Questions for those who don't believe in God

[musicman]

Despite any protestations you might make, that door swings BOTH ways. They very much intended for the institution of religion to keep out of government, at least at the federal level, too.

My protestations be damned - look at the Constitution! Show me one iota of evidence that the founders' intent was "limited religion". You won't find it, and here's why: In any conceivable conflict between the spiritual (religion) and the temporal (central government), it is the TEMPORAL in which our fathers saw human frailty, the potential for abuse, and - therefore - the need for strict limitation (which is, incidentally, a uniquely Christian view of man and his governments). These aren't merely my opinions, MissileMan; not my personal whims and protestations. It is the beating heart of the document itself.

 

[MissileMan]

My protestations be damned - look at the Constitution! Show me one iota of evidence that the founders' intent was "limited religion". You won't find it, and here's why: In any conceivable conflict between the spiritual (religion) and the temporal (central government), it is the TEMPORAL in which our fathers saw human frailty, the potential for abuse, and - therefore - the need for strict limitation (which is, incidentally, a uniquely Christian view of man and his governments). These aren't merely my opinions, MissileMan; not my personal whims and protestations. It is the beating heart of the document itself.

They very much also saw the potential for the abuses that a religion with too much power can have too, they had witnessed it first-hand in the form of state religions. By writing "congress shall make no law respecting religion" they also preclude any group of politicians from inserting their religion into government.

As for the highlighted part, you keep making this claim but it's a dog that don't hunt. Uniquely American, definitely, uniquely Christian, hardly. Unless that is you can show some other governments of that time or before that had as you put it, limitations on government interference in religion.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

They very much also saw the potential for the abuses that a religion with too much power can have too, they had witnessed it first-hand in the form of state religions. By writing "congress shall make no law respecting religion" they also preclude any group of politicians from inserting their religion into government..

and yet they went back to their respective states and DID EXACTLY that.

As for the highlighted part, you keep making this claim but it's a dog that don't hunt. Uniquely American, definitely, uniquely Christian, hardly. Unless that is you can show some other governments of that time or before that had as you put it, limitations on government interference in religion.

God limited the scope of the power of the Jewish leaders/Kings. Until then, Kings could do whatever they wanted, to whomever they wanted, in their kindgoms.

 

[musicman]

They very much also saw the potential for the abuses that a religion with too much power can have too, they had witnessed it first-hand in the form of state religions. By writing "congress shall make no law respecting religion" they also preclude any group of politicians from inserting their religion into government.

Right - such would be an abuse by the state. The state is the potential danger; the free exercise of the spiritual must be protected from abuses by the state - period. If they had meant, "Religion shall make no law...", they'd have said so.

As for the highlighted part, you keep making this claim but it's a dog that don't hunt. Uniquely American, definitely, uniquely Christian, hardly. Unless that is you can show some other governments of that time or before that had as you put it, limitations on government interference in religion.

You contradict yourself; the dog hunts beautifully. That no other form of governance in all of human history has been based on the uniquely Christian understanding of man's necessarily flawed nature doesn't advance your argument - it damns it.

 

[MissileMan]

and yet they went back to their respective states and DID EXACTLY that.

Not at the federal level.

God limited the scope of the power of the Jewish leaders/Kings. Until then, Kings could do whatever they wanted, to whomever they wanted, in their kindgoms.

 

[MissileMan]

Right - such would be an abuse by the state. The state is the potential danger; the free exercise of the spiritual must be protected from abuses by the state - period. If they had meant, "Religion shall make no law...", they'd have said so.

So in your estimation, an oppressive theocracy is an abusive government not an abusive religion. It's your argument that the religion involved is never the problem.

 

[musicman]

So in your estimation, an oppressive theocracy is an abusive government not an abusive religion. It's your argument that the religion involved is never the problem.

You are driving my point home, deeper and deeper. A government based - as is ours - in the enlightened, evolved understanding of Christian principles - can be neither oppressive nor theocratic. It's prime directive to central government is to stay out of spiritual matters entirely, and allow man the unfettered exercise of his free will. Christianity is UNIQUE in this respect. SINCE Christianity is the religion involved, it can never be the problem - else, it would cease to be Christianity.

 

[5stringJeff]

God limited the scope of the power of the Jewish leaders/Kings. Until then, Kings could do whatever they wanted, to whomever they wanted, in their kindgoms.

All Israelite kings (as well as those of Judah) were bound by the Mosaic Law. What limitations are you referring to?

 

[-Cp]

No reason.

It comes from the instinct bred into one as a result of the competition and rigors associated with natural selection. Species which have no instinct toward self-preservation (at least until they reproduce at which point the self-preservation instinct morphs into a offspring-protection instinct) become extinct.

Edit: It also comes, in part, from fear of death as a result of realizing one's own mortality.

It stems from the aforementioned offspring-protection instinct, human empathy, and human social nature.

Edit: Also, in some respects, it is quite likely a manifestation of the human desire for immortality.

What, then created that Competition and Rigors associated from "Natural Secltion"?

How far back in time can Darwinism go before it runs out of ideas of who/what created the first of anything?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

All Israelite kings (as well as those of Judah) were bound by the Mosaic Law. What limitations are you referring to?

I think you misunderstood. I meant the NON Israel Kings had no boundries of behavior. Hence, Israeli Kings were the first to introduce civilized non barbaric limits, via their God.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Not at the federal level.

You said, ANY GROUP OF POLITICIANS from inserting religion into the govt. You didnt preclude that to federal politicians.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

What, then created that Competition and Rigors associated from "Natural Secltion"?

How far back in time can Darwinism go before it runs out of ideas of who/what created the first of anything?

What I find interesting is the term evolutionists use, "instinct". Just exactly where did this built in info come from? Sounds like a PC with pre loaded software. But that leads me to think there must have been a programmer?? eh?

another is when they say "nature designed"... blah, blah, blah...DESIGNER?? CREATOR??

survival of the species is actually counterproductive to survival of the individual. Survival of the species requires individual sacrafices, which often lead to the premature death of the individual. This premature death, would seem to lend to the notion that the ones who dont defend the species will spred more seed, and hence, become more of the evolutionary force in the species.

And still there is no answer to my question about the swallows of San Juan Capistrano. Not even from the two smartest guys on the forum, PM and Spiderman...

 

[5stringJeff]

I think you misunderstood. I meant the NON Israel Kings had no boundries of behavior. Hence, Israeli Kings were the first to introduce civilized non barbaric limits, via their God.

Actually, I think Hammurabi beat Moses by about 500 years or so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Actually, I think Hammurabi beat Moses by about 500 years or so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

Im talking about limiting the behavior of the KINGS, those laws applied to the people. The Kings used to regard themselves as gods, and in fact, one Roman who was proclaiming himself a god, fell down on his plate of food and died in the process. (a bit of ironic humour)

 

[Zhukov]

Darwinism go before it runs out of ideas of who/what created the first of anything?

Darwinism doesn't say anything about who/what created the first anything.

Darwin thought God did, I believe.

What, then created that Competition and Rigors associated from "Natural Secltion"?

Personally, I'm not sure why you capitalized competition and rigors. If there's one piece of pizza left, and we both want it, who created the competition for it? We did.

Trees want sunlight, but there is only so much surface area available, so trees grow more leaves, spread out, and/or overgrow the plants around them to keep more of the sun's light for themselves. The tree is competing with the other plants around it. So what created the competition? The interaction between the tree and the plants around it created the competition.

If you are asking what set these rules up, by which life plays out, again, I believe Darwin thought God did.

If you're asking me what I believe created the universe, then my answer is: I believe the universe is infinite, without begining, and therefore without a creator....just like your god.

Now, that might seem strange to you, but trust me, it probably doesn't seem nearly as strange to you as an infinite intelligent omnipotent being without begining, and without a creator seems to me.

What I find interesting is the term evolutionists use, "instinct". Just exactly where did this built in info come from?

It wasn't built in. It evolved along with everything else.

survival of the species is actually counterproductive to survival of the individual. Survival of the species requires individual sacrafices, which often lead to the premature death of the individual. This premature death, would seem to lend to the notion that the ones who dont defend the species will spred more seed, and hence, become more of the evolutionary force in the species.

Not really.

Survival of the species requires that it's individuals survive and reproduce. Nothing more. It is not necessary to 'defend' the species and sacrifice oneself when one can simply run away and breed.

Plants and animals don't sacrifice themselves for the good of the species. That is a human concept.

Human beings are more or less the only species capable of comprehending a concept like 'survival of the species'. Other organisms perpetuate their species by being completely selfish, and producing as much offspring as possible, and then protecting only their own offspring. It isn't until you get into the higher mammals that animals begin to care for the offspring of other animals, but even then only within the same herd or family unit.

Species whose members sacrifice themselves before they can reproduce become extinct. Therefore individuals which sacrifice themselves to 'defend the species' before they can reproduce are not defending the species at all. They are destroying it.

As such, your statement...

"Survival of the species requires individual sacrafices, which often lead to the premature death of the individual."

...is wrong.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Darwinism doesn't say anything about who/what created the first anything.

Darwin thought God did, I believe.


Personally, I'm not sure why you capitalized competition and rigors. If there's one piece of pizza left, and we both want it, who created the competition for it? We did.

Trees want sunlight, but there is only so much surface area available, so trees grow more leaves, spread out, and/or overgrow the plants around them to keep more of the sun's light for themselves. The tree is competing with the other plants around it. So what created the competition? The interaction between the tree and the plants around it created the competition.

If you are asking what set these rules up, by which life plays out, again, I believe Darwin thought God did.

If you're asking me what I believe created the universe, then my answer is: I believe the universe is infinite, without begining, and therefore without a creator....just like your god.

Now, that might seem strange to you, but trust me, it probably doesn't seem nearly as strange to you as an infinite intelligent omnipotent being without begining, and without a creator seems to me.

It wasn't built in. It evolved along with everything else.

Not really.

Survival of the species requires that it's individuals survive and reproduce. Nothing more. It is not necessary to 'defend' the species and sacrifice oneself when one can simply run away and breed.

Plants and animals don't sacrifice themselves for the good of the species. That is a human concept.

Human beings are more or less the only species capable of comprehending a concept like 'survival of the species'. Other organisms perpetuate their species by being completely selfish, and producing as much offspring as possible, and then protecting only their own offspring. It isn't until you get into the higher mammals that animals begin to care for the offspring of other animals, but even then only within the same herd or family unit.

Species whose members sacrifice themselves before they can reproduce become extinct. Therefore individuals which sacrifice themselves to 'defend the species' before they can reproduce are not defending the species at all. They are destroying it.

As such, your statement...

"Survival of the species requires individual sacrafices, which often lead to the premature death of the individual."

...is wrong.

sorry, but female animals defend their young to the death.

Instincts evolved? How do the swallows know WHEN AND WHERE to fly to every winter to stay away from the cold winter and survive?
How do salmon know to go back to their spawning grounds? By the way, alot of them die getting there, another example of giving ones life for the survival of the species, contrary to evolutionary theory.

You dismiss some of my points as not existing, but then go on to say "except in the..."
If there is an exception, it has to be explained.

Male spiders give their life to sow their seed.

Nature is replete with examples.

Many behaviors of man are contrary to the concepts of evolution. Insanity, Love, compassion, etc. etc.

If one looks at nature, and then people, its so damn obvious we are sooooo set apart that it couldnt have been mere evolution.

Unless one has a preconceived agenda.

As for the "beginning" of the universe, its simply beyond our comprehension. I never went for that as an arguement of the proof of existence of God. The atheists can use the same arguement, where did God come from?

Although I do believe God is a non physical entity. That also goes beyond our understanding, so I just accept it as the best explanation I have heard.

Any explanation eventually comes to a point of impossibility within my limited knowledge and ability to comprehend physics and the LAWS OF NATURE/GOD.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

sorry, but female animals defend their young to the death.

Instincts evolved? How do the swallows know WHEN AND WHERE to fly to every winter to stay away from the cold winter and survive?
How do salmon know to go back to their spawning grounds? By the way, alot of them die getting there, another example of giving ones life for the survival of the species, contrary to evolutionary theory.

You dismiss some of my points as not existing, but then go on to say "except in the..."
If there is an exception, it has to be explained.

Male spiders give their life to sow their seed.

Nature is replete with examples.

Many behaviors of man are contrary to the concepts of evolution. Insanity, Love, compassion, etc. etc.

If one looks at nature, and then people, its so damn obvious we are sooooo set apart that it couldnt have been mere evolution.

Unless one has a preconceived agenda.

As for the "beginning" of the universe, its simply beyond our comprehension. I never went for that as an arguement of the proof of existence of God. The atheists can use the same arguement, where did God come from?

Although I do believe God is a non physical entity. That also goes beyond our understanding, so I just accept it as the best explanation I have heard.

Any explanation eventually comes to a point of impossibility within my limited knowledge and ability to comprehend physics and the LAWS OF NATURE/GOD.

Altruistic acts are not contrary to evolution. Passing on genes is the goal of evolution. To the extent that altruistic acts facilitate this, they are not contrary to evolution. Love, a pair bond, functions to provide a nurturing atmosphere which facilitates the socialization, and learning, and thus survivability of the offspring. The seven year itch is seven years long for a reason, that's the age a child is basically done forming his most basic core self.

 

[Zhukov]

sorry, but female animals defend their young to the death.

Yes, when did I say they didn't? You previously wrote of animals which sacrificed themselves specifically before they reproduced. Now you are changing the rules. But that's fine. An animal dieing to protect its young is neither an attempt to defend the whole species or a selfless act. Animals cannot perform selfless acts because they are animals. Only humans are capable of selfless acts. A female animal defends its young for selfish reasons; the young belongs to her, it's her offspring. Would a female animal die to protect some other animals young? No. What's more, more species of animals will in fact abandon their young when common sense tells them to do so. After all, it is better to run and make more offspring than to die in a futile attempt to protect the offspring you have, since your offspring will die right after you. The level of protection a female animals accords its young is directly proportional to the amount of energy and time that animal's young requires to become independent and how many young they have. A snake will abandon it's young if it is wounded because it can produce dozens of offspring in a short span of time that are immeadiately able to go off on their own. Primates spend a great deal of time on single offspring, and therefore defend those offspring more vigorously. Be even they will abandon their children sometimes.

Instincts evolved? How do the swallows know WHEN AND WHERE to fly to every winter to stay away from the cold winter and survive?

How do salmon know to go back to their spawning grounds?

A gradually increasing area of habitation over millions of years.

By the way, alot of them die getting there, another example of giving ones life for the survival of the species, contrary to evolutionary theory.

They die in the attempt to have sex. They do not give up their life 'for the survival of the species'. They die because a.) they are selfish in their desire to breed, and b.) because they are weak and they failed.

You dismiss some of my points as not existing, but then go on to say "except in the..."
If there is an exception, it has to be explained.

Where did I write that? I don't see it in my response to you.

Many behaviors of man are contrary to the concepts of evolution. Insanity, Love, compassion, etc. etc.

If one looks at nature, and then people, its so damn obvious we are sooooo set apart that it couldnt have been mere evolution.

Well, I disagree. I see more similarities between us and other animals than I see differences. Nor do I see love and compasion as being contrary to evolution. Insanity is an illness, and in an animal society would most likely lead to that animal not reproducing. Humans, in our interactions with one another, do quite alot to block some aspects of natural selection. Feeding starving people in Africa, for instance.

 

[Zhukov]

My previous response was a bit hurried, and so I'd like to elaborate on one point.

]Instincts evolved? How do the swallows know WHEN AND WHERE to fly to every winter to stay away from the cold winter and survive?

How do salmon know to go back to their spawning grounds?

Many species migrate. The primary reasons for migration are the animals are in search of food or water, and/or an escape from predictable adverse weather, i.e. the change of the seasons.

Migration activity didn't just spontaneously appear for no reason. Migration of species originates either when a species' population reaches the point whereby its immeadiate surroundings are no longer sufficient to support it, or in response to gradual changes in average temperatures. The second refers to ice ages and the like, the first eventually results in the seasonal type of migration swallows engage in.

At some point in the past, the antecedents of swallows did not migrate. The population of the creatures however, eventually reached the carrying capacity of their normal habitat and so they began to search for more space and more food wherever they could find it. This would occur gradually over a great length of time until eventually the habitat area of the swallow reached so far north that during parts of the year the swallows were forced to retreat back to the south to escape the cold. Those who did not retreat (did not have the sense to flee south) died. Therefore all the remaining swallows that flew to the north, knew to fly back down south in the winter, because the stupid swallows were dead.

If this occurs long enough, a mechanism becomes ingrained in the bird's mind. And that mechanism is this:

after a certain period of time and/or when certain environmental conditions become a certain way, you must fly south.

In reality, this external expression is nothing more magical than a genetically determined complex collection of biochemical cascade reactions. Those without this mechanism intact die. And that is what we call 'instinct'.

Likewise, salmon who do not swim upstream, will not breed. Therefore the only salmon who exist are the ones who have the 'compulsion' to swim upstream. Those who do not have this 'instinct' will die, will not breed, and thus will not pass along their deficiency.

That is natural selection and 'instinct' is a big part of it.

 

[Hobbit]

My previous response was a bit hurried, and so I'd like to elaborate on one point.



Many species migrate. The primary reasons for migration are the animals are in search of food or water, and/or an escape from predictable adverse weather, i.e. the change of the seasons.

Migration activity didn't just spontaneously appear for no reason. Migration of species originates either when a species' population reaches the point whereby its immeadiate surroundings are no longer sufficient to support it, or in response to gradual changes in average temperatures. The second refers to ice ages and the like, the first eventually results in the seasonal type of migration swallows engage in.

At some point in the past, the antecedents of swallows did not migrate. The population of the creatures however, eventually reached the carrying capacity of their normal habitat and so they began to search for more space and more food wherever they could find it. This would occur gradually over a great length of time until eventually the habitat area of the swallow reached so far north that during parts of the year the swallows were forced to retreat back to the south to escape the cold. Those who did not retreat (did not have the sense to flee south) died. Therefore all the remaining swallows that flew to the north, knew to fly back down south in the winter, because the stupid swallows were dead.

If this occurs long enough, a mechanism becomes ingrained in the bird's mind. And that mechanism is this:

after a certain period of time and/or when certain environmental conditions become a certain way, you must fly south.

In reality, this external expression is nothing more magical than a genetically determined complex collection of biochemical cascade reactions. Those without this mechanism intact die. And that is what we call 'instinct'.

Likewise, salmon who do not swim upstream, will not breed. Therefore the only salmon who exist are the ones who have the 'compulsion' to swim upstream. Those who do not have this 'instinct' will die, will not breed, and thus will not pass along their deficiency.

That is natural selection and 'instinct' is a big part of it.

Actually, I think salmon are capable of breeding in the ocean, but their offspring have a better survival rate in rivers.

Anyway, when I see all this stuff about species adaptability, I can't help but think, "Wow, God really knew what he was doing when he made this place." It's amazing to me that after a certian amount of time, the impulse to fly north and south with the seasons becomes inborn rather than learned.