Ex-religion.net

[Amethyst]

I think it's pretty valid to weed out the poor individuals who might make the absolutist statement "there are no absolute truths."

 

Can you prove that there are no absolute truths that won't change from one society to another? I don't think it's fair to say there are in fact absolute truths, when truths are relative to your society at any given point in history.

[Ouroboros]

What is truth? What is absolute?

[Amethyst]

What is truth? What is absolute?

 

Perhaps that debate deserves a thread of its own? Just a thought.

[Antlerman]

Thanks antlerman.

 

I do understand the current world (accepted) view of science. If we describe science as only to pertain to the natural world, already a naturalistic bias have been placed on science as a whole. Thus when we see things that best describe a non-naturalistic explanation, we will assume with the current definition of science that there has to be a naturilistic explanation we do not see yet, or else it falls outside the realm of science.

Again, we do need to come back to the merits of the scientific method (not sure why the link didn't work for you? Try again, or just do a google search for "Scientific Method", and it's the first hit below the sponsored link at the top). Biases are minimized, if not negated altogether because of systematic corroboration . Even if we start with an assumption of sorts of natural causes, repeated positive test results would then seem to strongly confirm that in fact it is an accurate assumption to have made. Again the scientific method is not unconfirmed guesswork based on biases. Yes, absolutely scientists have biases; but that we can make predictions based on the models that can be confirmed or disproved by anyone with any different biases makes it incredibly more reliable than a religious system based on faith alone.

 

BTW, when I say science I mean the natural sciences and not the religious “sciences”. Religious sciences use subjective experiences as “corroboration”, which of course always and ever produces inconsistent results, then ensuing “explanations” for the failure of consistency in the tests – but the hypothesis is still true nonetheless! I see a marked difference in the reliability of these disparate methodologies.

 

Already we have excluded any possibility that god might be real in the definition of science. This is of course my viewpoint since i am not a naturalist myself. If however you are a naturalist, you believe that there is nothing else than the natural world.

Not at all. Science rules out nothing. There are many believers in “God” who view that “God” is very natural and part of nature. This is something the natural sciences can actually look into. When people make claims that they can affect natural elements with the power of their mind, this is something that can be tested and proved or disproved. When people say their God told them the earth is 6,000 years old, this is also something that can be tested and proved or disproved. When people say they an image of the Holy Virgin is in some tree bark, science can analyze this and compare it to other studies of pattern recognition. Typical, the faithful will land on the side of emotional meaning, and the rational will accept what has the greater support.

 

But if someone says a god, outside the natural world, mentally willed the entire natural world and its confirmable processes into place and all we have access to is this natural world, indeed you are correct that this is outside the realm of science. No credible scientist will say they know what happened before the big bang. It is possible it was God. It is possible it was anything. But once you’re into the natural world, the natural science applies. What we’re dealing with way out there is in the land of faith, beyond the reach of science.

 

When science can make inorganic matter into organic matter (cells that can reproduce), then already there would be a more valid claim that a known process can start life. At the moment it is guesswork, without being able to test the hypothesis. This is where i see bias comes into play. Neither a naturalist nor a creationist can test the hypothesis of the origin of life. Both camps can describe a theory that to the best of their knowledge fit the facts, but it does not imply by the outset that their theories are correct (or incorrect). I try to look at both camps from their perspective and then make up my own mind.

Now we are talking something within the reach of science. Bear with me in this? I have some thoughts I need to flesh out. Why is it that science looks for a natural cause behind these things instead of a mystical one? Because every single time it looks for a natural explanation behind what the religious were seeing as inexplicable proof that a god exists (Bubble Bees defying the then know rules of flight being one of many examples paraded as evidence of divine will), it finds a natural cause. Even if the answer took longer to find because of incomplete data at the time, when the data became available, it now became understood and verified as a heretofore unknown natural cause . Evidence of a mythical God is then dropped from that “indication”, and moved over to the next as of yet unexplained mystery. Time and time and time again this pattern is repeated.

 

Here’s where my thoughts are going now: Let’s look at the idea of God? Do you see any merit in the anthropological study of the creation of god myths? Do you see any value in the understanding the human beings create gods bearing resemblance to themselves, except more transcendent and “godlike” humans; that man anthropomorphizes nature or events when he lacks natural explanation for it; Thunder gods, volcano gods, sea gods, sun gods, etc; that all of these evolved into many mythologies the served as man’s way to relate to the natural world, which then served as a vehicle for societal laws through governing priests, etc?

 

From where did knowledge of God come from? Did it come from a guided, careful, systematic study of the natural world as an explanation for the mysteries of it? He’s always been the explanation for it in the absence of systematic, experimental sciences. God in the natural world has been shrinking and shrinking back further and further down the line to the question above “Neither a naturalist nor a creationist can test the hypothesis of the origin of life.” Are you sure?

 

Why at this point should we now assume to be suddenly go off the end of the earth into the realm of “beyond this point there be dragons”? The church has promised us endlessly that science can’t find an explanation for __________.

 

What is really happening in all this as I see it is an epistemological question. How do we know things? Where “God” comes into play is outside the natural world – completely outside the natural world – not even at its origins (by putting him there you might be setting him up to be dethroned finally). God is determined in someone’s life through Epistemological Mysticism. He is real in the realm of “meaning”, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Painting an emotional picture of the universe and the meaning of our personal existence with the colors of an anthropomorphic palate is in reality – art. Art and science are equally valid forms of “knowledge”, and they should not be competitors. Keep mythology out of the natural sciences and you protect its unique value to mankind. Attempt to “prove it” and you will kill it.

 

Sorry for the long winded response. I hope to hear your thoughts to these things.

[Reverend AtheiStar]

Hi all.

 

This message is for everyone. More accurately this is more of a two part question. I am not asking these questions to tell you what I believe, but to find out what your views are.

 

My first question is whether all religous groups are judged within this forum. It seems by posts I have read that it is alright if you are a budhist, atheist, new-age, agnostic, hindu. (not that atheist or agnostic is a religion, but it still defines certian believes. i.e. There is no god) Anything as long as you deny christianity. I realize that this sounds like a generelization, but I wondered why the site is not called ex-religion.net but ex-christian.net. Is christianity much more dangerous than other religous groups?

 

My second question is about absolute truths. Do you believe in certian absolute truths. Do you believe that there are no absolte truths. If you believe in certian absolute truths which absolute truths do you believe in and why?

 

Thanks for your honesty,

 

Hans Jansen.

 

 

You define Atheism much too narrowly. It is much broader than you're giving it credit for. We lack belief in all gods and goddesses, not just Yahweh. There are plenty of theists who disbelieve in this deity, but would not qualify as an Atheist. Take this simple test to see if you qualify!

[chefranden]

I think it's pretty valid to weed out the poor individuals who might make the absolutist statement "there are no absolute truths."...

 

As far as humans go, it doesn't matter a lick if there are absolute truths. To a human everything must appear as relative to its own being. It is the way humans are constructed.

[Guest HansJansen]

About hell then:

 

Thanks for all the scriptures,..

 

You qouted the scriptures, but the scriptures did not say that hell is eternal burning!

 

 

Jeebuz krayst

 

So you want scriptures which mentions about burning and torture

 

I wish you had read those articles

 

Here are your scriptures which talk about torture and burning

 

Matt. 13:41-42, "The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, 42and will cast them into the furnace of fire; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

 

Rev. 14:9-11, "And another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or upon his hand, 10he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb(Jesus). 11"And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; and they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name."”

 

Matt. 5:22, "whoever shall say, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell."

 

Matt. 25:41, "Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels.

 

Jude 7, "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire."

 

I think it is quite clear that hell is place of torment and burning,

 

Thanks for the scriptures once again.

Sodom and gomorrah is destroyed. The eternal fire is representative of final destruction. I do not doubt for one minute that the destruction itself was not painfull, but that the destruction is final is clear from scripture. The same holds true for the smoke that goes up forever and ever. There is no turning back with the 'second death' the destruction is final ; nothing can emerge therefrom. I personally though do not know what is a worst message. The idea of living forever and burn, or to be out of existance forever. Of course if you do not believe in christianity you don't believe in eternal live either way. You have qouted quite a bit from revelation. Keep on reading this book and you will see that it speaks of final destruction not of a forever burn!

 

Hell is a 'holding cell' if you may until the second death. Here is the scripture from revelation

 

Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, the small and the great, stand before God. And books were opened, and another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead in it. And death and hell delivered up the dead in them. And each one of them was judged according to their works.

Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the Lake of Fire. This is the second death.

 

and

 

Rev 21:4 And God will wipe away all tears from their eyes. And there will be no more death, nor mourning, nor crying out, nor will there be any more pain; for the first things passed away.

 

This clearly state that there will be no more pain! Either you exist without pain or you do not exist at all!

 

I think it's pretty valid to weed out the poor individuals who might make the absolutist statement "there are no absolute truths."

 

But the fact that someone might not be a total absolutist doesn't mean that the supernatural=natural. It doesn't mean that maybe Christianity is real. I am willing to stick out my big ones and say no, there is no possibility that christianity is real, and therefore it cannot be good. There are many other religions that are bad too, but when you're an ex christian, chances are you've studied christian scripture and not so much the Vedas. That doesn't mean I won't stick my big ones out and say it is not possible that Brahma emerged from the belly lotus of Vishnu and created the world, any more than it is remotely possible that god scooped up some mud and made a guy who was lonely and had his own nipples and belly button for some strange reason, and made carnivorous animals in a world where there was no predation.

 

There is a bit of misunderstanding here. The person did not state that christianity is true, nor did he/she state that supernatural = natural. What i believe the person was hinting at is a little bit of lateral thinking:

If a person believes that there are no absolutes, how can they be absolutely sure of that thought. An absolute statement that no absolutes exist is prooving that there already is at least one absolute (the fact that no absolutes exist) which contradicts the starting premise. One person told me recently "everything is someone's opinion. There are no absolutes". This was one of my family members and a christian. Unfortunately he did not listen to the argument given above - he still said that it is still just an opinion. How do you speak to someone who believes that everything is relative?

 

 

Not at all. Science rules out nothing. There are many believers in “God” who view that “God” is very natural and part of nature. This is something the natural sciences can actually look into. When people make claims that they can affect natural elements with the power of their mind, this is something that can be tested and proved or disproved. When people say their God told them the earth is 6,000 years old, this is also something that can be tested and proved or disproved. When people say they an image of the Holy Virgin is in some tree bark, science can analyze this and compare it to other studies of pattern recognition. Typical, the faithful will land on the side of emotional meaning, and the rational will accept what has the greater support.

 

When science can make inorganic matter into organic matter (cells that can reproduce), then already there would be a more valid claim that a known process can start life. At the moment it is guesswork, without being able to test the hypothesis. This is where i see bias comes into play. Neither a naturalist nor a creationist can test the hypothesis of the origin of life. Both camps can describe a theory that to the best of their knowledge fit the facts, but it does not imply by the outset that their theories are correct (or incorrect). I try to look at both camps from their perspective and then make up my own mind.

Now we are talking something within the reach of science. Bear with me in this? I have some thoughts I need to flesh out. Why is it that science looks for a natural cause behind these things instead of a mystical one? Because every single time it looks for a natural explanation behind what the religious were seeing as inexplicable proof that a god exists (Bubble Bees defying the then know rules of flight being one of many examples paraded as evidence of divine will), it finds a natural cause. Even if the answer took longer to find because of incomplete data at the time, when the data became available, it now became understood and verified as a heretofore unknown natural cause . Evidence of a mythical God is then dropped from that “indication”, and moved over to the next as of yet unexplained mystery. Time and time and time again this pattern is repeated.

 

I am also reffering to the rest what you have written, but space is short. People have in the past put out mystical ideas for unexplained mystery. This alone does not however account that there is a natural explanation. If you look at the 'other side' you will also see that they are not trying to make up myths for what they see in science. Instead they have got a set of propositions to work with that can be tested and falsified (they cannot go against a book written 2000-6000 years ago). This would give quite a narrow scope to make up theories to fit the data, and these theories should be able to be easily tested and verified or falsified. On the issue of 'creationism' that you said was testable, i totally agree. The unfortunate thing is that a lot of scientist believe otherwise, and use the same definition of science to say that what creationists propose is not testable in science. In a very well known debate this was a central issue.

 

see here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/a...tics_vs_aig.pdf

 

or here:

http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/creationdebate1.htm

http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/creationdebate2.htm

http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/creationdebate3.htm

 

Giving the links of both the parties involve in the debate. I found it very interresting though that answers in genesis put up the hyper-links for both parties of the debate, but australian skeptics only put up their hyper-links.

The major thing that convinced me that evolution is impossible is the quotes by non-creationists.

This does not mean that christianity is true, but it does mean that there can be a re-look at the credibility of evolution. I did believe in evolution before, now i find it hard-pressed to believe in it anymore. I understand how evolution work (or suppose to work), and it seems like a very logical and reasonable understanding/study of nature. However the questions on evolution did not come about mostly due to moral objections but due to scientific study.

 

Some quotes that convinced me: (They are from people not classified as creationists)

 

"'The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "—Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve].

 

"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

 

"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."—W.R. Thompson, Introduction to Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist].

 

"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "—David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).

 

"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."—Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist.

 

"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms [theories] and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."—R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].

 

"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."—Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.

 

"It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, in its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reason. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from without."—B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11.

 

"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."—Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.

 

"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."—Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26.

 

All this to prove one simple point. There are two sides of the story. I understand both sides, but i chose mine. I am not here to point out what creationism or evolution teaches, but i am here to tell both sides of the story so that people can make up their own minds. We can make a thread that explains both sides in detail, even if we just post hyper-links. This for me is not a play-off of science and religion, but rather a critical look at evolution. I do not think that science vs religion is the right place to post this thread. What about a thread called science vs evolution?

 

As for this thread 'evolving' into different directoins. Maybe we should 'speciate' these topics to different threads

[Saviourmachine]

You've excellent thoughts Antlerman!

 

Although I'm quite criticial about what contemporary science has achieved, I have to say: "It's the scientist that puts herself at stake." A scientist can be corrected. A hypothesis can be disproved. A claim that is falsifiable can be falsified. A scientist can really be humbled. Not just her appearance, not just her actions, but her very belief, her worldview, can be questioned, even more, can be shown as false. And a scientist values her capacity to view the world in the correct way perhaps as one of the most valuable things in life. I would rather be correct(ed) and not happy than not correct(ed) and happy. And the actual nature of the ideas is not very important. It can be the Chomskian idea of a universal grammar, it can be about quantum mechanics, about biological evolution. That I can be wrong about all kind of things, makes me careful.

 

Other thing. I'm converted to xianity because I had to embed my religious experiences in an encompassing framework. It felt so good to confess my sins, to speak to God. The feelings and emotions I felt had to be part of something... I didn't review my opinion about science (like biological evolution) because of new evidence in that discipline, but because that belonged to my new theological worldview. It took a while before I considered that I could be a theistic evolutionist. It took much more evidence than before. And it was about evidence in that particular discipline. Finally I become ex-xian. Also because of evidence in that specific "discipline". That's the way my brain works by now. Into extremes. For example: The evidence for biological evolution is very convincing IMHO. That however abiogenesis preceded this is probable. But currently I find the evidence too sparse. And so I will not judge...

 

These two things I learned. And I learned them best outside religion or by straying from religion. To be humble and not to judge. I hope I'll retain flexibility of mind until I die.

 

Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, the small and the great, stand before God. And books were opened, and another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead in it. And death and hell delivered up the dead in them. And each one of them was judged according to their works.

Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the Lake of Fire. This is the second death.

 

and

 

Rev 21:4 And God will wipe away all tears from their eyes. And there will be no more death, nor mourning, nor crying out, nor will there be any more pain; for the first things passed away.

 

This clearly state that there will be no more pain! Either you exist without pain or you do not exist at all!

That's not fair! You do not take into regard to whom is spoken, the bride, and who that bride is. You forget to read until 21:8!

 

It's great that you think that hell does not exists. But why do you suppose that the original writers of the N.T. thought the same?

 

I understand both sides, but i chose mine. I am not here to point out what creationism or evolution teaches, but i am here to tell both sides of the story so that people can make up their own minds.

If you really want to learn about evolution, asks biologists, evolutionary biologists, geneticists, population geneticists. Ask for large scale evidence.

[Godless Dave]

Is christianity much more dangerous than other religous groups?

 

No, just the stupidest. At least mormons are endearing.

 

I don't know, Islam is about as stupid (and dangerous) as Christianity.

[Antlerman]

I am also reffering to the rest what you have written, but space is short. People have in the past put out mystical ideas for unexplained mystery. This alone does not however account that there is a natural explanation. If you look at the 'other side' you will also see that they are not trying to make up myths for what they see in science. Instead they have got a set of propositions to work with that can be tested and falsified (they cannot go against a book written 2000-6000 years ago). This would give quite a narrow scope to make up theories to fit the data, and these theories should be able to be easily tested and verified or falsified. On the issue of 'creationism' that you said was testable, i totally agree. The unfortunate thing is that a lot of scientist believe otherwise, and use the same definition of science to say that what creationists propose is not testable in science. In a very well known debate this was a central issue.

Right there in what I just highlighted in red above is why I have very little respect for the integrity of those who I can fairly safely call anti-evolutionists. Time and again creationism has been shown to be based on a negative. It has offered no discoveries, no usable science in any manner that has advanced scientific knowledge in any area of human society, no advances in agriculture, medicine, nothing. It is a philosophy, not science.

 

What I highlighted in red says this to me: "We start with a preconception of what the world needs to look like and we will therefore reject any possibility that does not agree with our biases." This is the opposite of the scientific method. This is religion, not science.

 

In many of the quotes you posted I saw terms like "Darwinism", "scientism", "'Theory of evolution'" (placed in quotes to imply "so called 'theory of evolution'). The use of this sort of political language instantly betrayed an ideological bias that lays waste to any sense of objectivity on their part. "Darwinism" is a ridiculous term flaunted around by Creationists, with its roots in some worldview that knowledge comes from a single source like Jesus. I could spend some time looking at all these individuals you quoted from, but the fact that I saw that pretty much set the stage for what I suspect I'll discover.

 

Again the main point is that Creationism is a philosophy. Show anyone what it has done to advance any knowledge in science. It is not science. To restate my earlier point, let science be science and mythology by mythology. They each have their place. Science should not set out to disprove God; it should only deal with the natural world with no limits placed on possible answers (such as happens in the red highlighted section above). Religion likewise should not try to deny what science uncovers in the natural world. They are two separate things.

 

One last thought, if God created the universe, why if everything else is made available to us to understand naturally, should he leave something we can't? Does this make sense logically to you?

[SkepticOfBible]

The eternal fire is representative of final destruction. I do not doubt for one minute that the destruction itself was not painfull, but that the destruction is final is clear from scripture.

 

What is also clear is the wrath of God and punishment of unbelievers for eternity

 

Hell is a 'holding cell' if you may until the second death.

 

Scripture please

Rev 21:4 And God will wipe away all tears from their eyes. And there will be no more death, nor mourning, nor crying out, nor will there be any more pain; for the first things passed away.

 

The context shows he is talking about the "saved" people not unbelievers like me

 

Rev21:3And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God.4 And God will wipe away all tears from their eye

 

Keep on reading this book and you will see that it speaks of final destruction not of a forever burn!

 

And keep on ignoring others passage and make the bible speak whatever you want it to say

[Antlerman]

And keep on ignoring others passage and make the bible speak whatever you want it to say

Forgive my injecting this comment: This describes every Christian on the plant, and every Christian who has ever lived. Unless of course applied to those who don't take the Bible as the perfect word of God and understand that the contradictions of theology in the Bible are due to the fact that imperfect humans were the one writing various points of view at various times, and that it's up to them today to pick and choose which verses are personally meaningful to them. Of course those who through reaches of faith alone think the bible is God's perfect word, are the ones who are either ignoring the verses outright or are going through spastic loop de loops of logic to make it fit ---- what is personally meaningful to them, just like the first group who does this without all the intellectual dishonesty.

[Saviourmachine]

[...]On the issue of 'creationism' that you said was testable, i totally agree. The unfortunate thing is that a lot of scientist believe otherwise, and use the same definition of science to say that what creationists propose is not testable in science. In a very well known debate this was a central issue.

So, you say "creationism" is testable. What exactly is creationism in that case? Creation ab nihilo at a certain point of time as if time was already running for million of years? That would be hard to falsify... Is creationism the non-existence of phylogenetic systematics? It would be hard to deny such a large amount of evidence. Does creationism narrow down to another hypothesis regarding the time needed for biological evolution as we know it? What exactly are these hypotheses that make this creationism falsifiable? I don't know them...

[Guest HansJansen]

Hi all.

 

Sorry for not being on the forum for a couple of days. I have been at my sisters wedding

 

Unfortunately this is going to be my last post in a while

I have to focus on my studies before it is too late.

 

Thanks for all your thoughts and replies.

 

 

Other thing. I'm converted to xianity because I had to embed my religious experiences in an encompassing framework. It felt so good to confess my sins, to speak to God. The feelings and emotions I felt had to be part of something... I didn't review my opinion about science (like biological evolution) because of new evidence in that discipline, but because that belonged to my new theological worldview. It took a while before I considered that I could be a theistic evolutionist. It took much more evidence than before. And it was about evidence in that particular discipline. Finally I become ex-xian. Also because of evidence in that specific "discipline". That's the way my brain works by now. Into extremes. For example: The evidence for biological evolution is very convincing IMHO. That however abiogenesis preceded this is probable. But currently I find the evidence too sparse. And so I will not judge...

 

These two things I learned. And I learned them best outside religion or by straying from religion. To be humble and not to judge. I hope I'll retain flexibility of mind until I die.

 

Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, the small and the great, stand before God. And books were opened, and another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead in it. And death and hell delivered up the dead in them. And each one of them was judged according to their works.

Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the Lake of Fire. This is the second death.

 

and

 

Rev 21:4 And God will wipe away all tears from their eyes. And there will be no more death, nor mourning, nor crying out, nor will there be any more pain; for the first things passed away.

 

This clearly state that there will be no more pain! Either you exist without pain or you do not exist at all!

That's not fair! You do not take into regard to whom is spoken, the bride, and who that bride is. You forget to read until 21:8!

 

It's great that you think that hell does not exists. But why do you suppose that the original writers of the N.T. thought the same?

 

I understand both sides, but i chose mine. I am not here to point out what creationism or evolution teaches, but i am here to tell both sides of the story so that people can make up their own minds.

If you really want to learn about evolution, asks biologists, evolutionary biologists, geneticists, population geneticists. Ask for large scale evidence.

 

Thanks for the link, and i will definitely subscribe to that forum. As for now as mentioned earlier i have to focus on my studies, but i will read all replies, and i will read posts in the forum that the link has been given to.

 

I was a theistic evolutionist all my life. Only about a year ago i have changed my opinion. I did not change my opinion due to religious reasons but based on logical flaws in arguments such as abiogenesis. Preceding evolution the only thing that can explain life is abiogenesis. The problems within the explanation of abiogenesis plus the problems within the theory of evolution made me rethink my position on evolution.

 

Not only christians but even some atheist scientists are rethinking their position on evolution. Unfortunately though the debate is constantly creation vs evolution, and not to look at the merit and credibility of evolution per se.

 

Twenty years ago there were relatively few people that disagreed with evolution. Today the picture looks very different. I am not saying that you should believe what i say, but i am saying that the trend to move away from the theory of evolution is not likely to die out.

 

As for Rev 21:8:

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and fornicators, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

 

Here we can see a clear mention of a second death. Death means not alive. Means expired. Ta ta. Etc.

 

Also as for Rev 21:4:

And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

 

The word "shall there be" is "esomai" in greek. This is a future tense, which will of course only be true after the happening described as the second death in Rev 21:8.

 

What I highlighted in red says this to me: "We start with a preconception of what the world needs to look like and we will therefore reject any possibility that does not agree with our biases." This is the opposite of the scientific method. This is religion, not science.

 

Amen!

First just to make one thing clear though. I have tried to split my original post into two sections in regards with evolution. The first part was the fact that creationism can be studied and falsified through science (That you thankfully so clearly pointed out in your previous post), and my second part was looking at evolution apart from creationism (why i turned from being a theistic evolutionist).

 

What is interresting though is that both creationist and evolutionist will look and agree 100% with the statement you have just made! That is what i am talking about when i say that scientists always will have their biases.

 

The eternal fire is representative of final destruction. I do not doubt for one minute that the destruction itself was not painfull, but that the destruction is final is clear from scripture.

 

What is also clear is the wrath of God and punishment of unbelievers for eternity

 

Hell is a 'holding cell' if you may until the second death.

 

Scripture please

Rev 21:4 And God will wipe away all tears from their eyes. And there will be no more death, nor mourning, nor crying out, nor will there be any more pain; for the first things passed away.

 

The context shows he is talking about the "saved" people not unbelievers like me

 

Rev21:3And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God.4 And God will wipe away all tears from their eye

 

Keep on reading this book and you will see that it speaks of final destruction not of a forever burn!

 

And keep on ignoring others passage and make the bible speak whatever you want it to say

 

For the scripture you asked for:

 

Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the Lake of Fire. This is the second death.

 

Sounds pretty clear to me. I am not close minded when i read scripture, i read all scripture. I also do not ignore scripture, and if there is scripture that disproves me, then i am wrong. This is why my opinion on this matter is not exactly what my church teaches. I have studied this topic in depth, and came to the same conclusions as many other christians. Only recently i discovered that there are many other christians that hold the same view on this topic. If i am wrong though, and you have prooved me wrong through a carefull study of the scriptures (not putting your meaning on the scriptures), then tell me so i can align my viewpoint to be biblical.

 

 

[...]On the issue of 'creationism' that you said was testable, i totally agree. The unfortunate thing is that a lot of scientist believe otherwise, and use the same definition of science to say that what creationists propose is not testable in science. In a very well known debate this was a central issue.

So, you say "creationism" is testable. What exactly is creationism in that case? Creation ab nihilo at a certain point of time as if time was already running for million of years? That would be hard to falsify... Is creationism the non-existence of phylogenetic systematics? It would be hard to deny such a large amount of evidence. Does creationism narrow down to another hypothesis regarding the time needed for biological evolution as we know it? What exactly are these hypotheses that make this creationism falsifiable? I don't know them...

 

I do not hold to the opinion that everything was created as if millions of years old. I do believe however that man was not made as a baby but as a man, and woman as a woman (They did not have belly buttons). Within the creation model we should tend to see extinction rather than evolution. Also we should see a non-existance of young earth possibilities (Carbon 14) see here:

http://www.halos.com/videos/0004-TheYoungA...nglish-214k.wmv

 

I would suggest rather to go to the debate which i did post earlier, and read why and how creationism can be proven to be false.

 

I am not here to tell you that what you believe is wrong, but only to tell you that there is merit behind what i believe.

 

I truly believe that god love atheists more than people that goes to church just because. If you believe that god and christianity does not make sense, and that is why you do not believe, at least you are standing up and being a man. If you go to church just because you think it is the right thing to do, or just because you are afraid of going to hell then stay away.

 

Rev 3:15 I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I would that you were cold or hot.

Rev 3:16 So because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.

 

This thread was not intended to tell people what my views are, but rather to think out what yours is. Thank you for everyone that shared their views, and for those who wanted me to share mine. I am not afraid of my views, and i am very honest and open about them. At the very least i now know some of your viewpoints a lot clearer.

 

I know that there will be a lot of you that will disagree with a lot that i had to say, but that is part of the fun

 

Feel free to post more comments.

 

As for me, i need to put my nose into my books!

 

Keep well everyone!

 

Hans jansen

[RHEMtron]

Not only christians but even some atheist scientists are rethinking their position on evolution. Unfortunately though the debate is constantly creation vs evolution, and not to look at the merit and credibility of evolution per se.

 

Twenty years ago there were relatively few people that disagreed with evolution. Today the picture looks very different. I am not saying that you should believe what i say, but i am saying that the trend to move away from the theory of evolution is not likely to die out.

it's not that it's dying out, it's rethinking, reanalyzing, and reconstructing the theory based on new evidence and data. that's what science is all about.

 

but anyhow... just keep that open mind of yours. good luck in your studies... academically and spiritually.

[Guest HansJansen]

Thanks man.

 

You are right when you say that they are rethinking, reanalyzing, and reconstructing the theory. It is also true that some people are breaking away from the original theory and looking for an alternative theory. I do not think that evolution is dying out, but i also do not believe that scientists who do not believe in evolution will die out either.

 

On your other point. I will be sad if i ever loose my open mindedness.

 

Keep well.

 

Hans

[Saviourmachine]

For the case that you decide to return for a second...

 

I was a theistic evolutionist all my life. Only about a year ago i have changed my opinion. I did not change my opinion due to religious reasons but based on logical flaws in arguments such as abiogenesis. Preceding evolution the only thing that can explain life is abiogenesis. The problems within the explanation of abiogenesis plus the problems within the theory of evolution made me rethink my position on evolution.

Should I take that to extremes? That the doubts I have about the big bang should make me reconsider biological evolution? What were the reasons that you was a theistic evolutionist? And what kind of logical flaws in abiogenesis are you talking about?

 

Twenty years ago there were relatively few people that disagreed with evolution. Today the picture looks very different. I am not saying that you should believe what i say, but i am saying that the trend to move away from the theory of evolution is not likely to die out.

Don't know exactly what your argument is. Ad populum? See the Steve project. A tongue-in-cheek parallel of the lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" that can be found at some places. If you boast, I will boast like Paul. The merit of evolution theory is that it works. There are always branches in science that are not mainstream. They will all die out unless they do work better indeed.

 

As for Rev 21:8:

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and fornicators, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

 

Here we can see a clear mention of a second death. Death means not alive. Means expired. Ta ta. Etc.

Seems to me. That the adjective "second" in "second death" is explained in this verse. This is not merely expiration, but having part in the lake which burns with fire. Strange that swimming in such a pool of fire and brimstone means being not alive. I'm not good in such liberal translations anymore. Never was. The time I was liberal, I considered these texts as the interpretation of the writers in that time. We now know better. See also Rev. 20:10 about the devil being "eternally not alive" in that hot pool. Why is Rev 21:4 after Rev 21:8? Verse 8 is also speaking about the future. How would you reorder that text?

 

Keep on reading this book and you will see that it speaks of final destruction not of a forever burn!

I have read this book and all others in the bible several times. Eternity is a keyword. See also Rev. 14:11. They will never have rest, and be punished for ever and ever. The smoke will never disappear...

 

Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the Lake of Fire. This is the second death.

 

Sounds pretty clear to me. I am not close minded when i read scripture, i read all scripture.

I do too. Seems to me that a new facet is added to "death" and "hell", namely "fire" (and punishment).

 

I truly believe that god love atheists more than people that goes to church just because. If you believe that god and christianity does not make sense, and that is why you do not believe, at least you are standing up and being a man. If you go to church just because you think it is the right thing to do, or just because you are afraid of going to hell then stay away.

God is a concept. There is no such a thing as "being a man" in this sense. I am - at times - jalous to see how god plays a role in someones life just as tennis plays a role in my life (I never played tennis). They never spill their precious time contemplating about what can exist and should be believed.

 

Enjoy your study.

 

SM