Why isn't DNA and Human Consciousness Enough For Some Christians?

[David Sklansky]

Since even fundamentalists believe that microevolution occurs within species, why do they fight so hard to deny that DNA mutations could also cause new species? Why do they need to believe that all species were created by God from the gitgo? Including all those millions of species of bugs, worms, etc that have no effect on us and have maybe been extinct for millions of years. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to think God created DNA and let the chips fall where they may? Until that time that an animal came into being with enough brainpower that God could bestow consciousness on it along with revealing his existence to it.

Why stick to much more controversial beliefs that all scientists think are silly, when the more reasonable scenario I outlined above, does not, to my knowledge contradict the basics of Christian thought?

[im a model]

the bible is madd specific, yo. and it dont say a thing about dna and stuff. so what youre saying wouldnt be christian. if you want to start a new religion where you say god created the universe and let it run, ok, but your religion would be too boring. you would have to spice it up with dumb crap like messiahs and you cant eat pigs and stuff. then you would have to kill a bunch or people and invade new lands and convert them. you cant just revise religion in the face of scientific developments. christianity is fixed into its place of being retarded ever since the bible was printed for all to see. it says that god created everything like six thousand years ago. there is no room for revision or compromise. and if you cant deal with that, david, then youre going to hell.

[borisp]

[ QUOTE ]
the bible is madd specific, yo. and it dont say a thing about dna and stuff. so what youre saying wouldnt be christian. if you want to start a new religion where you say god created the universe and let it run, ok, but your religion would be too boring. you would have to spice it up with dumb crap like messiahs and you cant eat pigs and stuff. then you would have to kill a bunch or people and invade new lands and convert them. you cant just revise religion in the face of scientific developments. christianity is fixed into its place of being retarded ever since the bible was printed for all to see. it says that god created everything like six thousand years ago. there is no room for revision or compromise. and if you cant deal with that, david, then youre going to hell.

[/ QUOTE ]
Brilliant. And I officially rescind the claim that Darwin wouldn't want you to reproduce.

[ruken]

[ QUOTE ]
the bible is madd specific, yo. and it dont say a thing about dna and stuff. so what youre saying wouldnt be christian. if you want to start a new religion where you say god created the universe and let it run, ok, but your religion would be too boring. you would have to spice it up with dumb crap like messiahs and you cant eat pigs and stuff. then you would have to kill a bunch or people and invade new lands and convert them. you cant just revise religion in the face of scientific developments. christianity is fixed into its place of being retarded ever since the bible was printed for all to see. it says that god created everything like six thousand years ago. there is no room for revision or compromise. and if you cant deal with that, david, then youre going to hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

I came in late to this debate, but this is an underrated post. Hard to read, but technically brilliant.

[Taraz]

Two comments:

1. Can we please stop using the phrases "religious people" and "theists" as blanket terms like they describe everyone who believes in any kind of God? It's really lame to argue against some literal fundamentalist version of a religion and then claim to have disprove 'God' for everybody. There is vast diversity within people who we would call 'theists', so let's not pretend that they all believe the same thing.

2. I think one reason why it's a little dishonest to compare God to a spaghetti monster is because people have felt 'God's presence'. I know a lot of us believe that this feeling is little more than a psychological phenomenon, but people use the term God to describe this phenomenon. Nobody use the term 'flying spaghetti monster' in this way.

So basically, people think God (whatever this term means) exists because they have direct personal interaction with some entity/force/neuronal firing.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
So basically, people think God (whatever this term means) exists because they have direct personal interaction with some entity/force/neuronal firing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm quite positive this isn't true.

A month or so ago godboy posted about how he routinely speaks in tongues. This was proof positive for him in the existence of god.

However, most religious types do not experience god on such a personal level. They identify themselves as belonging to such and such a sect, but their membership in said sect is more the result of family influence, geography, etc...

To claim that every religious person feels a "direct personal interaction" with a higher power is greatly overstating the case. I'd argue that these people are in the minority. Most people who identify themselves as theists do so with no personal evidence to back up their beliefs whatsoever.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So basically, people think God (whatever this term means) exists because they have direct personal interaction with some entity/force/neuronal firing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm quite positive this isn't true.

A month or so ago godboy posted about how he routinely speaks in tongues. This was proof positive for him in the existence of god.

However, most religious types do not experience god on such a personal level. They identify themselves as belonging to such and such a sect, but their membership in said sect is more the result of family influence, geography, etc...

To claim that every religious person feels a "direct personal interaction" with a higher power is greatly overstating the case. I'd argue that these people are in the minority. Most people who identify themselves as theists do so with no personal evidence to back up their beliefs whatsoever.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't mean that people feel the "Christian" God and then become a Christian. I personally believe that these spiritual experiences are shaped by your environment. So if you grow up as a Christian, you'll think Jesus is the one communicating with you and not some other deity.

I guess we just have to disagree about how many religious people have these spiritual experiences. I don't know how to prove this claim one way or the other, but it seems like that's why you remain religious. You have experiences that reinforce what you've learned. Is there a single theist who posts here who hasn't "felt God"?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Two comments:

1. Can we please stop using the phrases "religious people" and "theists" as blanket terms like they describe everyone who believes in any kind of God? It's really lame to argue against some literal fundamentalist version of a religion and then claim to have disprove 'God' for everybody. There is vast diversity within people who we would call 'theists', so let's not pretend that they all believe the same thing.

2. I think one reason why it's a little dishonest to compare God to a spaghetti monster is because people have felt 'God's presence'. I know a lot of us believe that this feeling is little more than a psychological phenomenon, but people use the term God to describe this phenomenon. Nobody use the term 'flying spaghetti monster' in this way.

So basically, people think God (whatever this term means) exists because they have direct personal interaction with some entity/force/neuronal firing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats not the point of the FSM. Also, FSM isn't a replacement term for God, it is a TYPE of God. This isn't exactly the same as the celestial teapot, IOW, its slightly more powerful than that.

I defy you to tell me I haven't experienced the FSM's noodly appendage in exactly the same way that txag has experienced the Lord in his heart.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Two comments:

1. Can we please stop using the phrases "religious people" and "theists" as blanket terms like they describe everyone who believes in any kind of God? It's really lame to argue against some literal fundamentalist version of a religion and then claim to have disprove 'God' for everybody. There is vast diversity within people who we would call 'theists', so let's not pretend that they all believe the same thing.

2. I think one reason why it's a little dishonest to compare God to a spaghetti monster is because people have felt 'God's presence'. I know a lot of us believe that this feeling is little more than a psychological phenomenon, but people use the term God to describe this phenomenon. Nobody use the term 'flying spaghetti monster' in this way.

So basically, people think God (whatever this term means) exists because they have direct personal interaction with some entity/force/neuronal firing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats not the point of the FSM. Also, FSM isn't a replacement term for God, it is a TYPE of God. This isn't exactly the same as the celestial teapot, IOW, its slightly more powerful than that.

I defy you to tell me I haven't experienced the FSM's noodly appendage in exactly the same way that txag has experienced the Lord in his heart.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's fine with me if you want to believe in the FSM. The problem is that we have thousands of years of history chock full of people who claim to have felt the Judeo-Christian God. Even if I don't believe in either God, this seems to make it more likely that the Judeo-Christian God exists. If you have no other information, I would contend that the more people who believe something the more likely it is to be true.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
I defy you to tell me I haven't experienced the FSM's noodly appendage in exactly the same way that txag has experienced the Lord in his heart.



[/ QUOTE ]
You haven't experienced the FSM's noodly appendage in exactly the same way I have experienced the Lord in my heart.