[Scotty]

We can't know what God, should he exist, wants or needs (what would an almighty being need from us anyway). So why would God need or want our faith in him?

Because, through a book written over 1500 years from 40 authors on three continents with no real inconsistencies, He has told us what He wants, and that He wants our faith.

And why would he use that faith as any kind of criteria for salvation?

And if you someone doesn't have faith in Him, why should He reward them with Salvation?

Like a well known entertainer said, "I reject your reality and substitute my own."

<mythbuster>
Am I missing an eyebrow?
</mythbuster>   

Interaction is just one criterium. If I can observe something, it is an equally good reason to believe it. And I can definitely observe evolution in many ways, including but not excluded to:

-results of selective breeding
-examples on nature (lizard populations on islands changing their fenotype according to the conditions in surprisingly short timeframe)
-research on species with very short generations (fruit flies, bacteria)
-genetic research in general
-rat populations developing immunity to poisons
-lactose tolerance on humans (most of world's population is still lactose-intolerantic but it's a beneficial mutation so it's spreading)
-HIV-immunity on human population as a likely result for past epidemics of virae that used same methods of entering the cell as HI-virus uses
-fossil records
-not last nor least: the fact that sexual reproduction is preferred by almost all multicellular organisms in known existence, and occasionally practiced by single-cell organisms as well.

Populations that reproduce asexually tend to be a lot slower in adapting to changes and thus, apart from the fast-reproducing bacteria, tend to die out and thus there is a selective pressure for species to reproduce sexually.

There are other ways I can observe the effects of evolution on species, but of course as a specimen I can't have direct interaction with evolution except making babies or not making babies. Doesn't diminish the validity or accuracy of the theory.

Examples of observed cases of speciation are fewer, but there are those as well. Although the definition of "species" tends to be a bit fuzzy as well.

Nearly all of the examples you point to are more arguments for natural selection than evolution.  I'm fairly certain most people here know what natural selection is, so I won't insult anyone's intelligence by assuming they don't.  Suffice it to say that the adaptation to environmental stimuli is not evolution.  The long term changing of one species into another by various means is.  Those means could include long term natural selection, but also a variety of other aspects. 

The major bone I have to pick with evolution is how it is taught in schools, and how no allowance for even the possibility of any God at all is permitted.  The general scholarly consensus is that evolution is to be treated as fact to the exclusion of all other points of view.  It is a perfectly valid theory when talked about as a theory.  Even then, I have a few issues with it, mostly centered on the earlier hypothesized stages of evolution, due to my own religious stand point.

EDIT:  You should watch Ben Stein's Expelled if you don't understand what I'm talking about, but you probably do.   

Side note: definition of a species:  a group of organisms that are able to interbreed with each other to create fertile offspring.

Of course, there is fifth way but it is so simple that I'm just going to write it here without a picture:

E==W==G

This reality configuration is, of course, the simplest of these possibilities and lets you drop two letters of your choice. You can call the existence of everything as "God", "Universe", "World" or simply "Everything" and it will have the fundamentally same meaning no matter what your specific beliefs are.

Of course, it does not answer to the question "Does Universe have a consciousness of it's own?" but the point is, it doesn't need to answer that question either. If there is such consciousness, we might or might not find out after dying - with luck our consciousness would merge to that consciousness, but if not, vanishing into nonexistence is not exactly painful or scary idea to me either.

This configuration is an elegant solution to the problem of God and existence of universe in itself. It is also simplest of available solutions and thus passes Ocham's razor. No need to assume more than you need, so to speak...

I could agree with this one.  Of course, we still have the subject of the consciousness of God/Universe/Everything to argue about.   

And neither can you. In fact since it's impossible for a human to understand God if what you say is valid, then you can't know that he exists either. Even if God exists, you can not be sure he exists or how, much less what exactly he wants of us, if anything at all.

First sentence = touche
Second/Third sentence(s):  see first rebuttal of this post.

[Turambar]

lol, no real inconsistencies.

if the god in those books is the actual god, he's a douchebag and doesn't deserve any sort of worship or "faith" (willful ignorance)

[Scotty]

if the god in those books is the actual god, he's a douchebag and doesn't deserve any sort of worship or "faith" (willful ignorance)

Elaborate please.

[Scotty]

Okay, thought I would re-align the discussion a little bit (feel free to continue as we have been, bit I wanted to actually discus the reason for the thread  ).

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

My big problem with this is that it assumes that if God does not do every single thing in his power to keep anything that could possibly be construed as bad from happening to you, he is malevolent.  To illustrate my point:  Would you call a parent that does not keep their child from every single scrape or bruise, that does not allow them to experience both aspects of the world malevolent?  We would be unable to fathom the concept of good if nothing evil or bad ever happened to us.  Some people may critisize me for saying this, but pain is one of the world's best teachers.  By seeing what evil or bad(ness?) is, we develop more of an appreciation for goodness.

Is he able, but not (always) willing?
Then he is a teacher.
   (I wish they had a [profound] smiley)

[iamzack]

if the god in those books is the actual god, he's a douchebag and doesn't deserve any sort of worship or "faith" (willful ignorance)

Elaborate please.

Have you ever read the book of Job?

[Herra Tohtori]

We can't know what God, should he exist, wants or needs (what would an almighty being need from us anyway). So why would God need or want our faith in him?

Because, through a book written over 1500 years from 40 authors on three continents with no real inconsistencies, He has told us what He wants, and that He wants our faith.

And dragon fire is not as hot as lava in Mount Doom.

This is where the dogma kicks in. Despite popular belief, there are no assurances whatsoever that the Bible or any other holy book were written under any kind of divine influence. They tell us what some people at some point thought God was all about, and submitting ourselves to those believes is just mimicking the belief systems of the writers.

I could go into the specific inconsistencies but specifics don't matter, so let's just keep it general; why would any given holy book be accurate? Like religions, there are many in the world.

What makes them different from Silmarillion, to a reader that would hypothetically have no knowledge of any of the books' origins?

Besides that, quoting a statement is not the answer to the question regarding motives. Saying that God wants our faith is not the answer to the question why he would want our faith. Why is our faith so important that it would be used to define our post-mortal state?

And if you someone doesn't have faith in Him, why should He reward them with Salvation?

Dude he's an almighty being, he doesn't need our faith. What does he have to gain from faith? Does it give him kicks? Why would he be so petty as to leave non-believers hanging high and dry simply because of their lack of faith?

Let's have a hypothetic thought experiment now.

Let's say you become a scientist and manage to create a simulation running in a quantum computer, able to simulate entire civilizations of sentient minds with limited lifetime in the simulation.

Let's then say that you don't give them any definite assurance of the origins of the simulated world and only make a few of the simulated beings write a book that supposedly has some information about you, and then let a lot of people interpret the scriptures as they wish and preach that as your word in various cults and various meanings, and then you would expect people to still have faith in you?

Let's also say you have the ability to copy the personality matrices from the simulation and insert them into android interface or something, to give them life after their deaths.

What would you use to define who gets a new life? Would you poll the databases of each simulated entity to check if they believed in your existence during their lifetime, and if they did you would put them into that android interface so they could interact with you, and would you terminate the non-believers - no matter what kind of personalities they were?

What would you gain from the simulated entities having faith in you? And why would you use faith alone to define who gets another shot at life?

To me, it makes no sense at all. If God exists and if he created the universe and if he loves us, he wouldn't do that. If that is the only thing he requires, I don't much care about it. I'll rather take my chances than submit to a being that has that kind of priorities...

Of course, this is just analogous to Christian theology. In other religions you would also expect the simulated entities to behave in a certain way or do certain things. Which of course makes even less sense to me, but hey, that's just me.


Regarding natural selection, it seems you have misunderstood the fact that evolution IS natural selection and it's consequences to the species. What you seem to be considering "evolution" is actually speciation, which is just part of evolution. I think some evolution critics make a distinction between "microevolution" (interspecies evolution) and "macroevolution", speciation or introduction of new major features to species. Truth is, there's no difference between micro- and macroevolution from evolution's point of view. It's all just change; speciation involves more changes through many generations accumulating in enough differences to classify two populations as different species in the end.

And like I said before, there are examples of speciation too, but obviously they are fewer than the other examples of interspecies evolution, mainly because the timeframe of human observations regarding evolution is limited and speciation is (usually) a slow, gradual process of two populations of same species becoming unable to produce fertile offspring. It takes a long time for that kind of differences to emerge in two separated populations, but there are examples of speciation, some of which are listed here. Reading of the entire page is recommended for optimal understanding, but that's where the list begins...

There are also a few cases where mutations like polyploidia produce a new species in just one generation. Plants especially.

[Scotty]

To Iamzack:  Yes, but you apparently haven't.  

Job 1:8-12

 

8 Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil."

 9 "Does Job fear God for nothing?" Satan replied. 10 "Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. 11 But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face."

 12 The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger."
      Then Satan went out from the presence of the LORD.

It was not God that afflicted Job.  Satan tempted him and ruined him in an attempt to get Job to spurn God.  God did not tempt him.

To:  Herra Tohtori, gimme a minute to come up with an answer.

[iamzack]

Uh. Satan, a creation of God, challenged God and God turned around and said "yeah, go ahead and make the life of a "blameless and upright" man completely miserable."

That's a pretty dick thing to do.

[Scotty]

I could go into the specific inconsistencies but specifics don't matter

I would argue that in this case, it does.  You say that there are inconsistnecies, but don't reference any.  Show me one that is legitemate, and we can argue this.

What makes them different from Silmarillion, to a reader that would hypothetically have no knowledge of any of the books' origins?

That the Simarillion was authored to flesh out a fantasy universe, and that the Bible was not.  Knowledge of the Bible's origin is key to understanding the book itself.  To look at it with no reference is not the point.

Dude he's an almighty being, he doesn't need our faith. What does he have to gain from faith? Does it give him kicks? Why would he be so petty as to leave non-believers hanging high and dry simply because of their lack of faith?

Dude He's an almighty being, what else would He want?  It's not what He would gain from it, it's what we gain from it.  If you would read the Bible, it says that in some nice clear passages (gimme a day or so to find some).  He's not so petty, but in a civil war (this could be a bad analogy, let's find out), would you let the people who opposed you into a place in your government?  (Damn, that one sucks.  Eh, it works well enough.)

and then let a lot of people interpret the scriptures as they wish and preach that as your word in various cults and various meanings

The scriptures are not meant to be interpreted, they are meant to be followed.  If someone interprets them as they wish, that is not what they were meant for.

What would you use to define who gets a new life?

Everyone gets a new life.  It's up to them whether they want to be with God in heaven by believing, or to live forever (and maybe not even then) separated from him (Hell).

And why would you use faith alone to define who gets another shot at life?

To me, it makes no sense at all. If God exists and if he created the universe and if he loves us, he wouldn't do that.

See my above point, He doesn't do that.  At least, not the way you seem to think so.

Regarding natural selection, it seems you have misunderstood the fact that evolution IS natural selection and it's consequences to the species. What you seem to be considering "evolution" is actually speciation, which is just part of evolution. I think some evolution critics make a distinction between "microevolution" (interspecies evolution) and "macroevolution", speciation or introduction of new major features to species. Truth is, there's no difference between micro- and macroevolution from evolution's point of view. It's all just change; speciation involves more changes through many generations accumulating in enough differences to classify two populations as different species in the end.

Okay. </serious>

I still don't like the way it is taught, or presented.  The theory that is taught in school is that life did come from self-replicating organic molecules, and that life did not come from any form of God, no questions asked.  Once again, see Expelled for a more detailed explanation of the "no questions asked" part.

[Scotty]

Uh. Satan, a creation of God, challenged God and God turned around and said "yeah, go ahead and make the life of a "blameless and upright" man completely miserable."

That's a pretty dick thing to do.

And you leave out the end of the book too.

Job 42: 12-17

12 The LORD blessed the latter part of Job's life more than the first. He had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke of oxen and a thousand donkeys. 13 And he also had seven sons and three daughters. 14 The first daughter he named Jemimah, the second Keziah and the third Keren-Happuch. 15 Nowhere in all the land were there found women as beautiful as Job's daughters, and their father granted them an inheritance along with their brothers.

 16 After this, Job lived a hundred and forty years; he saw his children and their children to the fourth generation. 17 And so he died, old and full of years.

That one's not so much of a dick move, is it?

Tell me, do you try to piss people off like this?  Here we are having a nice discussion and you come in with "God's a dick".  Not cool.

[iamzack]

Turambar told me to do it. *shrug*

[Turambar]

I was raised muslim, then turned atheist.  I know she (iamzack) knows more about how christianity is silly than I do, being raised in a more christian environment.

[Scotty]

It's more fun to argue with you people when you present arguments and evidence and such than if you just say "Christianity is silly" and walk off.  Come on.

And do you mean Athiest as in:  There is no God/I don't believe in Him
or Agnostic as in:  I don't worship God/He may exist.?

[karajorma]

Uh. Satan, a creation of God, challenged God and God turned around and said "yeah, go ahead and make the life of a "blameless and upright" man completely miserable."

That's a pretty dick thing to do.

God let Satan do everything in order to win a bet. That's a big dick move but you missed the biggest dick move in the whole story.

1:19  And, behold, there came a great wind from the wilderness, and smote the four corners of the house, and it fell upon the young men, and they are dead; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.

42:12  So the LORD blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning: for he had fourteen thousand sheep, and six thousand camels, and a thousand yoke of oxen, and a thousand she asses.   
42:13 He had also seven sons and three daughters.

Hang a sec. God lets Satan kill all of Job's children in order to win a bet and then rewards him when he wins with new children rather than ressurecting the ones he had? If that isn't a dick move I really don't know what is.

EDIT: Scotty posted it while I was wrting and didn't even see what an utter twat it makes God out as.

[Turambar]

I mean atheist in that there hasn't been one shred of anything to convince me that there's some higher power.  All I see is myth, superstition, and some smart immoral folks using myth and superstition to control people (call them their flocks).  

Sure, sometimes it can influence people to be nice, but most of the time it just makes them less likely to think.

[captain-custard]

i do not believe in any god or any gods existance , i do believe in the folly of the pack to create an illusion of a god that the weak follow instead of believing in themselves and there fellow humans.... for those who choose to believe in a god or multiple gods then they refuse to except responsability for there own actions and say they will be judged by there god .....

[Herra Tohtori]

I could go into the specific inconsistencies but specifics don't matter

I would argue that in this case, it does.  You say that there are inconsistnecies, but don't reference any.  Show me one that is legitemate, and we can argue this.

I would begin with the difference of God of Old and New Testimony and extrapolate from there. I could also pull in the stuff that was left out of "The Bible" in Nicea by people, but it makes no difference and is a pointless excercise. The problem of the accuracy of holy books can't really be solved by concentrating on specific problems, a more general view is needed.

the Simarillion was authored to flesh out a fantasy universe, and that the Bible was not.  Knowledge of the Bible's origin is key to understanding the book itself.  To look at it with no reference is not the point.

It totally is the point. Since we can't be sure in any way of the (divine) origins of the Bible, the only way to evaluate it is by it's content.

"Knowing" the origins shouldn't really matter if the content is accurate, don't you think?

If you had been told from the beginning of your life that Silmarillion is the accurate history of the world as delivered by divine influence of Prophet John Ronald Reuel, what do you figure you would consider the book?

Dude He's an almighty being, what else would He want?  It's not what He would gain from it, it's what we gain from it.  If you would read the Bible, it says that in some nice clear passages (gimme a day or so to find some).  He's not so petty, but in a civil war (this could be a bad analogy, let's find out), would you let the people who opposed you into a place in your government?  (Damn, that one sucks.  Eh, it works well enough.)

I fail to understand why faith would be the most important thing God would want from his sentient creations... I certainly wouldn't.

The scriptures are not meant to be interpreted, they are meant to be followed.  If someone interprets them as they wish, that is not what they were meant for.

Interpretation is always involved in every piece of information that humans receive. Even if it's from God, the original message would be interpreted by a LOT of people before it gets to you, so in the end there's always human element to every religion even if unlikely the original stuff came from a divine source. Which is suspect to doubt.

Everyone gets a new life.

 

Depends on specific theology, but I'll humour you...

It's up to them whether they want to be with God in heaven by believing, or to live forever (and maybe not even then) separated from him (Hell).

No, it's up to God, should he exist. It's his decision to invalidate the pass to "heaven" for people who don't have faith in him.

And why would you use faith alone to define who gets another shot at life?

To me, it makes no sense at all. If God exists and if he created the universe and if he loves us, he wouldn't do that.

See my above point, He doesn't do that.  At least, not the way you seem to think so.

Let's just agree that I don't think faith=salvation in theology makes much of a sensible argument in any way and leave it at that, because I'm not really interested in specific theological argumentation...

Regarding natural selection, it seems you have misunderstood the fact that evolution IS natural selection and it's consequences to the species. What you seem to be considering "evolution" is actually speciation, which is just part of evolution. I think some evolution critics make a distinction between "microevolution" (interspecies evolution) and "macroevolution", speciation or introduction of new major features to species. Truth is, there's no difference between micro- and macroevolution from evolution's point of view. It's all just change; speciation involves more changes through many generations accumulating in enough differences to classify two populations as different species in the end.

Okay. </serious>

I still don't like the way it is taught, or presented.  The theory that is taught in school is that life did come from self-replicating organic molecules, and that life did not come from any form of God, no questions asked.  Once again, see Expelled for a more detailed explanation of the "no questions asked" part.

"Expelled" is a steaming pile of misdirection, dishonesty and outright lies. It doesn't deserve to be pulled into this discussion.

On a basic level though I agree, but I don't see offering "Goddidit" as an alternative as an answer to the problem. The real answer would be to teach how the scientific method works. The real answer would be to teach understanding of evolution theory, not just expect blind acceptance from the students. And by understanding I mean the mechanisms, which are sadly misunderstood by most people who oppose evolution. The thing is though, there is no theory that could compete with evolution theory as an accurate representation of developement of species. Whether or not abiogenesis should be presented as the only explanation to the origins of life, I don't have much of an opinion, although I do think that Goddidit is a really bad alternative. I guess my opinion is that people should be made aware in schools that although specifics are not known, abiogenesis is scientifically the most probable explanation to the origins of life, and let people make their mind about things on themselves. The greatest thing in science is that you don't really need to convince anyone to "believe" in it if you present them all the facts; nothing changes the fact that evolution is at the moment the best in-depth explanation available for the versatility of life on Earth.

There are a lot of other things wrong in American schools, however, like teaching people to read and write, and do mathematics, and other stuff that is kinda more relevant to everyday life, so I can in a way understand that emphasis on accurate presentation of natural sciences doesn't always take priority. Sadly.

[Scotty]

To Iamzack:  A grand total of two people have been resurrected.  Jesus, and Jesus's brother Lazarus.  God didn't do that back then.

If that isn't a dick move I really don't know what is.

Oh, I dunno, maybe NOT giving him more kids.  That would pretty much take the cake.    Furthermore, notice how Job does NOT blaspheme against God even then.

God let Satan do everything in order to win a bet

Except kill or hurt Job, you missed that part.

EDIT: Shoot, two new ones, give me a bit.

[Herra Tohtori]

Jesus's brother Lazarus.

Wait what


EDIT: Just a little addition: The assumption that faith is required is dogmatic in nature. It's based on the dogma. If you drop the dogma, there's nothing that tells you that you should believe in something specific like God.

[Turambar]

I got to play Lazarus when my high school did Godspell.  :-P