137
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 297:
Line 297: + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Extraterrestrial life (view source)
Revision as of 23:49, August 26, 2008
, 23:49, August 26, 2008→Salvation rules out extra-terrestrial life?
:::::OK, forgive my ignorance, but then what's the problem with committing your life to Christ and still believing in evolution? Is it a morality issue? Is it that God is less great if people believe that He didn't have a direct hand in our creation?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 11:08, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::OK, forgive my ignorance, but then what's the problem with committing your life to Christ and still believing in evolution? Is it a morality issue? Is it that God is less great if people believe that He didn't have a direct hand in our creation?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 11:08, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
I do not think that we necessarily need a God to decide what is "wicked." There is no reason for me to think that if you, Phillip, lost your faith, you would suddenly just go around murdering people. Of course you wouldn't!
Besides, gods have not always been ethical. Ancient gods demanded blood sacrifices (some cultures thought the sun wouldn't rise without this ritual)! Now, it's also true that the Christian God demanded sacrifices as well (at least until the [[Jesus|Final Sacrifice]]). But the fact that our modern interpretation of God is now so "moral" is a reflection of the overall progression of our ethics as a species.
Yes, the free market works because of "free will," which is present in Christianity but is '''inherent''' in atheism! What's that you say? The brain has ''chemicals''? I personally have no problem with accepting that neurochemistry exists. Repeating the fact over and over does not make it a bad thing. If there weren't any chemicals in our brains, we wouldn't have any thoughts! This is why depression medication works--our moods and thoughts are chemical-based. Besides, the fact that our thoughts are chemical impulses only becomes a problem when those very chemicals have imbalances--which explains very well why some people become deranged!
And what's all this about "random chance." Evolution is NOT random, it operates on a fixed rule which is ALWAYS predictable: Organisms well-suited for their environment will survive, the others will not. It's not a random selection at all.
"What do we need to be saved from?" Ourselves! Collectivism! Totalitarianism! War! It should be obvious to believers and nonbelievers that the world is a sick, sad place. Of course, the notion of Jesus being a Messiah because he said so also operates on the assumption that he actually existed and that the Gospels are a faithful representation of his sayings--despite the fact that the four we have now were chosen hundreds of years after Christ over dozens of others made during His time.
I'm glad you recognize the evidence of outward expansion as just that: evidence of outward expansion. Working backwards mathematically everything seems to converge on a point in time 14 billion years ago. You call it an "atheistic myth," but I call it math.
Also, I'm sorry about the Plantinga quote. My source was his book ''Does God Have a Nature?'' But despite what he says or what anyone else says for that matter, I do not see--except for the purpose of framing a response to Occam's Razor--how anyone anywhere can even think that God could be "simple" if they also think of Him as having a personal quality, being infinite, omniscient, etc. Intelligent design advocates hollering at me about finding a watch in the forest must admit that a watchmaker is usually more complicated than a watch.
"If the meaning is going to be different for everyone, that means that the meaning is relative and invented." You're right! Why is that a problem? Eating ice cream still means something to me ''right here and now'' even if ultimately it will mean nothing. I'm not going to force someone who doesn't want ice cream to eat ice cream. We make a very serious error to state that meaning must be the same for everyone, and that's what it means to believe in a free market!
Also, I am really, really glad that meteorologists decided not to even consider that "Zeus did it". It appears to be paying off well for them. You say naturalism isn't useful for looking at the past, but I disagree, since naturalism is used all the time in retracing the steps of an automobile accident, say, or a murder.
By the way, yes I indeed have an employer but I would prefer some day to be a self-employed writer. There is nothing more inspiring than the image of a self-made individual (I do not understand why so many nonbelievers become socialists; the free market is right up their alley!).
Thank you very much for reading my responses. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 19:49, 26 August 2008 (EDT)