CHRISTIANITY AND FREETHOUGHT

Christianity is opposed to freedom, and consequently freedom is opposed to Christianity. A Christian cannot be a freethinker, and a freethinker cannot be a Christian. When a man is required to believe certain doctrines, he is not free to think. A creed is to keep the mind from inquiry. Questions lead to doubt, and doubt is the death of faith.

The church condemns freethought, because freethought cannot be bound by its chain of dogma. There is no place in the Christian church for the exercise of liberty. If the mind finds a new truth that contradicts the old dogma, the truth must be strangled that the dogma may hold its power over the thoughts and deeds of men.

To be a Christian is to surrender to the priest or minister in the name of Christ. It is to be a monkey on the end of an ecclesiastical string to get pennies for his master. It is to crawl at the feet of superstition.

To be a freethinker is to search for truth without fear. Where there is love of freedom there is no reverence for authority. There is no faith in God as sacred as love of man.

read the rest here 'Is the Bible worth reading and other essays'
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/lemuel_washburn/bible_worth_reading.html

Nferny, the reason for my question is to demonstrate that if one cannot remember a simple fact about one's past existence, and one acknowledge that indeed one passed through that phase of existence, then it is irrational for one not to believe the existence of God on the basis that one cannot see Him physically.

maybe it's me but all that stuff about drug resistance seems pretty 'off-topic' ...

I believe so too but nferyn asked for it and uptil now he hasnt let me know why?

nicetohave:

Hi nferyn,

got some to time to answer your question even though i still can't see how it applies to this present discussion:

Greetings to you too, Sir
It is very relevant to the discussion, as you have called the Theory of Evolution ludicrous [/i]and bacterial resistance against antibiotics is a prime example of evolution at work.

nicetohave:

The Mechanism of drug resistance:

I was specifically asking about bacterial resistance against antibiotics, but you want to broaden the scope to the overall immune system, no problem. This too is a good example of the principles of random mutation and natural selection at work, even though it does not lead to speciation - or as creationists like to call it, [i]macro-evolution.

nicetohave:

now any organism can develop resistance to any substance, even humans.it simply means they are no longer sensitive to it , "desensitization" simply put.

Although correct, this is painting with a very broad brush. You are talking about all sorts of resistance - the rejection of substances that are not the body's own?

nicetohave:

Now this is the mechanism, when repeated suboptimal doses of any substance, compound or drug are used then instead of the drug achieving its therapeutic or deleterious effect as the case may be, it becomes incorporated in the organisms genetic material, commonly the DNA

Here you're joining two mechanisms together:
* one operating on the bacterium, whereby the bacterial population develops resistance against the specific antibiotic
* one operating on the human immune system, whereby the tolerance of the immune system against a specific pathogen or substance is increased. This effect is commonly and deliberately obtained through vaccination.

Both mechanisms are caused by random mutation of the genetic material (DNA, or RNA in case of viruses) followed by natural selection working on those mutated organisms.

In case of the bacteria, those mutations work on the coding DNA portions that specify the characteristics of the organisms. These characteristics are passed on to the next generation (and as you know the lifecycles of bacteria are considerably faster than those of multi-cellular organisms), this is the core process of Evolution

In case of the immune system, it is the B lymphocyte that undergoes mutation and is subject to selective pressure. Unfortunately this immunity is not passed on to the next generation and thus even though one of the parents may be immune against a specific disease, the children are not. (obviously this is not the only immunity mechanism, but it is the most prominent one)

nicetohave:

and then even when a full dose or optimal dose is subsequently used it will never achieve its therapeutic effect anymore.reason why there are widesread antibiotic resistance because people use antibiotics for any and everything, and even when they do they use it in suboptimal doses

Using suboptimal doses of antibiotics is the perfect way of aiding the bacterial evolution. As these doses do no kill of the specimens that are in the body. The mutated survivors can then go and spread to another person and remain within the human population. A perfect selective environment.

nicetohave:

and because we are constantly exposed to all these bacterias, viruses, fungi, parasites etc, (remember we only come down with the disease when our immunity falls, or when there is a sudden increase in the load of these organisms in us) then resistance has been effected and the drug in effect "fails" to work, so newer ones has to be found and then the same fate soon or late will befall that too.

Exactly. Evolution at work.

nicetohave:

Remember i said "resistance" can occur with human too, a simple example is allergy, allergies to a particular substance are often cured by exposing an individual to repeated suboptimal concentration of the allergen and with time it is incorporated in the DNA of the individual and his allergy is in essence "cured" it is called systematic desensitization

Again. Evolution at work

Sources:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/
http://www.corante.com/loom/archives/2005/11/14/chronicle_of_a_death_foretold.php
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/512378
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/survival/enemy/index.html
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195161998/qid%3D1135172595/202-1739926-3627808
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140179186/qid=1135172628/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_2_1/202-1739926-3627808
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0099439824/qid=1135172671/sr=1-5/ref=sr_1_11_5/202-1739926-3627808

nicetohave:

Did all these make any sense to you? anyway can you answer my question now and how this relates to our present discussion?

I will normally answer your question this evening.

Regards

you leave me speechless nferyn, all that intellectual strength you've got and not chanelled in the right direction, what a waste

nicetohave:

you leave me speechless nferyn, all that intellectual strength you've got and not chanelled in the right direction, what a waste

Is this all you have to say?

Nice to have and nferyn what are all these explanations for? Does it av anything to do with the topic at hand. Pls if u guys want to show off go start another thread.

PrettyH, please take it easy, sometimes you need to divert a little to show your point, no one is showing off here, nferyn simply asked a question which he claims he needs to proof there is no God, so im waiting for his response....._{why are women so touchy? that should go on another thread}

prettyH:

Nice to have and nferyn what are all these explanations for? Does it av anything to do with the topic at hand. Please if u guys want to show off go start another thread.

Yes it most definitely has a lot to do with the topic at hand. If you would have read the thread instead of browsing it, you would understand (that is, under the presupposition that your neurological pathways are capable of processing the information presented, of which I have a positive feeling, the lack of intellectual curiosity seems to be a self-imposed condition)

nferyn:

Yes it most definitely has a lot to do with the topic at hand. If you would have read the thread instead of browsing it, you would understand (that is, under the presupposition that your neurological pathways are capable of processing the information

presented, of which I have a positive feeling, the lack of intellectual curiosity seems to be a self-imposed condition)

[/quote]


Better start another thread to really buttress your point because all this evolution thing is totally off point.



[quote author=nicetohave link=topic=3833.msg137516#msg137516 date=1135174017]


PrettyH, please take it easy, sometimes you need to divert a little to show your point, no one is showing off here, nferyn simply asked a question which he claims he needs to proof there is no God, so im waiting for his response....._{why are women so touchy? that should go on another thread}

ehn.me touchy.................._{if i catch u, u go see}

Nicetohave, as I already said before, I do not need to prove at all there is no God. This is impossible anyway, unless you ascribe properties to God. At that moment, you can disprove God if his preporties are contradictory. Something that is the case for the Judeo-Christian deity.

I am an agnostic explicit atheist, which means:
1. I can have no definitive knowledge of a supreme being. As that supreme being is supernatural and all we have is our natural faculties, we cannot [/b]possibly [b]know
2. The lack of positive evidence for the existence of a supreme being, actively leads me to the position not to believe in it's existence. It is an explicit stance where I choose [b]not [/b]to believe

If all of you want to believe, fine, but your belief is and remains irrational and for most fear driven.

prettyH:

Better start another thread to really buttress your point because all this evolution thing is totally off point

As a wise man once said, you can lead a horse to the water, but you cannot force it to drink

Nicetohave, as I already said before, I do not need to prove at all there is no God. This is impossible anyway, unless you ascribe properties to God. At that moment, you can disprove God if his preporties are contradictory. Something that is the case for the Judeo-Christian deity.

I am an agnostic explicit atheist, which means:
1. I can have no definitive knowledge of a supreme being. As that supreme being is supernatural and all we have is our natural faculties, we cannot possibly know
2. The lack of positive evidence for the existence of a supreme being, actively leads me to the position not to believe in it's existence. It is an explicit stance where I choose not to believe

If all of you want to believe, fine, but your belief is and remains irrational and for most fear driven.

I see

ehn.me touchy..................if i catch u, u go see

my Preetie na joke now....you no say na only you i fit tell that one.

nicetohave:

I see

ehn.me touchy..................if i catch u, u go see

Is this a virus or what? Wait 'till it mutates

well back to the thread, nferyn i can see the pathetic state which youre in, i guess id just leave you to God to prove himself to you; as for me i have done my little bit

I believe in God.

how about you PrettyH?

nicetohave:


my Preetie na joke now.you no say na only you i fit tell that one.

I BELIEVE IN GOD WELL

nferyn:

Is this a virus or what? Wait 'till it mutates

nicetohave:

well back to the thread, nferyn i can see the pathetic state which youre in, i guess id just leave you to God to prove himself to you; as for me i have done my little bit

I believe in God.

Why pathetic state? I'm feeling anything but pathetic. I feel for you people that enslave yourselves to false ideas, though. May the light of reason guide you all in your search for truth.

nferyn:

I feel for you people that enslave yourselves to false ideas, though.

The same "false ideas" have helped save many lives. So many people have received miracles through the "false ideas".

I'd rather rely on the correct ideas of science and technology. We'd still be cave dwellers without it.

God gave these same scientists the brain.

to nferyn, its another work of evolution, not God.

goodguy:

God gave these same scientists the brain.

Circular thinking.
Assumption 1: God exists
Assumption 2: God gave these scientists the brain
Deduction: The scientists have that brain that enables them to come up with their thingies
Deduction: These thingies exist
Conclusion: God exists

Perfect circle

nicetohave:

to nferyn, its another work of evolution, not God.

No, according to the evidence, it is.

Obviously, God could still be the pupetmaster that stages everything and uses evolution to do his creation, but that would invalidate the Bible as the word of God.

I know Scriptures isnt against evolution...but rather sees it as adaptation. Its however against evolution from the perspective of evolutionist(No Beggining). My GOD set d ball rolling.

Like I said in the other thread, God created unchanging "kinds" but he did not create living things so that they are totally static and cannot change at all. All living things, including plants, animals, and even humans are able to change to a limited degree to adapt to the environment they live in. Thus, the first people to live on the continent of Africa were not necessarily black in skin color, but they carried genes that allowed for that possibility. Over time, those who had dark skin had an advantage in that climate so dark skinned people became most prevalent. Other factors enter into this issue, but the important thing is that God's word says each living thing "multiplied after its kind." God has built into living cells mechanisms that prevent a creature from becoming something really different. There are even mechanisms designed into cells that correct mutations before they can be copied! All this fits right in with Genesis.

Layi,

If you want to follow that line of thought through, you have to precisely and operationally define kind. Species is operationally defined as reproductively isolated populations for multi-cellular life forms. How do you define kinds?
Moreover, knowing the mutation rates for non-coding DNA (usually using mitochondrial DNA), you cannot possibly arrive at the current biodiversity starting from Noach's Ark or creation (+/- 6600 years). This is impossible.

Also, what mechanism prevents species from evolving into several other species?

@layi: you say that many people have received miracles because of 'faith', but what about the many who inexpicably survive a horrific accident or recover from a terminal illness who do not believe in a higher power

miracles are simply things that cannot be explained by modern day science...science does not claim to have all the answers...

there may or may not be a 'god' figure behind them, science cannot prove that there isn't and religious doctrine has failed to prove that there is...

Nferyn,

I do believe in evolution because i have considered the facts that these scientists have brought forth. The theory does not contradict my bible.

But i do not believe like you and the rest of your atheist folk will have us believe, the errounous conclusion and assumption of some scientists that we evolved from certain micro organisms or ape-like beings. I am aware of the homo-erectus discoveries and i do not  find any problem with them. I have seen the ape-men discoveries and i do not agrue with them.

The point here is that, those creatures lived on this earth long before Adam was created by God. There have also been fossils of cities and animals that existed on the earth long before Adam. Again, i do not find any problem with these discoveries.

According to the bible, there was a world before  the world of Adam. This is the world in which evoluation was in process. This world however, was destroyed and turned upside down by God. God then put a stop to the process of evolution.

There was then a re-creation of the wrold in Genesis, in which Adam was created and put in. This adam was created in God's image and formed from the dust of the earth.  He did not come as a result of evolution. Man has been that way since then.

When scientists come up with facts, we do not argue with them, but when they come up with assumptions, we test such assumtions according to God's word and prove them to be true of false.

According to the bible, there was a world before  the world of Adam. This is the world in which evoluation was in process. This world however, was destroyed and turned upside down by God. God then put a stop to the process of evolution.

There was then a re-creation of the wrold in Genesis, in which Adam was created and put in. This adam was created in God's image and formed from the dust of the earth.  He did not come as a result of evolution. Man has been that way since then.

When scientists come up with facts, we do not argue with them, but when they come up with assumptions, we test such assumtions according to God's word and prove them to be true of false.

i don't usually waste my time delving into biblical discussions, however i'm pretty sure that there is nothing in the book of Genesis that even alludes to a world before...or of a 're-creation' of Earth...or any of the other things of claim...

God put a 'stop' to evolution?

Wow

[/quote][quote]

what a wonderful and concerted effort by the creature to explain the creation of his creature

I've noticed this about people who subscribe to religious 'beliefs':

Whenever a question is posed to them that they cannot answer about the doctrine that they follow, usually an inconsistency, they like to fall back on one of two lines:

1) "It's a question of faith"
2) "How can the clay question the potter"

This isn't a question of the 'clay' questioning the potter this is man questioning his fellow man. It was man who wrote the Bible and made all the religious laws. It was man who created the mythology behind every religion. So, in conclusion when faced with a question that you cannot answer, instead why not just say "I don't know" or doesn't the Church allow that

donnie:

Nferyn,

I do believe in evolution because i have considered the facts that these scientists have brought forth. The theory does not contradict my bible.

You do not believe in the Theory of Evolution if you do not believe in common descent or in the fact that evolution is still happening today. I'm glad though that you have opened your mind for at least part of the evidence.

donnie:

But i do not believe like you and the rest of your atheist folk will have us believe, the errounous conclusion and assumption of some scientists that we evolved from certain micro organisms or ape-like beings. I am aware of the homo-erectus discoveries and i do not find any problem with them. I have seen the ape-men discoveries and i do not agrue with them.

Please explain mitochondria, non-coding DNA and fragments of viral DNA in our genome. These are clear markers for common descent from micro organisms.
The differences in DNA between chimpanzees and humans point to a common ancestor about 6 million years ago. We have markers for other 'points of contact' in the tree of life and they all match up with the fossil record and the geometric dating of these fossils. There is currently not one example that contradicts these findings. Only one find that doesn't fit the tree of life would falsify common descent. None have been found yet (and you know that a lot of fossils have been found)

donnie:

The point here is that, those creatures lived on this earth long before Adam was created by God. There have also been fossils of cities and animals that existed on the earth long before Adam. Again, i do not find any problem with these discoveries.

If we were all descendants of Adam and Eve, this would be visible in our genome. It isn't. Mitochondrial Eve (the common human female ancestor of all humanity - I won't carry the full argument here, because explaining this mechanism would take a few pages - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve for more info) lived about 150.000 years ago.

donnie:

According to the bible, there was a world before the world of Adam. This is the world in which evoluation was in process. This world however, was destroyed and turned upside down by God. God then put a stop to the process of evolution.

there is no physical evidence for such an event. God must have pulled quite a trick out of his sleeve to deceive us so profoundly.
Anyway, evolution is still happening today, even in humans, e.g. sickle cell anemia, smaller jaw, lactose tolerance, wisdom teeth becoming less common)

donnie:

There was then a re-creation of the wrold in Genesis, in which Adam was created and put in. This adam was created in God's image and formed from the dust of the earth. He did not come as a result of evolution. Man has been that way since then.

Again, the evidence points in another direction.

donnie:

When scientists come up with facts, we do not argue with them, but when they come up with assumptions, we test such assumtions according to God's word and prove them to be true of false.

Scientists don't work with facts, but with evidence. Assumptions are either supported or not supported by the evidence. Only supported assumption make it into the scientific body of knowledge, usually in the form of theories (theories explain the evidence in a coherent and falsifiable way)
Proof is for mathematics and logic, not for science and certainly not for religion.

nicetohave:

what a wonderful and concerted effort by the creature to explain the creation of his creature

Non sequitur
Try again