If evolution is true, life is a result of chance.

[GoodOrigamiMan]

That's an old tactic that Chomsky uses too. He thinks that if he can ridicule other people's ideas enough, his will magically become correct by default.

So far I think I’ve been the only one ‘ridiculing’. Everyone else is being nice and trying to help you understand. Please ignore me and focus on what they are saying.

[source]

...the concept of a creator...

And what sort of a concept is the concept of a creator? Let me see you describe it.

[AndrewSternberg]

And what sort of a concept is the concept of a creator? Let me see you describe it.

God is... Contradiction A, Contradiction B, and Contradiction C. Not to mention Contradictions D, E and F.

[Evangelical Capitalist]

Every "argument from creation" for the exitence of a God, or creator, suffers from the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, literally "agument according to ignorance." They all have the form of the following: "The world/universe/creation as we know it could not have arisen naturally according to known laws of science. Therefore, there must have been a supernatural creator." This consists merely of substituting the unknowable (as all supernatural phenomena must be; if their nature was knowable, they wouldn't be considered supernatural) for the unknown. Another version of the above argues that the existence of life, or any other natural fact, while not impossible, should have been ridiculously improbable without a creator. Probability, however, doesn't apply to past events. They happened. To say that they were improbable in light of known factors is to simply ignore that fact. We may not know what caused them to happen, but to attribute that cause to some supernatural entity is to commit the fallacy described above.

[Prae]

Evolution is ridiculous. If it is true then you are admitting that your entire life is a result of random chance. As objectivists how can you handle this? How can you think that your wonderful life is a result of chance? You degrade it and make it something common and crude. In my opinion the reason you do this is to avoid the concept of a creator. Evolution gives an explanation for creation that doesn't involve a creator - how ridiculous.

Does what he has to say even matter?

[Lord Poppycock]

Not at all.

[TheInvisibleArm]

Creation is ridiculous. If it is true then you are admitting that your entire life is a result of an invisble creature that there is no evidence of existing. As objectivists how can you handle this? How can you think that your wonderful life is a result of an inherently inconcievable being? You degrade it and make it something silly and simple. In my opinion the reason you do this is to avoid the concept of a being alone. Creationism gives an explanation for life that doesn't involve any empirical support - how ridiculous.

[fifi]

>>If it is true then you are admitting that your entire life is a result of random chance. As objectivists how can you handle this? <<

If X implies Y.

And X is true,

then Y is true.

How do I handle it?

What alternateive is there but to "handle" the truth?

Would you rather I denied it?

[oaktree]

What alternative is there but to "handle" the truth?

Would you rather I denied it?

Exactly! Religion is all about making up a story that the believer finds more appealing than the truth.

A good example is the idea of "heaven". Many religious people have told me that I should belive in heaven simply because it is much more pleasant to imagine life after death than to imagine that the good life ends in less than a hundred years.

[Areactor]

Honest question

How do you deal with these people? I've come across to many religionist, who after I explain my beliefs to them, shrug and tell me that life is worthless if it isn't platonic. Please somebody, gives the words! Just last night a friend, who is quite skeptical said something to the effect of

"I mean...Is this it? Just this life? Nothing after we're dead? How can you be fine with that? Maybe you can but I can't."

All I could do was shrug and say something to the effect of

"Tough."

[RationalBiker]

I ask, "Why isn't this life enough?"

I'm kinda happy with this life.

VES

[JRoberts]

Honest question

How do you deal with these people? I've come across to many religionist, who after I explain my beliefs to them, shrug and tell me that life is worthless if it isn't platonic. Please somebody, gives the words! Just last night a friend, who is quite skeptical said something to the effect of

"I mean...Is this it? Just this life? Nothing after we're dead? How can you be fine with that? Maybe you can but I can't."

All I could do was shrug and say something to the effect of

"Tough."

For the most part, you don't deal with these people. You certainly are not obligated to. So why bother yourself? My best advice to you is to ignore it, ignore them...walk away. To those who are religious and, becomes you may be on speaking terms with them, you feel it rude to walk away-I would ask them kindly not to bring up the subject, ie. to agree to disagree.

[Evangelical Capitalist]

How do you deal with these people? I've come across to many religionist, who after I explain my beliefs to them, shrug and tell me that life is worthless if it isn't platonic. Please somebody, gives the words! Just last night a friend, who is quite skeptical said something to the effect of

"I mean...Is this it? Just this life? Nothing after we're dead? How can you be fine with that? Maybe you can but I can't."

My response would probably be something to the effect of, "If you're unhappy with your life, that's your problem, not mine. Maybe you've been looking for happiness in the wrong places."

[Randrew]

Still waiting to hear back from you, Child of God. I sincerely hope that we haven't scared you off with our overwhelming opposition to your views ;-)

I think some of us on this forum made replies to you that sounded harsh, belligerent, or sarcastic. Although they were, for the most part, merely returning the favor (since your initial statements were pretty fallacy-ridden, something for which this forum has little patience), you are still free to return with some calm, cogent, *rational* arguments, and, in fact, are encouraged to do so. It's ok if we don't hear from you again, but what I don't want is for you to walk away from this discussion thinking "Man, they're just a bunch of hardened, stubborn atheists! They mostly just made assertions denying god without making the effort to back them up. This just strengthens my anti-evolutionary convictions."

That is not an option.

[Godless Capitalist]

We probably scared him off ... but if not, and for anyone else who is interested, here is a good site for reading about evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

[Evangelical Capitalist]

In case anyone thinks this is just an academic exercise, read this from the latest issue of Wired magazine.

The Crusade Against Evolution

[the tortured one]

I think that the point Childofgod missed, is that an Objectivist's purpose is to percieve reality, not to create it. Objectivism also rejects the presence of any divinity. Thus, because the two major schools of the birth of life is Creationism and Evolutionism, Objectivists logically deduce that we must have evolved from primordial creatures. If a theory arose with substantial evidence that states that life was created by aliens, then that remains condusive to objectivist thought.

I for one do not see evolution as degrading, but then again, I do not think that humans are animals either, at least in the classical sense of the word "animal". On a biological scale I would equate human beings with the first invertebrates that left the ocean to settle on land. Humans are the first of a new classification of organisms catagorized by their rational mind, their use of reason over instinct. The possibility of rational thinking organisms other then humans is not conflicting with objectivism.

The Beauty of Objectivism is that the only axiom it is based on is that A is A.

[DavidV]

LOL.. I don't know how I missed seeing this thread till now.

[Godless Capitalist]

In case anyone thinks this is just an academic exercise, read this from the latest issue of Wired magazine.

The Crusade Against Evolution

Good article. I know Ken Miller; I was one of the editors of a high school biology textbook he wrote.

What concerns me more than curriculum issues are the many areas where evolution is in the curriculum and books but teachers are pressured by local creationists not to teach it.

[the tortured one]

The main fallacy I see with creationism (besides the whole relying on mysticism thing) is this:

Meyer and Wells took the typical intelligent design line: Biological life contains elements so complex - the mammalian blood-clotting mechanism, the bacterial flagellum - that they cannot be explained by natural selection.

complexity can arise from spontaneity. my greatest example is the free market. Think about it, we live in a society where a man who lives in a city hundreds of miles from any farm can make a living selling car irons. That sort of complex market surely couldn't come from relying on a notion of a spontaneous market, surely it could have only come from careful central planning...

if we live in a day and age where a free market can attain unparalleled complexity without any sort of divine celestial guidance, I fail to see why complex biological composition could only have arisen from the guidance of a divine authority.

thats why as a Capitalist I reject any notion of creationism, for the basis of our political thinking relies on the spontaneity of the free market to provide for it's citizens.

[Childofgod]

Hello again people. Sorry for my absence - its not because I was scared off, but that I have just started university and life is pretty much sceduled away between lectures and socialising.

I believe in Jesus as the Christ not through a blind leap of faith but through faith that is reasoned and considered:

For many historical books we only have about 10 copies of them which were made about 1000 years after they were written. We have no orginals. Caeser's Gallic War is one example. Another example is this Roman historian's book (the name of which I can't recall), upon which we gain a lot of knowledge about Roman history. No one doubts that these books are 95% identical to the original copies (all copies have errors in them) - we can be sure that what we read is how it was first written.

Now for the New Testament we have over 20,000 copies written only 300 years after the events they describe. We also have a fragment (of John's Gospel I think)written only 60 years after the original. In the same way we can be sure that what was written has not been changed since the time the original was made and our earliest copy.

So you either believe that the New Testement was all made up or that it all actually happened.

Can you really believe that the apostles made the whole thing up?

(By the way this is not my entire argument as I have ran out of time. I will hopefully be back in the next week. I am looking forward to your responses.)

[tommyedison]

So you either believe that the New Testement was all made up or that it all actually happened.

All religious books were written by ordinary men and were therefore made up.

Can you really believe that the apostles made the whole thing up?

There is no other way it could have been written or created. If not the apostles then Jesus Christ. But someone made the whole thing up.

[y_feldblum]

I have a copy of George R R Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire. It recounts episodes involving giving birth to dragons, prophesy via reading the flames, and also an epic war involving an entire continent.

It's also a work of fiction. George R R Martin did make it all up.

[Who_Is_GV?]

Hello again people. Sorry for my absence - its not because I was scared off, but that I have just started university and life is pretty much sceduled away between lectures and socialising.

I believe in Jesus as the Christ not through a blind leap of faith but through faith that is reasoned and considered:

For many historical books we only have about 10 copies of them which were made about 1000 years after they were written. We have no orginals. Caeser's Gallic War is one example. Another example is this Roman historian's book (the name of which I can't recall), upon which we gain a lot of knowledge about Roman history. No one doubts that these books are 95% identical to the original copies (all copies have errors in them) - we can be sure that what we read is how it was first written.

Now for the New Testament we have over 20,000 copies written only 300 years after the events they describe. We also have a fragment (of John's Gospel I think)written only 60 years after the original. In the same way we can be sure that what was written has not been changed since the time the original was made and our earliest copy.

So you either believe that the New Testement was all made up or that it all actually happened.

Can you really believe that the apostles made the whole thing up?

(By the way this is not my entire argument as I have ran out of time. I will hopefully be back in the next week. I am looking forward to your responses.)

C.O.D.-

I don't know where you stand in your study of Objectivism. What the posters here are attempting to do is change your focus. After reading Ayn Rand's fiction, and then her non-fiction, your entire focus, or paradigm, will change--if you are honest.

Objectivism is A PHILOSOPHY FOR LIVING ON EARTH. Each INDIVIDUAL MAN must CHOOSE to exist or to perish. As "A is A," man can either decide to be man or to be nothing. There is no other choice. If he decides to be man, his ONLY tool of survival, happiness, and fulfillment, qua man, is his MIND.

I have neither the disire nor time to argue the technical aspects of evolution with you here, but what you, C.O.D., are attempting to do is DESTROY THE INDIVIDUAL, namely yourself. You inherit NOTHING. The men of 2,000 years ago have absolutely nothing to do with you. The origin of the universe--other than as a philosophical premise--has absolutely nothing to do with you. Objectivists are not sitting around waiting for the species to evolve. That would be an animalistic form of collectivism. Each of us knows that he exists--as an absolute--and that is ALL that matters. I exist, I can perceive reality, and I choose to exist as a man (as an end in himself), for the purpose of MY own happiness and fulfillment. You will spend your entire life on some sort of mission to determine its origin, and then you will die. What you will miss by your choice of non-existence is life, and all of its benefits.

The answer to the question, "does God exist?" is: IT DOES NOT MATTER. To your life, it does NOT matter. Religion cannot, by force and history and seniority, preempt all of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics/ morality. It cannot assert itself as the starting point. That for their entire history, men have forced others to answer the "God question," does not make the question important. The only question that matters is: "does life exist/ do I exist?" (please note that Objectivists are not agnostic--I'm only giving you the non-technical/ "sense of life" starting point to leave this forum and read Ayn Rand)

You are young, and some day you you will--you should hope--see this clearly. Trust me, you will regret every minute you spent apologizing for living; every minute you spent arguing the historical accuracy of a man named Jesus or Job or Saul; every minute you chose to non-exist instead of using your mind in productive undertakings. You will know that the sum of all virtues is not humility, with rewards for that humble, sad non-life obtained from that wonderful time when your lifeless body enters the grave, but rather pride, and a radiant reverence for your own life. You still have a chance. Don't let it go.

- George

[Brent Rolfe]

Can you really believe that the apostles made the whole thing up?

Where to start?

First of all, there is little doubt that Jesus of Nazareth lived and was a very influential man who was very dangerous to the authorities. There is also little doubt that he had a brother, James, was married and was a member of a very ascetic sect of the Jewish faith, the Essenes.

This, and much more, is archeological/historical verifiable fact.

However, the other attributes ascribed to him are non-verifiable interpretations of what he did. These myths were intended for a largely illiterate, poor audience and quite possibly cobbled together for very political reasons.

Remember, the Jews were around at the time observing this man, yet they didn't then, and don't now, all convert to the emerging Christianity. If he was the remarkable, miracle-worker that the Bible says he was, how could this be?

Some, of many, possible reasons:

1) The Bible is a very edited version of the totality of "gospels" written around the same time. The Council of Nicea (a Catholic body) did the editing and expurgated, for example, all of the gnostic gospels because those gospels wrote of an individual direct knowledge of God, one not needing to be mediated through Jesus. These gospels did not mention any miracles or anything else remarkable about Jesus except for his teachings of how to know God. In these gospels he was a teacher, not the son of God.

2) The translation difficulties surrounding the gospels are myriad and lead to all sorts of misunderstandings. All of the miracles, the virgin birth etc., etc., can be explained in much more realistic ways with a few re-interpretations of key words. The feeding of the five thousand was in all probability Jesus' own wedding reception, when the wine ran out and Jesus, as the groom was responsible for buying more. Since the guests had had to drink water for a while, when the new wine arrived it was Jesus who had "replaced" the water with wine, not literally turned water into wine!

Every "miracle" has an equally plausible, normal/simple explanation. It's just a matter of interpretation. The apostles didn't "make it up" they were mis-interpreted over the centuries and those misinterpretations were approved by the Catholic church for obvious reasons.

ChildofGod, you should read some real biblical history and leave the biblical mythology alone. The Catholic church really has done a wonderful job of pulling the wool over our eyes and once you realise this it will be much better for your life in the long run. In fact, once the wool has been removed Churches in general become nothing more than head offices of giant franchise businesses.

I would recommend "The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception" as a good starting point, it is written for a layman audience by Baigent and Leigh but is reasonably researched. If you want to try something in much more detail and much more academically oriented try "James, Brother of Jesus" by Prof. Robert Eisenman.

BTW, I suffered under the same delusions as you for many years, so my comments are not meant to be demeaning in any way !

Regards