The Psychological Reasons Maybe

[Dr Mundo]

What does "no" refer to?

I Don't ever understand what you mean when you say what ever it is that you say. That and you always talk to me as if I believe a God does exist. I've asked you to stop, but you keep doing it anyways.

[cleve]

What does "no" refer to?

I

Don't ever understand what you mean when you say what ever it is that you say. That and you always talk to me as if I believe a God does exist. I've asked you to stop, but you keep doing it anyways.

Dr. Mundo,
Ok, since I definitely have the "impression" as to your current opinion being that there is no God, does that also signify that: at this time in your life, no spirit or energy of God's love exists? (Of course, you understand that I am not singling out anyone's specific religious beliefs here.)

[Dr Mundo]

Ok, since I definitely have the "impression" as to your current opinion being that there is no God, does that also signify that: at this time in your life, no spirit or energy of God's love exists? (Of course, you understand that I am not singling out anyone's specific religious beliefs here.)

My opinion is not that there is no God. On what basis could I make that assessment? I am not sure how to make this any more clear than how I have put it before. There is no way for me to claim that there either is or is not a God in existence unless I have some evidence to support either of those claims. I don't, so I will withhold any opinion regarding the existence of God until such evidence is presented.

No spirit or energy of God's love exists within me at this time, that is correct. How could it possibly? I don't even know what spirit or God's love even mean. You can tell me your definition of them but they would both be unsupported assumptions.

[cleve]

Ok, since I definitely have the "impression" as to your current opinion being that there is no God, does that also signify that: at this time in your life, no spirit or energy of God's love exists? (Of course, you understand that I am not singling out anyone's specific religious beliefs here.)

My opinion is not that there is no God. On what basis could I make that assessment? I am not sure how to make this any more clear than how I have put it before. There is no way for me to claim that there either is or is not a God in existence unless I have some evidence to support either of those claims. I don't, so I will withhold any opinion regarding the existence of God until such evidence is presented.

Dr. Mundo,
We're in agreement when you say that you don't know the way - one way, or the other. Neither do I, because we're not supposed to be the way. And that's because Jesus is The Way - The Way, The Truth, and The Life.

[Keep The Reason]

Ok, since I definitely have the "impression" as to your current opinion being that there is no God, does that also signify that: at this time in your life, no spirit or energy of God's love exists? (Of course, you understand that I am not singling out anyone's specific religious beliefs here.)

My opinion is not that there is no God. On what basis could I make that assessment? I am not sure how to make this any more clear than how I have put it before. There is no way for me to claim that there either is or is not a God in existence unless I have some evidence to support either of those claims. I don't, so I will withhold any opinion regarding the existence of God until such evidence is presented.

Dr. Mundo,
We're in agreement when you say that you don't know the way - one way, or the other. Neither do I, because we're not supposed to be the way. And that's because Jesus is The Way - The Way, The Truth, and The Life.

Well, Dr. Mundo, you walked right into that one.

For myself, yes it is my opinion that there is probably no god. I am not utterly sure of it, but I can see no reason for a god to be in existence, any more than I can see a spaghetti monster or whateverother sort of "supreme being" one conjurs to be in existence either. It's just not necessary for a god to exist.

The only reason this entire subject has any traction at all is based upon the fact that it's long been a core belief of people that there is a god out there somewhere. But the very premise is simply without much merit once you get into a perspective of existence that allows you to see the bigger picture of our place in the universe.

Aside from all the other so-called "arguments for god" (none of them are at all convincing, and you cannot show evidence to support any of them), what is most convincing to me is how much more likely the entire concept was merely an outcome of our inability to understand our environment, or conversely, how utterly likely it is that our present god beliefs are simply myths. They have all the hallmarks of mythology, they read the same, sound the same, and offer the same type of information, and on this one point alone allows us to conclude that present day theistic models are almost certinaly just humanity's wishful thinking.

[Dr Mundo]

Ok, since I definitely have the "impression" as to your current opinion being that there is no God, does that also signify that: at this time in your life, no spirit or energy of God's love exists? (Of course, you understand that I am not singling out anyone's specific religious beliefs here.)

My opinion is not that there is no God. On what basis could I make that assessment? I am not sure how to make this any more clear than how I have put it before. There is no way for me to claim that there either is or is not a God in existence unless I have some evidence to support either of those claims. I don't, so I will withhold any opinion regarding the existence of God until such evidence is presented.

Dr. Mundo,
We're in agreement when you say that you don't know the way - one way, or the other. Neither do I, because we're not supposed to be the way. And that's because Jesus is The Way - The Way, The Truth, and The Life.

Yeah so true. Did you know Jesus came to me last night? He wanted to make out with me but I said, "Jesus, now you listen to me. I don't want to make out with you." but He didn't listen, and he is all powerful so I had to take it. Afterwards I made Jesus a sandwich and we watched Game of Thrones together. Truth.

[cleve]

Dr. Mundo,
So true, we experience many types of religious Jesus's. And the truth is, man is a duality of both good and evil. He can not find his way to God by himself. (We tend to trust - and focus on - the creature more than the creator. We were born that way.) Salvation entails dying to self; that's the only way we arrive at learning about becoming more like Him - ultimately, becoming more relational with Him and other human beings.

[Dr Mundo]

Dr. Mundo,
So true, we experience many types of religious Jesus's. And the truth is, man is a duality of both good and evil. He can not find his way to God by himself. (We tend to trust - and focus on - the creature more than the creator. We were born that way.) Salvation entails dying to self; that's the only way we arrive at learning about becoming more like Him - ultimately, becoming more relational with Him and other human beings.

Yup, sex with Jesus has been pretty fun. He likes to kiss me softly after the roughest sex any mortal has ever known. We sometimes have a threesome with the holy spirit. Oh and Jesus wanted me to tell you that if you want in he can teleport you to our room for some nasty fun times. Are you up for it?

[Rian]

Hey tirtlegrrl, nice to see you back - I wish there were more women here!

Before I write anything else, I'd like to make clear that I'm not a rabid creationist, nor am I anti-evolution; ok? I think both sides have some good points. I think either kind of thing could have happened, but I think creation is more likely, based on what I've seen and am aware of.

As far as "kind" - well, species is a man-made construct, and scientists don't even always agree on what qualifies as a different species (here's an articlefrom a birding site that discusses that), so I don't see what the big deal is. Creationists don't have ANY problem with the kind of speciation that we can observe. What we actually SEE is animals reproducing after their own kind, in the common sense of the word. I don't have a problem with creationists trying to explore and define what this means.

I don't see why God couldn't have done what you said (created an ancient ancestral population of things that diversified to result in the variety we see today), but I don't see why he couldn't have done what Genesis generally describes, either (keeping in mind that the primary purpose of the Bible isn't scientific). What's to stop microevolution from turning into macroevolution? I don't know, but I don't have to - all I'm going off of is what we've seen over and over and OVER - animals reproduce after their own kind; mutations are mostly neutral, then a small percentage harmful, then a very VERY tiny percentage debatably helpful. Sure, macroevolution is possible; I just don't think it's probable. There's just no hard, observable evidence for it, and it's such a massive extrapolation off of the tiny bit of probable evidence for it that I don't think it happened. People talk like macroevolution is just microevolution plus time, but the burden of proof isn't on me to show what's stopping it, it's on them, to show that's what happened. And what is offered in reply is not proof - it's extrapolation. What is actually observable shows that, well, birds stay birds and beetles stay beetles. Even with species that reproduce VERY quickly, it's the same thing.

I'm not even sure what you mean by creation.

Given the context, I thought it was clear that I was talking about God creating life on earth roughly as we see today, but I guess it wasn't clear, so that's what I meant.

To me, and this is the historic Christian position as far as I am aware, to say God created the cosmos is to say the cosmos depends on God for its existence.

I agree that that's a historic Christian perspective, but that's something different than what is normally meant by creation vs. evolution, IMO.

So creation and evolution are not really alternatives.

Yes they are, at least how it is typically talked about in the US. Maybe in the UK, it's different.

If by creation you mean supernatural intervention then it would make things clearer if you said that.

Wouldn't "the cosmos depends on God for its existence" be supernatural intervention also?

Regardless, what I meant was God creating life on earth roughly as we see today. And by "roughly", I'm saying that variation among species as well as extinctions happen, so things could look a little different, but not different in the sense that evolution claims (going from some kind of one-celled prototype to a person).

So yes could could have created an ancestral population by supernatural intervention and made it look as if it had evolved but there would then be no way of knowing he did that and nothing to discuss.

Nothing to discuss ONLY in the field of evolutionary biology. There are a billion other things to scientifically explore. And I'm fine with scientists exploring evolutionary biology if that's what they want to do. I just object when they try to present it like it's more than it is; like a major tenant (macroevolution) doesn't rely on massive extrapolation.

And one of the red flags, for me, is that I think God created life roughly as it is now, and evolutionists "made it look as if it had evolved". Originally, Darwin's theory included gradualism and Lamarck-type changes. Then, as more evidence came in, the evolutionists changed these things to fit the evidence. Of course, scientists always change things to fit the evidence, but the problem is that no matter what they come up with, the historical evidence won't change, and there IS no evidence for the extrapolations beyond the historical evidence, so that can't change, either.

Evolutionists say that there is a problem with the "Goddidit" attitude, but I think there is a much bigger problem with evolutionists saying "evolutiondidit" to fill in the blanks. When you go to, say, an aquarium, you see little tags with every display - it starts with things like "this fish evolved to be small to avoid being eaten", then you go to the next display, and you see a tag that says "this fish evolved to be big to avoid being eaten", then you go to the next display and it says "this fish evolved to be a medium-size to avoid being eaten". It's meaningless - it's just a massive case of "I think evolution happened, so no matter what I see, I'll come up with a way to say evolution happened."

Now yes, there IS some evidence for macroevolution, but not for the levels that are claimed by evolution (one-celled prototype to man). I agree with the minority scientific opinion that macroevolution didn't happen.

However if all you are saying is that life could have originated by direct divine intervention, by a miracle in C.S. Lewis's sense of the word then at present that has to remain a possibility. However one could also say that life arose as a result of a random quantum event and the two would look exactly alike. So the scientists can either except that and give up or they can carry on looking for a detectable explanation; those are the options.

I think it's fine to look into detectable options, but I think that because that field depends so heavily on historical data and extrapolation, that other fields that aren't handicapped by this should get more of the limited available funding, because I think discoveries in those fields will be more useful.

[Keep The Reason]

Given the context, I thought it was clear that I was talking about God creating life on earth roughly as we see today, but I guess it wasn't clear, so that's what I meant.

You don't happen to work in education do you, Rian?

[Rian]

OK, I'll bite - why?

[Dr Mundo]

OK, I'll bite - why?

I'm guessing its because of your views on evolution. They need to be more informed in my opinion. Have you taken biology classes or do you have any formal education relating to biology? I think that if you learned more about it, you could see how simple and elegant and extraordinary life on this planet really is. Evolution and biology in general are fascinating subjects to learn about. I myself tend to lean more towards Chemistry, and plan to minor in physics. But of all the biology classes I have had, I have been really entertained and inspired by the beauty of it all.

[Keep The Reason]

OK, I'll bite - why?

I'm just hoping you don't. I want to live in a country where our technology and medicine and progress can be supported and maintained by the next generation(s), and your views on science are disastrous to that goal (and you're not alone, but every one of you NOT teaching kids of the next generaiton in any great numbers is a win for rationalism and science).

I'm guessing its because of your views on evolution. They need to be more informed in my opinion. Have you taken biology classes or do you have any formal education relating to biology? I think that if you learned more about it, you could see how simple and elegant and extraordinary life on this planet really is. Evolution and biology in general are fascinating subjects to learn about.

Oh, she's perfectly fine with using it to help her through her medical challenges (good thing too-- you should be glad it's there for you!). But only up to the point it doesn't conflict with her religious views. Then she flings poo all over that, too.

[cleve]

Dr. Mundo,
So true, we experience many types of religious Jesus's. And the truth is, man is a duality of both good and evil. He can not find his way to God by himself. (We tend to trust - and focus on - the creature more than the creator. We were born that way.) Salvation entails dying to self; that's the only way we arrive at learning about becoming more like Him - ultimately, becoming more relational with Him and other human beings.

Yup, sex with Jesus has been pretty fun. He likes to kiss me softly after the roughest sex any mortal has ever known. We sometimes have a threesome with the holy spirit. Oh and Jesus wanted me to tell you that if you want in he can teleport you to our room for some nasty fun times. Are you up for it?

Dr. Mundo,
If I'm interpeting this sexual symbolism correctly, it sounds like, in addition to some enjoyable times, missionary work gave you some very challenging experiences with sometimes preaching the word of God.

[Dr Mundo]

Dr. Mundo,
So true, we experience many types of religious Jesus's. And the truth is, man is a duality of both good and evil. He can not find his way to God by himself. (We tend to trust - and focus on - the creature more than the creator. We were born that way.) Salvation entails dying to self; that's the only way we arrive at learning about becoming more like Him - ultimately, becoming more relational with Him and other human beings.

Yup, sex with Jesus has been pretty fun. He likes to kiss me softly after the roughest sex any mortal has ever known. We sometimes have a threesome with the holy spirit. Oh and Jesus wanted me to tell you that if you want in he can teleport you to our room for some nasty fun times. Are you up for it?

Dr. Mundo,
If I'm interpeting this sexual symbolism correctly, it sounds like, in addition to some enjoyable times, missionary work gave you some very challenging experiences with sometimes preaching the word of God.

No symbolism, Jesus and I literally had sex with each other. Several times in fact. He knows how to use those holes in his palms, if you catch my drift.