these viewpoints.On the contrary…several independent lines of evidence indicate that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and that the universe is about 14 billion years old. Rejecting the evidence for these age estimates would mean rejecting not just biological evolution but also fundamental discoveries of modern physics, chemistry, astrophysics, and geology.”- 2010 U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

[Douglas Furr]

Why do Christians cry at funerals?

[angelinaUK]

Douglas Furr wrote:

Why do Christians cry at funerals?

It's the separation one cries for.Even If the deceased is a fellow Christian you know that it will likely be a long time before you meet them again and being separated from those you love for whatever reason can cause emotional distress.

[NDanger]

Douglas Furr wrote:

Why do Christians cry at funerals?

Why does anyone?

[Punisher]

Douglas Furr wrote:

Why do Christians cry at funerals?

Uh, oh...you mean my laughing is inappropriate?

[Job]

Gillette wrote:

1. <quoted text>
Then you had better study up on MA and who she was, etc.(Hint: the name is SARDONIC). It turns out MA is more proof AGAINST the idea of two first humans.
What, if anything, is a Mitochondrial Eve?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mitoeve....
<quoted text>

2. Any educated, thinking person SHOULD discard it. We know from MULTIPLE sources and measurements that the earth is 4.65 BILLION years old.
<quoted text>

3. Both IMPOSSIBLE and NEVER HAPPENED according to the vast geological evidence, etc. So says modern science.
<quoted text>

4. God's existence couldn't be a part of science and the scientific method unless such existence could be measured empirically. So we would probably still have the dichotomy between religion and science.
<quoted text>

5. If I found out today, it would likely be because God had decided to become naturally-measureable for once.

6. <quoted text>
So people's innate knowledge and life experience that in real life dead people do not come back to life is irrelevant to whether nonbelievers should drop their skepticism and accept the resurrection stories?

1. I understand the basic dichotomy between the Mitochondrial Eve and the Eve in the Bible. I'm merely focusing on the similarity. The production of the human population originating from one woman. Where this woman resided, or whether or not humans existed before the Mitochondrial Eve is beside my point.

2. Like what?

3. Key phrase: "So says modern science". However, that's not quite accurate. It should read: "So says modern scientists". Or better yet: "So says the 'majority' of modern scientists". Not all 'scientists' make that claim.

4. I'm not talking about the God in relation to science and the scientific method. If God reveals Himself to an individual, what effect will that have on his/her view of evolution? There's no rule that state's that if God reveals Himself, His revealing has to involve the ability to 'measure' His existence empirically. If God reveals Himself to any scientists,'any' scientist, without allowing for scientific measurement, how will that effect his/her view of evolution? From what I can tell, it effects it quite a bit.

5. What makes you think God cannot reveal Himself to you without being exposed to scientific measurement?

6. The Bible doesn't claim that your average human comes back to life. In the Bible's 4,000 year span, very few are recorded to have 'divinely' come back to life.

However, there are humans in the modern world who were close to burial before coming back to life. And some have attested to Biblical references of the afterlife.

[Job]

Roland_Deschain wrote:

<quoted text>
Well another poster has already addressed a "young earth" and global flood. There is also this from the link I provided.
"The God-as-agent hypothesis is inherently a non-starter (thus far) because science requires any element of an acceptable explanation to have some evidential backing independent of its purported explanatory role. Absent that requirement, we’d be at liberty to claim the existence of some arbitrary process or entity that has the powers necessary to fill any explanatory gap — how convenient! Saying that God intervenes in nature, without a clear specification of divine powers that can be observationally confirmed, is to posit an unexplained explainer, a mysterious causal operator. The scientific project is intent on dispelling mysteries, not appealing to them."

As I stated, if there was no Bible, or any references to a worldwide flood, I'm sure it would never come into consideration. That doesn't mean that it did not happen. One doesn't have to succumb to the idea of a creator's intervention just because others claim it. The problem is the absolute refusal to consider its possibility. It may not be fun. It may not appear scientifically interesting. But 'fun' and 'interesting' are not requirements for truth.

[Job]

angelinaUK wrote:

<quoted text>He's had a tough few months but is thankfully doing OK now.

I'm glad to hear that. Thank you.

[Job]

Punisher wrote:

<quoted text>
2. They are rejected because no Creationists can make any real claim outside of religious faith that a Creator was involved. The claim can be made, but it remains an article of faith, not science. If science is to remain true to the scientific method, it HAS to reject claims that can not be tested in any real way.
Creation "science" HAS to figure a way to find and test for creation and not just keep making the claim.
If they can prove a young earth - scientifically - they have to do it, and not just keep making claims that it is...
No matter how you try and finagle things, this wedging creationism into anything scientific is nothing but what Xtianity has been doing for centuries - forcing its POV where its not needed and in fact not welcome...

And you don't think evolution, which also cannot be proven should be able force it's views? And who says it's not welcome. What makes you think many free-thinking people all reject creationism?

[Job]

Gillette wrote:

<quoted text>
No, that is not correct. Their cases may SEEM to be scientific to you and other Christians (which is very much the propaganda point of these Christian creationist institutes, etc.). But actually, their cases are Christian apologetics, using sciencey-sounding language.
They are so because they begin with the assumption (as conservative Christians) that the Bible story is literally true, then they see how they can try and shoehorn the vast scientific evidence into that mold. The vast majority of the evidence they cannot fit, so they just ignore or discard it.
In other words, a scientist goes wherever the evidence leads him (within the limits of the scientific method), while a creationist tries to uses bits and pieces of scientific evidence to 'prove' an a priori religious idea or belief.

No. There are scientists who had a problem with evolution 'before' they embraced Creationism.

Gillette, I hope you're not suggesting that proponents of evolution are all biased-free. If you don't think evolutionists ignore certain problems involving evolution, you may want to think again.

[15th Dalai Lama]

Job wrote:

<quoted text>
As I stated, if there was no Bible, or any references to a worldwide flood, I'm sure it would never come into consideration. That doesn't mean that it did not happen. One doesn't have to succumb to the idea of a creator's intervention just because others claim it. The problem is the absolute refusal to consider its possibility. It may not be fun. It may not appear scientifically interesting. But 'fun' and 'interesting' are not requirements for truth.

Yeap, but evidence is a requirement of truth. The alleged flood never happened.

By the way, there is no 'Creation Science'. If ther were, creationsits would put it on the table for scientific scrutiny.

[15th Dalai Lama]

Job wrote:

<quoted text>
No. There are scientists who had a problem with evolution 'before' they embraced Creationism.
Gillette, I hope you're not suggesting that proponents of evolution are all biased-free. If you don't think evolutionists ignore certain problems involving evolution, you may want to think again.

Fundies don't know squat about evolution. That problem?

[Job]

Punisher wrote:

1. <quoted text>
Damn, I wish I could lay bets on what replies will be...I knew you'd pull the thief on the cross card.
I think the thief is a wholly specious example. You're talking about direct - verifiable (as far as the story goes) contact with Jesus in the FLESH. As he walked the Earth. I would allow that Jesus in such circumstances could and did save people instantly.

2. What I'm talking about and I think you know this - is/are claims made post-Jesus on Earth. Made by the person about themselves, NOT by Jesus. Jesus can certainly make the claim as he's the one who can write the actual ticket.

3. This is not a new topic/question...can a Believer truly make a claim of absolute salvation about themselves...? IMO, no. As being saved - thru Faith - is not supported as a One-off action.

1. Really? How could Jesus save anyone if He wasn't/isn't God?

2. Well again, how 'could' Jesus make any such claims in the flesh if He wasn't/isn't God? What do you mean by the one who can write the actual ticket?

So basically, the thief on the Cross, His disciples (with the exception of Judas), because they received a verbal assurance from God in the flesh, could safely state that they were 'saved'? But after Christ's death, no one could make 'said' claim?

3. No, it most definitely is not a new topic/question. But....there is logic involved. If someone is on the path of God's calling, experiencing peace during storms, seeing God's provision along the way....and in some more extreme circumstances where those who are mortally ill, or in prison for their faith...they've professed to have literally been visited by Jesus, then is it safe to believe that they are 'probably' saved? If a Chinese Christian is in a prison cell, and Jesus comes unto the cell and 'hugs' him/her (an actual testimony), then what would be the chances that if they died just then that Jesus wouldn't bring them into Heaven? Logically...what would you say?

Now, yes, when Christians are at 'ease', the presence of God can actually be 'discomforting'. If you read the letters to the churches in Revelations, you can see this contrast between believers God comforted, and those He discomforted. And that discomfort can cause a believer to examine him/herself to make sure he/she is in the faith (a suggestion made by Paul himself).

[Gillette]

Job wrote:

<quoted text>
1. I understand the basic dichotomy between the Mitochondrial Eve and the Eve in the Bible. I'm merely focusing on the similarity. The production of the human population originating from one woman. Where this woman resided, or whether or not humans existed before the Mitochondrial Eve is beside my point.

Well, the point of the science here is that there COULD not have been two discrete "first humans" who "procreated" together because the genes do not and CANNOT go back to two people who lived in the same time at the same place.

Also, it is plainly clear form both the fossils and the DNA that humanity gradually evolved out of earlier, proto-human species, rather than being created all at once and brand new as a species.

So the only "similarity" on this subject appears to be the word "Eve," which scientists used sardonically. Doesn't seem like much to hang your hat on, now does it?:)

Job wrote:

<quoted text>
2. Like what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_earth

Job wrote:

<quoted text>
3. Key phrase: "So says modern science". However, that's not quite accurate. It should read: "So says modern scientists". Or better yet: "So says the 'majority' of modern scientists". Not all 'scientists' make that claim.

The few that promote a young earth and a global flood may have science degrees, but they are all, without exception, Christians of one stripe or another who are doing Christian apologetics rather than doing science on this subject -- i.e. they are assuming the Bible is the WOG and then trying to back-fit or shoe-horn the evidence to make it fit the Bible story, in the process ignoring 99% of the other evidence that points squarely at no flood and a very old earth.

The question for these people is always, "Are you doing SCIENCE at this moment, or promoting your religious beliefs?" Given that these claims of early earth/flood ALWAYS appear in Christian books and church websites rather than in peer-reviewed scientific literature, it should be clear that these folks are not doing science, and they know that well.

This is why I asked you earlier for any non-religious or Japanese or Chinese scientist (etc.) who thinks the world is 6000 years old and there was a worldwide flood STRICTLY ON THE EVIDENCE.