Creation "science" and a Bible-based morality

[Keith&Co.]

No kidding. And animals have already shown ‘anything goes’ isn’t a natural state for social communities. They managed it without god.

My point is that "anything goes" can sometimes happen like innocent(?) slave girls being fed to lions for entertainment.

When the Roman Empire became the Holy Roman Empire, the lions were not set free. The games continued under new management.
The Christains just started throwing Pagans to them.
Because morality, i guess...?

 

[excreationist]

Social communities evolved into existence and they require an anti-anything goes set of rules to be sustainable. That happened without a god well before there was a god. Heck communal animals exhibit this level of restraint.

I think Rome is an interesting example - with orgies and according to Alan Watts slave girls were fed to lions to entertain the crowds...
[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/qOZqGUCrje8[/YOUTUBE]
Sometimes the emperor declares himself to be a god....

This is a myth about ancient Rome. The reason Christianity has the moral values it does is because it's a product of the Roman empire.

If I wasn't clear I didn't intend that post to be about Christianity.... Alan Watts is interested in Eastern thought and doesn't seem to be a Christian. I'm curious about what you know about his example of slave girls being fed to lions - I assume it is true.
I think it is significant for emperors to declare themselves to be a god though I'm mainly just interested in the slave girls (see about 7 minutes in).

 

[excreationist]

When the Roman Empire became the Holy Roman Empire, the lions were not set free. The games continued under new management.
The Christains just started throwing Pagans to them.
Because morality, i guess...?

I didn't know that....

 

[excreationist]

It talks about creation vs evolution as the foundation of morality. I am in between.

In between what?

Evolution teaches us that the fittest survive. If you're nice and have a lot of friends you are more likely to survive and spread your genes.

Creation teaches us that God is powerful, we are not, if we aren't nice to each other he will torture us for eternity.

In both models the threat of death encourages us to be kind to each other. The result is the same.

I don't think I'm alone but on the other hand it isn't clear what the intelligent force wants of me.

 

[DrZoidberg]

This is a myth about ancient Rome. The reason Christianity has the moral values it does is because it's a product of the Roman empire.

If I wasn't clear I didn't intend that post to be about Christianity.... Alan Watts is interested in Eastern thought and doesn't seem to be a Christian. I'm curious about what you know about his example of slave girls being fed to lions - I assume it is true.
I think it is significant for emperors to declare themselves to be a god though I'm mainly just interested in the slave girls (see about 7 minutes in).

The reason Alan Watts brings up the decadent antics of Nero and his absurdly extravagant games was because it horrified contemporary Romans. That's why he is so famously reviled. Apart from their views on slavery Roman morals weren't all that different from ours.

Yeah, it's horrible. Nero thought he could buy the love from his people by going over the top with extravagance and shows. But he grossly misread the Roman tastes and desires. And it cost him his life. Nero was almost universally reviled during and after his rule. He managed to become even less popular than Caligula. And that's quite a feat.

I agree with both Allan Watts and the Roman people. Feeding slave girls to lions isn't cool.

Being a god and getting deified in Rome doesn't mean what it came to mean later when we became Christian. All it means is that they wanted to be revered and deserved respect. It's no different than USA going on and on about their founding fathers. It's the same thing. Or to put it differently, being a god in Christianity is a really really big deal. Being god in paganism is only a big deal.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It talks about creation vs evolution as the foundation of morality. I am in between.

In between what?

Evolution teaches us that the fittest survive. If you're nice and have a lot of friends you are more likely to survive and spread your genes.

Creation teaches us that God is powerful, we are not, if we aren't nice to each other he will torture us for eternity.

In both models the threat of death encourages us to be kind to each other. The result is the same.

I don't think I'm alone but on the other hand it isn't clear what the intelligent force wants of me.

If you don't know what the intelligent force wants of you, you're in the same position as if there was no intelligent force. In practice you're in the same boat as atheists.

I think that's a great first step into any deep understanding of life. I'm not going to talk you into becoming an atheist. Because I don't think it matters. But I think it's important for anybody to understand, if they're ever going to be fully adult, that there are no ready made answers out there. Nobody really knows wtf is going on. We're all just guessing.

The correct answers is that there's no way for you to know what the universe wants from you. So you can stop trying to figure it out.

The Nietzschean solution is what philosophers later called "affirmative Nihilism". Basically, invent a God and follow it. Or join an existing religion. It doesn't really matter.

My current girlfriend is Christian. One day when she was going to church I joined her. Now I go to church on Sundays. I'm an atheist. I can follow any religion. I'm cool with it. To me God is just a metaphor. The good news is that there's no way to fuck it up. With "it" I mean life. No matter what you do you'll fail or succeed at the same rate

 

[ideologyhunter]

Again, why should we give a fuck what Ken Ham thinks? His nonsense has been debunked over and over, and one doesn't have to look very far to find good rebuttals to most of Ham's opinions. If you find his claims to be credible, make your case, don't just link to the garbage he puts out.

I think Ken is the main source of the whole morality based on evolution vs creation concept that's why I quote him when I can.
Ken Ham influences a lot of Christians and can get them to believe in creation science due to talks like the 1980s "Genesis solution" one in the OP.

Just curious -- and obviously, you have no burden to respond -- but have you read such works as (the online title) God Is Imaginary...or Paine's Age of Reason...or Dawkins' The God Delusion...or any of the many Ingersoll collections? Did they make compelling arguments? When you weigh such writers against Ken Ham, who seems more substantial and who speaks more powerfully to your experience?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I think Ken is the main source of the whole morality based on evolution vs creation concept that's why I quote him when I can.

Ken's a late-comer to the whole idea that we can only have morality if it's bible-based and god-breathed. This was among the initial reactions to the theory of evolution, that it viewed Genesis as allegory at best, God as unnecessary, and man as merely an animal. Thus we'd be cast adrift without any objective morality.

Ken's just loud about it. And a bit more scholarly than Ray Comfort. A teeny bit more rational than Kent Hovind. Less froth-at-the-mouth than Jack Chick.

Ken Ham influences a lot of Christians and can get them to believe in creation science due to talks like the 1980s "Genesis solution" one in the OP.

I don't think he convinces anyone to change their mind to creationism. He's one of a bunch or charlatans that convince already-believing Theists that their views are correct and science doesn't disprove them.
As mentioned above, his arguments are isolated ones, and only deal with one claim at a time, so as a whole the creationist model doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

 

[excreationist]

Just curious -- and obviously, you have no burden to respond -- but have you read such works as (the online title) God Is Imaginary...or Paine's Age of Reason...or Dawkins' The God Delusion...or any of the many Ingersoll collections? Did they make compelling arguments? When you weigh such writers against Ken Ham, who seems more substantial and who speaks more powerfully to your experience?

Well I don't believe that most of the Bible is historical or scientific and a lot isn't moral - I see it as a kind of test:
https://www.lifesplayer.com/bible.php
Some readers of the Bible would think that "God is perfectly just and loving, even if most people are going to hell, perhaps forever".
I believe in an intelligent force so I disagree with that aspect of atheist books.

 

[excreationist]

Ken Ham influences a lot of Christians and can get them to believe in creation science due to talks like the 1980s "Genesis solution" one in the OP.

I don't think he convinces anyone to change their mind to creationism. He's one of a bunch or charlatans that convince already-believing Theists that their views are correct and science doesn't disprove them.
As mentioned above, his arguments are isolated ones, and only deal with one claim at a time, so as a whole the creationist model doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

If he never converts Christians to YEC then I wonder why he is now the CEO of Answers in Genesis and helped create the multi-million dollar Creation Museum and Ark Encounter... he also published many volumes of The Answers Book which has answers for common answers/objections...

 

[excreationist]

The reason Alan Watts brings up the decadent antics of Nero and his absurdly extravagant games was because it horrified contemporary Romans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOZqGUCrje8&t=465s

"....the next minute they would release wild lions into the arena to eat up all the slave girls. They [the crowds?] got a big sadistic kick out of that because you see pursuing pleasure beyond a certain place takes you in to what are the Buddhists call the Naraka world - that is to say the hells - when you have explored pleasure to its ultimate limit the only thing you can get a kick out of is pain...."​

It seems like the crowds got a sadistic kick out of it - they weren't just horrified....

And Alan Watts is saying it is normal for people who have explored pleasure to its ultimate limit to look to pain... (other's pain?)

....I agree with both Allan Watts and the Roman people. Feeding slave girls to lions isn't cool.

I got the impression that the crowd were entertained seeing the slave girls being eaten. And I might too in an uncomfortable sort of way - if I had been pursuing pleasure and power to its limit and was getting bored... after all, this is what some people do in the Sims: (though in that simulation the people can't really feel the pain)

 

[excreationist]

I don't think I'm alone but on the other hand it isn't clear what the intelligent force wants of me.

If you don't know what the intelligent force wants of you, you're in the same position as if there was no intelligent force. In practice you're in the same boat as atheists.

Well sometimes I think I know what it wants...
e.g.
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...nces-that-suggest-an-intelligent-force-exists
When I was gassing myself in my car and turned the radio on, the two songs that played gave me the impression that I should not kill myself.

Due to experiences like that I get the impression that the intelligent force is there and cares about me but sometimes I think it can involve "tough love" and it doesn't like the hubris I have from time to time (that I could become rich or famous, etc).

But when I've been an atheist I often am suicidal - especially at the age of 29 and earlier when I had never really had a girl that I had been mutually attracted to. I had been looking for super attractive girls. Then at the age of 29 I met the woman I ended up marrying. We are extremely compatible and I think God might have helped that happen.

My current girlfriend is Christian. One day when she was going to church I joined her. Now I go to church on Sundays. I'm an atheist. I can follow any religion. I'm cool with it. To me God is just a metaphor.

A few years ago a relative of a friend invited me to church - the first two services were Q&A about hell and Q&A about science and the Bible. I was an atheist and asked them tough questions. (about why bad dogs get put down while torturing them for years would be seen as cruel - and Psalm 104:5 saying that the earth can't be moved). Now I usually go to church on Sundays - with my wife and her brother.

....The good news is that there's no way to fuck it up. With "it" I mean life. No matter what you do you'll fail or succeed at the same rate

Well I think it is different for me... at the start of 2019 I was very psychotic and after six treatments of ECT and more anti-psychotics I have severe memory problems and ended up doing trolley pushing instead of PHP programming. I think hubris was a central issue.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Just curious -- and obviously, you have no burden to respond -- but have you read such works as (the online title) God Is Imaginary...or Paine's Age of Reason...or Dawkins' The God Delusion...or any of the many Ingersoll collections? Did they make compelling arguments? When you weigh such writers against Ken Ham, who seems more substantial and who speaks more powerfully to your experience?

Well I don't believe that most of the Bible is historical or scientific and a lot isn't moral - I see it as a kind of test:
https://www.lifesplayer.com/bible.php
Some readers of the Bible would think that "God is perfectly just and loving, even if most people are going to hell, perhaps forever".
I believe in an intelligent force so I disagree with that aspect of atheist books.

All books are atheists. None of them believe in god(s).

 

[Keith&Co.]

Ken Ham influences a lot of Christians and can get them to believe in creation science due to talks like the 1980s "Genesis solution" one in the OP.

I don't think he convinces anyone to change their mind to creationism. He's one of a bunch or charlatans that convince already-believing Theists that their views are correct and science doesn't disprove them.
As mentioned above, his arguments are isolated ones, and only deal with one claim at a time, so as a whole the creationist model doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

If he never converts Christians to YEC then I wonder why he is now the CEO of Answers in Genesis and helped create the multi-million dollar Creation Museum and Ark Encounter... he also published many volumes of The Answers Book which has answers for common answers/objections...

People who already believe give him money because he SAYS what they want to hear. Just like Trump.
He founded AIG... not a big mystery how they picked him to be CEO.
The Answer book tends to have problems like cites and footnotes that are not academic articles but books by other creationists that Ham agrees with.
It looks sciencey, and convincing, and loving Christains buy them as gifts for relatives that they want to convince.
But the arguments are dismal PRATTS. That's okay by Ham, he's already made his sale.

It is a scam. Don't forget the Ark Encounter was given big tax breaks by the county on the promise it would be a big tourist draw...this has not borne out.

 

[excreationist]

People who already believe give him money because he SAYS what they want to hear.....

Ken Ham also helps raise children to be YECs with books and videos, etc, see post #488
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...seem-plausible&p=919477&viewfull=1#post919477

This singer was discovered by Ken Ham and here he is teaching kids that dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible...

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/TitCoikDJ40[/YOUTUBE]

"I don't believe in evolution": (sing-along)

 

[DrZoidberg]

The reason Alan Watts brings up the decadent antics of Nero and his absurdly extravagant games was because it horrified contemporary Romans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOZqGUCrje8&t=465s

"....the next minute they would release wild lions into the arena to eat up all the slave girls. They [the crowds?] got a big sadistic kick out of that because you see pursuing pleasure beyond a certain place takes you in to what are the Buddhists call the Naraka world - that is to say the hells - when you have explored pleasure to its ultimate limit the only thing you can get a kick out of is pain...."​

It seems like the crowds got a sadistic kick out of it - they weren't just horrified....

And Alan Watts is saying it is normal for people who have explored pleasure to its ultimate limit to look to pain... (other's pain?)

....I agree with both Allan Watts and the Roman people. Feeding slave girls to lions isn't cool.

I got the impression that the crowd were entertained seeing the slave girls being eaten. And I might too in an uncomfortable sort of way - if I had been pursuing pleasure and power to its limit and was getting bored... after all, this is what some people do in the Sims: (though in that simulation the people can't really feel the pain)

The Roman empire was a dictatorship where the emperor was sitting in the audience. Roman power was all about where you were in that hierarchy. It was at games Romans showed how important they were. The retired general Vespasian was famously taken out of retirement and sent to put down an uprising in the outskirts of the empire because he fell asleep during a show put on by Nero.

Not applauding extaticly wasn't exactly an option. For most people getting a seat at the games was a rare privilege and they wouldn't want to insult the guy who invited them.

Tickets to the games weren't purchased. The games were always free. You got in depending on where you were in the Roman hierarchy. The higher up the more tickets you got, and they could distribute them to their underlings.

We know people were horrified because they wrote about it and later they deposed Nero for this kind of behaviour.

We love to tell the story of the sadism and depravity of the Roman empire. But it's just a story. They were for the most part quite similar to us.

 

[excreationist]

......We know people were horrified because they wrote about it and later they deposed Nero for this kind of behaviour.

We love to tell the story of the sadism and depravity of the Roman empire. But it's just a story.

Yes many of the people would be horrified but I suspect Alan Watts was right that some of the crowd got a sadistic kick from watching slave girls being eaten... I think that kind of sadism occurs in the public now - like in Postal 2 you can kill innocent bystanders in cruel ways. Or the thrill I guess some would experience with cock fighting.

They were for the most part quite similar to us.

Yes that's the point I'm trying to make.... then there are "snuff films" that certain people would want to watch.... and some people would like porn involving (simulated?) rape - though it would be outlawed.

This part of the music video for Pearl Jam's "Do the Evolution" is relevant:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDaOgu2CQtI&t=194s

 

[DrZoidberg]

......We know people were horrified because they wrote about it and later they deposed Nero for this kind of behaviour.

We love to tell the story of the sadism and depravity of the Roman empire. But it's just a story.

Yes many of the people would be horrified but I suspect Alan Watts was right that some of the crowd got a sadistic kick from watching slave girls being eaten... I think that kind of sadism occurs in the public now - like in Postal 2 you can kill innocent bystanders in cruel ways. Or the thrill I guess some would experience with cock fighting.

They were for the most part quite similar to us.

Yes that's the point I'm trying to make.... then there are "snuff films" that certain people would want to watch.... and some people would like porn involving (simulated?) rape - though it would be outlawed.

I think you've misunderstood the point of watching horror (or the Postal/violent video games). Everybody thinks they're horrible and depraved. Even the people who play them. Sadistic pleasure can be fun. But we all feel a conflicted sense of guilt afterwards. That's the fun part. It makes us feel alive. And most importantly, they're not real people.

In the gladiatorial arena the people sacrificed were convicted criminals guilty of the most horrendous crimes. The gladiators were professional athletes who did so willingly, hoping to win big. As far as the crowd was concerned no innocent victims died in the arena. That was important for them. When Nero tried accusing the Christians for setting fire to Rome, something everybody understood was a lie, the crowds had had enough of his nonsense and they deposed him.

The thing we love about horror is that we know it's not real. It allows us to test our humanity.

Snuff also isn't real. In the snuff trend of the early 90'ies the films we watched later turned out to all be fake. And they were pretty obvious fakes to. I remember the school yard conversations about snuff. When we watched them together the ONLY thing we talked about was weather they were fake or not. It was an exercise in spotting the trickery. I doubt any of us took any pleasure from watching the cruelty.

Simulated rape is a common porn category. But something watched alone in shameful silence. It's not a thing we go to festivals and cheer for. A culture like that has never existed on this planet.

What those outraged about videogame violence and violence in movies (and porn) is that they don't understand that people are fully capable of figuring out what is fake and not. People are fully capable of holding parallel thoughts in their heads.

What makes violent video games fun is the fact that we are empathic creatures and it hurts a little inside every time somebody dies. That makes it exciting.

And just to be super clear. I'm talking about sadism and violence as popular entertainment for the masses.

Human beings are fully capable of the most dreadful acts of violence and depravity. But we don't admire it, or hold it up as a great achievement. Not even the Nazis did that.

This part of the music video for Pearl Jam's "Do the Evolution" is relevant:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDaOgu2CQtI&t=194s

No bribes, (or any amount of threats and violence) can make me willingly watch a Perl Jam video. I'm sorry. It just hurts too much inside.

 

[excreationist]

I think you've misunderstood the point of watching horror (or the Postal/violent video games). Everybody thinks they're horrible and depraved. Even the people who play them. Sadistic pleasure can be fun. But we all feel a conflicted sense of guilt afterwards. That's the fun part. It makes us feel alive. And most importantly, they're not real people.

Though an Australian judge considered Simpsons child porn to count as actual child porn:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-12-08/fake-simpsons-cartoon-is-child-porn-judge-rules/233562

In the gladiatorial arena the people sacrificed were convicted criminals guilty of the most horrendous crimes. The gladiators were professional athletes who did so willingly, hoping to win big. As far as the crowd was concerned no innocent victims died in the arena. That was important for them. When Nero tried accusing the Christians for setting fire to Rome, something everybody understood was a lie, the crowds had had enough of his nonsense and they deposed him.

Though the part about all of the slave girls being eaten would involve some or complete innocence...

....Snuff also isn't real....

I think a lot of stuff on rotten.com was real though....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotten.com

What makes violent video games fun is the fact that we are empathic creatures and it hurts a little inside every time somebody dies. That makes it exciting.

Though in the future it would be possible to put conscious beings in the games like in episodes of Black Mirror.... and then make them suffer....

And just to be super clear. I'm talking about sadism and violence as popular entertainment for the masses.

Human beings are fully capable of the most dreadful acts of violence and depravity. But we don't admire it, or hold it up as a great achievement. Not even the Nazis did that.

Good because my biggest fear is that one day I'd be tortured by a professional (and hopefully hell isn't real either)

No bribes, (or any amount of threats and violence) can make me willingly watch a Perl Jam video. I'm sorry. It just hurts too much inside.

It is a good cartoon though....

 

[DrZoidberg]

Well sometimes I think I know what it wants...
e.g.
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...nces-that-suggest-an-intelligent-force-exists
When I was gassing myself in my car and turned the radio on, the two songs that played gave me the impression that I should not kill myself.

Due to experiences like that I get the impression that the intelligent force is there and cares about me but sometimes I think it can involve "tough love" and it doesn't like the hubris I have from time to time (that I could become rich or famous, etc).

But when I've been an atheist I often am suicidal - especially at the age of 29 and earlier when I had never really had a girl that I had been mutually attracted to. I had been looking for super attractive girls. Then at the age of 29 I met the woman I ended up marrying. We are extremely compatible and I think God might have helped that happen.

If you become suicidal from being an atheist I suggest you stay a Christian.

But here's my two cents, all the Christians are just guessing what God wants. They don't really know. Nobody does.

So you can stop worrying about it.

My current girlfriend is Christian. One day when she was going to church I joined her. Now I go to church on Sundays. I'm an atheist. I can follow any religion. I'm cool with it. To me God is just a metaphor.

A few years ago a relative of a friend invited me to church - the first two services were Q&A about hell and Q&A about science and the Bible. I was an atheist and asked them tough questions. (about why bad dogs get put down while torturing them for years would be seen as cruel - and Psalm 104:5 saying that the earth can't be moved). Now I usually go to church on Sundays - with my wife and her brother.

....The good news is that there's no way to fuck it up. With "it" I mean life. No matter what you do you'll fail or succeed at the same rate

Well I think it is different for me... at the start of 2019 I was very psychotic and after six treatments of ECT and more anti-psychotics I have severe memory problems and ended up doing trolley pushing instead of PHP programming. I think hubris was a central issue.

No, offence but if you have a tendency towards psychosis you know you can't trust yourself. I have a friend of mine who is very intelligent but has also a tendency towards psychosis. I'm sorry to hear it. But I think people like you need to have somebody you trust to ask if you're spinning out of control. Preferably somebody who doesn't have any extreme ideology or weird religious faith and is just very down to earth. My friend is very intelligent. But speculating on the big picture and the supernatural, due to his cerebral makeup isn't healthy for him. So he tries not to. After all, none of these big picture things really matter. Not really. Most of us are just trying to get on with life as well as we can and enjoy the small things of life.

I'm just relaying what my friend has says works for him.

 

[excreationist]

If you become suicidal from being an atheist I suggest you stay a Christian.

Well in high school I had a depressing romantic life but looked forward to heaven.... (and didn't know that Jesus says that there is no marriage in heaven) Then as an atheist I believed that all I had was my life on earth - without an invisible friend. A few years ago when I was suicidal I tried hard to believe in hell but I had trouble doing that.

No, offence but if you have a tendency towards psychosis you know you can't trust yourself.

I think part of the cause were books by Ken Keyes - I learnt to stop having negative emotions...
https://lifesplayer.com/happiness.php
I learnt to be detached but I think the lack of negative emotions caused me to seek excitement including risky situations. Also when I'm psychotic (manic) it involves a night or two of little or no sleep - now I always make sure I take sleeping tablets if I am up too late - until I fall asleep....

Here is an email I sent to my employers (for a PHP programming job) in the morning of my 2019 hospitalization....

Hi S***,​

I have resigned without warning....
....​

I have done a subject at university that taught me about how to start a business. They said that normally entrepreneurs fail the first two times before they succeed.​

Well these two projects:​

.....
​

were a failure - I didn't make any money.​

But I've learnt from my mistakes.​

By [My] new project combines the Bible with fat loss (without any muscle loss). Apparently the weight loss industry is worth tens of billions of dollars per year and Christian authors like Joyce Meyer make millions of dollars. Perhaps combining the two plus making a unique cheap and easy diet would less [sell] more than a million copies....
...
​

Check mate.​

​

That was based on purely my own reasoning without any feedback..... but now I can instantly see if my websites are actually getting any visits, etc, but I still can get a little hubris with small wins. Before that email I had already registered a company (Cheap Easy Fat Loss Dot Diet Pty Ltd), got a custom drawing done and made the site live - within a few hours.... (in the early hours of the morning)

 

[Keith&Co.]

People who already believe give him money because he SAYS what they want to hear.....

Ken Ham also helps raise children to be YECs with books and videos,

Yes, but he's still not converting anyone. YECs buy the stuff to give their kids that are being indoctrinated anyway.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So the Code of Hammurabi exists well before the Tanakh is put into scrolls.

Most of the world doesn't believe in Yahweh. And the part that did, nearly annihilated the world in the 20th century via two unspeakably barbaric wars and then the Cold War.

 

[excreationist]

Ken Ham also helps raise children to be YECs with books and videos,

Yes, but he's still not converting anyone. YECs buy the stuff to give their kids that are being indoctrinated anyway.

For basically all non-AiG children's materials the Ark looks like it is a fairy tale:

In AiG kid material it looks like an historical event:

By the time these kids are taught about evolution and dinosaurs in schools they'd already have a foundation of lots of clever sounding counter-arguments rather than their parents just merely asserting that they didn't come from monkeys, etc.

Ken Ham did help convert me - he helped write "The Answers Book" though there were several other books and magazines that helped. BTW my dad told me that a day can be a thousand years - so I wasn't originally a YEC.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Ken Ham also helps raise children to be YECs with books and videos,

Yes, but he's still not converting anyone. YECs buy the stuff to give their kids that are being indoctrinated anyway.

For basically all non-AiG children's materials the Ark looks like it is a fairy tale:

Yeah. Never could understand decorating a nursery with images of a mass slaughter to make the Holocaust look like a mere elementary school shooting.

In AiG kid material it looks like an historical event:

Yeah, that's a much more convincing cartoon.

By the time these kids are taught about evolution and dinosaurs in schools they'd already have a foundation of lots of clever sounding counter-arguments rather than their parents just merely asserting that they didn't come from monkeys, etc.

Which they don't really remember. But that's okay, their parents don't, either. They just ask leading questions and assumptions. "Isn't it true that Java Man is a Fraud? Or was it Peeking Man?"
And they still quote their actual authority. "My daddy says this scientist knows the truth about that."

Ken Ham did help convert me - he helped write "The Answers Book" though there were several other books and magazines that helped. BTW my dad told me that a day can be a thousand years - so I wasn't originally a YEC.

So sorry for your loss.

 

[excreationist]

If you become suicidal from being an atheist I suggest you stay a Christian.

When I was looking into anti-YEC resources I did say to whatever was out there "I don't care how depressing it is, I want to know the truth" and then for the only time in my life I felt a strong tingling over my body.... I guess I chose the red pill over the blue pill.....

 

[DrZoidberg]

If you become suicidal from being an atheist I suggest you stay a Christian.

When I was looking into anti-YEC resources I did say to whatever was out there "I don't care how depressing it is, I want to know the truth" and then for the only time in my life I felt a strong tingling over my body.... I guess I chose the red pill over the blue pill.....

A common line said about religion is that all religion is fundamentally about man's relationship with the unknown. And that's just the basic fact of the matter. Nobody knows the truth. And if we've made it so far without any final answers, chances are pretty good, that no answers will ever be forthcoming. The people who invented Christianity were just guessing. I think they weren't lying. I think they had a sincere conviction that they knew the truth. But that doesn't change the basic fact that it was, at best, just an assumption.

If you turn to religion for the truth, you might meet people who say they know the truth, but the reality of it is that they don't.

I think a part of what it means to be human is to accept that we will never know the answer to the big questions.

My Christian girlfriend is a scientifically minded highly educated engineer. She's extremely intelligent. She is a Christian. But she has no illusions about the shaky foundation of her faith. She knows that the church fathers were just guessing. She understands how people's belief in the reality of miracles can make miracles out of the unmiraculous, and then add Chinese whispers to that. In spite of all this she takes her faith very seriously.

My point with telling you about my girlfriends faith is just to say that you can be a Christian without being foolish about it. Your only choice is to accept the truth of our shared ignorance or to be deluded. Any truth you pick will be a choice of a delusion. Not the actual truth. There's nobody out there who can teach you the truth.

Or to put it more succinctly, it doesn't matter whether you swallow the red or the blue pill. Either way you'll learn the same things.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

My Christian girlfriend is a scientifically minded highly educated engineer. She's extremely intelligent. She is a Christian. But she has no illusions about the shaky foundation of her faith. She knows that the church fathers were just guessing. She understands how people's belief in the reality of miracles can make miracles out of the unmiraculous, and then add Chinese whispers to that. In spite of all this she takes her faith very seriously.

My point with telling you about my girlfriends faith is just to say that you can be a Christian without being foolish about it. Your only choice is to accept the truth of our shared ignorance or to be deluded. Any truth you pick will be a choice of a delusion. Not the actual truth. There's nobody out there who can teach you the truth.

Or to put it more succinctly, it doesn't matter whether you swallow the red or the blue pill. Either way you'll learn the same things.

That sounds pretty truthy to me, saying the truth is that there is no truth.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If you become suicidal from being an atheist I suggest you stay a Christian.

When I was looking into anti-YEC resources I did say to whatever was out there "I don't care how depressing it is, I want to know the truth" and then for the only time in my life I felt a strong tingling over my body.... I guess I chose the red pill over the blue pill.....

If I were to claim that I am atheist, but hold that the universe is created and maintained by a single dust mite that inhabits my bed, what would you think about that? My point is that whether I believe in a god, a dust mite or a simulator it's all the same thing. We don't have words for dust mite and simulator deniers anymore than we have words for Santa deniers.

It's okay to pretend, just so it's conscious pretending, like actors do. It can be quite satisfying and restorative, emotionally. And whether you are aware or not you are pretending.

The key is to know when the brain is pretending and when it's not, to have self awareness. It's the battle royal between your prefontal cortex and your limbic impulses.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If you become suicidal from being an atheist I suggest you stay a Christian.

When I was looking into anti-YEC resources I did say to whatever was out there "I don't care how depressing it is, I want to know the truth" and then for the only time in my life I felt a strong tingling over my body.... I guess I chose the red pill over the blue pill.....

What is depressing about the truth? Being alive can be like winning the lottery! Yet, some people what to complain that 60 to 100 years of existence isn't enough. We are literally the universe becoming aware of itself. The whole concept is awesome!

So instead of trying to want more, engage with what is... what you like to do... and do it! There are no warranties.

Unless, that means fascinating over Ken Ham and his manipulation, bullshit, and lies. In that case, find a new hobby.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If you become suicidal from being an atheist I suggest you stay a Christian.

When I was looking into anti-YEC resources I did say to whatever was out there "I don't care how depressing it is, I want to know the truth" and then for the only time in my life I felt a strong tingling over my body.... I guess I chose the red pill over the blue pill.....

What is depressing about the truth? Being alive can be like winning the lottery! Yet, some people what to complain that 60 to 100 years of existence isn't enough. We are literally the universe becoming aware of itself. The whole concept is awesome!

So instead of trying to want more, engage with what is... what you like to do... and do it! There are no warranties.

Unless, that means fascinating over Ken Ham and his manipulation, bullshit, and lies. In that case, find a new hobby.

Last time I served on a jury I had to take that oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Did a fifth grade class come up with that oath?

It seems we would be better served if I were placed under oath and swore to be honest, to be rational and to be accurate in my testimony. But that would probably fly over most people's heads so we dumb it down to early middle school so everyone can kind of comprehend and understand, and so the judge doesn't constantly have to re-explain what the oath means.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What is depressing about the truth? Being alive can be like winning the lottery! Yet, some people what to complain that 60 to 100 years of existence isn't enough. We are literally the universe becoming aware of itself. The whole concept is awesome!

So instead of trying to want more, engage with what is... what you like to do... and do it! There are no warranties.

Unless, that means fascinating over Ken Ham and his manipulation, bullshit, and lies. In that case, find a new hobby.

Last time I served on a jury I had to take that oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Did a fifth grade class come up with that oath?

It seems we would be better served if I were placed under oath and swore to be honest, to be rational and to be accurate in my testimony. But that would probably fly over most people's heads so we dumb it down to early middle school so everyone can kind of comprehend and understand, and so the judge doesn't constantly have to re-explain what the oath means.

Of course, the oath is actually a lie. Witnesses are explicitly forbidden from providing the "whole truth". They are only allowed to answer questions they are asked, and within a very specific level of adjacency.

Defense Lawyer: And was the defendant, to your knowledge, at that apartment?
Witness: Not to my knowledge, but I totally think he did it. I mean, his behavior since the night she died has been really suspect. My girlfriend was like 'What is going on with him?' and I was like 'I don't know, he just seems really anxious since the night that woman lady got killed.'
Defense Lawyer: Your honor...
Judge: You have been warned several times to stop elaborating.
Witness: But I took an oath to tell the "whole truth".
Judge: That's it, bailiff, please escort the witness to jail.

 

[excreationist]

If you become suicidal from being an atheist I suggest you stay a Christian.

When I was looking into anti-YEC resources I did say to whatever was out there "I don't care how depressing it is, I want to know the truth" and then for the only time in my life I felt a strong tingling over my body.... I guess I chose the red pill over the blue pill.....

What is depressing about the truth?

When I was a YEC I had an invisible friend and felt good about my belief I'd go to heaven. As I suspected when I gave up my belief in YEC I went straight to atheism and became depressed... see post #62. The Matrix (and its pills) is another example where the truth is depressing.
But now I'm no longer an atheist and I'm looking forward to plans I've got for my life (like making a computer game based on the Bible)

 

[excreationist]

If you become suicidal from being an atheist I suggest you stay a Christian.

When I was looking into anti-YEC resources I did say to whatever was out there "I don't care how depressing it is, I want to know the truth" and then for the only time in my life I felt a strong tingling over my body.... I guess I chose the red pill over the blue pill.....

A common line said about religion is that all religion is fundamentally about man's relationship with the unknown. And that's just the basic fact of the matter. Nobody knows the truth.

I was talking about the truth regarding YEC vs atheistic evolution. Perhaps rejecting YEC led me closer to the truth. It could be a false dichotomy though - there could be other possibilities besides YEC and atheistic evolution.

Or to put it more succinctly, it doesn't matter whether you swallow the red or the blue pill. Either way you'll learn the same things.

If you take the blue pill you lose all knowledge of the world outside of the Matrix...

 

[Keith&Co.]

there could be other possibilities besides YEC and atheistic evolution.

Well, yeah. There's...evolution.

Dude, it's not atheistic evolution. Science is neutral on the question of whether or not gods exist. It must be. It's purview is the natural world, not the supernatural. It's like saying there's married and unmarried bachelors...if he's married, he's not a bachelor.

Evolutionary theory asks what happened, and how. And how do we know.
It cannot say that something happened 'because god(s) so willed it.' Or definitively say 'gods had nothing to do with it.'
It's just that, like the water cycle, orbits, tides, 4-color map theory, or alternating current, we know enough about it we think the explanation hangs together without demanding an appeal to magic at step 47.

 

[excreationist]

there could be other possibilities besides YEC and atheistic evolution.

Well, yeah. There's...evolution.

Dude, it's not atheistic evolution. Science is neutral on the question of whether or not gods exist.

At that time, for me, the options were YEC and atheistic evolution. According to many famous YECs if Genesis wasn't literal then I couldn't trust the gospel either.
It's like in this comic where a OEC and YEC debate each other then the YEC eventually goes straight to atheism...
https://www.oldearth.org/tract/tract.htm
Just about the only evidence I had for God was YEC. So if YEC isn't true then neither is God. If evolution is true then perhaps deism is true but I wanted a God that could send me to heaven and work in my life. A non-intervening God was depressing and effectively doesn't exist.
Recently I did attempt to argue that evolution required God in the following threads but I failed so I don't think there is good evidence for theistic evolution over atheistic evolution.

Birds, Bees, Butterflies and Flowers

Chameleons and guided evolution?

Selection pressures for long hair and beards in humans?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Except there's still no such thing as atheistic evolution.

There is theistic evolution. Just take any textbook and stamp a 'because God*' footnote on every page, and an endnote '*By 'God' we mean ______' and fill in your preferred deity.

But no theory or detail of evolutionary science is held to work ONLY as long as there are NO gods. No part of evolutionary theory implies a lack of gods. Plenty of scientists who accept evolutionary theory accept one or more divine beings. They just don't incorporate those beings in their papers.
Just like people working in other sciences, who manage to believe in the science without harming their fidelity to the skyguy.

Continuing to see it as a split between creation and 'atheistic evolution' is the manipulation the church uses to keep people in line.

As to God being necessary for evolution, you're looking to natural processes for evidence of supernatural components. That's going to work about as well as taping a cardboard spoiler onto the back of a fighter jet.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Why do children stop believing in Santa? It certainly isn't that their brains suddenly lost the ability and the pleasure associated with pretending. It isn't that they had to start giving up receiving presents. Nothing external in their worlds changed at all. The changes were internal. All that changed was that something they considered "true" was no longer true. My one son only became convinced that Santa was just a story after checking it out in an encyclopedia and on the internet. He didn't believe his friends or his parents.

The adult god stories are exactly the same except that lots of friends and family continue to tell each other that the adult Santa god is still real, despite what lots of people say. Continuing to hold that the magic is real is no longer something odd and childish in a select group. Sometimes a group member's actual survival will depend upon clinging to the belief, unlike childhood santa god stories. There's also lots of money to be made. Children don't pass around money to those who tell them about their santa god. But adults certainly do and many become fabulously rich fulfilling the demand for adult santa stories.

In the end it is just as impossible to demonstrate that the childhood Santa god is not real as it is impossible to demonstrate that the adult Santa god is not real. It's an interesting dynamic and observation of how the human brain operates in a given environment.

 

[atrib]

A common line said about religion is that all religion is fundamentally about man's relationship with the unknown. And that's just the basic fact of the matter. Nobody knows the truth.

I was talking about the truth regarding YEC vs atheistic evolution. Perhaps rejecting YEC led me closer to the truth. It could be a false dichotomy though - there could be other possibilities besides YEC and atheistic evolution.

There is no atheistic evolution; what we have is the biological theory of evolution that attempts to model and explain the diversity of life we observe on this planet today. The theory is based on observations and experiments of the reality we observe, and uses a naturalistic approach as do all scientific endeavors. The scientific theory of evolution is supported by mountains of evidence, and it appears very unlikely that the fundamental models that describe how living things evolve will change dramatically in the future. Similarly, we don't have an atheistic model of gravity, we have Newton's model of gravity, which does a good job of describing reality within the parameters of most things we experience in our day-to-day lives, and we have the relativistic model of gravity developed by Einstein which extends the model to more massive and/or fast moving objects approaching the speed of light. The evidence supporting these models is vastly more compelling than the mythology that YEC is based on. If you choose to believe in the YEC model you are doing yourself a disservice by essentially lying to yourself.

It is hypothetically possible that the reality we experience is itself a simulation. But it would be both impractical and foolish to live our lives based on this assumption. Again, you would be doing yourself a disservice by believing an idea based on no evidence.

 

[excreationist]

....The evidence supporting these models is vastly more compelling than the mythology that YEC is based on. If you choose to believe in the YEC model you are doing yourself a disservice by essentially lying to yourself.

So perhaps I was right when I said "Perhaps rejecting YEC led me closer to the truth".

It is hypothetically possible that the reality we experience is itself a simulation. But it would be both impractical and foolish to live our lives based on this assumption. Again, you would be doing yourself a disservice by believing an idea based on no evidence.

In post #45 I said "Basically I believe I'm probably in a simulation and there is an intelligent force that isn't obvious and I'm unable to convince skeptics of its existence". Elon Musk said that he thinks the chances he's not in a simuation is one in billions. I think there isn't strong evidence for the simulation so that it is more immersive.

 

[excreationist]

.....But no theory or detail of evolutionary science is held to work ONLY as long as there are NO gods. No part of evolutionary theory implies a lack of gods....

If there's no evidence that God ever intervened in evolution at all then it suggests there isn't a God that intervenes in our world... I mean if there's no evidence that God intervened during the emergence of man, like the Bible implies, then it suggests that the virgin birth and resurrection aren't literal...
I'm talking about the God of the Bible. Like I said I believed that pretty much the only proof I had of God's existence was YEC. I wanted strong proof - not just the possibility that a hidden God is out there. At that time a hidden God was depressing because it couldn't give my life hope.

 

[excreationist]

This might not be justified but I consider evolution without an intervening intelligent force to be "atheistic evolution" even if a non-intervening intelligent force exists.

Except there's still no such thing as atheistic evolution.


There is theistic evolution. Just take any textbook and stamp a 'because God*' footnote on every page, and an endnote '*By 'God' we mean ______' and fill in your preferred deity.

In the textbooks it doesn't mention any detectable intervention of an intelligent force which suggests a god didn't actually do anything. It seems what you're suggesting is like saying God causes warm ice to melt or apples to fall....

 

[Keith&Co.]

.....But no theory or detail of evolutionary science is held to work ONLY as long as there are NO gods. No part of evolutionary theory implies a lack of gods....

If there's no evidence that God ever intervened in evolution at all then it suggests there isn't a God that intervenes in our world...

OR, he wore gloves. You'd think an all powerful being of infinite knowledge, including the future techniques used to examine the past might be able to not leave fingerprints if he so desired, nu?

I mean if there's no evidence that God intervened during the emergence of man, like the Bible implies, then it suggests that the virgin birth and resurrection aren't literal...

there is no evidence th at it's literal. This is not a problem for oodles of people who accept evolution and believe in the JCI god.

I'm talking about the God of the Bible. Like I said I believed that pretty much the only proof I had of God's existence was YEC.

that's pretty sad....

I wanted strong proof - not just the possibility that a hidden God is out there. At that time a hidden God was depressing because it couldn't give my life hope.

wanting it does not make it true. Or even likely. It doesn't even MAKE it possible,

 

[Keith&Co.]

This might not be justified but I consider evolution without an intervening intelligent force to be "atheistic evolution" even if a non-intervening intelligent force exists.

Atheism is about a belief in gods. None, to be exact.
Evolution does not have any religious belief. There is no atheist evolutionary theory.
Just like there's no atheist theory of the speed of light.
Or atheist theory about blood type inheritance.
There's observations, experiments, and math. That's it.
Calling it atheist evolution is not justified.

There is theistic evolution. Just take any textbook and stamp a 'because God*' footnote on every page, and an endnote '*By 'God' we mean ______' and fill in your preferred deity.

In the textbooks it doesn't mention any detectable intervention of an intelligent force which suggests a god didn't actually do anything. It seems what you're suggesting is like saying God causes warm ice to melt or apples to fall....

That's pretty much what theistic evolution does. Take the known science and attribute everything to god.

Self-mutation did a lot of that. According to him, no one could do 4-figure math unless God propped up mathematics.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Atheism is not the same as nihilism or amorality. It disputes the existence of an intrinsic purpose and meaning in life, but it frees one to create one's own purpose in life. Three of my favorite Robert Ingersoll quotes on this general theme:

"Let us be true to ourselves -- true to the facts we know...We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know. We can tell the truth, and we can enjoy the blessed freedom that the brave have won. We can destroy the monsters of superstition, the hissing snakes of ignorance and fear... We can civilize our fellow men. We can fill our lives with generous deeds, with loving words, with art and song, and all the ecstasies of love. We can flood our years with sunshine -- with the divine climate of kindness, and we can drain to the last drop the golden cup of joy."

"The hands that help are better far than the lips that pray."

"Happiness is the only good. The time to be happy is now. The place to be happy is here. The way to be happy is to make others so."

 

[excreationist]

Atheism is about a belief in gods. None, to be exact.
Evolution does not have any religious belief. There is no atheist evolutionary theory.

In post #63 Jimmy Higgins said "All books are atheists. None of them believe in god(s)." So that joke follows that the theory of evolution could be atheist.

.....It seems what you're suggesting is like saying God causes warm ice to melt or apples to fall....

That's pretty much what theistic evolution does. Take the known science and attribute everything to god.

Then wasn't I being reasonable to immediately reject Christian theistic evolution?

 

[excreationist]

If there's no evidence that God ever intervened in evolution at all then it suggests there isn't a God that intervenes in our world...

OR, he wore gloves. You'd think an all powerful being of infinite knowledge, including the future techniques used to examine the past might be able to not leave fingerprints if he so desired, nu?

That's basically what I believe now.... see post #45....

I mean if there's no evidence that God intervened during the emergence of man, like the Bible implies, then it suggests that the virgin birth and resurrection aren't literal...

there is no evidence th at it's literal. This is not a problem for oodles of people who accept evolution and believe in the JCI god.

That's also what I believe now - well a kind of god, not really the JCI one.

I'm talking about the God of the Bible. Like I said I believed that pretty much the only proof I had of God's existence was YEC.

that's pretty sad....

If YEC is true it would be pretty obvious that God existed.... like I said I now think "God" doesn't want to be obvious and I'm unable to convince any skeptics of its existence.

I wanted strong proof - not just the possibility that a hidden God is out there. At that time a hidden God was depressing because it couldn't give my life hope.

wanting it does not make it true. Or even likely. It doesn't even MAKE it possible,

I think that's why I became an atheist after giving up YEC.

 

[Keith&Co.]

In post #63 Jimmy Higgins said "All books are atheists. None of them believe in god(s)." So that joke follows that the theory of evolution could be atheist.

Yes, every single scientific throry lacks a belief in anything supernatural.
But it does not make sense to split off 'atheistic evolution' from creationism unless you refer to every science as atheistic.
'Recent findings in atheistic geology...'
'A professor of atheistic biology...'
'A lot of atheistic computing nerds scrambled for Y2K...'

If you don't do it for every one, then it's wrong to single out evolutionary theory.

That's pretty much what theistic evolution does. Take the known science and attribute everything to god.

Then wasn't I being reasonable to immediately reject Christian theistic evolution?

i don't think it's reasonable to ascribe every single thing and every step of every process to a god. Surely he could have created processes that would continue to function if he left for a while.

But, if YOU found their evidence convincing, thst's up to you.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Yes, every single scientific throry lacks a belief in anything supernatural.
But it does not make sense to split off 'atheistic evolution' from creationism unless you refer to every science as atheistic.
'Recent findings in atheistic geology...'
'A professor of atheistic biology...'
'A lot of atheistic computing nerds scrambled for Y2K...

Reminds me of a guided tour at Mammoth Caves National Park. The ranger began by saying that there are many stories about how these caves were formed. it seemed odd until I realized we were in Kentucky. He then went on to say he was giving the scientific account. He didn't say he was giving the atheistic geological account. No doubt there were plenty of religionists about who believed the caves were formed when a 600 year old man built a magic boat on orders from a magic sky voice.

 

[excreationist]

....But it does not make sense to split off 'atheistic evolution' from creationism unless you refer to every science as atheistic.

I'm saying there is atheistic evolution and theistic evolution - not that evolution is always atheistic - but I rejected Christian theistic evolution and went straight to atheistic evolution.