I have noticed that a topic has tacken over a post of mine. Two people were descussing God and science, and I think there is a God, and I will fight you to the death on the subject.
Hi 555Joshua,
555Joshua Posted on May 16 2005, 11:22 AM
Is that a Crusade, Holy War (Jihad) or other? Please specify. Will you be killing the women and children too? What has killing got to do with Scientific Debate?
As to your topic being taken over...honestly you should assert your "squatters" rights and insist that you should be allowed to write there. I guess you will have to make up your mind to want a discussion or a monolog because there are other formats for monologs and it is left to the individual to decide if they want to read it or not... If you want blood I suggest you bite the heads off hapless chickens rather than assault us here in our "homes".
Where do Elves fit into your Cosmology? .... Nah... forget that... I don't think I will want to know. But in case you are "mostly harmless" you can say something interesting and carry on from there. So far it is a little light on the intellectual side.
Cheers
555Joshua Posted on May 16 2005, 11:22 AM
QUOTE
I think there is a God, and I will fight you to the death on the subject.
Is that a Crusade, Holy War (Jihad) or other? Please specify. Will you be killing the women and children too? What has killing got to do with Scientific Debate?
As to your topic being taken over...honestly you should assert your "squatters" rights and insist that you should be allowed to write there. I guess you will have to make up your mind to want a discussion or a monolog because there are other formats for monologs and it is left to the individual to decide if they want to read it or not... If you want blood I suggest you bite the heads off hapless chickens rather than assault us here in our "homes".
Where do Elves fit into your Cosmology? .... Nah... forget that... I don't think I will want to know. But in case you are "mostly harmless" you can say something interesting and carry on from there. So far it is a little light on the intellectual side.
Cheers
It really depends on your religious ideology, which can differ from person to person. If your ideology has room for evolution, then it has room. If it doesn't, it doesn't. The rest is arguing semantics.
For example, I'm an agnostic, as I see no evidence for a God, and my religious principles are that of Vera Causa - science can never prove or disprove God, so just shut up and focus on the science! Vera Causa comes from a long way back - before Darwin, if I payed enough attention in my Darwin history class.
For example, I'm an agnostic, as I see no evidence for a God, and my religious principles are that of Vera Causa - science can never prove or disprove God, so just shut up and focus on the science! Vera Causa comes from a long way back - before Darwin, if I payed enough attention in my Darwin history class.
What if God himself is a result of evolution, but not in a biological sense. The energies of existence evolved, became configured in such a manner as to produce awareness. And from there God learned, made mistakes, created other beings and so forth, realizing "He" had the capabilities of manipulation over these existence energies; not total control which will remain forever elusive to consciousness, but grand manipulation nonetheless.
QUOTE
science can never prove or disprove God, so just shut up and focus on the science!
I'm a Christian, but I totally agree with this one. Mixing in religion with science just weighs things down. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, then science says it's probably a duck and we should treat it so in our experiments. If you personally believe it is not really a duck, well that's your prerogative. But if you can't test the idea, then don't let it interfere with your work.
Element -
Have you ever read Feuerbach - the German philosopher whose basic premises are quite close to those that you espouse? Good stuff.
I completely agree w/ you and find the post by 555Joshua to be the quintessential exemplar of the current state of religious polemics in the modern world today. While I suspect that he said it more for inflammatory effect than anything else, it's inherently in poor taste and antithetical to the spirit of these threads.
Sweeeeeet - jest lemme grease up my AK-47 and let the gittin' git goin'. Such nonsense. Statements like 555Joshua's are what drove the world into the first Dark Ages; my skepticism leads me to believe that with nutcakes like those on the front page of today's NYT proliferating, we are in for another one w/in the next 75-100 yrs
Have you ever read Feuerbach - the German philosopher whose basic premises are quite close to those that you espouse? Good stuff.
I completely agree w/ you and find the post by 555Joshua to be the quintessential exemplar of the current state of religious polemics in the modern world today. While I suspect that he said it more for inflammatory effect than anything else, it's inherently in poor taste and antithetical to the spirit of these threads.
Sweeeeeet - jest lemme grease up my AK-47 and let the gittin' git goin'. Such nonsense. Statements like 555Joshua's are what drove the world into the first Dark Ages; my skepticism leads me to believe that with nutcakes like those on the front page of today's NYT proliferating, we are in for another one w/in the next 75-100 yrs
QUOTE
But if you can't test the idea, then don't let it interfere with your work.
I agree.
555Joshua,
Quite simply, not everyone will beleive. Some will require absolute proof. if you are Christian (assumption made) then you will know what Romans reads, about the existance of God being clearly evident, perceived by the things made so that it is inexcusable.
God's evidence therefore, is quite simply the universe around us, the life on our planet and ourselves, like David wrote in the Psalms about us being beautifully made and how all our parts are down in writing. Just ponder the subject matter of the thread "memory, memory, memory" for just one of many examples of our amazing existance.
We look at the universe, we see the complexity, the way things interact and the pleasure it can produce and we perceive God's existance. Others do not. Others perceive the way it could have come about randomly.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But if you can't test the idea, then don't let it interfere with your work. |
I agree.
555Joshua,
Quite simply, not everyone will beleive. Some will require absolute proof. if you are Christian (assumption made) then you will know what Romans reads, about the existance of God being clearly evident, perceived by the things made so that it is inexcusable.
God's evidence therefore, is quite simply the universe around us, the life on our planet and ourselves, like David wrote in the Psalms about us being beautifully made and how all our parts are down in writing. Just ponder the subject matter of the thread "memory, memory, memory" for just one of many examples of our amazing existance.
We look at the universe, we see the complexity, the way things interact and the pleasure it can produce and we perceive God's existance. Others do not. Others perceive the way it could have come about randomly.
Is that a Crusade, Holy War (Jihad) or other? Please specify. Will you be killing the women and children too? What has killing got to do with Scientific Debate?
I would not fight to the death, personnally, because my beleif in God would incur upon me blood guilt. I would however, stand firm in my resolve not to turn my back on God and renounce his existance, to the point of death.
Question to all who believe in whatever kind of religion.
For example, if you are roman catholic you believe in god, if you are muslim you believe in allah, etc. What if all this is true what are these so called gods then, brothers?
If so then there is a possibility there are also sisters. Anyone think of that?
And if these gods exist, there must be parallel heavens (and parallel hell?)
I don’t think so! But I don’t mind if some one believes in a religion. To my humble opinion I think it is just a excuse to live by a certain standard and anything that does not match with this is being denied.
So please don’t try to see who is wrong or right, just try to get along with each other.
For example, if you are roman catholic you believe in god, if you are muslim you believe in allah, etc. What if all this is true what are these so called gods then, brothers?
If so then there is a possibility there are also sisters. Anyone think of that?
And if these gods exist, there must be parallel heavens (and parallel hell?)
I don’t think so! But I don’t mind if some one believes in a religion. To my humble opinion I think it is just a excuse to live by a certain standard and anything that does not match with this is being denied.
So please don’t try to see who is wrong or right, just try to get along with each other.
Insyght:
Glad to see you have registered
I have to say regarding your statement...
That is NOT evidence, even in the slightest. That's just silly romanticism w/o even a shred of empiricism.
Our "amazing" cerebral existence has been rather definitively proven to be evolution toward the laws of thermodynamics (heat dispersion from our skulls) more than anything else. I'm an EMT - ever see a head wound? We bleed like crazy and for good reason - the small surface area of our skulls (relative to the rest of our bodies) releases over 60% of our total body heat.
Glad to see you have registered
I have to say regarding your statement...
QUOTE
God's evidence therefore, is quite simply the universe around us, the life on our planet and ourselves, like David wrote in the Psalms about us being beautifully made and how all our parts are down in writing. Just ponder the subject matter of the thread "memory, memory, memory" for just one of many examples of our amazing existance.
That is NOT evidence, even in the slightest. That's just silly romanticism w/o even a shred of empiricism.
Our "amazing" cerebral existence has been rather definitively proven to be evolution toward the laws of thermodynamics (heat dispersion from our skulls) more than anything else. I'm an EMT - ever see a head wound? We bleed like crazy and for good reason - the small surface area of our skulls (relative to the rest of our bodies) releases over 60% of our total body heat.
Hi Insyght,
Nothing personal but you seem to be "putting it out"...
Insyght Posted on May 16 2005, 02:47 PM
I think if you require proof for your Physics then you should also require proof for your religious beliefs. No need in all that pointless slaughter for the sake of unproven ideology. I do not believe in personally created artifacts of stone or gold or of the human mind. Nor will I worship them.
Insyght Posted on May 16 2005, 02:47 PM
I think if you require proof for your Physics then you should also require proof for your religious beliefs. No need in all that pointless slaughter for the sake of unproven ideology. I do not believe in personally created artifacts of stone or gold or of the human mind. Nor will I worship them.
Insyght Posted on May 16 2005, 02:47 PM
I would however, stand firm in my resolve not to turn my back on God and renounce his existence, to the point of death.
You talk in nonsensical terms you have no idea who or what God is and his needs if any. If you do think so then you are a haughty being without any regard for your true purpose. If you worship a psychotic God that needs the pointless wimperings of his own handiwork and finds some pleasure in it's death... he should see a shrink. For that matter so should you... because the mental problem seems to be "catching".
If God truly exists give him some credit. I do not think God needs martyrs either if you truly believed in a God you would realize that the wasting of his handiwork for an idealogical concept is not only pointless but a desecration. A bird flys in the sky and may drop at a single moment but cares nothing for ideology. If he wants you dead then it can happen anytime he wants. Your assistance is not needed. Anyone can commit suicide... it takes a talent to live and make it mean something. Your self loathing (and that of a large portion of the human species) is obvious.
Wake up and get a life.
Your desire for martyrdom is based on false beliefs and Church Traditions. The church was building empires on the blood of it's martyrs for nearly two millenia - get your empires straight and stop being human mortar for the Vatican. God does not need your sacrifice - he has got along for billions of years already without you (and the Vatican), what makes you think that your death now means anything at all other than a sheer waste! Everything dies - your death would actually achieve nothing in practical terms. The only way your life means anything at all is if you live - go figure!
A God of human sacrifice is a human God. Stop you self-idolatry and realize the error of your ways and find a purpose for all this. Perfect your life here and now do not wait for some afterlife to start to do something. And stop trying to manipulate and coerce God into action on your behalf at the expense of his natural order.
You were made a human being and there is no greater calling. He could have easily made you cattle if that is what he really wanted.
Cheers
Yeah, I figured it was time
Yeah, I figured it was time
That is NOT evidence, even in the slightest. That's just silly romanticism w/o even a shred of empiricism.
Not silly to me and not romanticism to me either. People use all sorts of illustrations to describe the idea behind it, houses, watches, etc. Sure someone like yourself has come across many such arguments so no point to reproduce. To me is in just logical that our universe and all the life in it came from a source of intelligence.
I know... foolishness right? I'm blind... mislead... but that is how I view your sitation [not you personnally but that of a non-beleiver]. I see clearly what I consider truth. It all fits.
Nope, thankfully. Respect for your line of work. Not everyone could do it.
Nothing personal but you seem to be "putting it out"...
Insyght Posted on May 16 2005, 02:47 PM
QUOTE
Quite simply, not everyone will believe. Some will require absolute proof
I think if you require proof for your Physics then you should also require proof for your religious beliefs. No need in all that pointless slaughter for the sake of unproven ideology. I do not believe in personally created artifacts of stone or gold or of the human mind. Nor will I worship them.
Insyght Posted on May 16 2005, 02:47 PM
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Quite simply, not everyone will believe. Some will require absolute proof |
I think if you require proof for your Physics then you should also require proof for your religious beliefs. No need in all that pointless slaughter for the sake of unproven ideology. I do not believe in personally created artifacts of stone or gold or of the human mind. Nor will I worship them.
Insyght Posted on May 16 2005, 02:47 PM
I would however, stand firm in my resolve not to turn my back on God and renounce his existence, to the point of death.
You talk in nonsensical terms you have no idea who or what God is and his needs if any. If you do think so then you are a haughty being without any regard for your true purpose. If you worship a psychotic God that needs the pointless wimperings of his own handiwork and finds some pleasure in it's death... he should see a shrink. For that matter so should you... because the mental problem seems to be "catching".
If God truly exists give him some credit. I do not think God needs martyrs either if you truly believed in a God you would realize that the wasting of his handiwork for an idealogical concept is not only pointless but a desecration. A bird flys in the sky and may drop at a single moment but cares nothing for ideology. If he wants you dead then it can happen anytime he wants. Your assistance is not needed. Anyone can commit suicide... it takes a talent to live and make it mean something. Your self loathing (and that of a large portion of the human species) is obvious.
Wake up and get a life.
Your desire for martyrdom is based on false beliefs and Church Traditions. The church was building empires on the blood of it's martyrs for nearly two millenia - get your empires straight and stop being human mortar for the Vatican. God does not need your sacrifice - he has got along for billions of years already without you (and the Vatican), what makes you think that your death now means anything at all other than a sheer waste! Everything dies - your death would actually achieve nothing in practical terms. The only way your life means anything at all is if you live - go figure!
A God of human sacrifice is a human God. Stop you self-idolatry and realize the error of your ways and find a purpose for all this. Perfect your life here and now do not wait for some afterlife to start to do something. And stop trying to manipulate and coerce God into action on your behalf at the expense of his natural order.
You were made a human being and there is no greater calling. He could have easily made you cattle if that is what he really wanted.
Cheers
Hi,
I'm a Christian (technically Catholic, but being disillusioned with mass worship I prefer the term 'non-denominational'). Personally, I reckon there's room for both.
Evolution is the most convincing argument, and has far more evidence for it than the existence of God. Now, not being a physicist, I could very easily be proved wrong here, but there's no evidence to disprove God's existence, and it's very possible that God influenced evolution, gave it a few nudges, or just the materials it needed to work, if you get me. Meh, I just can't accept that this world we see is all there is to it. Hope I don't get shouted at for that
Well, as far as I'm aware, Muslim, Jewish and Christian (at least) theology... people... (I forget the word for them) agree that their gods are probably the same being. Which makes the whole Christian vs. Christian/Christian vs. Jew/Christian vs. Muslim/Muslim vs. Jew arguments ever so slightly pointless. "You worship God wrong!" "No, you do!"
Thanks for reading
- Kaeroll
I'm a Christian (technically Catholic, but being disillusioned with mass worship I prefer the term 'non-denominational'). Personally, I reckon there's room for both.
Evolution is the most convincing argument, and has far more evidence for it than the existence of God. Now, not being a physicist, I could very easily be proved wrong here, but there's no evidence to disprove God's existence, and it's very possible that God influenced evolution, gave it a few nudges, or just the materials it needed to work, if you get me. Meh, I just can't accept that this world we see is all there is to it. Hope I don't get shouted at for that
QUOTE
What if all this is true what are these so called gods then, brothers?
Well, as far as I'm aware, Muslim, Jewish and Christian (at least) theology... people... (I forget the word for them) agree that their gods are probably the same being. Which makes the whole Christian vs. Christian/Christian vs. Jew/Christian vs. Muslim/Muslim vs. Jew arguments ever so slightly pointless. "You worship God wrong!" "No, you do!"
Thanks for reading
- Kaeroll
QUOTE
Glad to see you have registered biggrin.gif
Yeah, I figured it was time
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Glad to see you have registered biggrin.gif |
Yeah, I figured it was time
That is NOT evidence, even in the slightest. That's just silly romanticism w/o even a shred of empiricism.
Not silly to me and not romanticism to me either. People use all sorts of illustrations to describe the idea behind it, houses, watches, etc. Sure someone like yourself has come across many such arguments so no point to reproduce. To me is in just logical that our universe and all the life in it came from a source of intelligence.
I know... foolishness right? I'm blind... mislead... but that is how I view your sitation [not you personnally but that of a non-beleiver]. I see clearly what I consider truth. It all fits.
QUOTE
ever see a head wound?
Nope, thankfully. Respect for your line of work. Not everyone could do it.
Good Elf,
personally created artifacts of stone or gold or of the human mind. Nor will I worship them
Your "wake up and get a life" argument is based on incorrect information about me. Let me make something very clear: I do not worship idols of stone or gold. I do not engage in pointless slaughter. I do not (hehe) make pointless wimperings. I do not deliberately put my self in line for Martyrdom. I am not waiting till a new world to make changes. I live a "normal" life, with wife & children, home & car, backyard & bbq, wine & beer, and yes, science and discovery.
You paint the picture that I am some kinda brain-dead drone, living a church controlled life. not so. I make decisions on my own and I make changes to how I interact with people all the time.
My advice for you Good Elf is simply this: don't let you indignation of the atrocities of mainstream religion cause you to catagorize every believer of God as being a nut case. It really is not true and appears to show that you are the one which has some kinda issue.
Cheers
I'm a Christian, but I totally agree with this one. Mixing in religion with science just weighs things down. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, then science says it's probably a duck and we should treat it so in our experiments. If you personally believe it is not really a duck, well that's your prerogative. But if you can't test the idea, then don't let it interfere with your work.
Gah! You got me hungry for duck now.
Just had a BBQ last night, and the weekend before... steak, pork, chicken, bratwurst, and corn and other veggies, but no duck
QUOTE
No need in all that pointless slaughter for the sake of unproven ideology.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No need in all that pointless slaughter for the sake of unproven ideology. |
personally created artifacts of stone or gold or of the human mind. Nor will I worship them
QUOTE
If you worship a psychotic God that needs the pointless wimperings of his own handiwork and finds some pleasure in it's death
Your "wake up and get a life" argument is based on incorrect information about me. Let me make something very clear: I do not worship idols of stone or gold. I do not engage in pointless slaughter. I do not (hehe) make pointless wimperings. I do not deliberately put my self in line for Martyrdom. I am not waiting till a new world to make changes. I live a "normal" life, with wife & children, home & car, backyard & bbq, wine & beer, and yes, science and discovery.
You paint the picture that I am some kinda brain-dead drone, living a church controlled life. not so. I make decisions on my own and I make changes to how I interact with people all the time.
My advice for you Good Elf is simply this: don't let you indignation of the atrocities of mainstream religion cause you to catagorize every believer of God as being a nut case. It really is not true and appears to show that you are the one which has some kinda issue.
Cheers
QUOTE (WaterBreath+May 16 2005, 09:21 AM)
QUOTE
science can never prove or disprove God, so just shut up and focus on the science!
I'm a Christian, but I totally agree with this one. Mixing in religion with science just weighs things down. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, then science says it's probably a duck and we should treat it so in our experiments. If you personally believe it is not really a duck, well that's your prerogative. But if you can't test the idea, then don't let it interfere with your work.
Gah! You got me hungry for duck now.
Just had a BBQ last night, and the weekend before... steak, pork, chicken, bratwurst, and corn and other veggies, but no duck
QUOTE (Phoenixz33+May 16 2005, 12:33 PM)
science can never prove or disprove God
Very true. From a Christian perspective anyway. If God allowed there to be direct evidance of His existance then our existance would become moot. I'll only go into this in depth if I have to but here is the overview. Most Christians beleive you need faith in the Lord (God). If we looked into the past and saw "yep everything was made in six days some 5 and a half thousand years ago." Then we wouldn't need faith to beleive in Him. So science will never prove nor disprove God. So God could have made the world in progress 2 seconds ago and you'd never know. The point is He did things this way so we would need faith. Otherwise He'd be a science fact and faith would be moot.
Very true. From a Christian perspective anyway. If God allowed there to be direct evidance of His existance then our existance would become moot. I'll only go into this in depth if I have to but here is the overview. Most Christians beleive you need faith in the Lord (God). If we looked into the past and saw "yep everything was made in six days some 5 and a half thousand years ago." Then we wouldn't need faith to beleive in Him. So science will never prove nor disprove God. So God could have made the world in progress 2 seconds ago and you'd never know. The point is He did things this way so we would need faith. Otherwise He'd be a science fact and faith would be moot.
QUOTE
I have noticed that a topic has tacken over a post of mine. Two people were descussing God and science, and I think there is a God, and I will fight you to the death on the subject.
555Joshua- nice way to start a fire storm. Unfortunately firestorms are rarely profitable to anyone, except those looking for something funny to read. Personally I've found this thread very humerous.
QUOTE (Insyght+May 16 2005, 09:47 AM)
I would not fight to the death, personnally, because my beleif in God would incur upon me blood guilt. I would however, stand firm in my resolve not to turn my back on God and renounce his existance, to the point of death.
Wow, Good Elf, you just totally ignored the first sentence in this quote didn't you? Did you even see it? I mean, I want to give you the benefit of the doubt here, because you've proven to be so reasonable in the past. You must have not seen that sentence, because it completely wipes out your whole rant about violence and martyrdom.
He said "I would not fight...". So what is the willingness to die that he speaks of? It's simply a refusal to recant ones principles. If Insyght is sincere in his statement, this means he has more integrity than, for example, Galileo, who decided that it was better to stifle scientific advancement than to pay the price the church levelled at him.
Would you prefer that we all abandon our dearest principles at threat of death? What kind of world would that create?
Wow, Good Elf, you just totally ignored the first sentence in this quote didn't you? Did you even see it? I mean, I want to give you the benefit of the doubt here, because you've proven to be so reasonable in the past. You must have not seen that sentence, because it completely wipes out your whole rant about violence and martyrdom.
He said "I would not fight...". So what is the willingness to die that he speaks of? It's simply a refusal to recant ones principles. If Insyght is sincere in his statement, this means he has more integrity than, for example, Galileo, who decided that it was better to stifle scientific advancement than to pay the price the church levelled at him.
Would you prefer that we all abandon our dearest principles at threat of death? What kind of world would that create?
QUOTE (Good Elf+May 16 2005, 10:42 AM)
I think if you require proof for your Physics then you should also require proof for your religious beliefs.
What proof can there be for religious beliefs, or philosophy in general? Maybe you need to reacquaint yourself with the definition of philosophy: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=philosophy. Use your skeptic exploration to explore the things mentioned there, and let me know how many solid conclusions you draw. You may come to the conclusion, as some have, that science dictates you live in uncertainty as an agnostic, or that you make an assumption of non-existance for the sake of simplicity.
Insyght and I choose instead to hope for something more substantial. It seems to me you have some philosophical hope as well: either that no god exists, or if it does, that it conforms to your ideals. I think you should recognize that you have as little scientific basis for those philosophical hopes as we do for ours.
I respect your opinions and reasoning on scientific topics, Good Elf. But I'm afraid I have to say I don't think much of your philosophy, so far. So I guess the feeling is probably mutual. Hopefully we can let that disagreement remain separate from our scientific discussions.
What proof can there be for religious beliefs, or philosophy in general? Maybe you need to reacquaint yourself with the definition of philosophy: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=philosophy. Use your skeptic exploration to explore the things mentioned there, and let me know how many solid conclusions you draw. You may come to the conclusion, as some have, that science dictates you live in uncertainty as an agnostic, or that you make an assumption of non-existance for the sake of simplicity.
Insyght and I choose instead to hope for something more substantial. It seems to me you have some philosophical hope as well: either that no god exists, or if it does, that it conforms to your ideals. I think you should recognize that you have as little scientific basis for those philosophical hopes as we do for ours.
I respect your opinions and reasoning on scientific topics, Good Elf. But I'm afraid I have to say I don't think much of your philosophy, so far. So I guess the feeling is probably mutual. Hopefully we can let that disagreement remain separate from our scientific discussions.
Very nice discussions, minus the death and dying crap. This really exemplifies my point, why do highly religious people convey that it is absolutely necessary that others believe as they do or they will suffer some horrendous fate? The only real explanation to this is that it is a tool to attempt to instill fear in the "unbelievers". I get e-mails where people write that there may not be a god but "they don't want to risk it and disbelieve". That's sad…We are beings that exist we should not just sit back and blindly accept things without questioning them, which is what a lot of religions do. Many people posting on this site will readily admit that they will not accept the possibility that there is not a god, even though that may be true. On the other hand I personally do not believe that there is any sort of deity but, I am willing to listen to anyone with the logic and reason to present to me that there is. Nothing I have ever read indicates to me that my views are wrong and everyone who posts to the contrary just quotes the bible or some other religious text. Anyone whom has taken college courses can tell you that any valid argument must be substantiated or it is just opinion, thus so far I see religion as just another opinion.
This just further conveys my point that religion is based on the human ego and is nothing more than an "opinion" based upon a books written by several human beings a couple thousand years or so ago. This was beneficial for the time and helped to explain those many things about the world that we as human beings did not understand. If we did not know then we just said "because god made it that way", no further explanation was necessary. At the time it was described that heaven was the sky above us, which we now know is not true. We routinely have traveled in the areas between our planet and outer space and there is no heaven. Where do these deities reside? We have a very good understanding of the inner crust of the earth and the core with the surrounding molten contents, we know that there is no hell either…where does Satan reside since he was cast down from heaven?
We understand that everything in the universe was originally formed from hydrogen, helium and lithium. Everything we see and experience including ourselves, (http://son.nasa.gov/tass/content/article1.htm) has evolved from these elements. Which element is god? For those who say god is everywhere I would vote that he/she is hydrogen because that is the most abundant element in the universe. If he/she is in fact hydrogen then he/she would in fact be nearly everywhere.
With utterly thousands of religions worldwide, which one is the right one? If there is a right one then why are there so many? They are all different in some respects but generally they are all monotheistic and similar in their belief systems. There is one common thread with all of them that cannot be denied and is at the root of the issue, human beings. Religions are so different because they where created by human beings, all from different sub-groups but attempting to address the same questions, what happens when we die? Why is the world the way it is? In the past the intelligence was not available to explain many of the questions we had so to alleviate our fears we created religion. Obviously, not all the answers are there but many are, as long as there is science we have a chance to finally reach a complete understanding, or like Einstein wanted a "unification theory" to explain everything.
And for those who believe that religions don't get in the way of science even when they are wrong, read about poor Giordano Bruno (http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/lecture8a.html)
This just further conveys my point that religion is based on the human ego and is nothing more than an "opinion" based upon a books written by several human beings a couple thousand years or so ago. This was beneficial for the time and helped to explain those many things about the world that we as human beings did not understand. If we did not know then we just said "because god made it that way", no further explanation was necessary. At the time it was described that heaven was the sky above us, which we now know is not true. We routinely have traveled in the areas between our planet and outer space and there is no heaven. Where do these deities reside? We have a very good understanding of the inner crust of the earth and the core with the surrounding molten contents, we know that there is no hell either…where does Satan reside since he was cast down from heaven?
We understand that everything in the universe was originally formed from hydrogen, helium and lithium. Everything we see and experience including ourselves, (http://son.nasa.gov/tass/content/article1.htm) has evolved from these elements. Which element is god? For those who say god is everywhere I would vote that he/she is hydrogen because that is the most abundant element in the universe. If he/she is in fact hydrogen then he/she would in fact be nearly everywhere.
With utterly thousands of religions worldwide, which one is the right one? If there is a right one then why are there so many? They are all different in some respects but generally they are all monotheistic and similar in their belief systems. There is one common thread with all of them that cannot be denied and is at the root of the issue, human beings. Religions are so different because they where created by human beings, all from different sub-groups but attempting to address the same questions, what happens when we die? Why is the world the way it is? In the past the intelligence was not available to explain many of the questions we had so to alleviate our fears we created religion. Obviously, not all the answers are there but many are, as long as there is science we have a chance to finally reach a complete understanding, or like Einstein wanted a "unification theory" to explain everything.
And for those who believe that religions don't get in the way of science even when they are wrong, read about poor Giordano Bruno (http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/lecture8a.html)
Well, most of what Evolution just said I already responded to in another thread and everyone just kind of avoided responding directly to it, so I won't bother with it again...
I don't think anyone said religions don't get in the way. At least I didn't. What I have said is that getting in the way isn't inevitable.
I don't think anyone said religions don't get in the way. At least I didn't. What I have said is that getting in the way isn't inevitable.
We routinely have traveled in the areas between our planet and outer space and there is no heaven. Where do these deities reside?
I bet you'd have been one of the people that soundly denounced the idea that atoms were not elementary before we discovered electrons. How do you feel about string theory? The simple fact is that simply because we have not witnessed it does not mean it does not exist. If we can't observe it within this universe, well then it really bears very little direct impact on our scientific exploration. But that doesn't mean it does not exist.
I really just don't see why there is such a total aversion even to "benign" concepts of religion, even when people strive to keep their philosophies separated from their science. If you ask me it borders on bigotry. If you certain Christians not to stand on the street corner and denounce the lifestyle choices of homosexuals, then maybe you should think twice about standing on the street corner and denouncing the lifestyle choice of the other Christians who are just minding their own business, living their lives without trying to affect government policy. Obviously religious "zealots" aren't the only ones capable of hypocrisy.
Funny, I used to say that about science until I started to learn about it
I'll repeat this point again: There is nothing egotistical about belief in God. If you beleive there is a God, right there you put your self in a position of submission, you have to admit your mistakes and try and change them and you become accountable to that God. Scripture is full of the need for humility.
Egotism soars in the sciences though, educated professionals, working for decades, proving theories, winning prizes, getting the esteme, honor, glory, prestege. Even for the scientics who do not reach that level, they are still exhaulted in intelligience amoungst their friends... perhaps they can drop a bit of QM here and a bit of thermodynamics there, just to remind theose around them how smart they are.
See how easy it is to twist motive?
Really should stay on track and look not at those who profess belief in God, but look at the simple possibility that God does exist.
Waterbreath,
Yes...you did respond, in part. Unfortunately, there where many quotes from the bible which was exactly contrary to my original post, I was very disappointed. You lambasted Good Elf for ignoring Insyght's original post but you did the same thing to me. I challenged anyone to address this issue without the bible quotes because if in fact the bible was written by "normal men/women" then it is irrelevant and you cannot prove that it was written by god or anyone else for that matter. Just like religion the true source of the bible cannot be verified in any way. I again challenge you to present an articulate argument that exemplifies any existing deity in any way without the negative bantering, and please no references to the virgin Mary on an underpass either. Religious beliefs are just based upon opinion.
Waterbreath,
Yes...you did respond, in part. Unfortunately, there where many quotes from the bible which was exactly contrary to my original post, I was very disappointed. You lambasted Good Elf for ignoring Insyght's original post but you did the same thing to me. I challenged anyone to address this issue without the bible quotes because if in fact the bible was written by "normal men/women" then it is irrelevant and you cannot prove that it was written by god or anyone else for that matter. Just like religion the true source of the bible cannot be verified in any way. I again challenge you to present an articulate argument that exemplifies any existing deity in any way without the negative bantering, and please no references to the virgin Mary on an underpass either. Religious beliefs are just based upon opinion.
I don't think anyone said religions don't get in the way. At least I didn't. What I have said is that getting in the way isn't inevitable.
I am glad you agree, but I would bet others do not. Here is a better site about poor Giordano Bruno http://space.about.com/cs/astronomyhistory...ordanobruno.htm
Again, you must not have read my previous post, I stated "I am willing to listen to anyone with the logic and reason to present to me" I really enjoy learning anything I can about Super String Theory, I believe it is the answer to Einsteins persuit of a unified theory. So far as I know it is the only theory presented that can combine Quantum theory and the theory of relativity. We are heading in the right direction.
Again, you must not have read my previous post, I stated "I am willing to listen to anyone with the logic and reason to present to me" I really enjoy learning anything I can about Super String Theory, I believe it is the answer to Einsteins persuit of a unified theory. So far as I know it is the only theory presented that can combine Quantum theory and the theory of relativity. We are heading in the right direction.
If you ask me it borders on bigotry.
That's a very strong statement to make against people that you have never met.
Am I missing something? I have never stood on the street corner for anything...Oh I did sell flowers once as a kid, and I do make a habit of waiting for the green light before I cross. I have no issues with anyone's religious preferences, your choice is just that "your choice". It makes no difference to me until you (not you personally) knock on my door and tell my daughter that she has the devil in her because she does not believe what you (again, not you personally) do, or attend your church. Unfortunately, many people of religious faith seem to feel it is appropriate behavior to do that, I am not the one forcing my belief on the poor, persecuted Christians.
QUOTE
And for those who believe that religions don't get in the way of science even when they are wrong
I don't think anyone said religions don't get in the way. At least I didn't. What I have said is that getting in the way isn't inevitable.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And for those who believe that religions don't get in the way of science even when they are wrong |
I don't think anyone said religions don't get in the way. At least I didn't. What I have said is that getting in the way isn't inevitable.
We routinely have traveled in the areas between our planet and outer space and there is no heaven. Where do these deities reside?
I bet you'd have been one of the people that soundly denounced the idea that atoms were not elementary before we discovered electrons. How do you feel about string theory? The simple fact is that simply because we have not witnessed it does not mean it does not exist. If we can't observe it within this universe, well then it really bears very little direct impact on our scientific exploration. But that doesn't mean it does not exist.
I really just don't see why there is such a total aversion even to "benign" concepts of religion, even when people strive to keep their philosophies separated from their science. If you ask me it borders on bigotry. If you certain Christians not to stand on the street corner and denounce the lifestyle choices of homosexuals, then maybe you should think twice about standing on the street corner and denouncing the lifestyle choice of the other Christians who are just minding their own business, living their lives without trying to affect government policy. Obviously religious "zealots" aren't the only ones capable of hypocrisy.
QUOTE
religion is based on the human ego
Funny, I used to say that about science until I started to learn about it
I'll repeat this point again: There is nothing egotistical about belief in God. If you beleive there is a God, right there you put your self in a position of submission, you have to admit your mistakes and try and change them and you become accountable to that God. Scripture is full of the need for humility.
Egotism soars in the sciences though, educated professionals, working for decades, proving theories, winning prizes, getting the esteme, honor, glory, prestege. Even for the scientics who do not reach that level, they are still exhaulted in intelligience amoungst their friends... perhaps they can drop a bit of QM here and a bit of thermodynamics there, just to remind theose around them how smart they are.
See how easy it is to twist motive?
Really should stay on track and look not at those who profess belief in God, but look at the simple possibility that God does exist.
QUOTE
Well, most of what Evolution just said I already responded to in another thread and everyone just kind of avoided responding directly to it, so I won't bother with it again...
Waterbreath,
Yes...you did respond, in part. Unfortunately, there where many quotes from the bible which was exactly contrary to my original post, I was very disappointed. You lambasted Good Elf for ignoring Insyght's original post but you did the same thing to me. I challenged anyone to address this issue without the bible quotes because if in fact the bible was written by "normal men/women" then it is irrelevant and you cannot prove that it was written by god or anyone else for that matter. Just like religion the true source of the bible cannot be verified in any way. I again challenge you to present an articulate argument that exemplifies any existing deity in any way without the negative bantering, and please no references to the virgin Mary on an underpass either. Religious beliefs are just based upon opinion.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Well, most of what Evolution just said I already responded to in another thread and everyone just kind of avoided responding directly to it, so I won't bother with it again... |
Waterbreath,
Yes...you did respond, in part. Unfortunately, there where many quotes from the bible which was exactly contrary to my original post, I was very disappointed. You lambasted Good Elf for ignoring Insyght's original post but you did the same thing to me. I challenged anyone to address this issue without the bible quotes because if in fact the bible was written by "normal men/women" then it is irrelevant and you cannot prove that it was written by god or anyone else for that matter. Just like religion the true source of the bible cannot be verified in any way. I again challenge you to present an articulate argument that exemplifies any existing deity in any way without the negative bantering, and please no references to the virgin Mary on an underpass either. Religious beliefs are just based upon opinion.
I don't think anyone said religions don't get in the way. At least I didn't. What I have said is that getting in the way isn't inevitable.
I am glad you agree, but I would bet others do not. Here is a better site about poor Giordano Bruno http://space.about.com/cs/astronomyhistory...ordanobruno.htm
QUOTE
I bet you'd have been one of the people that soundly denounced the idea that atoms were not elementary before we discovered electrons. How do you feel about string theory?
Again, you must not have read my previous post, I stated "I am willing to listen to anyone with the logic and reason to present to me" I really enjoy learning anything I can about Super String Theory, I believe it is the answer to Einsteins persuit of a unified theory. So far as I know it is the only theory presented that can combine Quantum theory and the theory of relativity. We are heading in the right direction.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I bet you'd have been one of the people that soundly denounced the idea that atoms were not elementary before we discovered electrons. How do you feel about string theory? |
Again, you must not have read my previous post, I stated "I am willing to listen to anyone with the logic and reason to present to me" I really enjoy learning anything I can about Super String Theory, I believe it is the answer to Einsteins persuit of a unified theory. So far as I know it is the only theory presented that can combine Quantum theory and the theory of relativity. We are heading in the right direction.
If you ask me it borders on bigotry.
That's a very strong statement to make against people that you have never met.
QUOTE
then maybe you should think twice about standing on the street corner and denouncing the lifestyle choice of the other Christians who are just minding their own business, living their lives without trying to affect government policy.
Am I missing something? I have never stood on the street corner for anything...Oh I did sell flowers once as a kid, and I do make a habit of waiting for the green light before I cross. I have no issues with anyone's religious preferences, your choice is just that "your choice". It makes no difference to me until you (not you personally) knock on my door and tell my daughter that she has the devil in her because she does not believe what you (again, not you personally) do, or attend your church. Unfortunately, many people of religious faith seem to feel it is appropriate behavior to do that, I am not the one forcing my belief on the poor, persecuted Christians.
QUOTE (Insyght+)
If you beleive there is a God, right there you put your self in a position of submission
It should be clarified that this applies best to "people of the book", such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. There are and have been many flavors of religion that don't teach this concept of omnipotent/omniscient ultimate-authority-type deity.
It should be clarified that this applies best to "people of the book", such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. There are and have been many flavors of religion that don't teach this concept of omnipotent/omniscient ultimate-authority-type deity.
QUOTE (Insyght+)
they are still exhaulted in intelligience amoungst their friends
Indeed. Hence the term "ivory tower". It's not meant to be a flattering term, after all. Anyway, I agree. Many scientists and scientifically minded people do worship an ideal with all the zeal that many religious people. It's just that their ideal is a bit more tangible in that they pursue ultimate knowledge, rather than ultimate morality. (I don't mean that last sentance as a dig in either direction. I'm just differentiating Christianity and similar religions from relative-morality viewpoints.)
Indeed. Hence the term "ivory tower". It's not meant to be a flattering term, after all. Anyway, I agree. Many scientists and scientifically minded people do worship an ideal with all the zeal that many religious people. It's just that their ideal is a bit more tangible in that they pursue ultimate knowledge, rather than ultimate morality. (I don't mean that last sentance as a dig in either direction. I'm just differentiating Christianity and similar religions from relative-morality viewpoints.)
QUOTE (Evolution+)
Unfortunately, there where many quotes from the bible which was exactly contrary to my original post
The Bible quotes were in elaboration of what I believe, not why I believe it. Ultimately everything I said comes down to the fact that I take on faith that the Bible is the Word of God, and that only people who want it to be true will see ever see it as such. Such is the possible with scientific truth as well. If someone truly desires something to be true, they'll very likely convince themselves that it is, whether it is in reality or not.
The Bible quotes were in elaboration of what I believe, not why I believe it. Ultimately everything I said comes down to the fact that I take on faith that the Bible is the Word of God, and that only people who want it to be true will see ever see it as such. Such is the possible with scientific truth as well. If someone truly desires something to be true, they'll very likely convince themselves that it is, whether it is in reality or not.
QUOTE (Evolution+)
I again challenge you to present an articulate argument that exemplifies any existing deity in any way
You didn't find a "logical argument" because there wasn't one. And there won't be one. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I don't believe I can convince you of anything, for exactly the reasons I've outlined: because there is no scientific or logical proof. At this basic level of existance/non-existance of deities, there is only assumption, desire, etc. I've stated the foundational assumptions of my beliefs. If you don't/can't agree with those, you will never see what I see in what follows from them.
You didn't find a "logical argument" because there wasn't one. And there won't be one. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I don't believe I can convince you of anything, for exactly the reasons I've outlined: because there is no scientific or logical proof. At this basic level of existance/non-existance of deities, there is only assumption, desire, etc. I've stated the foundational assumptions of my beliefs. If you don't/can't agree with those, you will never see what I see in what follows from them.
QUOTE (Evolution+)
if in fact the bible was written by "normal men/women" then it is irrelevant
That's the crux isn't it? While it may have been written by normal men/women, I don't believe the inspiration was their own, but that it came from God. Everything else I believe, in the religious realm, stems from that. I know, you want to know why I believe it. But my answer isn't a repeatable experiment. There is no proof I can show to you. So it's never going to satisfy you. It is two-fold: 1) I want it to be true. 2) I have had personal experiences which have reinforced in me the belief that it is true.
That's the crux isn't it? While it may have been written by normal men/women, I don't believe the inspiration was their own, but that it came from God. Everything else I believe, in the religious realm, stems from that. I know, you want to know why I believe it. But my answer isn't a repeatable experiment. There is no proof I can show to you. So it's never going to satisfy you. It is two-fold: 1) I want it to be true. 2) I have had personal experiences which have reinforced in me the belief that it is true.
QUOTE (Evolution+)
I really enjoy learning anything I can about Super String Theory, I believe it is the answer to Einsteins persuit of a unified theory.
And yet, for the past few decades it has been totally untestable. Some very intelligent scientists have called it unscientific, and accused it of having no base in reality. That was my point by bringing up string theory.
And yet, for the past few decades it has been totally untestable. Some very intelligent scientists have called it unscientific, and accused it of having no base in reality. That was my point by bringing up string theory.
QUOTE (Evolution+)
That's a very strong statement to make against people that you have never met.
What does bigotry have to do with meeting someone?
What does bigotry have to do with meeting someone?
QUOTE (Evolution+)
Am I missing something?
Well for one thing, what you quoted wasn't directed at you. That was directly for Good Elf. But in answer, yes: the writing technique called "metaphor". Streetcorner was a metaphor for this forum, which is arguably quite public once you know it's here. (I wish I would remember more often that, like a streetcorner, I can just walk away and ignore the hawkers.)
Insyght,
You completely misunderstood me, I define ego in this context as one of the three divisions of the psyche in psychoanalytic theory that serves as the organized conscious mediator between the person and reality especially by functioning both in the perception of and adaptation to reality and specifically more to id, defined as the one of the other three divisions of the psyche in psychoanalytic theory that is completely unconscious and is the source of psychic energy derived from instinctual needs and drives http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book...a=ego&x=18&y=12.
We as human beings all have a sub-conscious, instinctual need to understand the world in which we live and to further our survival. These are the instinctual needs and drives, we are not aware of these in our conscious minds per se. Early on we established religion to meet these needs and to explain those things that we where incapable of understanding which (as a society) relieved our fears of the unknown. This is why I say religion is more a part of psychology then it is science, yet many religions now want to supplant themselves into the classroom as science (intelligent design). This sets our scientific pursuits back significantly because those students that could be furthering their understanding of science are using that time to learn religion.
Insyght,
You completely misunderstood me, I define ego in this context as one of the three divisions of the psyche in psychoanalytic theory that serves as the organized conscious mediator between the person and reality especially by functioning both in the perception of and adaptation to reality and specifically more to id, defined as the one of the other three divisions of the psyche in psychoanalytic theory that is completely unconscious and is the source of psychic energy derived from instinctual needs and drives http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book...a=ego&x=18&y=12.
We as human beings all have a sub-conscious, instinctual need to understand the world in which we live and to further our survival. These are the instinctual needs and drives, we are not aware of these in our conscious minds per se. Early on we established religion to meet these needs and to explain those things that we where incapable of understanding which (as a society) relieved our fears of the unknown. This is why I say religion is more a part of psychology then it is science, yet many religions now want to supplant themselves into the classroom as science (intelligent design). This sets our scientific pursuits back significantly because those students that could be furthering their understanding of science are using that time to learn religion.
Really should stay on track and look not at those who profess belief in God, but look at the simple possibility that God does exist.
This is the part where we differ dramatically, I can look at the simple possibility that God does exist, and hence I am asking you for your perspectives without the bible quotes to convince me.
Insyght, Can you look at the simple possibility that God does not exist. I can answer that one for you...The answer will always be no. So who between us is less likely to try and understand the perspectives of others?
Waterbreath
My point being that conversing on line and actually really knowing someone are two different things, it sounded like a quick, uninformed judgment without basis that I myself wouldn't make.
Waterbreath
My point being that conversing on line and actually really knowing someone are two different things, it sounded like a quick, uninformed judgment without basis that I myself wouldn't make.
Sigh... I really don't enjoy these discussions, because it causes tension and divisions between people in other areas where they need not appear. Maybe I should just stop responding to this type of topic altogether.
I understand your plight but I believe this is a healthy endeavor because it allows those wishing to understand others the ability (at least somewhat) to do so. I hope you continue to respond whenever you deem it appropriate.
Given the vehemence of the comments I was responding to, and the number of times I've seen similar comments from the same person on this forum, I wouldn't consider it totally uninformed. It's been relatively consistent behavior.
I don't think it's fair to totally and insensitively dismiss a huge group of people in that way, some of which have shown themselves numerous times to be very reasonable and intellectual.
I would be surprised if Insyght's answer was no. But I can't answer for Insyght. As for myself: yes.
Several years ago I went through a time where I seriously considered this, as well as a time where I just didn't care. But in the end, the things I've seen in scripture, about human nature, and about what will happen if you do put your faith in God and in the Bible, have unfailingly been shown true in my own life. This is the proof that MattWeston has mentioned in other threads. This is the unrepeatable experiment we have talked about in other threads. It's unrepeatable, unless you have the same desire. And by scientific terms, that's just not good enough. This is why I have tried to, whenever possible, speak of religion in abstract and generalized terms. I'm really not trying to convince anyone of anything, and I don't believe I can. When I delve into scripture and doctrine, it's because questions arise with what I believe, not why.
Anyway... Yes, I realize this stance nicely isolates the issue from scientific exploration. But you must admit that this doesn't inherently say anything about whether it is true or false, beyond simply likelihood/probability. Yes, I realize it will be seen as a "cop out" by a lot of people. Yes, I realize it will be seen as delusion by a lot of people.
But frankly, I just don't care what other people think, because the evidence is strong enough for me.
Evolutionist,
I agree with you and if you seek to understand us, it is a good thing.
Let me relay a little experment I did fairly recently. One of the creationist posted his throught about demons, saying they did not exist, but instead put farward the case that demons are just mans inner sin, so to speak. In the thread I refuted it visiously ... but as a mental experiment, I said to my self, while driving home "ok, imagine no demons exist"... then I recalled scripture after scripture and I could apply them with this understanding. I was understanding things from his perspective.
There was a couple I could not - but lets no go there In essance I put my self in his frame of mind, within the confines of his beleive system and then looked at the information the way he did. It made a massive difference to understanding.
I have done a similar thing to non-creative evolution and I could agree 100% that evolution was the cause of the universe and life when I did such a thing. A few simple assumptions 1) Bible is not God's word but egotistical mans 2) world conditions/religions show there is no caring God and voila - I could beleive totally that the universe just popped into existance by it's self for no reason.
If you really seek to understand - like you seam to put across that you do - then you need to allow your self to enter into our belief system, which includes accepting scripture as the word of God. If you refuse the accept scripture as the word of God, how can you possibly understand our reasoning? If you put up a wall ahead of time saying that all religious people as egotistical fanatics, then how could you enter into our belief system and understand our motives?
I'd be happy to discuss the ones that didn't line up with you sometime Insyght.
(edit) Dangit, this wasn't supposed to end up on a new page! Everyone, quick, go back to the last page and see what was said there.
What you state is very simplistic but my thoughts are really based very little on the bible and probably just a bit more on the caring god. Overall though these issues combined would make for less than 5%. It's more 95% science and actual knowledge over faith. Also the popping into existence was way off, logic draws me in another direction and for along time I considered the existence of a deity but was unable to satisfy myself that one existed. The criteria I would require cannot be met; I have reached this conclusion through our discussions. I am absolutely convinced that one does not.
What you state is very simplistic but my thoughts are really based very little on the bible and probably just a bit more on the caring god. Overall though these issues combined would make for less than 5%. It's more 95% science and actual knowledge over faith. Also the popping into existence was way off, logic draws me in another direction and for along time I considered the existence of a deity but was unable to satisfy myself that one existed. The criteria I would require cannot be met; I have reached this conclusion through our discussions. I am absolutely convinced that one does not.
If you really seek to understand - like you seam to put across that you do - then you need to allow your self to enter into our belief system, which includes accepting scripture as the word of God. If you refuse the accept scripture as the word of God, how can you possibly understand our reasoning? If you put up a wall ahead of time saying that all religious people as egotistical fanatics, then how could you enter into our belief system and understand our motives?
Believe it or not I do understand where both you and Waterbreath are coming from and contrary to what you seem to think I have no ill disregard for you or anyone else. The one problem I have is when others try to force their beliefs on society or try to state that theirs is the only way, I don't subscribe to only's. As far as this discussion goes I was fully culpable in soliciting your comments and would not consider your views as "being forced on society" in that same regard. I am glad that you will continue to speak your mind whether I or anyone else agrees with you or not.
Well for one thing, what you quoted wasn't directed at you. That was directly for Good Elf. But in answer, yes: the writing technique called "metaphor". Streetcorner was a metaphor for this forum, which is arguably quite public once you know it's here. (I wish I would remember more often that, like a streetcorner, I can just walk away and ignore the hawkers.
)QUOTE (Evolution+)
Unfortunately, many people of religious faith seem to feel it is appropriate behavior to do that
Just to be clear, I think it's totally inappropriate, as well as entirely counterproductive. And while I would have to go back and read your posts to make sure, I don't think I'd say that you have done the equivalent on the atheistic side. You've stated your opinion, asked for debate, and stated your skepticism of ever finding a satisfactory one. Good Elf, on the other hand, "stood up" and started condemning Christians. I took exception, just as homosexuals take exception to people who harass them about God supposedly hating them.
Sigh... I really don't enjoy these discussions, because it causes tension and divisions between people in other areas where they need not appear. Maybe I should just stop responding to this type of topic altogether.
For what it's worth, I agree with you Evolution that much religion is based on the ego of the believer. But I don't think all of it is, and I do believe there is a spiritual truth, and that it can be found, if the ego can be set aside.
Just to be clear, I think it's totally inappropriate, as well as entirely counterproductive. And while I would have to go back and read your posts to make sure, I don't think I'd say that you have done the equivalent on the atheistic side. You've stated your opinion, asked for debate, and stated your skepticism of ever finding a satisfactory one. Good Elf, on the other hand, "stood up" and started condemning Christians. I took exception, just as homosexuals take exception to people who harass them about God supposedly hating them.
Sigh... I really don't enjoy these discussions, because it causes tension and divisions between people in other areas where they need not appear. Maybe I should just stop responding to this type of topic altogether.
For what it's worth, I agree with you Evolution that much religion is based on the ego of the believer. But I don't think all of it is, and I do believe there is a spiritual truth, and that it can be found, if the ego can be set aside.
QUOTE
I'll repeat this point again: There is nothing egotistical about belief in God. Funny, I used to say that about science until I started to learn Egotism soars in the sciences though, educated professionals, working for decades, proving theories, winning prizes, getting the esteme, honor, glory, prestege. Even for the scientics who do not reach that level, they are still exhaulted in intelligience amoungst their friends... perhaps they can drop a bit of QM here and a bit of thermodynamics there, just to remind theose around them how smart they are.
Insyght,
You completely misunderstood me, I define ego in this context as one of the three divisions of the psyche in psychoanalytic theory that serves as the organized conscious mediator between the person and reality especially by functioning both in the perception of and adaptation to reality and specifically more to id, defined as the one of the other three divisions of the psyche in psychoanalytic theory that is completely unconscious and is the source of psychic energy derived from instinctual needs and drives http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book...a=ego&x=18&y=12.
We as human beings all have a sub-conscious, instinctual need to understand the world in which we live and to further our survival. These are the instinctual needs and drives, we are not aware of these in our conscious minds per se. Early on we established religion to meet these needs and to explain those things that we where incapable of understanding which (as a society) relieved our fears of the unknown. This is why I say religion is more a part of psychology then it is science, yet many religions now want to supplant themselves into the classroom as science (intelligent design). This sets our scientific pursuits back significantly because those students that could be furthering their understanding of science are using that time to learn religion.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'll repeat this point again: There is nothing egotistical about belief in God. Funny, I used to say that about science until I started to learn Egotism soars in the sciences though, educated professionals, working for decades, proving theories, winning prizes, getting the esteme, honor, glory, prestege. Even for the scientics who do not reach that level, they are still exhaulted in intelligience amoungst their friends... perhaps they can drop a bit of QM here and a bit of thermodynamics there, just to remind theose around them how smart they are. |
Insyght,
You completely misunderstood me, I define ego in this context as one of the three divisions of the psyche in psychoanalytic theory that serves as the organized conscious mediator between the person and reality especially by functioning both in the perception of and adaptation to reality and specifically more to id, defined as the one of the other three divisions of the psyche in psychoanalytic theory that is completely unconscious and is the source of psychic energy derived from instinctual needs and drives http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book...a=ego&x=18&y=12.
We as human beings all have a sub-conscious, instinctual need to understand the world in which we live and to further our survival. These are the instinctual needs and drives, we are not aware of these in our conscious minds per se. Early on we established religion to meet these needs and to explain those things that we where incapable of understanding which (as a society) relieved our fears of the unknown. This is why I say religion is more a part of psychology then it is science, yet many religions now want to supplant themselves into the classroom as science (intelligent design). This sets our scientific pursuits back significantly because those students that could be furthering their understanding of science are using that time to learn religion.
Really should stay on track and look not at those who profess belief in God, but look at the simple possibility that God does exist.
This is the part where we differ dramatically, I can look at the simple possibility that God does exist, and hence I am asking you for your perspectives without the bible quotes to convince me.
Insyght, Can you look at the simple possibility that God does not exist. I can answer that one for you...The answer will always be no. So who between us is less likely to try and understand the perspectives of others?
QUOTE
What does bigotry have to do with meeting someone?
Waterbreath
My point being that conversing on line and actually really knowing someone are two different things, it sounded like a quick, uninformed judgment without basis that I myself wouldn't make.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What does bigotry have to do with meeting someone? |
Waterbreath
My point being that conversing on line and actually really knowing someone are two different things, it sounded like a quick, uninformed judgment without basis that I myself wouldn't make.
Sigh... I really don't enjoy these discussions, because it causes tension and divisions between people in other areas where they need not appear. Maybe I should just stop responding to this type of topic altogether.
I understand your plight but I believe this is a healthy endeavor because it allows those wishing to understand others the ability (at least somewhat) to do so. I hope you continue to respond whenever you deem it appropriate.
QUOTE
it sounded like a quick, uninformed judgment without basis that I myself wouldn't make
Given the vehemence of the comments I was responding to, and the number of times I've seen similar comments from the same person on this forum, I wouldn't consider it totally uninformed. It's been relatively consistent behavior.
I don't think it's fair to totally and insensitively dismiss a huge group of people in that way, some of which have shown themselves numerous times to be very reasonable and intellectual.
I tend to believe that much of religion has its source in the experience of mystical states of consciousness which leave no doubt as to the reality of a transcendent "spiritual" plane. There's not much to be said about this realm, although it is often described in terms of perfect oneness -- there is no time, no space, no self, no universe... What happens, though, is that when those who experience this state return to ordinary reality, they are compelled to conceptualize and verbalize the experience. Actually, the mind automatically begins this conceptualization as it processes the experience and tries to make sense of it. Anyway, whether unconsciously or consciously, an indescribable mystical experience is naturally fit into one's existing psychological and cultural framework of belief. To oversimplify, if your tribe worships the Jaguar-God, you will come back from your encounter sure you have just met the Jaguar-God.
I think there is a lot more to religion than this, but this explains how universal mystical truth (or just an extremely convincing mental state, if you wish) can form the basis of competing, contrary religions. But it would be oversimplifying -- if not downright wrong -- to call the mystical experience "truth" and the specifics of the psych-cultural overlay a "falsification," so one probably shouldn't think of various individual religions as perversions, debasements or misunderstandings of a single universal truth -- that's falling into the trap of dualistic thinking... Of course, you can't say anything at all without falling into this trap. On that level, everything I'm saying here is AT BEST a crude, potentially misleading analogy...
Still, I'd suggest that this model explains one source of religious belief, as well as a way of understanding how two different people (or two different religions) can encounter God in two radically different forms -- for one of them, God might be entirely without form; for the other, God might be blue and horned (maybe one doesn't even use a word or a concept that we would recognize as referring to God) -- without either one of them lying or -- objectively speaking -- being necessarily any more wrong or deluded than the other. Both are valid pathways to the same ultimate truth; each has a particular resonance for its native adherants (although one may possess a more universal appeal -- and thus be more likely to spread from its original cultural base).
As for "Ultimate Truth"/God Itself -- transcending space and time, virtually indescrible, and yet almost certainly unmistakable when encountered -- this experiential model offers no conclusion as to whether It is exactly that (i.e., ultimate, universal, truly God) or "only" a profoundly affecting mental state; however, when one is actually there in the encounter, that very distinction is "revealed" to be a meaningless, wrong-headed artifact of dualistic thinking... but this very statement, of course, is also an example of dualistic thinking. There's nothing I can say here which in any way would be a "true" insight into the nature (or even existence/non-existence) of God. As Wittgenstein wrote, "Of that which we cannot speak, we must pass over in silence."
I think there is a lot more to religion than this, but this explains how universal mystical truth (or just an extremely convincing mental state, if you wish) can form the basis of competing, contrary religions. But it would be oversimplifying -- if not downright wrong -- to call the mystical experience "truth" and the specifics of the psych-cultural overlay a "falsification," so one probably shouldn't think of various individual religions as perversions, debasements or misunderstandings of a single universal truth -- that's falling into the trap of dualistic thinking... Of course, you can't say anything at all without falling into this trap. On that level, everything I'm saying here is AT BEST a crude, potentially misleading analogy...
Still, I'd suggest that this model explains one source of religious belief, as well as a way of understanding how two different people (or two different religions) can encounter God in two radically different forms -- for one of them, God might be entirely without form; for the other, God might be blue and horned (maybe one doesn't even use a word or a concept that we would recognize as referring to God) -- without either one of them lying or -- objectively speaking -- being necessarily any more wrong or deluded than the other. Both are valid pathways to the same ultimate truth; each has a particular resonance for its native adherants (although one may possess a more universal appeal -- and thus be more likely to spread from its original cultural base).
As for "Ultimate Truth"/God Itself -- transcending space and time, virtually indescrible, and yet almost certainly unmistakable when encountered -- this experiential model offers no conclusion as to whether It is exactly that (i.e., ultimate, universal, truly God) or "only" a profoundly affecting mental state; however, when one is actually there in the encounter, that very distinction is "revealed" to be a meaningless, wrong-headed artifact of dualistic thinking... but this very statement, of course, is also an example of dualistic thinking. There's nothing I can say here which in any way would be a "true" insight into the nature (or even existence/non-existence) of God. As Wittgenstein wrote, "Of that which we cannot speak, we must pass over in silence."
QUOTE
Can you look at the simple possibility that God does not exist.
I would be surprised if Insyght's answer was no. But I can't answer for Insyght. As for myself: yes.
Several years ago I went through a time where I seriously considered this, as well as a time where I just didn't care. But in the end, the things I've seen in scripture, about human nature, and about what will happen if you do put your faith in God and in the Bible, have unfailingly been shown true in my own life. This is the proof that MattWeston has mentioned in other threads. This is the unrepeatable experiment we have talked about in other threads. It's unrepeatable, unless you have the same desire. And by scientific terms, that's just not good enough. This is why I have tried to, whenever possible, speak of religion in abstract and generalized terms. I'm really not trying to convince anyone of anything, and I don't believe I can. When I delve into scripture and doctrine, it's because questions arise with what I believe, not why.
Anyway... Yes, I realize this stance nicely isolates the issue from scientific exploration. But you must admit that this doesn't inherently say anything about whether it is true or false, beyond simply likelihood/probability. Yes, I realize it will be seen as a "cop out" by a lot of people. Yes, I realize it will be seen as delusion by a lot of people.
But frankly, I just don't care what other people think, because the evidence is strong enough for me.
QUOTE
Insyght, Can you look at the simple possibility that God does not exist. I can answer that one for you...The answer will always be no. So who between us is less likely to try and understand the perspectives of others?
I do not think it is wise to assume things about others. In most cases I just wind up sticking my foot in my mouth. I have crossed foils with Insyght for some time, and know that he is not as close minded as you imply.
QUOTE
My point being that conversing on line and actually really knowing someone are two different things, it sounded like a quick, uninformed judgment without basis that I myself wouldn't make.
Are you sure?
QUOTE
I understand your plight but I believe this is a healthy endeavor because it allows those wishing to understand others the ability (at least somewhat) to do so. I hope you continue to respond whenever you deem it appropriate.
Evolutionist,
I agree with you and if you seek to understand us, it is a good thing.
Let me relay a little experment I did fairly recently. One of the creationist posted his throught about demons, saying they did not exist, but instead put farward the case that demons are just mans inner sin, so to speak. In the thread I refuted it visiously
... but as a mental experiment, I said to my self, while driving home "ok, imagine no demons exist"... then I recalled scripture after scripture and I could apply them with this understanding. I was understanding things from his perspective.There was a couple I could not - but lets no go there
In essance I put my self in his frame of mind, within the confines of his beleive system and then looked at the information the way he did. It made a massive difference to understanding.I have done a similar thing to non-creative evolution and I could agree 100% that evolution was the cause of the universe and life when I did such a thing. A few simple assumptions 1) Bible is not God's word but egotistical mans 2) world conditions/religions show there is no caring God and voila - I could beleive totally that the universe just popped into existance by it's self for no reason.
If you really seek to understand - like you seam to put across that you do - then you need to allow your self to enter into our belief system, which includes accepting scripture as the word of God. If you refuse the accept scripture as the word of God, how can you possibly understand our reasoning? If you put up a wall ahead of time saying that all religious people as egotistical fanatics, then how could you enter into our belief system and understand our motives?
I'd be happy to discuss the ones that didn't line up with you sometime Insyght.(edit) Dangit, this wasn't supposed to end up on a new page! Everyone, quick, go back to the last page and see what was said there.
Hey, just for kick and giggles, tomorrow I will pull out the Scenario of the Talking Donkey again. For those who might remember it, recall that is it about the problems with skepticism, not about proving god exists. I sense that much of this conversation is wrapped around the issue of credibility and skeptical though. Anyway I'll let Donkey have his say again in the morning (since MrSokkie was nice with his scalpel and didn't hurt him).
"We can stay up all night swapping manly stories, and in the morning--I'm making waffles."
"We can stay up all night swapping manly stories, and in the morning--I'm making waffles."
QUOTE
I have done a similar thing to non-creative evolution and I could agree 100% that evolution was the cause of the universe and life when I did such a thing. A few simple assumptions 1) Bible is not God's word but egotistical mans 2) world conditions/religions show there is no caring God and voila - I could beleive totally that the universe just popped into existance by it's self for no reason.
What you state is very simplistic but my thoughts are really based very little on the bible and probably just a bit more on the caring god. Overall though these issues combined would make for less than 5%. It's more 95% science and actual knowledge over faith. Also the popping into existence was way off, logic draws me in another direction and for along time I considered the existence of a deity but was unable to satisfy myself that one existed. The criteria I would require cannot be met; I have reached this conclusion through our discussions. I am absolutely convinced that one does not.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I have done a similar thing to non-creative evolution and I could agree 100% that evolution was the cause of the universe and life when I did such a thing. A few simple assumptions 1) Bible is not God's word but egotistical mans 2) world conditions/religions show there is no caring God and voila - I could beleive totally that the universe just popped into existance by it's self for no reason. |
What you state is very simplistic but my thoughts are really based very little on the bible and probably just a bit more on the caring god. Overall though these issues combined would make for less than 5%. It's more 95% science and actual knowledge over faith. Also the popping into existence was way off, logic draws me in another direction and for along time I considered the existence of a deity but was unable to satisfy myself that one existed. The criteria I would require cannot be met; I have reached this conclusion through our discussions. I am absolutely convinced that one does not.
If you really seek to understand - like you seam to put across that you do - then you need to allow your self to enter into our belief system, which includes accepting scripture as the word of God. If you refuse the accept scripture as the word of God, how can you possibly understand our reasoning? If you put up a wall ahead of time saying that all religious people as egotistical fanatics, then how could you enter into our belief system and understand our motives?
Believe it or not I do understand where both you and Waterbreath are coming from and contrary to what you seem to think I have no ill disregard for you or anyone else. The one problem I have is when others try to force their beliefs on society or try to state that theirs is the only way, I don't subscribe to only's. As far as this discussion goes I was fully culpable in soliciting your comments and would not consider your views as "being forced on society" in that same regard. I am glad that you will continue to speak your mind whether I or anyone else agrees with you or not.
Hi WaterBreath ,
WaterBreath Posted: May 16 2005, 06:16 PM
I read it and I noticed that the reference to principles came up. Where anyone places principle above compassion and common sense and prefers 'death', I feel it is my duty to tell them they are still "interfering" in the way the world actually works. What I am saying is dying is not worth the "principle" since the "principle" is in your mind and "death" is not.
Cheers
WaterBreath Posted: May 16 2005, 06:16 PM
QUOTE
Wow, Good Elf, you just totally ignored the first sentence in this quote didn't you? Did you even see it?.... It's simply a refusal to recant ones principles.
I read it and I noticed that the reference to principles came up. Where anyone places principle above compassion and common sense and prefers 'death', I feel it is my duty to tell them they are still "interfering" in the way the world actually works. What I am saying is dying is not worth the "principle" since the "principle" is in your mind and "death" is not.
Cheers
I have no proof of his existence but I do feel that to accept him would offer peace so in a sense, I would rely on it as much as I rely on past memories or good thoughts.
My thoughts on Religion are very offensive to some but I nevertheless express them:
there is no such thing as a religion. Jews initially gathered around and concocted a method to prevent hedonism while maintaining order and they realised the falacy of idle worshiping(what if it breaks) so they proposed to create an entity so far up in sky, so powerful and so immense that his very perception is out of our reach! Jesus was just a guy who tried to create his own version of religion haveing suffered from exclusion of the jewish community and their wealth. He was prosecuted and tortured to death and the story of his return is the result of an over active immagination and a few closed friend of his who spread the word and made him famouse. Mohammad, was living in Saudi Arabia and observed the barbaric way of arabic life and he realized a potential to actually take control of the trade and also bring ppl under his control. He learnt to read and write by himself, being the genius he was and after reading Bible (which was itself a cheap and imaginary imitation of torah) he made Quran.
Some might argue that Moses opened the nile or the mohammad cut the moon in half or jesus resuscitated the dead but what they fail to realize is that history doesnt have to happen for it to actually be thought of as truth. Up until a while ago, it was believed that the chinese wall can be seen from the space and I repeatedly told my colleages that it is a bunch of bull because the topographic difference between the wall and its immediate surrounding was not enough to create resolution from such high hight. Now it turns out , you cant see it and it is proven by the astronauts , namily the newly sent chinese astronaut.
I think religion is a curse upon humanity and it feeds on our imperfections, and our inferiorities. Our mind it seems is so evolutionary advanced that it has surpassed our bodily capabilities. We think of flying without wings, or going to space when in fact we dont have a fraction of these technologies. Same is occuring with religion. We are giving way to our imaginations to get wild and once a human does that there is no way to tell them or show them the logical experimental path.
My thoughts on Religion are very offensive to some but I nevertheless express them:
there is no such thing as a religion. Jews initially gathered around and concocted a method to prevent hedonism while maintaining order and they realised the falacy of idle worshiping(what if it breaks) so they proposed to create an entity so far up in sky, so powerful and so immense that his very perception is out of our reach! Jesus was just a guy who tried to create his own version of religion haveing suffered from exclusion of the jewish community and their wealth. He was prosecuted and tortured to death and the story of his return is the result of an over active immagination and a few closed friend of his who spread the word and made him famouse. Mohammad, was living in Saudi Arabia and observed the barbaric way of arabic life and he realized a potential to actually take control of the trade and also bring ppl under his control. He learnt to read and write by himself, being the genius he was and after reading Bible (which was itself a cheap and imaginary imitation of torah) he made Quran.
Some might argue that Moses opened the nile or the mohammad cut the moon in half or jesus resuscitated the dead but what they fail to realize is that history doesnt have to happen for it to actually be thought of as truth. Up until a while ago, it was believed that the chinese wall can be seen from the space and I repeatedly told my colleages that it is a bunch of bull because the topographic difference between the wall and its immediate surrounding was not enough to create resolution from such high hight. Now it turns out , you cant see it and it is proven by the astronauts , namily the newly sent chinese astronaut.
I think religion is a curse upon humanity and it feeds on our imperfections, and our inferiorities. Our mind it seems is so evolutionary advanced that it has surpassed our bodily capabilities. We think of flying without wings, or going to space when in fact we dont have a fraction of these technologies. Same is occuring with religion. We are giving way to our imaginations to get wild and once a human does that there is no way to tell them or show them the logical experimental path.
Hi Drude,
Drude Posted on May 17 2005, 08:51 AM
Steady on there... remember where we are from...
Steady on there... remember where we are from...
"Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force."
.... "I find your lack of faith disturbing." - Darth Vader, A New Hope
Drude Posted on May 17 2005, 08:51 AM
QUOTE
I think religion is a curse upon humanity and it feeds on our imperfections, and our inferiorities. Our mind it seems is so evolutionary advanced that it has surpassed our bodily capabilities.
Steady on there... remember where we are from...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I think religion is a curse upon humanity and it feeds on our imperfections, and our inferiorities. Our mind it seems is so evolutionary advanced that it has surpassed our bodily capabilities. |
Steady on there... remember where we are from...
"Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force."
.... "I find your lack of faith disturbing." - Darth Vader, A New Hope (He he he - sorry!)
While "old faiths" may have been used to keep mankind in bondage, put them to the sword and to burn their flesh, there is after all a great Truth there. I admit I do not think that we know anything about it because of the taboos that have "controlled" the inquiring mind from exploring the real nature of human existence. I believe that one day you will all see that Science and a true understanding of our place in the Universe will be as one. It will not come from a salutory case of "forgetfulness" but from a confluence of accumulated wisdom.
Cheers
While "old faiths" may have been used to keep mankind in bondage, put them to the sword and to burn their flesh, there is after all a great Truth there. I admit I do not think that we know anything about it because of the taboos that have "controlled" the inquiring mind from exploring the real nature of human existence. I believe that one day you will all see that Science and a true understanding of our place in the Universe will be as one. It will not come from a salutory case of "forgetfulness" but from a confluence of accumulated wisdom.
Cheers
Hi Waterbreath,
WaterBreath Posted: May 16 2005, 06:16 PM
I hope it will not interfere with any discussions at all. I think that you have made a great number of assumptions about me and this is where "bigotry" starts. The way we can all get on is through mutual respect. I have been watching you and I have a great deal of respect for you too.
While talking about mutual respect did you see the movie 'Kingdom of Heaven" with Orlando Bloom? I thought that the underlying story was very interesting even though the critics partially panned it here in Australia... I don't think they began to understand it. If you saw it this may be a really good talking point.
Oh... if I picked badly...others may like to "chip" in.
Cheers
WaterBreath Posted: May 16 2005, 06:16 PM
QUOTE
Hopefully we can let that disagreement remain separate from our scientific discussions.
I hope it will not interfere with any discussions at all. I think that you have made a great number of assumptions about me and this is where "bigotry" starts. The way we can all get on is through mutual respect. I have been watching you and I have a great deal of respect for you too.
While talking about mutual respect did you see the movie 'Kingdom of Heaven" with Orlando Bloom? I thought that the underlying story was very interesting even though the critics partially panned it here in Australia... I don't think they began to understand it. If you saw it this may be a really good talking point.
Oh... if I picked badly...others may like to "chip" in.
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+May 17 2005, 07:08 AM)
While talking about mutual respect did you see the movie 'Kingdom of Heaven" with Orlando Bloom?
I haven't seen it yet. Don't know if I will, except as an action flick. Though even then, Orlando Bloom just doesn't strike me as the knightly type. A bit wispy for the part, I think. Anyway, I have a guess at what the messages of the movie will be. If I'm right, then it will be an annoyance to me all the way through, because it's a message we see from almost every outlet here in America lately.
I haven't seen it yet. Don't know if I will, except as an action flick. Though even then, Orlando Bloom just doesn't strike me as the knightly type. A bit wispy for the part, I think. Anyway, I have a guess at what the messages of the movie will be. If I'm right, then it will be an annoyance to me all the way through, because it's a message we see from almost every outlet here in America lately.
Orlando Bloom is a prettyboy! (Just watch Troy if you don't believe me.)
Real men are found in physics laboratories...
Real men are found in physics laboratories...
WaterBreath,
Regarding Demons, no thx, I've looked at it deeply. No offence but I think you are wrong 
Evolutionist,
You gain much respect in my eyes from your last post. You were (are?) searching. From your post though, it appears that you were/are hindering your self somewhat.
First: you have a criteria. If a God exists he must conform to your ideal. That will hinder your searching because even if you did find, you would not recogize, because he might not exactly fit your ideals.
First: you have a criteria. If a God exists he must conform to your ideal. That will hinder your searching because even if you did find, you would not recogize, because he might not exactly fit your ideals.
It's more 95% science and actual knowledge over faith.
Second: you are/were trying to find God through science. He makes it very plain that he does not wish to be found this way. He requires some measure of faith.
Agree that people should not force beliefs on ppl. But they should give ppl the opportunity. If this means church or Tv, fine, if this means standing on the street corner, fine, if this means calling on ppols doors, fine. All these things are not what I consider forcing... in each case you can simply turn away, choose not to listen, turn the channel, close the door, walk on by...
What I consider forcing is a state law - you must be this religion.. or comparitively you must have no religion at all. Or some geezer with a machetti coming around and forcing you at the point of death, to accept this way and follow his God.
Agree that people should not force beliefs on ppl. But they should give ppl the opportunity. If this means church or Tv, fine, if this means standing on the street corner, fine, if this means calling on ppols doors, fine. All these things are not what I consider forcing... in each case you can simply turn away, choose not to listen, turn the channel, close the door, walk on by...
What I consider forcing is a state law - you must be this religion.. or comparitively you must have no religion at all. Or some geezer with a machetti coming around and forcing you at the point of death, to accept this way and follow his God.
What you state is very simplistic
Yes, in stating it. There are many many aspects which compose the "Bible is not the word of God" part. KT Belt, Dinosaurs, Some Fossils,.. etc. Somethings are not impossible but very difficult to comprehend. One example, to show you I have thought deeply about such things. Dinosaurs... why? Dating could be wrong, or it could be correct. If it is correct, then what? Why would God create dinosaurs in the first place, to allow them to die off before humans come to the earth? Some think they survived through the flood to die afterwards, which goes along with some interesting cave drawings found showing images of what looks like a dinosaur - the one with the long kneck?... anyways. The puzzle is clear. It can be reasoned many ways - perhaps God experimented with life first... perhaps God played with the genetic language and when the language was refined enough, then he created humans, perhaps the dinosaurs had the purpose of simply controlling growth on the earth until the human population could expand. Perhaps he allowed animals to just evolve and create various forms - saving him doing the work of doing the creating of each of millions of species and when he was ready to create human life, deemed the Dinosaurs to visious so had them killed off.
Animals. Why were humans created to "live for ever" according to scripture, yet animals were not? Scripture it's self reveal that animal killed animal, in reference to very early times when God warned cain that sin was crouching waiting to pounce like a predator. Adam and Eve had an absolutely clear view of what death was. It appears they see it all the time. Interesting how animals which are sick have this natural urge to wander off to die. Animal activists hate this, but it is how it is.
From scripture and from point of view of science, it is clear that there is something unique about humans, that seperate us from all animals. Science tries it's hardest to show animal intelligence, but it is very very simplistic if existing at all.
I hope very SMALL fragment helps you to appreciate Evolutionist, that I do critically analyze the scripture and what I hear in science and I do often have a tough time crunching the data.
Ironically I am not far off. Trying to understand an object is not anything like trying to understand another living, thinking person. I can barely understand my wife, much less this God I have met. Certainly I understand somethings, but others I do not. But of course everything must start with an introduction. If I had been a jerk at the introduction, or was just trying to prove my machoism to the guys, I highly doubt any girl would have ever gone out with me. Rather I came with a bit of humility and honesty. In my experience God is not so different. To understand you must think of him as a person, not a force of nature. (I'm sure some will disagree with me, but I'm only speaking from my own experience.)
Insyght,
I am always glad to hear that someone has a critical eye and will question everything. That is the only way that we will discover the truth. I am a realist in every sense and the majority of my thinking is logic based, when I say that the criteria I require cannot be met, I know what it will take for me and it is not faith. I have thought about this along time and really, truly believe that religion is based upon human ego, I have never heard this from anyone, it is strictly my own belief and the one that makes logical sense to me.
MattWeston,
I disagree, If I where the scientist I would do an MRI scan of donkeys vocal cords and compare them to other donkeys and I would also do a brain scan of donkey and map the sections of his brain and locate the ones responsible for his speech. If donkey was speaking he would have to have some attributes in these areas that would allow us to make a fair determination that speech was possible in his case. Science is far to advanced to just accept word of mouth as evidence, we could take this allot further.
MattWeston,
I disagree, If I where the scientist I would do an MRI scan of donkeys vocal cords and compare them to other donkeys and I would also do a brain scan of donkey and map the sections of his brain and locate the ones responsible for his speech. If donkey was speaking he would have to have some attributes in these areas that would allow us to make a fair determination that speech was possible in his case. Science is far to advanced to just accept word of mouth as evidence, we could take this allot further.
That is the problem with being too skeptical, it might just miss the truth.
I can say the same thing for the non-existence of god. Many more people around the globe believe, but that does not mean they are right. A sub-section of those people would be skeptical of anyone stating that there was not a god and just downright dismiss them without consideration, only because they believe
I would believe that the person barring access would be doing so for a reason and thus have to state currently that the evidence is inconclusive (agnostic) The word of the individual is not sufficient in this particular case. I understand that this person may be telling the truth but, on equal footing the goal is to get at the truth and the person barring access does not have the same goal.
Yep, thats generally what we see from a religious standpoint. The motive is questioned.
Yep, thats generally what we see from a religious standpoint. The motive is questioned.
The word of the individual is not sufficient in this particular case. I understand that this person may be telling the truth but, on equal footing the goal is to get at the truth and the person barring access does not have the same goal.
Do you think that God is baring access to the truth, if he exists and if so, why do you think he is doing such a thing?
Regarding Demons, no thx, I've looked at it deeply. No offence but I think you are wrong Evolutionist,
You gain much respect in my eyes from your last post. You were (are?) searching. From your post though, it appears that you were/are hindering your self somewhat.
QUOTE
The criteria I would require cannot be met;
First: you have a criteria. If a God exists he must conform to your ideal. That will hinder your searching because even if you did find, you would not recogize, because he might not exactly fit your ideals.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The criteria I would require cannot be met; |
First: you have a criteria. If a God exists he must conform to your ideal. That will hinder your searching because even if you did find, you would not recogize, because he might not exactly fit your ideals.
It's more 95% science and actual knowledge over faith.
Second: you are/were trying to find God through science. He makes it very plain that he does not wish to be found this way. He requires some measure of faith.
QUOTE
The one problem I have is when others try to force their beliefs on society or try to state that theirs is the only way, I don't subscribe to only's.
Agree that people should not force beliefs on ppl. But they should give ppl the opportunity. If this means church or Tv, fine, if this means standing on the street corner, fine, if this means calling on ppols doors, fine. All these things are not what I consider forcing... in each case you can simply turn away, choose not to listen, turn the channel, close the door, walk on by...
What I consider forcing is a state law - you must be this religion.. or comparitively you must have no religion at all. Or some geezer with a machetti coming around and forcing you at the point of death, to accept this way and follow his God.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The one problem I have is when others try to force their beliefs on society or try to state that theirs is the only way, I don't subscribe to only's. |
Agree that people should not force beliefs on ppl. But they should give ppl the opportunity. If this means church or Tv, fine, if this means standing on the street corner, fine, if this means calling on ppols doors, fine. All these things are not what I consider forcing... in each case you can simply turn away, choose not to listen, turn the channel, close the door, walk on by...
What I consider forcing is a state law - you must be this religion.. or comparitively you must have no religion at all. Or some geezer with a machetti coming around and forcing you at the point of death, to accept this way and follow his God.
What you state is very simplistic
Yes, in stating it. There are many many aspects which compose the "Bible is not the word of God" part. KT Belt, Dinosaurs, Some Fossils,.. etc. Somethings are not impossible but very difficult to comprehend. One example, to show you I have thought deeply about such things. Dinosaurs... why? Dating could be wrong, or it could be correct. If it is correct, then what? Why would God create dinosaurs in the first place, to allow them to die off before humans come to the earth? Some think they survived through the flood to die afterwards, which goes along with some interesting cave drawings found showing images of what looks like a dinosaur - the one with the long kneck?... anyways. The puzzle is clear. It can be reasoned many ways - perhaps God experimented with life first... perhaps God played with the genetic language and when the language was refined enough, then he created humans, perhaps the dinosaurs had the purpose of simply controlling growth on the earth until the human population could expand. Perhaps he allowed animals to just evolve and create various forms - saving him doing the work of doing the creating of each of millions of species and when he was ready to create human life, deemed the Dinosaurs to visious so had them killed off.
Animals. Why were humans created to "live for ever" according to scripture, yet animals were not? Scripture it's self reveal that animal killed animal, in reference to very early times when God warned cain that sin was crouching waiting to pounce like a predator. Adam and Eve had an absolutely clear view of what death was. It appears they see it all the time. Interesting how animals which are sick have this natural urge to wander off to die. Animal activists hate this, but it is how it is.
From scripture and from point of view of science, it is clear that there is something unique about humans, that seperate us from all animals. Science tries it's hardest to show animal intelligence, but it is very very simplistic if existing at all.
I hope very SMALL fragment helps you to appreciate Evolutionist, that I do critically analyze the scripture and what I hear in science and I do often have a tough time crunching the data.
QUOTE
First: you have a criteria. If a God exists he must conform to your ideal. That will hinder your searching because even if you did find, you would not recogize, because he might not exactly fit your ideals.
Kind of like finding a girlfriend. Ironically I am not far off. Trying to understand an object is not anything like trying to understand another living, thinking person. I can barely understand my wife, much less this God I have met. Certainly I understand somethings, but others I do not. But of course everything must start with an introduction. If I had been a jerk at the introduction, or was just trying to prove my machoism to the guys, I highly doubt any girl would have ever gone out with me. Rather I came with a bit of humility and honesty. In my experience God is not so different. To understand you must think of him as a person, not a force of nature. (I'm sure some will disagree with me, but I'm only speaking from my own experience.)
The "Talking Donkey" Scenario. This is a scenario, not about proving God exists, but rather to show the problems of being too sckeptical, and being judged too harshly by those who are.
Say a friend gives you miniature, long eared donkey with a bright smile (think Shrek). When you get the little guy home, he starts talking and won't shut up. Naturally you're skeptical and analytical, and do many experiments to ensure, to the best of all your senses, that Donkey actually is talking to you (and once again, won't shut up). You give questions, he reacts, and by the end you are convinced.
So, you want to tell others about this incredible donkey. You bring over a few other "science minded" friends, and immediately Donkey shuts up (he's not stupid after all). Naturally all of your friends have a good laugh and offer you suggestions like: "maybe you were hallucinating", "you’re a liar", "you’re either stupid or insane", “it’s never happened to me”, “donkeys don’t talk”, “it’s not proveable”, and finally "stop drinking".
Now you're really pissed, so you hide a video camera, and tape a few minute of him laughing about how dumb your friends are. You send the video to some "official scientists". They say it has either been dubbed, animated, or is otherwise a total fake.
In desperation you write a journal about everything Donkey and you do. Of course the rest of the world thinks you are a lunatic, but at least you have chronicled the events so that anyone else in the future who encounters a talking donkey, will understand how it is. Eventually people will think you made up the whole thing merely for notoriety, or that it is purely fictional.
Also, we can't forget the old woman who tried to sell him (in the movie, Shrek). She tried faking the words, and making his mouth move (aka a poor ventriloquist). Unfortunately we have a lot of people trying to do that with their deities, and quite frankly it is just as insulting to our intelligence as she was. Never-the-less, the same results are true: Donkey talks, but nobody believes it.
*********************************************
The points:
1. The problem with being too skeptical is that even true results, if they are not typical, they are usually cast out or frowned upon. In the scenario, you used perfect science to determine Donkey actually talks. However, because the results are atypical, everyone else rejects them.
2. As with experiments relating to God, the Talking Donkey experiments were not repeatable to others because it involved a second intelligent being with a different agenda than everyone else.
Does donkey talk- Yes.
Would it be accepted by the scientific community- No.
That is the problem with being too skeptical, it might just miss the truth.
Okay, I know the scenario is over simplistic and that it neither proves there is a God, or that donkeys can talk. It is just a thought excercise about thinking outside the box.
"Sorry, the job of annoying talking animal has already been taken."
Say a friend gives you miniature, long eared donkey with a bright smile (think Shrek). When you get the little guy home, he starts talking and won't shut up. Naturally you're skeptical and analytical, and do many experiments to ensure, to the best of all your senses, that Donkey actually is talking to you (and once again, won't shut up). You give questions, he reacts, and by the end you are convinced.
So, you want to tell others about this incredible donkey. You bring over a few other "science minded" friends, and immediately Donkey shuts up (he's not stupid after all). Naturally all of your friends have a good laugh and offer you suggestions like: "maybe you were hallucinating", "you’re a liar", "you’re either stupid or insane", “it’s never happened to me”, “donkeys don’t talk”, “it’s not proveable”, and finally "stop drinking".
Now you're really pissed, so you hide a video camera, and tape a few minute of him laughing about how dumb your friends are. You send the video to some "official scientists". They say it has either been dubbed, animated, or is otherwise a total fake.
In desperation you write a journal about everything Donkey and you do. Of course the rest of the world thinks you are a lunatic, but at least you have chronicled the events so that anyone else in the future who encounters a talking donkey, will understand how it is. Eventually people will think you made up the whole thing merely for notoriety, or that it is purely fictional.
Also, we can't forget the old woman who tried to sell him (in the movie, Shrek). She tried faking the words, and making his mouth move (aka a poor ventriloquist). Unfortunately we have a lot of people trying to do that with their deities, and quite frankly it is just as insulting to our intelligence as she was. Never-the-less, the same results are true: Donkey talks, but nobody believes it.
*********************************************
The points:
1. The problem with being too skeptical is that even true results, if they are not typical, they are usually cast out or frowned upon. In the scenario, you used perfect science to determine Donkey actually talks. However, because the results are atypical, everyone else rejects them.
2. As with experiments relating to God, the Talking Donkey experiments were not repeatable to others because it involved a second intelligent being with a different agenda than everyone else.
Does donkey talk- Yes.
Would it be accepted by the scientific community- No.
That is the problem with being too skeptical, it might just miss the truth.
Okay, I know the scenario is over simplistic and that it neither proves there is a God, or that donkeys can talk. It is just a thought excercise about thinking outside the box.
"Sorry, the job of annoying talking animal has already been taken."
QUOTE
I hope very SMALL fragment helps you to appreciate Evolutionist, that I do critically analyze the scripture and what I hear in science and I do often have a tough time crunching the data.
Insyght,
I am always glad to hear that someone has a critical eye and will question everything. That is the only way that we will discover the truth. I am a realist in every sense and the majority of my thinking is logic based, when I say that the criteria I require cannot be met, I know what it will take for me and it is not faith. I have thought about this along time and really, truly believe that religion is based upon human ego, I have never heard this from anyone, it is strictly my own belief and the one that makes logical sense to me.
QUOTE
Would it be accepted by the scientific community- No.
MattWeston,
I disagree, If I where the scientist I would do an MRI scan of donkeys vocal cords and compare them to other donkeys and I would also do a brain scan of donkey and map the sections of his brain and locate the ones responsible for his speech. If donkey was speaking he would have to have some attributes in these areas that would allow us to make a fair determination that speech was possible in his case. Science is far to advanced to just accept word of mouth as evidence, we could take this allot further.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Would it be accepted by the scientific community- No. |
MattWeston,
I disagree, If I where the scientist I would do an MRI scan of donkeys vocal cords and compare them to other donkeys and I would also do a brain scan of donkey and map the sections of his brain and locate the ones responsible for his speech. If donkey was speaking he would have to have some attributes in these areas that would allow us to make a fair determination that speech was possible in his case. Science is far to advanced to just accept word of mouth as evidence, we could take this allot further.
That is the problem with being too skeptical, it might just miss the truth.
I can say the same thing for the non-existence of god. Many more people around the globe believe, but that does not mean they are right. A sub-section of those people would be skeptical of anyone stating that there was not a god and just downright dismiss them without consideration, only because they believe
What if you were bared access to the donkey, so that you could only read/look at third party reports? (kinda the position you can think of regarding a creator).
Would you then beleive?
Would you then beleive?
QUOTE
What if you were bared access to the donkey, so that you could only read/look at third party reports? (kinda the position you can think of regarding a creator).Would you then beleive?
I would believe that the person barring access would be doing so for a reason and thus have to state currently that the evidence is inconclusive (agnostic) The word of the individual is not sufficient in this particular case. I understand that this person may be telling the truth but, on equal footing the goal is to get at the truth and the person barring access does not have the same goal.
Evolutionist-
The point of this scenario was never to poke fun at evolutionists, or any other specific groups of people, only to illustrate that there are some things which are very difficult to prove to others because they might not fit the norm, or we do not fully control them. The fact is word of mouth is only as credible as someone's opinion of it. With that said, the only remaining way to prove something is by direct experiment. In the scenario, the only way to get donkey to talk is to... talk with him in a way that he finds pleasing.
At the same time, have I, as Donkey's owner, been scientific and logical in my approach? Yes. Yet at the same time, I cannot prove that to anyone but myself. Surely I can give evidences (like MRI images, video, journals), but they are subject to my own credibility and can be easily discounted.
"Did you hear that? She called me a noble steed. Ha, she thinks I'm a steed."
QUOTE
I disagree, If I where the scientist I would do an MRI scan of donkeys vocal cords and compare them to other donkeys and I would also do a brain scan of donkey and map the sections of his brain and locate the ones responsible for his speech. If donkey was speaking he would have to have some attributes in these areas that would allow us to make a fair determination that speech was possible in his case.
Actually MrSokie already had that suggestion, but remember, you are the one with Donkey (aka this is a first person scenario). Personally I would do as many tests as possible (MRI included), but what if Donkey refused to be tested by anyone who he did not like (after all, he has a bit of attitude)? Then, even if you got good results, are they repeatable on other donkeys?The point of this scenario was never to poke fun at evolutionists, or any other specific groups of people, only to illustrate that there are some things which are very difficult to prove to others because they might not fit the norm, or we do not fully control them. The fact is word of mouth is only as credible as someone's opinion of it. With that said, the only remaining way to prove something is by direct experiment. In the scenario, the only way to get donkey to talk is to... talk with him in a way that he finds pleasing.
At the same time, have I, as Donkey's owner, been scientific and logical in my approach? Yes. Yet at the same time, I cannot prove that to anyone but myself. Surely I can give evidences (like MRI images, video, journals), but they are subject to my own credibility and can be easily discounted.
"Did you hear that? She called me a noble steed. Ha, she thinks I'm a steed."
Personally, I'd threaten to eat the donkey if he/she didn't start talking. Either way, problem solved.
hi Waterbreath,
I'ts not an action flick. Unfortunately it does have a lot of "action" in it. Perhaps the underlying message was lost.
WaterBreath Posted: May 17 2005, 01:04 PM
He he he... Bloom is a very unlikely knight.
it is the story of a humble man who loses his wife through suicide and kills a priest in an age of ignorance. He then seeks forgiveness before God for himself and his desecrated and 'damned" wife and along the way finds much more. hence the name "the Kingdom of Heaven".
OK a few "extras' get their heads lopped but in order to make omlette you got to break a few eggs. There is a strong theme of mutual respect and of those that have none. Of course it has some basis in historical truth but I imagine this is not "history'.
OK it's probably not your fare. Wrong topic. You choose.
Cheers
I'ts not an action flick. Unfortunately it does have a lot of "action" in it. Perhaps the underlying message was lost.
WaterBreath Posted: May 17 2005, 01:04 PM
QUOTE
I have a guess at what the messages of the movie will be
He he he... Bloom is a very unlikely knight.
it is the story of a humble man who loses his wife through suicide and kills a priest in an age of ignorance. He then seeks forgiveness before God for himself and his desecrated and 'damned" wife and along the way finds much more. hence the name "the Kingdom of Heaven".
OK a few "extras' get their heads lopped but in order to make omlette you got to break a few eggs. There is a strong theme of mutual respect and of those that have none. Of course it has some basis in historical truth but I imagine this is not "history'.
OK it's probably not your fare. Wrong topic. You choose.
Cheers
QUOTE
I would believe that the person barring access would be doing so for a reason and thus have to state currently that the evidence is inconclusive (agnostic)
Yep, thats generally what we see from a religious standpoint. The motive is questioned.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I would believe that the person barring access would be doing so for a reason and thus have to state currently that the evidence is inconclusive (agnostic) |
Yep, thats generally what we see from a religious standpoint. The motive is questioned.
The word of the individual is not sufficient in this particular case. I understand that this person may be telling the truth but, on equal footing the goal is to get at the truth and the person barring access does not have the same goal.
Do you think that God is baring access to the truth, if he exists and if so, why do you think he is doing such a thing?
That Donkey-scenario was a lot of fun, wasn't it?
I'll just keep it short. If the inability of science to disprove the existence of God is reason to believe, people should equally believe in Unicorns, Fairies and Dragons.
I'll just keep it short. If the inability of science to disprove the existence of God is reason to believe, people should equally believe in Unicorns, Fairies and Dragons.
Hi All,
If you are looking for a God you better stop having those preconceptions as to who or what he is... otherwise you can't find something that cannot exist. You really have to search for what actually exists in order to find it.
Ultimately you will go mad looking for the God of your "dreams"... the God of reality is already waiting to be found... it just doesn't match the "high standards" you have set for the "position"... His CV is not in 12 point and he went to the wrong school.
Cheers
If you are looking for a God you better stop having those preconceptions as to who or what he is... otherwise you can't find something that cannot exist. You really have to search for what actually exists in order to find it.
Ultimately you will go mad looking for the God of your "dreams"... the God of reality is already waiting to be found... it just doesn't match the "high standards" you have set for the "position"... His CV is not in 12 point and he went to the wrong school.
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+May 16 2005, 07:21 AM)
Will you be killing the women and children too? What has killing got to do with Scientific Debate?
It's a figure of speach, genius.
And another thing, I'm sorry I appeared too visious, I didn't mean it to sound like I'd like us to go back to the dark ages. What I ment was, if some hotshot came along and began slandering my God.
I am not with those nonbelievers of evolution who protest, I mean, come on!
Just because science exists, doesn't mean God can not, and the other way around. It's just that people get so energetic on the subject.
I believe God used evolution to create the animals he wanted. You can desagree all you want, but just think about it.
It's a figure of speach, genius.
And another thing, I'm sorry I appeared too visious, I didn't mean it to sound like I'd like us to go back to the dark ages. What I ment was, if some hotshot came along and began slandering my God.
I am not with those nonbelievers of evolution who protest, I mean, come on!
Just because science exists, doesn't mean God can not, and the other way around. It's just that people get so energetic on the subject.
I believe God used evolution to create the animals he wanted. You can desagree all you want, but just think about it.
Hi 555joshua,
I am not really attacking you personally. This is a "Forum" and I am speaking to a "couple of other people" too. I just happen to need an "opinion" to respond to. You expressed yours very forcefully and I saw a "seed" of a problem there. That is... in my point of view. Earlier I responded to Waterbreath in one of his answers...
Good Elf
I respect waterbreath a lot and I know that this collective idea is shared by the majority of humankind in one fashion or another. I still feel that a careful examination of the point shows us the error. We treasure our mental creations above our lives and the lives of others. This has led to bloody conflict Century after Century... unending. I look into the natural world and see the Natural World not at War but in balance. Sure... living creatures kill each other for food but not for malice. I saw an article in New Scientist where it spoke of the lack of malice between animals that even fight each other. It showed two jackals trying to "eviscerate" each other over some juicy bit of meat. Ten minutes later the two same jackals are at sleep lying with their heads supported by each other's body in total forgiveness and trust. The article went on to note that it is only man who holds blood feuds and hate for his fellow creatures in his heart and keeps it secure from all forgiveness forever.
555Joshua Posted on May 18 2005, 11:19 AM
555Joshua Posted on May 18 2005, 11:19 AM
What I meant was, if some hotshot came along and began slandering my God.
I don't want to slander "your" God but are you certain that you have chosen wisely? How many God's do you think there are and why have you suggested a kind of ownership and possession of this being ("my God")? Is it to satisfy your own ego or needs? No offense here since this is a general human condition. As I have indicated in that link above is it truly worth all the killing and evil in the World because of the single minded "idea" that we hold "Principles" and a "set of actions" that include the murder and sometimes the elimination of entire "rival" families of our fellow creatures as an apparent "basic drive". We are alone among all species in such fratricidal actions. I suggest that this is "wrong thinking" since it is based on culturally ingrained notions of superiority and manifest destiny that drive us to destroy others for our own private needs (not the real needs of any true God). A "Creator" has been around for many billions of years and does not crave our attention and bleatings (or at least I hope he doesn't ... we would be in really big trouble if our "Gods" were crazy like us). Our Gods are "secretly" in our own image and they are called up at will to champion your evil causes (Eh... not you personally... humans in general).
We are natural idolaters! True pagans to the core. Drinkers of human blood before an altar we have fashioned to our own specifications. The truth is we know nothing of God and while we are so self willed no true God will reveal itself to us. That is the real reason we kill and maim, we do so out of the inner anguish, emptiness and self loathing most are suffering in this place of torment. It drove the Church to do the same because they knew that if their rank and file should suspect that "Truth" they may repent and cease their evil and that would never do. "Better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven".
I have noted with absolute horror just how totally committed to not changing their own ways the various Churches are... and reconciled with the inevitability of their own suffering and plight. They want to "bring it on", a final conflict. I guess you want to be a part of "all that". I can't stop you or the rest of humankind... All I can do is say that you should consider another way that is more in balance with the Natural World. Man knows nothing of God.
You all wonder why it is so difficult to prove the existence of God... it is impossible to prove that something in the real world exists that can match our inner creations spawned from our heart of darkness. It is your human pride that steels you in your error and can find no way to resolve this dilemma.... when the answer is so obvious.
Cheers
it is impossible to prove that something in the real world exists that can match our inner creations spawned from our heart of darkness
Here's the inherent philosophical difference between an un- or anti-religious person and many (most?) religious people. The religious people don't think they've created these ideas. They believe they've found them. I do agree that some people are more sensible than others in their reasoning for why they believe the things they have found truly are "higher truths". But I don't agree that every single person who holds a religious belief is just deluding themselves. Obviously we're not going to see eye-to-eye on that particular issue, so I won't say any more about it.
Above my own, but not above others'. I will hold to my principles even at pain of death. But I will not kill someone who disagrees, or who tries to prevent me from expressing or acting on my principles, or even who tries to kill me for them. Of course one of my core principles is that even this fleeting human life is precious, and a gift from God which I have no right whatsoever to take from someone.
Above my own, but not above others'. I will hold to my principles even at pain of death. But I will not kill someone who disagrees, or who tries to prevent me from expressing or acting on my principles, or even who tries to kill me for them. Of course one of my core principles is that even this fleeting human life is precious, and a gift from God which I have no right whatsoever to take from someone.
Ten minutes later the two same jackals are at sleep lying with their heads supported by each other's body in total forgiveness and trust.
Forgiveness and trust are related, but can be separated, depending on the personality of the person. I may bear no ill will for someone who has asked for my forgiveness for stealing my stereo and pawning it. But that doesn't mean I'm about to leave them alone in my house for an afternoon without a bit of evidence they have no intention of doing it again. This approach strikes me more as a well-evolved sense of risk-mitigation than anything emotional.
The "forever" part is the key here. (Dogs are known to be mean to people who have abused them in the past.) For what it's worth, if a Christian holds a grudge like that, they're betraying their supposed beliefs. Scripture says that if someone asks for your forgiveness, you should forgive them. No matter how many times the scenario repeats. This isn't as foolish as it necessarily sounds, due to the difference between forgiveness and trust that I outlined above.
The "forever" part is the key here. (Dogs are known to be mean to people who have abused them in the past.) For what it's worth, if a Christian holds a grudge like that, they're betraying their supposed beliefs. Scripture says that if someone asks for your forgiveness, you should forgive them. No matter how many times the scenario repeats. This isn't as foolish as it necessarily sounds, due to the difference between forgiveness and trust that I outlined above.
I have noted with absolute horror just how totally committed to not changing their own ways the various Churches are...
Me too. My own little church recently went through a period where we "cut the fat", so to speak. There was a realization that we had some teachings that were really held more for reasons of tradition than that they followed from any of our foundational faiths. (Our foundation is that the Bible is God's primary communication with humanity in this era, and these beliefs weren't supported in scripture.) There were people who couldn't let go, and they decided not to come anymore, though they were quite noisy about the decision. I guess they have their own little church somewhere else now.
For what it's worth, I agree with your sentiment on the confrontationalism of many religions. At the other end of the religious spectrum is total relativism, where everything is "OK" as long as you respect others. I agree with the respecting others part, but I do believe in absolute rights and wrongs. I do believe in a single, constant, and consistent "higher truth".
Personally, I don't wonder. I understand exactly why. Your answer is part of it, and the rest is entwined with my belief that our total free will (but not without consequences) is one of our most important gifts from God.
I do agree with you on one thing entirely, though. The Bible is a very unique and fascinating book, and should be read before anyone attacks it. I have found it to be very resilient in my own search for truth.
Insyght,
Well, if he/she exists, I would have no idea why there is no trace of him/her at all. Why should he/she not "reveal himself/herself"? I think the existence of god is relevant only to the individual and that he/she exists but only in the mind of that individual and not externally. Everyone's vision of god is different and hence when you die your particular, individualized vision goes with you.
Insyght,
Well, if he/she exists, I would have no idea why there is no trace of him/her at all. Why should he/she not "reveal himself/herself"? I think the existence of god is relevant only to the individual and that he/she exists but only in the mind of that individual and not externally. Everyone's vision of god is different and hence when you die your particular, individualized vision goes with you.
First, Good Elf, I am not talking about you, I'm talking about Evolutionist, who just will not reason, (at least you will).
555Joshua,
Please speak to me directly; I do not believe we have ever conversed. Also define "reason" as you see it, my interpretation of your statement is that I should work very diligently to understand your position while there is no reason why you should understand mine. If I am wrong please explain your position a bit more clearly.
These statements that you attribute to "proof" are YOUR interpretations and nothing more. Please do not submit them as proof.
Waterbreath,
Thanks…I'll take that as though you where pompously patting me on the back.
Waterbreath,
Thanks…I'll take that as though you where pompously patting me on the back.
but I don't bear him any ill will for that
Nor do I to anyone posting here, whether they agree with me or not.
Guest_bada,
If you notice he/she started this sentence with "I THINK" not "I KNOW"; Very compelling argument by both of you. All of the violence aside, gather your thoughts and post a comment that will allow others to understand your position. You may not agree with me but, I am more than willing to hear what you have to say.
Guest,
Mmm…Please show me the post where I stated that because you believe in a deity, that you will "suffer some horrendous fate?" You are using the term "theory" and "prove" as though they are synonymous, they are not. You also say "that may prove the deity" are you undecided? I would believe the statement should be "that will prove the deity". I am not sure who "you guys" are but obviously, I am part of some crazed group that is hell bent on making others follow me or else make them suffer for all eternity, is that right? I respect your beliefs as YOUR BELIEFS and NOT MINE; offer up some valid points regarding you beliefs without the attack mode antics.
P.S. Choose a moniker for yourself that REALLY states where you are coming from.
Obviously, not; to a fault. It was the initial general nature of your post that solicited my response. Thanks for clarifying your position.
actually, to assume that things evolve from the pure coincidences is itself a manifestation that there can not be a creator. The example of moths is a good example. One kind was white and was easily concealed in clear background and the other was dark and was rather not favored. Mankind produced lots of charcoal and concealed the trees with a black debry. The white moth got selected agaisnt, while the black month gained an advantage. Would you attribute that to god or to simple coincidences. Also if you are religious you would know that most of religious stories are not scientifically possible. Noah's story for instance would be impossible because (and it was on discovery channel and on scientific community for a while) would increase the atmospheric pressure so much it would make life impossible for Noah and his animals. Of course, if you ignore the ridiculous gesture of finding two of each anmial when in fact some animals live in far parts of north pole and south which Noah could have never accessed being a resident of Today's Syria and Iraq. As I said, it calms you when you think about god but that is not because he necessarily exists( hey if i cant refute him i cant refuse him either) but because our inferior nature favors and compells us to connect to a higher perfect being. It is the only time we feel secure for our imperfections.
actually, to assume that things evolve from the pure coincidences is itself a manifestation that there can not be a creator. The example of moths is a good example. One kind was white and was easily concealed in clear background and the other was dark and was rather not favored. Mankind produced lots of charcoal and concealed the trees with a black debry. The white moth got selected agaisnt, while the black month gained an advantage. Would you attribute that to god or to simple coincidences. Also if you are religious you would know that most of religious stories are not scientifically possible. Noah's story for instance would be impossible because (and it was on discovery channel and on scientific community for a while) would increase the atmospheric pressure so much it would make life impossible for Noah and his animals. Of course, if you ignore the ridiculous gesture of finding two of each anmial when in fact some animals live in far parts of north pole and south which Noah could have never accessed being a resident of Today's Syria and Iraq. As I said, it calms you when you think about god but that is not because he necessarily exists( hey if i cant refute him i cant refuse him either) but because our inferior nature favors and compells us to connect to a higher perfect being. It is the only time we feel secure for our imperfections.
I don't see how evolution means there can't be a creator. Note that I did not mention a specific religion or god - this applies to the concept of a creator and not to the validity of any one religion.
The selection of the moth varieties in your scenario would be a very simple coincidence. Most are much more complicated and involve many species and complex changes in the environment. In this case, the black ash that coated the trees changed the Conditions of Existence, which determine which forms are favorable and which aren't. One species died out, simply because it was found and preyed on easier. How does this either validate or invalidate a creator?
And I haven't been compelled to connect to a higher perfect being. Which is pretty rude, if he's compelling other people. I mean, how would you feel if someone invited everyone to a party except for you?
Didn't I say that? If I didn't, I hadn't gotten around to it yet. Though I am a christien, christian, christion, (whatever) I am also a man who seaks answers e.g. a scientist, and it infuriates me to see people act so stupid. The only reason someone would do so is if they think that God might not exist.
I am not really attacking you personally. This is a "Forum" and I am speaking to a "couple of other people" too. I just happen to need an "opinion" to respond to. You expressed yours very forcefully and I saw a "seed" of a problem there. That is... in my point of view. Earlier I responded to Waterbreath in one of his answers...
Good Elf
I respect waterbreath a lot and I know that this collective idea is shared by the majority of humankind in one fashion or another. I still feel that a careful examination of the point shows us the error. We treasure our mental creations above our lives and the lives of others. This has led to bloody conflict Century after Century... unending. I look into the natural world and see the Natural World not at War but in balance. Sure... living creatures kill each other for food but not for malice. I saw an article in New Scientist where it spoke of the lack of malice between animals that even fight each other. It showed two jackals trying to "eviscerate" each other over some juicy bit of meat. Ten minutes later the two same jackals are at sleep lying with their heads supported by each other's body in total forgiveness and trust. The article went on to note that it is only man who holds blood feuds and hate for his fellow creatures in his heart and keeps it secure from all forgiveness forever.
QUOTE
Reference: New Scientist, May 7th 2005 P35 "Kiss and Make Up" ... Lee Dugatkin.
555Joshua Posted on May 18 2005, 11:19 AM
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Reference: New Scientist, May 7th 2005 P35 "Kiss and Make Up" ... Lee Dugatkin. |
555Joshua Posted on May 18 2005, 11:19 AM
What I meant was, if some hotshot came along and began slandering my God.
I don't want to slander "your" God but are you certain that you have chosen wisely? How many God's do you think there are and why have you suggested a kind of ownership and possession of this being ("my God")? Is it to satisfy your own ego or needs? No offense here since this is a general human condition. As I have indicated in that link above is it truly worth all the killing and evil in the World because of the single minded "idea" that we hold "Principles" and a "set of actions" that include the murder and sometimes the elimination of entire "rival" families of our fellow creatures as an apparent "basic drive". We are alone among all species in such fratricidal actions. I suggest that this is "wrong thinking" since it is based on culturally ingrained notions of superiority and manifest destiny that drive us to destroy others for our own private needs (not the real needs of any true God). A "Creator" has been around for many billions of years and does not crave our attention and bleatings (or at least I hope he doesn't ... we would be in really big trouble if our "Gods" were crazy like us). Our Gods are "secretly" in our own image and they are called up at will to champion your evil causes (Eh... not you personally... humans in general).
We are natural idolaters! True pagans to the core. Drinkers of human blood before an altar we have fashioned to our own specifications. The truth is we know nothing of God and while we are so self willed no true God will reveal itself to us. That is the real reason we kill and maim, we do so out of the inner anguish, emptiness and self loathing most are suffering in this place of torment. It drove the Church to do the same because they knew that if their rank and file should suspect that "Truth" they may repent and cease their evil and that would never do. "Better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven".
I have noted with absolute horror just how totally committed to not changing their own ways the various Churches are... and reconciled with the inevitability of their own suffering and plight. They want to "bring it on", a final conflict. I guess you want to be a part of "all that". I can't stop you or the rest of humankind... All I can do is say that you should consider another way that is more in balance with the Natural World. Man knows nothing of God.
You all wonder why it is so difficult to prove the existence of God... it is impossible to prove that something in the real world exists that can match our inner creations spawned from our heart of darkness. It is your human pride that steels you in your error and can find no way to resolve this dilemma.... when the answer is so obvious.
QUOTE
A Poison Tree
I was angry with my friend:
I told my wrath, my wrath did end.
I was angry with my foe:
I told it not, my wrath did grow.
And I water'd it in fears,
Night & morning with my tears;
And I sunned it with smiles,
And with soft deceitful wiles.
And it grew both day and night,
Till it bore an apple bright;
And my foe beheld it shine,
And he knew that it was mine,
And into my garden stole
When the night had veil'd the pole:
In the morning glad I see
My foe outstretch'd beneath the tree.
-- William Blake
I was angry with my friend:
I told my wrath, my wrath did end.
I was angry with my foe:
I told it not, my wrath did grow.
And I water'd it in fears,
Night & morning with my tears;
And I sunned it with smiles,
And with soft deceitful wiles.
And it grew both day and night,
Till it bore an apple bright;
And my foe beheld it shine,
And he knew that it was mine,
And into my garden stole
When the night had veil'd the pole:
In the morning glad I see
My foe outstretch'd beneath the tree.
-- William Blake
Cheers
QUOTE
We treasure our mental creations...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| We treasure our mental creations... |
it is impossible to prove that something in the real world exists that can match our inner creations spawned from our heart of darkness
Here's the inherent philosophical difference between an un- or anti-religious person and many (most?) religious people. The religious people don't think they've created these ideas. They believe they've found them. I do agree that some people are more sensible than others in their reasoning for why they believe the things they have found truly are "higher truths". But I don't agree that every single person who holds a religious belief is just deluding themselves. Obviously we're not going to see eye-to-eye on that particular issue, so I won't say any more about it.
QUOTE
...above our lives and the lives of others.
Above my own, but not above others'. I will hold to my principles even at pain of death. But I will not kill someone who disagrees, or who tries to prevent me from expressing or acting on my principles, or even who tries to kill me for them. Of course one of my core principles is that even this fleeting human life is precious, and a gift from God which I have no right whatsoever to take from someone.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ...above our lives and the lives of others. |
Above my own, but not above others'. I will hold to my principles even at pain of death. But I will not kill someone who disagrees, or who tries to prevent me from expressing or acting on my principles, or even who tries to kill me for them. Of course one of my core principles is that even this fleeting human life is precious, and a gift from God which I have no right whatsoever to take from someone.
Ten minutes later the two same jackals are at sleep lying with their heads supported by each other's body in total forgiveness and trust.
Forgiveness and trust are related, but can be separated, depending on the personality of the person. I may bear no ill will for someone who has asked for my forgiveness for stealing my stereo and pawning it. But that doesn't mean I'm about to leave them alone in my house for an afternoon without a bit of evidence they have no intention of doing it again. This approach strikes me more as a well-evolved sense of risk-mitigation than anything emotional.
QUOTE
The article went on to note that it is only man who holds blood feuds and hate for his fellow creatures in his heart and keeps it secure from all forgiveness forever.
The "forever" part is the key here. (Dogs are known to be mean to people who have abused them in the past.) For what it's worth, if a Christian holds a grudge like that, they're betraying their supposed beliefs. Scripture says that if someone asks for your forgiveness, you should forgive them. No matter how many times the scenario repeats. This isn't as foolish as it necessarily sounds, due to the difference between forgiveness and trust that I outlined above.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The article went on to note that it is only man who holds blood feuds and hate for his fellow creatures in his heart and keeps it secure from all forgiveness forever. |
The "forever" part is the key here. (Dogs are known to be mean to people who have abused them in the past.) For what it's worth, if a Christian holds a grudge like that, they're betraying their supposed beliefs. Scripture says that if someone asks for your forgiveness, you should forgive them. No matter how many times the scenario repeats. This isn't as foolish as it necessarily sounds, due to the difference between forgiveness and trust that I outlined above.
I have noted with absolute horror just how totally committed to not changing their own ways the various Churches are...
Me too. My own little church recently went through a period where we "cut the fat", so to speak. There was a realization that we had some teachings that were really held more for reasons of tradition than that they followed from any of our foundational faiths. (Our foundation is that the Bible is God's primary communication with humanity in this era, and these beliefs weren't supported in scripture.) There were people who couldn't let go, and they decided not to come anymore, though they were quite noisy about the decision. I guess they have their own little church somewhere else now.
For what it's worth, I agree with your sentiment on the confrontationalism of many religions. At the other end of the religious spectrum is total relativism, where everything is "OK" as long as you respect others. I agree with the respecting others part, but I do believe in absolute rights and wrongs. I do believe in a single, constant, and consistent "higher truth".
QUOTE
You all wonder why it is so difficult to prove the existence of God
Personally, I don't wonder. I understand exactly why. Your answer is part of it, and the rest is entwined with my belief that our total free will (but not without consequences) is one of our most important gifts from God.
Good Elf,
You should take up writing for a career, you have a talant, really. In particular I love this part:
Beautiful writing, a lot of truth. My only disagreement is your statement that we know nothing of God. If my God as you say, is made up in my own imagination, then I know everything about him. If he is real, then again, he has revealed him self to me and I know much about him.
For me personally,my relalationship with God, affects my life day to day in a positive way. I need no other proof. What God teaches me works. If I turn the key of my car and it starts and takes me to wonderful places, I do not need to know how it works, only to beleive that it will continue to.
I feel sad for ones who have not experienced such Joy, but instead have felt the blunt-force trauma and pillaging of corrupt religion.
You should take up writing for a career, you have a talant, really. In particular I love this part:
QUOTE
We are natural idolaters! True pagans to the core. Drinkers of human blood before an altar we have fashioned to our own specifications. The truth is we know nothing of God and while we are so self willed no true God will reveal itself to us. That is the real reason we kill and maim, we do so out of the inner anguish, emptiness and self loathing most are suffering in this place of torment. It drove the Church to do the same because they knew that if their rank and file should suspect that "Truth" they may repent and cease their evil and that would never do. "Better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven". dry.gif
Beautiful writing, a lot of truth. My only disagreement is your statement that we know nothing of God. If my God as you say, is made up in my own imagination, then I know everything about him. If he is real, then again, he has revealed him self to me and I know much about him.
For me personally,my relalationship with God, affects my life day to day in a positive way. I need no other proof. What God teaches me works. If I turn the key of my car and it starts and takes me to wonderful places, I do not need to know how it works, only to beleive that it will continue to.
I feel sad for ones who have not experienced such Joy, but instead have felt the blunt-force trauma and pillaging of corrupt religion.
Hi Insyght,
OK then I can prove the existence of "my God"... Every time you do an experiment he "speaks". With the right experiment you can ask anything and you will have an answer. Don't think this is nothing... it is very important indeed.
Now you can prove your God. It should be a doddle! It needs to be verifiable though.
Cheers
OK then I can prove the existence of "my God"... Every time you do an experiment he "speaks". With the right experiment you can ask anything and you will have an answer. Don't think this is nothing... it is very important indeed.
Now you can prove your God. It should be a doddle!
It needs to be verifiable though.Cheers
First, Good Elf, I am not talking about you, I'm talking about Evolutionist, who just will not reason, (at least you will).
You need to get out of the labrotory . I don't have possession of him, it's another figure of speach.
I noticed that you keep saying there is no proof of God, there is no proof of him; I beg to differ. You obiously haven't read the bible. It predicted the fall of the roman empire, Hitler, and Nepolion. It didn't name names though. And revolations, Which mentions the U.S. though, not by its name. It's the beast with the loud voice. It predicts alot of stuff, you just have to read it.
QUOTE
How many Gods do you think there are?
You need to get out of the labrotory
. I don't have possession of him, it's another figure of speach.I noticed that you keep saying there is no proof of God, there is no proof of him; I beg to differ. You obiously haven't read the bible. It predicted the fall of the roman empire, Hitler, and Nepolion. It didn't name names though. And revolations, Which mentions the U.S. though, not by its name. It's the beast with the loud voice. It predicts alot of stuff, you just have to read it.
QUOTE
If you are looking for a God you better stop having those preconceptions as to who or what he is... otherwise you can't find something that cannot exist. You really have to search for what actually exists in order to find it.
Ultimately you will go mad looking for the God of your "dreams"... the God of reality is already waiting to be found... it just doesn't match the "high standards" you have set for the "position"... His CV is not in 12 point and he went to the wrong school.
You do have a way with words Good Elf. This is very good. Obviously we have to start searching somewhere, and inevitably everyone takes someone’s word for where to start, but if you are certain of what you will find when you begin, you will probably be disappointed. Columbus knew he would reach India by sailing around the world, but he was wrong. Instead he found something even greater, even though he did not realize it at first. Ultimately you will go mad looking for the God of your "dreams"... the God of reality is already waiting to be found... it just doesn't match the "high standards" you have set for the "position"... His CV is not in 12 point and he went to the wrong school.
QUOTE
I noticed that you keep saying there is no proof of God, there is no proof of him; I beg to differ. You obiously haven't read the bible. It predicted the fall of the roman empire, Hitler, and Nepolion. It didn't name names though. And revolations, Which mentions the U.S. though, not by its name. It's the beast with the loud voice. It predicts alot of stuff, you just have to read it.
I think these would best be termed as evidences, not as proof, though it may be a case of semantics. I'm not entirely sure about your interpretation of prophecy either (and yes, I have read it). There is enough speculation about such things within the Church that I would not exactly present them as proof to those who don't hold the Bible as credible. (I don't mean this to be a personal attack though.) I do agree with you on one thing entirely, though. The Bible is a very unique and fascinating book, and should be read before anyone attacks it. I have found it to be very resilient in my own search for truth.
QUOTE
Do you think that God is baring access to the truth, if he exists and if so, why do you think he is doing such a thing?
Insyght,
Well, if he/she exists, I would have no idea why there is no trace of him/her at all. Why should he/she not "reveal himself/herself"? I think the existence of god is relevant only to the individual and that he/she exists but only in the mind of that individual and not externally. Everyone's vision of god is different and hence when you die your particular, individualized vision goes with you.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Do you think that God is baring access to the truth, if he exists and if so, why do you think he is doing such a thing? |
Insyght,
Well, if he/she exists, I would have no idea why there is no trace of him/her at all. Why should he/she not "reveal himself/herself"? I think the existence of god is relevant only to the individual and that he/she exists but only in the mind of that individual and not externally. Everyone's vision of god is different and hence when you die your particular, individualized vision goes with you.
First, Good Elf, I am not talking about you, I'm talking about Evolutionist, who just will not reason, (at least you will).
555Joshua,
Please speak to me directly; I do not believe we have ever conversed. Also define "reason" as you see it, my interpretation of your statement is that I should work very diligently to understand your position while there is no reason why you should understand mine. If I am wrong please explain your position a bit more clearly.
QUOTE
I noticed that you keep saying there is no proof of God, there is no proof of him; I beg to differ. You obviously haven't read the bible. It predicted the fall of the Roman Empire, Hitler, and Napoleon. It didn't name names though. And revelations, which mentions the U.S. though, not by its name. It's the beast with the loud voice. It predicts allot of stuff, you just have to read it.
These statements that you attribute to "proof" are YOUR interpretations and nothing more. Please do not submit them as proof.
QUOTE (Joshua555+)
I'm talking about Evolutionist, who just will not reason
That's not really a fair statement. It marginalizes what he has said, without qualifying why. It's also not accurate, IMHO. From what I've seen Evolution reasons just fine. Quite a lot better than many people do, in fact.
Just because his line of reasoning differs from yours does not mean he is not rational. The differences that arise, which often cannot be reconciled, are manifestations of the personalities of those involved. Everyone has these pecularities, and everyone's are different. I disagree with some of the foundational assumptions of his arguments, but I do see and understand why he takes them. I think they lead him to an incorrect conclusion, but I can understand how he got there given the "starting point". I know Evolution also thinks my "starting point" is wrong, but I don't bear him any ill will for that, and hopefully he feels the same. IMHO it is almost always difficult, and very often impossible, to really make a solid argument about the correctness of one of these foundations.
We can argue all day about whose "starting point" is better, and I don't think we'd really get anywhere. But I think we'd be better off doing that than a lot of what we have been doing, because at least it gets to the true heart of the matter. But the fact is, most people don't even know they have such a "starting point" for their arguments, and so believe that the logical consistency of their arguments is self-supporting. They don't realize their nicely ordered arguments are still based on foundations that are in dispute. This is the level where I think we should all endeavor to agree to disagree peacefully, in cases where we can't resolve the conflict.
That's not really a fair statement. It marginalizes what he has said, without qualifying why. It's also not accurate, IMHO. From what I've seen Evolution reasons just fine. Quite a lot better than many people do, in fact.
Just because his line of reasoning differs from yours does not mean he is not rational. The differences that arise, which often cannot be reconciled, are manifestations of the personalities of those involved. Everyone has these pecularities, and everyone's are different. I disagree with some of the foundational assumptions of his arguments, but I do see and understand why he takes them. I think they lead him to an incorrect conclusion, but I can understand how he got there given the "starting point". I know Evolution also thinks my "starting point" is wrong, but I don't bear him any ill will for that, and hopefully he feels the same. IMHO it is almost always difficult, and very often impossible, to really make a solid argument about the correctness of one of these foundations.
We can argue all day about whose "starting point" is better, and I don't think we'd really get anywhere. But I think we'd be better off doing that than a lot of what we have been doing, because at least it gets to the true heart of the matter. But the fact is, most people don't even know they have such a "starting point" for their arguments, and so believe that the logical consistency of their arguments is self-supporting. They don't realize their nicely ordered arguments are still based on foundations that are in dispute. This is the level where I think we should all endeavor to agree to disagree peacefully, in cases where we can't resolve the conflict.
QUOTE
That's not really a fair statement. It marginalizes what he has said, without qualifying why. It's also not accurate, IMHO. From what I've seen Evolution reasons just fine. Quite a lot better than many people do, in fact.
Waterbreath,
Thanks…I'll take that as though you where pompously patting me on the back.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That's not really a fair statement. It marginalizes what he has said, without qualifying why. It's also not accurate, IMHO. From what I've seen Evolution reasons just fine. Quite a lot better than many people do, in fact. |
Waterbreath,
Thanks…I'll take that as though you where pompously patting me on the back.
but I don't bear him any ill will for that
Nor do I to anyone posting here, whether they agree with me or not.
QUOTE (555Joshua+May 16 2005, 11:22 AM)
I think there is a God, and I will fight you to the death on the subject.
yes! At least someone knows what he's talking about!
yes! At least someone knows what he's talking about!
QUOTE (reinktedid+May 16 2005, 02:49 PM)
Question to all who believe in whatever kind of religion.
For example, if you are roman catholic you believe in god, if you are muslim you believe in allah, etc. What if all this is true what are these so called gods then, brothers?
If so then there is a possibility there are also sisters. Anyone think of that?
And if these gods exist, there must be parallel heavens (and parallel hell?)
I don’t think so! But I don’t mind if some one believes in a religion. To my humble opinion I think it is just a excuse to live by a certain standard and anything that does not match with this is being denied.
So please don’t try to see who is wrong or right, just try to get along with each other.
actually I believe that there's only ONE God who's omnipotent. There's only one God and all the other gods are (I'm sorry if I'm offending anyone) false.
For example, if you are roman catholic you believe in god, if you are muslim you believe in allah, etc. What if all this is true what are these so called gods then, brothers?
If so then there is a possibility there are also sisters. Anyone think of that?
And if these gods exist, there must be parallel heavens (and parallel hell?)
I don’t think so! But I don’t mind if some one believes in a religion. To my humble opinion I think it is just a excuse to live by a certain standard and anything that does not match with this is being denied.
So please don’t try to see who is wrong or right, just try to get along with each other.
actually I believe that there's only ONE God who's omnipotent. There's only one God and all the other gods are (I'm sorry if I'm offending anyone) false.
QUOTE
I think there is a God, and I will fight you to the death on the subject.
yes! At least someone knows what he's talking about!
yes! At least someone knows what he's talking about!
Guest_bada,
If you notice he/she started this sentence with "I THINK" not "I KNOW"; Very compelling argument by both of you. All of the violence aside, gather your thoughts and post a comment that will allow others to understand your position. You may not agree with me but, I am more than willing to hear what you have to say.
QUOTE (Evolutionist+May 16 2005, 06:51 PM)
Very nice discussions, minus the death and dying crap. This really exemplifies my point, why do highly religious people convey that it is absolutely necessary that others believe as they do or they will suffer some horrendous fate? The only real explanation to this is that it is a tool to attempt to instill fear in the "unbelievers". I get e-mails where people write that there may not be a god but "they don't want to risk it and disbelieve". That's sad…We are beings that exist we should not just sit back and blindly accept things without questioning them, which is what a lot of religions do. Many people posting on this site will readily admit that they will not accept the possibility that there is not a god, even though that may be true. On the other hand I personally do not believe that there is any sort of deity but, I am willing to listen to anyone with the logic and reason to present to me that there is. Nothing I have ever read indicates to me that my views are wrong and everyone who posts to the contrary just quotes the bible or some other religious text. Anyone whom has taken college courses can tell you that any valid argument must be substantiated or it is just opinion, thus so far I see religion as just another opinion.
This just further conveys my point that religion is based on the human ego and is nothing more than an "opinion" based upon a books written by several human beings a couple thousand years or so ago. This was beneficial for the time and helped to explain those many things about the world that we as human beings did not understand. If we did not know then we just said "because god made it that way", no further explanation was necessary. At the time it was described that heaven was the sky above us, which we now know is not true. We routinely have traveled in the areas between our planet and outer space and there is no heaven. Where do these deities reside? We have a very good understanding of the inner crust of the earth and the core with the surrounding molten contents, we know that there is no hell either…where does Satan reside since he was cast down from heaven?
We understand that everything in the universe was originally formed from hydrogen, helium and lithium. Everything we see and experience including ourselves, (http://son.nasa.gov/tass/content/article1.htm) has evolved from these elements. Which element is god? For those who say god is everywhere I would vote that he/she is hydrogen because that is the most abundant element in the universe. If he/she is in fact hydrogen then he/she would in fact be nearly everywhere.
With utterly thousands of religions worldwide, which one is the right one? If there is a right one then why are there so many? They are all different in some respects but generally they are all monotheistic and similar in their belief systems. There is one common thread with all of them that cannot be denied and is at the root of the issue, human beings. Religions are so different because they where created by human beings, all from different sub-groups but attempting to address the same questions, what happens when we die? Why is the world the way it is? In the past the intelligence was not available to explain many of the questions we had so to alleviate our fears we created religion. Obviously, not all the answers are there but many are, as long as there is science we have a chance to finally reach a complete understanding, or like Einstein wanted a "unification theory" to explain everything.
And for those who believe that religions don't get in the way of science even when they are wrong, read about poor Giordano Bruno (http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/lecture8a.html)
"This really exemplifies my point, why do highly religious people convey that it is absolutely necessary that others believe as they do or they will suffer some horrendous fate? The only real explanation to this is that it is a tool to attempt to instill fear in the "unbelievers".
Funny you brought that. Because you Evolutionists do the same thing lol. You guys only want others to believe what you have got to say and eliminate all possible theories that may prove the deity.
This just further conveys my point that religion is based on the human ego and is nothing more than an "opinion" based upon a books written by several human beings a couple thousand years or so ago. This was beneficial for the time and helped to explain those many things about the world that we as human beings did not understand. If we did not know then we just said "because god made it that way", no further explanation was necessary. At the time it was described that heaven was the sky above us, which we now know is not true. We routinely have traveled in the areas between our planet and outer space and there is no heaven. Where do these deities reside? We have a very good understanding of the inner crust of the earth and the core with the surrounding molten contents, we know that there is no hell either…where does Satan reside since he was cast down from heaven?
We understand that everything in the universe was originally formed from hydrogen, helium and lithium. Everything we see and experience including ourselves, (http://son.nasa.gov/tass/content/article1.htm) has evolved from these elements. Which element is god? For those who say god is everywhere I would vote that he/she is hydrogen because that is the most abundant element in the universe. If he/she is in fact hydrogen then he/she would in fact be nearly everywhere.
With utterly thousands of religions worldwide, which one is the right one? If there is a right one then why are there so many? They are all different in some respects but generally they are all monotheistic and similar in their belief systems. There is one common thread with all of them that cannot be denied and is at the root of the issue, human beings. Religions are so different because they where created by human beings, all from different sub-groups but attempting to address the same questions, what happens when we die? Why is the world the way it is? In the past the intelligence was not available to explain many of the questions we had so to alleviate our fears we created religion. Obviously, not all the answers are there but many are, as long as there is science we have a chance to finally reach a complete understanding, or like Einstein wanted a "unification theory" to explain everything.
And for those who believe that religions don't get in the way of science even when they are wrong, read about poor Giordano Bruno (http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/lecture8a.html)
"This really exemplifies my point, why do highly religious people convey that it is absolutely necessary that others believe as they do or they will suffer some horrendous fate? The only real explanation to this is that it is a tool to attempt to instill fear in the "unbelievers".
Funny you brought that. Because you Evolutionists do the same thing lol. You guys only want others to believe what you have got to say and eliminate all possible theories that may prove the deity.
Accepting evolution by natural selection has nothing to do with whether a higher being exists or not! Argh! >_<
QUOTE (Phoenixz33+May 18 2005, 07:51 PM)
Accepting evolution by natural selection has nothing to do with whether a higher being exists or not! Argh! >_<
oh really? How?
oh really? How?
QUOTE
Funny you brought that. Because you Evolutionists do the same thing lol. You guys only want others to believe what you have got to say and eliminate all possible theories that may prove the deity.
Guest,
Mmm…Please show me the post where I stated that because you believe in a deity, that you will "suffer some horrendous fate?" You are using the term "theory" and "prove" as though they are synonymous, they are not. You also say "that may prove the deity" are you undecided? I would believe the statement should be "that will prove the deity". I am not sure who "you guys" are but obviously, I am part of some crazed group that is hell bent on making others follow me or else make them suffer for all eternity, is that right? I respect your beliefs as YOUR BELIEFS and NOT MINE; offer up some valid points regarding you beliefs without the attack mode antics.
P.S. Choose a moniker for yourself that REALLY states where you are coming from.
QUOTE (Phoenixz33+May 18 2005, 02:51 PM)
Accepting evolution by natural selection has nothing to do with whether a higher being exists or not! Argh! >_<
Obviously for this guy it does.
Creationists (and the Republican party, but let's not go there), in America at least, have a lot to gain from convincing the general public that the evolutionist viewpoint is an anti-Christian one. It gets a lot of knee-jerk support from people who don't feel the need to educate themselves on issues before taking a stance.
It's (religious) politics as usual.
Obviously for this guy it does.
Creationists (and the Republican party, but let's not go there), in America at least, have a lot to gain from convincing the general public that the evolutionist viewpoint is an anti-Christian one. It gets a lot of knee-jerk support from people who don't feel the need to educate themselves on issues before taking a stance.
It's (religious) politics as usual.
Waterbreath,
That's odd, I am a Republican.
That's odd, I am a Republican.
and I'm a Democrat lol
QUOTE (Evolutionist+May 18 2005, 03:07 PM)
Waterbreath,
That's odd, I am a Republican.
Yes, but are you a person who doesn't "feel the need to educate themselves on issues before taking a stance"? The Republican parties in a lot of "red states" have been lauding the fact that they support alternative theory (read: ID) education in public schools. This is "good press" for them among the staunchly religious who reject evolution. And there are still a lot of them these days.
I meant no offense. I'm neither Republican nor Democrat. I lean conservative on most issues, but there are some things the Republican party in general supports that I just can't abide. So, while I might vote for a Republican candidate, I wouldn't call myself a Republican. One must admit that both parties do what they have to in order to gain support. This is just something that the Republicans are doing lately. A few years back it was the gun control issue that they had latched on to. Democrats, conversely, are focusing on gay marriage and minority education/financial issues.
That's odd, I am a Republican.
Yes, but are you a person who doesn't "feel the need to educate themselves on issues before taking a stance"? The Republican parties in a lot of "red states" have been lauding the fact that they support alternative theory (read: ID) education in public schools. This is "good press" for them among the staunchly religious who reject evolution. And there are still a lot of them these days.
I meant no offense. I'm neither Republican nor Democrat. I lean conservative on most issues, but there are some things the Republican party in general supports that I just can't abide. So, while I might vote for a Republican candidate, I wouldn't call myself a Republican. One must admit that both parties do what they have to in order to gain support. This is just something that the Republicans are doing lately. A few years back it was the gun control issue that they had latched on to. Democrats, conversely, are focusing on gay marriage and minority education/financial issues.
QUOTE
Yes, but are you a person who doesn't "feel the need to educate themselves on issues before taking a stance"?
Obviously, not; to a fault. It was the initial general nature of your post that solicited my response. Thanks for clarifying your position.
Evolution of natural selection describes how species evolved, but says nothing of whether a higher being exists or not. In none of Darwin's books is God or any higher being mentioned. If evolution conflicts with your religion, it's not because evolution says "there is no higher being."
QUOTE
Evolution of natural selection describes how species evolved, but says nothing of whether a higher being exists or not. In none of Darwin's books is God or any higher being mentioned. If evolution conflicts with your religion, it's not because evolution says "there is no higher being."
Well stated. I think a lot of ID'ers forget this, and take it as a personal attack against their God. Many evolutionists also want to use it to prove there is no God, which it does not.
QUOTE
Evolution of natural selection describes how species evolved, but says nothing of whether a higher being exists or not. In none of Darwin's books is God or any higher being mentioned. If evolution conflicts with your religion, it's not because evolution says "there is no higher being."
actually, to assume that things evolve from the pure coincidences is itself a manifestation that there can not be a creator. The example of moths is a good example. One kind was white and was easily concealed in clear background and the other was dark and was rather not favored. Mankind produced lots of charcoal and concealed the trees with a black debry. The white moth got selected agaisnt, while the black month gained an advantage. Would you attribute that to god or to simple coincidences. Also if you are religious you would know that most of religious stories are not scientifically possible. Noah's story for instance would be impossible because (and it was on discovery channel and on scientific community for a while) would increase the atmospheric pressure so much it would make life impossible for Noah and his animals. Of course, if you ignore the ridiculous gesture of finding two of each anmial when in fact some animals live in far parts of north pole and south which Noah could have never accessed being a resident of Today's Syria and Iraq. As I said, it calms you when you think about god but that is not because he necessarily exists( hey if i cant refute him i cant refuse him either) but because our inferior nature favors and compells us to connect to a higher perfect being. It is the only time we feel secure for our imperfections.
QUOTE (Drude+May 19 2005, 07:06 AM)
Of course, if you ignore the ridiculous gesture of finding two of each anmial when in fact some animals live in far parts of north pole and south which Noah could have never accessed being a resident of Today's Syria and Iraq.
But of course, any Christian worth his salt will retort that God would have no problem teleporting all those animals from the far corners of the earth to Noah's Ark. It must be nice to believe in God; you can explain absolutely everything.
Just a thought about Donkey. Scientists will probably not take you seriously when you tell them about it. But tell the right flavour of CHristian and he'll probably start yelling " Abberation!" , excommunicate you, exorcise that obviously Demon-possessed Donkey and burn you both at the stake just to be sure. And they'll be oh so proud to have kicked Satan's ass. (I'm sorry, I couldn't help myself with that one.)
But of course, any Christian worth his salt will retort that God would have no problem teleporting all those animals from the far corners of the earth to Noah's Ark. It must be nice to believe in God; you can explain absolutely everything.
Just a thought about Donkey. Scientists will probably not take you seriously when you tell them about it. But tell the right flavour of CHristian and he'll probably start yelling " Abberation!" , excommunicate you, exorcise that obviously Demon-possessed Donkey and burn you both at the stake just to be sure. And they'll be oh so proud to have kicked Satan's ass. (I'm sorry, I couldn't help myself with that one.)
QUOTE (Drude+May 19 2005, 02:06 AM)
QUOTE
Evolution of natural selection describes how species evolved, but says nothing of whether a higher being exists or not. In none of Darwin's books is God or any higher being mentioned. If evolution conflicts with your religion, it's not because evolution says "there is no higher being."
actually, to assume that things evolve from the pure coincidences is itself a manifestation that there can not be a creator. The example of moths is a good example. One kind was white and was easily concealed in clear background and the other was dark and was rather not favored. Mankind produced lots of charcoal and concealed the trees with a black debry. The white moth got selected agaisnt, while the black month gained an advantage. Would you attribute that to god or to simple coincidences. Also if you are religious you would know that most of religious stories are not scientifically possible. Noah's story for instance would be impossible because (and it was on discovery channel and on scientific community for a while) would increase the atmospheric pressure so much it would make life impossible for Noah and his animals. Of course, if you ignore the ridiculous gesture of finding two of each anmial when in fact some animals live in far parts of north pole and south which Noah could have never accessed being a resident of Today's Syria and Iraq. As I said, it calms you when you think about god but that is not because he necessarily exists( hey if i cant refute him i cant refuse him either) but because our inferior nature favors and compells us to connect to a higher perfect being. It is the only time we feel secure for our imperfections.
I don't see how evolution means there can't be a creator. Note that I did not mention a specific religion or god - this applies to the concept of a creator and not to the validity of any one religion.
The selection of the moth varieties in your scenario would be a very simple coincidence. Most are much more complicated and involve many species and complex changes in the environment. In this case, the black ash that coated the trees changed the Conditions of Existence, which determine which forms are favorable and which aren't. One species died out, simply because it was found and preyed on easier. How does this either validate or invalidate a creator?
And I haven't been compelled to connect to a higher perfect being. Which is pretty rude, if he's compelling other people. I mean, how would you feel if someone invited everyone to a party except for you?
QUOTE (Evolutionist+May 18 2005, 02:47 PM)
If you notice he/she started this sentence with "I THINK" not "I KNOW"; Very compelling argument by both of you. All of the violence aside, gather your thoughts and post a comment that will allow others to understand your position. You may not agree with me but, I am more than willing to hear what you have to say.
I (he) said I think merly because If I had said I "know" it would have opened a very strong agument on the subject of how I can know something without actually seeing it with their own eyes; and I would probably loose.
I am sorry I lashed out on you Ev' I miss interprited your posts.
I also want to say that I have found "evidence" not proof.
One more thing, evolution does not say there is no God, and just because it can do just fine now does not mean he never started it. Evolution would, in my oppinion, be very hard to accomplish without DNA. And humans have found it imposible to create life from scrach.
I (he) said I think merly because If I had said I "know" it would have opened a very strong agument on the subject of how I can know something without actually seeing it with their own eyes; and I would probably loose.
I am sorry I lashed out on you Ev' I miss interprited your posts.
I also want to say that I have found "evidence" not proof.
One more thing, evolution does not say there is no God, and just because it can do just fine now does not mean he never started it. Evolution would, in my oppinion, be very hard to accomplish without DNA. And humans have found it imposible to create life from scrach.
QUOTE (MattWeston+May 18 2005, 05:31 PM)
QUOTE
Evolution of natural selection describes how species evolved, but says nothing of whether a higher being exists or not. In none of Darwin's books is God or any higher being mentioned. If evolution conflicts with your religion, it's not because evolution says "there is no higher being."
Well stated. I think a lot of ID'ers forget this, and take it as a personal attack against their God. Many evolutionists also want to use it to prove there is no God, which it does not. Didn't I say that? If I didn't, I hadn't gotten around to it yet. Though I am a christien, christian, christion, (whatever) I am also a man who seaks answers e.g. a scientist, and it infuriates me to see people act so stupid. The only reason someone would do so is if they think that God might not exist.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Evolution of natural selection describes how species evolved, but says nothing of whether a higher being exists or not. In none of Darwin's books is God or any higher being mentioned. If evolution conflicts with your religion, it's not because evolution says "there is no higher being." |
Well stated. I think a lot of ID'ers forget this, and take it as a personal attack against their God. Many evolutionists also want to use it to prove there is no God, which it does not.
Didn't I say that? If I didn't, I hadn't gotten around to it yet. Though I am a christien, christian, christion, (whatever) I am also a man who seaks answers e.g. a scientist, and it infuriates me to see people act so stupid. The only reason someone would do so is if they think that God might not exist.
I don't see how evolution means there can't be a creator. Note that I did not mention a specific religion or god - this applies to the concept of a creator and not to the validity of any one religion.
What if all these "Creaters" are the same god? Noone can differentiate one "creater" from the next.
Didn't I say that? If I didn't, I hadn't gotten around to it yet. Though I am a christien, christian, christion, (whatever) I am also a man who seaks answers e.g. a scientist, and it infuriates me to see people act so stupid. The only reason someone would do so is if they think that God might not exist.
I don't see how evolution means there can't be a creator. Note that I did not mention a specific religion or god - this applies to the concept of a creator and not to the validity of any one religion.
What if all these "Creaters" are the same god? Noone can differentiate one "creater" from the next.
Hi All,
See fella's... I told you all that you didn't know swat about God! You bunch of "moths" are all heading for the "candle" and there is not enough room for all of you.
I think I will sit this one out and have a moth sandwich later... I like bar-b-q's! He he he!
Cheers
See fella's... I told you all that you didn't know swat about God!
You bunch of "moths" are all heading for the "candle" and there is not enough room for all of you.I think I will sit this one out and have a moth sandwich later... I like bar-b-q's! He he he!
Cheers
MrSokkie-
I also liked Matt's pervious point that the scenario also equates God to an ass. Unfortunately you are right though, many religious not only reject anything they do not feel is right, but attack it. This is the problem with Muslim terrorists among many other religious fanatics. Unfortunately fanatics give everyone else a bad name no matter what their cause (even say fanatical PETA people).
Drude-
I also liked Matt's pervious point that the scenario also equates God to an ass. Unfortunately you are right though, many religious not only reject anything they do not feel is right, but attack it. This is the problem with Muslim terrorists among many other religious fanatics. Unfortunately fanatics give everyone else a bad name no matter what their cause (even say fanatical PETA people).
Drude-
Also if you are religious you would know that most of religious stories are not scientifically possible.
QUOTE
Just a thought about Donkey. Scientists will probably not take you seriously when you tell them about it. But tell the right flavour of CHristian and he'll probably start yelling " Abberation!" , excommunicate you, exorcise that obviously Demon-possessed Donkey and burn you both at the stake just to be sure. And they'll be oh so proud to have kicked Satan's ass. (I'm sorry, I couldn't help myself with that one.)
I also liked Matt's pervious point that the scenario also equates God to an ass. Unfortunately you are right though, many religious not only reject anything they do not feel is right, but attack it. This is the problem with Muslim terrorists among many other religious fanatics. Unfortunately fanatics give everyone else a bad name no matter what their cause (even say fanatical PETA people).Drude-
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Just a thought about Donkey. Scientists will probably not take you seriously when you tell them about it. But tell the right flavour of CHristian and he'll probably start yelling " Abberation!" , excommunicate you, exorcise that obviously Demon-possessed Donkey and burn you both at the stake just to be sure. And they'll be oh so proud to have kicked Satan's ass. (I'm sorry, I couldn't help myself with that one.) |
I also liked Matt's pervious point that the scenario also equates God to an ass. Unfortunately you are right though, many religious not only reject anything they do not feel is right, but attack it. This is the problem with Muslim terrorists among many other religious fanatics. Unfortunately fanatics give everyone else a bad name no matter what their cause (even say fanatical PETA people).Drude-
Also if you are religious you would know that most of religious stories are not scientifically possible.
Science is the study of what is, possibilities are what could be. So far, science has very little evidence to support that life exists on other worlds, but we all know it is possible. Science cannot prove dark matter exists, but we can see there are forces out there still not understood. If there is a God who created the universe, manipulating matter or physical laws should not be difficult. What is possible is entirely based on speculation.
Hey you jerk! I'm a member of PETA:
People
Eating
Tasty
Animals
Commence to flaming!
Seriously though, I mean no real offense to PETA. I understand their cause. I just thought this was funny when I saw it on a bumper-sticker.
The geologists suggest that the one-continent existed far longer ago than Noah was supposed to have lived (which was approx 4K or 5K years ago, IIRC).
But anyway, there's also the possible interpretation that the flood didn't actually literally cover the whole planet. It might have just been the "known earth" at the time. Prerequisite exists for this. Scripture also says, IIRC, that Nebuchadnezzar ruled over the whole earth. Obviously this is not literally correct. But Babylonia at that time did encompass pretty much all of civilized humanity. So it's true in that sense.
I share MattWeston's opinoin that these types of things can be made consistent with the proper understanding. A true faith that the Bible is the Word of God would indicate that where an inconsistency arises, there is a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of some sort. Many Christians, unfortunately, try to pass that burden off to science, rather than reconsidering their own interpretations.
Hi guys,
Just want to say after losing a very dear friend, and I have the ability to block out most of the pain with work, I will go with what I have read in the past, because now I think I understand for the first time in my life what, Kant meant!
In response to this predicament, Kant affirms a principle that, with respect to choice and action, such practical use of our reason cannot require of us what is impossible. To the extent that we view these requirements of reason from the sensible perspective of spatio-temporal causality, they will seem impossible of fulfilment. When, however, we view them from the intelligible perspective within which we frame the exercise of freedom, their fulfilment can legitimately be ?postulated? in terms of the immortality of the soul and of the existence of God. Thus, with respect to the requirement that we attain the complete moral perfection of a holy will, Kant holds that we are justified in affirming that we will have an unending and enduring existence after death, outside the framework of spatio-temporal causality, in which to continue the task of seeking moral perfection. He holds a similar view with respect to the requirement that the highest good be the object of our willing. Even though our moral actions do not seem to have the efficacy required in a spatio-temporal framework to produce the happiness proportioned to virtue that is a necessary component of the highest good, we are justified in affirming that there is a supreme cause of nature ? i.e., God ? that will bring this about, not merely for ourselves, but for all moral agents.
Ciao_
yquantum
Hey WB, if you're a member of PETA, so am I! Just had a BBQ last weekend and another before.
Hey WB, if you're a member of PETA, so am I! Just had a BBQ last weekend and another before.
Just a thought, what if there was only one continent back then (as nearly all planetary geologists suggest)? Plus Noah had 120 years to do it, and (as MrSokkie jested) he might have had a little help from God (though somehow I don't think God would need teleportation )
This does solve the mystery of the great mass extinctions however. I mean, come on, think about it: if you were Noah and you were given 120 years to do a job, would you do it right away? No! Procrastination! I bet Noah procrastinated until about 10-20 years were left, so many species drowned in the flood. That's probably why the dinosaurs went extinct too... if I were Noah, I wouldn't wanna get closed to T-rex!
(And yes, I know what I'm saying isn't scientifically possible)
I'm reading quite a good book about this; " When religion becomes evil" by Charles Kimball, who is a Baptist and a Professor of comparitive religion.
according to Kimball, there are 5 warning signs about corruption entering religion (or any other system):
Absolute Truth Claims, Blind Obedience, Establishing the "ideal" time, The End Justifies ANY Means, and Declaring Holy War.
The PETA fanatics probably suffer from 1, 4 and 5. I already get scared when Religious fanatics/fundamentalists of any denomination suffer from Absolute Truth Claims alone.
QUOTE
Noah's story for instance would be impossible because (and it was on discovery channel and on scientific community for a while) would increase the atmospheric pressure so much it would make life impossible for Noah and his animals.
I didn't see the show so I won't comment on it. However, the Bible does say, "the fountain of the great deep was broken up" While there is quite a bit of speculation as to what this mean, it is apparent that all of the water did not come down as rain.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Noah's story for instance would be impossible because (and it was on discovery channel and on scientific community for a while) would increase the atmospheric pressure so much it would make life impossible for Noah and his animals. |
I didn't see the show so I won't comment on it. However, the Bible does say, "the fountain of the great deep was broken up" While there is quite a bit of speculation as to what this mean, it is apparent that all of the water did not come down as rain.
Of course, if you ignore the ridiculous gesture of finding two of each animal
when in fact some animals live in far parts of north pole and south which Noah could have never accessed being a resident of Today's Syria and Iraq.
Of course, if you ignore the ridiculous gesture of finding two of each animal
when in fact some animals live in far parts of north pole and south which Noah could have never accessed being a resident of Today's Syria and Iraq.
Just a thought, what if there was only one continent back then (as nearly all planetary geologists suggest)? Plus Noah had 120 years to do it, and (as MrSokkie jested) he might have had a little help from God (though somehow I don't think God would need teleportation ).
Personally I don't see Noah's story as all that different to some of the theories on how the dinosaurs died out, like those of a giant meteor strike. We know cataclysmic events have happened, Noah's story is only one explanation for the evidence. Such an event could easily have caused the entire globe to change in such a way that what we see now is only a shadow of what was before.
Drude, if you want to attack the Bible start with something more impossible like Jesus rising from the dead. At least that is not a one-off event, and so far science has shown that 1 out of 1 people die.
).Personally I don't see Noah's story as all that different to some of the theories on how the dinosaurs died out, like those of a giant meteor strike. We know cataclysmic events have happened, Noah's story is only one explanation for the evidence. Such an event could easily have caused the entire globe to change in such a way that what we see now is only a shadow of what was before.
Drude, if you want to attack the Bible start with something more impossible like Jesus rising from the dead. At least that is not a one-off event, and so far science has shown that 1 out of 1 people die.
QUOTE
(even say fanatical PETA people)
Hey you jerk! I'm a member of PETA:
People
Eating
Tasty
Animals
Commence to flaming!
Seriously though, I mean no real offense to PETA. I understand their cause. I just thought this was funny when I saw it on a bumper-sticker.
QUOTE
Just a thought, what if there was only one continent back then (as nearly all planetary geologists suggest)? Plus Noah had 120 years to do it, and (as MrSokkie jested) he might have had a little help from God (though somehow I don't think God would need teleportation laugh.gif).
The geologists suggest that the one-continent existed far longer ago than Noah was supposed to have lived (which was approx 4K or 5K years ago, IIRC).
But anyway, there's also the possible interpretation that the flood didn't actually literally cover the whole planet. It might have just been the "known earth" at the time. Prerequisite exists for this. Scripture also says, IIRC, that Nebuchadnezzar ruled over the whole earth. Obviously this is not literally correct. But Babylonia at that time did encompass pretty much all of civilized humanity. So it's true in that sense.
I share MattWeston's opinoin that these types of things can be made consistent with the proper understanding. A true faith that the Bible is the Word of God would indicate that where an inconsistency arises, there is a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of some sort. Many Christians, unfortunately, try to pass that burden off to science, rather than reconsidering their own interpretations.
Hi guys,Just want to say after losing a very dear friend, and I have the ability to block out most of the pain with work, I will go with what I have read in the past, because now I think I understand for the first time in my life what, Kant meant!
In response to this predicament, Kant affirms a principle that, with respect to choice and action, such practical use of our reason cannot require of us what is impossible. To the extent that we view these requirements of reason from the sensible perspective of spatio-temporal causality, they will seem impossible of fulfilment. When, however, we view them from the intelligible perspective within which we frame the exercise of freedom, their fulfilment can legitimately be ?postulated? in terms of the immortality of the soul and of the existence of God. Thus, with respect to the requirement that we attain the complete moral perfection of a holy will, Kant holds that we are justified in affirming that we will have an unending and enduring existence after death, outside the framework of spatio-temporal causality, in which to continue the task of seeking moral perfection. He holds a similar view with respect to the requirement that the highest good be the object of our willing. Even though our moral actions do not seem to have the efficacy required in a spatio-temporal framework to produce the happiness proportioned to virtue that is a necessary component of the highest good, we are justified in affirming that there is a supreme cause of nature ? i.e., God ? that will bring this about, not merely for ourselves, but for all moral agents.
Ciao_
yquantum
QUOTE
fanatical PETA people
The key word here is not PETA, but fanatical. Someone who, say, shoots a mink farmer because he treats his animals badly would be pretty fanatical (not that I have seen such a story yet). I have no problem with PETA's cause, just like I have no problem with Muslims (and have several friends who are). However, fanatics, regardless of their cause, are rarely justified in doing rash actions. Almost always they only wind up giving their cause (and the others who might support it) a bad name. Religious zealots are one of the most obvious instances, but there are just as many in the secular world. Some people just take things too far.
QUOTE
People
Eating
Tasty
Animals
Eating
Tasty
Animals
Hey WB, if you're a member of PETA, so am I! Just had a BBQ last weekend and another before.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| People Eating Tasty Animals |
Hey WB, if you're a member of PETA, so am I! Just had a BBQ last weekend and another before.
Just a thought, what if there was only one continent back then (as nearly all planetary geologists suggest)? Plus Noah had 120 years to do it, and (as MrSokkie jested) he might have had a little help from God (though somehow I don't think God would need teleportation )
This does solve the mystery of the great mass extinctions however. I mean, come on, think about it: if you were Noah and you were given 120 years to do a job, would you do it right away? No! Procrastination! I bet Noah procrastinated until about 10-20 years were left, so many species drowned in the flood. That's probably why the dinosaurs went extinct too... if I were Noah, I wouldn't wanna get closed to T-rex!
(And yes, I know what I'm saying isn't scientifically possible
)
QUOTE (MattWeston+May 19 2005, 06:55 PM)
QUOTE
fanatical PETA people
The key word here is not PETA, but fanatical. Someone who, say, shoots a mink farmer because he treats his animals badly would be pretty fanatical (not that I have seen such a story yet). I have no problem with PETA's cause, just like I have no problem with Muslims (and have several friends who are). However, fanatics, regardless of their cause, are rarely justified in doing rash actions. Almost always they only wind up giving their cause (and the others who might support it) a bad name. Religious zealots are one of the most obvious instances, but there are just as many in the secular world. Some people just take things too far. I'm reading quite a good book about this; " When religion becomes evil" by Charles Kimball, who is a Baptist and a Professor of comparitive religion.
according to Kimball, there are 5 warning signs about corruption entering religion (or any other system):
Absolute Truth Claims, Blind Obedience, Establishing the "ideal" time, The End Justifies ANY Means, and Declaring Holy War.
The PETA fanatics probably suffer from 1, 4 and 5. I already get scared when Religious fanatics/fundamentalists of any denomination suffer from Absolute Truth Claims alone.
You see Absolute Truth Claims pervading some denominations of Christianity in America... those scare the heck outta me, because eventually those claims end up bumping against civil rights and other laws.
QUOTE (Phoenixz33+May 20 2005, 04:32 AM)
You see Absolute Truth Claims pervading some denominations of Christianity in America... those scare the heck outta me, because eventually those claims end up bumping against civil rights and other laws.
What, exactly, is meant by "Absolute Truth Claim"? I can see a few possible meanings for this, and some of them are not as "scary" as others.
What, exactly, is meant by "Absolute Truth Claim"? I can see a few possible meanings for this, and some of them are not as "scary" as others.
Don't get me started on that PETA issue.
What I ment by reasonible is being able to take into consideration the other persons side long enough to make a good judgment. Now, in order for me to expect this from you, I must be just as reasonable on the subject.
I am going to consider your side; what if there is no God? What if my faith in him is a waste of time? Then we would have no creater, and noone to go to when in trouble. Noone to believe in. Even though there is no God, we, as humans, must keep faith in somthing, or we loose will when are will is truely tested. We will not lose all hope, for many of us are strong, like myself. But those who need it, will.
Of corse you will argue with me on this, and say, "Why isn't it already like that now if it is truely how you say it is?" It is. I'm sure that if more people were truely relidgous, then there would be much less violence, much less dissaster, and much less suffering.
In short, what I am saying is: there may be no God, but we must keep faith in him.
Another thing you might use to attack the God is the old saying: "Why would God do this to me?!?" "What kind of a God would do such and such?!?" And I have one thing to say about that. God doesn't hold all of us like puppets on strings. He doesn't think bringing tourment among us is good fun. He has no control over us because of how he made us. We, though we might not notice it, bring the tourment upon ourselves, in the form of choice, and mistake.
What I ment by reasonible is being able to take into consideration the other persons side long enough to make a good judgment. Now, in order for me to expect this from you, I must be just as reasonable on the subject.
I am going to consider your side; what if there is no God? What if my faith in him is a waste of time? Then we would have no creater, and noone to go to when in trouble. Noone to believe in. Even though there is no God, we, as humans, must keep faith in somthing, or we loose will when are will is truely tested. We will not lose all hope, for many of us are strong, like myself. But those who need it, will.
Of corse you will argue with me on this, and say, "Why isn't it already like that now if it is truely how you say it is?" It is. I'm sure that if more people were truely relidgous, then there would be much less violence, much less dissaster, and much less suffering.
In short, what I am saying is: there may be no God, but we must keep faith in him.
Another thing you might use to attack the God is the old saying: "Why would God do this to me?!?" "What kind of a God would do such and such?!?" And I have one thing to say about that. God doesn't hold all of us like puppets on strings. He doesn't think bringing tourment among us is good fun. He has no control over us because of how he made us. We, though we might not notice it, bring the tourment upon ourselves, in the form of choice, and mistake.
QUOTE (WaterBreath+May 20 2005, 09:11 AM)
QUOTE (Phoenixz33+May 20 2005, 04:32 AM)
You see Absolute Truth Claims pervading some denominations of Christianity in America... those scare the heck outta me, because eventually those claims end up bumping against civil rights and other laws.
What, exactly, is meant by "Absolute Truth Claim"? I can see a few possible meanings for this, and some of them are not as "scary" as others.
I'm not sure what the original poster exactly meant, but I interpreted it to be convictions that all other opinions must be wrong and that everyone should be made to believe what you believe. I see that as very dangerous because it leads to laws being made (like gay marriage bans) that infringe on the civil rights of people not in power.
I don't believe in a God, but I believe in myself, and my ability to reason, and my friends and family. Those things, especially my belief in myself, keep me grounded and in a well state of mind, and that's as good as I can ask for.
I don't believe in a God, but I believe in myself, and my ability to reason, and my friends and family. Those things, especially my belief in myself, keep me grounded and in a well state of mind, and that's as good as I can ask for.
Of corse you will argue with me on this, and say, "Why isn't it already like that now if it is truely how you say it is?" It is. I'm sure that if more people were truely relidgous, then there would be much less violence, much less dissaster, and much less suffering.
I dunno... I sorta prefer this time to the time of the Crusades. Now, I know the various arguments like "that's not religion, that's fanaticism!" but fanaticism is a part of our world, unfortunately. It's just taking the bad with the good. Personally, I don't think you can argue either way for whether or not the world would be better or worse off with more religion. The state of the world depends on way too many conditions to argue scientifically - all situations would be unique, and no pattern between more religious and less religious worlds would appear.
Just my two cents, though. I'm secure with my secular life and don't mind religion that doesn't interfere with other people who may not hold the same views.
I'm fine with the part before the "and". Obviously people will disagree on things, religion included. But c'est la vie.
The part after the "and" I agree is quite "scary". I think at least some of us can agree that's a "Bad Thing". There's a reason that a separation of church and state was one of the founding fathers of the U.S.
I'm fine with the part before the "and". Obviously people will disagree on things, religion included. But c'est la vie.
The part after the "and" I agree is quite "scary". I think at least some of us can agree that's a "Bad Thing". There's a reason that a separation of church and state was one of the founding fathers of the U.S.
I believe in myself, and my ability to reason, and my friends and family. Those things, especially my belief in myself, keep me grounded and in a well state of mind
I suspect that as far as our environmental pressures are concerned, the fitness value of this personality trait is about equal with someone who has a faith like what Joshua555 described. I.e., evolution probably won't select for one over the other. At least not anytime soon.
Not if it provides you with some guidance and comfort.
Not if it provides you with some guidance and comfort.
Then we would have no creater, and noone to go to when in trouble. Noone to believe in. Even though there is no God, we, as humans, must keep faith in somthing, or we loose will when are will is truely tested. We will not lose all hope, for many of us are strong, like myself. But those who need it, will.
This is part of my belief that religion is there as a "psycological crutch" that people use to support themselves when needed. I (like Phoenixz33) believe in myself in times of crisis and actually believe that I perform better under such circumstances. I have never "lost will" when I have been tested and always think that I am going to hit a home run, whenever needed. Acutally I have seen these beliefs as a liability in some people because they think that they can just do "whatever" and be forgiven for it later. I don't believe in forgiveness and think that there is always a consequence for your actions, not from god but from society in general.
I can see your point about violence (though I don't agree) but less disaster and suffering? You seem to indicate that people are causing these things, or is it that god is causing our disasters and our suffering because we are not immediately bowing to his whim?
I can see your point about violence (though I don't agree) but less disaster and suffering? You seem to indicate that people are causing these things, or is it that god is causing our disasters and our suffering because we are not immediately bowing to his whim?
In short, what I am saying is: there may be no God, but we must keep faith in him.
Why, we must keep faith in ourselves. "there may be no God" I have respect for you because at least you asked the question without a blind alleigence as some might do.
I'm not sure what the original poster exactly meant, but I interpreted it to be convictions that all other opinions must be wrong and that everyone should be made to believe what you believe. I see that as very dangerous because it leads to laws being made (like gay marriage bans) that infringe on the civil rights of people not in power.
It is something like that but a bit worse. It's only natural that religions are based on what they claim to be the truth, and followers believe that. Still, Logic isn't a religion, and religion isn't logic, so I have no problem with religions which are mutually exclusive both being true. It's like having a kid saying to his father: "daddy, you're the greatest father in the world." But now the kid next door says the same thing to his father; who is right?? they both are!
The next thing about proclaiming absolute Truth is that it is very easy to use in a very limiting way. "What I believe is the know-all, end-all Truth, so everybody else is wrong and I don't need to bother studying those people's beliefs. They're wrong anyway, right? What could they possibly teach me? How can their lives possible be an example to me?" It's like you'll be less of a person after a conversation with the Dalai Lama.
The next step is that you do start "studying" other people's beliefs for the sole purpose of prooving them wrong or inconsistent. Ask a Christian fundamentalist where he get's his information about Islam and 10 to one he'll give you a Christian website full of really unfair distortions, I've read webpages that have absolutely no qualms about placing Buddha in Hell. Hey, he didn't believe in the Unending God, so he's in hell like all the rest.
I fail to see how for instance saying to a buddhist that his example ended up in hell, or saying to a devout Muslim that his prophet was a pedophile is squared with this thing about loving thy neighbour. Saying to people their whole live is worth zilch because they aren't following your truth is helping to create a better world.
Just to make it fair, though, I don't think this problem is just related to Christians, though. In this country, that is the primary religion (or at least it was), but there are a lot of Muslims who do the same thing right back. I'm sure other religions have their issues as well. Unfortunately most humans are more worried about being right, than help those around them. It is most unfortunate.
What, exactly, is meant by "Absolute Truth Claim"? I can see a few possible meanings for this, and some of them are not as "scary" as others.
I'm not sure what the original poster exactly meant, but I interpreted it to be convictions that all other opinions must be wrong and that everyone should be made to believe what you believe. I see that as very dangerous because it leads to laws being made (like gay marriage bans) that infringe on the civil rights of people not in power.
QUOTE
I am going to consider your side; what if there is no God? What if my faith in him is a waste of time? Then we would have no creater, and noone to go to when in trouble. Noone to believe in. Even though there is no God, we, as humans, must keep faith in somthing, or we loose will when are will is truely tested. We will not lose all hope, for many of us are strong, like myself. But those who need it, will.
I don't believe in a God, but I believe in myself, and my ability to reason, and my friends and family. Those things, especially my belief in myself, keep me grounded and in a well state of mind, and that's as good as I can ask for.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I am going to consider your side; what if there is no God? What if my faith in him is a waste of time? Then we would have no creater, and noone to go to when in trouble. Noone to believe in. Even though there is no God, we, as humans, must keep faith in somthing, or we loose will when are will is truely tested. We will not lose all hope, for many of us are strong, like myself. But those who need it, will. |
I don't believe in a God, but I believe in myself, and my ability to reason, and my friends and family. Those things, especially my belief in myself, keep me grounded and in a well state of mind, and that's as good as I can ask for.
Of corse you will argue with me on this, and say, "Why isn't it already like that now if it is truely how you say it is?" It is. I'm sure that if more people were truely relidgous, then there would be much less violence, much less dissaster, and much less suffering.
I dunno... I sorta prefer this time to the time of the Crusades. Now, I know the various arguments like "that's not religion, that's fanaticism!" but fanaticism is a part of our world, unfortunately. It's just taking the bad with the good. Personally, I don't think you can argue either way for whether or not the world would be better or worse off with more religion. The state of the world depends on way too many conditions to argue scientifically - all situations would be unique, and no pattern between more religious and less religious worlds would appear.
Just my two cents, though. I'm secure with my secular life and don't mind religion that doesn't interfere with other people who may not hold the same views.
QUOTE
I interpreted it to be convictions that all other opinions must be wrong and that everyone should be made to believe what you believe
I'm fine with the part before the "and". Obviously people will disagree on things, religion included. But c'est la vie.
The part after the "and" I agree is quite "scary". I think at least some of us can agree that's a "Bad Thing". There's a reason that a separation of church and state was one of the founding fathers of the U.S.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I interpreted it to be convictions that all other opinions must be wrong and that everyone should be made to believe what you believe |
I'm fine with the part before the "and". Obviously people will disagree on things, religion included. But c'est la vie.
The part after the "and" I agree is quite "scary". I think at least some of us can agree that's a "Bad Thing". There's a reason that a separation of church and state was one of the founding fathers of the U.S.
I believe in myself, and my ability to reason, and my friends and family. Those things, especially my belief in myself, keep me grounded and in a well state of mind
I suspect that as far as our environmental pressures are concerned, the fitness value of this personality trait is about equal with someone who has a faith like what Joshua555 described. I.e., evolution probably won't select for one over the other. At least not anytime soon.
QUOTE
What if my faith in him is a waste of time?
Not if it provides you with some guidance and comfort.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What if my faith in him is a waste of time? |
Not if it provides you with some guidance and comfort.
Then we would have no creater, and noone to go to when in trouble. Noone to believe in. Even though there is no God, we, as humans, must keep faith in somthing, or we loose will when are will is truely tested. We will not lose all hope, for many of us are strong, like myself. But those who need it, will.
This is part of my belief that religion is there as a "psycological crutch" that people use to support themselves when needed. I (like Phoenixz33) believe in myself in times of crisis and actually believe that I perform better under such circumstances. I have never "lost will" when I have been tested and always think that I am going to hit a home run, whenever needed. Acutally I have seen these beliefs as a liability in some people because they think that they can just do "whatever" and be forgiven for it later. I don't believe in forgiveness and think that there is always a consequence for your actions, not from god but from society in general.
QUOTE
I'm sure that if more people were truely relidgous, then there would be much less violence, much less dissaster, and much less suffering.
I can see your point about violence (though I don't agree) but less disaster and suffering? You seem to indicate that people are causing these things, or is it that god is causing our disasters and our suffering because we are not immediately bowing to his whim?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'm sure that if more people were truely relidgous, then there would be much less violence, much less dissaster, and much less suffering. |
I can see your point about violence (though I don't agree) but less disaster and suffering? You seem to indicate that people are causing these things, or is it that god is causing our disasters and our suffering because we are not immediately bowing to his whim?
In short, what I am saying is: there may be no God, but we must keep faith in him.
Why, we must keep faith in ourselves. "there may be no God" I have respect for you because at least you asked the question without a blind alleigence as some might do.
QUOTE (Phoenixz33+May 20 2005, 07:03 PM)
I'm not sure what the original poster exactly meant, but I interpreted it to be convictions that all other opinions must be wrong and that everyone should be made to believe what you believe. I see that as very dangerous because it leads to laws being made (like gay marriage bans) that infringe on the civil rights of people not in power.
It is something like that but a bit worse. It's only natural that religions are based on what they claim to be the truth, and followers believe that. Still, Logic isn't a religion, and religion isn't logic, so I have no problem with religions which are mutually exclusive both being true. It's like having a kid saying to his father: "daddy, you're the greatest father in the world." But now the kid next door says the same thing to his father; who is right?? they both are!
The next thing about proclaiming absolute Truth is that it is very easy to use in a very limiting way. "What I believe is the know-all, end-all Truth, so everybody else is wrong and I don't need to bother studying those people's beliefs. They're wrong anyway, right? What could they possibly teach me? How can their lives possible be an example to me?" It's like you'll be less of a person after a conversation with the Dalai Lama.
The next step is that you do start "studying" other people's beliefs for the sole purpose of prooving them wrong or inconsistent. Ask a Christian fundamentalist where he get's his information about Islam and 10 to one he'll give you a Christian website full of really unfair distortions, I've read webpages that have absolutely no qualms about placing Buddha in Hell. Hey, he didn't believe in the Unending God, so he's in hell like all the rest.
I fail to see how for instance saying to a buddhist that his example ended up in hell, or saying to a devout Muslim that his prophet was a pedophile is squared with this thing about loving thy neighbour. Saying to people their whole live is worth zilch because they aren't following your truth is helping to create a better world.
QUOTE (Evolutionist+May 20 2005, 02:27 PM)
I can see your point about violence (though I don't agree) but less disaster and suffering? You seem to indicate that people are causing these things, or is it that god is causing our disasters and our suffering because we are not immediately bowing to his whim?
People are causing these things, war, robbing, drugs, and many, many more things of which God has no control. What I am saying is, if people turn to God, then many of these things will stop. It is aready accuring.
People are causing these things, war, robbing, drugs, and many, many more things of which God has no control. What I am saying is, if people turn to God, then many of these things will stop. It is aready accuring.
QUOTE
I fail to see how for instance saying to a buddhist that his example ended up in hell, or saying to a devout Muslim that his prophet was a pedophile is squared with this thing about loving thy neighbour. Saying to people their whole live is worth zilch because they aren't following your truth is helping to create a better world.
I couldn't agree with you more. The worst thing, is that many of these people claim to follow someone (like Jesus) who spoke out (to the death) against that very thing.Just to make it fair, though, I don't think this problem is just related to Christians, though. In this country, that is the primary religion (or at least it was), but there are a lot of Muslims who do the same thing right back. I'm sure other religions have their issues as well. Unfortunately most humans are more worried about being right, than help those around them. It is most unfortunate.
QUOTE (MattWeston+May 23 2005, 05:06 PM)
Just to make it fair, though, I don't think this problem is just related to Christians, though. In this country, that is the primary religion (or at least it was), but there are a lot of Muslims who do the same thing right back. I'm sure other religions have their issues as well. Unfortunately most humans are more worried about being right, than help those around them. It is most unfortunate.
Of course, you're right. It wasn't my intention to say that this is a problem only Christianity suffers. But since I live in a part of the world with distinct Christian roots, I write about what comes to mind. It actually is a problem every belief-system (let's keep this as wide as possible to cover religion, politics and even sports) is prone to.
A meaningfull quote from that book I mentioned was something about some people who would not be very happy in heaven unless hell was overflowing.
Of course, you're right. It wasn't my intention to say that this is a problem only Christianity suffers. But since I live in a part of the world with distinct Christian roots, I write about what comes to mind. It actually is a problem every belief-system (let's keep this as wide as possible to cover religion, politics and even sports) is prone to.
A meaningfull quote from that book I mentioned was something about some people who would not be very happy in heaven unless hell was overflowing.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.