I've been thinking a lot. (Yes, this is going to be one of those threads.)
Tonight has been very interesting for me. I really need to vent about some things. But I suddenly realize that there is nobody I can vent to, and there's a reason behind that. Try to stay with me on this. :-\
Okay, so a lot of you probably know that I profess(ed) to be a Christian, and some of you may have actually had me preach at you about something one time or another. (Sorry about that.)
Well, anyway, in recent times I've found myself on the other side of the Christian faith, no longer believing or caring about religion, doctrine or anything else like that. So obviously, I've got a lot of stuff to work out now. But I realize now, I really don't have anybody to talk to, because everybody I've ever known closely is a Christian!! If I talk to them, their solution will of course be, "Talk to Jesus."
I'd rather not go there now. I need to try to speak to people who won't try to steer everything back to salvation, doctrine, etc.
So, for clarification, I'm no longer a Christian. I'm kinda just sitting on the fence, I guess.
Now, what happened tonight: I was invited to go to my old school for a get together. That school, which I attended last year, is a Christian high school. Well, some of my old school friends and I got to talking politics, and they've never quite cared for my anti-Bush views. After it was all said and done, we had wandered back and fourth from politics to religion, from religion to politics.
There were some heated moments, but no hard feelings.
What stood out to me was, at the end of our discussion, I elaborated that I was glad they had a religion that made them happy and that gave them a purpose. But I said, "Please don't try to influence this country and its politics and laws based on your Bible."
That didn't go over well, because evidently, this country belongs to God and we've gotta give it back to him, etc.
Despite the fact that the world is full of folks who think their ideology should be made law, it was still kind of a disturbing display of, quite frankly, obsessed fundamentalism.
These radical Christians who believe that we've got to reshape this country to fall in line with the Bible don't seem to perceive that their desire to legislate people into being Christians is blatantly unAmerican. I said, "Well, how would you feel if I wanted to pass laws BANNING Christianity?" And the reply was, "You'd be wrong, because this country was founded on God!"
These types seem to have a very direct and simple goal: Sweep the entire country clean of liberals/democrats/homosexuals/non-Christians, and anybody else who they think that, because they are a political "enemy," they are also a religious enemy that must not be tolerated by any means, lest God destroy our nation.
So, part of what I want to do is measure the general opinion of these things here, so if you would, please provide a quick and simple answer to the four following questions in your post:
1. Do the Christians (a majority) stand a chance of getting Bible-based legislation passed?
2. Do you believe that Bible-based legislation SHOULD be passed?
3. Do you feel that religion and politics intertwine naturally and that an American Theocracy in favor of the majority is inevitable?
4. If a Christian juggernaut formed and began moving towards a Theocracy, what would you do? (Either to help it or stop it.)
All these things are spinning my mind around and around. I just wanna start talking and see how you feel about these things, I'm not particularly interested in drawing sides and turning this into a debate. That usually happens anyway, but let's just keep it calm as long as possible.
1. They already have done so.
2. Bible based, no. Ethically based...yes. Although, this in itself leaves a lot of issues up in the air.
3. They do intertwine to a degree, but while the majority of the U.S. is Christian. Many of those christians have view points that aren't necessarily bible based. And as there is a system of checks and balances, even if something outragously passed into law, could be turned over in time.
4. If it turns out the majority of people want to live this way, it's a majority rules country with minority rights. If those rights are taken away, I'm not sure what I'd do. Probably move somewhere else.
-MillsJROSS
1. Some, I guess, but nothing really earth-shattering.
2. No.
3. No.
4. Complain a lot, I guess. But I'm Australian so it wouldn't affect me directly ^_^
It's really only hit me in the last couple of years just how strong religeon is in the US. I always thought America was such a liberal country before then, like Australia. None of this shit would pass in Aust. Christians are becoming fewer and fewer, and those that still are are generally becoming more liberal. It's a good thing!
I consider both Australia and Japan to be kind of 'home' to me now, and I'm very happy neither country gives much of a fuck about religion.
1. In the States, yes. In the rest of the civilized world, no.
2. No way.
3. It's all relative, but total separation of church and state is generally the best option. I don't see anything good ever to have come from religious-based legislature and logically religion should never have a role in politics. Through the view of the rest of the world, the US is way too religious for it's own good. And I don't think a theocracy is what it's going to. I believe people are coming around.
4. I wouldn't do anything. I live in Finland, so it wouldn't pose any immediate threat to me. But, there are examples of such people, for example, Pat Robertson or Jerry Fallwell.
But wouldn't you agree than the mainstream religion isn't Christianity at all - It's a mutation. Although everyone preaches otherwise, Christianity doesn't follow Jesus' teachings any more, does it? Christianity nowadays is just another vehicle for power-hungry individuals and causes to get what they want. The Christianity followed by the government is already way different from what Christianity is supposed to represent. I'm myself a Lutheran, but not religiously. I support the church, because they run some outstanding social programs and services, but otherwise I'm agnostic. The US is in some ways an ideal place for misreligion to blossom. For example, anyone preaching God while running for government in Europe would be scolded and would never be elected while in the States it's almost necessary.
My main concern towards the US and it's policies is the environment. It's the only threat that might affect me, my country and my continent immensely. The fact that the government censors scientists who study global warming and everyone in power seems to have ties to the oil business is much more alarming than any religious or terrorist threat. I don't want Manhattan, Venice and Helsinki to be under water 20 years from now, just so that a handful of billionaire cowboys can make some more pocket change.
I'm coming from a semi-similar angle. I was raised Christian, left it, and had some head-butting with family and friends (former friends who've since disassociated from me).
1. Bible-based legislation has passed, but as far as further blatantly theocratic laws go, I think we'll see more of it take the route of the creationism-morphed-to-intelligent design issue, thinly veiled but supported by enough of each side to pass it.
2. I don't think Bible-based legislation should be passed. Ethics should be based on common sense and the common welfare, not an arbitrary mistranslated book that lends itself to interpretation and contradicts some of its own statements on values.
3. The Theocracy based upon the majority is already in effect - not a theocracy as such, but we are still living in a country that essentially requires its leaders to be Christian with no decisions made that contradict the common beliefs of the various Christian denominations.
4. There's little that can be done if it's moving that way. As evidenced in these forums and through real-life observation, religious persons don't take to debate very well. If the US became a truly theocratic government that ignored the rights of those not of Christian faith, other than voting (as mentioned, against the majority), protesting (again.. in the minority), or lecturing/debating (without impact likely), there'd be little for me to do but leave.
There are some assumptions made that have dubious validity. I keep hearing from religious people about the US being founded in Christianity. However, historians seem to disagree. Of the founding fathers, a minority were Christian, but the population was decidedly protestant. While there was a founding doctrine declaring the separation of church and state to be necessary, no law actually forces the issue.
In my opinion, it's in the best interests of both the Christians and non-Christians that there is a separation of the two influences. I think Christians would find their theocracy become a Monkey's Paw lesson once government had a say in church doctrine.
Separation of church and state is essential to democracy and freedom of speech. Blurring the border would quite literally be undoing five centuries of civilization (not to mention education) and returning to the middle ages. I could recommend any number of books on the subject (Revolt in 2100 by Heinlein, Endymion by Dan Simmons, and of course American Theocracy by Kevin Phillips), or the recent movie V for Vendetta.
1. You know they do, if you look into recent issues such as forcing school teachers to teach intelligent design, the pending overturn of Roe v Wade, and the Terry Schiavo case.
2. Absolutely not. Law is about rationality; belief is about passion. The two don't mix.
3. Quite possibly so, at least in the central states. The coastlines seem to be more open-minded about issues. An interesting study in Science magazine shows a strong inverse correlation between level of education, and belief in religious dogma.
4. Never go anywhere near the country again. I know several people that already don't.
The essence of the issue is that people should think for themselves. This implies two things. First, we must educate people to actually think and be critically minded; religious education tends towards the opposite. Second, we must be tolerant towards other people who think differently than we do; again, religious dogma tends towards the opposite. (For instance, pro-choice people want to be able to think for themselves, whereas pro-life people want to force the decision for everyone; and don't tell me that has no roots in religion).
A country with no freedom of religion would be lying to call itself home of the free. A society where people no longer think for themselves is stagnant at best, doomed at worst.
Raggit: My respect for bringing up a serious subject like this
1. I don't know. If the Christians are really a political majority, of course they could pass a religiously based legislation, and it would be legal, within the frames of a democracy.
2. I DON'T think a Bible-based legislation should be passed, I love(d) America for it's freedom and diversity and hate to see it tense. It's almost a new kind of McCarthyism, caused by the new threat from terrorism - everybody want to show that they're on the right side, being patriots and Christians, but what is that going to help in addressing the real problems?
3. There's a moral dimension to politics, whether it be religious or not. But there's also a very real possibility of deception, that is brought about about by controlling the media and silencing the opposition. So people in power sway between DOING good and REDEFINING good, never actually doing anything bad. Religion with all it's contradictions, paradoxes and possibilities of justificaton, is a handy tool in this. I don't think an American Theocracy is inevitable, but it would mean short-term strength (at a high cost to the non-believers) and long-term stagnation in religious dogma. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.
4. If a Christian Juggernaut formed, I would continue to vote, speak and act to the effect of solving the problems that cause fear and anxiety. When people aren't scared, they don't need religion as much, and they are less likely to follow irrational and warped decrees by their leaders.
1) quite possibly, scary thought
2) No way, in this day and age, really bad idea, how many wars are caused by this type of thing (pretty much all of them)
3) That's the biggest mistake in history, they have nothing in common, it's just that a lot of people in politics are religious
4) eat a custard tart, smoke a cigarette, have a few beers, yawn, and go to sleep
Thinking about religion too much can cause more problems than drugs and alcohol, (as proven by society [everywhere]{which in turn leads to more people turning to drugs and alcohol})
There is no way to prove whether any religion is right, it is just taught to believe without question (the evil part) so when it comes down to it, nobody knows the answers, that's why there is debate all over the world, that leads to anger, which leads to war, which leads to how much oil costs, which leads to war etc
There are pleanty of non christian (non religious) people that carry the same values and morals without having to beat themselves up over living up to unreal expectations.
Live life as it comes, we don't know what's around the corner, but that's one of the beauties of living in this world.
Just enjoy what comes your way (unless it's a wmd), if you think "oh, i'm giving into temptation" then think again, who is really judging you??????????
A system based on religion would never work, since everyone got their own view on the same thing. And there's like 20 different bibles, and most of them are contradicting eachother.
But I don't doubt that alot of people would try.
1. I don't think the problem is as deep rooted as most think. It seems this way because the current administration was just barely elected the past two elections. Actually, the Democrats won the 2000 election by individual vote, but Republicans took the House via electoral college, and in 2004 they won by a very small margin. The reason why all these religious articles are permeating our politics is because right now there is really only one voice putting things out in the media. Was it nearly as bad when Clinton was president?
2. Not because it is bible-based, no. However I do believe some things in there aren't inherently christian, yet just plain common sense. A lot of people who think certain concepts are christian-based obviously never took a good look at other cultures or holy books. I've honestly known people who were against gay marriage "because [marriage] is a christian practice", like they invented it or something :-\.
3. I believe in older civilisations they intertwined naturally becasue most were theocracies. I don't believe an American theocracy will ever happen. I firmly believe that slowly but surely the threat is exiting stage right (XD)
4. I would feel more pressure to try and move. Though Michigan and other states by themselves are nice and there are many good and sane people here, I've been wanting to move to someplace that's a bit more my speed (liberal), but you have to be either independently wealthy or marrying someone for a green card, and I am neither of those kinds of people.
Quote from: Radiant on Sat 08/04/2006 09:44:28
3. ...An interesting study in Science magazine shows a strong inverse correlation between level of education, and belief in religious dogma.
Those are just liberal lies from Godless "scientists!!!!" Ã,Â
That's exactly what most any PolitiChristian would say about the studies. Ã,Â
I learned that it doesn't matter what you say, no matter what sources you provide, it's all just liberal media lies, etc. Ã, The types of people I've spent hours talking with (I know, I know, it doesn't accomplish anything) will go to any length to "filibuster" or dismantle your argument by demanding source after source, and then denouncing it as liberal lies, no matter what.
That's the scary thing to me, that no amount of reasoning, debate, or sources can get through. Ã, Because they fused politics and religion, they cannot allow themselves to rethink their political stance, because that might mean they have to rethink their religious stance, and that would be doubting God, and that must be from Satan, so don't even allow those thoughts to take root!
That's what personally happened to me (not involving politics, though) Ã, I never sat down and actually rationalized about God or my religion, because I believed it would lead me right into unbelief.
think about them. Ã, But that eventually came to an end, and I ended up where I am now.
Quote from: TheYak on Sat 08/04/2006 08:29:37
I'm coming from a semi-similar angle. I was raised Christian, left it, and had some head-butting with family and friends (former friends who've since disassociated from me).
I hope it doesn't come to that with me. Ã,Â
Quote from: Raggit on Sat 08/04/2006 16:24:23
I hope it doesn't come to that with me.
Don't worry, you won't know about it. They will just make a nickname for you between themselves and talk about your satanist ways at their
network church. :P
Quote from: Disco on Sat 08/04/2006 16:23:38
1. The reason why all these religious articles are permeating our politics is because right now there is really only one voice putting things out in the media. Was it nearly as bad when Clinton was president?
Well, that serves to demonstrate that a two-party system, in the present day and age, is inherently flawed.
Quote
3. I believe in older civilisations they intertwined naturally becasue most were theocracies.
Greeks and Romans got it worked out pretty well, though.
QuoteThose are just liberal lies from Godless "scientists!!!!"
Oh believe me, I've heard that 'argument' before. If people are so narrow-minded that they're willing to contradict known and observable fact, there really is no point in discussing anything with them.
Ironically, one of the most important and most often ignored phrases in the Bible is "judge not lest ye be judged". If religious dogmatics wouldn't be so judgmental about everything else, we wouldn't have a problem.
Raggit, just don't hop from the "crazy religous camp" to the "Crazy I hate Bush and won't listen to reason camp". Not everything is black and white, don't allow yourself to be a sheep led by popular opinion.
Where is rharpe? >:( I need an official answer from him!
After that I will post my answers! ;)
One shouldn't lump different religions into one entity, and say that religion as a whole is against the idea of democracy and progressive ideas.Ã, Things are rarely that simple.
Coincidentally, there was an article in today's Toronto Star that touches on this issue.Ã, Here's the link if you're interested:
Faith and the Left (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1144273816991&call_pageid=991479973472&col=991929131147)
For those unfamiliar with Canadian politics, Canada has a multi-party system, and the New Democratic Party (NDP) is squarely on the left.
EDIT: hopefully fixed link, sorry bout that ^_^
Somebody mentioned narrow-mindedness a few posts ago...
I know it's popular to be open-minded these days, and I think that's good to a reasonable extent. However, truth is narrow. You can't be open about certain things - either they're true, or they are not. There are some issues on which I am glad I am "narrow-minded."
Edit: MashPotato - can you edit your link so it doesn't screw up the thread width? thanks
Quote from: Radiant on Sat 08/04/2006 09:44:28
2. Absolutely not. Law is about rationality; belief is about passion. The two don't mix.
Are you SURE about that? Does reason completely devoid of passion even exist? Can it?
Quote from: The Inquisitive Stranger on Sat 08/04/2006 21:07:34
Quote from: Radiant on Sat 08/04/2006 09:44:28
2. Absolutely not. Law is about rationality; belief is about passion. The two don't mix.
Are you SURE about that? Does reason completely devoid of passion even exist? Can it?
It's a very nice way to look at things, Radiant, but Law is about imposing restriction, and has abstract moral founding to do that. And morality is very much about passion as well. So... what OSquinky said.
Helm, Stranger, Radiant: I would actually say that law is there to determine differences! simple! You have a problem? Fiar on unfair, the law is there to solve it! It is not based on anything really but common sense (there's that word again... sorry guys)! No morality in! Law has no morals! It is not illegal to cheat on your wife. It is illegal because you have promised not to do so! There is a difference!
The Questions now:
1. Yes
2. No
3. No
4. Stop it! From my experience (which cannot be doubted, because it's mine! I'm not claiming it's right, or it's a lot or anything, but this is where I base what I'm saying! Heck that was fun!) I find that most christians are close (narrow at least) minded and passionate beyond control to save the rest of you(us, me everyone). I would probably joim the rebel forces against christianity! ;D
Quote from: Nikolas on Sat 08/04/2006 22:15:23I would probably joim the rebel forces against christianity! ;D
Islam?
Quote from: Helm on Sat 08/04/2006 21:14:25
Quote from: The Inquisitive Stranger on Sat 08/04/2006 21:07:34
Quote from: Radiant on Sat 08/04/2006 09:44:28
2. Absolutely not. Law is about rationality; belief is about passion. The two don't mix.
Are you SURE about that? Does reason completely devoid of passion even exist? Can it?
It's a very nice way to look at things, Radiant, but Law is about imposing restriction, and has abstract moral founding to do that. And morality is very much about passion as well. So... what OSquinky said.
And for that matter, how can you be rational without beliefs? Logic relies on statements assumed to be true. So whenever a law is established, it's because someone believed that it was for the best, whether those beliefs were "religious" or otherwise.
I'm really wondering about this. If we can't involve our religious beliefs in politics, then essentially that means that religious folk can't be political. Does it makes sense to make religious people pretend that they aren't religious while they are engaging in politics? The logical thing for a person to do is to behave in a manner suggested by his or her beliefs. To say that religious beliefs are inherently less appropriate for politics is a philosophical assumption with which not everyone agrees. Anyway, if the majority of the population wants to involve religion in politics, then a democratic society would have to do that, right?
1. I don't really know, but the world is getting less and less christian so I guess not
2. Morally based, yeah. Not everyone is a Christian. But I don't think wars are caused because of religion, religion is always the excuse.
3. Yes they do, but I can't decide if they should or shouldn't be. Some leaders are using religion as an excuse for their practises or to get people on their side (see above and below)
4. Be neutral. I'd welcome a true Theocracy, but that's extremely hard to happen. Unfortunately, some people will always want to exploit religion, it can have a lot of profit for those in high places.
I'm kinda sick of seeing many other Christians destroying themselves by being too legalistic or close minded. I've met Christians who take the Bible literally (except the parts that are obviously symbolic) and yet are very down-to-earth, open minded and intelligent people - but sadly, I have to admit that most devoted Christians I met are very naive. I noticed that a lot of times when Christians are extreme about certain situations they just want to convince themselves about their beliefs that they doubt themselves but won't admit it (if that makes sense).
I'm also sick to have people tell me I have to back everything up with Scripture or else my opinions on certain issues don't stand. Okay smarty pants, next time you go to the super market check your Bible to find your shopping list.
I lost a great friend once because she got influenced by 7th day adventists and had to "follow what God told her" and ended up as a radical person who was on a rampage against Christmas trees / Santa Clause (because they're taking focus off the birth of the Savior) and against going to the movie theatre (I'm embarassed to type the reasons of why not go). That's when I became more liberal.
I went kinda off-topic there, it's some of my thoughts as a semi-liberal christian.
Organized Religion means little, if anything, to me.
If there is a God, why do I need to go through a middle man to speak to him?
If God is everywhere, why do I need to be in a church for him to observe my faith?
If God is love, why is so much hatred done in His name?
Trying to prove that there is a God, disproves your faith in Him? What? Come again?
Oh, its His way. I see.
Its all smoke and mirrors.
God loves all men and all things...except Muslims, Gays, Democrats, nipples, Aidan Quinn, Martin Scorsese, The Daily Show, IMAX...etc, etc...
"I don't like you, ergo, God doesn't like you. He told me so."
Why does God talk to so many assholes?
Quote from: Guybrush Peepwood on Sat 08/04/2006 23:02:29
I lost a great friend once because she got influenced by 7th day adventists...
That's ironic, 7th Day Adventism is the religion I just came out of!! Ã, (Thankfully)
Do you ever wonder if your friend is following what God says, or what Ellen G. White says?
I think the solution to allowing Christians to involve themselves in politics (as they should indeed be able to) is to always remember that the Bill of Rights promises religious freedom. Ã, So, the minute a Christian politician proposes questionable legislation based heavily on a Biblical/Christian doctrine, it can be stopped because it is endangering our freedom of religion.
Quote from: LimpingFish on Sat 08/04/2006 23:21:51
Organized Religion means little, if anything, to me.
If there is a God, why do I need to go through a middle man to speak to him?
If God is everywhere, why do I need to be in a church for him to observe my faith?
If God is love, why is so much hatred done in His name?
Trying to prove that there is a God, disproves your faith in Him? What? Come again?
Oh, its His way. I see.
Its all smoke and mirrors.
God loves all men and all things...except Muslims, Gays, Democrats, nipples, Aidan Quinn, Martin Scorsese, The Daily Show, IMAX...etc, etc...
"I don't like you, ergo, God doesn't like you. He told me so."
Why does God talk to so many assholes?
Because man created God in his picture.
Quote from: NikolasWhere is rharpe? >:( I need an official answer from him!
After that I will post my answers! ;)
Nikolas, I knew you would bring me into this... here goes:
I'm a
traditionalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Catholic). Many of the things I believe you may find out of the ordinary... or crazy in comparison to your liberal lifstyles. Not all of you are liberal, but from past posts, I can assume most are. Those of you that are not, you may disregard what I just said.
Religion to me is a life style, not a simple once a week thing. I fast on the days appointed by the Church, abstain from meat on fridays and other days required. I also say my morning prayers, evening prayers, and Rosary with my family. During
Advent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advent) and
Lent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lent), I make small sacrifices to atone for the sins I have committed against God. For example, I try to give up: eating sweets, eating in between meals, watching TV, and eating too much during meals. I also try to do spiritual reading, pray more, and focus more on the passion, death and resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ. There are many more other things I should be doing as well... for example: giving alms to the poor, visiting the sick, frequent the sacraments, pray for the deceased, and do spiritual meditations. Basically, I should stop focusing on what I want, and just do God's will. By no means is this an easy task! As a human being, I'm selfish, self-centered, and not worthy of Heaven and the
Beatific Vision. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatific_vision) I follow the moral stature and doctrine of the Catholic Church because I was brought up in it, believe it, and practice it to the best of my ability. It makes all the sense in the world to me when I see liberals trying to find complete happiness in this world, when there is no such thing. I see all the struggles they have, and the misguidance the world gives them. They are confused, unhappy, alone, and rely on themselves and no one else. It's really sad that they try to separate their spiritual nature, (the soul,) from their human nature, (the body.) The soul being our "unseen" battery, and the rest being our physical clock-works.
For the record though, I'm not a
saint. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint) Neither are any of you. We are all given a certain amount of time on this Earth to prove to God that we love Him above all things. And that we are willing to sacrifice the things of the world we live in, for Him. He sacrificed so much for us... what will do in return for Him?
Catholic or not, our salvation is not set. We must strive to do God's will. Only God knows the outcome.
Politics deal with moralty as does religion... the two cannot be separated. Religion defines it, while the politics enforces it. Many centuries ago the Roman Catholic Church was the supreme authority of moral and doctrinal issues, making it political and religious at the same time.
If you would like to PM me regarding my beliefs, you may.
Quote from: LimpingFish on Sat 08/04/2006 23:21:51
If there is a God, why do I need to go through a middle man to speak to him?
You don't.
Quote from: LimpingFish on Sat 08/04/2006 23:21:51
If God is everywhere, why do I need to be in a church for him to observe my faith?
You don't.
Quote from: LimpingFish on Sat 08/04/2006 23:21:51
If God is love, why is so much hatred done in His name?
Because people are not love.
Quote from: LimpingFish on Sat 08/04/2006 23:21:51
Trying to prove that there is a God, disproves your faith in Him? What? Come again?
It doesn't, actually. Trying to prove God's existence is not a bad thing to do.
Quote from: LimpingFish on Sat 08/04/2006 23:21:51
God loves all men and all things...except Muslims, Gays, Democrats, nipples, Aidan Quinn, Martin Scorsese, The Daily Show, IMAX...etc, etc...
Isn't it possible for God to love people whose actions are displeasing to him?
Quote from: LimpingFish on Sat 08/04/2006 23:21:51
Why does God talk to so many assholes?
Maybe because they need his help not to be assholes? Anyway, just because some assholes say that God talks to them doesn't mean they are right. But that doesn't mean God doesn't talk to anyone.
rharpe
QuoteMany of the things I believe you may find out of the ordinary... or crazy in comparison to your liberal lifstyles.
I don't find believing in God, or the 'reward' of eternity in paradise in exchange for living your life in the service of God, crazy.
I find listening to a person, or organization, TELL you what God wants because he has spoken to, or through them, and that your beliefs should corespond with those of said person and/or organization, if you are to be considered "Christian", to be far harder to swallow.
If you believe The Bible to be the Word Of God, without question, then you may want to skip the next few lines.
The Bible has been filtered down through so many hands that what we now consider to be the "Definitive" edition, bears little resemblence to what came before. Through the centuries beliefs, both moral and spiritual, and those simply political, changed the meaning and the wording of a number of passages to suit whatever the current political or social climate was at the time. A King whose own views clashed with the views of The Bible, and/or the church, simply ammended whole passages and claimed his version of The Bible was now the only version, all all others should be destroyed
The King James edition seems to be the most widely available, which makes me wonder how it differs from other versions. What did he add or omit? How can I take The Bible to be the Word of God when so many other voices speak on its pages?
Believing in and wanting to live your life in accordance with Gods wishes is a noble pursuit, and I wouldn't dare to try and sway people from where their faith lies, but I find it increasingly difficult to understand how so many "Christians" can hold so many differing and fragmented views on what God wants and what Christianity is and isn't.
Erenan
QuoteTrying to prove God's existence is not a bad thing to do.
Tell that to the Catholic Church.
Erenan
QuoteIsn't it possible for God to love people whose actions are displeasing to him?
So why did the staff of an American TV station get death threats if the latest episode of a drama starring Aidan Quinn as a catholic priest battling a drug and alcohol problem, and dealing with homosexuality and rape in his parish, from a large number of "Christians" claiming that they were acting on the Word Of God and the views of The Bible?
Aren't they aware that God is capable of loving those whose actions displease him? Other christians, who spoke out against this action, are they more liberal, more understanding, closer to God?
Erenan
QuoteAnyway, just because some assholes say that God talks to them doesn't mean they are right. But that doesn't mean God doesn't talk to anyone.
So who do I believe? A guy on a street corner, a priest, a president? Do good christians get a special pair of glasses that lets them see who is speaking on Gods behalf and who is lying?
I just don't get it.
Quote from: The Inquisitive Stranger on Sat 08/04/2006 21:07:34
Quote from: Radiant on Sat 08/04/2006 09:44:28
2. Absolutely not. Law is about rationality; belief is about passion. The two don't mix.
Are you SURE about that? Does reason completely devoid of passion even exist? Can it?
I didn't say law was purely rational, I said it was about rationality. Law should not be passionate; it should be objective and fair. Passion is, almost by definition, neither objective nor fair. Belief is not objective in that many people perceive it differently; in that it is roughly the opposite of law. This is an easily misunderstood statement, but religion is not rational - it stems from feeling and intuition, rather than from deduction and logical analysis.
Quote
It's a very nice way to look at things, Radiant, but Law is about imposing restriction
I disagree. The point of law is not to impose restrictions. The point of law is to create a workable society. Restrictions are a means to that end, but never the goal. Some misguided moralities or ethical systems see restrictions as a goal, but that is flawed. I kind of agree with Nikolas's point.
A society can (and generally does) have multiple moralities. These need to live together in a practical fashion. Allowing one morality to push its point of view over the rest will, in the long term, not work, and lead to discontent and societal instability. The most obvious example of that are the morally-imposed prohibition laws, but it goes equally for old laws oppressing women, homosexuals, or certain races.
Laws based purely on morality are inevitably overturned as a society grows more civilized.
Quote
However, truth is narrow. You can't be open about certain things - either they're true, or they are not.
Truth is by definition narrow, but it is seldom black-and-white. That's a tricky but important difference.
Quote
One shouldn't lump different religions into one entity, and say that religion as a whole is against the idea of democracy and progressive ideas.
Religion is certainly not opposed to democracy. However, judged by history, religion does have a strong tendency towards conservatism rather than being progressive.
Quote
And for that matter, how can you be rational without beliefs? Logic relies on statements assumed to be true.
Logic relies on the least possible number of assumptions, as stated by Occam and Descartes. The rational man can certainly believe in God; that does not imply he has to believe what televangelists infer from their interpretation of a translation of parts of the bible.
Quote
I'm really wondering about this. If we can't involve our religious beliefs in politics, then essentially that means that religious folk can't be political.
Exactly. Separation of church and state. If you think about the core issues of both, you'll see that the goals of a church and of a state are wholly different. In particular, it is crucial to a state (but not a church) to pay attention to groups outside of it, and differently thinking groups within.
QuoteTo say that religious beliefs are inherently less appropriate for politics is a philosophical assumption with which not everyone agrees. Anyway, if the majority of the population wants to involve religion in politics, then a democratic society would have to do that, right?
No, wrong. True democracy does not imply that the majority gets to assert their ways over the minority. The point of democracy is that minorities have rights and can be heard (incidentally, this once more illustrates the fallacy of a two-party system). Politics is about discussing and compromising and working out a solution for all involved parties, and would never work if everything was simply put to a majority vote.
Quote
So why did the staff of an American TV station get death threats if the latest episode of a drama starring Aidan Quinn as a catholic priest battling a drug and alcohol problem, and dealing with homosexuality and rape in his parish, from a large number of "Christians" claiming that they were acting on the Word Of God and the views of The Bible?
Anyone making death threats for whatever reason has entirely missed the point of true Christianity. Love thy neighbor. Judge not lest ye be judged. Do not unto others. It's really not that hard if you think about it. True religion is love, not hatred. Harmony, not threats.
Quote from: LimpingFish on Sun 09/04/2006 00:21:48
The Bible has been filtered down through so many hands that what we now consider to be the "Definitive" edition, bears little resemblence to what came before. Through the centuries beliefs, both moral and spiritual, and those simply political, changed the meaning and the wording of a number of passages to suit whatever the current political or social climate was at the time. A King whose own views clashed with the views of The Bible, and/or the church, simply ammended whole passages and claimed his version of The Bible was now the only version, all all others should be destroyed
False. Modern translations of the Bible, especially the New Testament, are made mostly from documents dated from long before King James showed up on the scene. In fact, we have manuscripts dated from 200 A.D., and not only that, but the manuscripts we have are all similar enough (and numerous enough) that though there are minor scribal errors, we can get past them. With our present resources, we have very little reason to doubt that we have access to the text as it was originally conceived or very nearly.
Quote from: LimpingFish on Sun 09/04/2006 00:21:48
Believing in and wanting to live your life in accordance with Gods wishes is a noble pursuit, and I wouldn't dare to try and sway people from where their faith lies, but I find it increasingly difficult to understand how so many "Christians" can hold so many differing and fragmented views on what God wants and what Christianity is and isn't.
Because it's a complicated subject matter. It's natural that people will disagree. People disagree about lots of historical things.
Quote from: LimpingFish on Sun 09/04/2006 00:21:48
QuoteTrying to prove God's existence is not a bad thing to do.
Tell that to the Catholic Church.
Maybe I should. By the logic that evidence for God's existence is bad for faith, we ought to pray for God to remove all evidence for his existence, all reason for believing in him. But then it would be completely arbitrary to believe in him as opposed to embracing atheism or agnosticism. Faith isn't believing in something for no reason. It's more about acting in such a way that suggests that you actually believe what you believe.
Quote from: LimpingFish on Sun 09/04/2006 00:21:48
QuoteIsn't it possible for God to love people whose actions are displeasing to him?
So why did the staff of an American TV station get death threats if the latest episode of a drama starring Aidan Quinn as a catholic priest battling a drug and alcohol problem, and dealing with homosexuality and rape in his parish, from a large number of "Christians" claiming that they were acting on the Word Of God and the views of The Bible?
Those people aren't God. They don't even represent God. Are their actions a reflection on the God they claim to serve? Of course not. Sometimes people are stupid.
Quote from: LimpingFish on Sun 09/04/2006 00:21:48
Other christians, who spoke out against this action, are they more liberal, more understanding, closer to God?
It's very possible. But I doubt closeness to God could be determined solely on the evidence of one issue. Political stance has little bearing on that matter, in my opinion.
Quote from: LimpingFish on Sun 09/04/2006 00:21:48
So who do I believe? A guy on a street corner, a priest, a president? Do good christians get a special pair of glasses that lets them see who is speaking on Gods behalf and who is lying?
No, of course not. But Christianity isn't about simply taking the word of someone who claims to hear God's voice. All we can do is look at the source and use our own brain to
try to figure it out for ourselves.
To the believing Christians who are currently involved in this, I want to ask some direct questions. I'm not trying to set you up or corner you, I just am wondering:
As a Christian, how do you think God feels about politics? Does God want to see laws of the land all based on his doctrines and teachings?
When you accept Christ, does he try to modify your political and social beliefs?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2061773048178434620&q=who+wrote+the+bible
Slightly off topic...
I don't agree with every conclusion Dr. Beckford reachs, but the program raises some interesting arguments.
Hi Raggit,
IMHO, If you reduce Christianity down to it's essence, Jesus pretty much said that we should be kind, charitable, forgiving, and just in our dealings with other people, that we should obey the law and pay our taxes, and that we should thank God for our blessings. I don't think he was much more specific than that.
You may find some of Father George Coyne's lectures (http://clavius.as.arizona.edu/vo/R1024/VOFTalks.html) about cosmology etc interesting an perhaps conforting. I grew up near Pittsburgh Pensylvania where it's mostly Catholic mill workers and coal miners. The people around there would all claim to be Christians but you would find them nothing like what you have described. For the most part they are a very practical lot and don't abide by any nonsense. When I was 4 years old my father was on strike and not working. A new priest came by to visit and told my father that God wanted him to have more children. My father explained that it was hard enough to get by with twol, especially being out of work the way he was. The priest told him it matter and that God wanted him to have more children. My father got upset and told the priest that when God put food on the table and helped feed the kids he would think about having more and then told the priest to leave.
Take a look at my comments in the "Paranormal" thread on page #4.
Hope this is helpful to you in some way.
Cheers.
QuoteLogic relies on the least possible number of assumptions, as stated by Occam and Descartes.
The least possible amount of epistemological assumptions has always been, and will always be: None. Good luck with that. Anything you hold to be correct and enduringly reliable and possible on top of that, is the subject of some sort of faith. Faith in causality, faith in gods... we're not talking strictly different things here. However much of this goes outside the scope of the thread. Excuse.
Quote from: RaggitAs a Christian, how do you think God feels about politics?
God knows what He wants, it is our job to do His will and govern ourselves based on His laws He has set for us.
Quote from: RaggitDoes God want to see laws of the land all based on his doctrines and teachings?
Yes. He wouldn't teach us to follow His example if He didn't want us to follow Him.
Quote from: RaggitWhen you accept Christ, does he try to modify your political and social beliefs?
God sends grace to us to do His will, whether we accept it or not, that's entirely up to our free will He gave us.
Quote from: LimpingFish on Sun 09/04/2006 00:21:48
I don't find believing in God, or the 'reward' of eternity in paradise in exchange for living your life in the service of God, crazy.
How can it be a reward when you don't earn it? Rather, it's a gift.
QuoteThe Bible has been filtered down through so many hands that what we now consider to be the "Definitive" edition, bears little resemblence to what came before. Through the centuries beliefs, both moral and spiritual, and those simply political, changed the meaning and the wording of a number of passages to suit whatever the current political or social climate was at the time. A King whose own views clashed with the views of The Bible, and/or the church, simply ammended whole passages and claimed his version of The Bible was now the only version, all all others should be destroyed
Completely false. In the Old Testament's case, scribes would copy the original manuscripts letter by letter, not even word by word. After completing each copy, they would go over and count how many times each letter appeared, and then count the ones of the original to ensure they matched. If there were three or more mistakes, the copy was burned. These scribes took their jobs
very seriously. Also, there are so many thousands of copies of the Old Testament that they can easily be compared to eachother. Any changes would be quite evident.
As for the New Testament, any book that appears in it had to be written before 100AD. This ensured that there would be some witnesses to the original events still alive to verify its information. There are 6000+ copies of the New Testament available, some from as early as 90AD. Compare that to Plato's work, of which there are 7 copies made 1,000 years after the original.
There are still copies being found today, and they still match up with what the current Bible says. If "the Kings" had been changing the Bible as they pleased wouldn't they 1) Contradict the Bibles found in other parts of the world and 2) Contradict more recent unearthings of scrolls?
Quote from: RaggitDoes God want to see laws of the land all based on his doctrines and teachings?
Ã,Â
Yes. He wouldn't teach us to follow His example if He didn't want us to follow Him.
Quote
But did he ever actually say that we should form government laws based on the Bible? All the years I spent as a Christian, I never saw anywhere in the Bible that Jesus discussed politics, or said that laws should be made from his teachings. I always thought they were to be followed personally.
Quote from: Raggit
But did he ever actually say that we should form government laws based on the Bible?
You're right. Our Lord never did say, "...form government laws based on the Bible." But He did say, "If any man will come after me, let him renounce himself,and take up his cross and follow me."
Quote from: RaggitAll the years I spent as a Christian, I never saw anywhere in the Bible that Jesus discussed politics, or said that laws should be made from his teachings. I always thought they were to be followed personally.
What do you mean? Are you saying that Christ didn't want us to imitate His example... note the quote above. What do you mean when you say, "follow personally?"
Quote from: Raggit on Sat 08/04/2006 16:24:23
Those are just liberal lies from Godless "scientists!!!!" Ã,Â
liberal lies
If the liberals are lying so much, then what the conservatives doing?
Quote from: Tiki on Sun 09/04/2006 02:31:18
If there were three or more mistakes, the copy was burned. These scribes took their jobs very seriously.
This sounds like wishful thinking, and falls foul of Occam's Razor. Given the amount of time and people involved, and well-known transcription errors in other documents, it is unreasonable to suppose that errors were never made here.
QuoteIf "the Kings" had been changing the Bible as they pleased wouldn't they 1) Contradict the Bibles found in other parts of the world
They do, that's the whole point. There are several translations, and interpretations, of the Bible, and all major versions are subtly different. A major part of this is because ancient Hebrew and Greek do not translate one-on-one into modern English. Some of the verses are poetic or allegorical and would lose meaning in a "straight" translation; some of the verses use grammatical structure that does not exist in English. And opinions differ on how best to interpret certain verses.
Example? In most modern Bibles, male pronouns are used for God. This is not the case in the original Hebrew.
Example? Apocrypha. Opinions vary on which works are canonical and which are not. Some allege that the selection done by Augustine c.s. is, to some degree, arbitrary.
Example? Catholics and protestants both claim to be Christians and to follow the Bible. Both have access to the same sources. Yet they disagree anyway.
Quote from: RadiantCatholics and protestants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestants) both claim to be Christians and to follow the Bible. Both have access to the same sources. Yet they disagree anyway.
We (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We) can (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Can) use (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USe) Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/) on (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On) our (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our) own (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Own), (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_%28punctuation%29) rharpe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fullstop)
Hahaha! Sorry Helm... I guess I got carried away. Thought it might help some that were too lazy to look it up on their own.
Quote from: taffytom on Sun 09/04/2006 03:40:38
Quote from: Raggit on Sat 08/04/2006 16:24:23
Those are just liberal lies from Godless "scientists!!!!" Ã,Â
liberal lies
If the liberals are lying so much, then what the conservatives doing?
I was only using the phrase, "Those are just liberal lies from Godless scientists" to make a satirical point about how the various right-wing leaning people I've dealt with have responded to my arguments. That seems to be how they get out of answering questions and using reason, just claim that everything you believe and are saying are "liberal lies."
For the record however, nobody is perfect, and there ARE plenty of lies from both sides.
rharpe:
What I mean to say is that I never got the impression that Jesus wanted his teachings to be put into effect on a government level, or in other words, he didn't want governments passing laws that FORCED people to keep his doctrine.
By keeping the law of God personally, I'm speaking of disciplining yourself to keep it, not wanting or allowing the government to do it for you, and everybody else.
Quote from: RaggitBy keeping the law of God personally, I'm speaking of disciplining yourself to keep it, not wanting or allowing the government to do it for you, and everybody else.
The problem with "disciplining yourself" is that everyone does according to their own will... which is not God's will. This is why Christ came... to show us the way to His Father. I agree with you regarding the government FORCING religious beliefs... but not necessarily moral beliefs. If a society is not moral, it will self destruct. Religion is the responsibility of the Roman Catholic Church.
QuoteThe problem with "disciplining yourself" is that everyone does according to their own will... which is not God's will.
There is a little zen story encaptured in this sentence.
Quote from: Guybrush Peepwood on Sat 08/04/2006 23:02:29
I lost a great friend once because she got influenced by 7th day adventists and had to "follow what God told her" and ended up as a radical person.
I have experienced this heart-breaking situation too, losing my best friend to radicalism. I won't get into details, as it hurts to talk [write] about it, but I will say that he dissappeared for a year in which he fell in with some dangerous (thought admittedly non-violent) people. I was forewarded this link by a concerned mutual friend, and article about one of the things he was getting up to.
A Time For War (http://www.mercyseat.net/atimeforwar.htm)
These days I'm just not radical enough to be his friend :-\.
Quote from: Raggit on Sun 09/04/2006 05:48:52
What I mean to say is that I never got the impression that Jesus wanted his teachings to be put into effect on a government level, or in other words, he didn't want governments passing laws that FORCED people to keep his doctrine.
By keeping the law of God personally, I'm speaking of disciplining yourself to keep it, not wanting or allowing the government to do it for you, and everybody else.
Wow, I couldn't agree more. When it is forced by theocracy I believe christian practices are under taken for the wrong reasons. I've heard some argue that you should be christian "just in case", "I'd rather be safe than sorry", things like that. How week must you be in your faith to base it on that?
Quote from: Helm on Sun 09/04/2006 01:35:29
The least possible amount of epistemological assumptions has always been, and will always be: None. Good luck with that. Anything you hold to be correct and enduringly reliable and possible on top of that, is the subject of some sort of faith. Faith in causality, faith in gods... we're not talking strictly different things here. However much of this goes outside the scope of the thread. Excuse.
Honest question: Would you then say that every declarative sentence in your post is an assumption? For example, is your assertion that anything held to be correct and enduringly reliable is subject to faith also subject to faith?
Quote from: Raggit on Sun 09/04/2006 03:06:27
But did he ever actually say that we should form government laws based on the Bible? All the years I spent as a Christian, I never saw anywhere in the Bible that Jesus discussed politics, or said that laws should be made from his teachings. I always thought they were to be followed personally.
No, I don't think Jesus ever said, "Make laws based on what I say." But that's because he wasn't there to set up a system of government on earth. He had bigger fish to fry (the salvation of mankind, raising up followers who would found the church, etc.). But would it make sense for Jesus to leave us with a whole bunch of commands and messages and then for us to ignore them whilst establishing our governments? Anyway, that doesn't mean we have to make unenforcable laws like, "Love your enemy." Outlawing the murder of your enemies is a practical example of such a commandment put into real practice in the law.
Also, entire books of the Old Testament are essentially legal documents, laws based on what they believed God had told them directly.
QuoteHonest question: Would you then say that every declarative sentence in your post is an assumption? For example, is your assertion that anything held to be correct and enduringly reliable is subject to faith also subject to faith?
Well if my assumption "every assumption believed to be truthful is based on faith" is in my opinion truthful, then it belongs in the set of held-as-truthful assumptions, and therefore requires faith as I said. I know where this leads to. I have no problem accepting a bit of epistemological despondency here... Language doesn't lead to any undeniable truth as far as I'm concerned, it's just a socratic
organon, invented to be put to social use. The use of absolutes is inherent in language and you'll go nowhere fast trying to protect yourself from them, everything you say will draw dualistic boundries. But be wary of self-referential paradoxes, they're more sophisms based on how language and logic operate than a valid argument against them. At least not on any high level... If you try to shield yourself by what seems to be an 'error' in logic, you'll find yourself on that path, asserting absolutely nothing whatsoever and that's fine as long as you're prepared to be a solipsist. I'm not. I enjoy human interaction. Me saying that I believe something to be truthful and me accepting that there are undeniable, objective, enduring truths do not necessarily follow.
A discussion such as this (in this thread, not in our two posts. The latter is pretty useless, actually) is useful on many other levels than those that people may believe lead to truths. It tells us a lot about the people speaking, it's stimulating and enjoyable for many reasons and that's good enough for me. I hope we won't have to discuss this epistemological undercurrent much more.
A thought without reading anything in this thread.
"Is really believing in supernatural things to believe in religion?"
Because I do not believe in a white bearded man creating things, a guy walking over the waters and resurrecting after being dead for thre years.
I guess that this is why many religios people "lose faith". Because all that supernatural stuff is, IMHO, crap.
But the message is still real... No matter if it was not GOD who dictated it, or if some other cultured habe repeated that message before... If the message is good, it is good.
I consider myself religious in some way, and I am totally skeptical about any form of supernatural issues, including a God. Somebody has that "atheistic religion" too?
Well, that all depends on what one defines the nature of God to be, now doesn't it?
Helm: Yes, I see what you mean. I'm no more interested in having a conversation such as "yes, huh," "nuh uh," "yes, huh," "nuh uh" than you are. And it's really not terribly relevant to the topic of the thread anyway.
I think I've organized some thoughts on God that I'd like to share. I'm not trying to be aggressive or malicious towards any believers here, but I want to express these ideas for discussion.
Even though I sincerely doubt God's existence, if he DOES exist, I believe he is a psychopathic sadist. So God created angels and humans to worship him. (That alone signals some psychopathic tendancies.) But he wants more than just worshippers, he wants creatures that can, of free will, choose to worship him. Afterall, who wants people to like them out of coercion? We want to be loved by choice, or else it means nothing.
Yet, God is all knowing, all powerful. He knows it all from beggining to end. Thus, he knew the individuals he would create would rebel against him, and thus this evil world would come about. In my view, if he really loved us as much as we're told, and if he had our best interests in mind, he would've created worship robots, with no free will. It'd be kind of like a mercy killing, sparing us the pain before we even knew it. But that probably wouldn't be enough for him.
Instead, he creates free willed creatures, and they rebel. Now, he watches us struggle along on the earth, enduring pain and confusion. He's actually the only one who can help us. But he waits until we're so worn down that we can't take it any longer, and then we go to him. (This must be very fulfilling to his ego.)
When we go to him, he says he'll help us no matter what, but we have to totally give into him. We must do everything he says (more psychopathic still) and we have to become like little children, or sheep, and give him all control. (More satisfaction still.)
In turn, he'll replace our will and mind with his, so that we won't perceive that we're being dominated by him, or we at least won't care. That seems to fix our problems, but it also seems like we lose our individuality.
However, if some of us never give up due to our circumstances, he'll burn us up in Hell.
So we either have to become the worship robots he SHOULD'VE created us as in the beggining, or we have to face the lake of fire.
It doesn't seem logical that an all loving God would create beings he knew would rebel and be punished, just so he could have the satisfaction of us coming to him after we couldn't take it anymore.
If he knows everything, he knew we would rebel, he knew he'd kick Satan and his angels out of Heaven and onto earth, but he must've cared more about his own ego than about our suffering.
That doesn't sound all loving to me.
In fact, it sounds senseless, and that's why I can't believe he exists at all. It sounds like God was the creation of human insecurity. An imagined force to believe in to make life seem easier.
Raggit, what you're saying is that you can't believe that the Christian god exists. Remember, there are more than one interpretations on this Earth regarding what god is and what she wants, and it's not a sure thing that any one of them is correct. God may exist and be something completely different than any religion believes.
I personally don't know if a god or gods exist. And it's not something that keeps me awake at night, because like you, I just can't believe that god could be such an asshole.
I suppose while I'm here, I should throw in my two cents regarding the original topic. Bible-based legislation does exist in America. It's spreading and it's unfortunate. The problem with trusting an ancient book for your laws is that people can learn from their mistakes and the mistakes of others, while a book doesn't.
For example, I think the current hot topic regarding the mix of church and state is gay marriage. There are no legitimate reasons that two people who love each other, but happen to be of the same sex, shouldn't be allowed to marry. The reasons that people are voting such barbaric ideas into law are almost entirely based on religious beliefs. And I'm not sure that the last sentence even needed the word "almost."
I think it's unfortunate that people believe that morality is dictated by religion, and moreover, that morality needs to be legislated. The government should be enabling its citizens to enjoy thier life. "Pursuit of happiness" and all that. It should not be taking away freedoms for the sole reason of furthering a religious agenda.
You talk of God as if he would be some being, that can easily be compared with a human, as if would be an old long-bearded man, sitting on the clouds following the evolution of humankind as if it was a TV show. You can, of course, think like this, and if you do, I don't wonder, that you call him "a psychopathic sadist". Thus, in your eyes, since this simply can't be true, you conclude, that he doesn't exist.
It may sound pathetic, but in my eyes, God is not a "being" at all, but some kind of force, that flows through everyones body and mind, and God can't be measured with anything human beings could describe properly, nor is he a puppet player and we're his puppets. I know, that fellow christians don't easily accept my set of beliefs (in fact, I never met one that actually did), and that they usually flutter with the bible, singing some songs and truly hoping, that one day there will come a man with a beard from the clouds to redeem the world. That's not what I believe, but I often attend the divine service and have been involved in many things in and around the church for fifteen years now. I could write pages to describe my set of beliefs, but unfortunately I'm not very good in phrasing such complicated things in English.
cheers
nihilyst
nihilyst - Ahh, so you're of the Church of Skywalker!
I just wanted to say how proud I am of you all ^_^ I haven't read everything here but when I saw that this thread had ballooned a bit, I thought, "Uhoh, another cat fight". You guys are totally discussing this in a mature manner though. No fights, just healthy discussion and debate.
Keep up the good work!
Quote from: Vince Twelve on Mon 10/04/2006 01:00:40
Raggit,Ã, what you're saying is that you can't believe that the Christian god exists.Ã, Remember, there are more than one interpretations on this Earth regarding what god is and what she wants, and it's not a sure thing that any one of them is correct.Ã, God may exist and be something completely different than any religion believes.
Yes, correct.Ã, Sorry if I didn't make that specific.
Haha, I noticed that too, Kinoko. I was beggining to wonder if this was still the AGS forums.
So, are you going to reward us, Kinoko??? ;D
Quote from: Vince Twelve on Mon 10/04/2006 01:00:40
For example, IÃ, think the current hot topic regarding the mix of church and state is gay marriage.Ã, There are no legitimate reasons that two people who love each other, but happen to be of the same sex, shouldn't be allowed to marry.Ã, The reasons that people are voting such barbaric ideas into law are almost entirely based on religious beliefs.Ã, And I'm not sure that the last sentence even needed the word "almost."
What about people who are against the institution of marriage altogether because it promotes heteronormativity? Are they acting entirely on religious beliefs?
Quote from: Raggit on Mon 10/04/2006 02:07:32So, are you going to reward us, Kinoko???Ã, ;D
Nah.
Quote from: The Inquisitive Stranger on Mon 10/04/2006 02:31:03
What about people who are against the institution of marriage altogether because it promotes heteronormativity? Are they acting entirely on religious beliefs?
You're referring to people who want to stop marriage altogether because it forces women into "traditional female" roles (cooking, cleaning, and bearing children) and men into "traditional male" roles (working, watching sports, scratching themselves)? Shouldn't these people (all five of them) be
for gay marriages because they don't promote these roles? I guess I'm just confused at how your example applies....
Unless it was a joke. In which case... har har!
Quote from: Vince Twelve on Mon 10/04/2006 03:56:22
You're referring to people who want to stop marriage altogether because it forces women into "traditional female" roles (cooking, cleaning, and bearing children) and men into "traditional male" roles (working, watching sports, scratching themselves)?Ã, Shouldn't these people (all five of them) be for gay marriages because they don't promote these roles?Ã, I guess I'm just confused at how your example applies....
It's not just about gender roles, but more about marriage and the couple form in itself being an institution associated with child-rearing, sharing property, and accumulating capital. Some queer people would argue that all gay marriage does is force queer relationships to emulate straight relationships in order to be accepted by society, when in reality, sexual experiences encompass much more than just a monogamous two-person form.
I had to do an essay on this subject for my "Sex, Gender, and Philosophy" class last term, and found this particular point of view quite fascinating. As for my own views, well, I think it would be easier just for everyone to have civil unions, and to leave marriage to the religious institutions.
nihilyst: I don't understand how what you said can be considered wrong by every other Christian. That's exactly how I think of God and how I understand the Bible describes Him. It doesn't come in conflict with the literal interpretions at all. Maybe you are referring to Him as a faceless force, then that would be different; I see it as a force but also as a person at the same time, it's complicated to describe it.
Yay! Arguments about religion. Brilliant!
I personally can't handle any form of belief system that's based on absolutes. Faith to me is a horrible term because it conjures up messages of belief based on no fact. Or belief despite evidence which points to the contrary. Every time I've had discussions with religious types (irrelevant of which particular religion), it always comes down to "well, I have faith" and you really can't argue with that because it's like saying "well, yeah, there's all this evidence out there that man wasn't created by God, that the Universe wasn't created by God, that the Earth is in fact significantly older than it should be etc etc etc, but I'm going to throw all that out the window and form my opinions on some intangible concept that has absolutely no fact to back it up with."
This is why I believe that religion has no place in politics or he classroom. Believe it if you like, but don't teach it as fact.
It really bothers me when you hear Bush (and Blair recently) bringing up God during speeches about politics. It irritates me enough to hear crap about Iraq being about Islam (which it isn't) without our politicians resorting to the same sort of messages. How we're ever going to unite globally while we still have such archaic black and white views is beyond me.
The best thing that could happen to the world is if some aliens came down and blew all religion out of the water, then maybe we could have peace :)
Er, what was I saying? Is it even relevent? Don't know, just gonna hit "post" anyway :)
edit: What really narks me is when I've heard it said that natural selection, evolution, or just plain old physics takes all the mystery and wonder out of the universe. Personally I find it much more rubbish to write off all this amazing stuff out there with a throw away line like "God made it". Isn't it much more wonderful and mystifying if everyting out there did just happen? Isn't it more amazing to think that such complexity came about through tiny insignificant changes over millenia?
Well said, Binky.
Sorry, CAPTAIN ^_- I totally agree!
CaptainBinky, while your argument MAY have been valid if God could be proved or disproved, that is not really possible. When someone replies to verifiable scientific fact with "I don't believe it because God told me", then there is something wrong. However, that rarely happens (anymore at least). I'm kind of at the opposite end of RickJ's ideas, as I think that science and belief go hand in hand, one with the other. They both seem to evolve together :).
Rick gave the example of feeling "comfortable" with how the Big Bang seems to fit in with the scriptures. When some scientific evidence comes up that will show that the Big Bang was not the initial start up of it all, people will find another little tidbit in the scriptures that will support the new theory.
Quote from: Babar on Mon 10/04/2006 14:07:37
CaptainBinky, while your argument MAY have been valid if God could be proved or disproved, that is not really possible.
I have no idea if God exists or not and that's really not the point. You can define God as being everything we don't currently understand about the universe. That as a concept does exist. Does something happen to our souls when we die? Again, who knows. Quite possibly. Does a "soul" even exist? I don't know. Given that the matter we are constructed from has existed since the dawn of the universe, and will not be destroyed until the end of it, then you could say that of course there's life after death. Parts of me will be a raindrop, or a flower, or a gust of wind. Parts of me may have been in Napolean, or a caveman, or Mount Everest.
I have no problem with philosophical discussions about life, it's meaning, or what "life" even means. I do have a problem with dressing those discussions up around an arbitrary concept that has no real-world meaning. I'm pro morality and ethics, but do not need religion to instill those beliefs in me. That's what good parenting is for.
The way I see it, any rational human being doesn't have "beliefs", they have "theories". The beauty of theories is they are constantly revised as new evidence turns up. Beliefs are rarely refined in any fundamental way. People "believed" the earth was flat. Then it was shown to be round. People "believed" the sun orbitted the earth, then it was shown to be the other way round. These aren't beliefs at all, they are theories that tie into current scientific understanding, and they do the best they can with limitted knowledge. Evolution and natural selection are still theories, but all evidence currently seems to tally. That's not to say that in the future, we won't have some revised version of them. Heck, even traditional Newtonian physics which has worked perfectly for ages cocks up when dealing with the very tiny (like particles), so along comes the Quantum theory to make sense of that.
We will probably never know everything there is to know about how the universe ticks, but surely an open-minded approach has to be more benefical to society than striving to find some evidence of God's Hand.
There's a very famous argument (can't remember by whom specifically) that claimed that the complexity of life itself was evidence of God's Hand because how else could such complexity have arisen? This has possibly got to be the most close-minded argument I've ever heard. It's like saying "I personally am not clever enough to theorise a logical way this COULD have happened, therefore it MUST have been God".
edit: Ah, well the problem with the big bang is that if God created that, then what he's basically done is let loose a bunch of matter into the void and created the universe. No problem. But then if that's the case, he can't have made Man directly so man has no pedestal in the universe above trees, frogs, rocks, grass etc. The soul would therefore have had to evolve. Which means, pigs have a soul (or at least a slightly less complex version), and so too fleas, and mice, and trees. So do trees go to tree heaven when they die? Is there a judgement day for good trees? How does God then feel about us cutting them all down and writing on them?
edit2: Also, I don't quite understand why it's relevent to my argument whether or not you can prove God's existence. It is exactly BECAUSE you can't that politics and schooling should focus on things you can prove, like science.
I also theorise that I have killed this thread. Rats.
Quote from: CaptainBinky on Mon 10/04/2006 14:23:46
edit2: Also, I don't quite understand why it's relevent to my argument whether or not you can prove God's existence. It is exactly BECAUSE you can't that politics and schooling should focus on things you can prove, like science.
I agree precisely! I don't want my laws being based on the doctrine of somebody else's interpretation of a mysterious god.
I don't typically agree with people who say that we have to have God to define morality, thus we have to have God to shape laws. I think it's rather closed minded to say that you can't be moral on your own without God or religion.
The point that God can be proven or not is relevant, because as you said, you can't accept something based purely on faith. Thus, for you, God is an alien concept. I don't know where good parenting came up, though.. :P. The points most people would put forward to show their "proof" of God is generally not acceptable to those who don't believe, because they make use of concepts like "I can feel God with me all the time" or "I have the Holy Spirit with me" or "I can see God in everything of my life".
I agree that "God made it" wouldn't be a relevant explaination for something in the classroom, because it was all done through scientific principles that should be studied and investigated. I don't want to get into an argument about how God started the big bang, and how God is not in direct control, etc. Ã, because I think we're coming from two different directions here. My BELIEFS tell me that I should study my surroundings, the universe, the earth, life etc. and evidence of God will become clear to me. That if I find something missing or contradictory or wrong with what is in my beliefs and what is in my surroundings, I should "Drop it like it's hot" (So sorry).
About beliefs and theories: I'd think they'd be very much intertwined. Beliefs would be "updated" much like theories. People first believed that the world was flat. Now they believe that it is round. While we all "know" that it is round, not many people go through the effort to "prove" it. If you are talking about religion, then there have been many "updates" to it as well. Some concepts that were set before are changed. If your point is that "beliefs are fundementally changed, while theories are updated", I don't see that working either. It goes both ways for both, as I mentioned before. Scientific theories have had to be scrapped completely before, and scientific principles have had to be conjured up to fit observations.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's only the small "lunatic fringe" (is that the term?) that says that "God made it" is the end all of all arguments, and who'll tell you that "dinosaur bones have been put their to lead the evil doers astray".
PS: You didn't kill nothing. Prolly me ;D
Quote from: Babar on Mon 10/04/2006 17:41:19
About beliefs and theories: I'd think they'd be very much intertwined. Beliefs would be "updated" much like theories.
Okay, this is a semantic issue, but where I'm coming from a belief would be something like:
"I believe that cats go to heaven when they die". This can never be proven one way or the other.
Wheras a theory would be...
"I theorise that the earth is flat".
Theorising that the earth is flat makes sense if you don't know otherwise. If I look out to sea, I see an "edge". Theorising that the earth is flat is logical given the information available to me.
Quote from: Babar on Mon 10/04/2006 17:41:19
The points most people would put forward to show their "proof" of God is generally not acceptable to those who don't believe, because they make use of concepts like "I can feel God with me all the time" or "I have the Holy Spirit with me" or "I can see God in everything of my life".
Those ideas don't constitute "proof" as they are intangible. Hence the difference between beliefs and theories. I'm not saying you shouldn't believe what you feel, that's your perogative.
You see, the problem I have with religion (I'll use Christianity as example) is that there's so much variation in what you hear off (religious) people. Either the Bible is the word of God, or it isn't. Either it's a parable and symbolic or it's fact. As soon as you start picking and choosing the relevance of it, you destroy taking any of it seriously. I don't understand how somebody can seriously say, this bit's true, and this bit's symbolic. How can you know? Surely only if it were all true could you use it as the basis of a faith..?
Quote from: Raggit
I don't typically agree with people who say that we have to have God to define morality, thus we have to have God to shape laws.Ã, I think it's rather closed minded to say that you can't be moral on your own without God or religion.
I agree. And furthermore, doesn't it make you a better person if you are moral and ethical because you CHOOSE to do it, despite believing that you have nothing to gain at the end of it? Rather than being ethical because ultimately you want to get to Heaven? Isn't that being rather selfish?
I think one of the major problems here is that most orthodox Christians don't WANT to update or revise their beliefs, because you just can't do that with an absolute. They believe, as the Bible says, God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. So they tend to think that changing their beliefs, even a bit, is denying that God means what he says, even if they've interpreted it wrong from the start.
For a system of values (morality) to exist in a world that fails to demonstate any form of perfection, man must be inborn with a sense of an exterior measurement. For example, think of the metric system in a world of unlabeled distances (since morality is a form of measuring actions). Without a perfect (absolute) meter stick locked up in a museum somewhere, evaluating distances in metric becomes meaningless. Without absolute measurements, the entire concept of judging specific distances quantitatively is an exercise in futility. "What's right for her may not be right for me" is an result of this empty reasoning.
Well, there's absolute ethics, there's relative ethics... There's morality systems without categorical imperatives, we're not stuck in Kant's age, thankfully... Your golden measuring stick stuck in a museum is a concept that isn't the same in two people's minds, and seeing it, scrutinizing it and even fully agreeing on it's features doesn't mean it becomes the same in people's minds, as the point of view of a human being is strictly subjective, so a bit more advanced systems of dealing with codified human interaction have been devised since the stuff you were talking about have been relevant trends (again, check back in Kant, lol!) Big Brother, please do study these things before proclaiming the Futility of Relative Ethics. Thanks.
I have a scientific theory what God is (if he exists, which can't be proved one way or other)
God (or gods, it could be a committee :D) is a extrauniversal being. It created the universe in what can best be described vast computer simulation. outside our universe .Of course this doesn't answer the question, "then were did god come from?" but modern scientific thought doesn't answer the question "Were did the universe come from?" Maybe there is an Scientific Atheist explanation for the way the universe the came to be, but present evidence in my opinion doesn't justify it.( I do recommend we keep looking) I can believe that life evolved, but I can't believe, from the evidence I have seen, that the universe just happened.
Ok, well sure the concept exists differently in people's minds, but I'm talking about a practical equivalent. We can agree on a similar use of a meter stick. Yes, we can also obfuscate the concept, and no definition can cover every little detail, but we can't rely on that fact alone to prevent any logical conclusions.
I have studied Kant, taking Philopsophy classes... but thanks for assuming, Helm.
No problem.
It's one thing for to people to agree on something and completely another to depend on their common definition on being understood and endorsed by those agreeing. Human interaction doesn't work like that, I think. We're not so simple machines to agree on the RGB value of 'navy blue' and all understand the same thing. The evolution of ethics has grown in the relative direction exactly to cover for all the loss of signal going on in seemingly otherwise simple agreement-based human interaction. You've studied Kant you say, then maybe you need to study something a bit more up to date, like Mackie's 'Inventing Right and Wrong' or something.
A question: when you people speak of "theories", are you actually talking about theories, or are you really talking about hypotheses?
I like hypotheses.
Although I prefer Rhinoseres.
No, wait...
@helm and bb - could you please argue in english? it'd be so much easier for the rest of us! :p @ossquinky - yes, okay, hypothesis. but the point is still valid.
you're not missing much, here's a translation:
bb: something relevant
helm: not something relevant, but some minute alteration of something relevant. Plus, I'm smarter than you and enjoy the intellectual high-ground.
bb: No you're not, but thanks for assuming! I did philo 101 at business school! Plato: How to make an Ideal Sell! Sartre: Hell is in Other Products! Camus: The Strange Cold Call!
helm: read books I've read!
Quote from: The Inquisitive Stranger on Mon 10/04/2006 21:13:02
A question: when you people speak of "theories", are you actually talking about theories, or are you really talking about hypotheses?
If you were talking to me, (it is hard to tell with just text) yes I guess your right it is a hypotheses. but is part of my THEORY of the universe "The Great SImulation"
not that I think our universe is anything like the matrix or anything, its just how I view the universe.
But hypotheses don't become theories until they have become confirmed by actual experiments...
Then what is the "Theory" of evolution, at least when it was developed by Darwin developed it. Science deals with the present. One cannot prove evolution by experiment. it must then be an hypotheses all be it one that fits many holes while ( in my view) creating new ones. I guess that means my view is an hypotheses as well. thanks for correcting my syntax.
Quote from: Helm on Mon 10/04/2006 22:02:19
bb: No you're not, but thanks for assuming! I did philo 101 at business school! Plato: How to make an Ideal Sell!Ã, Sartre: Hell is in Other Products! Camus: The Strange Cold Call!
Yes, these are very different from courses like: Hume: Is There More to Life than Screwing Goats and Going to Gay Nightclubs? and Voltaire: Why Didn't Candide Settle For a Goat?
:)
In most American Universities, each department teaches its own courses, so application between two subjects is usually the student's invention.
Quote from: lo_res_man on Tue 11/04/2006 17:08:33
Then what is the "Theory" of evolution, at least when it was developed by Darwin developed it. Science deals with the present. One cannot prove evolution by experiment.
I didn't say that you could prove it; I said that you could confirm it. The theory of evolution is a theory because physical evidence has, to this date, not been proven to contradict it. (Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that it never will be contradicted in the future...)
Whoa! People still seriously believe in religion :o
I am shocked! I don't wish to offend... but seriously!
Quote from: The Inquisitive Stranger on Tue 11/04/2006 19:07:08
I didn't say that you could prove it; I said that you could confirm it. The theory of evolution is a theory because physical evidence has, to this date, not been proven to contradict it. (Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that it never will be contradicted in the future...)
Quite true but there is also evidence to contradict it.
"missing links" They are still missing. so we find a dinosaur with feathers, but that is but one example. the fossil record, by the laws of probability, should be more full of half-way one thing or the other then anything else. but is it? not even the scientists who are the biggest proponents of evolution will say that.
symbionts, I asked a scientist about this one, his answer sounds just like what they accuse intelligent design proponents "it just happened" and he was a biologist.
and how could life have come to be at all. the talk of lightning hitting slime in a big shallow sea. but when they "replicated" these conditions though yes they produced amino acids, they were of D chirality, the ones almost exclusively used in life have L chirality. As well the mild shocks the gave the chemical solution were nothing like an lighting bolt, which would have likely destroyed any amino acids it made L or D.
to quote some villain
"Your turn, Mr. Bond"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_%28chemistry%29
Quote"missing links" They are still missing.
We will never be able to uncover the complete fossil record, because the conditions that must be met to preserve animal remains do not exist everywhere, and will not preserve every single living being that has ever lived. Just because it has not yet been found, does not mean that it didn't exist.
Also, "missing links" are always being found as gradually more of the fossil record is uncovered, see the Tiktaalik (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4879672.stm).
True enough. but we should have found them long ago and much more of them. The probabilities are so huge as to be what a mathematician calls "statistically improbable" A comparable statistical event is giving 1,000,000 monkeys computers and as much memory as they want, and expecting one to type out a simple seven word sentence that makes sense. and life is a practically infinitely more complex piece of work.
And another thing I found out recently. Just because we find a walking fish doesn’t mean its a link. fish brains and all other vertebrates brains are formed completely differently. so how could fish have evolved into amphibians if there brains are so different. now of course there limbs would change, but why the brains?
There's a 1 in 14 million chance of winning the UK lottery jackpot - that's a pretty 'satistically improbable' number - yet someone manages to win it every week. Twice a week even! And somtimes more than one person! Holy shit!
The OMG STATISTICS SAY IT'S IMPOSSIBLE stance is not a good reason to dismiss evolution, and it's certainly not a 'trump card' argument against it at all.
Lets just continue down this line for a moment, here's something I found on a lottery site:
Quote
Now, lottery odds can be pretty incomprehensible. How can we possibly have any "feeling" for the number 13,983,816? To help you with this, here's a little experiment you can try to "get a handle on" what a 1 in 13,983,816 chance really means.
1. Get a piece of rope or string, that's 39 feet long.
2. In a wide open area, arrange the rope or string in a circle, end to end, the best you can.
3. Get a single grain of sand or dirt (use tweezers!) and place it anywhere you wish inside the circle.
4. Get a second grain of sand. Close your eyes, and "disorient" yourself as to where the grain of sand is that you placed inside of the circle (have someone spin you around or something!).
5. While you're inside the circle, drop the second grain of sand from 1 foot up.
6. Your chances of hitting the first grain of sand with the second is roughly equal to the odds of "1 in 13,983,816."
7. If the rope's length mentioned in #1 is a little unreasonable, for every foot above the circle that you drop the second grain of sand, you can reduce the length of the string by the same amount. For example, if you dropped the second grain of sand from a ladder 10 feet up, you'd need a length of string that is 10 times shorter than the one in #1, or a 39/10 = 3.85236 foot long piece of string.
Amazing isn't it? I've seen similar things but with 'AND THIS IS WHY LIFE COULD NOT HAVE POSSIBLY EVOLVED WITHOUT GOD DOING IT' conclusions at the end, and yet last month someone on my street won the UK lottery jackpot with odds of 1 in 14 million against them.
I think we can shut up about statistic improbabilities now.
Quote from: Adamski on Tue 11/04/2006 22:25:03
There's a 1 in 14 million chance of winning the UK lottery jackpot - that's a pretty 'satistically improbable' number - yet someone manages to win it every week. Twice a week even! And somtimes more than one person!
True, but with the lottery someone HAS to win. of all the people who by lottery tickets at least ONE has to win. BUT with life, no one HAS to win. life doesn’t have some great need to exist. and in evolution the numbers are MUCH, MUCH bigger the probabilities exceed 1 in more atoms in the known universe.
of course if the universe is truly infinite, this is bunk because life would have to be somewhere.. but then we run into Obler's paradox. as well any answer still doesn’t answer were the universe came from or what it IS, infinite or not.
QuoteTrue, but with the lottery someone HAS to win. of all the people who by lottery tickets at least ONE has to win.
What? No, nobody HAS to win the lottery, ever heard of a 'rollover'?
Quoteand in evolution the numbers are MUCH, MUCH bigger the probabilities exceed 1 in more atoms in the known universe.
Can I see some sources for this "more atoms in the known universe" probablility please? Sounds spurious to me.
No I haven’t :-[and your Probably right ;D but isn't it more like ONE person buying a lottery ticket and hoping to win? then the numbers change and they try again. what are THOSE chances? because as time ( an important factor) the conditions change constitutions of different chemicals change, some evaporate some may be destroyed and some other ones accumulate. Its like being the only one at the lottery. Of course I have other evidence, and maybe probability is not the best place to stand but as they say, "you spend your money, you take your chance" ;D
Oh. Crap. I've been gone a month and look what happens... I miss a religion topic. Shmoot. Well, I read everything, but since I haven't been in the convo, I guess my only reply can be to the original questions.
1. Do the Christians (a majority) stand a chance of getting Bible-based legislation passed?
Yes. They have already, and continue to do so. Why do you think homosexual marriage is only legal in Tijuana?
2. Do you believe that Bible-based legislation SHOULD be passed?
Only if it's mutually beneficial for every American.
3. Do you feel that religion and politics intertwine naturally and that an American Theocracy in favor of the majority is inevitable?
No. A proper theocracy can never happen, because (sorry atheists) God isn't interested in govornment. Stupid-ass Christian sheep believe the verse that says "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" means we need to pay our taxes. If you'd actually spend time reading that whole section rather than believing what a human man has to tell you about it, you'd find Jesus says "Who's picture is on this coin?" And the response was "Caesar's." And so by syllogism the ultimate meaning was "Well, give it to him then. But don't give him what belongs to God." We need to pay taxes, because minted coins are minted for us to use by the govornment anyway, but Christians are commanded to keep themselves independently govorned. Ultimately, a theocracy as explained in the Bible is for God-believing individuals, and them alone. But no. Assmasters like Pat "I know you have cancer on your spleen" Roberson want to take over the govornment and "give it back to God," who never had it nor wanted it in the first place.
4. If a Christian juggernaut formed and began moving towards a Theocracy, what would you do? (Either to help it or stop it.)
I, even though I profess belief in God, would burn down their buildings and slaughter their women and children until they cried like infants and gave up their ignorance.
Ragmaster, I just want to know... You say you came out of... what was it, Seventh Day Adventists? Do you still believe in God, or are you done with all that? Because, let me say this... I'm not one of those clowns that say you need to "Talk to Jesus..." I say this, though: Don't stop believing in God just because everyone who claims to be His People are morons. I once was a Catholic, getting ready to go into the priesthood. Then, I became a Baptist. Now, I'm a god. Don't forsake God just because nobody knows the truth about Him. I believe there would be less atheists in the world if there were less Christians, and there would probably be no atheists if there were no Christians. Okay, maybe a few. People don't understand one thing: religion is the study of what man has to say about God, but true Theology is the study of God, period. Here's an interesting verse for you:
"Knowing this first, that no Scripture is of any private interpretation."
Christians use this to say you shouldn't try to explain the Bible on your own, and should let your priest or pastor do it for you. If you look it up in the original language, it says this:
"Most importantly, these words shouldn't be expounded by any one man."
That's my two cents. Esper out.
Quote from: Haddas on Tue 11/04/2006 19:24:52
Whoa! People still seriously believe in religion :o
I am shocked! I don't wish to offend... but seriously!
Whoa! So, do you no believe in religion? Don't you believe in the Cruzades? The Yihad by Saladhin? Don't you believe in the German civil war after Luther's theses? Don't you believe in the slaughtering of the Hugonotes in France? Don't you belive in Holocaust?
Maybe the problem is that your definition of religion is too short sighted. Religion is not just the (from my point of view) the unvelierable supernatural stuff that works as a source of it. Religion it's also the REAL effects that this FALSE facts produce. If I am asked: Do you think that crafts driven by alien intelligence have visited us? I will ask: Good lord, no! If I am asked if the UFO phenomenon exists, I will say: yes.
Sorry dude, but religion exists...
Sure. I believe it EXISTS, but I have no belief in it, and i live a happier life because of it.
Quote from: Farlander on Wed 12/04/2006 09:47:57
Don't you believe in the Cruzades? The Yihad by Saladhin? Don't you believe in the German civil war after Luther's theses? Don't you believe in the slaughtering of the Hugonotes in France? Don't you belive in Holocaust?
These were caused by or partially by religion, right?
I am done arguing about this subject. Can you people never come up with anything interesting to debate? Like if batman or spiderman would win in a fight?
Quote from: The Inquisitive Stranger on Tue 11/04/2006 19:07:08
I didn't say that you could prove it; I said that you could confirm it. The theory of evolution is a theory because physical evidence has, to this date, not been proven to contradict it. (Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that it never will be contradicted in the future...)
It's not just a case of there being no evidence to contradict evolution, although I do agree with that statement. There are observations of evolution happening - there was a particular example involving snails, but I can't remember the details off-hand.
On the subject of the likelihood of life occurring, well given the infinitite timescale involved (I use infinite here in the context of "immeasurably large" rather than "un-ending" because I have no idea if time will ever "end") all things which can happen eventually will happen. Which makes life kind of inevitable. It's only because we are a result of countless improbable scenarios that we find it so unbelievable. It's only our paltry lifespan that makes winning the lottery so unlikely so you can't really compare the odds of that to the odds of life. One timescale is miniscule, the other is astronomical.
edit: About the snails... http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1997/01.09/SnailsCaughtinA.html. Should have known this really - it's Stephen Jay Gould and I've got the blinking book! Doh!
Quote from: esper on Wed 12/04/2006 09:22:07
Ragmaster, I just want to know... You say you came out of... what was it, Seventh Day Adventists? Do you still believe in God, or are you done with all that? Because, let me say this... I'm not one of those clowns that say you need to "Talk to Jesus..." I say this, though: Don't stop believing in God just because everyone who claims to be His People are morons...
I've always given that consideration, but I've still found it hard to actually believe that God exists, as he is described in the Bible, because to me something just doesn't seem coherent there.
But I try to remain open to the ideas of something beyond ourselves, because there must be.
I'm far more open to the idea of worshipping God individually, excluded from church and religion. I'm not terribly supportative of institutions that deal with something so personal, and make it something so sweeping, that everybody has to be stuffed into a cookie cutter.
I understand that not everybody who claims to be a Christian actually IS a Christian, and I don't consider one to be a representative of them all.Ã,Â
And to those who've been following this who are Christians, I'm sorry if at any point it sounded like I was trying to put you all in one group.
That snail article is pretty interesting. It only really confirms natural genetic variations and selection. However, for it really to count as "proof" towards evolution, there would have to be some kind of cross-species transformation.
Evolution has always seemed inductive to me, personally. The theory itself has changed so many times (i.e. prominent scientists no longer believe in the spotted moths or the fetal stage transformations), I place it on the same shelf as other religions. I've encountered a lot of people that defend the theory with a similar dogmaticism to any televangelist. The main difference being they claim it's "scientific" (although the beginning of the universe isn't really observable or repeatable).
Ultimately, considering our short window of existance, reaching conclusions about million year old process requires some form of linear extrapolation.
Quote from: big brother on Wed 12/04/2006 16:31:06
That snail article is pretty interesting. It only really confirms natural genetic variations and selection. However, for it really to count as "proof" towards evolution, there would have to be some kind of cross-species transformation.
That would constitute stronger proof for sure. However,
"Scattered between them were thousands of highly variable shells spanning the full range of form from pure C. excelsior through intermediates of all degrees to C. rubicundum," Gould recalled. "It was difficult to escape the idea that the former had evolved into the later."
Plus, the concept of what a species is, and what it means is something that is open to quite a lot of debate. If you mean "species" in a biological sense, that what differentiates species is their inabilities to reproduce, then that would happen only in reproductive isolation. And isolation is not something that's going to happen overnight and therefore fairly difficult to ever study occurring. However, evolution doesn't have to just be about the formation of new species in that sense, and as such I think that the example of the snails is pretty good "proof". It certainly shows that the mechanism is there, and that what the theory explains can be seen occurring in nature.
Quote from: BigBrother
I've encountered a lot of people that defend the theory with a similar dogmaticism to any televangelist. The main difference being they claim it's "scientific" (although the beginning of the universe isn't really observable or repeatable).
Hmmm... I agree that some people can get rather passionate in their defense of evolution. However, I'm not quite sure what the theory of evolution has to do with the beginning of the universe. It is possible to agree with evolution and still believe in a God as the creator of the Universe. To me, the reason I get uppity about the theory of evolution is because there
is evidence to support it and therefore the quotes around the word scientific are redundant. Whereas with Creationism, there is no evidence, only conviction of belief.
There is a tiny little law called the law of thermodynamics. Now things decay. that slab of meat in your freezer, ( or tofu for the vegetarians ) if you take it out of the freezer it will decay. yet it has all the ingredients for life. even if you COMPLETLY decontaminate it from all life ( bacteria) it will rot. Even if you zap it till it jumps like Frankenstein , it will never come alive. And that is my main objection to the evolutionary view. life does not come from non life. so lets say life starts to form, an amino acid here, a protein molecule there, and a RNA molecule for good measure. BUT while this happening driven by heat and other energy, that same energy is tearing it apart. Now when we think cells we think simple. But any look at even the most primitive cells shows a beautiful complexity. Even viruses, which CANNOT be the progenitors of life, simple though they are, because they need life to reproduce. What Pasteur proved was that life does not come from non life, that is spontaneous generation does not work. In that sense the modern view is a step BACKWORDS.
Well hang on. Life is absurdly complex, even the so-called simple lifeforms as you say. But, if I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that life is too complex to have spontaneously bloomed. Even simple life is too complex.
But this entirely depends on what constitutes "life". The simplest form of life would be a replicating machine, not a cell. Once you have a mechanism for replication, and given a large amount of time, you have a traceable pathway to complex lifeforms. Unfortunately I'm not a zoologist and I can't go into this theory nearly as well as I'd like (Dawkins talks about this a lot). And to go from floating molecules to replicating machine is unquestionably unlikely, however we can theorise on what the process would be. And while there's a tangable process, there's a chance, and while there's a chance and enough time, there's a pretty good argument for saying that's how it must have happened. This to me seems much more likely than the likelihood of some unseen, unknown, impossible to determine force out there in the heavens doing this for us.
"Life does not come from non-life" to me is up there with "what good is half an eye" as statements which don't really mean anything, since if you agree with evolution then the response to the first statement can only be "of course it does!", whereas if you believe in creationism the response is "yes, of course it doesn't". There cannot really be any views in-between. You can't really say "well sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't"!!!
In my opinion science and religion are both two distinct types of belief. On one hand science is a set of belief systems built up from observations about our world, and "provable", methodistic conclusions you draw from your observations.
Furthermore, for 99.99% of the population of this planet, science is even more profoundly a belief system, as to a large extent you are believing what is written by those who are a lot more intelligent than yourself, or at the very least those who have invested the time into finding out about the subject that you yourself would not...
But the other side of the fence is religion, which to my mind has formed due to human's natural inability to believe that they and the world around them has been created by some natural process. Who was it that said "Nature itself has imprinted on the minds of men the idea of God"?
The way I see it is that everything boils down to belief, when you get to the nub of it. Do I believe Stephen Hawking's theory that dark matter exists? Do I believe the Earth was made in seven days? Do I believe that we all used to be skuttling trilobytes?
What's important to me, I guess, is what is easier to believe, or what is the more likely thing in which to believe, i.e. what does the evidence available point toward?
In this case science usually wins out, because generally I believe in what a scientist has to say over what a priest does... this does not mean the scientist is right... I just feel the scientist has more founded reason to believe what he does, and takes a more objective approach to determine what his belief systems are.
Of course, we could all be part of the matrix, thus rendering all the scientist's observations completely invalid... in this case scientific method becomes just as unprovable as all the world religions, but whilst we have no reasons to mistrust our observations about the universe around us, it seems baffling to me why people would put more stock in a 2000 year old book than observational evidence around them here and now...
So to sum up, I cannot put my hand on my heart and say that I 100% believe in evolution, I consider that the theory is built up of a lot of circumstantial evidence such as fossil records.. we've not sat and watched, generation after generation, a species evolve into another species, (though the snail thing Binky mentioned, as well as the results of selective breeding of dogs are both very interesting piece of observation evidence for me personally), and all of what I know about evolution I've been effectively "told" by others (biologists, archeologists, Darwin himself)
But it is a damn convincing theory, everything we have discovered about it seems to point in that direction, and my money would definitely be on that over divine intervention any day.
This kind of brings me onto the alien thing. I've never seen an alien, but yet I'm more accepting of their possibility than I am of the foundations of the various world religions, due to my interpretation of the universe around us, largely based upon evolution and astrophysics, the size of the universe etc. These all give me a grounded argument as to why alien life existing is quite probable... albeit still one where I am taking a lot of things as truth that I personally have never proven.
I won't *believe* in aliens until I see one myself, however, and maybe not even then...
As in Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy, the planet of Krikket (sp?) having no visible stars in the sky... if I lived on Krikket, believing in aliens would be as blind a belief as I feel most religions to be.
Hopefully this makes some sense :)
Hmmm, not sure I would umbrella both science and relligion as systems of "belief".
As you yourself say, science is about hypothesising and theorising based on observation and experiment. The only point "belief" enters into this is if you are seriously suggesting that scientists may be lying to us. If a scientist comes up with a hypothesis, then I won't automatically accept it. If I read that same hypothesis and gleam some knowledge of their observations and reasoning then I may agree with it. There is no "blind faith" in science.
I don't agree with all theories on evolution. In fact, I disagree with very many of them. But this is judgement on what I find more likely based on things which I have read, and things which I have observed.
I mean, okay. I have never observed the Earth from space, and yet I do agree that it is a planet in the Milky way with a moon which orbits etc etc. However, there is such a ridiculous amount of evidence to support this, astronaughts, telescopic imagery etc, that I'm fairly confident taking these kinds of facts as a given. So it's not really a question of "believing" that the Earth is a planet orbitting the sun, etc etc.
Quote from: CaptainBinky on Wed 12/04/2006 17:55:16
Hmmm, not sure I would umbrella both science and relligion as systems of "belief".
As you yourself say, science is about hypothesising and theorising based on observation and experiment. The only point "belief" enters into this is if you are seriously suggesting that scientists may be lying to us. If a scientist comes up with a hypothesis, then I won't automatically accept it. If I read that same hypothesis and gleam some knowledge of their observations and reasoning then I may agree with it. There is no "blind belief" in science.
As I said, that is why I side on evolution over God creating the world, it's not "blind belief"... my point is simply this: Unless YOU yourself, have flown around the world, how can you possibly say "The world IS DEFINITELY 100% round and not flat" without it being a belief?
I'm not saying the Earth isn't round, of course it is, it's just to illustrate the point. It's still a belief, just it is a belief that's near infinitely more probably right than it is wrong. Whereas a lot of the beliefs Fundamentalist Christians have are (to my mind) almost infinitely more probably wrong than they are right.
Quote from: lemmy101 on Wed 12/04/2006 18:00:57
my point is simply this: Unless YOU yourself, have flown around the world, how can you possibly say "The world IS DEFINITELY 100% round and not flat" without it being a belief?
Because I have seen photographs of the Earth from space. I have observed the arc of the horizon. I don't need to have been to Turkey to accept it's existence :D
Quote from: CaptainBinky on Wed 12/04/2006 18:03:39
Quote from: lemmy101 on Wed 12/04/2006 18:00:57
my point is simply this: Unless YOU yourself, have flown around the world, how can you possibly say "The world IS DEFINITELY 100% round and not flat" without it being a belief?
Because I have seen photographs of the Earth from space. I have observed the arc of the horizon. I don't need to have been to Turkey to accept it's existence :D
And the cat in the box is an observer too. ;)
Maybe but I consider that Thermodynamics presents a rather damning evidence against the idea of "Life from non Life." like Scotty said (though he did it often enough Ã, ;) ) "ya can' break' ta laws of physics captain." Ã, ;D Ã, AS well the breeding of Dogs is a rather bad example. Yes they may act, look, even SMELL different. but they all can breed with other dogs. AS well dogs have a VERY Ã, large (larger then humans) genetic code, Allowing large variation within the their kind. I am not a religious person. I don't get up in church, wave my hands like an idiot. Heck I don't even go to church. Are you saying Just because my hypotheses does not fit the standard science model I am an Blind idiot? Dogma is always dogma, no matter what the subject is.
Quote from: lo_res_man on Wed 12/04/2006 18:07:55
Are you saying Just because my hypotheses does not fit the standard science model I am an Blind idiot? Dogma is always dogma, no matter what the subject is.
No! I would never cast judgement on a person based on their beliefs or ideas. What I am saying is that while you have a good argument for the dismissal of life through cumulative change, there is an equal argument that such a mechanism could exist. And to me the crux of it all is defining what life actually is (and I don't know, by the way) :)
You quite right Captain Binkey. What I dislike is the idea presented to the public as if it ( cumulative change) was the ONLY possibility. Now I agree Intelligent Design is foolish because it only pushes back the problem, while still having to work with those pesky laws of thermodynamics. That is why I believe in a extrauniversal God. It doesn't answer were god came from, but it allows more possibilities, at the same time it DOES answer were the universe came from. You believe your model of the universe, and I will believe mine, and we can go discover the secrets of the universe, while having different models to interpret the phenomena
Quote from: CaptainBinky on Wed 12/04/2006 17:55:16
The only point "belief" enters into this is if you are seriously suggesting that scientists may be lying to us.
Not lying. Just mistaken due to bias.
Like when they found those "fresh" T-rex bones.
Just goes say, the more we know the more we know, we know nothing. (Say that ten times fast ;D)
The best thing about scientific thinking is that the moment proof of a divine being is established, the scientific community will adapt that into what they know now and discard what goes against it... The same can not be said for the other side of this debate.
The reason I mention this is because when people bring up moments when a scientist or a once common held belief among the scientific community was proven wrong, they think it leads to some sort of conclusion that the entire thing is a big crock.
I can agree with that, in fact I am ashamed of some of the dogmatic "God did it cuz’ I said he did it." attitude of a large number of creationists. or worse "the bible says so" the bible while a fascinating quasi-historical-mythical-metaphorical piece of literature will get one nowhere in a debate. I am not saying science is crock, I just think evolutionary scientists could be a bit more open to other idea's. Maybe there is no god and we are just flouting in an end less void. So creationists need to modify there beliefs to new information? SO could many evolutionists, in my opinion. Scientists are human, and hold treasured beliefs quite firmly.
What other ideas do you want the evolutionary scientists to be open too? And is there no evolutionary scientist that is open to these ideas?
I didn't say creationists have to modify their beliefs, that's not really their thing with a very good reason. If the Bible don't say it, it didn't happen! [sorta]
So then do you agree that your previous discussion about thermodynamics and life not being created from non-life is something that could change at any moment? Forgive me if you've already stated that.
And speaking about scientists is really vague. Everyone has their own view of what scientists are, yes they are just humans but it's not like every scientist meets and says "Ok, here's what we believe!" There is a constant push and pull and a constant poking and prodding of what works and what doesn't work and why does it and why doesn't it.
Besides, how much of the scientific community is devoted to proving god or gods don't exist? Not much at all I wager. They're poking at science and observing and documenting and learning, not disproving god every chance they get. Even if for some reason there was a divine being that created everything, unless there was a direct line to that being for everyone to ask questions, people would still want to know how it all works. But anyway...
Quote from: MrColossal on Wed 12/04/2006 21:09:29
What other ideas do you want the evolutionary scientists to be open too? And is there no evolutionary scientist that is open to these ideas?
I wouldn't say that, but the general public consensus seems to be "God CAN"T exist". what each individual scientist thinks is well, up to each individual.
Quote from: MrColossal on Wed 12/04/2006 21:09:29
I didn't say creationists have to modify their beliefs, that's not really their thing with a very good reason. If the Bible don't say it, it didn't happen! [sorta]
Then what does that make me? Not an evolutionist, not a intelligent designer proponent, and (according to your definition) not a creationist.
Quote from: MrColossal on Wed 12/04/2006 21:09:29
So then do you agree that your previous discussion about thermodynamics and life not being created from non-life is something that could change at any moment? Forgive me if you've already stated that.
That’s Ok :) if someone can show me how it could happen, all right then, but I am not holding my breath. I think it is (and until someone proves me wrong) quite a severe blow to evolution as it now stands.
Quote from: MrColossal on Wed 12/04/2006 21:09:29
Besides, how much of the scientific community is devoted to proving god or gods don't exist? Not much at all I wager.
True enough, they are not scheming on how to keep the idea of god out of the world like some stupid (as if it isn't enough) variation on one of those stupid "Jews rule the WORLD!" ideas.
BUT for scientist, evolution is the dominant theory to explain the how life came to be. And in any community it is difficult to think outside the accepted paradigm. To accept unpopular beliefs is a great way to send your career on a fast track to the slow lane. And no scientist wants that.
[edit]
Thanx Becky, I appreciate the nit picking :)
QuoteBUT for scientist, evolution is the dominant theory to explain the universe.
Wrong. Evolution is a purely biological theory, concerned with the development of life, NOT how the world was made, or where it came from. The "Big Bang" theory and that of evolution are not the same thing.
:-[ erm, sorry about that. Your right Becky! As you can see I changed the post above, to fitr your standerds. Thanx :D
QuoteEvolution has always seemed inductive to me, personally. The theory itself has changed so many times (i.e. prominent scientists no longer believe in the spotted moths or the fetal stage transformations), I place it on the same shelf as other religions.
Those pesky scientists always changing their minds, it was much easier when the only elements were Water, Fire, Air and Earth!
It made revising for tests so much simpler at least.
I remember when they sprung Ether on us... I was like "WHAT?! I'll never remember all of this!"
By your powers combined, I am Captain Planet?
Ether actually is a very good example of how scientists can take just as long as anyone to change there mind.
Ether was noted to be a problem almost as soon as it was postulated. Even when electromagnetic waves were thought of, it took quite a while before they were accepted. Why because Newton, was untouchable. Anyone who disagreed with him was almost automatically considered wrong. They thought that the last puzzles of physics were clicking into place, and by the end of the 19th century, all would be understood. We know now they were dead wrong.
Quote from: lo_res_man on Wed 12/04/2006 22:48:11
Ether actually is a very good example of how scientists can take just as long as anyone to change there mind.
Ether was noted to be a problem almost as soon as it was postulated. Even when electromagnetic waves were thought of, it took quite a while before they were accepted. Why because Newton, was untouchable. Anyone who disagreed with him was almost automatically considered wrong. They thought that the last puzzles of physics were clicking into place, and by the end of the 19th century, all would be understood. We know now they were dead wrong.
Well that's how science works. We figured it out in the end, didn't we?
It was the same thing with religion; Anyone who questioned God was wrong. And now, alot of creationists are adjusting Christianity to modern science, claiming that man and dinosaur lived hand in hand.
Which is wrong.
then could someone explain to me the Taylor trail on the Paluxy river bed, near glenn rose texes were there are Dino prints and homonid prints in the same place? some times even homonid prints within the dino prints.
Quotethen could someone explain to me the Taylor trail on the Paluxy river bed, near glenn rose texes were there are Dino prints and homonid prints in the same place? some times even homonid prints within the dino prints.
Sure. A visit to Google and Wikipedia finds this: http://paleo.cc/paluxy/tsite.htm, where the paleontologist draws the conclusion that:
"In September of 1984 Hastings and I extended the documentation of the Taylor Site, finding some new and startling evidence to confirm that the Taylor Site "man tracks" were in fact elongated dinosaur tracks."
That and the lack of any hominid fossils prior to 4 million years ago. The dinosaurs were extinct around 65 million years ago. In fact, you may want to take a look at this web page (http://andabien.com/html/words/evolution-px.htm) to get a grasp of the sheer time scale evolution takes place over. One pixel is approximately 30,000 years.
Quote from: HillBilly on Wed 12/04/2006 23:06:21Well that's how science works. We figured it out in the end, didn't we?
A somewhat unfortunate way to phrase it (we certainly don't have the whole universe figured out just yet), but that's indeed the point to see here: ether was discarded because, as the situation developed, it simply couldn't at all stand up to the evidence, and it should be remembered that the modern scientific method is just that: modern. It only gradually developed and spread out to the various disciplines and subdisciplines of science.
Today, we're able to launch a probe into space so that it ends up in orbit around a different planet (http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM2GQNFGLE_index_0.html) that's currently 120 million kilometers away. You can't eyeball that sort of aim. You need careful measurement and planning, and for that you need the predictive power of modern physics. This does involve rocket science, after all.
Here's an example of what this has to do with what certain annoying people like to call macroevolution: the discovery of
Tiktaalik was more or less predicted (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0406/p02s01-stss.html):
QuoteThe discovery caps a search that spans five field trips over six years aimed at filling this gap in the fossil records. The team knew the kind of rock formations they needed to search, pored over detailed geological maps, then settled on a set of sites to search.
That is: they decided, based on the evidence given by the prior fossil record and on the current views in geology (also a science that involves trying to find out what happened in the hilariously distant past!), where in time and space such a creature would have existed and been likely to end up fossilized, and where such places would have shifted to by now, and then they went there and
found it. It still took years, of course, because science is almost always hard work and they didn't exactly have infinite manpower.
lo_res_man, anyone else this applies to: you could check the Talk.Origins FAQs (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html) for the scientific perspective on things - see, for example, this bit (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo) on the second law of thermodynamics. If you like, you can still decide they're all just educated stupid and evil, but at least this gives you the option of finding out, in some detail, precisely what variety of stupid and evil you're dealing with.
Quote from: Fuzzpilz on Thu 13/04/2006 00:01:43A somewhat unfortunate way to phrase it (we certainly don't have the whole universe figured out just yet)
I didn't claim that either, I was talking about ether.
I'm just saying that science works trough research, discovery, trial and error. I don't think we'll ever figure out the universe, but science has come a long way the last century.
True and I would never disagree with that. I LOVE science by the way, One of my fondest hopes a little kiddle was going to the moon, I love poaring over facts and such.
Now I read the the bit on law of thermodynamics. but I disagree. yes life is a creates more life. but life doesn't "want" to exist.what I am asking is how life could originate. from utterly dead matter. Quite likley I am a foolish man trying to convince others of my own dogma, but I am still convinced. and no I don't think they are evil or stupid. i am not
so foolish as that. can't think of anything else to say right now, except, What IS a universe? That is probebly the ultimite question.
Quote from: lo_res_man on Thu 13/04/2006 00:35:58
what I am asking is how life could originate. from utterly dead matter.
It is an enigma. But at what point would you consider something to be alive? How complex does it have to be? At the end of the day, I think the argument all comes down to your personal belief on what it is to be human because if humans have souls then explaining the process of human evolution without some sort of creationist angle in there somewhere is extremely hard (possibly impossible). However, I don't believe in a soul, therefore explaining the phenomena for me is more simple - cumulative small change as I've said previously where the fundamental building block of life would be a replicating machine. The replicating machine in itself doesn't constitute "life" but it does become the basis of it's development.
In fact, there is evidence to show how life can be created from non-life (depending on how you look at it). And that's during development of embryos. A sperm cell and an egg cell are "manufactured" in the body from non-living components.
Ignoring the semantic discussion of this thread, I ignorantly wander off into my own little tangent. I distrust religion because its core tends to made of "I'm right - you're wrong". Being dragged behind upon that thought's coat-tails is the concept that it is a right person's duty to correct people that are wrong.
Science doesn't have all the answers, and - yes - some of the answers found are incorrect, but it grows stronger with one side versus the other discussion, and has taken far fewer lives in pursuit of making its theories universal.
A Salmiditionist (made-up religious term) can certainly believe in the all-knowing bubble of membranous nose-substance and believe that scientists will be punished by not being allowed to join with the holy proteins after death. The instant they determine that they need to divert my life's course in pursuit of spreading their non-material theory they can, frankly, go fuck themselves.
Quote from: TheYak on Thu 13/04/2006 13:49:13
I distrust religion because its core tends to made of "I'm right - you're wrong".Ã, Being dragged behind upon that thought's coat-tails is the concept that it is a right person's duty to correct people that are wrong.
I would be more inclined to think that the "I'm right, you're wrong" viewpoint is not just limited to religion. In fact, I'd say it's a universally human concept.
You're wrong. No it isn't.
If you ask this monkey, it is probably because, except when we get in to very esoteric subjects, one CAN be right or wrong. "Krug see rock" "No, Krug see bunny," "Rock!" "Bunny!!" "ROCK!!!" "Krug see rock, cuz' krug want Ã, sex with ma"
"err..KRUG SMASH FRAUD!!" see how silly it is?(Also why fraud would never have survived the Neolithic) One of the gifts of languages is that people can disagree. One person may have better eyesight., one may a better vantage point. things like that. with languages they can share information.
HOWEVER in MOST topics of the prehistoric world, ONE was right and the other wasn't. Agreeing with someone that a lion was a rabbit when you see a lion, got you killed more often then if you disagreed. you might be wrong, but the bunny is no danger, while a lion IS! which is why this innate human stubbornness could be in place.
I believe beause that of angels they are softest and have pleasant dreams. God is a man who has one beard and the gostos to agitate poles in dogs but it will only make this in the day of rest. I find this very sad I make any one I agree? ???
Dude. That makes no sense whatsoever. :-\
Quote from: MrColossal on Thu 13/04/2006 17:34:23
You're wrong. No it isn't.
"No it isn't" as in no, I'm not wrong?
You're wrong in the fact that the "I'm right, you're wrong" viewpoint is a universally human concept. ba dum?
Oh yeah? Prove it.
Hello,
I, too, have been having some problems with this. My friends on another forum are not Christians, and I am, and we got in some debates over this. But I'm not going to get into that right now...
I am a Christian. And I know that God is real, no doubt about that! I know from my own personal experiences that God is real.
Ok, first of all-my opinion is that, in a country, for everything to be completely fair, you should have the same punishments for the same crimes. For example... kill a dog, go to jail, kill an unborn baby, and you should get the same punishment. Or, kill a dog, be set free, and kill an unborn baby, and be set free. Same goes for murderers, though, that would be politically fair. But that's my opinion and really has nothing to do with the discussion anyway.
If we want a truely fair country with politics and religion seperated, we should probably stick to "hurt anybody else, go to jail" but as long as you don't do anything to hurt anybody else, then it should probably be your choice, because, that's freedom, and that the way we were made to be, with a free choice. But, I think it should be a choice, but not a right.
That would be politically correct, in my opinion.
But if we wanted a country that is biblically correct, we'd have to do something along the lines of kill a dog, be set free, kill a baby, go to jail, etc. Then again, same thing as above, we could have total freedom and basically be an anarchist country.
In the end, it's all religion vs. politics, and I think half the country wants it based on religion, and half on politics. That's what's caused this whole dispute, because anything in between wouldn't really be fair for either side-both want an extreme version of their ideal country.
That's why I'm going to buy a private island in the middle of the ocean and live as a hermit one of these days. Heh xD
As for your questions...
1. Ã, Do the Christians (a majority) stand a chance of getting Bible-based legislation passed?
Yes, but so do non-Christians...
2. Ã, Do you believe that Bible-based legislation SHOULD be passed?
Personally, yes. But if we want a free country, no, because I know nobody would be happy with that.
3. Ã, Do you feel that religion and politics intertwine naturally and that an American Theocracy in favor of the majority is inevitable?
Err... I didn't understand half of that, but yes. Religion and politics can intertwine. But they can be independent as well.
4. Ã, If a Christian juggernaut formed and began moving towards a Theocracy, what would you do? (Either to help it or stop it.)
Errrrrr... what?
As for the rest of the discussion... I know that there are people out there who say they are Christians. There can be frauds out there. Don't listen to them. I'm sorry, very sorry, that there are these kinds of people. We call them the "baptized in lemon juice" people where I live. I have noticed this lately, what a fraud the whole stereotypical "Christian" belief can actually be. But, yes, I am a Christian, I have no specific belief. Frankly, most beliefs (catholicsm, mormonism, etc.) are usually frauds... sometimes they aren't even technically called a Christian belief. Christianity shouldn't be a religion, it should be a friendship with God. That's the way it is with me. I would talk more about this, but I fear a long debate in caps ending in 50 exclamation points...
Quote from: Rolf on Fri 14/04/2006 01:06:45
I believe beause that of angels they are softest and have pleasant dreams.Ã, God is a man who has one beard and the gostos to agitate poles in dogs but it will only make this in the day of rest.Ã, I find this very sad I make any one I agree?Ã, ???
Rolf: Funniest post ever. Genius!
Quote from: The Inquisitive Stranger on Thu 13/04/2006 17:16:57
I would be more inclined to think that the "I'm right, you're wrong" viewpoint is not just limited to religion. In fact, I'd say it's a universally human concept.
Phrased poorly. Apologies. The essense of religion, as I was expressing it is beginning with a question of explanation. Since it can't be proven, one person's opinion quickly dominates the other giving them power relinquished from unknowable, immaterial deities. Aside from the varying myths and legends, many religions seem to have a core doctrine of, "We know the truth, others do not. Ours is absolute." I certainly shouldn't have lumped all religions into this as some are less imperialistic about it, if they've got that doctrine at all.
Also, as mentioned, the right/wrong concept leads to improvements in sciences, ability to see different perspectives in debate, and is often expressed as matters of opinion or right v. wrong in the sense of determining who has the most evidence. Religions tend to state that they are fundamental, universal truths without allowing for admission of opinion or omission of fact.
I may be wrong on account of having done no research or study on the subject, but I can't recall any scientists putting people to death for disagreeing with them. I do recall several periods wherein religious persons killed, including the occasional heretical scientist. I'm diverting too much into a science *versus* religion rambling when I actually just find it frustrating that it can't be science *and* religion for religious folks, since they're not mutually exclusive.
"Science and religion aren't mutually exclusive!"
Whereas a religion can say one thing about the beginning of the world, mankind and the apocryphal doctorine governing all that, and as the case IS, that religion's followers will reap the benefits of thousands of years' worth of continued scientific research, this doesn't mean the followers aknowledge any enduring, lasting truth about the nature of things can be found via analytical research and evidence-gathering, the tools of science. In fact, the analytical mode of thought is counter-intuitive for a religious person, who, regardless of specific creed, more-or-less agrees that 'reason' is not the way to approach the truth about mankind, life and the universe. Religion is doctorine, science is tool. The two do not operate on the same level.
A religious person says about science: "if you want a machine that can shave you faster, you go to science. If you want to save your immortal soul, you turn to religion." And I don't really disagree that much. Remember, I am completely agnostic and have absolutely no faith in gods. My modification is "if you want a machine that can shave you faster, you go to science. If you wish to understand the inner workings of the human, you're fucked." Science is able to map out large bodies of information about the thing it's researching, let's say the human brain, right? Eventually, we're going to gather very rounded information about neurological workings, and science will say 'we understand how everything works now' but my problem is this. If you show me a map of the world, I have not been in every place (even scarier, I have not been to every place AT ONCE, my sight cannot cover everything). I see lines on a piece of paper, I see symbols and meaning, but it's foreign to what amounts to gazing at the WHOLE OF THE WORLD, right? It's just a communicational impression. Likewise, if you show me a map to the brain, or indeed a map to a man's soul, this does not tell me what it is to be human, it tells me nothing about myself. What I see is... a communicational impression. Information is not the same as knowledge, and knowledge is not the same as experience. Science will never teach us experience via knowledge. It will always give space for new experience of course, but it will not illustrate, to the puny conscious self, the workings of the whole mechanism that is a human, that is humans in relation, that is the whole world in relation. It will draw us fancy maps, and with the information there will arise many practical uses that will make our lives safer, more fun, faster and more efficient, but it will not make us understand ourselves.
I'm going to turn upon and consume my own tail. I would agree that the concepts in and of themselves are, in fact, completely exclusive. However, within a social context - in a single person, for example - people can designate things given over to science and those towards religion.
What I was thinking about when I wrote that was how I seldom hear of Christians who support the theories of the Big Bang or evolution as being potential mechanisms of God's will. Coming to that conclusion doesn't contradict things stated in the Bible, particularly if one reads the appropriate text as symbolic. However, it's the intrusion of logic and experiment-based understanding into their ethereal realm that seems to make them reject the idea without consideration. Even introducing the subject to my religious teachers brought gasps of indignation at the gall of even implying that their could be explanations to the magician's tricks.
Quote from: TheYak on Fri 14/04/2006 10:44:44
...I seldom hear of Christians who support the theories of the Big Bang or evolution as being potential mechanisms of God's will.
Hey, a lot of them do. They just aren't as loud as the ones who don't.
Quote from: The Inquisitive Stranger on Fri 14/04/2006 20:27:53
Quote from: TheYak on Fri 14/04/2006 10:44:44
...I seldom hear of Christians who support the theories of the Big Bang or evolution as being potential mechanisms of God's will.
Hey, a lot of them do. They just aren't as loud as the ones who don't.
They are also way fewer in USA than in other countries, and if you find them there they're mostly slacky christians (correct me if I'm wrong)
TheYak, you're absolutely right. Religions should emphasize evidence more.
Which is why I got into science, kind of-(see my username)... There is a program on TV called "The Creation Network"... which is really exactly what you're talking about. The Creation Network gives evidence for Christianity, most of the time they look at fossils, etc. You should really watch it. It's one of the best science shows I've seen, as they give facts instead of just theories, like most shows on the Science channel.
It's on a channel called "Angel", I think, or maybe it's Sky Angel. There's another show similiar to it, as well, called "Creation in the 21st Century", that on the TBN channel. Both I found very interesting, especially when they started talking about microscopic cellular stuff that was way over my head.
Anyway, watch it-it's interesting, no matter what you believe.
Also-any one who kills somebody because the victim was not a christian is certainly not a Christian, it goes against the entire teaching of the New Testament.
The catholics did this many years ago, but the catholics also believing in worshipping saints, which would be considered idolatry.
And-I know Christians who believe in the Big Bang/Evolution theory. My cousin does. I don't know why he does, because when I debated with him about it, he didn't do a very good job of explaining.
I, myself, don't believe in the Big Bang or Evolution theory, because
1. The Bible says God created everything in a certain way that doesn't agree with Evolution
and
2. Recent scientific evidence goes against the theory of Evolution. It's not as known as most evidence, for some reason, but that's why you have to watch the above mentioned shows.
Quote from: Grapefruitologist on Fri 14/04/2006 03:18:16
Ok, first of all-my opinion is that, in a country, for everything to be completely fair, you should have the same punishments for the same crimes. For example... kill a dog, go to jail, kill an unborn baby, and you should get the same punishment.
Uniform punishments? Read this book, or at least the notes on it (http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/disciplinepunish/) before you set your belief in stone.
As far as theistic evolution goes, the Bible doesn't exactly describe the process God used when creating the universe. The theory inserts evolution within the "days" in the first chapter of Genesis. I put "days" in quotes because the chapter uses the term before the earth's revolution (day and night) was in motion. The theory claims that these days were actually periods of time (eras?), but days were used to better relate to the reader without overcomplicating. They say the point of the text is that God created the universe, not God created the universe from a mixture of oxygen, hydrogen, carbon... If it went into details, the emphasis might be misconstrued.
Quote2. Recent scientific evidence goes against the theory of Evolution. It's not as known as most evidence, for some reason, but that's why you have to watch the above mentioned shows.
What recent scientific evidence?
Its also funny how Creationists will listen to scientific evidence AGAINST Evolution but not FOR Evolution. :P
A man a time that said me "that I think that is going to be a long long stay until we really to know that life is approximately." I agree to its sights I am Religiion I am just to explain the things that we cannot explain.
Quote from: big brother on Fri 14/04/2006 23:34:57
I put "days" in quotes because the chapter uses the term before the earth's revolution (day and night) was in motion. The theory claims that these days were actually periods of time (eras?), but days were used to better relate to the reader without overcomplicating.
Just adding that "days" might also be interpreted differently if one uses other biblical passages. "To God, a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day (sorry, from memory, but text is similar)".
----
Additionally, the word "Word" was a quick translation of a concept of spirit and force, as in the following passage from one of the John books (again.. faulty memory): "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God, the same was in the beginning with God." An interesting passage since it's the only other reference to the beginning (IIRC).
In discussing science as a supplement to Biblical knowledge, I've yet to meet a Christian that was willing to even discuss it. If they reject it as part of their theology, so be it, but it'd be nice if after listening to their plugs they'd hear me out. *shrug* Specifically, I don't see why evolution couldn't have been initiated by God, and these "days" being eras of change. It doesn't compromise their theology, make their God any less amazing and lends the potential of more understanding of the natural world.
Additionally, the "Word" segment could very well be describing energy in existence that was "without form and void" (i.e. energy, or possibly "dark" matter), that in the constant state of flux between energy and matter gave rise to the massive explosion that set the loop in motion. Preposterous, I know, compared to miracles and magic, but the religion and the scientific theory aren't necessarily contradictory.
Quote from: TheYak on Sat 15/04/2006 04:45:51
In discussing science as a supplement to Biblical knowledge, I've yet to meet a Christian that was willing to even discuss it.Ã, If they reject it as part of their theology, so be it, but it'd be nice if after listening to their plugs they'd hear me out.Ã, *shrug*Ã, Specifically, I don't see why evolution couldn't have been initiated by God, and these "days" being eras of change.Ã, It doesn't compromise their theology, make their God any less amazing and lends the potential of more understanding of the natural world.Ã,Â
Well, you haven't met me, because that's along the lines of what I think ^_^.Ã,Â
In my mind, evolution and creation can certainly co-exist, and I'm not the only one.Ã, From the Catechism of the Catholic Church itself: "The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimension of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man.Ã, These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers.Ã, With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements... for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me""
Something with little circles in the cellular structure of granite, or something like that. Also a few other discoveries. You should really watch the shows I mentioned, and you'll see what I mean.
LimpingFish-I have heard no reliable evidence for Evolution. Ã, :-\ The ones they have found have been mostly disproven by now...
For example, the half lizard half bird... it was a young tropical bird that now lives in Africa. The birds lose their teeth when they get older, but when they are young, they have teeth and claws like lizards for escaping from predators.
And I don't like how you say ALL Creationists don't listen to both sides. I watch Paleoworld (a show giving the Evolutionary viewpoint on fossils and history) as well as Creation in the 21st Century and the Creation Network.
But in all the years I've been studying paleontology (as I want to be a paleontologist)... I have found no evidence for Evolution with a reliable source or even a simple explanation. I have talked to numerous paleontologists... all of which believe in the theory of Evolution, but not one of them can even come close to explaining why their theory has any proof for it, they only say that it is proven... And thus I have come to the conclusion that Creation has more evidence for it than Evolution.
Of all the books I have read, of all the shows I have seen and all the scientists I have questioned, I can not find just ONE bit of reliable evidence for Evolution. The fossil record is against it. Darwin himself said, "as we walk across our lawn, we should be stepping on missing links." (Or something like that, not the exact quote)
If the population in the world today is billions of people, then a few million years ago, when we were supposedly in the neanderthal stage, it must have been at least a few million. Those early people would have had to go through many generations to evolve into us today-millions of people multiplied by millions of years, that would mean that simply billions of fossils would be scattered throughout the Earth, all of which were half human half ape. And yet, we have only found about, what, 20? All of which were disproven in some way (many were found to have no evidence of human ancestry in them, and many without ape ancestry, some were hoaxes.)
Also note that the textbooks in schools are outdated and still give disproven information out as a fact. One of the books I have been reading from, "Exploring Creation with Physical Science", is one of the most recent books, from 2005.
Quote: "Before we go on, I want you to think about what you have learned for a moment. Earth just
happens Ã, to have all the right quantities of those gases; and they just
happen to be in the right place. If nearly any other gas than nitrogen or argon diluted the atmosphere, life could not exist. If If too much or too little oxygen was in the air, then life could not exist. Similarly, if too much or too little carbon dioxide were in the air, life on earth would not be possible. In addition, not only does life dpened on ozone, but it also depends on ozone being far away from the life that it is protecting. Beyond all of this, the gases int he air are all replenished when they are used, keeping their concentrations relatively constant over time!
Accidents do not produce the intricacy that we see in the air that we see around us. Only intelligent design does!Truly, anyone who understands the science of air must excersize an
enormous amount of faith to believe that all of this occured by chance!
Quote
And the tests from the book:
QuoteQuestion: A very popular evolutionary theory of how life originated on the planet requires that, at one point, there was no oxygen in the atmosphere. This theory, of course, assumes that the first life form did not breathe oxygen. Since there are organisms today that can exist without breathing oxygen, this is not as fantastic as it may first sound. Based on what you learned in this section, however, what serious objection can you raise against the theory that life originated on an earth with no oxygen in its air?
Answer: No oxygen means no ozone. With no ozone layer, no life form would be able to exist. Remember, the earth replenishes its ozone supply from its oxygen supply. With no oxygen, there will be no ozone.
Before you start saying that Creationists don't listen to evidence for Evolution, look at yourself, and please watch and read the books and shows I have mentioned. If you give me evidence for Evolution, I will listen. But I have yet to see any.
BTW-sorry it took so long for me to post this...
Quote from: LimpingFish on Sat 15/04/2006 00:19:41
Its also funny how Creationists will listen to scientific evidence AGAINST Evolution but not FOR Evolution.Ã, :P
Again, this isn't limited to just creationists and evolution. It isn't even limited to just religious people, for that matter.
Quote from: Grapefruitologist on Sat 15/04/2006 05:49:02
. . . Before you start saying that Creationists don't listen to evidence for Evolution, look at yourself, and please watch and read the books and shows I have mentioned. If you give me evidence for Evolution, I will listen. But I have yet to see any.
BTW-sorry it took so long for me to post this...
There's no real refutation of a matter of faith. Please understand, however, that to somebody who doesn't believe in the Christian god, these arguments for Intelligent Design do no more to validate the existence of God & Jesusman than they do Vishnu, Zeus, or any other deity (extraterrestrial like as well, for that matter).
Furthermore there's no "evidence" for creationism that I've heard of - only evidence against secular theories. While the theory of evolution could be proven incorrect or at least founded upon incorrect assumptions, it's at least an attempt to explain our origins. Creationism simply shakes its head and claims that it's too complicated for comprehension.
A magician saws a woman in half. A scientist might have a horribly incorrect theory as to how this was accomplished, such as, "He had already prepared a surgically-separated woman for the demonstration." A more supernaturally-oriented person might exclaim that it's truly magic beyond any material explanation. This doesn't make either any more right, but I'll side with the person who's at least attempting to understand it.
"I don't know how, exactly, but I know that guy's idea is wrong." While this might be all that's needed for a religious person, having the issue of teaching anti-theory versus theory as a subject of debate seems preposterous to me.
I'm hoping that the book you quoted goes into a good deal more depth than that. If the proportions of gases were different than currently, the lifeforms would exist under those different criteria, and their more complex specimens would be saying the same thing, "It's a good thing our atmosphere is comprised of 31% oxygen, otherwise life as we know it wouldn't exist." Considering that these "ideal" conditions occured only once (to our knowledge) out of the countless planets in countless solar systems, it seems redundant to claim a 1-in-100 billion chance of occurance when that's seemingly the case. Of course, that's utterly disregarding evidence of not only water, but other chemical catalysts, found on Mars. Statisticians in the creationism field like to cite the X out of Y probability of chance occurence when it's not only chance coming into play, it's the adaptation and manipulation influenced by life's existence.
Being told countless times that the Earth is anywhere from 5,000 to 10,000 years old, despite any evidence or logic to the contrary, I wonder when the religious will stop trying to use secular tools to convince others of matters of belief. Thus far, it's apparently not working too well.
If you can't give me a conclusive link to an actual scientific study, then I'm not going to sit here and be convinced of the fact that recent scientific studies have disproved evolution. Telling me to watch television shows means little to me, as I cannot find the sources for their viewpoints.
If you've seen no evidence for evolution yourself, you must not be looking very hard. I suggest you read Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org), particularly the article on 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4) for starters. Then you may be interested in observed instances of speciation (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html).
Furthermore, the argument "there aren't enough fossils"...do you even know what conditions must be present to form a fossil? Try looking at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossils#Rarity_of_fossils. The fact is, nowhere near all members of every species will be preserved, and not every species that comes into existance will be preserved either.
Science got it wrong before? Should we blindly continue believing the world to be flat despite the immense evidence that it is not, just because otherwise science will look bad?
This is not really an argument but I do think it's worth a mention. It's interesting how only in America is there any talk about creationism and 'disproving' evolution and whatnot. Christians in the rest of the civilized world, orthodox or potestant or catholic or whatever, don't raise a big fuss about this. I wonder what makes american christians so bent on teaching me how the world started back 5,000 or so in school.
Quote from: Grapefruitologist on Sat 15/04/2006 05:49:02
Accidents do not produce the intricacy that we see in the air that we see around us. Only intelligent design does!Truly, anyone who understands the science of air must excersize an enormous amount of faith to believe that all of this occured by chance!
It would certainly be an astonishing coincidence - were Earth the only planet in the universe. As it is, with untold millions and billions of planets out there, the event of such seemingly unlikely occurances becomes somewhat less impressive to me.
Just a note on the probability of evolution: if the movement of everything in the universe truly is random, then eventually, in infinite time: every possible configuration will occur at some point. While it might not be probable for human evolution to occur in a finite amount of time, when dealing with infinite time it is definite (of course, with certain premises...).
You, sir, are bad for the soul.
Helm's post (found the question why America is a religious country interesting):
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a397/dellgines/InGodWeTrust_s.jpg
As I see it, it is because religion is such a integrated part of the American society and way of life. It is in the constitution and can be used as a leverage/tool for other purposes such as politics. It gives unity in a huge country with contradicting opinions.
But why religion and especially Christianity is such a big deal in America is still somewhat unclear to me (do common people really truly really believe in God)?
Americans in general seem aware of their rights and eager to use/defend them, and the country seems to have a very survival of the fittest/opportunist mentality. As I have understood, most things in America revolve around money - good healthcare, education, services have a price tag.
Guess religion gives some sort of different/lasting security that fickle dollars/materialism (now you have them, now you don't) cannot. I'd like to hear anyone who knows more about this/has ideas of their own.
As I have understood, creationism/ID is only openly teached in America (although America forces/influences views with military, media, language and example, so I still hear/see current events).
Assuming you meant with "civilized world" everything except developing countries with missionaries, creationists exist here as well (I know a girl who doesn't believe in evolution) but they are a minority and thus not as visible (not to mention that they could never force creationism into curriculum without help). They still hold with teeth and claws onto their beliefs and occasionally make a fuzz amongst other people with opinions.
Concludingly, I believe american christians use their voice/raise a fuzz more than the ones in my country, because one has to make an effort in the american society to be heard/ be aware of their rights or get trampled on (meaning not only american christians make a fuzz, but americans in general). It seems american society is in some ways harsher than european (at least the part I live in) and more likely to use brute force to achieve it's goals (sports example: soccer vs. football).
This might be a unrealistic picture created by news and Hollywood, since I have never been there.
Regarding religion and evolution, I don't believe in God, fate, heaven, the soul, cryostatis or any kind of greater plan or will. I have no problem with evolution or science as long as it doesn't develop great authorities/stagnate and skeptics exist. If there is a God, I'm gonna spend an eternity in hell (or trapped in a sugar coated Disney movie with Jesus and other people), so I'm better off with an eternity of nothing after I die.
Biothlebop,
Yes, actually, the majority of Americans do truly believe in God, and only one.Ã, Most, that I know anyway, are very passionate about their beliefs, and want very strongly for you to share them too.Ã, That's why they aren't ashamed to want a Christian Theocracy in this country, because they believe it's for the best of everybody.
And you're right, America is essentially the big bully on the playground, telling everybody else what to do, how to behave, and then punishing them if they don't comply.Ã, I'm ashamed of a lot of what our "leaders" have turned America into.
You're right again, about having to make an effort to be heard in this country.Ã, I always say that getting people to believe you is not the hard part.Ã, The hard part is getting them to care.
I just found out that Meet the Press on MSNBC will be focusing on these very topics, tomorrow morning.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/
Should be very interesting.
Quote from: Raggit on Sat 15/04/2006 15:12:03
America is essentially the big bully on the playground, telling everybody else what to do, how to behave, and then punishing them if they don't comply. I'm ashamed of a lot of what our "leaders" have turned America into.
I recently began to read The Decline of the West (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Decline_of_the_West) by Oswald Spengler, and although I haven't entirely adopted or understood all his ideas, I do believe America's bullying (with Europe on it's heels) will come to an end someday. If America rises again or has it's place taken by some middle-eastern geographical region, is to be seen. The fact that you (and others) are ashamed of the current situation gives (in my eyes) hope for America to reinvent itself and lead the world into a new spring/cycle from culture to civilization. I still dig the Faustian path (a strive for perfection) better than some zen-ish philosophy though (nothing is important except gardening, and gardening is not that important).
Quote from: Raggit on Sat 15/04/2006 15:12:03
I always say that getting people to believe you is not the hard part. The hard part is getting them to care.
I doubt people will ever learn to care (for others), it seems to contradict the whole nature of life that is a struggle to stay alive. If there is a mankind in the future, our own belly will always be the nearest. In this way, there is much beauty in the way America looks today or what the Roman empire was, and it's not a shame to live in our times or belong to the country that leads the world. It would be nice though if everything was all great all over the world.
Quote from: biothlebop on Sat 15/04/2006 16:18:02
I recently began to read The Decline of the West (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Decline_of_the_West) by Oswald Spengler, and although I haven't entirely adopted or understood all his ideas, I do believe America's bullying (with Europe on it's heels) will come to an end someday.
I just hope that the end comes about through reform, not from being exiled from and destroyed by other nations. I know America isn't the most popular nation among the world today.
Yeah, me too. I fear Nuclear Weapons more than God.
Biothlebop, yes I understand what you're saying more or less. I see america as the current big bully too, but I don't fault the country as much as I fault europe for not providing a counterweight in the geopolitical power struggle. You cannot expect a country to not persue what it feels are it's best interests (what the US is currently doing, unchecked) and although I do agree that what constitutes the best for america is not a series of greedy wars, that sort of internal reevaluation would occur if a series of wars were in fact, contested by the rest of the world, not just neutrally-to-somewhat-discontently suffered by the EU as is the case.
Quote from: biothlebop on Sat 15/04/2006 16:18:02I doubt people will ever learn to care (for others), it seems to contradict the whole nature of life that is a struggle to stay alive.
what.
I know alot of people can be inconsiderate assholes, but that statement don't seem very well thought out. Of course, if you're put in a death camp and forced to hang someone in order to survive, most people would do it. But to say that people can't care is strongly underestimating the human race.
I agree Helm, however, America was designed to provide those checks of power here at Ã, home. Ã, However, George Bush has steam rolled over the other branches of government, and has decided that he can do whatever he wants, when he wants. Ã, Which makes him a dictator.
If our democracy was functioning properly, Bush wouldn't have been able to do the things he has done to America, as well as other nations. Ã, He, and his cabinet, would be in prison right now.
Democracy? I don't think the US has a democratic goverment... not when you have a two-party system that is essentially the exact same thing as far as foreign policy goes, and anyway, a dictatorship and a democratic country have been proven to go about securing their geopolitical interests in much the same way anyway. So Bush in office or some other puppet in office, it makes no difference
hillbilly: check out how human beings operate, try to deduct what natural causes drive them, you won't exhaust the complex motivations (I don't think anyone can), but you'll get what biothlebop was talking about in his 'not very well thought out' thing you quoted
Creation vs Evolution is a pointless debate. Period.
Each side is arguing from standpoints so vastly different, that a structured debate is impossible.
"I believe God created us because I believe in God."
To disprove creation is to disprove God.
Good luck with that.
QuotePeriod.
that's not very useful, or fun, is it?
Quote from: Helm on Sat 15/04/2006 21:34:36
QuotePeriod.
that's not very useful, or fun, is it?
But it IS consice.
Quote from: Helm on Sat 15/04/2006 20:51:27hillbilly: check out how human beings operate, try to deduct what natural causes drive them, you won't exhaust the complex motivations (I don't think anyone can), but you'll get what biothlebop was talking about in his 'not very well thought out' thing you quoted
No, I don't. If someone I knew was in danger, I'd care about that person. If a friend of mine had money trouble, I'd lend him some because I care. I don't believe that every action of man is a result of selfishness or survival. So please, explain to me how no human being is able to care about others. And please don't give me a "You only care about your friend so you can feel good about yourself" kind of answer.
Although I can deal with confrontational-omg-this-is-the-internet-lol tone just fine, I'm going to pass in this case because I don't owe you anything to have to bear with that kind of attitude. If you're really burning for debate, address me again, this time with good manners, making an effort to outline a clear position about your trouble, not preemptively telling me what argument I can and cannot present in return, and then I'll play.
Quote from: Helm on Sun 16/04/2006 10:24:22
Although I can deal with confrontational-omg-this-is-the-internet-lol tone just fine, I'm going to pass in this case because I don't owe you anything to have to bear with that kind of attitude. If you're really burning for debate, address me again, this time with good manners, making an effort to outline a clear position about your trouble, not preemptively telling me what argument I can and cannot present in return, and then I'll play.
All right, I'm sorry. I came of rather bold, I'll admit.
I'm not going to spend the rest of this post defending my actions, which is also human nature, since it's obviously a waste of time. But I'll ask you, nicely, for a explanation on how people can't care for eachother. We might have a deficiency of caring, but I don't see how it's an impossibility.
Hillbilly:
First, with others I meant strangers, the third world, a list of names, numbers, people you have not met
or perhaps only shaken hands with. Basically in a larger scale (the human race), not you and your family
(people as individuals).
Seeing a headline in the newspaper, I cannot mourn 700 dead people, but with the right picture,
I might shed a tear (although the media does it's best to flood, shock and numb me with sensational material).
It is unlikely though that I would feel anything (comparable to your recent money examples or friend in danger) but some kind of shallow "holy shit, that is not good" notion and go on with my day. I believe that how deeply something like this touches a person depends much on imagination and ability to identify with the situation, thus some selfishness is always involved even here.
If I began crying for the human race, the tears would never stop.
I do not doubt you care for your family or loved (this has practical/evolutional use regarding offspring and protecting them), but I see the "people caring for people they never met" as an invented thing that is not in our nature, but what we would like to be (the goal of our Faustian civilization).
Although civilizations have goals/ideals, (such as this strive to be samaritans) I doubt we will ever
reach a socialist utopia without exploitation of nature/animals/men.
Human perfectionists are doomed to fail, as is this civilization built on it, if not for the fact that we have chosen a battle that cannot be won, for the reason that empires aren't built to last.
The human race has no universal grand aspirations but to reproduce and in that way expand. This is even the fate of every great civilization (expansion and pursuing of it's interests), before it gives way to another.
Alright. I guess biothlebop covered most bases (that I know of) but here's a second retelling. I agree that altruism really doesn't exist. The theoretical caring for the world can be attributed instead, to one's need for security and control. You see, as animals, we foremost care about understanding and controlling our immediate surroundings, but unlike animals, we also have the mental capacity to grasp the theoretical bigger picture of what goes on generally, outside our sensory perception. And that picture is a scary one, and we are scared because we cannot control these dangerous conditions. I believe that when we see a picture of dead babies in a third world country, ridden with famine, disease and war, first of all we feel threatened. Then we knee-jerk into 'but this isn't happening to me' but the fear lingers on. Now, according to our disposition, we might rationalize this emotional response by dressing it up in altruistic terms where 'such a thing should never happen in this world!' or we might rationalize it as 'they deserved it!' or whatever shade in between. Just as long as we explain things, just as long as we make them safe, put them in their place. We will therefore, stand and empower an administration that seems to control the world, we will want our country ( our team, our family, ourselves ) to be the winning one. Because this is a game, and the stake is survival.
That is your altruism. That is your caring for the rest of the world. It's about control, loss of control, fear, repression and resistance. We will mold this world into a shape that cannot threaten us, so help us god, help us people, help us anyone. The left is lying when it's saying it cares about the world out of it's bleeding heart. I tell you this while I'm supposedly some kind of leftist. The left is simply rationalizing from a different proposition of what makes the world a safe place for themselves. It's a proposition I find more agreeable, but I will not attribute it to some altruistic desire for rainbow sunshine happiness for the worker wee mentality.
About you caring for your family or friends, about me caring for my family and friends. Although I don't address them as such, they are assets that we care for, directly linked with our self-worth and precieved success. Animalistic egoism drives personal interaction, coupled with the effects of self-awareness, the existential fear or being misunderstood and alone. And all this dressed up in infinitely complex interfacing effects... Would I say this is altruistic? I believe the word is meaningless.
That being said, I'm not one for moralizing, but if somebody helps people and makes people happy I enjoy that and try to underline that this is good (for my own benefit of course) and I don't see the reason to explain to people how they are being 'good' because they are making the world safer for themselves. It's just bad manners I think, but not untrue.
Quote from: biothlebop on Sun 16/04/2006 11:58:54
First, with others I meant strangers, the third world, a list of names, numbers, people you have not met
or perhaps only shaken hands with. Basically in a larger scale (the human race), not you and your family
(people as individuals)
So what you're saying is that
most people don't care for all the suffering in the world? In that case, I agree. But people can still care about strangers. The Red Cross help people all over the world,
no matter what. They don't care what your politics are, all they care about is helping people. They keep their mouths shut, and that's why they are the only medical aid organisation that's allowed on both sides. You could argue with "it's their job", but I think a great deal of those workers care about the casualties.
Helm, your input was an interesting read, but the way you described it towards the end, it was like caring didn't exist. And everyone who does good, does it to comfort him- or herself. If this is the case, which don't seem unreasonable, I think the word "care" should be defined as far as it can be stretched, atleast by human nature. Which is, and I feel like a dick to be quoting the dictionary here, "to be concerned or interested" and "to provide needed assistance". This I believe people can do. If it's driven behind a natural force of egotism buried deep back in your head, that's just how caring works.
Quotethat's just how caring works.
yes. Not saying we shouldn't use the world, but just discussing how many layers of bullshit one can strip from it and have it still retain functional use.
Religion has a purpose in this world, even if its core belief (belief in one or more gods) is not rational. Science can not and should not make moral judgments. It is not the job of science determine if something is moral or not. THAT is religion's job. It is supposed to be the voice that yells "STOP!" when an outrage occers.However religion doesn't always do that, for religions are made up of people, people with prejudice's and long standing beliefs just like anyone else. Members of the religious community did not make noise during the holocaust, and for that I weep bitterly. But that is its purpose, to cry out when something feels WRONG. Now it is almost misfiring, aiming at things not so important.
BUT it must continue, for though many say it is hidebound and ultra-conservative. Well that is what it is supposed to be. Someone, even if most of us think they are wrong, must yell, even if it is pointless.
Unless we adopt a very loose definition of Religion, I don't believe that a belief in the supernatural or in things spiritual is prerequisite to establish morality. We have certain laws and social behaviors that keep some our baser instincts in check because society understands that these things are inherently wrong. The likely basis for this realization is acknowledging that one person's rights are being violated by another - often to the extent that they may not fully recover.
That seems like a very logical process to me. Science as an analytical and experimental medium shouldn't make moral determinations, true, but science as observation of human nature seems more appropriately used towards figuring out how we can all get along than arbitrary rules set by a dozen different mythologies.
If someone tells me not to do something because it'll piss off their tax-collecting boogie-man, I doubt I'll pay it much attention. If they explain that what I'm doing is putting my wants above the rights or needs of another, I'm more likely to attempt correction. People as a whole don't want to think, don't want to deliberate reasons for their actions finding a reflex more agreeable. They want to be herded, but I don't agree that a vending machine that receives coinage in exchange for a moral of the day is necessary. For certain people, maybe, but not for the whole of humanity.
Yes but still the idea holds, people want morality to be from something bigger then themselves. And I don't think government is the best person to be handing out moral judgments. I think there is some paper about the different levels of moral reasoning, and how the second to top one was because in the end it hurts a lot of people and US. That seems to be were government ends. But the top one was, because it is WRONG. I think we need religion to provide that level of moral reasoning. Some people may not, but it seems most do.
Some theoretical explanations for altruism taken straight out of an old psychology textbook:
Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis - people provide help simply because the victim needs help and because it feels good to provide help.
Negative-State Relief Model - people provide help in order to reduce the negative affect aroused by watching someone in distress.
Empathic Joy Hypothesis - people provide help in order to engage in an activity that has a successful outcome, making the helper feel good.
Genetic Determinism Model - people have an unconscious desire to help people genetically similar to themselves, and provide help in order to maximize the chances of the survival of said genes.
lo_res, here's something bigger than oneself: The public. That satisfy you? Humans are all we've got. So morality will have to be a useful mediation between the desires, longterm and shorterm, conflucting and parallel, of the individuals making up the whole.
Yak: excellent couple of last posts, I agree very much.
While I've long considered altruism to be a pleasant myth, I still have trouble admitting to myself that caring for others is anything but caring itself. I can't, however, claim complete disinterest in what happens to my family, friends, and significant other. The loss of these persons, or - to a lesser extent - reduction in their happiness does have a direct effect upon me.
To dismiss these labels as being feel-good packaging around selfish motiviations doesn't seem quite correct either. There are times that people do things for others, when the result of that action will have a negative impact for the perpetrator, or at least be against what the initiator of that action actually desires. If we dissect the motivations further, we could imagine that the person receives some emotional or morale benefit by either having their sacrifice acknowledged or by being a more meek sort of martyr. Even proof of that catalyst, though, would lead me to the same question, "Isn't this still a desirable trait, at least in some quanity, to have?"
This line of thought seems to be a debate of semantics, for if the population were to be utterly convinced of the self-serving motivations to any caring action it seems certain that anything thought of as selfless or caring would soon be considered futile. True or not, I think people need to believe in something resembling altruism, or -at least- that people can act out of "goodness".
Yes as I said, it's more a matter of manners to underline the true subconscious intention of atruistic actions or not. I usually don't. I enjoy people doing nice things and do them myself and leave it at that. That aspect of human nature isn't one I care to bring to the forefront too much.
Back on the evolution front, I have this to say. Yes an Ovum and sperm are made up of dead matter, in fact all life is made up of matter. And that is all life is. BUT life is a machine. A reproducing, self-repairing machine. It is nanotechnology of the type we read in sci-fi. Little atomic machines all scurrying round all with specialized tasks, all synchronized to and requiring mostother functions to work. And that is why I don't believe in the primordial soup theory of the origin of life. I do not say the laws of thermodynamics prohibit evolution (I have other objections to that) that is life EVOLVING to other life.what I do say is this intricately fashioned machine of such utter complexity can not come from simply a bunch of disorganized chemicals. Without life to arrange it into complexity. Maybe I should have said. Self replicating, self repairing complexity, both in form and interaction, does not appear spontaneously As someone said, it is like expecting a tornado to go through a junk yard, (even a airplane junk yard) and a 747 to be formed. Back on the issue at hand, Yes the question of life aren't important, t o the laymen, but the job of science is to tease apart the obvious, and look at the underlying princebels, Helm.
Quote from: lo_res_man on Tue 18/04/2006 17:16:39
what I do say is this intricately fashioned machine of such utter complexity can not come from simply a bunch of disorganized chemicals. Without life to arrange it into complexity.
But during embyonic development, cells are dividing and arranging according to DNA, which in itself is a bunch of chemicals. Is it not possible to extrapolate from this, a much more simplified version where the ancestor of DNA was replicating itself outside of cells (which wouldn't exist yet)? It's like mitochondria. There's a line of thought which suggests that mitochondria were once cells in their own right, and somewhere along the way they became symbiotes of the much more complex cells which we are made from.
QuoteMaybe I should have said. Self replicating, self repairing complexity, both in form and interaction, does not appear spontaneously As someone said, it is like expecting a tornado to go through a junk yard, (even a airplane junk yard) and a 747 to be formed.
Well no, it doesn't happen spontaneously but rather simple natural devices for converting the abundance of energy from the sun get chaotically more complex over 3,500,000,000 years. There's nothing spontaneous about that length of time.
Please stop trotting out these tired creationist arguments all the time because they're always riddled with logic holes. The 747/Tornado analogy is bad because it assumes an incorrect understanding of what is really happening with evolution. Life is not the wonderous and difficult thing that people assume it is - it's just a reaction to lots of energy being around and the right circumstances to keep increasing in complexity. Earth has the right circumstances (which is not to say the optimal circumstances, those pesky ice ages have a habit of wiping out life quite often), so what? The amount of other stars, planets and suns out in the universe is such a ridiculous number that it's impossible to comprehend, so it's not really a statistical wonder.
I'll start listening to 'intelligent design' people when they start addressing the follow up question 'So who is the intelligent designer?' without just saying "God!" and moving on, because that only turns whole movement into justifcation of Genesis. 'Who designed the designer' would be another good one.
I sure wish they'd hurry up and find life on Europa so all of this sillyness can end.
Edit followup:
Quotewhat I do say is this intricately fashioned machine of such utter complexity can not come from simply a bunch of disorganized chemicals. Without life to arrange it into complexity.
You should really read up on chaos and how complex and unpredictable systems form from simple rules.
Quotewhat I do say is this intricately fashioned machine of such utter complexity can not come from simply a bunch of disorganized chemicals.
This is what we call a demand. It may be an informed one or not, but it constitutes neither theory, nor proof. Demands are nice, because they're prepositions on which people do research and formulate theories, which may later be proven to be valid in cases, or valid generally. If your Demand is for an intelligent being to have created this extremely complicated machinery that is the whole of life, and I find this demand to be very reasonable, I urge you to present to us theories that explain your intelligent design deity.
As Yak said, at least the scientists are trying to understand the magician cutting the woman in two. If all you have to say is 'nuh uh, I don't get it. I DEMAND a different explanation' whereas I don't think you're out of line, you're certainly out of use.
what I meant was BEFORE LIFE WAS LIFE, how could it evolve a way to reproduce? Ã, Evolution REQUIRES reproduction, the errors made by the process are its modus operandi. But non-life(things not molecular machines) do not reproduce. THAT is what separates life from non life. Even viruses, so simple" that they an be grown as crystals, reproduce.( with the aid of other life). But reproduction is so complex that the molecules can not gave just come together by pure heat energy chance. The molecules would be destroyed faster then they would be formed. That is what I mean.
{edit new posts} Yes, I agree complexity can come from "simple things" but clouds are not simple, yes they are "just" water vapor. but it is the INTERACTION that is complex, plus clouds, a good example of chaos theory, DO NOT REPRODUCE. And fractals yes they are beautiful intricate, but they are also quite similar. all they way down to infinite. Life is not a fractal or a cloud, it is a MACHINE. as I said before. Oh and if I don't understand what life is, then could you explain to this poor benighted creationist what life IS? I agree as well the question “who designed the designer?†question is a good one. even as a young lad when I heard of the “intelligent design theory†I immediately thought well then were did the aliens come from? And I lived in a house of ultra conservative evangelical Christian bible thumpers. That is why I hypothesize an extra-universal God.(or Gods) For all we know ( I admit it is rather illogical, but…prove me wrong) conditions might be more favorable for evolution “outside†have you ever looked up theories that the universe is a Ã, hologram? www.earthportals.com/hologram.html
[ to Helm]
and so am I, I also wish to know how the universe works I am not going to ever say "this far man shall go and no further" Rubbish, I want to know! If God (or Gods) created the universe, I want to know how, if none did, I still want to know how!
lo_res_man: Now you're arguing abiogenesis, not evolution. And you should read this (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html), for example. Especially this diagram:
(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/views.gif)
The point of which is, life is pretty complex, but so are its origins. The first self-replicating molecules that would eventually lead to this discussion didn't have to be anywhere near as complicated as the structures we find in life today, and they had plenty of time to get there.
But there is a huge gap between a polymer and a self replicating polymer. yes the first life wouldn't be as complex as the simplest modern life, of course. AS i said for things to evolve they need to reproduce. How could the molecules "cooperate?" What I am saying is, lets say some molecules get together, forming these biomachines. But since they don't reproduce yet, they are highly vulnerable. A single lighting could destroy the whole thing. Unlikely you say? On the time scale you are talking of it accidents becomes increasingly likely. most accidents are detrimental to a systems order, only a few ( very few) are helpful. it is like walking two steps forward one step back. And yes I did read the article, very fascinating.
It is still though conjecture
lo_res_man, you don't seem to grasp the fact that everything, "living" molecules or not, is simply made up of chemical reactions, nor do you seem to grasp the immense timescale that we are talking about.
Quote from: lo_res_man on Tue 18/04/2006 19:21:54
But there is a huge gap between a polymer and a self replicating polymer.
Is there, though? What reason would you have to assume that the gap is so mind-bogglingly huge that it couldn't plausibly ever be bridged by oceans full of chemicals over tens of millions of years? In fact, the article I linked to uses a reasonably short self-replicating peptide (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html#Search) as its example in the examination of the probability argument.
Indeed, there's no one theory of abiogenesis/biopoesis that's viewed as virtually certain yet. Science doesn't have all the answers of the universe. It does, however, have the means to ask the right questions, and so far we've seen enough answers to partial questions that abiogenesis looks extremely possible. There's no real reason to assume otherwise.
I realize this thing we call life is just chemicals. like duh ::). (Sarcasm) Wonderful stuff this argument. But I am still, from looking at the datum, mostly convinced otherwise. I have about reached the limit of my scientific understanding. Yes we are talking of mind boggling amounts of time but the world does not hold its breath a molecule upon molecule comes together BY CHANCE, to make this molecular machines. The same chances that bring it together will also tear it apart. Of course I don't think it would be from molecule to fully formed bacteria, it couldn't be like that. But while it is forming, and before it forms defensive measures, such as reproduction it would be broken apart by the same accidents. Maybe it did happen this way (but I have other problems with evolution as well) But I think that the laws of thermodynamics would prohibit, from forming up to the complexity required.
These are the same laws of thermodynamics that could be totally proved wrong one day, right?
Quote from: lo_res_man on Tue 18/04/2006 20:30:18Maybe it did happen this way (but I have other problems with evolution as well)
You are
not talking about evolution. As for your arguments, without e.g. clearly stating and evaluating the mechanisms by which things would be torn apart, they're worth nothing as scientific evidence for or against anything.
QuoteBut I think that the laws of thermodynamics would prohibit, from forming up to the complexity required.
You don't understand thermodynamics (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html).
I admit, yes the laws of thermodynamics could be proved wrong. of course they can. But there is much observable proof. .that the likelihood is quite unlikely. if you can prove that the laws of thermodynamics are wrong, please take a bow and claim your Nobel prize.
(Edit)
I already read that, The example they claim creationists agree upon are NOT spontaneous. A seed, a chick are directed by the encoded information within genetics. The salt crystals are given order by the chemical laws that govern there molecular structure. Maybe I don't understand thermodynamics, I have about reached the limit of my understanding here, but it doesn't have to do with thermodynamics, but I still think evolution doesn't make sense.
Examples are examples. The examples aren't the point. The point is that the law doesn't say "order can't form spontaneously". And I'll just say it a third time, in the hope that maybe this time you'll notice it: YOU AREN'T TALKING ABOUT EVOLUTION. Even if all current ideas about abiogenesis are wrong and the first primitive lifeforms on Earth came about because an advanced civilization of space robots decided they'd allow themselves a little practical joke, that would still say nothing about the validity or invalidity of all the piles and piles of evidence in favour of evolution.
ok, "abiogenesis". Geesh, semantics. (your right)
meaning " an orgin of life, without life" right?
fine "abiogenises doesnt make sense to me"
but now if you want, lets discuss evolution.
Sorry for responding so late, I forgot about this board.
I found some links to the websites of the shows I mentioned, they should give some evidence like the ones I was talking about...
http://www.thecreationnetwork.org/index.htm
http://www.creationevidence.org/
I will read the links you posted about evidence for Evolution...
EDIT: Um... I can't find the links... what were they again?
Any sites with a non-religious bias would be more welcome.
well both sides of the issue should be welcome.thanks Grapefruitologist. and Adamski ? post some yourself, it would be most welcome. thanks in advance.
Fuzzpilz and Becky have already provided enough reading material to back up anything from my camp.
One of the more interesting things about creationists is that they claim to have beliefs founded upon things not based in human understanding. The god of the bible is so far beyond human understanding that there is no chance of us being able to grasp him in our limited states. Additionally, a Christian is asked to believe that a being could be around for eternity, which invites a person to extrapolate some concept of what eternity might be.
Why, then, is the only creationist argument relying upon refuting probabilities and claiming too vast a complexity to be possible?
Given a starting point to theorizing without bias, the two theories would seem to have the same requirements except that there is some understanding in evolution of the complexity of the process and doesn't require one ignore probability.
There are also foregone conclusions that are a bit disconcerting. It is believed that for life to have come about on this planet, its complexity requires that a super-omni-being willed it into being. If I were a proponent of Intelligent Design theory, I would find it far more conducive to convincing others if I were to ask them to envision an eternity in which life always existed in a never-ending cycle between higher lifeforms and simple ones. I'd have to admit from the onset that I had no logical arguments for an omnipotent being with a proclivity for creating sea monkeys, but that the recipients of my lectures were required to share a modicum of faith.
The plane in the junkyard argument is tiresome, not only does it not come from a perspective of understanding the process (or even attempting to), but the analogy doesn't equate to reality. It's the same quality of argument that it was when I heard it first some time in the 80's, with no adaptation for any more recently acquired understanding. I've regurgitated the same basic phrase on occasion.
Sensing that belief in "spontaneous" generation was an argument that would make secularists question the existence of a deity, an attempt to create a "logical" refutation was made. Unfortunately, it's been proposed by those without any knowledge of what they're equating their 747 to. Those more knowledgeable in the field of biology that have offered the same analogy conveniently revert to their faith-based training when arguing against things on an evolutionary scale.
The tornado argument takes a seemingly random, high-velocity force and claims it has no chance to create a machine of the same complexity as a 747. If we discard the idea that a 747 is created from man-made materials that are inherently only as stable and suited to their purpose as our current knowledge allows, we might reduce the ingredients for our mythical plane to levers and gyros. Now if one were to argue that a force passing through a collection of materials had no chance of producing a simple machine such as a lever, I would question either their sanity or their understanding of probability. If that same person argues that in the pre-described system wherein after many generations of levers and gears, once they've shown an inclination to work together towards higher complexity in order to continue existence, that it wouldn't be possible in the span of eternity, given a near-infinite variety and quanity of raw materials to create a complicated machine that is the natural end result of the inclinations of the simpler machines, then I'd have to assume it was because they had a different agenda.
And that's what the argument all comes down to. One attempt is to understand, explain, erase the chalkboard and start trying to figure out the puzzle again. The other agenda is only to dash apart any attempt at explanation. That's the extent of the creationist argument - not to further understanding or promote knowledge, but to kill the lot of it.
If you'd asked somebody from a previous century (let alone somebody from the time the Bible was written) to accept that people would one day create machines from components manufactured on a microscopic scale that had the potential to create imagery that could conceivably replicate the visual and audio aspects of a human being, they'd know beyond all doubt that either the person was insane, or given proof that the person had used some sort of supernatural force to bring this into being. Today, however, every person reading this thread can conceive that possibility, and a good number would claim it to be exceedingly likely to be achieved in their lifetime.
Asked to explain how a goldfish could be created by shaking a goldfish bowl, we're conveniently asked to disregard the infinite beyond the bowl.
[Inserting a brief note - realizing how long-winded and redundant my posts are; a brief thank-you to those reading my inanity]
Quote from: TheYak on Wed 19/04/2006 00:27:38
Asked to explain how a goldfish could be created by shaking a goldfish bowl, we're conveniently asked to disregard the infinite beyond the bowl.
But when you say the universe is infinite, something that would explain all my qualms except WERE the universe came from, you run it oblers paradox ( it hink that is how it is spelled)
So it's more logical to accept that a infinitely-capable being that has existed beyond the scale of the universe made it merely by force of will? Really, if we're attempting a logical conversation that argument seems a bit like pissing in the wind. Don't misunderstand me, I've no intention of refuting matters of faith and appreciate the civility with which the proponents of creationism (I'm not even bothering with the ID euphemism anymore) have approached the discussion. However, continually entering a discussion based around words, facts, and proposals armed only with the hypocritical argument of, "You actually expect me to belief that? Well, I expect you to believe this," without admitting that the scales only tip in your favor if you introduce a quantity of faith, becomes tiresome.
It actually seems to come down to the debate between two religions as to which is correct, except that one of them has some (even allowing for discrepancies and theory gaps) basis in the observation of nature. This is not to propose that I can even approach the subject of abiogenesis with anything approaching comprehension, but speaking about one group versus another.
[Damn, I keep editing this post. In all fairness, Adamski, it would be difficult to prove that the sites referenced by Fuzzpilz and Becky weren't biased against religion]
That's not entirely my point - science isn't around to disprove religion (Stephen Hawking believes in God and he's the guy that came up with the mathematical evidence to support the Big Bang), but these sites are around specifically to push a religious agenda that disproves science (you've so much as stated this yourself in your post). The fabric of the 'creation evidence' site is interwoven with so much christian bias it even comments upon the Da Vinci Code on it's main page which is completely irrelevent to the subject it's trying to tackle - and the concept of Dinosaurs and Humans coexisting is undeinably hokum to anyone who isn't determined to ignore conclusive evidence to the contrary and wants so desperatly to take the Bible story of creation literally.
It's just a step away from trying to convince everyone that the world is really flat.
Quote from: lo_res_man on Tue 18/04/2006 21:01:30
...I still think evolution doesn't make sense.
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." - Albert Einstein
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein
"I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice." - Albert Einstein
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment"
- Albert Einstein
Also, check out the Atheism Web:
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html#einstein
Quote from: Guybrush Peepwood on Wed 19/04/2006 07:07:41
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein
"I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice." - Albert Einstein
Oh no, why are we playing the quote game? Are we calling expert witness testimony with the people who have seen god or what? Is this 'people smarter than you believe in god'? Because if it is you very well know there's an equal amount that don't etc etc really worthless argument
I think many theists did a relatively good job on arguing creationism before this absolutely inane concept of Intelligent Design came up.
To me the whole deal seems like the outcome of some corporate think-tank meeting, where fundamentalist bigwigs realised they needed something more catchy if they wanted to keep condemning gay marriage and abortions, since people started to grow pretty intelligent about the whole religion-issue whereas they did not.
I wouldn't be surprised if George Bush, after his next concluding "and may God bless America", went on with "....and here's our new logotype!", showing Intelligent Design on some bloody star-spangled banner and an eagle holding a giant brain in his claws.
Quotebloody star-spangled banner and a crying eagle holding a giant brain in his claws.
fixed
Quote from: Helm on Wed 19/04/2006 09:48:33
Quote from: Guybrush Peepwood on Wed 19/04/2006 07:07:41
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein
"I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice." - Albert Einstein
Oh no, why are we playing the quote game? Are we calling expert witness testimony with the people who have seen god or what? Is this 'people smarter than you believe in god'? Because if it is you very well know there's an equal amount that don't etc etc really worthless argument
True, I only posted that because the person before me posted a quote of Einstein and those quotes came to my mind.
Quote from: HillBilly on Wed 19/04/2006 07:20:52
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment"
- Albert Einstein
I didn't think Einstein was christian (in fact I knew that his origins were Jewish). I thought this debate was theism vs atheism and not christianity vs atheism. However, I didn't know he was agnostic. I've always had the impression (and maybe I'm right) that Einstein did have a belief in at least some sort of a Higher Power that was responsible behind the universe.
I never supported Creationism in this thread but I support the idea that there is some sort of designer behind the universe.
Grapefruitologist, the links again:
Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/) - A website devoted to explaining the creation vs evolution debate, with several essays detailing misconceptions about evolution and backed up with relevant studies.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution Part 1 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4) - More than 29 examples of macroevolution.
Observed Instances of Speciation (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html) - Observed examples of speciation, as in, one species being no longer compatible in a reproductive or morphological sense, therefore becoming a different species.
Wikipedia on why fossils are rare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossils#Rarity_of_fossils) - a brief explanation on why not every single member of every single species ever to exist on Earth is not fossilized.
The Taylor "Man and Dinosaur" Tracks (http://paleo.cc/paluxy/tsite.htm) - On how elongated dinosaur prints have been mistaken for hominid prints. It even has pictures!
Evolution Timescale (http://andabien.com/html/words/evolution-px.htm) - Evolution happened over a really really big period of time. It takes 2 billion years before you get organisims with more than one cell.
QuoteIn all fairness, Adamski, it would be difficult to prove that the sites referenced by Fuzzpilz and Becky weren't biased against religion.
Science is about observing and measuring the world we live in in an attempt to greater understand it. It isn't about "disproving religion", in fact it can perfectly well exist with or without religion. Abiogenesis and evolution are two seperate matters, and it is not necessary to lose belief in a god to accept the evidence of evolution. If you could be bothered, you could go and find every scientific paper referenced on Talk Origins and other sites to read and check and decide for yourselves, but no one has all the time in the world to do so. :P
Websites that call evolution a "conspiracy" rather than provide evidence do not help sway any argument. Arguments such as "there was a great flood - look it matches the Bible!" and "cells are complicated" do not counter the idea that life evolved.
Edit: Fixed link.
No those arguments don't. In fact they hurt the argument. Btw Becky your "29+" link isn't working. Hillbilly I don't believe in a God that works on a "basis of reward and punishment"
One interpretation of the New Testament says that the Christian doesn't god doesn't work that way either. But that is beside the point. Becky. Yes of COURSE not every creature fossilised. That is of course perfectly logical. BUT doesn't it seem rather odd that the creatures that we find in the fossil record are almost exclusively the either completely new, or almost exactly like the ones we see now. Just a thought
Quote from: Helm on Wed 19/04/2006 09:48:33
Oh no, why are we playing the quote game?
Why, to piss you off, of course!
Quote from: lo_res_man on Wed 19/04/2006 17:12:07Hillbilly I don't believe in a God that works on a "basis of reward and punishment"
No that's Einstein. You'll have to take it up with him.
I agree, Intelligent design is inane. It merle forces back the question, within our own universe were all the same laws of physics apply. Why do I believe in an extra universal god (or gods)? Think of this example. Let us say we build an intelligent AI, but instead of putting it in a robot we put it in a virtual 3D world. How would the AI figure out his origin? And that of his world?
No I don't think we are in the matrix or something like that, I just think we are an experiment, by a being (or beings) who have a whacked sense of humor, but with a sense of artistry that is astounding. That is my belief and whether it is right or wrong, we will never know, for we could just be phantoms in the bubble.
(edit) Hillbilly. I was just commenting on what you posted
Adamski, what do you think this is about? It's about religion, duh! What do you think "Creationism" is based on? I'll read your links, you read mine. There's real evidence in the links I posted, to support Christianity. You told me to post evidence, I have. And you even said that it wouldn't prove Christianity, but this does give evidence for Christianity-that's what you wanted, isn't it? I would appreciate sites that don't have a bias either, but that wouldn't do much to prove your point, would it?
I don't have time to read the links right now-I have to go... but I will when I get back.
Um... fossils aren't rare... there are many, many fossils in the world, and I've found many in just a day.
I bet there would be more than we thought if we actually ever found any of them.
Anyway, will read it later, but probably won't post, since I don't think the argument is going anywhere anymore, and I don't have the time. Just read the links I posted, especially on the Creation in the 21st Century website-go to the page called "evidence for creation". I'm not sure if the other link gives any free info, you might have to buy their tapes.
On another note-look at this, it's unbelievable: http://www.alimaggs.co.uk/2006/04/trading-paperclip-for-house.html
QuoteAdamski, what do you think this is about? It's about religion, duh! What do you think "Creationism" is based on?
Really it's just about Silly Christians (which is nowhere near the same as Every Christian, I'd like to make it clear I'm not attacking religion in general, or even Christianity here - just stupidity) trying to shout loudly in the face of overwhelming evidence. I don't see other religions... scratch that, ANYONE outside of the bible belt of America making a fuss about this. The Bible is supposed to be a moral codebook (kill homosexuals, stone your disobediant son, sell your daughter into slavery, long haired men are shameful, stay away from women on their periods, etc), not an orcale of scentific knowledge.
I've read the links and posted my thoughts already - it's fundamentalist doctrine that has no basis in reality no matter how many cod-scientific or mathematic processes they use to frame their inaccurate evidence. Why should I take it any more seriously than a Scientologist trying to prove to me the existance of thetans? The 'evidence for creation' page looks nice but bases it's arguments on shaky foundations or false information - I'm not going to sit here and make a point-by-point rebuttal 'cause that'd be a jolly old waste of time, but feel free to check out every point yourself and figure out why the reasoning presented is logical fallacy.
You can try telling me an elephant is a sock because your favourite book describes it as a sock, but I won't be convinced when there's plenty of more reasonable evidence to tell me it's an elephant ;)
Quote from: Adamski on Wed 19/04/2006 20:45:15
The Bible is supposed to be a moral codebook (kill homosexuals, stone your disobediant son, sell your daughter into slavery, long haired men are shameful, stay away from women on their periods, etc)
Actually, I'd go even further and say it's an moral codebook that should be taken allegorically rather than literally.
Regarding the usefulness of this thread (grapefruitologist):
As I see it, there are two possibilities. Either this thread has come to it's end or we are asking the wrong questions. Any arguments that have as intention to disprove belief are likely to fail/be ignored, while there are other issues relating creationism that can be hopefully agreed upon, if it takes some grinding of teeth in the process.
An example: Creationism is not a idea/theory/belief supported by a handful of goofs, and America might one day be led by moral values based in creationism to a great extent. I do not see this as an favorable thing, since belief cannot be disputed, and I fear fanaticism (although belief has positive effects). Combine a possibility of wars disguised as new crusades with the fact that America has enough weapons to kill us all.
I would rather have a society based on (mostly) compromisable values. As such, I do not even see the semantic parts of this thread useless, since they help (me) to compromise values and lead into that grey area in the middle.
well that’s the OLD testament, I think the NEW testament calls on us to do good Ã, to others regardless of race or religion or sexual orientation.
I think its says somewhere something like, if you do good in ANYONES name you are doing good and that’s good, but if you do evil in Jesus name then you do evil, even though you do it in his name. So lets not get bogged down in rituals and religion, just do things to help the people around you. And the world, in some small way, will be a better place.
Uh, not to interrupt this conversation, but I should mention that with my newly found beliefs, or I should say, recently ABANDONED beliefs, my content policy for working on projects should be adjusted.
So for the record now, I won't object to working on projects that contain language and violence, although I still don't wanna get involved with quasi-porno projects however.
As far as games that deal with supernatural themes and stuff, I'd probably still want to talk to the creators about that. Anyway, this is all just apart of adjusting my life.
Quote from: Raggit on Thu 20/04/2006 00:08:22
I won't object to working on projects that contain language...
Well, I think this has been discussed before somewhere, but a game without any use of language at all would be really interesting to make.
Duane Gish! I know him! They mention him in one of the links you posted. I watch him on TV sometimes. Actually, he's on the show that I gave you the link to.
About half done with one of them...
I suggest a competition! Let's invent the most ridiculous piece of "evidence" to advocate Intelligent Design.
An example:
Quote
Imagine that you walk along a beach, and stumble across a watch, lying in the sand. Now, you don't believe that the watch came from nowhere, or was assembled sporadically by pure chance, do you? You believe that it was made by a watchmaker, don't you? Well, it's the same with the world and life on Earth.
- From a webpage about Intelligent Design.
I know, it's hard to beat this prime example of absurd reasoning, but let's try! Fun for the whole family!
I agree Petter. They say "a watch... there must be a watchmaker!"
The you must ask them... "And who made the watchmaker?" They reply. "His father"
Then you ask: "So... God has a father?"
And they shut up... swet... and run.
QuoteImagine that you walk along a beach, and stumble across a watch, lying in the sand. Now, you don't believe that the watch came from nowhere, or was assembled sporadically by pure chance, do you? You believe that it was made by a watchmaker, don't you? Well, it's the same with the world and life on Earth.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html#design
I love sites that just cough up the answers for me so I don't have to think for myself.
Quote from: Andail on Fri 21/04/2006 13:50:13
I know, it's hard to beat this prime example of absurd reasoning, but let's try! Fun for the whole family!
Oh no it isn't. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/aftereden)
Seriously, do a brief reading through these comics, and check out how science is a lie and God is totally awesome and proven, all combined with excellent "humor".
Recommended:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/aftereden/view.aspx?id=112
http://www.answersingenesis.org/aftereden/view.aspx?id=209
http://www.answersingenesis.org/aftereden/view.aspx?id=73
http://www.answersingenesis.org/aftereden/view.aspx?id=207
http://www.answersingenesis.org/aftereden/view.aspx?id=206 (Oh, snap!)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/aftereden/view.aspx?id=198
http://www.answersingenesis.org/aftereden/view.aspx?id=173
http://www.answersingenesis.org/aftereden/view.aspx?id=167
http://www.answersingenesis.org/aftereden/view.aspx?id=166 (Like where did he get the penguins?)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/aftereden/view.aspx?id=163 (Space = Blasphemy)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/aftereden/view.aspx?id=143
(http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/1558/200208055ws.gif)
Sin cursed world.
I think Creationism is more consistent than Intelligent Design, etc. I mean, don't these people believe in an all-powerful God?
So, if God is all-powerful surely he COULD have made the universe in seven days and made it look to scientists like it wasn't. Now why he'd want to do that I have no idea, but surely anyone can see that given these folks beleive in an omnipotent creator, by definition anything is possible.
I don't see the point in limitting science to "God made it". For me that is obvious. But if we just said to every single thing that we saw "God made it!" where would we be now? Believing in a flat planet with angels hanging around at night as stars from a big sheet that encapsulates the earth as the "Sky".
If something WAS figured out directly to be made by God, where would that leave us? Having figured God out, it would no longer be possible for God to be all-powerful (omnipotent?). Any how, I don't think the world works like that. It's more likely that for every "problem" we solve, when we delve deeper we find it has more "problems", all the way to infinity. Like the composition of matter- fire, water, air, earth- molecules- atoms- electrons, neutrons, protons- to whatever is currently the "smallest possible division". When we completely figure them out, we'll be happy for a while, before we find out "Hey! This is made up of (and can be divided into) these little particle things".
I don't think the belief that "god did it" HAS to limit science. There is still the questions "How?" and "why?" I also don't think if we do know, it won't make God not all powerful, If you see a programmer making a game and see how he does it it still makes the finale program pretty darn great.(of course that depends on the programmer ;)) admittedly it can block progress, but so can any paradigm. As well there is plenty of science that doesn’t concern with origins, there still is an infinite of work to be done there.
Quote from: Grapefruitologist on Wed 19/04/2006 19:53:44
There's real evidence in the links I posted, to support Christianity. You told me to post evidence, I have.
Just a few comments regarding the links you posted. I saw two (this (http://www.thecreationnetwork.org/index.htm) and this (http://www.creationevidence.org/)). The first one seems to be a television show, on a channel that the majority of the people here can't see. They also sell tapes, apparently, but I don't think you can expect people participating in a discussion on a forum to literally
buy your arguments, when those of the other side, presented for example by Fuzzpilz, were easily and freely available on the Internet. This won't do.
The second one might be adequate. Reading two random articles, though, I found this (http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/coal/se_coal.html) admirably nonsensical chain of reasoning that concludes that because the formation of coal is a quicker process than previously thought, the Earth might for all we know be a few thousand years old. Well, at least if all the other clues that point to a higher age are ignored. Proof by contradiction doesn't work this way. Sorry. Also, the fact that it doesn't reference any primary sources regarding this awesome fast-forming coal and why it means anything at all lowers the article's credibility for me. The other one (http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/magnetic_fld/magnetic_fld.html), which is about the decay of the Earth's magnetic field, contains no references at all and reads like a grade school essay.
By contrast, Fuzzpilz's link about thermodynamics and evolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html) thoroughly and methodically answers pro-creationism arguments, explaining elementary concepts and backing them up with sources where necessary. In all fairness, scientific method and methodical documentation and reasoning appears to be giving science something of an advantage against religion when it comes to argumentation.
Anyway, the main point that I'm trying to make (to Grapefruitologist and anyone else who is interested) is that I for one would appreciate links to more specific evidence. I'd rather spend my time reading some carefully selected material arguing in favour of your point, rather than haphazardly trying to find it in a pile of less convincing stuff. I'm sure this material exists somewhere, so help me out here.
Sorry to bring this thread up again but..
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12467604/?GT1=7938
Quote from: MrColossal on Wed 26/04/2006 06:41:44
Sorry to bring this thread up again but..
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12467604/?GT1=7938
I read that yesterday. I think we can conclude that god don't like mexicans.
That's a rather nasty racist thing to say Hillbilly, >:( Admittedly you are probably joking, but still >:(
It's not racist. Mexicans aren't people. Like Jews.
Is it racist, or.....Godist? Because I don't see any mexicans being denigrated. Well....not that much.
Besides, wouldn't this show that God loves Mexicans extra-much, considering that he's let them cut through the bother of suffering in this world, and getting an easy pass to heaven?
Not really, it was just a freak accident,( Like a freak gasoline fight accident :P) and warns us not to stand near tall metal thingies during lightning storms (as if we didn't already know) I don't think we should make light of this tragedy in this way. :( only in comic books does God go “ZOT!!!â€.
Quote from: lo_res_man on Wed 26/04/2006 17:29:32
only in comic books does God go “ZOT!!!â€.
How would you know? As an agnostic, I reject no possibilities.
Ok, but I don't like to think God goes "Zot!"
Though, consideringÃ, God is God, he (or she or it or they) could do it if she (or he or it or they) wanted to, :P Though I prefer to think of it as a tragic accident.
Yay! The discussion just got crazier!
lo_res...are you trying to say that by calling this a "tragic accident", God is not involved in it? That the lightning bolt could not strike one of the zillion other long metallic thingums around? That God could not have stopped it from happening? If one believes in God being all-powerful, there is no room for any possibility other then that God wanted (or at least expected, or planned, or didn't mind) that this "tragic accident" should happen.
Of course, if they went to heaven then their "lives" just got better when they died. Seeing death as a bad thing is a particularly athiest perspective :=
Then why did people cry when the pope died? The vast majority of people cry when someone dies. I guess there are more athiests in this world than originally thought.
Quote from: MrColossal on Thu 27/04/2006 15:47:38
Then why did people cry when the pope died?
He owed lots of people money.
When people cry when someone dies, I see it as not necessarily because they feel bad for the person who died (I mean, even for atheists, death must be quite a relief) but because they miss the person and can't get used to life without them.
Oh, and that whole "if bad things happen in the world, it's all God's fault; therefore, God is a meanie" argument? It's sad that we have expectations for a "good" God to get rid of all the bad in the world for us Himself so that we don't have to do anything.
An all-knowing benevolent god (christian god) knows all outcomes of actions, knows the future and past, knows what we will do in the future and has designed us with full understanding of our exact path through existence, every action, every reaction, every tear and laughter. There is no 'test' when you know exactly what the results will be. This all-knowing god in the heaven denies all free will. If he exists and he lets harm befall us it is not because he's giving us the choices to do as we do. He knows what we will do as surely as he knows the primordial clay he breathed life into. We are trapped in his unending benevolence.
Just like Paul Atreides!
THE SPICE AGONY!
In my view, It doesn’t matter whether we have free will or not, as long as we THINK we have free will. Like if we are in a "matrix" type environment you might say there is no spoon, but as far as I can tell I can use it as a spoon and do spoony things with it so what does it matter whether it is REAL or not. All we have is our own perspective, that is all we can know. so whether we have free will or not I think it for the good of society we should THINK we have free will, whether we do or don't.
Believing in a creator is not hard, what is hard is to believe that there is a God still alive today. Because in order for a divine creator to exist, it's logical that He has to be alive, otherwise He never existed.
I don't care how crazy people think I am, but if you are a Christian then you can feel God working in your life. I've lived too many ironic coincidences to deny the fact that a living God exists. Maybe I'm just someone crazy who manipulates reality by picking certain random events to connect them to each other, so that I can convince myself God exist as a cure for my solitude and insecurity. Maybe I'm the result of brainwashing, or my faith is a product of pain to give myself fake hope in a screwed up society that I refuse to be a part of.
So be it. I believe in something, and whether I'm wrong or not I'm still a winner because I did not compromise with society and I managed to live so far a life without belonging in one specific label. If what I live for is manmade fiction, it still gives meaning in my life. And if it doesn't, I'm crazy enough to convince myself that it does. If I'm wrong, everything we ever learnt will be forgotten, this discussion will mean nothing. So be it.
So, then, do you claim to know the nature of God?
No, how did you get that idea? If that is what I said, it was not intended.
Well, I thought that claiming that God was "alive" meant that God was capable of living and dying... which is making an assumption about God's nature...
no, by "living" I meant an active God whose actions exist today and not a God that just created a universe and left it there on its own.
I think that's still an assumption about the nature of God, though.
The reason I'm asking, for clarification, is that some people are sure that there is a God, whereas others are sure that there isn't a God. When both groups argue their positions, they do so without really defining what they believe God's nature to be, and the argument tends to become meaningless.
Of course, one could say that all arguments are meaningless, because changing another person's mind is impossible. That being said, what, exactly, do you consider the nature of God to be?
Quote from: Helm on Thu 27/04/2006 18:06:20
An all-knowing benevolent god (christian god) knows all outcomes of actions, knows the future and past, knows what we will do in the future and has designed us with full understanding of our exact path through existence, every action, every reaction, every tear and laughter. There is no 'test' when you know exactly what the results will be. This all-knowing god in the heaven denies all free will. If he exists and he lets harm befall us it is not because he's giving us the choices to do as we do. He knows what we will do as surely as he knows the primordial clay he breathed life into. We are trapped in his unending benevolence.
Couldn't that instead be a sublime demonstration of how valuable free will is to that god? It must tear him apart to see what we'll choose but not alter it because he won't compromise the automatons? Like a parent who knows that they have to let their kid make mistakes in order to learn, dashing to coerce somebody into choosing correctly isn't always the right way to go.
But how can one make a mistake if one has no choice in the matter?
The assumption that predicted results equals a lack of choice eludes me. It's subject to interpretation, I suppose. A clairvoyant knowing you'd draw a 3 of spades - did you have a choice in the draw? I suppose that depends upon whether or not you believe in clairvoyance.
Every christian that is worthy of the title christian believes their god to be ultimately BENEVOLENT and ALL-KNOWING. There's no reaching on my part from the 'all-knowing' to 'no free will', and this then invalidates the benevolent, unless you consider LIGHTNING BOLT TO THE FACE to be benevolent, in which case letting the rest of us live and suffer is malevolent in itself. For the all-knowing, all-loving god, even the concept of human life away from his infinite grace is cruel and unjustified. He is not kind. He isn't testing us or teaching us anything. We are his lab rats in a labyrinth that he overviews, knows our every step and you call this kind? And when we go back to him and say 'I repent, Jesus, I love you. Please forgive me and give me strength'... is he glad? Is he in his infinite mercy, getting his ego boost? That his little machine did what he knew it would do?
Sadly the concept of 'all-good' coupled with 'all-knowing' (you know... all-powerful, without begining or end, a fuckin' snake protrays the alphabet all that...) is that which make for these problems. I would have no bone to pick with a somewhat-powerful and somewhat-nice Universe Creator. At least no bone that I could justify by looking around me in the world of men.
Yes, I'm bumping it again...
Why this time? Because I just watched this awesome lecture:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
it's 3 minutes shy of 2 hours, his lecture goes on for about 70 minutes and the rest is questions and answers. He speaks on flagellum and the fossil record and chromosomes and all of it is amazing.
I totally recommend everyone with even the slightest interest in evolution or intelligent design watch it. I'm also quite interested in knowing what some of the people in this thread who have made points for ID would have to say about his reasons against.
Eric
That was interesting and fun. I second the recommendation.
This sound interesting, unfortunately I don't have the time to watch it.
Oh, and one other thing. Someone accused me (only words for it, sorry if it seems to strong) of not understanding how life was chemistry, when I compared life to Nanotechnology, and being a machine. what I meant was that life does not just depend upon the chemicals and how chemicals interact, but also on shape. A common reason why drugs have an effect, despite having a different chemical formula then the chemicals in the human body, is that they have the right molecular shape to fit the locks of the cell membrane and other parts of cells. and when something works on shape rather then chemical composition, it can best be described as a machine, and when that machine so so small that that a unit is on the scale of molecules, it can be described ( maybe not technically, but the molecules are pretty big) as a NANO-machine. I can think of other examples like ribosome and DNA, but I will get into that later.( if it is wanted)
erm..hope this isn't taken as double posting or necroposting, but I thought this might interest some people, of course it proves nothing, but it shows that it isn't just nutcases like me that disagree with abiogenesis or evolution.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=302
ps you will need adobe acrobat to read this.
Maybe someone should stick this post up the top...
This is getting ridiculous...
(But I promise that once I find the time I will read the 10 pages that I have't...)
EDIT:
No time to watch 117 mintues, right now... (as some of you may know...)
Is there any way of summing the 14 pages into one post maybe? OR am I asking too much...
Lo_res_man,
Ken Miller takes 2 common arguments against evolution and pretty much breaks them down and shows how they are wrong. Before continuing in this topic I'd be interested to know what you have to say to his points because he quite easily shows how evolution is correct in the face of those 2 arguements. He also speaks on the fossil record, and he uses names of scientist instead of just saying "scientists say this about creationism" or "I have heard that scientists say this about evolution" which we end up doing in here because we don't prepare like he did. Also, that PDF file does just what you say, proves nothing but not in the way you think. As Ken Miller states, all scientific methods and ways of understanding should always be carefully examined.
read my pdf
(After a recap of Genesis 3:1-15)
1.Melville's Moby Dick begins, "Call me Ishmael." We say it is told in the first person. In what person is Genesis told? From whose viewpoint?
2. Who is the good guy in this story? Who is the Bad Guy? Can you make a strong case for reversal of the roles?
3.Traditionally, the apple is considered to be the fruit the serpent offered to Eve. But apples are not endemic to the Near East. Select one of the following, more logical substitutes, and discuss how myths come into being and are corrupted over long periods of time: Olive, Fig, Date, Pomegranate.
4. Why is the word Lord always in capitals and the name God always capitalized? Shouldn't the serpent's name be capitalized, as well? If no, why?
5. If God created everything (see Genesis, Chap. I), why did he create problems for himself by creating a serpent who would lead his creations astray? Why did God create a tree he did not want Adam and Eve to know about, and then go out of his way to warn them against it?
6. Compare and contrast Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling panel of the Expulsion from Paradise with Bosch's Garden of Earthly Delights.
7. Was Adam being a gentleman when he placed blame on Eve? Who was Quisling? Discuss "narking" as a character flaw.
8. God grew angry when he found out he had been defied. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, didn't he know? Why couldn't he find Adam and Eve when they hid?
9. If God had not wanted Adam and Eve to taste the fruit of the forbidden tree, why didn't he warn the serpent? Could God have prevented the serpent from tempting Adam and Eve? If yes, why didn't he? If no, discuss the possibility the serpent was as powerful as God.
10. Using examples from two different media journals, demonstrate the concept of "slanted news".
The above is an extract from Harlan Ellison's short story "The Deathbird", which concerns Nathan Stack, buried in the earth for 250,000 years and the creature called Snake, who guides him to fulfill a duty which only Stack can perform; The destruction of Life/God/Mankind. It is partly constructed as a written test.
The text below is quoted from "The Essential Ellison: A 50 Year Retrospective."
" "The Deathbird" (1973), at one and the same time, is the most dangerous and the most humane assessment of our place in the great unknown we call the Universe."
The following are some of the final paragraphs in the story:
Stack found the mad one wandering in the forest of final moments. He was an old, tired man, and Stack knew with a wave of his hand he could end it for this god in a moment. But what was the reason for it? It was even too late for revenge. It had been to late from the start. So he let the old one go on his way, wandering in the forest, mumbling to himself, I won't let you do it, in the voice of a cranky child; mumbling pathetically, Oh, please, I don't want to go to bed yet. I'm not done playing.
And Stack came back to Snake, who had served his function and protected Stack until Stack had learned that he was more powerful than the god he'd worshipped all through the history of Men. He came back to Snake and their hands touched and the bond of friendship was sealed at last, at the end.
Then they worked together and Nathan Stack used the needle with a wave of his hands, and the Earth could not sigh with relief as its endless pain was ended...but it did sigh, and it settled in upon itself, and the molten core went out, and the winds died, and from high above them Stack heard the fulfillment of Snake's final act; he heard the desent of the Deathbird.
Harlan Ellison is a self-declared Atheist.
What? No, I didn't say I had a point.
limpingFish, I don't believe in Genesis as literal truth, for one, the bible was written by human beings, and while it has beautiful poetry, its more metaphorical to me then anything else. therefore the story of Adam and Eve is more a story (just like hundreds of others) that tells how death came into the world, lots myths on that. But I do believe (as a philosopher, my religious beliefs are different)in a Source. Yes life is matter in motion, but I think the human mind is so much more. how do you explain the "I" the part that decides to type this response rather then oh pick its nose,, the "I" that decides between to equally compelling forces, the "I" that makes murder wrong. Why death is such a trajidy , no matter who it is that dies. I prefer to think that there is something greater then ourselves, and weather I am right or not, the thought comforts me. So, I will stick with my "Illusions", and live a life filled with curiosity. Thank you
Nothing wrong with taking comfort in a belief that something "Better" lies beyond. Nothing at all. In fact I would never go out of my way to convince anybody otherwise.
But if it was just a case of "This is what I believe, that is what you believe, and never the twain shall meet." then the problems we face in confronting religious issues would cease to be.
I don't mind if people believe in Creation or Evolution. That are entitled to their beliefs and feelings as much anyone else.
Organized Religion of any sort doesn't feature in my life. I am an Agnostic...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic
...and will remain so until I decide otherwise.
But organizations/individuals attempting to influence society based on what "God would want" only frustrate and annoy me to the point of swaying my agnosticism towards a more atheistic view that God obviously does NOT exist, because these people who divide and segregate, who instill hatred, who have brought this level of fundamentalism to the world, must obviously be insane. The alternitive is too horrific to contemplate.
I agree with what your saying about fundamentalists, and such. Religion has been you used as the excuse for many of human histories worst atrocities. It greatly saddens me, because I think religion should be a force to help people, like what world vision does
Quote...in recent times I've found myself on the other side of the Christian faith, no longer believing or caring about religion, doctrine or anything else like that.Ã, So obviously, I've got a lot of stuff to work out now.Ã, But I realize now, I really don't have anybody to talk to, because everybody I've ever known closely is a Christian!!Ã, If I talk to them, their solution will of course be, "Talk to Jesus."Ã,Â
I'd rather not go there now.Ã, I need to try to speak to people who won't try to steer everything back to salvation, doctrine, etc.
So, for clarification, I'm no longer a Christian.Ã, I'm kinda just sitting on the fence, I guess.
Now, what happened tonight: I was invited to go to my old school for a get together.Ã, That school, which I attended last year, is a Christian high school.Ã, Well, some of my old school friends and I got to talking politics, and they've never quite cared for my anti-Bush views.Ã, After it was all said and done, we had wandered back and fourth from politics to religion, from religion to politics.
What stood out to me was, at the end of our discussion, I elaborated that I was glad they had a religion that made them happy and that gave them a purpose.Ã, But I said, "Please don't try to influence this country and its politics and laws based on your Bible."
That didn't go over well, because evidently, this country belongs to God and we've gotta give it back to him, etc.Ã,Â
Despite the fact that the world is full of folks who think their ideology should be made law, it was still kind of a disturbing display of, quite frankly, obsessed fundamentalism.Ã,Â
These radical Christians who believe that we've got to reshape this country to fall in line with the Bible don't seem to perceive that their desire to legislate people into being Christians is blatantly unAmerican.Ã, I said, "Well, how would you feel if I wanted to pass laws BANNING Christianity?"Ã, And the reply was, "You'd be wrong, because this country was founded on God!"
These types seem to have a very direct and simple goal:Ã, Sweep the entire country clean of liberals/democrats/homosexuals/non-Christians, and anybody else who they think that, because they are a political "enemy," they are also a religious enemy that must not be tolerated by any means, lest God destroy our nation.
So, part of what I want to do is measure the general opinion of these things here, so if you would, please provide a quick and simple answer to the four following questions in your post:
1.Ã, Do the Christians (a majority) stand a chance of getting Bible-based legislation passed?
2.Ã, Do you believe that Bible-based legislation SHOULD be passed?
3.Ã, Do you feel that religion and politics intertwine naturally and that an American Theocracy in favor of the majority is inevitable?
4.Ã, If a Christian juggernaut formed and began moving towards a Theocracy, what would you do? (Either to help it or stop it.)
All these things are spinning my mind around and around.Ã, I just wanna start talking and see how you feel about these things, I'm not particularly interested in drawing sides and turning this into a debate.Ã, That usually happens anyway, but let's just keep it calm as long as possible.
Firstly, I'd like to apologize for being very harsh, and at times, unattentive to what people had to say. I'd like to ask you all's forgiveness for acting in that fashion.
Secondly, I'd like to address a few of your issues in the best way that I know how...and that is, by asking a series of questions.
You stated earlier that at some point in the convo with your friends, you told your friends that it was great that they had a religion and all, but that they shouldn't use their religion to influence this country and its politics and laws. My question is, how would you personally go about running this country? What kind of people would you put in power over the country? What kind of laws would you set up? What would be allowed and what wouldn't be allowed?
2. Secondly, I ask you to remember what all happened in Vermont--with child molestors getting light sentences for committing different, abusive, and strange acts against children.
How would you personally go about getting these molestors under control?
3. I reiterate: How would you personally go about running a country and controlling the criminals in it? Who would you put in power over the country? What would you allow and what wouldn't you allow?
:)
--JJ
Raggit you did the right thing in my opinion. I have stood by this idea for a long time: Religion is there to control people. Maybe not in an evil or cruel way, but it is there to control others.
Heres some more awesome words of wisdom from the Bible. If there are slight spelling mistakes please forgive me, because I don't care.
"Behold I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces." Malachi 2:3
"For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death!" Leviticus 20:9
"Hath he not sent me to the men that sit upon the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?" 2 Kings 18:27
"There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emmission was like that of horses." Ezekiel 23:20
"Suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." 1 Timothy 2:12-15
"And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the LORD thy God hath given thee!" Deuteronomy 28:53
jfritzyb,
This is a very old topic that has been dead for months. PMing Raggit would get you a better response and would keep dead threads dead.
also... Can't help it but...
Quote from: jfritzyb on Fri 25/08/2006 01:30:20
2. Secondly, I ask you to remember what all happened in Vermont--with child molestors getting light sentences for committing different, abusive, and strange acts against children.
I remember 1 judge sentencing 1 admitted child molester to enter treatment immediately or face a life sentence. PM me if you have different data that suggests multiple judges allowing multiple rapists to go free.
Quote from: MrColossal on Fri 25/08/2006 03:46:52
jfritzyb,
This is a very old topic that has been dead for months. PMing Raggit would get you a better response and would keep dead threads dead.
also... Can't help it but...
Quote from: jfritzyb on Fri 25/08/2006 01:30:20
2. Secondly, I ask you to remember what all happened in Vermont--with child molestors getting light sentences for committing different, abusive, and strange acts against children.
I remember 1 judge sentencing 1 admitted child molester to enter treatment immediately or face a life sentence. PM me if you have different data that suggests multiple judges allowing multiple rapists to go free.
1. Hmmm...I'll consider what you have said. I have another question though...is the term dead defined according to the person's interest in the topic?
2. Ok, I'll PM my sources...
--JJ
Usually dead means no one has posted for several days. After two weeks, unless it's severely important to bump, all continued conversation should be elsewhere.
Quote from: Evil on Fri 25/08/2006 04:42:50
Usually dead means no one has posted for several days. After two weeks, unless it's severely important to bump, all continued conversation should be elsewhere.
Is there a Religion and Beliefs section?
--JJ
You can PM whomever it is that you have an interest in talking with. You can also use the AGS IRC channel. Or just send them an instant message.
Quote
Firstly, I'd like to apologize for being very harsh, and at times, unattentive to what people had to say. I'd like to ask you all's forgiveness for acting in that fashion.
Secondly, I'd like to address a few of your issues in the best way that I know how...and that is, by asking a series of questions.
You stated earlier that at some point in the convo with your friends, you told your friends that it was great that they had a religion and all, but that they shouldn't use their religion to influence this country and its politics and laws. My question is, how would you personally go about running this country? What kind of people would you put in power over the country? What kind of laws would you set up? What would be allowed and what wouldn't be allowed?
2. Secondly, I ask you to remember what all happened in Vermont--with child molestors getting light sentences for committing different, abusive, and strange acts against children.
How would you personally go about getting these molestors under control?
3. I reiterate: How would you personally go about running a country and controlling the criminals in it? Who would you put in power over the country? What would you allow and what wouldn't you allow?
:)
--JJ
Wow, I haven't seen this for awhile. Seems that this is one of those topics that NEVER die. Hasn't for the last several thousand years, anyway.
Before I answer your questions, I should point out that from the time I made this thread, up to now, I've taken a slightly less harsh view of Christianity. Well, God anyway. I'm perhaps a little more open to ideas, at least at this time.
Anyway, running this country is about compromise. Everybody has to give and take. We need politicians that can see both sides of every issue (like that'll ever happen) and who can do what's best for the general public, while still respecting everybody's rights. That includes the tiniest minorities.
To control crime, we have to continue to understand what it is and why it happens. Even then, there's not always a clear, black and white answer where we can say, "If we do THIS, then all crime will stop." Crime will never end. The best way, in my opinion, to control crime is to impose harsher punishments. But then again, not every punishment will work for every criminal, sitting in jail may be torture for one, but a piece of cake for another.
I can't list everything I would if I were running the country, but I'd make sure that Democracy was served to the best of my ability, according to how the Constitution says it should be.
Hope I answered your questions. ;)
Quote from: Raggit on Sat 26/08/2006 00:49:36
Quote
but I'd make sure that Democracy was served to the best of my ability
What the hell is that even supposed to mean man? Democracy is simply the system of electing government leaders/representatives. You'd make sure that everyone votes or something? Too many people have different definitions of democracy.
Shitar, maybe you'd prefer if I said, "I'd make sure that the Constitution was upheld"?
Good thing you're here to keep everyone's definitions in check.Ã, Ã, ::)
Hey,lets ressurect the topic!
I dont know why you pople mix religion with politics.
Politics,itst like,i dont know...a mafian organization.