 |
 |
 |
encouraging ex-Christians
Personal de-conversion testimonials submitted to ExChristian.Net
Sent in by Joe Zamecki
I was raised by my devoutly Christian parents and sent to two private Catholic schools before high school. I don't remember the name of the kindergarten, and it's long since gone anyway, but for grades 1-8, I was sent to Holy Ghost Catholic School, in the Holy Ghost Parish, in the Houston-Galveston Diocese.
From the very beginning, Christianity was mandatory for me, and everyone else I knew. I believed it all at first, mainly because I was a child at the time, but also because until I went to high school, I had never met any non-Christians. My religious education was narrowly Christian in scope, to the exclusion of information about other religions and philosophies 99% of the time. We had religion classes where we studied the Bible (Good News Version) and another religion textbook. Religion classes were dominated by blatant Christian indoctrination. Around the time I was in fourth grade, I began to think more critically about religion and the clergy members around me. I asked myself questions about Christianity, instead of asking clergy members or teachers because I knew the questioning was absolutely not wanted. This was made clear to me over the years with the constant push for us students to just believe. The clergy members added to the silence here by making themselves very frightening to the children. This was the old classic tough nun and priest schooling.
Our nuns and priests taught classes and made up almost half of the school faculty. They were all on mission directly from Ireland. Now, no offense to Irish people, but these nuns and priests were used to living in Ireland, a land that time seems to have forgotten in regards to individual physical and mental liberty. (It's just a really conservatively run nation, that's all.) Well these were serious Catholic Irish clergy members, and the key word here is: strict. They seemed to be brand new to American-style liberties and free-thinking.
All of the physical punishment techniques you've ever heard of were employed by the clergy teachers, but also by the lay teachers. Corporal punishment was a hallmark of Holy Ghost School, when I was there. I was paddled at least five times, beginning when I was in first grade. And it was always for some insignificant infraction.
In sixth grade, we were using the Bible more and more in religion classes and in organizing school masses. (church services were held every Tuesday during school.) We were never required or even asked to read the entire Bible. I found this to be very suspicious, so I read it all. The first time, I didn't understand a lot of the terminology. Then I read it a second time after having learned more about those odd sayings like "...lie with a man, as with a woman," and "cast out." I learned that phrases and sayings like that in the Bible have deepear meanings than their literal words imply.
In reading the Bible, I figured out that the Bible is crap. It's not good literature, it's bad. It's not historical, it's mythical. It's not even good mythology. But most of all, it's totally unbelievable.
Then in seventh grade, we began to take physical science classes, and that involved the teaching of the theory of evolution. I was inspired by nature to begin with, but this class really put reality into perspective for me. Science class there began just like all other classes throughout the day, with a prayer. Then we sat down and learned about how the Earth is billions of years old, and life has been changing ever since it began here. It was the first school classroom I ever went to that had jars of dead animals all around the room. I thought, HERE is where evidence counts, and questions get answered.
In science class we also learned about the scientific experimental method. I eventually got around to putting "God" into the method, and it didn't work. It didn't help me answer anything, and in fact, having "God" in the question at all made the question open and unfinished. I tried to figure out how someone could prove a god exists using this method, and couldn't. I tried to find out who in the world was also trying to apply this method to "God" and I couldn't find anyone who ever did. At least not at the time, and with the biased library in our school.
Years of instituted silence, indoctrinated confusion, a serious problem with lacking answers and answers that were lacking, corporal punishment, a terrible playbook, and a quick glimpse of how honesty-minded scientists find answers to tough questions...all together convinced me that Christianity is a scam. But at that point, I was just moving from agnosticism to "immature Atheism." I was new to it all and had never read anything positive about Atheism up until then. The Bible is the ONLY book I can credit with helping me become an Atheist.
I tried other Christian churches and found the same ignorance, arrogance, and blatant lying in every one of those other churches. I studied other major religions and a few cults, and found the same basic problems in them too. After a while of studying religions, I REALIZED that I couldn't accept any of them.
I never chose to become an Atheist, or even to lose my religion. It simply happened. I couldn't help it. My honesty, courtesy of my parents, has prevented me from accepting wild and irresponsible claims like the ones presented by religions.
When I realized that I didn't believe in religions' claims anymore, I was about to graduate from that school. When graduation day came, and I walked up to receive my diploma, I remember thinking, "Does this mean we get to meet God now?" I didn't ask it...
Of course not. This is the lesson that taught me: If you want something done, and it's important, you need to either do it yourself, or find another human or humans to help. You can't expect for problems to be solved and eliminated by an invisible friend.
I'd love to hear from Christians who think they can convert me! Some Atheists don't like that, but I do, now that I'm all grown up and experienced. Please feel free to e-mail me: joezamecki at hotmail dot com
My Texas activism site is: www.atheists.org/tx
Also check out my Youtube videos: www.youtube.com/profile?userªjoeyjo
Thanks for reading and keep the skepticism!
I was raised by my devoutly Christian parents and sent to two private Catholic schools before high school. I don't remember the name of the kindergarten, and it's long since gone anyway, but for grades 1-8, I was sent to Holy Ghost Catholic School, in the Holy Ghost Parish, in the Houston-Galveston Diocese.
From the very beginning, Christianity was mandatory for me, and everyone else I knew. I believed it all at first, mainly because I was a child at the time, but also because until I went to high school, I had never met any non-Christians. My religious education was narrowly Christian in scope, to the exclusion of information about other religions and philosophies 99% of the time. We had religion classes where we studied the Bible (Good News Version) and another religion textbook. Religion classes were dominated by blatant Christian indoctrination. Around the time I was in fourth grade, I began to think more critically about religion and the clergy members around me. I asked myself questions about Christianity, instead of asking clergy members or teachers because I knew the questioning was absolutely not wanted. This was made clear to me over the years with the constant push for us students to just believe. The clergy members added to the silence here by making themselves very frightening to the children. This was the old classic tough nun and priest schooling.
Our nuns and priests taught classes and made up almost half of the school faculty. They were all on mission directly from Ireland. Now, no offense to Irish people, but these nuns and priests were used to living in Ireland, a land that time seems to have forgotten in regards to individual physical and mental liberty. (It's just a really conservatively run nation, that's all.) Well these were serious Catholic Irish clergy members, and the key word here is: strict. They seemed to be brand new to American-style liberties and free-thinking.
All of the physical punishment techniques you've ever heard of were employed by the clergy teachers, but also by the lay teachers. Corporal punishment was a hallmark of Holy Ghost School, when I was there. I was paddled at least five times, beginning when I was in first grade. And it was always for some insignificant infraction.
In sixth grade, we were using the Bible more and more in religion classes and in organizing school masses. (church services were held every Tuesday during school.) We were never required or even asked to read the entire Bible. I found this to be very suspicious, so I read it all. The first time, I didn't understand a lot of the terminology. Then I read it a second time after having learned more about those odd sayings like "...lie with a man, as with a woman," and "cast out." I learned that phrases and sayings like that in the Bible have deepear meanings than their literal words imply.
In reading the Bible, I figured out that the Bible is crap. It's not good literature, it's bad. It's not historical, it's mythical. It's not even good mythology. But most of all, it's totally unbelievable.
Then in seventh grade, we began to take physical science classes, and that involved the teaching of the theory of evolution. I was inspired by nature to begin with, but this class really put reality into perspective for me. Science class there began just like all other classes throughout the day, with a prayer. Then we sat down and learned about how the Earth is billions of years old, and life has been changing ever since it began here. It was the first school classroom I ever went to that had jars of dead animals all around the room. I thought, HERE is where evidence counts, and questions get answered.
In science class we also learned about the scientific experimental method. I eventually got around to putting "God" into the method, and it didn't work. It didn't help me answer anything, and in fact, having "God" in the question at all made the question open and unfinished. I tried to figure out how someone could prove a god exists using this method, and couldn't. I tried to find out who in the world was also trying to apply this method to "God" and I couldn't find anyone who ever did. At least not at the time, and with the biased library in our school.
Years of instituted silence, indoctrinated confusion, a serious problem with lacking answers and answers that were lacking, corporal punishment, a terrible playbook, and a quick glimpse of how honesty-minded scientists find answers to tough questions...all together convinced me that Christianity is a scam. But at that point, I was just moving from agnosticism to "immature Atheism." I was new to it all and had never read anything positive about Atheism up until then. The Bible is the ONLY book I can credit with helping me become an Atheist.
I tried other Christian churches and found the same ignorance, arrogance, and blatant lying in every one of those other churches. I studied other major religions and a few cults, and found the same basic problems in them too. After a while of studying religions, I REALIZED that I couldn't accept any of them.
I never chose to become an Atheist, or even to lose my religion. It simply happened. I couldn't help it. My honesty, courtesy of my parents, has prevented me from accepting wild and irresponsible claims like the ones presented by religions.
When I realized that I didn't believe in religions' claims anymore, I was about to graduate from that school. When graduation day came, and I walked up to receive my diploma, I remember thinking, "Does this mean we get to meet God now?" I didn't ask it...
Of course not. This is the lesson that taught me: If you want something done, and it's important, you need to either do it yourself, or find another human or humans to help. You can't expect for problems to be solved and eliminated by an invisible friend.
I'd love to hear from Christians who think they can convert me! Some Atheists don't like that, but I do, now that I'm all grown up and experienced. Please feel free to e-mail me: joezamecki at hotmail dot com
My Texas activism site is: www.atheists.org/tx
Also check out my Youtube videos: www.youtube.com/profile?userªjoeyjo
Thanks for reading and keep the skepticism!
My path was very similar to yours, except that a few years ago, God's grace touched me and allowed me to believe that the Bible is in fact, God's revelation to man. The only thing I can say about your present spiritual state, is that I hope you at least tried to seek the Truth on your own. If you relied solely on those nuns & priests (as I had) and simply accepted evolution because of those few lectures in high school, you're really missing the big picture.
I've read books that atheists here claim to be the "final" word against God. Books from Sam Harris, Dan Barker and Richard Dawkins. And I will continue to read these books because I find it interesting to try and understand what facts have convinced people to become atheists. If you do (or have) read such books, I would also recommend you read a few other books to help you get the full picture. Try reading Michael J. Behe's "Darwin's Black Box", Kenneth R. Miller "Finding Darwin's God", C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton and maybe start with some of Lee Strobel's books for an easier read. Personally, I would also examine what the Saints have to say. St. Augustine, St. Anne Catherine Emmerich, St. Thomas Aquinas are some I've enjoyed.
Sadly, even a believer like myself, was uncomfortable with the valedictorian in your video. I was uncomfortable because I don't have the courage to speak in such a way before so many people. It takes courage to speak so candidly about the need for repentance but the world definitely needs more people that shout it from the roof tops. She has a special gift of compassion for all her fellow students but, as demonstrated by comments on the video, she comes across as foolish. God's love and mercy are so immense we could never fathom the feelings He has for us all. This person's plea is just a mild reflection of the way God is begging us to come to Him. We all need to stop loving everything in this world except Him, the source of Love itself.
God bless,
Marc
http://www.tlig.org/
http://www.garabandalny.com/
I see you are still trying to pedal your own personal theology here (although, in this instance, it appears that Joe did invite such comments, so I won't harp on that too much). I see you are still completely oblivious to the fact that telling "just-so" stories is not the same as making a cogent argument or proffering evidence. Where is your evidence for this god, Marc? Before you launch into more stories about how your god did this or that, please show us some credible evidence for her existence. Before you try to convince me that god wears a purple evening gown with patent leather pumps, I want to see some EVIDENCE for there actually BEING a god. Sorry if I sound like a broken record; just try to imagine how you sound to me (and multiply by ten).
Marc: "The only thing I can say about your present spiritual state, is that I hope you at least tried to seek the Truth on your own. If you relied solely on those nuns & priests (as I had) and simply accepted evolution because of those few lectures in high school, you're really missing the big picture."
Marc, your rhetoric is full of presumption and arrogance. You hope that Joe "at least tried to seek the truth" (implying that you have, and that you have found it) and you think people "accept evolution" because of "those few lectures in high school" (whereas you have a much deeper understanding, apparently). Can you not admit the possibility that Joe (and countless others) have sought the "truth" at least as earnestly and vigorously as you have, and has reached a different conclusion than you have? Can you admit that possibility, Marc? Please, I would like an answer.
Marc: "I've read books that atheists here claim to be the 'final' word against God...."
STOP. Who says ANY book is the "final" word on ANYTHING (except for fundamentalists, that is)? Please, either tell me specifically who said this, or admit that you are erecting a straw man. Thanks.
Marc: "...Books from Sam Harris, Dan Barker and Richard Dawkins. And I will continue to read these books because I find it interesting to try and understand what facts have convinced people to become atheists...."
Again, Marc, you cannot see the forest for the trees. It's not that there are "facts" proving there is no "god". Rather, there are NO facts that demonstrate that THERE IS A GOD. Do you see the difference? If you would be so kind, please write that down on a 3x5 card and refresh your memory before visiting us again. It would save us all a lot of time. Let's review: there are NO facts that disprove the existence of leprechauns living under my front porch, yet that is NOT sufficient reason to believe they are there. However, what is relevant is that there are NO facts indicating the PRESENCE of such beings. Therefore, I do not conduct my life as though there were leprechauns living under my front porch, no do I conduct my life as though there were any other invisible entities flitting about, and for the VERY SAME REASON. Please tell me if anything I just said is unclear.
Marc: "If you do (or have) read such books, I would also recommend you read a few other books to help you get the full picture...."
I and many others here have read book cases full of books that examine religion from every angle. I can tell you first-hand, after very extensive and earnest study spanning several decades, that the arguments put forth by religionists are extraordinarily weak; even the best of the apologists (which would include Plantinga, Clark, and Moreland, in my opinion) fail to gain even the smallest foothold despite laudable efforts. I've studied Behe and Denton too. Their science is shoddy, despite their credentials. Behe himself admits that he has never tried to verify anything in the lab and that, indeed, there is almost nothing that can be verified.
But, having said that, yes everybody, PLEASE DO read the best that Christians have to offer. Don't even bother with the tin-plated apologists like Strobel and McDowell. Go straight for the best and most honest apologists, and read what they have to day in detail if you have not already done so (and most here have). Once you have truly availed yourself to ALL sides of the theological arguments, you will be in a position to form a meaningful opinion--one that can be defended. I have done that, and I will continue to do so for the remainder of my days. In my opinion, there is virtually no doubt that the apologists have a losing argument. They have become masters at wishful thinking and creatively deploying logical fallacies that exploit people's innate biases.
Marc: "...It takes courage to speak so candidly about the need for repentance but the world definitely needs more people that shout it from the roof tops...."
Perhaps it goes without saying, but I strenuously disagree with you. First, I think it takes more courage to face reality than to cloak one's self in mystical magical thinking. And, no, we don't need more people exhibiting such histrionics during commencement speeches, but we could desperately use more people who are willing to use their minds to expose the mysticism that still engulfs our society--to our mutual detriment.
What is God's grace?
What is God's mercy?
What is a Holy Ghost?
What does a Holy Ghost look like?
What does a God look like?
What is a spirit?
Thanks in advance for your answers.
The slaughter of whole ethnic groups in the ot is revolting, at least it is for those with their frontal lobe intact. But pat robertson, and I think, lee strobel, have an explaination. You see, god was being merciful. The descendents of those heathen idolators would have gone to hell, so god kills off the present generation, sends them to hell, and spares future generations.
By now, most of you are ready to hurl your BLT and chips. The difference between us and you, unblinded, is that we are able to question your jewgod; his bloodthirsty vengeance and his hell. xian apology makes no sense because you god makes no sense IN THE FIRST PLACE. We have questioned the source, and I, for my part, have little interest in quibbling over details and isssues.
And by the way, gk chesterton was a pompous asshole.
I hope you actually read my original testimonial, because it doesn't sound like you did. I mentioned investigating other religions besides Christianity, and you act like there's only one religion to choose from. If you're arriving at that one religion without checking out other competing religions, no offense, but that's foolish. You're only going with the one that suits you, not your god.
I also said that the only book I can credit with helping me become an Atheist was the Bible. I don't care what other prominent Atheists write in their books, it won't make religion any more of a scam than it already is. Religious people finalized that centuries ago. And if the Bible won't convince me that your religion is correct, how can any other book by a Christian do it? How arrogant that is! Let your God speak for himself, if he can.
Otherwise, if you speak on his behalf, without demanding that he speak himself, your religion exists to satisfy YOU. Just like that orgasmic valedictorian. She worships for the thrill of it, which is self-gratification. There's nothing new in the Christian American lexicon. This is so easy! :o)
Well we've just had the first US Congressperson to swear in using a Koran, because they're Muslim. In the Texas State Legislature, they just had the first ever Muslim prayer said at the start of the Senate session. Those two events angered a lot of conservative Christian politicians. Plus mosques are popping up all over America, and I say to the Christians who don't like it: "Welcome to our world! :o)~"
unblinded,
I would love to know exactly what happened that could suddenly make you believe such a thing as this. I can understand how you might believe in a higher power if a loved one was suddenly cured after you prayed, or something similar.(I wouldn't believe but I could understand). But for the life of me I can't figure out what God could possibly do to make someone accept the Bible, in total, as truth...just like THAT.
Great testimony, mate! Although I come from a Protestant background, my deconversion story is extremely similar. Looking at the Bible, looking for evidence, and the unremittant search for objective truth ultimately led to rejecting the Christian faith.
Now as for Marc, I have very little to add to Jim's well-written rebuttal but something stuck out.
"...Kenneth R. Miller "Finding Darwin's God"...
I find it extremely amusing that you mention Dr. Miller (and Behe for that matter), Marc. Both are evolutionists. Behe just happens to think that natural selection can't fully account for complexity, and so is a proponent of design. And Miller disagrees with Behe concerning design, by the way.
Also, I'm surprised that you would recommend a book like "Finding Darwin's God" based on your previous attacks on evolution. In fact, I wonder if you've read it. In it, Dr. Miller basically tries to reconcile evolution to faith from the perspective of his acceptance of evolution. That is, he champions evolution and argues that faith is fully compatible with it. I'm in the middle of it right now, and I have to say that his position is decidedly at odds with yours as you've presented it elsewhere.
Then again, perhaps you are changing your position?
If you want links to what either Dr. Miller or Dr. Behe have said concerning evolution and complexity, I've got them. Just let me know.
And Marc, you should really follow Joe's advice and re-read this testimony. Joe says he did seek the truth on his own. That you missed this part is just another example of how you're choosing to ignore what's been said or are suffering from extreme cognitive dissonance.
Have a nice day!
First, I never borrowed your kettle.
Second, the kettle already had a hole in it when I borrowed it.
Third, I returned the kettle undamaged.
In other words, deploy every argument against a position you wish to defeat, whether or not those arguments actually make sense together. Marc does this by claiming: First, evolution is bunk, second, it's compatible with faith, and third, it proves that ID must be true!
"God's grace touched me and allowed me to believe that the Bible is in fact, God's revelation to man"
"God's love and mercy are so immense we could never fathom the feelings He has for us all"
Joe said that the Bible was the book that led to his deconversion from Christianity. I have heard similar comments from other people, in this as well as other forums. I myself became Ex-Christian [have long stopped considering myself a Catholic], just by reading the Old Testament accounts.
I fully concur with people who think of the Bible God as a capricious, malevolent, genocidal maniac, a sadomasochist, an egotist with a freakish [or psychopatic?]appetite for male animal meat and blood. Despite his so-called lovingness and omni-powers [coming wholly from the wishful imagination of his followers] he was, as many of the OT stories reveal, killing merrily and unjustifiably, and was very dependent on humans for assistance.
Jim Arvo criticized you for appearing unable to see the forest for the trees, and I think Jim is absolutely right. Are you suffering from cognitive dissonance? The Bible is clear. The way the Bible God has been portrayed, the pejorative terms used above to describe him would appear to be grossly inadequate.
It is apparent from the comments made so far, from yourself and others, that you are not capable of understanding what is presented to you. You appear to be someone who is blinded rather than unblinded.
I do not believe you've read any of the books you cite. You couldn't have. I de-converted shortly after reading 4 books by C.S. Lewis.
So, either you are lying or you are dense enough not to see what's going on with mythstianity.
I read in Proverbs 2 that we are supposed to seek wisdom as if we are looking for buried treasure and hidden silver. Key words here being buried and hidden. Which meant to me that we don't know exactly where it is and we need to look in unexpected locations.
Now if we jump to John 5:39 Jesus tells the pharisees that study the scripture because they think that in them they have life. Meaning they were so focused on their holy book they could not see God. I did not want to be like one of them. They built all sorts of traditions and explanations up around a set of confusing and contradictory books, and Jesus tells them they completely fucked it up. Again, I did not want to be like them.
I looked at the large industrial-like christian church and saw all the traditions and explanations they put into place to explain why their god could be an asshole if he wanted to, and why he doesn't really do anything when you pray to him. It seemed as if modern fundamentalists had become the modern day pharisees.
Then when Jesus was about to leave and the disciples were freaking out, Jesus said he would send a "Helper". He did not say "I'll have a bunch of guys write a book for you that will cover it all."
So at this point it looked to me as if Jesus was saying "I would not write a book even if you wanted me to. You guys would totally screw it up even if I did."
Now combine this with all the crap, evil, superstition and just plain goofiness that people in the bible attribute to God, and I saw that if there was a God and a Jesus, then the bible was not written or inspired by them.
To be honest, I still vacillate now between being a deist, an atheist and a unitarian. I am still open to the idea of there being something bigger, and maybe even Jesus in some form, but the god and Jesus of the bible??? I don't think so.
But my point for Marc and other christians is that Jesus himself, in their own bible, did not like the way large groups of people handled holy books and organized religion in general. A good point to remember for a large group of people with at holy book and an organized religion.
I think you may need to embrace the mystery and give up your idea of a handy little book that gives you all the answers.
Lance
I am glad to see another Texan that has come to the same conclusion as I have. I don't feel so 'alone' now. :)
You really think that things don't change? Not even you? Please. Every few years, your entire body is completely replaced, cell by cell. That's plenty of change right there for you to admit that things change. All life forms go through constant change. You just have to take some science courses and do some hands on research yourself. Please don't close your eyes to evidence just because you don't know how to obtain that evidence. Any thinking person can do the science necessary to verify that change is universal, but you can't just assume it's all wrong and be right. It's the best method for truth-seeking out there. Evidence!
My apologies, glad to here that you sought the truth on your own. I mistakenly focused more on your comments for evolution and science. With a statement like "I thought, HERE is where evidence counts, and questions get answered." I figured you might benefit to look as some of the books mentioned for extra facts on evolution. On that point though, seeking the truth, do you really believe we can find it through purely human efforts?
For flicka,
Some of my personal testimony can be seen in my March 13 & 17 posts in the "Following God's Example" testimonial at this site. I have more personal testimony in the "Insulting to atheists" testimonial.
Hi J.C.,
Good job, you are correct on the oddity of my inclusion of Miller as a recommended reading. I am embarrassed to admit that when I listed those books, I included Miller's book, which I had just starting reading. It looked good so far (nice cover and critiques).
J.C. said: "I find it extremely amusing that you mention Dr. Miller (and Behe for that matter), Marc. Both are evolutionists."
I don't know where you get this from but Behe is decidedly not an evolutionist, his entire book works to prove the existence of irreducible complexity. His conclusion for intelligent design is supported with facts on irreducible complexity throughout "Darwin's Black Box".
To quote his conclusion for intelligent design, page 204 of 10th anniversary edition:
"With these preliminary questions out of the way, we can conclude that the biochemical systems discussed in Chapter 3 through 6 were designed by an intelligent agent. We can be as confident of our conclusion for these cases as we are of the conclusion that a mousetrap was designed, or that Mt. Rushmore or an Elvis poster were designed. There is no question of degree for those systems, such as for the man in the moon or the shape of Italy. Our ability to be confident of the design of cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles as our ability to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components."
Behe does speculate that a designer may have created these complex biological systems billions of years ago but this does not take away from the fact that he concludes with intelligent design. Never does he wander toward a belief in evolution that compares to what you and other atheists at this site believe. On page 227 Behe says:
"Perhaps a speculative scenario will illustrate the point. Suppose that nearly four billion years ago the designer made the first cell, already containing all the irreducibly complex biochemical systems discussed here and many others. (One can postulate that the designs that were to be used later, such as blood clotting, were present but not "turned on". In present-day organisms plenty of genes are turned off for a while, sometimes for generations, to be turned on at a later time.)"
This is about as close to being an "evolutionist" that Behe comes. Not sure were you got your facts J.C.? Regardless of the way they contradict each other, I respect Miller and Behe, not because their both Roman Catholics as I am, but because they are working to reconcile science with God's creation. Having now better understood the different arguments presented by both of them, I have to say that Behe's book is far superior.
On your suggestion that I may be "suffering from extreme cognitive dissonance", let me present you with a better example of cognitive dissonance.
This is dialogue with Jim (in another thread and this one):
In "Warning to Fellow Christians".
On March 31 Marc wrote: "There is nothing that I could ever present to you that would help you find the truth...."
On April 1 Jim responded with: "Truer words were never spoken! Yes, Marc, believe it or not I completely agree with what you just said. There is absolutely nothing that you have to offer in the way of finding "truth", so you are absolutely correct to assert that you cannot help me in that endeavor."
On April 1 Jim responded with: "Can you please just leave now?"
In a subsequent post April 1: "Now, if you can give me some legitimate reason why your particular deity, among ALL other deities, past and present, is the real deal, and really truly exists, then and only then can we move on to whether this fantastic being has feelings or not, and then perhaps even what those feelings might be."
In "I never chose to lose my religion"
On April 10 Jim wrote: "Where is your evidence for this god, Marc?"
From her continual questioning, it's quite clear that Jim is not able to accept our agreed conclusion on April 1st that nothing I could present her would reveal the truth, as I and other believers see it. The facts are that I actually don't mind being questioned, I welcome it...but with at least some respect. Jim has continued to post with heavy condescension and unwarranted arrogance and for this reason I am losing patience with her.
You ask for evidence Jim, try re-reading "Darwin's Black Box" and pay attention to all his words. This book, unlike the stuff you've recommended is based on the facts for the complexity of life. I'd like to know where your proof is? At least I go and look for it [proof for atheism] in the books you recommend....but there's nothing to be found. Behe's logic is sound and irrefutable. Richard Dawking has written that anyone who denies evolution is either "ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked-but I'd rather not consider that)". With a quote like this, aside from his books' complete lack of proof, is this the kind of "scientist" many of you anchor your atheism on? Please try and find me a similar quote from any of the Christian authors I've mentioned. Good luck.
Jim wrote April 10: "I've studied Behe and Denton too. Their science is shoddy, despite their credentials. Behe himself admits that he has never tried to verify anything in the lab and that, indeed, there is almost nothing that can be verified."
Jim, I find this statement comical. I compare it to someone saying that a brain surgeon doesn't know what he's doing because he's never dressed the wound of his patients. Of course not, the hospital nurses do this work! I work with scientists and all of those that own the labs rarely, if ever, do any lab work. Their staff do the work. And even if Behe's lab techs had done all the work to substantiate his book, the data he presents is not refuted by anyone. The function of all of the complex systems he describes are accepted by all experts in his field, theists and atheists alike! So....what's your point?
I don't know if you actually found this "argument" from his book or some Google search but let me quote, for everyone, the source from Behe's book, page 185:
"Scientists are people, too, so we can ask how scientists know what they say they know. Like everybody else, scientists know things either through their own experience or through authority. In the 1950s, Watson and Crick saw a diffraction pattern produced by shining X-rays on fibers of DNA and, using their mathematical abilities, determined that DNA was a double helix. They knew by doing, from their own experiments. As an undergraduate I learned DNA is a double helix, but I have never done an experiment to show it; I rely on authority. All scientists rely on authority for almost all of their scientific knowledge."
Wow, based on this quote Behe's clearly incompetent, he's never done the experiment to learn that DNA is a double helix [please note sarcasm]. Well, enough on that one...
You'll have to find it in your heart to pardon my impatience because today, I just had enough.
May His mercy be upon us all...
Marc
http://www.tlig.org/
http://www.garabandalny.com/
You've said many things that I wish to respond to, but one jumps to the front of the queue. You quoted a reply of mine, apparently as an example of cognitive dissonance. It's such a lovely example, I'm going to quote your quote of me, but with emphasis added:
Marc: "On April 1 Jim responded with: 'Truer words were never spoken! Yes, Marc, believe it or not I completely agree with what you just said. There is absolutely nothing that you have to offer in the way of finding 'truth', so you are absolutely correct to assert that you cannot help me in that endeavor."
My statement was in response to your assertion that you could not help me to find the truth. It seems you have completely misunderstood my comment. You read it as being an admission that I am not open to your way of thinking, or to any evidence or insights that you have to offer (presumably due to my own cognitive dissonance). That is not what my statement asserted or implied. As I went on to explain more fully, what you have to offer is of no use to me, or to anyone else, as you steadfastly refuse to examine your own presuppositions. Any statement that is offered dogmatically, with no possibility of examining it, is only as good as its source--that is, it cannot stand on its own. Therefore, unless or until you can offer some reason that we should simply believe your stories (and, presumably, not those offered by adherents of other religions), then your dogma is not useful toward discerning what is true.
So, inadvertently, Marc, you did in fact provide an excellent example of cognitive dissonance--your own. You failed to see the plain meaning of my statement, most likely because it conflicted with your view of the world. Thanks for the textbook example.
I'll respond to more of Marc's distortions later. Her remarks are filled with distortions, so it's going to take a while to spell them all out to her.
Lehigh University (Where Behe teaches) Department Position on Evolution and "Intelligent Design":
The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.
The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department.
It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.
link
Then, considering you've read many of my posts, you should save yourself the effort and stop asking for this evidence of God from little ole' me. Is this reaching you yet or must you continue to twist everything to suit your "arguments". I don't claim to be an expert, I use sound expertise like Behe (and others) to demonstrate the case for creationism. You, on the other hand, provide nothing even remotely close to what Behe has presented. Oh yes, I almost forgot, he hasn't proved anything in the lab. Sheesh...
Thanks WM, for confirming the case that Behe is NOT a proponent for Darwinian evolution.
Christ lived. Christ resurrected and continues to live today. You absolutely don't need to believe any of it but if you're going to debate the issue, let's all continue to be respectful of each other's views and to discuss the issue with as much objective reasoning as everyone of us can muster.
Gob bless,
Marc
http://www.tlig.org/
http://www.garabandalny.com/
1) When I said that Behe never tested his ideas in the lab, you had to take that as a literal statement about Behe donning a lab coat and physically doing the experiments himself. How ridiculous. Scientists "test their ideas in the lab" rarely by donning lab coats but by designing experiments to test the ideas. It's a figure of speech, Marc. Is that a figure of speech you are unfamiliar with? You'll note that I also said that there was virtually nothing that could be tested in Behe's theories. You did not respond to that. What experiment, Marc, did Behe ever propose that could confirm or disconfirm the existence of a designer? His argument for a designer is merely an analogy--there is no testable hypothesis there. He *did* offer a testable hypothesis with regard to irreducible complexity, but there is a gulf the size of the universe between that and the existence of a designer.
Here is the type of thing Behe offers in terms of testable hypotheses: Process X or structure Y is "irreducibly complex" (by his definition) in that if we were to remove any single component, the entire structure or process would fail to operate. To state that the process for blood clotting, or the functioning of the flagellum, is "irreducibly complex" is eminently testable. One could experimentally remove or otherwise disable each identifiable component individually, and see what happens. Does the process or structure then fail to operate as it did before? One could conceivably design experiments that would test this very idea. Behe never designed such experiments, much less had any underlings carry them out. (In fact, these are not trivial experiments.) Let us presume however, for the moment, that Behe is exactly correct: if we remove one enzyme from the blood clotting cascade, or one protein from the flagellum, then the process/structure fails to operate. Then we could indeed put Behe's label of "irreducibly complex" on the process/structure. Many scientists are happy to do just that. In fact *I* am happy to do just that in some instances.
Now, here's the big question. What does that show? Does it prove that all the components would have needed to evolve independently via natural selection before they could confer an advantage to the organism? No! Not by a long shot, and this is precisely where Behe's argument disintegrates into non-scientific mumbo jumbo. Not only is this assertion inherently untestable (by any means known today), but there are well-documented counterexamples. For example, the mammalian inner ear is "irreducibly complex" by Behe's definition, yet its formation from the jaw bones of amphibians is well documented in the fossil record. There are organisms that have "learned" to digest nylon using a complex multi-step process built from components that were previously put to other uses. Moreover, there exist much more primitive flagella than Behe was aware of, and the proteins of even very complex flagella serve multiple purposes within the cell. Behe has also ignored the fact that poorly-functioning processes may still be beneficial the organism. Poorly operating blood clotting is far preferable to no clotting at all. All of these facts are relevant to the hypothesis that such things can indeed come about through natural selection.
So, I give Behe a bit of credit for proposing something that is testable; however, the testable hypothesis is rather inconsequential. The mere existence of an irreducibly complex process or structure does absolutely nothing to disprove natural selection, let alone to prove the existence of a designer.
2) You've now quoted my request that you "go away" along side my requests for evidence several times. Is that a contradiction? Sure, I'll happily admit that. You are very annoying, Marc. I often wish you would go away because I don't have unlimited time to write these long responses. But if you decide to stick around, then I'm going to keep asking you for evidence of your god. So far, you've offered nothing credible, and you do not even appear to acknowledge the fact that some evidence is called for.
3) You want evidence for atheism, and you claim that the books I recommended (which books?) contain none. As I've explained several times now, asking for "evidence for atheism" is a non sequitur. It indicates that you are unclear on the very notion of atheism. I am an atheist, Marc, because I see no reason whatsoever to believe that your god exists, or any other god for that matter. There is no way to prove the non-existence of some entity based on empirical data (that is, while it is possible to do so in mathematics, it is not possible in science). Religionists are fond of pointing this out, yet they so often think it's deep and that nobody else can grasp it. Marc, YOU ARE MAKING THE FANTASTIC CLAIM. If you have nothing credible to support it, am I somehow obliged to believe it just because you do?
Before you twist what I just said, I'll add that as an atheist I actually do make many claims that are relevant to the discussion of god's existence, and when I make a claim I am obliged to support it with some form of evidence. For example, I claim that the prophecies that are often cited as evidence for the divinity of Jesus all admit infinitely simpler explanations than those offered by Christians. I back this up, for example, by examining the so-called prophecies themselves and pointing out that most are not prophecies at all, and by pointing to what is known about the process of midrash that was often invoked at the time the gospels were written (an even today). When I claim that an argument offered by a religionist is circular, I am obliged to point out the circularity, and to make explicit which premise subsumes the conclusion. When I claim that the major motifs of Christianity were present within older religions, and that borrowing of such motifs was common, I am obliged to (minimally) provide some scholarly works that support those claims. When I claim that there is overwhelming evidence for the evolution of life on Earth, I am obliged to provide some supporting evidence.
That's all I have time for at the moment. I'll remind you yet again: If you decide to stick around (and I sincerely hope you do not), you had better provide some evidence for your invisible deity or you simply cannot be taken seriously.
I thought Behe was a microevolution guy who rejects macroevolution; you know, he admits that bacteria and viruses mutate and evolve (since that's kind of hard to refute) but insists that sort of thing never has and never will result in any new species.
I found a citation on Talk Reason
http://www.talkreason.org/index.cfm?category=11
that says:
"Many creationists (for example Behe) often assert that the fact of microevolution meets no objection but that macroevolution cannot occur via a Darwinian mechanism of random mutations plus natural selection, and therefore has never been observed."
So, yeah.
Can you please remind me of what "objective reasoning" you've offered for the claim that "Christ lived"? Have you been "respectful" in your postings? I think not.
Where is your evidence that there is a god, Marc? It appears that you wish to convince us of this "fact," yet the closest you have come to producing any factual support for it is the work of Behe. Behe's work has failed to gain any respect among the scientific community because it is patently unscientific, as I have already explained.
You say I have offered nothing that approaches Behe's work. (I hope you don't mind too much if I take that as a compliment.) What claims have I made so far that you wish for me to back up, Marc? I've claimed that your arguments are tissue thin, and I've backed that up. I've claimed that Behe's arguments are unscientific, and I've backed that up. I've repeatedly asserted that you are incapable of examining your own presuppositions, and you've yet to utter a syllable in protest.
This is getting very tiring...
Can you honestly name one book on this topic you've read from cover to cover? If so, please do. I'd love to know where you've learned your viewpoint, so I can appropriately respect it.
And then could you please provide just one tiny shred of verifiable evidence that your god exists?
I really, really want to give your viewpoint its proper respect.
Thanks.
May reason guide us all out of the darkness of superstition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity
If the entire Universe known to humanity is ever-changing, then Behe must present an argument that suggests at "one point" in time, change (evolution) was not a factor in form (biological) change in the Universe. Behe's argument is reduced to claiming that a "complex biological component" existed at some point in the universe that was not affected by its environment.
Behe provides his "dream world" view of existence, and then attempts to give it some credibility, by suggesting that "now", change is surely affecting all biological organisms, with evolutionary mechanisms. He attempts to mix the perfect past, with the ever-changing present, in order to give it credibility in the scientific community and in the religious community with one stroke.
Unfortunate, that his idea was neither original, interesting, nor accepted by the majority of his scientific peers.
The first step of the scientific method is to observe a natural phenomenon. Behe has never witnessed once, a perfectly formed organic component (resistant to change) that is irreducible... but it didn't keep him from jumping right on into step three, and hypothesizing an argument.
Marc said: "You'll have to find it in your heart to pardon my impatience because today, I just had enough."
It's still today Jim! ;) You find it disrespectful when someone points the weakness in your arguments? Or, was it that I referred to you as experiencing "cognitive dissonance"? Gee, I've never received that insult before. Oh, is it the sarcasm Jim?
Should I present the insulting and condescending statements you've made to me and many others since I've been browsing this site? Don't bother saying yes, I already did show how rude you are in another thread and you gleefully responded with "Thanks for the summary of my previous comments, Marc. I still think they're funny (and apt).". There's a Bible quote that applies and I'm sure you know which one.
You see Jim, you get what you give. You probably figured that because I'm Christian I would just let you have fun with your condescension and always reply without degenerating into your level of communication. If I were perfect, that might be true. But the facts are that if people continue to let abusive individuals like yourself continue abusing, there remains no hope that you'll ever learn. Maybe after today, you'll think twice to communicating with individuals with the same arrogance and condescension you often display. It's never too late to grow up and take ownership for your actions Jim.
Jim said: "I've claimed that your arguments are tissue thin, and I've backed that up. I've claimed that Behe's arguments are unscientific, and I've backed that up."
You've backed nothing Jim. If you want to believe that your existence, your ability to contemplate life, to experience emotions...love, is a product of evolution, enjoy. To me, atheism does nothing but cheapen life. This is certainly not a fact based argument for you to refute. This is my personal opinion. If you want facts, you already know which books to read. If they don't reflect God's truth to you, then the best any believers can do is to keep praying for God to intervene.
By the way WM, I've read all the Christian apologetics mentioned, cover to cover (many books from C.S. Lewis). Not done with Miller's book yet.
Gotta go, my wife and children are waiting outside!
You're all in my prayers (regardless of the fact that it means nothing to you).
Peace,
Marc
http://www.tlig.org/
http://www.garabandalny.com/
Thank you for showing us the true Marc. You see, when one's beliefs are challenged, there are multiple ways that one can respond. First, there is the option to address the points that are raised as best you can, and to admit that you do not have the answers when that is the case; there is no dishonor in that. Another option is to attack the person who challenges you by mocking them, twisting their words, and insulting them. Need I point out that you have clearly taken the second approach?
You are extremely rude, Marc. Yes, I've made some jabs at you--mostly in jest. Do you think for a moment that I seriously wish to deliver electro-convulsive shock therapy to believers, and via the internet no less? That was a joke, Marc. Were any of your jabs at me made in jest? Seriously, I would like to know. I think not, but I could be mistaken. You've called me "arrogant", you called me "abusive", you've claimed that I do not bother to check my facts, you refer to me as "her" (a favor I then returned) when my gender should be clear from my name, you claim that I am making unfounded assertions (without being specific), you attribute nonsensical arguments to me, and all of this in lieu of attempting to address my questions.
My challenges to you were not in jest. I've challenged you, from the very first post, to defend your position. You are making a fantastic claim, and you apparently see no reason that you should be bothered to back it up. Where is the evidence for your god, Marc? Are you capable of examining your own presuppositions concerning god and the Bible? Why do you refuse to address these succinct questions and attack me instead? In truth, I don't really care whether you attack me or not; it makes little difference. If anything, it underscores my point--that you have nothing to support your claims. So, flail away, Marc. I'll continue to ask: Where is the evidence for your god? Can you examine your own presuppositions?
By the way, Marc, I was quite clear and specific (if brief) about my objections to Behe. Are you up to addressing them head on? If you have something substantive to say on the issue, I'll address your comments in kind. If you are dismissive or rude, I'll simply let your comments stand as they are. Fair enough?
A simple show of hands will do.
I didn't think so.
Waiting?.....or hiding ? lol
Behe's own mouth...
Snippets from Kitzmiller v. Dover:
Q. Is Darwin's theory of evolution inconsistent with your private religious beliefs?
BEHE: No, not at all.
...
Q. Do you consider yourself to be a young-earth creationist?
BEHE: No, I'm not.
Q. Do you consider yourself to be an old-earth creationist?
BEHE: No, I do not.
Q. Do you consider yourself to be a -- I'm not sure if the term is a special creationist or a creationist in terms of special creation. Either way, do you consider yourself that?
BEHE: Neither one, no.
...
*** What is Behe's actual, nuanced position? ***
BEHE: But evolutionary theory is in many ways very much more involved than some of the other ones that you mentioned. In particular, as I tried to make clear in my testimony, it has a number of parts which are -- which are together, under an aggregate, considered Darwin's theory of evolution. But again, as I tried to make clear in my testimony, not all of them are as well supported as other parts of the theory.
From an article I linked Marc to, which he apparently didn't read (color me surprised):
"MICHAEL BEHE, Biochemistry professor, Lehigh University; Senior fellow, Discovery Institute
"Sure, it's possible to believe in both God and evolution. I'm a Roman Catholic, and Catholics have always understood that God could make life any way he wanted to. If he wanted to make it by the playing out of natural law, then who were we to object? We were taught in parochial school that Darwin's theory was the best guess at how God could have made life.
"I'm still not against Darwinian evolution on theological grounds. I'm against it on scientific grounds. I think God could have made life using apparently random mutation and natural selection. But my reading of the scientific evidence is that he did not do it that way, that there was a more active guiding. I think that we are all descended from some single cell in the distant past but that that cell and later parts of life were intentionally produced as the result of intelligent activity. As a Christian, I say that intelligence is very likely to be God.
"Several Christian positions are theologically consistent with the theory of mutation and selection. Some people believe that God is guiding the process from moment to moment. Others think he set up the universe from the Big Bang to unfold like a computer program. Others take scientific positions that are indistinguishable from those atheist materialists might take but say that their nonscientific intuitions or philosophical considerations or the existence of the mind lead them to deduce that there is a God.
"I used to be part of that last group. I just think now that the science is not nearly as strong as they think."
And we could go back to Kitzmiller and find out how Behe admits his definition of science is much looser than the rest of the scientific community, so much looser that under his definition, astrology could be called a scientific theory. We could also learn how he doesn't bother to keep up on the latest science while making unfounded assertions. We could read Dr. Miller (also a Catholic and an evolutionist who Marc recently cited, apparently ignorant of his source's scientific leanings) refutes Behe (see here).
Behe is a biochemist who decided science was too strict, even as he didn't bother keeping up with current research, and though he accepts nearly everything about Darwinian evolution, he rejects natural selection's ability to produce complexity. As yet he has failed to produce any examples that have withstood scrutiny, some of which could've been dispensed with before he bothered to write his book, since scientists knew of them for some time (apparently, Behe was so far behind he wasn't aware that in 1969 the blood clotting cascade was discovered to be reducible - nearly 30 years before Behe wrote his book). In essence, he is an evolutionist who lost his way because he was too damn lazy to read.
Marc and Behe have a lot in common, apparently. At least in the reading department.
Wrong on both counts, as evidenced by numerous criticisms that have refuted his idea of ID. You just happen to like his answers better.
Just to clarify, research done in 1969 showed that dolphins lack part of the blood clotting cascade that Behe/Dembski promoted as irreducible, but they (apparently) weren't aware of that.
I didn't want anyone to think I was being absurd, since ID wasn't being debated at that time.
That article by Ken Miller is a very well-written critique of the claims put forth by the intelligent design crowd (and the claims about the flagellum in particular). I had no idea about the work done on the Krebs cycle. Good stuff. I applaud Miller for taking the time to refute Behe and Dembski. A good many scientists think it best to just ignore them (unless or until they come up with something of scientific interest). I can see their reluctance to be associated in any way with the pseudo-science of ID (e.g. Behe's own department), but it seems that too many people are being sucked in by it.
Also, that was a good catch on Behe. I knew I had read his comments to that effect before, but I couldn't put my finger on it. It's surprising that Behe is the darling of so many religionists, despite his overall acceptance of evolution. That's kettle logic again. Any scientist who manages to sneak god into the picture, by hook or by crook, seems to get broad support among religionists. Since they like the conclusion (I presume), they put up with the packaging. Evidence? Who needs evidence? It's all about reaching the "right" conclusion. So bass-ackwards.
"...If you want to believe that your existence, your ability to contemplate life, to experience emotions...love, is a product of evolution, enjoy..."
Okay, think I will. There's more to it than "wanting to believe" it; there's a credible line of reason for believing it. This will seem strange to a religionist, as a member of a group which actually does just pick their beliefs on the basis of wanting them to be true.
The idea that atheists (and, by extension, all members of the species they belong to) could experience strong positive emotions as a function of evolution is explained easily enough by examining the likely fate of a creature which has evolved into something that walks around in a constant state of dysphoria. How likely is such a being to take part in the whole mating process? Not very. And, not taking part in the whole courtship/mating schtick, how likely is it to, therefore, reproduce? Such a creature will reach an evolutionary dead end.
See? No god requirement for that line of reason to function. So why add one?
"If you want facts, you already know which books to read. If they don't reflect God's truth to you, then the best any believers can do is to keep praying for God to intervene."
"You're all in my prayers (regardless of the fact that it means nothing to you).
Peace,
Marc"
Dan (unblinded by belief in magic writes:)
Yea, like, God is going to intervene, and make all of us here on Ex-Christian, like Mark, but he isn't going to do a damn thing about all of the suffering and injustice in the world, the starving babies, the babies being born with horrendous birth defects, the people suffering from diseases so awful that they are beyond belief, the innocent people being blown to bits, by the insane, Islamic version, of people like Mark.
I am certainly glad that there are so many prayers going up to our intelligent designer, asking him to make me a believer in magic and the supernatural!
It is so satisfying to know that, very soon, God is going to make me learn to, just, "Let go, and let God"
Dan
Little does he know that alot of us used to think just like him, we were told that if we would just believe and have faith that the Bible and all it's mysteries would be revealed to us and anyone not willing to receive this gift has fallen by the wayside.
Therefore, this site and it's posters has become a threat to this so-called unblinded person, because he has been convinced that he holds absolute truth about his beliefs as well as has convinced others in his community as well, so now he has to put up a front in order to look like he has been chosen to spread his beliefs on to us unsuspecting wayward sinners, in his mind.
Beliefs alter mental perception, that is their sole purpose to alter a change in the way a person normally thinks.
Religions and beliefs are strictly a form of mind control, and no one will believe you until they are ready to see it for themselves, cognitive dissonance.
Believers find comfort praising and praying to their favorite deities, it gives them a false feeling of approval that they need, seek and desire.
I wonder what people would be like if they had never heard of the bible or koran? Murderous wolves or barbaric lions, or just plan feral and useless and of no value to anyone, like us atheists.
Personally, I consider Miller's article to be a very weak argument against irreducible complexity (IC). All I see here is people grasping at straws trying to maintain a Darwinian evolution that has no guidance from intelligence.
In discussing TTSS as being a sub-component of Flagellum, in order to refute irreducible complexity, he's only found a "loop-hole" to the original premise for IC. Miller has not disproved it in any conclusive way, far from it. As an analogy, if Flagellum is the bicycle I use to ride to work, then TTSS is the gear system of that bicycle. Just because I found this same gear system on my neighbor's recumbent bike doesn't mean that I can conclude that both bikes weren't designed.
Does anyone even pay attention to the complexity of the flagellum? One tiny little component of life, among millions.....all of you see this complexity yet believe that it came to exist through random events? People clearly give chance and oh yes, natural selection much more power than I've ever experienced in the real world.
Just because the dolphin's blood clotting system has a difference from our blood, does this make us conclude that IC is bunk? These systems are much too complex to have evolved naturally and we're now talking about two distinct species (IE. different designs).
With regards to the Krebs cycle, they are simply seeing that the various parts of my bicycle can have a purpose elsewhere. Yes, I've seen sprockets and nuts and bolts on many other human inventions. Does that mean that I believe that my bicycle could have evolved because all of it's parts have been found to exist for other purposes in this world? Does anyone here even appreciate the degree of complexity and intelligence that comes from putting the bicycle together?
I do happen to believe that anything is possible with God and that if He wanted it to be, we could have evolved over millions of years. The key here is that He made it happen, not chance. There's absolutely no way I would ever believe that random processes of mutation and natural selection could have created the world we live in. Something intelligent had to either guide the process, create it instantly or create the foundation of life billions of years ago with the capacity and built-in intelligence to "evolve" on it's own. Not chance, no way, no how.
In examining these arguments against IC and ID it's must be clear to everyone that a person's world view is the deciding factor on which side of the fence they fall. There is not enough data being presented by Miller to have all ID proponents put their hands in the air and concede "that's it, we come from nothingness". I do hope that many of you could at least agree with this point, nothing conclusive. Conversely, we, IC/ID proponents, despite the fact that we perceive the evidence as conclusive, can at least concede that there have been discoveries that help you maintain your case for evolution. If I shared your belief in evolution, no doubt I'd anchor myself on TTSS and the dolphin's blood. Why not, it keeps my hope alive. Yes, that's right, both groups have their own hope. You might think that you have irrefutable facts but you don't, atheists and theists both hang on to some degree of hope.
Jim said: "What does that show[referring to IC]? Does it prove that all the components would have needed to evolve independently via natural selection before they could confer an advantage to the organism? No!"
Jim's arguments for this (or as he puts it...how he's backed it up) are:
- a brief comment on the mammalian inner ear
- organisms that have "learned" to digest nylon using a complex multi-step process
- more primitive flagella than Behe was aware
- Behe has also ignored the fact that poorly-functioning processes may still be beneficial the organism
Each of these points does not, in any way, demonstrate how any of the complex biological systems discussed by Behe could have evolved with pure naturalism. You use these points as arguments for your beliefs but they only provide an argument by analogy. No one has ever demonstrated, in a detailed way, how any of the multitude of complex systems that make life, could have evolved.
As humans, we have been presented with an environment that is incredibly powerful in it's ability to keep people on both sides of the ID fence. At the end of the day, the side of the fence you fall on is a personal choice.
From spending time on this topic over the last few months, I now know that I can sleep very well at night knowing that I haven't missed some clinching argument that tells me that I shouldn't expose my children to the love of God. Aside from the lack of science to make my faith waver, I also have personal experiences that corroborate my beliefs. The Bible talks about humans being sinners, my experience with this statement is to agree conclusively. At the end of the day, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if the side of the fence you fall on is directly related to whether a human agrees or disagrees with this point.
Steven Bently said: "I wonder what people would be like if they had never heard of the bible or koran? Murderous wolves or barbaric lions, or just plan feral and useless and of no value to anyone, like us atheists."
I appreciate that you're being sarcastic but regardless, let me just add that absolutely no one is useless and of no value. No one. We should all stand aghast to euthanasia, abortions, etc... Everyone has the capacity to love and be loved and everyone has the ability to have a relationship with their creator. Despite our sins, Jesus Christ will never refuse a sincere and honest plea.
Blessings,
Marc
http://www.tlig.org/
http://www.garabandalny.com/
Even though you refuse to document a single book on this topic you've actually read, you present your self as an expert on the topic.
That's a bit silly, wouldn't you agree?
Anyway, even if evolution is one day found to be completely and totally false, how does that in any way support that your version of deity is alive and well on planet Earth?
Finding holes in ANY scientific theory does nothing toward PROVING there is a god and he has a virgin lover who is appearing to little children in Spain.
Now let me state here, I don't think you've found anything but one Catholic who for whatever reason desires to attempt to synchronize a portion of his religious convictions with his scientific training, and who apparently is finding little success or support from among his contemporaries.
Regardless, please present some evidence that your god and his virgin lover are bopping real.
Thanks.
May reason lead us all out of the crippling darkness of superstition and magical thinking. Amen.
Apparently, part of the mechanism that keeps such a worldview intact is insulation from other ways of thinking, and from questioning the basis of beliefs. It's no wonder that most religions foment violence and intolerance against non-believers, and place so much emphasis on emotions and "faith", as these are ready substitutes for the hard work of thinking and attempting to see past our prejudices. Note that I have asked Marc no fewer than five times (here and in other threads) whether he can examine his own presuppositions regarding god and the Bible, and he has completely ignored my question each time--sometimes quoting my nearby sentences, but skipping that central question. Interesting, no? Why is that such a terrifying question? Well, I think Steven sheds some light on that. The enormous edifice of religious belief is intimately tied into self-esteem, and it can be a major element in defining who we are. It must be protected at all costs (or so it seems to the believer). At some level, religionists must realize that they dare not examine what's in that black box calle