If you are right, and evolution is the only answer, then we will all just be dirt-food when we die. But if you are wrong, and the intelligent design people are right and there is a God, then you’ll be in a tough spot.
By the way, did you ever read what the Kansas School Board had proposed? It doesn’t sound like it from your letter.
California Boy
The Church is funded entirely by your purchases of FSM merchandise. Thank you for your support.
An elaborate spoof on Intelligent Design, The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is neither too elaborate nor too spoofy to succeed in nailing the fallacies of ID. It's even wackier than Jonathan Swift's suggestion that the Irish eat their children as a way to keep them from being a burden, and it may offend just as many people, but Henderson, described elsewhere as a 25-year-old "out-of-work physics major," puts satire to the same serious use that Swift did. Oh, yes, it is very funny. -- Scientific American
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License. This means you're free to use the content but not sell it. More Details |
Thank you Oneeyedjack. I wish you the best, as well.
NowtheworldhasMeaning,
The respect (grudging or otherwise) is mutual.
You wrote, “Is it OK for the church to dictate that gay people should not be allowed the same rights as straight people?” - Yes and no. I’ll try to explain my answer in less than two million words. I sincerely believe in the separation of church and state. I do believe that the Christian worldview is correct in what it asserts. However, I understand that the rest of the world may not agree with me. I demand that the rest of the world have that right. God will eventually settle all things; they are, after all, His to settle. Right now God has basically left us to our selves. His Holy Spirit is immanently at work in the world, but mostly on the individual level. That is, God is providentially at work (the Great Chess Player), but for the most part He allows the world to run its course. I say all that to say this: Presently the majority opinion has to rule (pure democracy or republic). It’s not capable of defining anything, but that’s the only way to allow everyone her or his freedom of choice. So no, the church doesn’t have that right, except when it is the majority.
On a personal note, I love gay people. I really do. I think homosexuality is a sin. I think stealing is a sin. I think the way I get mad and want to slap people who drive way under the speed limit is a sin. My point is this: God wants us to try to live life as it was designed to be lived, but sin is a part of us now. It’s hard to deviate from the things that are so inherent to our nature. I know that full well. God knows that. It’s not about living a perfect life; it’s about admitting you’re imperfection and trying to do right. Today, sexuality determines so much in our society. We often define who we are based on our sexuality, but there is much more to us than our orientation, etc. However, considering the present state of how we view our selves, I feel especially empathetic to the homosexuals’ attempts to comprehend the Christian God.
I recently met a Homosexual musician. I will not say his name, but he is signed to Tommy Boy Records, and his music is fabulous. When I spoke with I could sense the image of God. When I heard his music that image became even clearer. He understood my worldview. He knew my position on homosexuality, and yet we had a very good time together. I would like that to be the typical Christian/homosexual encounter. It’s not. I think both sides feel threatened by the other for some reason. Homosexuals need to give Christians the opportunity to interact with them. Christians need to recognize the difference between a sin and an individual created in God’s image. This web page is a good example of our society. You have people with different opinions. Some are trying to articulate their perspectives and listen to counter points; others are just trying to mask their insecurities with insults.
It’s been real. Here’s to hoping the Japanese stay friendly to the UK!
Peace
Gill,
You wrote, “In order for this ‘deviation’ to take place, there are two possibilities. One: god created us to be perfect, but we ended up not perfect, which means god made a mistake. Two: god gave us the chance to not be perfect, which means he is in some way at fault for sin.” - I’ll give you the same explanation I gave J a few posts back. J quoted one of her or his professors as saying, “In the Garden of Eden, you shouldn’t have to wear a crash helmet.†In response, I wrote, “Imagine this (This illustration will be weird. I’m trying to illustrate something that has no parallel.): A man buys a woman. She has never seen anything. She has never experienced any sort of relationship. She has never communicated with another human. The man takes her to a house, which he has built. There is no possibility of escape. There are literally no windows to the outside world. He enables her to see and communicate. He lives with her all of her life and they relate to one another. Is this a real relationship? A better question is this: does she really love him? How can he know? She has had no opportunity for any other experience.”
/
Perfection is very complicated. Only the artist can say with certainty that his work is perfect. Why? Because only He knows what he intended to make. Perfection for God was co-existing with persons who had a choice to exist with Him and trust His understanding.
You wrote, “If my future husband and I can’t agree on something, then darnit, we’ll compromise.” - Awesome! That’s how my wife and I make decisions. I don’t think the Biblical concept of submission has anything to do with your racial illustration. Here’s the bottom line: When you get married it is very likely you will encounter a situation in which you and your husband cannot find a decent compromise. If you do the “Christian” thing you will say, “Love, let’s do whatever you think is best.” and if your husband does the “Christian” thing (loving you as Christ loves the church) he will sacrifice his desires and you will win! Christianity teaches that women and men are equal just as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are equal. While Jesus was on earth He esteemed women extremely highly, even by today’s standards. Christians should model His behavior; we usually don’t.
/
I really do have to go. Nowtheworldhasmeaning suggested that I was leaving because I felt ganged-up on, but that’s not it. I just that with all these interesting people stimulating my mind as they do, I end up spending hours in front of this page. My wife says I need help. I love you all. I gots to go!
Peace
Nic,
.
I know how you feel. This place is tearing down my life…! Still, if feels so worthwhile!
.
Two posts - this and another.
.
This is a quick response to your response to One Eyed Jack (Oct 17th, 2006 at 12:02 pm) about the origin of ethical systems - particularly atheistic ones:
.
Firstly: why is it obvious that cannibalism is bad? Who does it, in fact, harm? I agree that many cultures – such as ours – find it abhorrent. But even we can think of situations in which it might seem justifiable – seen ‘Alive’, anyone? This is a poor example.
.
In fact, all four of your examples are dodgy. The – very obvious, I would have thought – chief answer to ‘where do I get my morals from?’ is ‘How would *I* like to be treated by everyone else? Do I want to be robbed, raped or murdered? No. I see that the world is filled with humans who, I assume, think like me. Just for good measure, why don’t I talk to them and find out? … Oh, I was right, *they* don’t want to be robbed, raped or murdered either. So, those things are *wrong*.
.
As theories of morality go, this is hardly brain surgery. Also, they fit perfectly with natural selection. We individually prosper if we live as a society; our society prospers if it adapts ethical codes that protect its individuals. Ethics promote survival and procreation and are therefore positively selectable in Darwinian evolution.
This is a (LONG) response to your own response to me. In particular, it addresses the bit of that response that you have also copied to gill.
.
(Apologies for occasional drops into sarcasm or aggressive language. A personal weakness - doesn’t mean I don’t like you!)
.
You said:
.
‘Science tries to be objective, but that is not possible. Humans cannot be objective. We are always standing somewhere. We always have to filter everything through our individual lenses (frames of reference).’
.
This is a cop-out of the highest order. Picture the scene:
.
‘Nic, is the kettle boiled?’
–‘I’m afraid – OW! My bloody hand, that’s hot! – I’m inescapably subjective and therefore not equipped to offer an answer that you can confidently expect to agree with. I suggest you touch it yourself while I find the bandages.’
.
Or:
.
‘Did you, Mr Nic, stab this woman to death?’
–‘No.’
‘These five people say you did.’
–‘Their opinions are subjective and in no way superior to my own. Which is that I didn’t, by the way.’
‘And you were caught on camera.’
–‘Footage interpreted, of course, by more subjective human beings…’
.
And so on. You seem to be very fond of theories, but you are unjustifiably pushing this one to an extreme at which it becomes worthless. Please don’t forget that theories are meant to describe reality, not to allow the people who state them to circumvent it.
.
I agree that no scientist can be free of subjectivity. Any decent scientist would also agree with you. This is why the scientific method emphasises repeatability and peer review. If *my* science is poisoned by my biases, *your* science is there to keep me in check. Somewhere along the line, the truth – or the closest thing we can get to it – is determined.
.
Your metaphor in response to the Garden Of Eden thing. (Dear any reader who isn’t Nic, please see my post from Oct 17th, 2006 at 8:57 am and Nic’s from Oct 17th, 2006 at 12:36 pm if you need to catch up). Okay, I’m with you so far. So, what this man does, then, is take his bought woman outside. He gradually introduces her to world and sees how her understanding grows. Right?
.
What he emphatically does not do is pop down to the nearest high security jail (or death row, if you live in a country that allows that sort of thing), request access to the most depraved evil-doer he can find, break them out and give them the keys to his house. It’s *Satan* we’re talking about here, Nic, not first day at kindergarten. He (god) deliberately threatens Adam and Eve to maintain the weird state of innocence you describe, then allows the evillest, blackest, most vengeful thing in the cosmos in to say hi. With no warning. This is akin to teaching your toddler to walk by throwing them onto a busy motorway. And then damning them to hell when they get hit by a truck.
.
Later in your post:
.
‘Because we desire to be logically consistent individuals, and we hate feeling the tension our inconsistencies cause.’
.
Yes, we do. We certainly do. But *your arguments* are not logically consistent. An example is that you do things like equating the above quote with the below one:
.
‘If there isn’t a God there is no real and absolute meaning to life; there is no meta-narrative.’
.
That’s right too. But a ‘meta-narrative’ and an externally bestowed ‘absolute meaning’ are not the same thing as being ‘logically consistent individuals’. There’s no necessary link here at all.
.
You stated that natural selection and DNA seem to you to point towards god rather than away from him. A logical overview of natural selection would discern that it describes a process of complexity arising from simplicity. This logical narrative is utterly shattered if a hyper-complex starting point is then assumed for kicking the whole process off. (A hyper-complex starting point like god.)
.
You’re a human being. You want a human-shaped existence. I sympathise. But, as a human, you’re bright enough to see that there really, logically, isn’t one. We’re privileged to be here, privileged to be alive, privileged to share our existence with so many other living, fascinating, similarly privileged creatures. Don’t break down the wonder by short-circuiting the logical beauty of it all.
.
Ah. Have I found a sense of beauty you don’t instinctively share? Or can you feel it, in there, somewhere…
.
Your closing sentiments:
.
‘I do desire for atheist to come to know and relate with God. However, I am fine with letting you be. Why did I even come in here, you ask. I like to learn. Listening to the perspective of others enhances my understanding. It is like wise beneficial for you to hear my perspective, no matter how simplistic it may be.’
.
Nick, here I have no argument with you. Shame if you have to leave (at this rate, I might have to, too) but do drop in. And please try not to be blinded by philosophy. Models are helpful, but not when they get bigger than the things they are modelling.
.
I wrote the above, and then read through umpteen other posts beneath. I think this is all still relevant. Mainly, though, whether you stay or go, Nick, you are a pleasure to debate with. (Frustrating, sometimes, but you may get the same sense with me!) You certainly manage a calmness that I find it difficult to emulate at times. Cheers.
One Eyed Jack,
.
Don’t despair! Even if pleasant and cogent Nic does have to go, there is still Christian to talk to, at least!
.
Oh, he’s posted on the Richard Dawkins thread, in fact. Best have a look…
.
(If theists do only pay us a fleeting visit, maybe we should go to them. Must make time!)
PS, Nowtheworldhasmeaning:
.
‘If myself Spider, The Aussie, J and One eye Jack (I use these guys as I have read a lot of there posts over recent days) where to sit in a room for a while we to come up with a set of laws, despite us all being different personalities and from different backgrounds we would probably agree on 95% of them.’
.
I think we should do it. There’s a noodly new world order in there somewhere…
I defenetly want to get in on this noodly new world order.
Nic, I’m starting to wonder if we’re even arguing about religious stuff any more, hah. Either way, it sucks that you’ve got to leave, intellegent debates are fun. (I’m starting to get the sence that I’m the youngest person on this site!)
Hey I’m up for it…
.
Let’s see if we can get bobby to start a new thread dedicated to the legal issues, atheist style.
.
If that fails, i’ll post my hotmail, but being a public forum, i would like to avoid that for a while.
J
….(If theists do only pay us a fleeting visit, maybe we should go to them. Must make time!)
Here is the address of a site nic posted somewhere sometime when referring to his lack of debate on ID.
Institute of Crestion Research
http://www.icr.org/
It is a creationist site. ( which differs slightly from ID) I’ve been there a couple of times reading some of their “news” on scientific developments.
Here is a bit from one of these articles
Fighting Against the Forces of Darkness
by Lawrence Ford
………“Although the theory of evolution might seem highly improbable, it [is] not impossible,†Dawkins reportedly declared to his audience. Forget the science; let’s talk about those right-wing Christians who believe in God and creation.
But is the Christian community prepared to discuss these larger issues of philosophy and worldview? The Enemy has no plans to step aside just because we have better scientific facts than they. He is committed to getting his message out to anyone who will listen.
Are you?
(lol)
Somehow I don’ t think any of us would have our opinion published there though. Would love to find one of these sites democratic enough to do so. Probably as much chance of that as winning the lottery.
FSM is the only truely democratic religion.
RAmen
The article was having a go at a Richard Dawkins speech. I also read one there about bird flu, which contained a lot of the correct terminology, (I guess in an effort to convince people that they really are scientific) but ended by saying that it is in gods hands. Yet another article states that the theory of evolution was responsible for the Colombine High School massacre.
RAmen
Any of you guys found a fun christian site for us to raid?
Well, you can have fun not being us after we die, but for now, excuse me while I go live my life the way I want to, thanks. And by the sounds of it, I don’t think I’d want to go to your Heaven anyway. According to your book of babble-ness, all of my friends and favorite bands are going to be in Hell, so why would I want to be anywhere else? I already have a room reserved, please don’t feel free to visit.
@ NTWHM… yep :P
A Fundi Myspace….
Go to you have GOT to be kidding me (i think that’s it… the one by the rKticK FoX… henderob posted his site address.
Hi, The Aussie,
.
Just had a scan through that thread - couldn’t spot a post by henderob. If you’ve got the link, I’d be delighted if you could share…
Nickiee,
.
Wow! The Institute of Creation Research! Just saying the name is so much fun! Sounds like something from a Far Side cartoon. I wonder what sort of experiments you can use to Research Creation.
.
It’s a pretty site, though, I’ll give them back. Sort of a afraid to dig deeper, but I’ll have a look…
Ooh, powerful arguments abound at the ICR site! Pour example:
.
‘While evolutionists continue to debate the form and function of this newly-discovered fossil, creationists continue to base the model of man’s origin on Genesis 1:26-27.’
.
It’s just one unshakeable conclusion after another! They’ll have me back in the Christian fold before I know it!
J
Yeah I didn’t stick around too long. Too freaky!
It’s hilarious! Terrifying, but hilarious! I can’t believe they come here and find the FSM strange, if they’re used to that kind of bent and fractured crazy moon logic.
.
Maybe, actually, just maybe it’s because the FSM actually makes *too much* sense…
Sorry… I eat my words. I could have sworn it was on one of those page. Give me a minute, and I’ll try and find it…
FOUND IT!!!!!!!
Had to google… but thats okay, ’cause I hit the christian jackpot baby!
.
Ever wonder why the christian’s arguments seemed so strange, and flew in the face of common logic?
.
Here is your answer :p
.
www.homeschooldebate.com
.
And his myspace-esque page…
.
http://www.xanga.com/RkticFox