The evolution god of atheist

[Silver Bullet]

Atheists are self-serving and selfish; therefore, they cannot serve God or any other unless THEY WANT TO.

Atheists cannot possibly choose to serve a God they can't believe in, just as you can't serve Allah or Baal. This has absolutely nothing to do with whether atheists disregard others (which is what selfishness is all about).

Atheists are just as capable of and likely to serve others as anybody else is. You can't serve your God or others unless you want to so what's the difference? The only difference, which is the obvious one and which has nothing to do with selfishness is that you submit to your God and atheists do not (because they can't believe in your God).

Atheists are selfish in that they are self-serving when it comes to submitting to another in authority over them.

Perhaps you mean that atheists are insubordinate to an authority that they can't believe in, just as you are insubordinate to Zeus. You cannot possibly mean selfish though.

Your position on this matter is completely absurd. I cannot read your posts any more carefully than I have, but you can clearly choose your words much more carefully.

SB out.

 

[lovely]

It's not obsurd of me to get Solo's meaning at all. What's obsurd is to deliberately miss people's meanings for the sake of fruitless vain disputes, to quote snippets for the sake of distortion while not addressing the whole of what's being said honestly, and to treat people with a condescending slanderous tone after you have purposely tired them out with tactics that are clearly transparent and not serving the discussion at all. And don't ask me for 'evidence' to this, just read the thread again.

1. Solo and I have known each other for years, and I kinda have some idea of his beliefs after reading his posts for so long...we are also on another board together. I also knew that Brian, a believer, to whom my first post was directed, would also likely understand my meaning...it can be easy when the effort is sincerely made. Also, I am happy to explain it, even if people disagree with me.

2. It's not in the best interest of the discussion for me to get caught up with one word when I know that Solo and I basically agree that to not recognize God as our Authority means that we believe we are our own authority...'self'. I didn't need terms defined, and when I do, I generally try to accept the definition for the sake of the discussion. Your posts indicate that you believe man is ruled by 'self' prior to faith as well, and so my main point stands as far as I'm concerned.

3. You are the one who started with the word 'selfish', because you were trying to distort what I was saying in the first place when I used the word 'self'...implying that that I was accusing atheists of somehow being more selfish than other people groups. I wasn't even close to actually saying that at all. They trust in 'self' just like all people do prior to receiving the grace of God through faith which is a complete work of God and not of 'ourselves'. This is why false religions also fall into the 'unbeliever' category, because they believe in 'self works' rather than God's work.

4. Solo went from there to go on and say it is selfish, using your word. It is selfish in terms of cutting God, our Creator, out as our Authority. He has said this more than once to you already.

5. I chose the word 'unbelievers' from the very beginning, to make the point that all who do not believe fall into this trap where 'self' is our 'god'. We are all guilty of being selfish in this way, even the believer who is called to die to 'self' daily still struggles, and so it wasn't a comparison of men with men or who's the most selfish, but rather God and men. This was also already pointed out to you more than once, and when comapred to Christ you fall short just like the rest of us.

6. You went on to take issue with my word, 'unbelievers' to try to show that I was somehow being deceptive in my motives, along with my own personal testimony, btw, and that I really did think that atheists were more selfish than all other people. I responded with the point that I would certainly include atheists, but I would NOT exclude all other types of unbelievers at all, and so it was clear that atheists weren't being singled out, but included. For me, there are only two categories as I have stated, and it wasn't stated for the purpose of this thread, but because that's really how I see it.

Bottom line, Jesus didn't fall for the temptation of the pride of life, and being equal with the Father willingly submitted Himself for our sake to His Authority. As believers we follow that example and no longer see 'self' as our 'god'. We recognize the wisdom and profit of the truth found in the Word, and so we 'see' that God is not only NOT a myth, but the only Source of Truth and most definately our Authority above 'self.

Sorry, Michael, I didn't mean to interfere with your discussion.

To the Moderators, I am sorry if I crossed the line.

 

[Solo]

Lovely,

You stated exactly what needed to be stated, and in such an eloquent manner. As always, thank you for clearing up the subject of 'self' in such a clear and concise manner.

God Bless you,

Michael

 

[Silver Bullet]

All I'm saying lovely is that you should use a word other than 'self' because:

(a) that word alone comes nowhere near explaining what you actually mean

(b) while you actually use the word 'self' to distinguish humanity from your idea of God, the way you use it implies a distinction between 'self' and 'others' (hence, the implication of selfishness). This is such a natural implication that Solo hijacks the word selfish to express the same sentiment and clearly misuses that word in doing so. Solo goes far beyond describing the exclusion of God as an authority in what he means by the word 'selfish'. For instance, it leads to the following preposterous statements made by Solo:

(i) "Atheists are self-serving and selfish; therefore, they cannot serve God or any other unless THEY WANT TO." (Christians cannot serve God and others unless they want to also, so all that this sentence serves to do is enforce the notion that atheists are selfish)

(ii) "atheists are primarily concerned with their own Beliefs and Interests which benefits their take on things in reference to origins of life and authority over them; as well as what benefits their welfare based on their beliefs." (Meaning? Atheist's are primarily concerned with what benefits their welfare, so the welfare of others is secondary: exactly the meaning of the word selfish - not what you mean to imply by the way you have used the word 'self', yet that is a message that gets accross)

The notion that atheists are selfish is a common fallacy among Christians (nicely demonstrated by Solo, and nicely supported, albeit tacitly, by you with your statement that "you get Solo's meaning") and I believe that it flows from or is at least contributed to by the inappropriate use of plain words, such as the way you choose to use the word 'self'.

I am curious: while I acknowledge that you (and other Christians actually) use the word 'self' to distinguish humanity from your idea of God and His authority, do you even in the slightest acknowledge the point I am trying to make about your use of the word 'self'?

On another note:

"I can choose to believe the Scriptures that Jesus Christ quoted from which says, "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that does good"

This scriptural message is clearly wrong: it is impossible that no atheist does good. I do good everyday. I am living proof that this message in scripture is mistaken. Of course, this message probably works well to disgrace atheists in much the same tacit way that your use of the word 'self' does and in much the same explicit way that Solo's "dissertation" does.

SB

 

[Solo]

SB,

Your understanding of the word "self" and how it is used is the context of this thread is hindered by your small perspective of truth. You have made correct statements concerning the word "self" in a general manner, but have rejected the truth that Lovely and I have been declaring.

Let me begin to explain one last time concerning this issue by first explaining that believers can also place "self" in control of their decision making processes over God Almighty, and when they do so, they claim the authority from God, the rightful authority; and become "God" of their world at that time. Until they submit to God Almighty again, they are the God of their world whereby their "self" is in control instead of the rightful authority God Almighty.

Atheists have never submitted to the authority of God Almighty, and continue to be the "God" of their own lives making each of the decisions that they make according to their "self" guided impulses and knowledge. Believers have repented from letting their "self" claim what is right, and have turned to God for what is right. Unfortunately, Believers continue to have a sin nature, and are in a life of growing into spiritual maturity through renewing their mind through the Word of God. This life is a continual battle between the sinful nature of "self" and the born again nature of one "born of God".

Atheists have no choice but to serve "self" because their is no other whom they submit other than whom they choose to submit to. Their is not Almighty absolute Truth in their life to submit to so they decide each and every thing that they decide upon by what feels and sounds good to them.

The difference between an Atheist and a Believer is that an Atheist is his/her own God, while a Believer has Almighty God as his/her God regardless of what their self does in the sinfulness of the flesh. Believers are in Christ Jesus and because He died for them while being sinless; they will live with him even though they are sinners. Atheists do not believe this so they will pay the penalty for their sin all by themselves for eternity.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Hugely stereotypical, and grossly wrong.

There are plenty of atheist who do not care about or study evolution. Many Buddhists for example.

I for one do not study much on it myself, and could care less from a atheistic standpoint if for some reason it was completely over turned.

Also, many atheists also have a love for science. Evolution is a part of science so naturally many atheists are attracted to it. Just like many atheists love to read/study different theories on the cosmos.

You need to change your signature there Vault Zero 4 Me, when it should read I am an animal with
dilutions of grandeur would make it more convincing, don't you think? :yes

turnorburn

I don't get it.

Explain.

 

[guitarman]

Ughh! Reading silverbullet's and solo's exhanges on the meaning of the word selfishness reminded me of trying to teach my autistic son how to tie his shoes. I had to repeat it over and over and over and he still doesn't get it. You should probably give up sb, solo's definition of selfish is anyone who isn't subserviant to god, regardless of what the actual definition is. Christians for the most part don't care what the actual meaning of something is, they get their meaning from the bible. I asked my wife what she thought selfish means and she agreed with you and pretty much anyone else you could ask, being selfish means putting yourself before others. I've never heard anyone define selfishness as anyone who doesn't submit to god. I take that back, I think I have heard that in churches before and they don't keep dictionarys in the pews.

 

[Guest]

regardless of what the actual definition is

There is no inherent meaning to a sign.

 

[SentientOne]

I think that "evilution" is not a god, but a doctrine, that tries to discredit God. While it is not selfish to believe in a theory, it is a matter of being ungrateful. The Bible says in 2 Tim 3:16

All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

so ALL Scripture is either true...or ALL Scripture is a lie. And who stands to benefit if ALL Scripture is considered a lie?...The satan...the father of lies, who has lied since the beginning.

If evilution was true (which it is not, if you consider the Laws of Thermodynamics) then God would have showed it to be so. True science never contradicts Scripture because the Author of Scripture made everything as it is, and everything after its kind...nothing mutates. On mutation...why does nothing ever mutate upward, like evilution purports? LOL... 'evilution' defies entropy, for goodness sakes. How can a human being, of relative intelligence, believe in such a lie? Who has EVER witnessed it?

 

[guitarman]

SentientOne said: "If evilution was true (which it is not, if you consider the Laws of Thermodynamics) then God would have showed it to be so. True science never contradicts Scripture because the Author of Scripture made everything as it is, and everything after its kind...nothing mutates. On mutation...why does nothing ever mutate upward, like evilution purports? LOL... 'evilution' defies entropy, for goodness sakes. How can a human being, of relative intelligence, believe in such a lie? Who has EVER witnessed it?"

I'm pretty sure you don't understand what the second law of thermodynamics means. Here's some info:

The second law of thermodynamics says that everything tends toward disorder, making evolutionary development impossible. Source: Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 38-46.

Response:
1.The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because


•the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
•entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000).
•even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.
In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.


2.The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution (Demetrius 2000).

Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy (McShea 1998). Some see the information content of organisms subject to diversification according to the second law (Brooks and Wiley 1988), so organisms diversify to fill empty niches much as a gas expands to fill an empty container. Others propose that highly ordered complex systems emerge and evolve to dissipate energy (and increase overall entropy) more efficiently (Schneider and Kay 1994).


3.Creationists themselves admit that increasing order is possible. They introduce fictional exceptions to the law to account for it.


4.Creationists themselves make claims that directly contradict their claims about the second law of thermodynamics, such as hydrological sorting of fossils during the Flood.

References:
1.Aranda-Espinoza, H., Y. Chen, N. Dan, T. C. Lubensky, P. Nelson, L. Ramos and D. A. Weitz, 1999. Electrostatic repulsion of positively charged vesicles and negatively charged objects. Science 285: 394-397.
2.Brooks, D. R. and E. O. Wiley, 1988. Evolution As Entropy, University of Chicago Press.
3.Kestenbaum, David, 1998. Gentle force of entropy bridges disciplines. Science 279: 1849.
4.Han, J. and H. G. Craighead, 2000. Separation of long DNA molecules in a microfabricated entropic trap array. Science 288: 1026-1029.
5.Demetrius, Lloyd, 2000. Theromodynamics and evolution. Journal of Theoretical Biology 206(1): 1-16. http://www.idealibrary.com/links/doi/10 ... .2000.2106
6.McShea, Daniel W., 1998. Possible largest-scale trends in organismal evolution: eight live hypotheses. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 29: 293-318.
7.Schneider, Eric D. and James J. Kay, 1994. Life as a manifestation of the second law of thermodynamics. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 19(6-8): 25-48. http://www.fes.uwaterloo.ca/u/jjkay/pub ... lifeas.pdf

 

[guitarman]

by minnesota on Sat Jun 13, 2009 7:28 pm

guitarman wrote: regardless of what the actual definition is
There is no inherent meaning to a sign.

I meant the generally accepted meaning of a word.

 

[GojuBrian]

"evilution" lol.. I like that one. :D