Infidel guy on way of the master radio

[Guest]

i can love God because i truly love Him, or because He commands that I love Him. Ideally, i will do it for both reasons. i may be on shaky ground(if I am, I know that I will be taken to task by others here) but it seems that either way satisfies the requirement, i.e. that I love God.

TK, I agree with you. It is my understanding we are never required to love God other than with agape love which is an act of the will and not based, at least initially, on feelings.

Athiest, if there is no God, and, as Sagan claimed, the cosmos is all there is and we are but an accident, then love of others, other than as far as it might benefit you, is irrational. Only total selfishness makes sense. Paul recognized this. "If the the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die".

An athiest worked for me for a considerable time. He was the most rational unbeliever I ever knew: he was probably the most selfish person I ever knew. I actually liked him; he had a sense of humor and you always knew where he was coming from. No pretending to be anything other than what he was.

You seem to believe we were "wired" to be altruistic. I think someone did it, you say it happened by chance.

If life began by chance and evolution has brought us to our present state, then how can we say Hitler was wrong? He was only trying to help the process along, after all. Well intentioned man. Can't say he was immoral, that would only be an opinion, and irrational at that.

What say you?

[Guest]

Homer,
Wow, you're confusing issues here! First of all life did not arise "randomly" or "by chance". Early life emerged from complex chemical reactions but then competitive pressure of evolution created ever more complex organism with man being at the far end of that complexity spectrum. There is little room for "randomness" in evolution. It's a misunderstanding that is being spread by creationists. Evolution occurs through environmental adaptation and not "by chance". Listen to the podcast titled "Evolution 101" where all those principles are laid out by a doctor of microbiology.

I have no idea how you managed to weave Hitler into the discussion. Are you suggesting that Hitler somehow promoted "survival of the fittest"? You know that "survival of the fittest" is not equal to "survival of the strongest", right? Well, guess what. Since humans survive much better as a community than as single individuals, the "fittest" humans are the most cooperative and not the most violent ones. Besides, in the animal kingdom, few animals kill off their own spiecies though they may compete for mates etc. If anything Hitler (by being genocidal) went right up against the evolutionary path of the human spiecies.

I find your view of the naturalistic philosophy very warped.

Also since you weren't able to resist sharing your anectodal evidence, I worked with an evangelical Christian (Southern Baptist) at my previous job and everyone in the office (myself included) thought that Brian was the most obnoxious person to ever walk the face of the planet. The guy was rude, self righteous, dismissive of others and could not stop prosyletizing for one second. Phew, now we're even on that one

[Guest]

Atheist,

You said:

First of all life did not arise "randomly" or "by chance". Early life emerged from complex chemical reactions but then competitive pressure of evolution created ever more complex organism with man being at the far end of that complexity spectrum.

Either I was not clear or you avoided my point. How did the very first living thing come into existance? There would have been no "competitive evolutionary pressure". And if the first life occured by chance, shouldn't we, as smart as we are, be able to "make one"? It certainly must have been a simple form of life, simpler than anything we know of.

[Guest]

Homer,
Scientists are trying to reconstruct the earliest forms of life and yes I do believe that those lifeforms arose without competitive pressure but rather through environmental processes coupled with lots and lots of time. And yes, those organisms were no doubt very simple, possibly lacking DNA and cell membrane. If you'd like the scientific view of the matter there is a great book by Robert M. Hazen titled "Genesis - The Scientific Quest for Life's origins" (ISBN: 0309094321). I highly recommend it. It lays out what we do and don't know in terms of life formation as of today and where the research is heading.

[Guest]

Atheist, have you read any of Michael Denton's work? He certainly knows his stuff and seems to think macro evolution the way you describe it is impossible. He's also agnostic, so forget about using the "creationist agenda" argument. I've read Denton and I've read his critics. Honestly, his arguments are more convincing.

[Guest]

Atheist, have you read any of Michael Denton's work? He certainly knows his stuff and seems to think macro evolution the way you describe it is impossible. He's also agnostic, so forget about using the "creationist agenda" argument. I've read Denton and I've read his critics. Honestly, his arguments are more convincing.

I've never read Denton's work.

I was reading back to Atheist's replies and I fail to see where he's describing anything that he labels "macro evolution"?

Could you define macro evolution for me, JC?

[Guest]

Asimov,

At another thread, you didn't seem to know the meaning of the word "atheist" ( http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.ph ... 2&start=60 ). Now you profess not to be familiar with the concept of "macro-evolution." I am amazed. I mean no offense, but perhaps you should restrict your involvement to those discussions in which the basic vocabulary is not over your head.

[Guest]

Asimov,

At another thread, you didn't seem to know the meaning of the word "atheist" ( http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.ph ... 2&start=60 ). Now you profess not to be familiar with the concept of "macro-evolution." I am amazed. I mean no offense, but perhaps you should restrict your involvement to those discussions in which the basic vocabulary is not over your head.

Steve, I know perfectly well the meaning of the word "atheist". Where did I profess ignorance of that?

Where am I saying I'm not familiar with the concept of macro-evolution? I'm simply asking him to define it since I've never encountered anyone with the ability to actually define macro-evolution.

I personally would not like to make any assumptions regarding whatever definition JC seems to be using.

For the record, micro and macro evolution are not actual dichotomies.

Perhaps you should not read too deeply into my questions as to the level of ignorance I may or may not have. And I mean no offense by that.

[Guest]

I gauge a man's ignorance by what he professes (or demonstrates himself) not to know. This is not uncharitable. I'm sure you would follow the same policy.

[Guest]

I gauge a man's ignorance by what he professes (or demonstrates himself) not to know. This is not uncharitable. I'm sure you would follow the same policy.

Considering I have not professed a lack of knowledge or boasted any amount of knowledge I cannot see how you could gauge my ignorance.