Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
StarMountainKid

Ben Carson - Big Bang and Evolution

189 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Br Cornelius

Actually I would be interested to see where deist is defined as someone who believes in god and the Bible and Jesus and that god actively takes a role in the world. That is pretty much the opposite of the terms usage in every instance I can find.

Why?

Some people tinker, others do not. Some are sadists, others are not. Are they also in gofs image?

Get used to Ravenhawks abuse of standard definitions. His definition of socialism is a hoot.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Yamato

As I told you I am am atheist, and as I have frequently posted here as an atheist you can be sure I am an atheist.

And as you have claimed all atheists are x while I am not x, your claim is wrong.

I never said anything about Christians being creationists or whatever, you did. You seem to have an idea of what you believe atheists believe about Christians.

There are many scientists who are Christians that I respect, a couple I admire. I do not see religious belief as an innate barrier to a scientific mindset.

Clearly I don't agree with your imaginings.

But since you claim to know my mind, keep arguing with your mental concept of me in your own head.

Okay, you're an atheist. Except I didn't say all atheists. You did. You thought "all atheists" all by yourself and now I see why injecting yourself personally into the conversation was necessary.

As for the written word, a science book written in strict prose with no poetic imagery is a pretty dull read. Which is why I prefer Hawking or Sagan over Brian Greene.

Men who understand the universe better than anyone else can make theoretical statements about the universe's behavior and design. Their commentary about God carries with it the logical supposition that God exists. That is, IF God -as the Creator of the Universe- exists, THEN this is how his universe works. I would go even further than that and say, if God is the universe, then they're probing into the very nature or essence of God. If the universe is but a cell on the nose of a giant God bazillions of miles tall who lives for a hundred billion years, they'd still be doing the same albeit on a much smaller less significant level.

It's not saying they believe in God or don't believe in God, and I think we can agree that there is no standing rule on theism inside the institutions of astrophysicists. If it's poetic to you, it's poetic, to you. I wouldn't accidentally imply that it's just poetry though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gummug

Quite interesting the reference to Spinoza's God... because that comes down to: God is Nature and Nature is God. Not a guy who meddles in your affairs or you can have a talk with.

But I guess the guy who wrote that article was more interested that Spinoza converted to Catholicism, ... which from what history we know was more due to social pressures and because the Jews kicked him out of their congregation and being without one made you irreputable (even in tolerant Holland). But what he wrote after that surely does not reflect the ideas of a guy who suddenly started to believe in an imaginary friend.

So, that statement by Einstein comes down to: I am using a diplomatic formulation to tell you your imaginary friend does not exist.

What I thought interesting in the article, anyway, is WHY Einstein rejected the idea of a personal God. From the article:

Einstein's error

einstein.gif Einstein's failure to understand the motives of God are the result of his incorrect assumption that God intended this universe as His ultimate perfect creation. Einstein could not get past the moral problems that are present in our universe. He assumed, as most atheists do, that a personal God would only create a universe which is both good morally and perfect physically. Where Einstein erred was in that thinking that there was a god who designed the universe, but designed it in such as way as to allow evil without a purpose. If the universe were designed and it included evil, then there must have been a purpose for that evil. However, according to Christianity, the purpose of the universe is not to be morally or physically perfect, but to provide a place where spiritual creatures can choose to love or reject God - to live with Him forever in a new, perfect universe, or reject Him and live apart from Him for eternity. It would not be possible to make this choice in a universe in which all moral choices are restricted to only good ones. Einstein didn't seem to understand that one could not choose between good and bad if bad did not exist. It's amazing that such a brilliant man could not understand such a simple logical principle.

Anyway, if you are right and there is no God (which I don't believe) what we think doesn't matter because one day we shall merely be dust in the ground, along with everyone else who ever lived, until the universe itself reverts to dust (or lead iirc). But I don't believe that either...because I believe the universe has a spiritual dimension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

What I thought interesting in the article, anyway, is WHY Einstein rejected the idea of a personal God. From the article:

Einstein's error

einstein.gif Einstein's failure to understand the motives of God are the result of his incorrect assumption that God intended this universe as His ultimate perfect creation. Einstein could not get past the moral problems that are present in our universe. He assumed, as most atheists do, that a personal God would only create a universe which is both good morally and perfect physically. Where Einstein erred was in that thinking that there was a god who designed the universe, but designed it in such as way as to allow evil without a purpose. If the universe were designed and it included evil, then there must have been a purpose for that evil. However, according to Christianity, the purpose of the universe is not to be morally or physically perfect, but to provide a place where spiritual creatures can choose to love or reject God - to live with Him forever in a new, perfect universe, or reject Him and live apart from Him for eternity. It would not be possible to make this choice in a universe in which all moral choices are restricted to only good ones. Einstein didn't seem to understand that one could not choose between good and bad if bad did not exist. It's amazing that such a brilliant man could not understand such a simple logical principle.

Anyway, if you are right and there is no God (which I don't believe) what we think doesn't matter because one day we shall merely be dust in the ground, along with everyone else who ever lived, until the universe itself reverts to dust (or lead iirc). But I don't believe that either...because I believe the universe has a spiritual dimension.

That explanation may make perfect sense to a Christian, but it is complete gobbledy gook for any atheist. God deliberately made an imperfect creation makes no moral sense to anyone who doesn't derive their morals from the Bible. To try to explain away why Einstein came to a perfectly reasonable explanation for the internal inconsistencies of the Christian universe and declare him wrong is arrogant in the extreme.

Its really just the same old Christian apologist story rehashed as a take down of why Atheists like Einstein find the Christian world view unacceptable. It can only convince its target audience of confirmed christians.

Br Cornlius

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

Read the constitution BR.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

One might argue that my creator was, given the language of the Constituion, was Pa Hats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot

Okay, you're an atheist. Except I didn't say all atheists. You did. You thought "all atheists" all by yourself and now I see why injecting yourself personally into the conversation was necessary.

Men who understand the universe better than anyone else can make theoretical statements about the universe's behavior and design. Their commentary about God carries with it the logical supposition that God exists. That is, IF God -as the Creator of the Universe- exists, THEN this is how his universe works. I would go even further than that and say, if God is the universe, then they're probing into the very nature or essence of God. If the universe is but a cell on the nose of a giant God bazillions of miles tall who lives for a hundred billion years, they'd still be doing the same albeit on a much smaller less significant level.

It's not saying they believe in God or don't believe in God, and I think we can agree that there is no standing rule on theism inside the institutions of astrophysicists. If it's poetic to you, it's poetic, to you. I wouldn't accidentally imply that it's just poetry though.

You were the one that said "atheists." You didnt say some atheists, you didnt say most atheists.

Then you went off on some sort of rant about what atheists believe.

As it happens, we know what Hawking and Sagan meant, what was their reason for using the words they chose. Their use of metaphor or phrases. Though maybe that is hard for some to grasp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gummug

That explanation may make perfect sense to a Christian, but it is complete gobbledy gook for any atheist. God deliberately made an imperfect creation makes no moral sense to anyone who doesn't derive their morals from the Bible. To try to explain away why Einstein came to a perfectly reasonable explanation for the internal inconsistencies of the Christian universe and declare him wrong is arrogant in the extreme.

Its really just the same old Christian apologist story rehashed as a take down of why Atheists like Einstein find the Christian world view unacceptable. It can only convince its target audience of confirmed christians.

Br Cornlius

So I take it that you think the argument that God would allow sin and suffering in order to give people choice, and that those who choose rightly will one day be free of suffering to live in a perfect world, you believe this is unacceptable? You don't believe in life after death, right? You don't believe in a spirit world? I'm just trying to understand your beliefs.

As far as your last sentence, some Muslims and devout Jews might also accept this argument. Any way, more and more I am believing in God and the spirit world, from my experiences and the related experiences of others.

Have a nice day.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

So I take it that you think the argument that God would allow sin and suffering in order to give people choice, and that those who choose rightly will one day be free of suffering to live in a perfect world, you believe this is unacceptable? You don't believe in life after death, right? You don't believe in a spirit world? I'm just trying to understand your beliefs.

As far as your last sentence, some Muslims and devout Jews might also accept this argument. Any way, more and more I am believing in God and the spirit world, from my experiences and the related experiences of others.

Have a nice day.

Well more and more I am disbelieving all that, for the same reasons. Goes to show.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

You were the one that said "atheists." You didnt say some atheists, you didnt say most atheists.

Then you went off on some sort of rant about what atheists believe.

As it happens, we know what Hawking and Sagan meant, what was their reason for using the words they chose. Their use of metaphor or phrases. Though maybe that is hard for some to grasp.

That's right. I didn't say all, some, or most, but if I was going to use adjectives to describe them, I'd use "seemingly many". So if you can accept that, you didn't refute anything, you're just acting like there's no evidence for what I'm talking about. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt you were an atheist for empirical reasons but now you're giving me reason for pause. You still haven't explained why you're an atheist yet.

We both know what they meant well enough. I don't know who doesn't understand what they meant, but calling it poetry doesn't explain anything other than sharing an opinion.

Atheists don't believe in God. I've been told by atheists on multiple occasions that it really is as simple as that. Okay. If it were only left at that, but no, they also have plenty of outspoken problems with other beliefs of other people who don't disbelieve along with them. Beliefs that don't necessarily have to do with their core atheist belief that there is no God either. You mentioned religious science, what I just described would be atheist science.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot

Atheism is as simple as theism. Obe states you do not believe in a god, the other does.

Under those labels are a large diversity of structured philosophies, religions, and so on. As such one atheist can and iften does disagree with another atheist on issues that go beyond ir are unrelated to their atheism. There is no dogma or set of values intrinsic to atheism, so there isn't much intrinsic to it to cause common ground.

That is pretty simple to ubderstand, I would think, that a single point of commonality is not enough to broker complete agreement.

Glad that you have admitted your mistaked and amended your statement to "in my opinion all of the atheists I have encountered think this way."

Which you could have done to begin with instead of this blather, ranting, and pretending to know what I think.

You can question or doubt me, you seem to more adress figures in your head than people actually interactibg with you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Atheism is as simple as theism. Obe states you do not believe in a god, the other does.

Under those labels are a large diversity of structured philosophies, religions, and so on. As such one atheist can and iften does disagree with another atheist on issues that go beyond ir are unrelated to their atheism. There is no dogma or set of values intrinsic to atheism, so there isn't much intrinsic to it to cause common ground.

That is pretty simple to ubderstand, I would think, that a single point of commonality is not enough to broker complete agreement.

Glad that you have admitted your mistaked and amended your statement to "in my opinion all of the atheists I have encountered think this way."

Which you could have done to begin with instead of this blather, ranting, and pretending to know what I think.

You can question or doubt me, you seem to more adress figures in your head than people actually interactibg with you.

No, that's not my opinion either. I never said all atheists and I never meant all atheists. Let's finish the correction and move on. "In my opinion observation, all of the atheists I have encountered think this way."

In my observation, atheists think this way. That's not a mistake, that is a correct statement..

Atheists attack religion on things that have nothing to do with their allegedly simple core belief nor do they present much tolerance for the diversity of structured philosophies yada

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

So I take it that you think the argument that God would allow sin and suffering in order to give people choice, and that those who choose rightly will one day be free of suffering to live in a perfect world, you believe this is unacceptable? You don't believe in life after death, right? You don't believe in a spirit world? I'm just trying to understand your beliefs.

As far as your last sentence, some Muslims and devout Jews might also accept this argument. Any way, more and more I am believing in God and the spirit world, from my experiences and the related experiences of others.

Have a nice day.

God created an imperfect world to test us, no I don't buy that and see no evidence for it. It simply makes no sense to say that allowing the death of innocent children in war is some type of test for the child.

No I do not believe in heaven or hell so the idea of life been an entrance exam for either seems rather childish to me and beneath any God I could respect..Thats precisely the point that Einstein was also making with his quotes about a personal God.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
ShadowSot

No, that's not my opinion either. I never said all atheists and I never meant all atheists. Let's finish the correction and move on. "In my opinion observation, all of the atheists I have encountered think this way."

In my observation, atheists think this way. That's not a mistake, that is a correct statement..

Atheists attack religion on things that have nothing to do with their allegedly simple core belief nor do they present much tolerance for the diversity of structured philosophies yada

cool story bro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf

This topic has degenerated into a Christian vs atheist argument.

Given that we have an entire board for such debates, and the US politics board isn't it, I'm going to close this thread for moderator review.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.