A long long time ago, in a galaxy far away…
Sorry, just been watching the latest Star Wars with a couple of whisky and smoke soused pals, and wondered if an opening of ‘Just the other day, in a house across the street…’ would be a fun opening for a story.
I digress but then I have been at a smoky-drinky and am somewhat tiddly. I was supposed to go into the big town to meet a regular commenter tonight but he was busy until 9:30, the last bus home was at 11 and the bus ride is an hour each way. Next time we’ll plan it better.
Anyway. A long time ago when I was active as Romulus Crowe online, I wondered about schizophrenia and its treatments. Did the treatments cure something or were ‘the voices’ real and the pills merely blocked the subject’s ability to hear them?
As far as medial science is concerned, you hear disembodied voices, you take the pills, you don’t hear the voices any more, you are cured. The possibility that the voices were real does not enter into Science’s calculations – but it should. Science should be open to every possibility.
Even the possibility of God.
I don’t believe in any God and I take no medication. I’m on neither side in the fight that is about to happen in the comments. I don’t take sides in fights. I just start them and watch 😉
I’ve said before that science cannot prove the absence of a thing. It can prove presence but when reporting absence all it can say is ‘not found’. It cannot, ever, say ‘not there’. Science is not able to prove the non-existence of anything when applied correctly. Science cannot locate and define God but real science has to say ‘we didn’t find evidence of God’ and not ‘there is no God’.
Now science has plumbed embarrassing depths in this argument. A group has reported that experience of God is caused by epilepsy based on one – ONE – observation.
I haven’t known many epileptics in my time but the one I remember best had no religion either. And are we to believe that all those religious people out there – billions of them – are all epileptics? It just doesn’t work, does it?
I’m not saying God is real and I’m not saying there is no God. I don’t know and have zero evidence either way. Evolution does not disprove God. It can be explained as a creator who knew his creation would change over time and gave it the means to adapt. None of the animals in Eden were booted out when Adam, Eve and Serpent got the heave-ho so the animals we see now are not Eden’s. There is nothing for science to threaten religion with here. Nothing to do, with all our logic.
Likewise, religion has no effect on science. Religion requires belief without question, whereas science questions everything and believes nothing, not even its own current results. Well, that’s how it’s supposed to be.
Science and religion are separate things and should remain so. The fight between them is futile. They are based on entirely different starting premises. There can be no winner because each side fights by different rules.
But really, science, basing ‘proof’ on one observation? Come on now, that is not helping.
underdogs bite upwards 
“There’s only one way to find out: FIIIIIGHT!”
I’m not clicking on the Daily Mail link because the mainstream media’s reporting of science is embarrassing, nay shameful, but I laughed at the words in the URL: …Seeing-God-caused-brain-damage…
Here’s me worried about getting brain damage by reading the Daily Mail.
Anyway, a few points:
I’m not saying God is real and I’m not saying there is no God. I don’t know and have zero evidence either way.
Isn’t that remiss of you? As scripture says, there’s no excuse for not knowing, as the Creator’s handiwork is everywhere.
Evolution does not disprove God. It can be explained as a creator who knew his creation would change over time and gave it the means to adapt.
The Creator knows everything, so in order to create man in His image, I expect He would have used His knowledge of genetics to do the job straight away (well, on Day 6) rather than wait for billions of years, although God, being outside of time, could have come back in a jiffy and billions of years could have passed on Earth, but the idea of using totally random mutations in the hope that the exact likeness of man would result is not a reasonable proposition, IMO.
Anyway, population genetics shows that humanity is in decline; losing fitness with every new generation; same with animals. This means that we must have started out far fitter and stronger (hence the longevity of the old patriarchs) and we are not evolving uphill, but going downhill: mutations cause disease.
I think your second part is correct. Where mutations ARE necessary is for animals to be able to adapt to various habitats around the world. It just happens far quicker than evolutionists believe.
Likewise, religion has no effect on science. Religion requires belief without question, whereas science questions everything and believes nothing, not even its own current results. Well, that’s how it’s supposed to be.
Science and religion are separate things and should remain so. The fight between them is futile. They are based on entirely different starting premises. There can be no winner because each side fights by different rules.
A book could be written about these two paragraphs, but I’ll try to summarise it.
The “fight” is actually between worldviews. Creationists and evolutionists alike have certain presuppositions and fit the evidence accordingly – the evidence is the same for everyone; it exists in the present and is interpreted according to one’s worldview – you can get any age for the earth you like, depending on the rules of your worldview.
For your word ‘religion’ I will use the term ‘Bible-believers’. Modern science was due mainly to Bible-believers: Boyle, Pascal, Pasteur, Newton and many, many more. Newton studied the Bible more than he did science. Kepler wrote that he was thinking God’s thoughts after him.
It was the Christian worldview which led to the idea that the universe is orderly, as it was created by a God of order, so that if water boils at 100 deg. C at sea level and atmospheric pressure today, it will do the same again tomorrow and the day after.
“Religion requires belief without question, whereas science questions everything and believes nothing…”
Bible-believers actually have a solid foundation for their faith; it is not a blind faith, but a reasonable one. Belief that hydrogen gas turned into planets and people is a fairytale too far when you delve into the real science; it’s not really possible. Life is far too complex for it to have arisen by chance from non-living chemicals, especially as mutations which add just a little useful new information to the genome are practically unheard of (and you need billions to create intelligent life) and the overall direction of evolution is downhill anyway. A businessman cannot expect to make a profit if he makes a loss on every transaction, even if he does it for billions of years.
It is the evolutionists who seem reluctant to question things which don’t fit into their worldview, e.g. they reject over half of their carbon-dating results which aren’t what they *should* be (according to them).
Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist, insisted that, “…materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
How scientific is that, to write off the best explanation out of prejudiced dogma? When the evidence says “intelligent design” people like him have to invent stories. The fact is that the story of evolution theory was only made possible by the unscientific philosophy of Uniformitarianism – an 18th century “rule” invented by Scotsman, James Hutton, an amateur geologist – actually a doctor and farmer, so probably influential enough to be taken seriously.
I was an evolutionist until eleven years ago, aged 41, because it was the only story I had really been told. I changed my mind after I finally looked at the evidence – or lack of – for molecules-to-man evolution.
BTW – natural selection doesn’t help evolution theory, as it removes information from the genome when more information is required for the theory to be remotely possible. Mutations and natural selection help animals and plants adapt to new environments.
LikeLike
Stewart, if “the overall direction of evolution is downhill anyway”, then you could be right.
It isn’t.
You’re not.
Next, please.
LikeLike
Zaphod – I posted that information for people who, despite having been conditioned all their life as I had been, can still think for themselves.
Find a population geneticist – a godless evolutionist – and ask him what way evolution is going.
Some have excuses, like we look after sick people instead of just letting them die (presumably your philosophy if you take your worldview seriously), but that still doesn’t account for the problem of genetic entropy.
LikeLike
The Eugenics idea was that we should not support imperfect specimens because it would dilute the stock. This seductive but simplistic idea was later discredited. History shows that a high proportion of those who brought us progress, would not have met the criteria of the eugenicists, and would have been culled.
A society which can afford to support the “runts” will prosper. You can argue about the mechanism, but the results are quite clear to me.
Entropy only applies in a closed system, but until the Sun fails, we have an energy input. “Genetic entropy” is a nice concept, but it clearly does not exist. Even endangered species which have gone through a genetic bottleneck can eventually thrive again with luck. And luck is not a finite resource.
I would have to ask a lot of population geneticists before I found one who agreed with you. Life is too short for that enterprise.
Your arguments are usually based on the authority of the Bible. That has absolutely no credibility for us atheists. Neither does blind faith, or individual revelation.
I have always thoroughly enjoyed my life. There is no god-shaped hole in it. I have absolutely no need for faith.
I know you and I will never ever agree, but I respect your commitment and doggedness. Thanks for worrying about me, but I’m fine, really! 🙂
LikeLike
You might be fine now, but…
True, had eugenics been as fashionable a few centuries ago as it is now, the founders of modern science might never have been born, but that’s a different issue to the problems associated with population genetics and the decline in fitness of humanity, generally.
The eugenicists I have studied certainly believed in selective breeding (I dislike this word when applied to people!). Marie Stopes wanted various people to be sterilised, including the “diseased, drunkards, or simply those of bad character”.
Had she had her way, she would have condemned herself to a life without children, seeing as she was as batty as a belfry in a Dracula film.
She was so consumed with her hatred for people she considered ‘sub-human’ (i.e. probably 90% of readers of this blog, including myself), that she cut off her son from her will because she married the daughter of Barnes “Bouncing Bomb” Wallis, whose crime against the species was to be short-sighted.
Entropy only applies in a closed system…
Indeed: the universe. The energy from the sun is undirected. Does turning up the thermostat in your house create greater order and make it tidier?
Yes, organisms which have survived a bottleneck can thrive, as per humans after the Flood, but the gene pool is reduced – human life spans were greatly reduced in people born after the Flood (= scientific data in scripture).
I would have to ask a lot of population geneticists before I found one who agreed with you. Life is too short for that enterprise.
How do you know if you haven’t asked any?!
Your arguments are usually based on the authority of the Bible.
And which are backed up by the evidence we are finding, which is more and more as time goes on. ‘Science’ is slowly catching up with scripture.
LikeLike
There’s going to be an awful of people disappointed they chose the wrong diety.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions
LikeLiked by 2 people
And everyone else here is complaining and trying to be funny rather than searching for the truth when it should be everyone’s primary concern.
“Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:”
LikeLike
Read “Budget Planet” by Robert Sheckley. He got God on the nose…
LikeLike
If God made man in his own image, at the time, then God must be a bit peculiar in more ways than one. So we’d be hard pushed to recognise Him if we did see him.
I think I would probably prefer the voices.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Man made God in his own image (& to coerce others).
That’s all folks
LikeLike
I feel sorry that you cannot see the wood for the trees – or don’t want to.
LikeLike
Don’t feel sorry for me. I am not afflicted by a rigid belief system which prevents me from seeing clearly.
LikeLike
Tell me what you see.
(Isn’t that a Beatles song?)
They tried Eastern mysticism, of course. George, especially, was spiritual, but highly confused. I have his ‘Somewhere In England’ LP in which he sings about Christ, Vishnu and Buddha being one and the same.
He couldn’t see clearly, but he probably thought that he could.
LikeLike
“The possibility that the voices were real does not enter into Science’s calculations – but it should.”
No it shouldn’t. Voices are, of course, detected via vibrations in the air which impinge upon the eardrum. If the voices/vibrations really exist then another piece of similar equipment would also detect them, ie. someone else’s ears. Unfortunately, auditory hallucinations can be brought about by brain disease, mixing prescription drugs with alcohol, mental illness and so forth. If the cause is identified and dealt with, following which the voices stop, then that’s what it was.
You’re right, it is true that a conclusion based on one observation is not science.
Stewart, if you don’t know by now that you’ve written total and utter shite from start to finish then there’s no help for you. It is by no means impossible for a religious person to be a good scientist but you aren’t one of those because your piece contains arguments from authority, straw-man fallacies, non-sequiteurs, and arguments from ignorance.
You’re listening to an irrational voice in your head and it’s you.
LikeLike
Richard – I know that yours is a bog-standard reply borne of ignorance (in more ways than one).
LikeLike
Thank you for your rebuttal which demonstrates that I am bog-standard and ignorant in more ways than one. Your point of view has thereby been effortlessly vindicated .
LikeLike
I’d prefer if you have some sort of valid point about the topic. People who are as rude as you are don’t generally have an argument because, like I said, you are ignorant of the subject, so you become mean and get abusive.
If you want to know something, just ask; there’s no need to say ‘you’re wrong – you’re an idiot’ or whatever.
LikeLike
I didn’t call you an idiot. I said your argument was shite. I apologise for that choice of word because it was quite rude. I know you aren’t an idiot because I’ve read bits of your blog and some of your pieces are well-argued but this piece was bad.
Your above statement, to which I objected, does rely on logical fallacies ie. argument from authority (quoting scripture) strawman (a Professor doesn’t want a divine foot in the door therefore X), non-sequiteur (“Religion requires belief without question, whereas science questions everything and believes nothing…”) circular argument (“Bible-believers actually have a solid foundation for their faith” – yes that’s right because it says that in the you- know-what).
Bad science (“natural selection doesn’t help evolution theory…. Mutations and natural selection help animals and plants adapt to new environments”)
Errm, that is “evolution theory,” explained correctly and in a nutshell, that last bit, so make up your mind. Does natural selection help or not?
Anyway the above fallacies and mistakes made me somewhat forthright in replying to your piece and since there is nothing to be gained by ill-feeling, please note that I was playing the ball and not the man.
As for the irrational voice we all have one of those, me included, but it’s probably best to check out what it says against what really is, as verifiable by logic, reason and above all, evidence.
Thanks for your civility in return for my lack thereof but I disagree with your piece, I think it’s badly argued, and I make no apology for that.
LikeLike
I hope that when you learn more about evolution theory and Creationism that you’ll think that my points are well-argued on this subject too.
Your above statement, to which I objected, does rely on logical fallacies ie. argument from authority (quoting scripture)…
One thing I did was to point out that there is scientific data in scripture, so that is demonstrating the veracity of scripture with mathematics. Objection overruled.
…strawman (a Professor doesn’t want a divine foot in the door therefore X),
This is no strawman. Many evolutionists have admitted that there are flaws and inconsistencies in the Theory. When supporters of the Theory aren’t happy with it, there has to be a problem.
Lewontin’s quote is even worse and his attitude, I assume, is the standard one in evolution circles. Scientists who dismiss out of hand ‘a priori’ the most logical reason should not be allowed near a test tube, especially using taxpayers’ money, yet they have spread their worldview far and wide and deep through deception.
Objection overruled.
non-sequiteur (“Religion requires belief without question, whereas science questions everything and believes nothing…”)
Those were actually Leggy’s words I quoted. Objection overruled. Call Mr Leg-iron to be sent into the dock!
circular argument (“Bible-believers actually have a solid foundation for their faith” – yes that’s right because it says that in the you- know-what).
But I go on to explain why. Objection overruled.
Bad science (“natural selection doesn’t help evolution theory…. Mutations and natural selection help animals and plants adapt to new environments”)
Errm, that is “evolution theory,” explained correctly and in a nutshell, that last bit, so make up your mind. Does natural selection help or not?
Natural selection does not perform the function of increasing information in the genome, which is what is required for the *Theory* of Evolution to work.
Of course, mutations and N.S. are what make new species, but preexisting genetic material is present. Darwin thought that the breeding of dogs was an example of evolution theory, but no new information is needed to do this. Pedigree dogs exist because they are less genetically diverse than their common ancestor, which is why owners have to spend lots more on vet bills than on mongrels.
Thank you for your apology and I hope that I have cleared up a few things. Remember – I once believed as you did until I was 41, so either I went senile very early or there is a lot of evidence for what I am arguing.
Let’s not have a vote on the senility thing, though…
LikeLike
“Scientists who dismiss out of hand ‘a priori’ the most logical reason should not be allowed near a test tube, especially using taxpayers’ money.”
Absolutely right. Climate change and second-hand smoking “science” is particularly cash-driven.
Pedigree dogs are inbred and a liability, you are correct, but this isn’t natural selection by any stretch of the imagination and cannot be compared to it. It’s canine incest. Natural forces wouldn’t produce, for instance, a chihuahua which can be carried away by a determined crow. Natural selection produces wolves.
There is no scientific data in scripture which is why it requires faith. Not to say that there isn’t wisdom but there isn’t any science except of course for Daniel’s clinical trial (Daniel 1.12-15)
You once believed what I did and I once believed what you did. C’est la vie, anyway there’s a 100% chance that one of us is not as daft as the other. Cheers.
LikeLike
Not all people who are searching for the truth are daft, although doubtless some are, but even they are not as daft as those who don’t bother to make the effort.
Do you know who wrote that?
Me. Just now. Technically, a few seconds ago. I stand corrected in advance. 😆
You’re right about climate change and second-hand smoking “science”…. no, hold on, if there are no absolutes then I can’t be absolutely certain that you are absolutely right – we could both be wrong without knowing it. Nisakiman talks about crutches (below), so maybe the crutch of nicotine and the desire to have freedom from climate change regulations and taxes skews the thinking process?
Why let reality get in the way of comfort? But for the purposes of this exercise I think we can agree that modern ‘science’ is politically driven with the ‘findings’ invented before the data are analysed
But this is also true -especially true – of evolution theory. Why? because governments in the West are seeking an end to Christianity. Albert Pike wrote in the 19th century about destroying it gradually to usher in the Freemasons’ Luciferian religion.
Lenin said, “Our programme necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism.”
The communist world Beast system cannot operate with Christianity (and other faiths, but mainly Christianity) in opposition, so normality has been turned on its head by way of political correctness, fake human rights, environmentalism, healthism and any other means to destroy the family (the Fabians’ aim), the churches, the pubs, absolutes and the other aspects of what makes a cohesive community – or ‘communities’ as the divide and rule orchestrators like to say.
On dogs, not only did Darwin believe that they were proof of (or at least evidence for) evolution theory, but I understand that the Natural History Museum in London still has a display of dogs with the same message.
Many people seem to think that variation within a kind is evolution, but it is not.
You’re correct that it’s not ‘natural’ selection as it has been done by the intelligent design of man, but Darwinists use it as evidence. Children are brainwashed with it so they grow up believing it must be true (a respected museum wouldn’t lie!) and the farce of evolution theory continues from generation to generation.
There is no scientific data in scripture which is why it requires faith.
I’ve already given you an example of the exponential decay curve of the patriarchs born after the Flood.
Scripture isn’t science per se, but to correctly understand the universe you need to use scripture to find out what really happened in the past, e.g. the Flood. If the Flood really happened, what would you expect to find?
Billions of dead things,
Buried in rock layers,
Laid down by water,
All over the earth!
The Flood was, until relatively recently, used to explain many geographical and geological features. The idea of catastrophism seems to be gaining in popularity again as it best explains the fossils (like jellyfish and other delicate creatures which had to be rapidly buried to leave their mark) and many features on the earth, such as were made when the water was receding and creating valleys, mesas, etc. and with all that water, a solution to the problem of how an ice age could happen with ice 1,000s of yards thick covering large areas.
If scientists ignore the reality of the Flood then their whole geological worldview will be very, very wrong – and most do ignore it and scoff at it.
Some ‘experts’ believe that there was once a global flood on Mars, which would explain the features there – but you can bet that they wouldn’t be suggesting that if it was in scripture. Modern ‘science’ = political.
LikeLike
“The communist world Beast system cannot operate with Christianity (and other faiths, but mainly Christianity) in opposition, so normality has been turned on its head by way of political correctness, fake human rights, environmentalism, healthism and any other means to destroy the family (the Fabians’ aim), the churches, the pubs, absolutes and the other aspects of what makes a cohesive community – or ‘communities’ as the divide and rule orchestrators like to say.”
Spot on. Couldn’t agree more, you’ve written a perfect summary of the enemy’s tactics. Let’s leave it at that because we won’t agree on the rest. Good luck.
LikeLike
Thanks – I don’t believe in luck though. I’m not deliberately looking for another argument, but I believe in just desserts (‘karma’ is used these days, but I avoid eastern mythology) and in providence and divine intervention.
The enemy’s tactics are being used in a spiritual war – for souls who will accept this system and accept the Antichrist when he’s unveiled. You can’t have a one world government without a one world religion.
(Yuri Bezmenov talks of the need for a culture to have a religion in order to survive, as has been discovered by a history expert.)
You’ve admitted yourself that we need Christianity, have you not? That means we need Christ – on a personal and corporate level.
I know I’m proselytising again, but time is running out – this global system is very well developed now.
LikeLike
Quite a few anti-schizophrenia drugs show at least some anti-parasitic activity, along with an ability to get past the blood-brain barrier. One hypothesis therefore is that at least some schizophrenia is caused by infection by parasites of some sort. Certainly Toxoplasma gondii has been shown not only to infect humans, but to modify the behaviour of those infected by it; there is a possibility that other parasites are also infecting a few people and are causing brain mis-functions.
The parasites are likely not actually intending to infect humans at all; rather they probably normally infect rodents or some other prey species, and use this behavioural modification to make the animal they infected behave oddly and be more likely to be eaten by whichever predator they also infect (parasites lead complicated life cycles).
LikeLike
Good point and plausible, but on a macro level society has perhaps evolved it’s own predators; they usually wear suits and can be detected mainly by the piles of bodies for which they are responsible and by which they manage to enrich themselves.
“Weapons of mass destruction?”
LikeLike
Will the face of Jesus be on my pizza this evening?
LikeLike
You mean the face as portrayed by medieval artists who never saw Him? Maybe you could rearrange the topping and send a photo to the Daily Mail?
LikeLike
Dont the greenies practice their own green religion? Complete with miracles which only they can see? They don’t bother with science, just the bits which suit them? Like we all do to a lesser degree, we flock and feed our opinions by sharing our own views and of those who think and same the same, whilst ignoring views that are counter. It’s a grand life after all Grommit!
LikeLike
Just like evolutionists. The ‘miracle’ of the Big Bang – nothing exploded and became everything and the ‘miracle’ of non-living chemicals springing into life, etc., etc.
LikeLike
I’m not an atheist, a believer, or even an agnostic. I don’t know what it means to say that God exists (unless it is that a stranger in a bar buys me a treble Caol Ila). Mind you, I do say the Lord’s Prayer when in a plane accelerating down the runway, but only because by the time I’ve remembered it, the plane is 20,000 feet in the sky.
LikeLike
I think historical records from around the time of Adam and Eve (2,000 BC?) are sparse. But the lives of Sultans living in that part of the world a few thousand years later are well documented. These Sultans had multiple wives, numerous children but only one heir. The heir was brought up in the main palace whereas the other children were kept imprisoned nearby. This was to ensure they could not become figureheads for insurrection but also to keep them available as ‘spares’ in case the heir died.
Although these prisons were very secure, they were extremely pleasant to live in. The Sultan’s offspring had a life of luxury with retinues of servants and beautiful, well maintained gardens.
To me, this explains the whole story of Adam and Eve.
LikeLike
There is a genealogy in scripture from Adam to Christ, via genuine historical people, like King David. Some people believe that Adam is a metaphor for ‘mankind’ and was not a real person, yet David, Solomon, etc. were real people.
I wonder what the transitional form is between a metaphor and a real person?!
LikeLike
There is at least a 50-50 chance that there is a God; and thus, a Heaven and a Hell.
Considering the seriousness of being wrong, atheists should be very concerned that they have only a 50% chance of being right.
If believers are wrong, they have lost little.
If atheists are wrong, they are in deep shit for a very long time.
LikeLike
I can’t just say ‘I believe’ when I don’t really. If there is a God, he’ll know I’m faking it and I’ll be in the fiery place anyway.
LikeLike
Ah, but if there is a God, omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, do you really think that part of the deal would be that he demands ritualistic obeisance from his flock? Surely it would be more important that you displayed an innate ‘goodness’, for want of a better word; or perhaps eschewed a path that caused suffering to others. Because let’s admit it, there are several major religions in the world, all with their sub-sections. Are we to assume that God is going to choose one form of ritualistic mumbo-jumbo over another? That would hardly be omniscient. And of course, every sub-section of every religion is convinced that their version is the only true one, and they can’t all be right.
And all that is why I really don’t give religion much thought. I find organised, dogmatic theology nonsensical. I find the rituals of religion absurd.
I live by my own set of morals, and consider myself essentially a ‘good’, or at least, not ‘bad’ person. If there is a day of judgement (of which I have my doubts), I’m sure I will be judged on how I lived my life, rather than how slavishly I adhered to some dogma or other. If I’m wrong, well so be it, but I rather doubt that an omnipotent God would consign a soul to eternal damnation because he happened to be born in a country with the ‘wrong’ religion, or that he had no religion at all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Creator created this world (obviously) so he makes the rules. I think we’d all do the same or we’d end up in a liberal loony-land. Actually, that’s where we are right now because of the moral relativism you practise.
There are said to be as many Christians in China as there are people in the UK, so geographical barriers aren’t what they were.
It’s good that you try to be good, but why bother if there’s nobody to answer to and no afterlife for reward (of whatever variety)? Being ‘good’ (whatever that might mean in a world of moral relativism) isn’t enough – you are accountable to the Creator (see para. 1).
LikeLike
I’m accountable to no-one, Stewart. I pursue what I think to be a ‘good’ path because I feel that is the right way to go about life. I simply don’t enjoy causing problems for other people, and I like to help where I can. I’m a ‘live-and-let-live’ sort of person. I’m not after any reward for the way I live, nor do I expect one. My life is reward in itself. I don’t need any authority (celestial or otherwise) to set the parameters I live by. My moral compass directs me adequately enough.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I’m accountable to no-one, Stewart.”
You are accountable to the Creator. How could you not be?
“I simply don’t enjoy causing problems for other people…”
Neither do I. I sense a loaded statement!
“I’m not after any reward…”
But you’ll get one anyway – of some sorts.
“I don’t need any authority (celestial or otherwise) to set the parameters I live by.”
I guess you don’t pay your taxes, as they are clearly far too large and largely wasted and if a police officer stops you, you tell him he has no authority over you?
“My moral compass directs me adequately enough.”
Gordon Brown had one of those. 😆
LikeLike
Stewart, your faith is in some ways admirable. I have no desire to seek to change or influence you, since you seem to be perfectly content with your belief. Nor do I have any intent to belittle you in any way. You are entitled to think and believe what you want.
However, kindly desist from proselytising to me. I’m old enough and experienced enough (probably much more so than you) to be able to inform my own opinion. You can talk yourself blue in the face about my being accountable to some mythical ‘creator’, but I’m afraid it will fall on deaf ears, so save your breath for more useful things.
I don’t need a crutch. I don’t need a reason to justify my actions. I don’t need anyone to forgive me my sins. I take full responsibility for myself. I can stand on my own, thank you.
As for Gordon Brown, whatever his political and leadership failings, I’m sure he was essentially a decent and honest person.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah, the old ‘crutch’ line. Do you think that trying to be righteous (not as in Leggy’s ‘Righteous’) and being persecuted is a ‘crutch’? If it was a meaningless crutch I would have thrown it away many years ago and lived a life of debauchery and loved it.
Atheism is the crutch. Boy, is it a crutch. It is a religion/worldview/belief system with many mental and spiritual crutches. The refusal to seek the Creator means the ‘atheist’ can live the way he wants: moral relativism, destroyer of civilisation.
If you read your first comment, you might notice that you are proselytising, are you not?
“I can stand on my own, thank you.”
Doubtless you can, what, with all those atheist crutches, but there was a time when you couldn’t (conception to young child) and perhaps again if you live to a ripe old age or get sick, you’ll need physical crutches or constant care.
I also used to believe that I could stand on my own two feet, but that was *pride*.
There is a lot of false pride in atheists, it seems. Pride comes before destruction.
There is also a lot of anger, generally, although you have been more moderate than many, who are fundamentalist atheists, BUT why are they angry? I think it’s cognitive dissonance: they know deep down there is a Creator, but they are fighting against Him .
Do you deny that the war between the spirit and the flesh is real?
LikeLike
Stewart, you don’t get it, do you?
I’m not a fundamentalist anything. I have no desire to project my opinions onto anyone. I don’t care what others want to believe as long as they don’t try to impose their beliefs on me. You can call my attitude atheism if you like, but I never give it a moment’s thought. It’s not something that occupies my mind. I never normally think nor talk about it unless people like you try to ascribe attitudes to me that don’t exist. Your replies to me have been just a series of straw-man arguments and non sequiturs. You have to realise that just because you need a belief system, that doesn’t mean that everyone does. Some of us can manage perfectly well without
LikeLiked by 1 person
Please see below – this thread is becoming too anorexic.
LikeLike
Man is on the Earth to invent/create artificial intelligence. AI will inherit the universe. So where is the alien AI? to paraphrase Enrico Fermi.
LikeLike
It was all a ghastly accident. But one that I am happy to go along with.
LikeLike
Hello Nisakiman,
Stewart, you don’t get it, do you?
I do, though. Let’s go through what you have written.
I’m not a fundamentalist anything.
If you reread what I wrote, you will see that I didn’t call you a fundamentalist; I was referring to others I have encountered.
I don’t care what others want to believe as long as they don’t try to impose their beliefs on me.
Do you ever watch or listen to the BBC? And where do *your* beliefs come from anyway? I would say they are largely from other people whom you have grown up with and associate with.
You can call my attitude atheism if you like, but I never give it a moment’s thought.
Really? I thought that ‘atheists’ were supposed to be ‘free-thinkers’? And how can you dismiss things about which you have never given another thought?
Your replies to me have been just a series of straw-man arguments and non sequiturs.
If you look at my replies to Richard, you’ll see I demolish these accusations.
You have to realise that just because you need a belief system, that doesn’t mean that everyone does. Some of us can manage perfectly well without.
The flaw here, of course, is that everybody has a belief system. Yours, I assume, is in the ‘Big Bang’ and molecules-to-man evolution, even though modern evidence, when viewed objectively (not necessarily an easy thing), shows this to be highly unlikely. You also believe that morality is relative, so you have your own set of views and rules which you could say form a religion of sorts.
Try viewing the Theory of Evolution with suspicion or in a neutral way and look at the supposed evidence for it and reason whether the billions of mutations needed to write our three billion-letter human genome, with all its immense complexity, could really have occurred through natural processes alone, especially when not a single mutation has ever been observed which adds even a little meaningful new information to the genome.
Don’t fall for the ‘anything can happen given enough time’ line. If something is not possible, time is irrelevant.
LikeLike