THE Evolution Thread (Simplified, Take 3)

[Jarhyn]

.

If DLH’s heart is hardened, is that really God?

Well, think about it this way: every time the Bible talks about hardened hearts, its God that does the hardening and tells his people about it is explicitly so that nobody feels bad when God smites them. I am observing a specific situation in Revelation (and in Genesis) wherein God "hardens hearts" prior to sending plagues that are ostensibly justified under the fact that "they cannot believe otherwise than what is wrong, so what else can be done but their destruction?"

If the Bible’s depiction of divine judgment depends on God hardening hearts first, do you think that exposes a deeper truth about how authoritarian systems justify violence — by creating the conditions that make the punishment seem deserved?

NHC

True, it's generally an authoritarian excuse. 100%.

But it is also a discussion of what actually happens in the regime itself: they convince themselves that unforgivable and despicable acts are OK, and then after they step over that line they are then so hopelessly violated in ethics that they see no reason not to continue.

People gain a kind of fell momentum which is hard to dissipate when they move towards evil.

He stormed in here a fool professing himself wise among a bunch of self-acknowledged fools who among them DO have some measure of wisdom.

His heart is hardened, not by 'god' but by devotion to a corrupted church.

I so wish that he could see this... That we have not here exactly "rejected" the Bible but many of us sought to understand it more deeply than those who claimed to use to understand it in our youth, for where it holds true and where it does not. This is not done via blind faith but by devotion to careful and well applied doubt, for some of us.

I am critical of anyone who rejects out of hand that which is backed up by reason, even when it is hard to find the reasons.

 

[DLH]

I am critical of anyone who rejects out of hand that which is backed up by reason, even when it is hard to find the reasons.

I am critical of everyone, including myself, but especially of possible hypocrisy, because what you say you are critical of is what you do to me. You ignored me because I insulted your television show. I think you are full of it.

 

[Jarhyn]

This is a discussion forum. I'm here for discussion. I assume that is why everyone is here.

Clearly not. You aren't discussing anything, you're JAQing.

there is animosity towards anyone who disagrees with the collective

I disagree with the collective yet I received little to no animosities.

What part about my claims to literally be a wizard do you not understand?

This is not a claim widely acceptable to anyone and yet I'm a fairly outspoken and (hopefully) appreciated person in this community.

I am here on an atheist/skeptic board and claim to know anything and everything about magic. You know how few people agree with me here about damn near anything?

I have unironically called myself a god, here, and people don't mock me to my face for it because I have very precise and reasonable definitions which I generally do not allow conflation with.

I don't think you understand this place a tenth as well as you think.

Our frustration is first and foremost people proclaiming their mere beliefs are the equal of careful and reasoned thought. Does that happen in theocratic states? Yes.

Jesus existed in opposition to a theocratic state. To take pilgrimage so as to have the spirit of that mind born again into yourself and your heart, you most choose to exist in opposition to the theocratic state. It is materially impossible to hold "Jesus" in your heart while supporting rich liars whose words are easy and make you feel good.

I see arguing about such things as futile exchanges, especially if those arguments have no real basis outside of ideological fixation

Hahaha. Wow. This is you gaslighting yourself. Your views have no real basis outside of ideological fixation. They are literally an ideological fixation. You have a just-so story and you are fixated on it to the point where you refuse to abandon it in favor of actual evidence in history.

Hell, in a thread on the topic of the story of Genesis, I actually have good reason to believe there are contexts of interpretation where parts of it make sense.

I've been exposed to some languages, after all, that if they had been exposed to the idea of text without knowing written language, some time later in their mythology they could end up discussing "talking leaves".

I can't spend my valuable time going back and forth

Then what the fuck are you doing here?

Leave. Seriously, just go. Nobody is stopping you and people here have no respect for someone who won't actually discuss back and forth.

You have gotten some jobs for your idiotic posts so far. You have not been civil and you have tried many people's patience here. Civility would be actually doing the research we have recommended you do, read a book, and come back.

If you want to do something valuable with your time that is what you will do.

Then, when you know enough about that book that when we say "remember the part about the 'monstrosities' and how things tend to happen together, like two traits tied to a common driver?" Or "remember the part about all things trying to fill the world with themselves geometrically?" You know the passage, then we could actually discuss evolution with you.

My religion? You mean my religious beliefs in general or just my personal beliefs

Yes, your religion, between the institution of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and your individual personal beliefs derived from their teachings and touched by their influence.

My beliefs and your beliefs are indisputable.

That's the thing: mine are not "indisputable".

In fact, I don't really have beliefs in that way at all. Literally everything in my head is "movable", at least in theory.

My understanding is quite solid at this point because I have gone through an arduous process of moving them until I found solid foundations, and then built up on top of those.

If those foundations are ever found to be weak, I will tear everything down and build up on new ones as necessary.

That's how most of us here function.

Your beliefs are only "indisputable" because you are "hardened".

This is not about democracy but about the fact that there are processes which have been discovered which unroot falsehoods and incorrect claims. Maybe you don't understand this because your church keeps you selectively ignorant of such things, but there's a whole tradition of philosophy around understanding when logic is not formed so as to be able to reach a conclusion as presented.

The term hardening the heart or neck basically means stubbornness. An unwillingness to listen to God. God allows this.

This is the classic sense I was using it in, yes, although it is not God that does it, unless you define the term as Spinoza did.

You show an unwillingness to actually open your eyes to the wonder of the world around you, instead listening to the cloistered words of your religion.

It is stubbornness to actually look at the foundations of logic and math and to understand them.

There's a common anecdote that goes around the church circuit about a flood and a guy on a roof where a few people happen by with boats and helicopters, and the guy drowns and God says "how much clearer do I need to be, I sent you a boat AND a helicopter..."

Here, IF there is a god, that god is sending you us, here, now, to try to help you out. Here you are being stubborn. Then, god would have also made you stubborn. See? He hardens your heart, if he is real.

You can still read this plot, decide you don't want to participate as 'the guy with the hardened heart', actually read the evidence as it exists, and to come out on the side of truth.

You can't because the church you are a part of will alienate you. We all know it.

We might as well be asking you to divorce your wife, kids, family, or any hope of ever having those alongside the people you know. We know you are chained socially to your religion.

It's not that we see you as an ideological opponent... We see you as a tragic cog in the wheels of your cult.

Many of us here escaped cults.

You can't really hide it from us.

I'm listening to you and anyone else here who isn't behaving like an idiot.

No, you aren't, because if you were, we wouldn't see you for at least 2 days while you at least tried to open "Origin" and digest it's first few chapters with questions that indicate you were actually reading the book for content.

 

[DLH]

Our frustration is first and foremost people proclaiming their mere beliefs are the equal of careful and reasoned thought. Does that happen in theocratic states? Yes.

Which makes the ridiculous assumption that belief and careful and reasoned thought are mutually incompatible. That isn't thought or reason, in fact it is ideology which is counterproductive to reasoned thought. It exists in religion, science, and every other human endeavor because it isn't those things it is the people.

 

[Jarhyn]

...belief and careful and reasoned thought are [not] mutually incompatible...

Yes, they are.

Doubt is the foundation of all progress. Careful and reasoned thought is thought that assumes the belief is false and figures out something that will prove that, if it is true.

It doesn't go to prove the thing, unless it's an act of engineering originating from some set of well-supported premises; the success of such acts then acts as a support of the collection of premises that it was built according to.

Any good engineer will express a great deal of discomfort when they cannot reason why something happens as a result of some action. People have been known to investigate such things for decades or centuries until they figure out the underlying causes according to physical principles, and new engineering marvels are inevitably the result of this.

Belief is the enemy of all reasoned thought.

I have remarkably few "beliefs", all told: "I exist"; "the universe exists around me as a collection of processes"; "my existence is as one of the processes"; and then some number of the axioms of math.

These are beliefs reinforced by my observations of how organisms exist, but if someone offers some other way to model language that works better than my model, I will do my best to re-learn all of it. I already did, in the course of my own apostasy.

I will only trust something so far as I can test it and I will always keep testing it to validate my continued trust.

Science is a machine literally crafted to identify, root up, and replace beliefs with reasoned understanding.

Any person here can tell you as much.

Now go buy or download Darwin's book and read it.

 

[DLH]

...belief and careful and reasoned thought are [not] mutually incompatible...

Yes, they are.

Doubt is the foundation of all progress. Careful and reasoned thought is thought that assumes the belief is false and figures out something that will prove that, if it is true.

It doesn't go to prove the thing, unless it's an act of engineering originating from some set of well-supported premises; the success of such acts then acts as a support of the collection of premises that it was built according to.

Any good engineer will express a great deal of discomfort when they cannot reason why something happens as a result of some action. People have been known to investigate such things for decades or centuries until they figure out the underlying causes according to physical principles, and new engineering marvels are inevitably the result of this.

Belief is the enemy of all reasoned thought.

I have remarkably few "beliefs", all told: "I exist"; "the universe exists around me as a collection of processes"; "my existence is as one of the processes"; and then some number of the axioms of math.

These are beliefs reinforced by my observations of how organisms exist, but if someone offers some other way to model language that works better than my model, I will do my best to re-learn all of it. I already did, in the course of my own apostasy.

I will only trust something so far as I can test it and I will always keep testing it to validate my continued trust.

Science is a machine literally crafted to identify, root up, and replace beliefs with reasoned understanding.

Any person here can tell you as much.

Now go buy or download Darwin's book and read it.

No. I don't care about it. Darwin isn't going to convince me of evolution any more than anyone is going to be convinced of my beliefs. Everyone knows this unless they are an ideologue which is why atheist ideologues hide behind the crutch of science like theists do religion. It's all the same, dude.

Fuck evolution. Not interested.

To a certain degree I'm willing to discuss it with others if they like but that's about it.

 

[Jarhyn]

Darwin isn't going to convince me of evolution any more than anyone is going to be convinced of my beliefs

It certainly won't with that attitude!

People won't be convinced by your beliefs because, well, they're wrong.

I believed your beliefs once upon a time and now I don't, because reading Darwin (among other things, including studying the underlying molecular machines and how they work) was enough to convince me.

You aren't here for discussion, if your position is "to not be moved". We are here "to be moved" and violating that spirit violates this entire place's reason for existence.

 

[DLH]

Darwin isn't going to convince me of evolution any more than anyone is going to be convinced of my beliefs

It certainly won't with that attitude!

Correct.

People won't be convinced by your beliefs because, well, they're wrong.

Good.

I believed your beliefs once upon a time and now I don't,

Good for you.

because reading Darwin (among other things, including studying the underlying molecular machines and how they work) was enough to convince me.

Science is wrong. The Bible is wrong. You are wrong. I am wrong. If you want absolute truth wait for God. Or not. Until then you are only looking for something to tell you what you want, I assume. I know people who are biologists who believe in God, not evolution. I know people who believe in God and Evolution. I know people who don't believe in either one. Most of the people I know fall into the last category.

You aren't here for discussion, if your position is "to not be moved". We are here "to be moved" and violating that spirit violates this entire place's reason for existence.

Bullshit.

I'm willing to discuss it. If that isn't enough that's your problem. What you really don't like is that I disagree with you.

Like I said.

 

[Jarhyn]

Science is wrong

Science is neither right nor wrong. It is a process. It says nothing on its own. When people measure things accurately, it leads to repeatable results and sound conclusions, but science isn't those conclusions... Science as a process demands continued scrutiny.

Anyway, I'm not going to wait for "God". That's the whole point.

Ultimately, if there is a god, his first and grandest "word" is the creation itself. This is what you must read, test, understand, if you wish to truly know anything about the idea, true or false.

This is unarguable.

If you want to understand the mind of a creator for any purpose, to include "being pleasing to his eyes", you must create, so as to understand that which is pleasing to a creator: seeing their creations create and build a world that we actually want to see exist.

I'm willing to discuss it

Refusing to be moved is refusing to "discuss". Speaking, while refusing to be moved, is preaching.

If you wish to discuss evolution you must actually understand it's evidence and proposed mechanisms as those who propose it pose it.

If you don't do that, you are not discussing it, you are discussing a lie someone handed you because they don't want you to discuss it... Instead, you want to discuss the Bible.

The thing is, some of us here are Bible scholars, not just scholars of the Bible but of the historical context around the Bible, and of other ideas in the time period, as well.

You seem to be confused what "discussion" even is, here, though.