 |
|
|
|
Monday, April 13, 2009 - 07:27 pm  Hi, I am wondering how many people on this board/game would consider themselves atheist. I have seen some other threads (such as 'Islam'), and I also wonder how many people here consider themselves believers in a given religion. If you feel like it, reply with the name of your religion, or a few words that help to describe your beliefs (or lack thereof). I, for instance, am a rational materialist atheist.
| |
| Monday, April 13, 2009 - 07:49 pm I am a believer in something, what that something is I dont have a clue. I know I exist now and hope forever in some shape or form. Wishful thinking maybe, but the more science I learn the more wonderful this universe becomes in my eyes. A big bang and evolution just doesn't seem to cut it. Although I believe in evolution I think the dice are loaded.
| |
| Monday, April 13, 2009 - 07:53 pm I can tell you this much. Personally I consider atheism as any other theism. As a side note: someone said that asking man about his God is like asking him about his woman.
| |
Monday, April 13, 2009 - 07:55 pm 
| |
| Monday, April 13, 2009 - 08:42 pm ism's are the virtue's of your ways.
| |
| Monday, April 13, 2009 - 08:43 pm I guess I'd say that I'm agnostic atheist. No one can prove that there is no God. However, no one has proven that there is one. Therefore I assume that there is not one.
| |
| Monday, April 13, 2009 - 09:04 pm Pour vous: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager
| |
| Monday, April 13, 2009 - 09:11 pm Agnostics are the most frustrating, they will believe anything that you can prove to them, but you can not "prove," that god exists, other than the overwhelming wonder of creation... and the "force of the universe," for lack of a better way to express that. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" so to believe in God, you have to believe something that you can't prove, by definition. Atheists, although they often claim to be logical in their approach, are often as passionate about their beliefs as a religious fanatic. And as such, many Atheists have converted to religion, after many frustrating attempts to disprove God, in general, and the Christian God in particular. C. S. Lewis is prime example of this. You can probably tell from the above, that i'm of the christian faith. Although, not a very good example of a Christian, i must admit.
| |
| Monday, April 13, 2009 - 09:41 pm Many times the idea of 'faith' is misunderstood. What actually is faith? Is it some kind of 'feeling' that you have on a particular thing or idea? To have faith, is it a 'leap'? For example, I own a construction business and in my business it is common for a contractor to hire ppl and not pay them. If you started working for a contractor, no doubt you would be aware of this horrible practice and you would be cautious. You would no doubt wonder if the check you just received for your labor is gonna bounce. So you head to the bank to cash it ASAP. The money is there. Next paycheck, you still are skeptical, so you do the same thing. The money is there. You do this for a number of weeks each time your skepticisim diminishes, because the money is always there. Finally you get to the point where you no longer worry at all about the check being good, in fact you may wait a few days to even cash it. Why? Because you know that after 75-100 checks and after getting to know the contractor, he has never missed a payment to you. THAT IS FAITH. You have no 'funny feeling', no doubt. To others you may have a hard time explaining this phenomenom to, but you know it to be true. You of course know this because of experience and knowledge of who you work for. The same is true of religion. Regardless of your professed 'faith' you first must have knowledge of it. All to often ppl have opinions about what they really do not know or understand. And many times they are so frustrated with what those who do 'claim' to have faith do and say. Knowledge is the key.
| |
| Monday, April 13, 2009 - 11:30 pm I, a sim-citizen, am a sim-atheist. I deny that any sim-gods, such as the oft-mentioned "Jozi," exist. If "Jozi" really existed, why would he allow such suffering among us? To what end would he have created seals and attack boats? How could he have been so malicious as to have purposely tantalized us with remote depots? Why create a security council and then give it no real powers? It's all a cosmic joke. These things and more are simply evolutionary dead ends, not the products of a creative intelligence! Who does "Jozi" root for in a war?! It is simply irrational and childish to believe in any "Jozi." Further, I deny that there is any special significance or divinity to his so-called messenger among us, Mr. Tom Willard. If he had any real channel to "Jozi," wouldn't he use his connection to make his countries the most powerful in every simworld? I say Tom is just another player, who knows a few tricks, and likes to string us all along! Can anyone prove elsewise, without appealing to some imaginary world outside of the realm of our sim-senses?
| |
| Monday, April 13, 2009 - 11:37 pm Blasphemer! The Pinktator set us on the path of true rightousness. The sacrifice of the non-believer to please Jozi our sim-creator. May he strike you with earthquakes, a poor economy and worker shortages for your lack of faith. Let us pray. Oh mighty Tom bringer of the word. We humbly beseech your intercession to protect us from the wrath of the Sim God. 1001 1010 0001 1110 1011 1100 1111 0000 0100
| |
| Monday, April 13, 2009 - 11:49 pm Hah, I'm still here! No earthquakes, no worker shortages. Your little black magic has no effect--just superstition and mumbo jumbo. There is no "jozi." The simworlds were not created, they have always been.
| |
| Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 12:10 am i am a Christian existentialist. i believe that God is the "ground of our being"; that which we put our faith. God in a broader sense is "the way things are".
| |
| Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 01:41 am I try to avoid haggling about semantics but a thread titled Atheists and Atheism is asking for it. Serpent, What you described is "belief". You believe that the check won't bounce next week. I believe the sun will set in a few minutes. Wikipedia does a good job with the definitions: "Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true." "Faith is a belief in the truth of or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing, that is characteristically held without proof." I have often heard American Christians use the terms interchangeably. In some cases that is confusion. Among evangelical and fundamentalist it often seams deliberate. All traditional Christian dogma, Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist, and Anabaptist agrees with Wikipedia. I have heard Americans acknowledge the different meanings and then claim that both are important. There are at least five definitions of Atheism. -Faith that there is no god. -No faith in god. -Belief that there is no god. -No reason to believe there is a god. -No concept of god (babies, my cat, etc) People who have faith that there is no god are somewhat rare. People who have no reason to believe there is a god often call themselves agnostic. True agnostics have faith that that the truth about god cannot be determined.
| |
| Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 01:47 am good clarifying points PS
| |
| Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 02:21 am Mr. Pathetic Sheep Of course you 'believe' that the sun will set. Why? It always has. There is no reason to believe that it wont. But the definition of faith that you provided by wikipedia proves my point. "Faith is a belief in the truth of or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing, that is characteristically held without proof." Apply that to the illustration of the contractor with his employee's. I agree that belief and faith are not the same. But they are closely related. In fact faith most often comes from what you believe. And you believe things because you have knowledge of them. That is my arguement. Faith is not mysterious or magical. It comes from your knowledge and experience. One religious book defines faith in a good way. It says that "faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities, though not beheld." To me it would be ignorant for anybody, God, person, or whatever to expect you to put belief in them without any proof or explanation. However after there has been sufficent proof and experience, now then there is a basis for faith. Faith does not spring from nothing!
| |
| Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 02:44 am Joziism 1. In the beginning Jozi was alone. And it was not good. 2. On the first day Jozi turned on the holy server and there was sim-life. And he was pleased. 3. On the second day it pleased Jozi to create Tom the Messenger to bring forth his word to the sim-world. Convert to Joziism and repent of your sim-sins. Death to the nonbelievers!
| |
| Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 02:52 am "The deity enters into philosophy through the perdurance of which we think at first as the approach to the active nature of the difference between Bring and beings. The difference constitutes the ground plan in the structure of the essence of metaphysics. The perdurance results in and gives Being as the generative ground. This ground itself needs to be properly accounted for by that for which it accounts, that is, by the causation through the supremely original matter - and that is the cause as casua sui. This is the right name for the god of philosophy. Man can neither pray nor sacrifice to this god. Before the causa sui, man can neither fall to his knees in awe nor can he play music and dance before this god. "The god-less thinking which must abandon the god of philosophy, god as causa sui, is thus perhaps closer to the divine God. Here this means only: god-less thinking is more open to Him than onto-theo-logic would like to admit." -Martin Heidegger, The Onto-Theo-Logic Constitution of Metaphysics "An old proverb pertaining to the outward and visible world says: 'Only one who works gets bread.' Oddly enough, the saying doesn't apply in the world to which it most properly belongs, for the outward world is subject to the law of imperfection; there it happens time and again that one who gets bread is one who does not work, that one who sleeps gets it in greater abundance than one who labours. In the outward world everything belongs to whoever has it, the outward world is subject to the law of indifference and the genie of the ring obeys the one who wears it, whether he be a Noureddin or an Aladdin, and whoever holds the world's treasures does so however he came by them. It is otherwise in the world of the spirit. Here there prevails and eternal divine order, here it does not rain on the just and the unjust alike, here the sun does not shine on both good and evil, here only one who works gets bread, and only one who knows anguish finds rest, only one who descends to the underworld saves the loved one, only one who draws the knife gets Isaac. He who will not work does not get bread, but will be deluded, as the gods deluded Orpheus with an airy figure in place of the beloved, deluded him because he was tender-hearted, not courageous, deluded him because he was a lyre-player, not a man." -Soren Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling "By religion, therefore, let me stipulate, I mean something simple, open-ended, and old-fashioned, namely, the love of God. But the expression 'love of God' needs some work. Of itself it tends to be a little vacuous and even slightly sanctimonious. To put it technically, it lacks teeth. So the question we need to ask ourselves is the one Augustine put to himself in the Confessions, 'what do I love when I love God?,' or 'what do I love when I love You, my God?,' as he also put it, or running these two Augustinian formulations together, 'what do I love when I love my God?'. . . . "I love this question in no small part because it assumes that anybody worth their salt loves God. If you do not love God, what good are you? You are too caught up in the meanness of self-love and self-gratification to be worth a tinker's damn. Your soul soars only with a spike in the Dow-Jones Industrial average; your heart leaps only at the prospect of a new tax break. The devil take you. He already has. Religion is for lovers, for men and women of passion, for real people with a passion for something other than taking profits, people who believe in something, who hope like mad in something, who love something with a love that surpasses understanding. Faith, hope, and love, and of the three the best is love, according to a famous apostle (I Cor. 13:13). But what do they love? What do I love when I love my God? That is their question. That is my question. "The opposite of a religious person is a loveless person . . . Notice that I am not saying a 'secular' person. That is because I am out to waylay the usual distinction between religious and secular in the name of what I shall call the 'post-secular' or a 'religion without religion.' I include a lot of supposedly secular people in religion . . . even as I think a lot of supposedly religious people should look around for another line of work. A lot of supposedly secular people love something madly, while a lot of supposedly religious people love nothing more than getting their own way and bending others to their own will ('in the name of God'). Some people can be deeply and abidingly 'religious' with or without theology, with or without the religions. Religion may be found with or without religion. That is my thesis." -John D. Caupto, On Religion
| |
| Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 02:52 am Also, there is but One Jozi and Tom is his Messenger.
| |
| Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 03:02 am Joziism! Death to the nonbelievers!
| |
| Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 03:16 am I'm an atheist and quite happy with it.
| |
| Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 04:11 am Heidegger! Page after page of the same stuff! It's like trying to learn a language by immersion, without a translating dictionary. Now Kierkegaard, a saint. Caputo seems interesting...is it stupid to ask whether he ever answers his question? Btw you Joziites are just repeating your slogans because you can't prove his existence. He was made up by man to give comfort to the weak minded. There is no sim-good or sim-evil. Sim-behavior just is. Sim-morality is made by man in order to control the strong. The ubersimensch is coming and will relieve us of all this nonsense about "jozi," Tom, and so on.
| |
Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 04:28 am
Behold the word. Include your email address in a cash payment. We thank Tom the Messenger for bringing us this pearl of wisdom.
| |
| Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 04:28 am "It was as if that great rush of anger had washed me clean, emptied me of hope, and gazing up at the dark sky spangled with it's signs and stars, for the first time, the first, I laid my heart open to the benign indifference of the the universe. To feel it so like myself, indeed, so brotherly, made me realize that I'd been happy, and that I was happy still." Albert Camus--The Stranger so, how does one embrace the benign indifference of the universe? How does one use their alloted time on this earth? Does one deny, live the superficial temporal life, grab hold of dogmas and creeds, or struggle to find significance in something lasting and transcendent? for some of us it's embracing the unknown and unknowable as an affirmation of both our courage to be, as well as our frailty but also the mystery of creation and all its possible realities. there are many ways that we do this--through loving relationships, through realizing that we are not the center of the universe, and that even in our smallness our lives are a gift to be experienced both in its joy and pain and that it can be shared with others.
| |
| Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 04:38 am Meursault is an existential failure. He never crosses the either/or.
| |
| Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 05:14 am Pope Sam, what is this..some huckster pays enough attention to the little details of his scam to ask you for an "account number," and therefore Jozi exists? Where's the logic? Besides, how do I know you didn't just forge Tom's name on there and make it all up? Hey, look at this:
Therefore, Jozi doesn't exist.
| |
| Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 06:18 am Behold proof of the existence of Jozi: "Received 19 Gold Coins because Country N00b Farm on WG was rated 7" With faith and ritual you too can win Jozi's favor. Jakester has also brought testimony. Tom Willard was able to see 12 dollars even though it was hidden inside of a cracker jack box: "jakester34 Friday, March 13, 2009 - 03:28 pm Click here to edit this post Thanks Tom,... I mailed 12 US dollars and used cardboard from a Saltines Cracker box to obscure the cash. You are an honest man Tom, ..." Truly a miracle.
| |
| Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 06:42 am The wisdom of Tom is indeed mighty. May he bring forth great bounty from the Sim Creator including the next update to the war engine quickly. So that we may increase our sacrifices in Jozi's honor.
| |
| Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 02:11 pm Siva, i agree that Meursault is a moral cipher. but maybe that's the point. what does matter? how do we deal with that "benign indifference"? where do we find significance in a universe where our only certainty is death and that all else is our constructed realities.
| |
| Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 02:15 pm this might be helpful for our conversation. theologian Marcus Borg in his freshmen lectures would often get young students come up to him and say, "i'm just here to fulfill a requirement. i want you to know that i don't believe in God." Borg would respond, "so, tell me more about this god you don't believe in." i pose the same question. in order to understand what isn't, tell us what is--your concept of this dead god.
| |
| Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 02:21 pm the discussion about Joziism and son Tom Willard is interesting in as much as many still hold that God is this capricious rule maker that is constantly changing the rules. we either become angry with that god, try to placate him/her with some offerings, or just check out completely. and Tom is supposed to mediate. but we don't trust him since he's the god head's spokesman and perceived to be in his camp. but, if there is a God, is that what God is like?
| |
| Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 05:58 pm Shinto.
| |
| Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 06:35 pm I wonder how many of you non-believers call out God's name when you have no where else to turn? I convinced myself that there is no God and at a time when I would have usually have called out Gods name, I did'nt. It was one of the most overwhelming moments of my life. Instead of going into a semi trance, which in turn calmed me down and gave me the peace I needed to work out a way through it, I stayed in a state of anguish and hopelessness. I got through it, but it scared the crap out of me. The true non-believer would never use the word God in times of pain or joy. I would bet that 80% of you who say you don't believe still use Gods name in those times. Anyways. I'm 99% sure that there is no God. But I'm not stupid enough to deny something that I don't know.
| |
Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 06:54 pm
Shame this sort of logic doesn't apply to all of your arguments.
| |
| Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 07:03 pm Quote from miles just incase he changes it to make me look like a sap 'Shame this sort of logic doesn't apply to all of your arguments.' What? I'm not stupid enough to deny that there might be a problem with us polluting, destroying and consuming the natural world. Come on. Keep this thread about God and not me.
| |
| Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 07:25 pm Unlike you, I have yet to change my argument in any way shape or form as gaps in my knowledge base appear. You're certainly daft enough to draw conclusion without evidence, personal or otherwise, regardless of the subject matter behind it. And more than willing to impose your view upon others whilst crying out at anyone who would dare to do the same. There's a word which describes thay: hypocrit. You look like a sap without any help from me.
| |
| Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 07:26 pm Well, that certainly took off. I will craft a reply to some people. TGK: An emotional argument from ignorance. "(paraphrase) current understanding seems insufficient when compared to what i feel" Zdenek: Atheism is the same as theism in that both are responses to the question: Is there a god? They are markedly different from that point on. I would be willing to distinguish religious theism from nonreligious theism. But I would argue that nonreligious theism is really deism. Illuminatus: I would agree on the assumtion. I would in fact elevate it to the level of knowledge in that I can say I 'know' I will not win the lottery tommorow even though I cannot be absolutely certain. Orbiter: I assume that when you mention 'God' (NB capitialisation) that you refer to the Christian god Yahweh (ie omnipotent, omnipresent and omnibenevolent). I would argue that this is logically impossible. I paraphrase Epicurius 33 AD (basically the problem of evil): If god allows there to be evil in the world, then he is not good. If he is not able to prevent evil, then he is not powerful. Since there is evil, god must be either willing or unable to prevent it. The typical counter arguments to that are either that the greater good is better (taking into account an eternity in heven, of course) or that free will prevents god's interferenace (in which case, why pray?). Also passion and logic are not mutually exclusive. Serpent/PS: The situation serpent discribes is interesting. I would argue that what he HAD was faith (when you first went to the bank to cash the cheque) and what he HAS is knowledge (when he experienced repeatable evidence to support the notion that the cheque will not bounce). The distinction is important. Also, professing that his cheques from an employer never bounce and professing that one of the Abrahamic religions is 'true' are on quite different levels in terms of their implications and ramifications. Jojo: Jozi, eh? Interesting. Parisifal: I would invite you to expound more on god as the "ground of our being". Since I do not put my faith in god(s) does that mean that he is not the ground of my being? When you say "the way things are" are you invoking the pantheistic god is everything and everywhere argument? In your second post I think you are describing the rejection of nihilism, which is distinct from atheism/theism. Nix: I would argue that there lots of things you are 99% sure of that you would be comfortable with saying you 'know'. For example: Pulling an all nighter and 'knowing' you'll feel tired the next evening (not if you drink coffee or sleep all day). That the water coming out of the hot water tap is hot (it takes a while to warm up). Why restrict yourself when discussing the tpoic of the existance of god? Imo, there is a spectrum which runs from nonawareness to awareness to belief to knowledge to absolute knowledge. Faith is something that is invoked when there is no reasonable reason to have belief, knowledge or abosolute knowledge.
| |
| Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 07:43 pm You don't know me, so how can you say that? All I know is what I know. And what I don't know I hope one day I will. Until then I will say I know what I know and don't know what I don't know.
| |
| Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 07:59 pm "I would bet that 80% of you who say you don't believe still use Gods name in those times." That's true. I dropped something on my foot the other day and immediately said "Ouch God damn it!" True story. WRT Pascal's wager: His main argument is that, basically, if God exists and I believe in him, I gain everything whereas if God does not exist and I believe in him, I lose nothing. If belief in God were simply a switch that I can flip on or off, I would agree. However, it is not the case that I lose nothing by believing in a God that doesn't exist. Belief in God usually equates to following some particular religion. And following a particular religion means that I must follow some archaic tradition and allow other people and/or some book to dictate to me what I may believe and how I may live my life. What is really at stake here is my freedom to live life on my own terms. Considering that, in all likelihood, I only get one life... that's actually quite a lot to risk. Of course, one could argue that it is possible to believe in God without following a religion. However, a common objection to Pascal's wager is that it has no way of distinguishing which one, of the many religions that Mankind has followed, is the correct one. The reply to that criticism is that the Wager only applies to religions that promise eternal happiness/eternal punishment. Okay, fair enough. But if I remove religion from the equation by believing in God without following a religion, then I've invalidated the terms of the wager because I don't know whether my non-religious God promises eternal happiness/punishment or not. And if I believe in some particular religion's God but I do not adhere to the archaic social commandments of that religion, then I am defying God. Overall it's just a losing proposition to believe in things for which there's no proof.
| |
| Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 08:32 pm Danger, "Since I do not put my faith in god(s) does that mean that he is not the ground of my being?" that's correct. but the argument goes that even though we may not put faith or have belief in a deity, we still have faith in something. it may be self, work, ideology, drugs or fucking. if not, we truly become nihilists or psychotic. the question then is, what do we want to place our faith? "When you say "the way things are" are you invoking the pantheistic god is everything and everywhere argument? " not pantheistic, but panentheistic. this is a process that is both unchanging but also is a state of being and change. God in this concept is not personified as the orginator of a three tiered universe, but dynamic but at the same time unchanging. as a believer, i lean into or embrace this creator/creation in its awesomeness, beauty and frightfulness. and each moment i encounter that form of God and try to live into those moments of joy, pain and commitment. there is a mystical quality to this concept as it embraces the unfolding process of being alive. and yes it does negate the idea of nihilism.
| |
| Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 09:14 pm nix: I do not mean to assert that I know anything about you. I just want to point out that many people use the word 'know' to describe a state of conviction when, strictly, 'know' means 'certain', 'absolute'. I guess you are with the majority, which may be my fallacy, and would likely say 'know' when you really mean 'convinced by repetitous evidence to support the fact'. My point is that people seem willing to use 'know' in some ableit, benign, contexts when they are unwilling to use the same word in the context of all powerful supreme beings. I know im not going to win the lottery tommorrow in the same way I know there is no supreme being. Parsifal: I am unsure of your definition of faith. I believe that drugs (and the rest) exist in the same way i believe self exists. Moreover, I have sufficient evidence to elevate that belief to the level of knowledge. I have no need for faith to know that these things exist because I have good evidence. So, I think our definitions differ. What is your definition of faith? Hmmm, there appear to be semantic contradictions. I would argue that dynamic but at the same time unchanging is a contradiction. Something cannot be A *and* not A. What aspect of this panentheistic belief negates the idea of nihilism? If god is the universe (plus additional, supernatural stuff) and we are an insignificant part of that universe, what does it matter that we are here? For myself, I invoke faith to dismiss nihilism. I have no evidence or reason to dismiss nihilism, but I do so anyway.
| |
Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 09:26 pm
lol... I always blame God for every little thing, as I am a calvinist on tuesdays.
| |
| Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 09:31 pm The Young British Soldier When the 'arf-made recruity goes out to the East 'E acts like a babe an' 'e drinks like a beast, An' 'e wonders because 'e is frequent deceased Ere 'e's fit for to serve as a soldier. Serve, serve, serve as a soldier, Serve, serve, serve as a soldier, Serve, serve, serve as a soldier, So-oldier OF the Queen! Now all you recruities what's drafted to-day, You shut up your rag-box an' 'ark to my lay, An' I'll sing you a soldier as far as I may: A soldier what's fit for a soldier. Fit, fit, fit for a soldier . . . First mind you steer clear o' the grog-sellers' huts, For they sell you Fixed Bay'nets that rots out your guts -- Ay, drink that 'ud eat the live steel from your butts -- An' it's bad for the young British soldier. Bad, bad, bad for the soldier . . . When the cholera comes -- as it will past a doubt -- Keep out of the wet and don't go on the shout, For the sickness gets in as the liquor dies out, An' it crumples the young British soldier. Crum-, crum-, crumples the soldier . . . But the worst o' your foes is the sun over'ead: You must wear your 'elmet for all that is said: If 'e finds you uncovered 'e'll knock you down dead, An' you'll die like a fool of a soldier. Fool, fool, fool of a soldier . . . If you're cast for fatigue by a sergeant unkind, Don't grouse like a woman nor crack on nor blind; Be handy and civil, and then you will find That it's beer for the young British soldier. Beer, beer, beer for the soldier . . . Now, if you must marry, take care she is old -- A troop-sergeant's widow's the nicest I'm told, For beauty won't help if your rations is cold, Nor love ain't enough for a soldier. 'Nough, 'nough, 'nough for a soldier . . . If the wife should go wrong with a comrade, be loath To shoot when you catch 'em -- you'll swing, on my oath! -- Make 'im take 'er and keep 'er: that's Hell for them both, An' you're shut o' the curse of a soldier. Curse, curse, curse of a soldier . . . When first under fire an' you're wishful to duck, Don't look nor take 'eed at the man that is struck, Be thankful you're livin', and trust to your luck And march to your front like a soldier. Front, front, front like a soldier . . . When 'arf of your bullets fly wide in the ditch, Don't call your Martini a cross-eyed old bitch; She's human as you are -- you treat her as sich, An' she'll fight for the young British soldier. Fight, fight, fight for the soldier . . . When shakin' their bustles like ladies so fine, The guns o' the enemy wheel into line, Shoot low at the limbers an' don't mind the shine, For noise never startles the soldier. Start-, start-, startles the soldier . . . If your officer's dead and the sergeants look white, Remember it's ruin to run from a fight: So take open order, lie down, and sit tight, And wait for supports like a soldier. Wait, wait, wait like a soldier . . . When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, And the women come out to cut up what remains, Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains An' go to your Gawd like a soldier. Go, go, go like a soldier, Go, go, go like a soldier, Go, go, go like a soldier, So-oldier of the Queen! There are no athiests in foxholes, but plenty after the war. Nuf said.
| |
| Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 11:03 pm You can argue Miles Prower, but I will not. I went through this argument when Dawkins "The God Delusion" and an interview with him on http://www.alternet.org/ and elsewhere was published and I not going through it again. I think I do understand the definitions of deism/theism yet, and as you stated, when it comes to God non/existence they are same to me.
| |
| Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 11:18 pm hmm to contribute something http://www.beliefnet.com/Entertainment/Quizzes/BeliefOMatic.aspx 1. Theravada Buddhism (100%) 2. Secular Humanism (89%) 3. Nontheist (83%) 4. Unitarian Universalism (83%) 5. Liberal Quakers (61%) 6. Taoism (44%) 7. Neo-Pagan (41%) 8. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (25%) 9. Mahayana Buddhism (23%) 10. Jainism (19%) 11. New Age (19%) 12. Orthodox Quaker (19%) 13. Hinduism (14%) 14. Seventh Day Adventist (14%) 15. Reform Judaism (11%) 16. Bahá'à Faith (8%) 17. New Thought (8%) 18. Scientology (8%) 19. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (2%) 20. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (0%) 21. Eastern Orthodox (0%) 22. Islam (0%) 23. Jehovah's Witness (0%) 24. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (0%) 25. Orthodox Judaism (0%) 26. Roman Catholic (0%) 27. Sikhism (0%)
| |
| Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 11:45 pm cool, I'm 35% Mormon!
| |
| Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 11:52 pm 35% what part? lol
| |
| Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 11:52 pm I'm 1/3 mormon! Does that mean Illuminatus and I can marry each other now? Geez, tuco... Lots of 0% going there. My results go from 1/3 (Mormon) to 1 (Unitarian Universalism - I think Bart Simpson killed me on a videogame once). This is somewhat amusing tho: 10. Reform Judaism (75%) 11. Orthodox Judaism (73%)
| |
| Wednesday, April 15, 2009 - 12:04 am Hmm, well... I kind of like the idea of being polygamous, so I think that answers the question of which part of me is Mormon ^_^ (I know most Mormons don't do that any more, lol)
| |
| Wednesday, April 15, 2009 - 12:16 am Danger, i don't make a strong distinction between belief and faith and possibly i should. however, it doesn't seem that important. it's a little bit of hair splitting. but for the sake of the discussion here are a couple of ideas (not my own) that i can pretty much hang my hat on. "faith can be used in two senses. in the first, faith is a qualtiy or attitude that characterizes human existence. this may be meant as in such a statement as, 'He is a man of faith.' in the second use, faith may mean the contents or set of beliefs a person holds. such use is implied in the saying, "he believes in the Christian faith." the first use is the most proper. in this case faith means confidence or trust in God rather than belief in certain doctrines. faith is necessary for any particular beliefs. faith always has its ground in some being or power, and in Christianity faith has its ground in God." "Hmmm, there appear to be semantic contradictions. I would argue that dynamic but at the same time unchanging is a contradiction. Something cannot be A *and* not A." it is a contradiction, and therein lies the paradox of opposites, that it is both dynamic and unchanging at the same time. for me, i've learned to lean into that paradox, not expecting that much certainty except the certainty of the paradox. "What aspect of this panentheistic belief negates the idea of nihilism? If god is the universe (plus additional, supernatural stuff) and we are an insignificant part of that universe, what does it matter that we are here?" you've raised a good question which i think you answer in your last sentence. we make a choice to choose something, not knowing whether it's a right choice or not. we can embrace that state of being and take responsibility for our choices and if right, take joy, and if wrong to hopefully learn from those mistakes and accept Grace. and behind it all is the faith that i am a part of that never ending flow of creation and that i will live it in the best way i can that is congruent with my perception of the Creators unfolding plan. also, i prefer "mystical" rather than "supernatural". "For myself, I invoke faith to dismiss nihilism. I have no evidence or reason to dismiss nihilism, but I do so anyway." right on. so, when you choose faith to dismiss nihilism, where/what do you place your faith?
| |
| Wednesday, April 15, 2009 - 12:59 am Parsifal: I do not like either of the definitions (senses) of faith you offer. In the former, faith is a trait. In the latter, faith is simply a synonym of tennants or beliefs or dogma. The quote then goes on to characterise faith as the confidence or trust, which I would largely agree with. Imo, faith is confidence without reason or trust without evidence. I would argue that not all beliefs *necessarily* require faith and would especially argue that faith does not have to come from any outside source. I think that in this last context the word dogma is more appropriate. Regarding the contradiction, by 'lean' i presume you derive comfort from this logical impossiblity (paradox). How is a logical contradiction comforting? I do not place my faith anywhere, I do not really understand the concept (to 'place' faith). I have no reason to think that nihilism isnt entirely appropriate. I just simply choose not to be nihilistic.
| |
| Wednesday, April 15, 2009 - 03:46 am 1. Unitarian Universalism (100%) 2. Liberal Quakers (93%) 3. Theravada Buddhism (91%) 4. Secular Humanism (87%) 5. Neo-Pagan (86%) 6. Mahayana Buddhism (76%) 7. New Age (75%) 8. Jainism (70%) 9. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (68%) 10. Orthodox Quaker (65%) 11. Baha'i Faith (63%) 12. Nontheist (61%) 13. Taoism (59%) 14. Reform Judaism (57%) 15. Hinduism (52%) 16. Scientology (46%) 17. Islam (43%) 18. Orthodox Judaism (43%) 19. New Thought (42%) 20. Seventh Day Adventist (42%) 21. Sikhism (35%) 22. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (35%) 23. Jehovah's Witness (32%) 24. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (27%) 25. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (24%) 26. Eastern Orthodox (20%) 27. Roman Catholic (20%) I'm more Jahova's Witness than Zdenek. I had no idea. I hope homeland security doesn't find out I am 43% muslim. :/
| |
| Wednesday, April 15, 2009 - 04:28 am Danger, as i said, i don't make much of a distinction between the concept of faith and belief. the definitions i gave are not mine but for the sake of the discussion i presented them. yes, i do get comfort from paradox. it's just another paradigm. there appears to be universal laws that are unchanging, while at the same time there is constant change taking place. so, i can take comfort that there is something that is unchanging while at the same time creation continues and i'm a part of that. as far as your statement "For myself, I invoke faith to dismiss nihilism. I have no evidence or reason to dismiss nihilism, but I do so anyway." i guess i don't have your experience to understand what you mean. so, have we beat this one up enough. lol. what next?
| |
| Wednesday, April 15, 2009 - 04:36 am 1. Hinduism (100%) 2. New Thought (89%) 3. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (84%) 4. Scientology (82%) 5. Orthodox Judaism (78%) 6. Neo-Pagan (77%) 7. Unitarian Universalism (77%) 8. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (73%) 9. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (70%) 10. Jehovah's Witness (70%) 11. Mahayana Buddhism (67%) 12. Reform Judaism (66%) 13. New Age (65%) 14. Liberal Quakers (62%) 15. Sikhism (60%) 16. Islam (58%) 17. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (53%) 18. Eastern Orthodox (51%) 19. Orthodox Quaker (51%) 20. Roman Catholic (51%) 21. Seventh Day Adventist (51%) 22. Jainism (50%) 23. Baha'i Faith (49%) 24. Theravada Buddhism (46%) 25. Taoism (32%) 26. Secular Humanism (22%) 27. Nontheist (11%) Wow I am a Hindu.
| |
| Wednesday, April 15, 2009 - 05:57 am I took that quiz a few years ago, and came up with some crazy combination of religions, none of which I was comfortable with (including my own, the way it is described.) I find it impossible to take the quiz now. The choices are not mutually exclusive, there is not nearly enough room for "I don't know," or "I'm not sure," and even picking the closest to what I believe still pigeonholes me in a way that just is contrary to what I believe, on any given issue. I hope others took the Joziite thing as not just a joke. I've had this idea for a while...even assuming for the sake of argument there really is a Jozi, who created and maintains the whole simcountry system, I don't think it can be proven from evidence within simcountry that Jozi exists. You can't see outside the simworlds, from within them. The simcountry system has its own programmed rules and laws. Even though the rules change, they do so in somewhat predictable ways--one could fashion a meta-law to describe how they change, and the meta-law is still a description of simcountry itself. Making payments to W3c...that's outside simcountry and cannot be used as evidence. Communications are more problematic...but anyone claiming to have communicated with Jozi can be called a liar, or deluded, or just confused. Even if I send an email and receive a personal reply, I could explain that as a programmed, albeit high-level, response from the game itself. Where did the whole simcountry system come from, and why is it here? These are questions either that simscience has no right to ask...or else we do come up with naturalistic explanations. And of course the whole point is that it's an illustration that those who ask for proof of God's existence are perhaps asking for something that just cannot adequately be provided from within our universe. I'll pursue the analogy a little further, wrt the issue of omnipotence. Is Jozi (er, "Jozi") omnipotent within simcountry? Yes...no...it's not really a good question, it's much too crude. Sure Jozi could come in and punish some players, reward others...it would destroy the game though. He can and has made rules to keep us from making errors...and what do we do? We rebel, we say let us run our countries in our own way, even if we might fail. What's the point of playing the game if you're forced to succeed? So Jozi allows countries to fail, God allows bad things to happen--it doesn't mean Jozi is bad, or God is bad; these things are just part of the game. Anyway, thanks for letting me use your name so freely, Jozi--no offense intended, if you really are out there.
| |
| Wednesday, April 15, 2009 - 06:37 am At Samicus, I didn't know hindus, neo pagans, orthodox jews, and Mormons had anything in common. At JoJo, Have you ever contemplated the question "where is Simcountry". Some Heretics have claimed there is a place called the Netherlands and Simcountry is contained within a Server. That can't be correct because it has been revealed that most presidents are not in the Netherlands and yet they are presidents in Simcountry. At The Faithful, The doctrine of omniscience and the doctrine of omnipotence are philosophical ideas that did not originate from Jozi or Tom Willard. One can ask a question like "can Jozi create a mountain that Jozi cannot lift". Although it may be thought provoking this is not a challenge to Joziism.
| |
| Wednesday, April 15, 2009 - 06:55 am 1. Jehovah's Witness (100%) 2. Sikhism (96%) 3. Baha'i Faith (93%) 4. Islam (89%) 5. Jainism (83%) 6. Reform Judaism (82%) 7. Orthodox Quaker (78%) 8. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (76%) 9. Orthodox Judaism (76%) 10. Hinduism (75%) 11. Seventh Day Adventist (71%) 12. Eastern Orthodox (67%) 13. Roman Catholic (67%) 14. Liberal Quakers (66%) 15. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (62%) 16. Neo-Pagan (57%) 17. Mahayana Buddhism (55%) 18. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (55%) 19. Unitarian Universalism (53%) 20. Theravada Buddhism (44%) 21. New Age (42%) 22. Secular Humanism (35%) 23. Scientology (35%) 24. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (29%) 25. Taoism (29%) 26. New Thought (28%) 27. Nontheist (23%) Hmmm Intresting
| |
| Wednesday, April 15, 2009 - 06:57 am LOL I guess I believe a lil bit of all of them. I do not see any 0%'s
| |
| Wednesday, April 15, 2009 - 07:42 am PS, I had a philosophy professor who once asked me "where is a memory?" At the time I thought it was the most profound question. I had another philosophy professor who used to say the proper response for all sorts of questions like that is "What do you mean when you say 'such and such'?" In this case, what is meant by "where"? It implies we're talking about a physical object located someplace in space. Clearly a memory, or simcountry, is not a physical object. So the question "Where is simcountry?" makes no more sense than "where is blue" or "where is random?," i.e. none. "Can Jozi create a mountain that Jozi cannot lift?" What does "create" mean, and what does "lift" mean. Get to the details. If you were to ask the question about me, I'd say, well, Jojo is a master of dirt and can put together a small hill of dirt that he can't pick up with his hands, though he could lift it with a Bobcat. He could then use the Bobcat to pile up a larger hill that he couldn't lift with the Bobcat, though he could lift it with some larger piece of equipment...and what the hell is the point of this fairly stupid question. I don't see one defining "create" and "lift" so that the question will have any practical point regarding God. As you said, I think, such questions are interesting but they don't really lead anywhere useful.
| |
| Wednesday, April 15, 2009 - 08:23 am Jojo, The question is relevant to the word Omnipotent. Omnipotence means able to do anything. I recently read an article in science that presented evidence that memory are stored in glial cells. The authors were open to the possibility that the glial cells were just stimulating recollection. The prior accepted notion was that memories are exclusively stored in neurons. Glial cells, Neurons, or a coordinated effort are the available options.
| |
| Wednesday, April 15, 2009 - 08:48 am I guess I believe a lil bit of all of them. - Serpent In a way that is the point I think. We all believe in "something", despite there were no answers for the nihilists for example. Even nihilist is no "robot". The proclamation of the Lord's Resurrection lightens up the dark regions of the world in which we live. I am referring particularly to materialism and nihilism, to a vision of the world that is unable to move beyond what is scientifically verifiable, and retreats cheerlessly into a sense of emptiness which is thought to be the definitive destiny of human life. - Urbi at Orbi 2009
| |
| Thursday, April 16, 2009 - 03:34 pm The older I get the more atheist I feel.
| |
| Thursday, April 16, 2009 - 06:55 pm I always thought people got more religious with age...
| |
| Thursday, April 16, 2009 - 08:40 pm Maybe it depends on where you're starting from. PS, what do you mean when you say "anything"? Does that include logical contradictions such as 'both lift any mountain that can be created, and create a mountain that cannot be lifted?' Applying those sorts of definitions of omnipotence to God tells us much about our understanding of words, but very little about God. Though I don't know for sure, of course, I tend to think that God is not omnipotent according to such definitions...and so what? What if it were the case that there were more realistic, practical limits, even very severe limits, to what God can do in this world? Finding those limits out, defining those limits, would tell us a lot about God, and a lot about the nature of things. The whole scientific eneterprise can be seen in that light. Not you necessarily, but people who try to poke holes in God's supposed omnipotence are simply setting up a straw man argument. There is a world of room, the real world we live in, between "God is perfect and omniscient and omnipotent" and "God does not exist."
| |
| Thursday, April 16, 2009 - 08:45 pm Do any of you Atheists believe in Jesus?
| |
| Friday, April 17, 2009 - 12:48 am Maybe most people do but it seems to have worked the opposite for me. Just seems I have fewer and fewer reasons to even question anything. I seem to know what I know and believe what I believe. And nix: I wouldn't say I am certain but it seems implausible.
| |
| Friday, April 17, 2009 - 02:31 am Jesus... Wasn't he the #1 American of the 20th century? That aside, I don't believe in a specific deity. But then that is not the nature of my religion.
| |
| Friday, April 17, 2009 - 02:49 am Jesus? to me he was just jewish carpenter who had a big mouth, pissed off the wrong peeps, and got killed for it. everything in between is utter nonsense. padding if you will to make his story that much more interesting.
| |
| Friday, April 17, 2009 - 03:05 am If Jesus was just a man, do you respect what he did and why he did it?
| |
| Friday, April 17, 2009 - 03:12 am If Jesus was a man it makes his "message" much more powerful in my eyes than if he had .. powers.
| |
| Friday, April 17, 2009 - 08:15 am Jojo, Today I was thinking about your post from april 15, 5:57. I stopped paying attention to what I was doing and managed to fry my arm with a 130 amp electric ark and some steel splatter. The weld looked like crap too.  It occurred to me that you were not really denying the existence of Jozi. The doctrine of the Trinity states that Jozi is not just the administrator. The trinity is "the server", "the administrator" and "the software". You suggest that witnessed miracles could be created by an administer that is like the software. This is not a challenge to the existence of Jozi. Jozi may or may not have an organic neural network. It is also difficult to prove that so many of Simcountries presidents actually have organic neural networks. Perhaps you can ask Jozi about his network when your account goes to backup.
| |
| Saturday, April 18, 2009 - 03:07 am @Nix001 - Nope. I wasn't there to witness the events and I don't believe a word of any of the writings that have come about from any of the religions based upon Abraham. Quite frankly, IMHO, the world would be a better place it none of those religions came about. Given what we know was handed down from generation to generation and transcribed by hand for centuries, it's my belief that the various writings from all of those religions are examples of early fiction at it's best.
| |
| Saturday, April 18, 2009 - 04:02 am If those writings are all actually fiction, why are they still around? There are not many writings that are as old as those? There are a few, but even then, those writings do not have the impact on humanity that the bible does. What I find interesting abut those ancient writings like the bible for ie... is that they are remarkably accurate on things that are historical and scientific. Now I'm not gonna say that every single syllable is exactly as it was penned several thousand years ago, but there is obviously something to that book! I think the reason that many people do not believe in the bible, God, or a higher power is because of three reasons. 1) Most people are by nature lazy, and if you claim to believe in the bible, then you must do something. Obviously it isn't just a book for leisure reading. 2) Some people do not want to be accountable to anybody. Because again, if you believe the bible, then you are accountable to a higher power and most people do not like that idea. In fact people in general has become a 'you do as you please' and 'there is no right and wrong' society. 3) This IMO is prolly the most important reason. When you look at those that 'claim' to be christians, for the most part it is disgusting! Many a terrible and horrible act has been committed in the name of God. Because by their actions they prove themselves to be some of the most horrible individuals on the planet. Of course there are those that belong to other faiths that can be included in this example, but I used Christians, because that is no doubt what many on this forum claim to be. But I would also argue that before a individual writes off any particular faith, find out what it REALLY believes, then make your judgement.
| |
| Saturday, April 18, 2009 - 11:46 am Ten Commandments according to the Selfish Gene #1 I am your God You shall have no other gods before Me You shall not make for yourself an idol Love, trust and defend your believes/opinions/feelings, be an individual not a part of the collective. Do not fall to others who impose (their believes/Gods) on you. Do not let yourself to be deceived and driven by society trends, fashion and role models. Your selfish gene, your belief, your God, yourself, knows whats best for you, not others. #2 You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God Do not be hypocritical. Talk is cheap and if you fail to act as you talk, others will judge you, despise you and spit on you. #3 Remember thou keep the Sabbath Day. This is a tough one. Working on Sunday is a sin! Its not healthy for you. If you wanna perform well and live long and happy life, you need to take a day off. #4 Honor your parents Naturally.. the way you treat your parents, your kids will treat you. Anyone wanna die alone? #5 You shall not murder This is simple self-protection rule. Do I need to say more? #6 You shall not commit adultery I will assume this applies to monogamous marriage, which is an institution enforced by men to secure themselves at least one mating opportunity - at least according to Robert Wright -, and in such marriage there are pragmatic reasons why to stay faithful. Wasted parental investments, offspring raised by a 'stranger' or raising offspring of a 'stranger' at the expense of own offspring as in Robert Trivers for example. Beyond monogamy we could argue in similar fashion. #7 You shall not steal As with murder, its for self-protection. #8 You shall not bear false witness Be fair and true, coz you can never know when you will be judged, and false witness is the last thing you want to have as your foe at your own trial. Jury duty anyone? #9 You shall not covet your neighbor's wife More specific #6 with a twist. We have a proverb: "whats in the house, is not for me." getting involved with someone you come to contact with often, like at work or next house, is just asking for troubles. #10 You shall not covet your neighbor's house... Again more refined #7. Maybe the God is into decimal system I dunno. --- Now this is the word of God, which we are to keep. Are these rules of imaginary moral nature or common sense nature? From the point of view of the selfish gene, how could these interfere? Do not these rules actually serve to preserve the selfish gene? And finally: The Golden Rule Do unto others as you would have them do unto you / Treat others as you would like to be treated. or its 21 reincarnations present in religions around the world. This is from game theory textbook. This is the tit for tat principle, the highly effective strategy in game theory for the iterated prisoner's dilemma, the equivalent to the concept of reciprocal altruism in the context of biology as wiki says. 1. Unless provoked, the agent will always cooperate 2. If provoked, the agent will retaliate 3. The agent is quick to forgive 4. The agent must have a good chance of competing against the opponent more than once. --- In the beginning was the DNA, and the DNA was with God, and the DNA was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made. - (John 1:1)
| |
| Saturday, April 18, 2009 - 03:53 pm "...is that they are remarkably accurate on things that are historical and scientific." By whose account? Very little of the stories from the bible have ever been proved as historical and there is NOTHING scientific about that book. Alchemical maybe with the water to wine and if they had managed to turn lead into gold in there somewhere, but scientific accuracy? No way.
| |
| Saturday, April 18, 2009 - 05:17 pm nothing? i just scientifically quoted John 1:1 ;) how would you describe DNA? quoting wiki? how would you explain big bang? perhaps .. let there be light!? how would you imply that humans originated in east Africa? by telling a story about Adam and Eve? how would you tell how old Earth is? 6 000 or 4 540 000 000 .. yeah theres "little" discrepancy, but perhaps even 4.54 billion was a little too big number back then. I don't think its possible to take the Bible literally and derive from it that what is written there is not true because it does not fit todays "state of mind". Its a matter of interpretation, but I can imagine it contains facts, even scientific facts, just told in language used at the time, because it was meant for people of that time not for us. Then again, Ive never read the book so I wouldnt know, thus yes I admit I'm making it up to fit my argument.
| |
| Saturday, April 18, 2009 - 07:31 pm Physics starts with the observation of light too. Time and length are defined by the characteristic wavelengths of elements. Anthropology and biology does not necessarily conflict with the biblical time line. Adams son Cain moved into a city. There must have been plenty of Homo Sapiens in the garden. Adam was the "first man" because he was the first to have a personal relationship with God as god is understood in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
| |
| Saturday, April 18, 2009 - 09:59 pm Of course the bible is not a scientific textbook. My point is that when it does touch on scientific things it has been proven accurate. For example it was not until relativly recent in time that it was realized that the earth was a sphere. Many of course said it was flat. If your opinion differed, then you were tortured or killed. But long before '1492' or whenever the 'idea' of a round earth was discovered, the bible at Isa 40:22 mentions the "circle", or "sphere" or however your particular translation reads. That definatly was a scientific statement, especially in those days. Another example is of something as simple as hygiene. Many, many civilizations had the practice of using excrement in medicine! The people of that time knew nothing about germs, in fact they thought it was beneficial. But the bible described a technique that involved simply digging a hole and marking where you went. And there are countless other things about personal hygiene that it mentions, that by in large, the people around did not practice. This seems very very simple to us in the 21st century, but this was cutting edge stuff back in the day. This is not all the evidence that there definatly is something about that book! Of course there are other ancient writings that have value, but consider this: There were apparently over 40 different writer of the book, over a 1600yr history, but it still is harmonious all thru. That in itself is quit a feat! What other book has been so persecuted throughout history. In fact it even being illegal to have. No book has been persecuted as much as the bible, and yet, here it is! Not only have their been attempts to eradicate the bible, but today it is BY FAR the most widely distributed book. It is published in over 2300 languages and available to 90% of the world. All this from a hated and 'misinterpreted' book! To me that alone is amazing. Enuf so that it seems like something I'd wanna investigate. Especially if it can do half of what it claims it can!
| |
| Saturday, April 18, 2009 - 11:54 pm What I know about God: 1) There is a God and it isn't me! That's about it! A Sufi mystic from the 1300's says it best (imho): "Even after all this Time The Sun never says to the Earth, 'You owe me'. Look what happens with A Love like that; It lights up the whole Sky." -Hafez
| |
| Sunday, April 19, 2009 - 08:28 am Serpent: Columbus did not prove the earth was round. Most scientists, even in the 15th century, believed in a round earth. The Greeks believed in it as well. So did Pythagoras, Plato, and Aristotle. I would not know what year Isaiah was written, but the round earth theory was around many centuries before 1492. The Bible is certainly not "harmonious" all thru. Just read the 4 Gospels to see the discrepancies. They were telling the story of the life of the man they considered to be the living son of God. Yet, they cannot agree on the details? Even when describing the events of his death, they disagree. Regardless of your faith, you can't read the Bible and say that every line in it is in harmony with every other line in it. Most early cultures would have had a set of practices that promoted better health, as best as they understood it. I don't think this makes the Bible special. Many books are also persecuted as are many religions. Christian nations have existed where all other beliefs were shunned as well. Most religious persecution comes at the hands of other religions, IMO. Just look at the world today for proof. The Bible is widely distributed. This is a testament to those who follow its beliefs and spread it around the globe. They do a good job of promoting the book. It says nothing about its veracity. Harry Potter and Stephen King are always widely read and distributed but remain fiction nonetheless.
| |
| Sunday, April 19, 2009 - 02:25 pm If people will read Harry Potter in 2000 years from now, which I doubt because to me this phenomena is just a trend or fashion, then I could agree with the parallel to the Bible. My opinion is that "value" of "memes", basically (units of) information which can replicate and spread, is in their longevity, and in this sense the Bible or Christian "memes" (values), in some areas, proved themselves. Sure, we can simply dismiss such reasoning arguing something along the lines of brainwashing, illiteracy, use of force, or restricting freedoms which can be true up to a point, however, I believe such methods work only in short term as people can distinguish elementary "good" form elementary "evil" somehow naturally and thus cannot be, in general, imposed on by "evil" indefinitely simply because only few want to be/come "evil".
| |
| Sunday, April 19, 2009 - 09:07 pm Which memes are you referring to? Many of the most common memes in the Bible are not Christian in origin and pre-date the Bible. While many Christians today may live according to these beliefs, that does not make them "Christian beliefs" since many non-Christians (like myself) live accordingly as well.
| |
| Sunday, April 19, 2009 - 09:17 pm I dunno I'm not believing Christian, but those which are being referred to as Christian values I assume. In similar fashion any other ideas which carry over from generation to generation like .. wash your hands after taking piss is pretty solid meme. Think of it this way. Try to come up with own ideas, own values, own memes and try to spread them. If they can survive 2000 years, if millions of other people will be able to relate to them, then I think you probably would be onto .. something. edit: I think we should distinguish between entertainment and philosophy, between amusement and way of life. Only on this bases comparisons of the Bible and Harry Potter dont just match. People dont live by Harry Potter or do they? Again I wouldnt know, never read it, dunno any people who would live by it.
| |
| Monday, April 20, 2009 - 01:13 am Jesus during the week. Harry Potter during the weekend. Sounds good to me
| |
| Monday, April 20, 2009 - 02:42 am I have a frying pan that is both round and flat. Here is a 12th century map of the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Diagrammatic_T-O_world_map_-_12th_century.jpg Another one from 1154: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1154_world_map_by_Moroccan_cartographer_al-Idrisi_for_king_Roger_of_Sicily.jpg You can also claim that the sky is a dome. The sun stars and planets orbit on spheres with disc shaped earth inside the sphere.
| |
| Monday, April 20, 2009 - 03:05 am I was talking to some people on mIRC about this and I would like to clarify Zentrino because our "argument", if there is any, is likely just a misunderstanding. Yes the Bible has/had amazing "marketing", however, I was trying to say that I dont believe its the primary reason for the existence of Christian religion. The primary reason (time proved memes) I stated already so I will not repeat myself. I just refuse to, and dont have any evidence for to believe, that virtually any ideas can be sold by marketing, not in a long term anyways. Not only that admitting to this would make us, humans, look like brainless - heartless dolls which in a sense could be possible, but it would deny what is called as the human nature, where human nature is something what is common to humans in general, and such denial is not in agreement with what sciences, natural or social, tell us about humans. Though human nature is a topic for itself, I just wanted to make my statements clear.
| |
| Monday, April 20, 2009 - 03:46 am Zdenek If you compare memes to genes only a few of them would be necessary to survive and dominate over the last 2000 years. Promotion of literacy is the primary meme. Once you have a ridged script that dictates copying that script the rest of the memes in the script survive even if they have lost their useful functions. The survival of the ancient Jewish tradition is quite circumstantial. Jews in ancient Babylon became a scribe cast. Their stories survived because they were writing. The bricklayer cast my have had better and more meaningful stories passed down from their ancestors. We will never know. The Judeo-Christian tradition got a second boost from the Roman empire. The Romans tolerated Jewish religion but scattered them after 77 AD. So, Judaism appeared in a diverse set of cultures without having to appeal to those cultures. The destruction of parts of the roman empire did not destroy Judaism or Christianity which was scattered with the Jews. Unlike Judaism, Christianity added a new meme. Christians adapted to the local culture in order to facilitate conversion. But Christianity kept the copy-literature-meme and the mono-theism-meme. Christian hordes burned large parts of the ancient literature tradition. Christian text did not have to be better than the competition. They just had to inspire the destruction of all competition.
| |
| Monday, April 20, 2009 - 04:10 am If you compare memes to genes only a few of them would be necessary to survive and dominate over the last 2000 years. Promotion of literacy is the primary meme. Once you have a ridged script that dictates copying that script the rest of the memes in the script survive even if they have lost their useful functions. - Pathetic Sheep I agree and that is why I find question: What to replace religion, as we know it, with or what to reform religion to? more interesting or important than if there is a God or not. Ideas evolve, the world is in motion, but some things are to stay it seems. It hard to imagine society, where a smile would imply hostility, and to me its hard to imagine (global) society where "You shall murder" would become the word of God or common (sense) law. I talk about Christianity only because it was mentioned and its closest to me (my mother is a believer), but we could talk about any other religion, any other system of believes. Would take someone educated in religious studies to tell us about similarities and differences of believes around the world. Personally I find it fascinating that for example fairy tales are, more or less, the same all around the world, despite the question if they came to existence independently or if they spread from one source.
| |
Monday, April 20, 2009 - 04:43 am
| |
| Monday, April 20, 2009 - 04:53 am Zentrino . Yes the Greeks were the first culture to 'propose' that the world is a sphere. But the book of Isaiah was written approx 250 yrs before that. Of course this isnt the only evidence that I'd hang my hat on, but this was just one example of many. You mentioned that the bible does not harmonize, and that the four gospels didn't even agree on the mode or method of Jesus' death... Where? No doubt there may be a place where one writer said there was 10ppl on a particular occasion and another said 11...idk. But keep in mind that those writing were not done at the same time or by the same person. Normally if you had 4 ppl telling the same story that they were eye witnesses to, how different would those stories be. And of course I realize that Columbus didnt prove the earth was flat, but it was in his general time period. And the example of hygiene that was mentioned, is again only one of many, many practices that the bible mentions. When it is a fact that the other nations and kingdoms around did not practice anything like it. The things the bible mentions is way ahead of it's time in those concerns. In ancient times Judaism was certainly not a major religion, and neither was Christianity when it began, in fact they were way, way out numbered. At the times when the bible was so viciously persecuted either of the two religions was on the verge of extinction. Yet the book persevered. And as for Harry Potter and Stephen King, yes they make for interesting reading perhaps, but they have not affected life like the bible has. And I would be willing to bet, that the bible has far, far more circulation than the next 10 most popular books in all of history, combined! What other book has been published in the billions, not millions, but billions, and is available to so many people? I agree that the ideas or teaching in the bible are all 'original'. Many of those same teachings are found in many other good books and religious doctrines. And yes there was a scribe cast that helped the bible to endure! But thats kinda my point. These people were not originally scribes, they were slaves to Egypt, Roman and a host of other civ's. hardly the foundation for a educated scribe class. If the bricklayer cast had a number of teachings that they adhered to, of which they claim had divine backing, if that was true, then wouldn't we have those writings, if in fact they were divine? I suppose the main point I wanna make is that the bible more than any book has proven itself many times over. It has truly set itself apart from any other book in existence, bar none! And I find that most intriguing!
| |
| Monday, April 20, 2009 - 06:39 am "And yes there was a scribe cast that helped the bible to endure! But thats kinda my point. These people were not originally scribes, they were slaves to Egypt, Roman and a host of other civ's. hardly the foundation for a educated scribe class. If the bricklayer cast had a number of teachings that they adhered to, of which they claim had divine backing, if that was true, then wouldn't we have those writings, if in fact they were divine? " The stories of a cast of ancient bricklayers did not survive but the stories of a cast of scribes did. There is a reason why we have the writings of ancient scribes and not the writings of ancient bricklayers. It has nothing to do with the divinity, truth, or value of the scribe heritage.
| |
| Monday, April 20, 2009 - 07:44 am If the stories of a bricklayers cast was truly divine, then it would survive. That could be proof if it's divinity. If it cant survive, well then its obviously not divine. My point was that they were not originally a scribe cast, in fact they were less educated that any cast, they were slaves! But their message is still here! That is truly unique.
| |
| Monday, April 20, 2009 - 09:36 am Bricklayers did not have pens. Or quills. According to the old testament the first Jew sold into slavery in Egypt was Joseph. Whether he was a scribe or an adviser depends on translation. The description of activity sounds more like accountant. When the Jews were taken out of Israel it was mostly just the educated classes. At the time of recording on paper the old testament authors had been separated from the uneducated Jewish class for some time.
| |
| Monday, April 20, 2009 - 06:13 pm When Joseph was sold into slavery he was sold as a slave. His brothers hated him and faked his death and sold him into slavery. It was only after he was there for a while did he get any position in society. And when the Jews were enslaved by the Egyptians, there was no Israel, they were just a bunch of roaming nomads. Again, not usually noted for high education. If the 'bricklayer's cast' had truly divine stories, wouldn't that divinity make sure those stories were preserved? There were all kinds of civ's that were more educated than the Jews. They had larger classes of those educated. So why, out of all those civ's that were much larger and powerful.... and educated, there exist any books or stories like it has with the lowly bible. None even close! It does make me curious.
| |
| Monday, April 20, 2009 - 08:56 pm The Gospels tell different variations on a similar story but are nowhere near "harmonious" in their tellings of Jesus' life and death. I agree that 4 people would often give different eye witness accounts of the same events. However, these men were telling the story of the person they believed was the living Son of the only God. Here is what they record as the last words of the person they believe to be God as he died. Matthew: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Mark: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Luke: "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." John: "It is finished." If I believed the living Son of the only God was dying in front of me, I think I would listen pretty carefully to what he said. I suppose maybe they were distracted by the commotion and missed parts. However, they all later record that came back to life and talked to them again. His final words to them after dying and coming back to life are recorded as: Matthew: "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations,q baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teachings them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." Mark: "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well." (Some Bibles do not use this apparently but it was in mine.) Luke: "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high." He also reports that after this, Jesus "blessed them all" and then rose to Heaven. John: "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." He notes that Jesus appeared twice to the disciples because Thomas was not there the first time. At the end, he says that Jesus completed many more miracles than are listed in the book. They believed that Jesus was the Son of the only God and that he had died in front of them a few days earlier. Here, they are recording the last thing he says to them before he is taken away. We're again to believe that someone wasn't listening closely enough? I am perfectly okay with accepting that they reported different things for Jesus' final words on earth as long as we don't also try to say that everything in the bible is in harmony with everything else in the bible. Many other contradictory examples exist. I think the final words of Jesus are always a good starting point since it makes no sense that they would not be able to accurately record the last words of the person they believed to be the resurrected Son of the only God. Think of it this way: If Jesus came down into your living room tonight and spoke with you, do you think you'd have trouble remembering anything he said, let alone the very last thing he said? No? Someone got it wrong in there and that is okay so long as we're willing to accept that fact.
| |
| Monday, April 20, 2009 - 09:02 pm Your God has forsaken you! Repent! Repent! Oh, wait... Jozi just had gas.
| |
| Monday, April 20, 2009 - 09:33 pm Sorry I havent got back to this more regularly, my internet has been atrocious recently. I would like to say that the 'golden rule' (Treat others as you would be treated) isnt the best one I can think of. I think a better one would be 'Treat others as they would have you treat them'. IE I might be perfectly comfortable with hugging a stranger, but since some others may not be, I dont go around hugging perfect strangers. Treating others as you would have them treat you assumes that all people want to be treated in the same way, when this is clearly not the case. Serpant: Regarding your points on the scientific accuracy of the bible (Zentrino does a good job on this): 1. It was known in anicient Egypt that the world was not flat (http://www.metrum.org/measures/measurements.htm). Where the bible states the earth is flat, it was and is wrong. 2. The bible may mention a fact regarding personal hygine (where to go to the toilet), which was certainly NOT cutting edge, but it doesnt mention antibiotics (which would have been easily harvestable from common fungus in those days) and says that shellfish (and a wide variety of other animals) are 'unclean'. 3. The bible certainly isnt harmonious when it contradicts itself in Gen 1 and 2 and later gives three completely different accounts of the resurrection. The point is, they cant all be right, but they can all be wrong. Is it anymore likely that one is right, or the right lie somewhere between than they are all wrong? Why? 4. Should we investigate every incredulous claim of anyone purely on the basis that 'Hey! if even half of it is true, we're onto a good thing?' No, we look at the claims, and if they perform poorly when we compare then to what we know, we dismiss them and the burden of proof increases. As for the availability of the bible: The underlying argument you are trying to make is, 'Why would it be so popular if it were not, even if only a little, true?'. First, this is an argument from populism, one can make the same argument for rice being the true food crop, or cantonese being the true language. Second, as PS points out, it is probably more because the bible comes from the meme (a collection of common knowledge (some right, most wrong) from the time) rather than the meme coming from the bible. Personally, I find it incredulous to think that the bible survived because it was the word of god. The bible has been changed many times since the time it was supposedly concieved. Was it not the word of god before it was changed? What happened to the stuff that was excised (see 'council of nicea'), is it suddenly no longer the word of god? Is it not the word of god until it is next changed? If it were divinely right and perfect, it would be unchanging and be a source of knowledge even today, but it mentions nothing about the microscopic world. Nothing about the scale of the universe. Even the best moralistic statements are far from perfect. Zdenek (mainly): If the bible is an instruction manual and is less than perfect (scientific/moralistic) than it could be, what is to stop us changing it? If it was written for the iron age, why not adapt it to the modern age? Surely we can do better then this myth and superstition. Also the bible is written (KJV) in 17th Centuary English, not the language of the 'time' (0 CE Palastine).
| |
| Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 12:28 am Zentrino Could it be possible that those examples of the last WORDS (plural) before Jesus died all part of his last words. For example, if you and I had a conversation and somebody else was listening and they were later asked what was the last things Zentrino said they could say: he said that "Many other contradictory examples exist." Others may say your last WORDS are "I think the final words of Jesus are always a good starting point since it makes no sense that they would not be able to accurately record the last words of the person they believed to be the resurrected Son of the only God." Still yet others may say, "If Jesus came down into your living room tonight and spoke with you, do you think you'd have trouble remembering anything he said, let alone the very last thing he said? " is the last words you say. Do they have to actually say the last 3 WORDS Zentrino said was "accept that fact." If any one of those three people said that they would be correct. In fact it is good that there are several witnesses to the conversation cause then it gives a better picture of what what actually the last WORDS you said. It is simply a matter of viewpoint. Plus, where is the contradiction? None of those statements recorded contradict themselves. Do those statements change any of the meaning of the bible? A contradiction is where you say one thing is this way, I say it is that way, and there can no possible way we both are correct. If it was recorded that Jesus last words was that Satan the Devil is my God and leader, plus knowing what we do about what the bible says about those two individuals, then now you have a contradiction. There is no possible way that those were his last words! So where is the contradiction? Not different viewpoints of the same thing. Surely you realize the difference. Different does not equal contradiction! Why has the bible not been changed? Well I would agree that it is not 100% grammatically pure as it was a few thousand years ago, how could it? It was a completely different language than what we speak. But the meaning has not changed. People over the years have tried to not only change it, but they have even tried to rid the world of it, even the ones who claim to honor it. It has been tried and done, and failed miserably.
| |
| Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 02:24 am Well I doubt that anyone here believes I am the living Son of the only God. if you do, please PM me at Nevrondona so we can discuss the gifts I would like for you to begin bestowing upon my holiness. My point is that they were watching their lord be murdered. I think I would hang onto every word he said. So, I would not stop at one paragraph or few phrases in--I would get every word down. It also points out that the Bible is written by men and not inscribed by some deity. Of course it is fallible, we all are. Read the creation story in Gen 1 and Gen 2 and tell me they say the same thing. They contradict each other on the order of events. Should you believe they tell an ancient myth there is nothing wrong with the contradictions for they matter very little. However, should you believe they tell a literal history, or that the Bible does not say anything in contradiction with itself, this poses a problem. One of the most humorous (but sometimes frustrating) things with some people of faith is their desire for me to "prove" why their religious text is not true. I don't care if the Bible is wholly true, wholly untrue, or somewhere in the middle. It seems evident it is not the first of those and possible that it is not completely false either. We know some of the people in it surely existed. I think we should start from premise that if you believe in invisible talking people, I should not have to prove that untrue. That burden of proof should lie with you. I would not want to presume that I have all the answers or know for certain if a god or gods exists. I do know what I can see and feel and smell and touch and understand. I know what I read. I know what I have been taught. I know what I can infer. I know what feels right to me. I know what I think sounds like a logical idea. I know that, for me, the Christian idea of god does not make the cut for what a god should be like. But, most religious ideas of god don't feel right to me. Living smack in the middle of the Bible belt throws Christianity on me all the time so I reject it easier than other religions. I suppose if I lived in Tehran I might feel the same way about Islam. And remember, it is Nevrondona on LU if you feel the need to send any holy gifts.
| |
| Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 03:44 am Sorry, but how again do I send gifts? I can't find the 'send Holy Gifts' button. Its not frustrating to me if anybody tries to 'prove' the bible or any particular faith wrong. Nor do I expect anybody to prove anything about 'invisible talking people.' Just like I do not expect somebody to prove to me the complex laws of physics. That is their choice and I of course respect that choice, and this thread is just an expression of various beliefs and ideas... that's all! But I have come to realize that the few so called contradictions in the bible are not contradictions at all, including the creation account in Genesis. Of course it is unreasonable to think the earth was created in 7 24 hr days. But a day is used to describe a time period. Just like you may use the phrase 'back in the day'. When you really might mean back in any particular time period. The fact of the matter is that we all live on the same planet, we face most of the same problems, pressures and anxieties. There are many lines of thought as to why and how to handle those things. It is not up to me to decide how anybody deals with those things. Plus if you are the Holy One, then maybe you can shower blessings down upon us lowly servants! LOL
| |
| Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 04:24 am I can only shower blessings on those who appease my appetites.
| |
| Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 06:04 am re: Rational materialist atheisism Rational = good materialism = makes sense of so much, hard to imagine not having that viewpoint with which to understand our world. It is in many ways a secure position. How do the hardcore, unwavering rational materialists here address these issues: 1) the simple fact of the existence of our universe--why anything at all "is," rather than there being nothing 2) the mystery of the origin of our universe 3) the phenomenon of subjective, internal awareness of "pain," "pleasure," "color," "sound," and all the other sensory perceptions 4) the phenomenon of self-consciousness, awareness of one's one being... in a sensation-free environment, one still is aware of something, if only of one's own thoughts 5) the phenomenon of exertion of one's will, of "trying" to make oneself do something, of putting forth an "effort" 6) the mystery of the origin of life 7) the specialness of humans among all other life forms, and the apparent direction of the unpurposeful mechanisms of evolution 8) the confluence of physical coincidences (of the values of the known physical constants) that makes life, as we know it, possible 9) quantum entanglement and 10) the apparent collapse of the wave function of our world, locally, to form observable events. These are all real things. How does a materialist account for them, within the framework of materialism?
| |
| Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 06:23 am Perhaps like this? The Religious Background and Religious Beliefs of Albert Einstein [snip] In a letter to a child who asked if scientists pray (24 January 1936), said: "Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man... In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive." [Einstein Archive 42-601] Einstein said ("Einstein, Albert" in The Enlightened Mind, ed. Stephen Mitchell; New York: Harper Collins, 1991): The most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the source of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms -- this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religion. George F. Will, "The Mind That Changed the World" in The Washington Post, 6 January 2005; Page A19 (URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 5Jan5.html): [Albert] Einstein's theism, such as it was, was his faith that God does not play dice with the universe -- that there are elegant, eventually discoverable laws, not randomness, at work. Saying "I'm not an atheist," he explained: "We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is." In a letter to M. Berkowitz (25 October 1950), Einstein said: "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." [Einstein Archive 59-215] In a letter to an Iowa student who asked, What is God? (July 1953), Einstein said, "To assume the existence of an unperceivable being... does not facilitate understanding the orderliness we find in the perceivable world." [Einstein Archive 59-085] [snip] http://www.adherents.com/people/pe/Albert_Einstein.html --- I do not know?
| |
| Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 03:57 pm @Laguna: I'm not sure what you were trying to achieve by bringing up Pascal's wager, but it has largely been discounted as an argument for belief/faith. (Summary of Pascal's wager: The consequences of non-belief are dire if wrong; the consequences of belief are neutral if wrong, thus it is better to believe than not to believe.) First problem: If I choose to believe only through fear of the consequences of not believing, then ultimately I am being deceitful. God would be able to see through this and punish me accordingly. Second problem: Which God do I pick? If I choose Yahweh and it's Allah who appears before me in the afterlife, I am no better off than if I had not believed all along. What about different denominations within religions? What about Zeus, Jupiter, Odin, Mithras, etc.? Suddenly the odds on Pascal's wager look a whole lot longer! @Serpent: "There were apparently over 40 different writer of the book, over a 1600yr history, but it still is harmonious all thru." Take a look at The Easter Quiz. The Bible is far from harmonious and contradicts itself in numerous places. Belief versus faith versus knowledge Knowledge is an approximation of truth based on repeatable experimentation. You can believe things without having carried out the experiment yourself (I shan't be jumping out of fourth floor windows because I don't believe I can fly; however, I have never tested this myself). You can have faith that others have carried out experiments and believe their results. You cannot believe things that have been tested and shown to be false. However, you can still have faith in them (at the urging of more fundamentalist denominations, you should have faith in spite of the evidence to the contrary). Thus, I believe we have no knowledge of God (no experiments conclusively prove or disprove his existence or non-existence) and choose not to believe in him. Partly this is because most definitions of God are rather woolly and opaque making a testable hypothesis impossible. Is God a supernatural being who created the universe and intervenes in our daily lives? Probably not, otherwise prayer could be demonstrated to have an effect and the Riddle of Epicurus would be a huge problem. Is God the First Cause that set the ball rolling in our universe and no longer has anything to do with us? By definition, I would have to be agnostic on this one. Ultimately, I would describe myself as a humanist who is agnostic regarding the proposition of God, but lives life atheistically. The belief-o-matic puts me at: 1. Secular Humanism (100%) 2. Unitarian Universalism (94%) 3. Nontheist (79%) ... 25. Roman Catholic (13%) 26. Hinduism (12%) 27. Jehovah's Witness (5%)
| |
| Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 06:33 pm Zetetic Elench dam Kahveh Depending on your translation Im using the KJV it's probably the most popular, although I prefer to read more modern translations. As for the Easter Quiz 1. One verse says one person, one says two people, ones says three people and one says more than three, but do any of those say that ONLY those amounts came. Plus the writer of those books was not any of those women, so this was just the story as they were told. Still no contradiction, just different viewpoints, that all! 2. Mt 28:1 says "as it began to dawn" John 20:1 says "early, when it was yet dark" Mark 16:2 says "Very early in the morning" and at the rising of the sun" C'mon is this truly contradictory? If I was told this story by three different people I would simply believe it was very early in the morning. And if it does contradict itself it is only by mere minutes! 3. Neither verse says that is JUST what they did. Some included more details than the others. 4. The Jewish day began and ended at sunset. If today is Tuesday for you, then at sunset this evening it begins Wednesday. So again we are talking about a matter of minutes. 5. Again, just a matter of viewpoint. Could not all three be correct? If there were two angels that looked like a young man, then wasnt there for sure one there? etc.. etc.. etc.. I'll just do 5 cause the rest are very similar. Because different does not mean contradictory! See a contradiction is if John 20:1 says ONLY one, or that she came by herself, all alone. Or that there was ONLY one man who was not an angel that was ONLY outside the tomb. See all these are just examples of people telling the same story with different viewpoints, and all because they are different in that they do not use the same exact syntax, syllable for syllable, does not mean they contradict. Also you said "Thus, I believe we have no knowledge of God (no experiments conclusively prove or disprove his existence or non-existence)" But yet here Albert Einstein says ""Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man... In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive."" Think of it this way, If you were walking in the desert and came upon a house that was air conditioned and fully stocked with food, it had plumbing and electrical wiring and a waste disposal system, would it ever occur to you that this just happened? That somehow out of a violent desert sandstorm that picked up various debris and the deposited it all nice and level on a foundation and had the systems running? In fact if I was with you and said "Wow, look at what some random chance did?" You would rightly question my thinking. WHY? Because you see right in front of you evidence... Evidence that somebody,,, you don't know who, but somebody had been there are built that house. Also by the construction of that house you could learn alot about the builder, without even meeting him. The earth and the universes is far, far, more complex that that scenario, so is it logical to assume that out of a violent explosion the earth by chance became suitable to life as we know it? In fact the Discover magazine a few months ago had an article that stated that there are so many precise conditions that must be met in order for there to be life. For ie... the size of the proton, if it was different either way by more than a few percent, then atoms could not form and stay together, if that didn't happen, no molecules no nothing. And this is just one of the first steps. Many of the other precise conditions, to numerous to even begin talking about, themselves depend on other precise conditions to work! That my friend is a great amount of evidence, is it not? But it seems that belief in God, the Bible or any other religious thought is all kinda related. It is much easier to not believe in God, then no need to believe in the bible, no need to believe in the creation account. And from this thinking all kinds of idea's and theologies come out. And for me, this is truly interesting. Not just the Christian faith, but all of the religions and faiths. Of course when you talk about 'taboo' things like religion or politics, then tempers can flare up, but this has been a most interesting discussion, because I have not detected any of that. Truly a testament to the maturity of all involved!
| |
Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 06:50 pm
Giving piece for conversation. Also, it is a play with Illuminatus' post.
| |
| Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 09:47 pm Jojo: I would answer many of those points with 'I dont know'. The courage to say 'I dont know' when faced which such important questions seems to be what separates theists and people who call themselves atheist. I will address each point individually: 1) Why matter>antimatter? I dont know. It could be due to random fluctuations in the very early universe. 2) Origin of universe? Same as 1) 3) Sensory perception? Emergent phenomena of a ultimately natural process we call conciousness. 4) Awareness of self? Same as 3) 5) Sense of will? Same as 3) 7) Specialness of humans? This is special pleading. We are no 'better' than any other species. For instance, we are not the fastest, strongest or most numerous. We happen to have a big brain (probably as a result of living in larger social groups), from which conciousness emerges. 8) Anthropic principle? Victor Stenger's counter that the universe is exheedingly NOT tuned to human survival is a good one. The coincidences of which you speak are not lucky or unlucky. 9) Quantum entanglement? You're going to have to give me more than that. Are you trying to breakdown Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle? 10) Dualism of H's UP and observable events? In short, things happen. Why they happen is uncertain. This is the basic concept behing the UP. The point is that you can't know the mass AND energy of a particle simultaneously, but is DOES have defined mass and energy (thus events occue). A lot of the discussion here seems to be whether the bible is self contradictory in nature. I think that this is a red herring. To me, it doesnt matter if the bible is self contradictory or not. Either way, there are some events which are clearly supernatural and as such, I cannot bring myself to believe that these events occured. Also, as a moral guide, I find the bible lacking. I can come up with better, simpler rules myself. In fact I do. Everyone does. This is what we do when we look in the bible and consider what bits are 'written for them in the context of the time' and what is 'appropriate for us now'. We use an internal moral compass to decide what is good and what is bad. We use the bible to support the good and happily disregard the bad as 'out of date'. Personally I think they could have come up with better rules then, but Im not going to judge them for it. Yes, Pascal's Wager is silly. Easily one of the worst reasons to believe anything.
| |
| Friday, April 24, 2009 - 06:34 pm @Serpent Re: Contradictions in the Bible I concede on the Easter Quiz. You have explained the non-contradictions well. Perhaps I could ask you about another potential contradiction. One that is arguably more important. Christianity is, at least in part, about being saved or getting into Heaven (however you want to phrase it). I think even the most liberal of denominations still holds that believing in God gets you some extra credit even if they don't believe that non-believers will roast for eternity in Hell. If that is the case, then I would hope and expect that there would be some agreement throughout the Bible about how one is "saved". Here's what different authors of the KJV have to say: By Hearing the Gospel & Belief in God: John 5:24: "He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life." By Baptism: John 3:5: "Jesus answered, 'I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.'" By Grace & Faith, not Works: Ephesians 2:8,9: "For by grace are ye saved through faith ... not of works." By Faith & Works: James 2:17: "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." By Keeping the Law: Matthew 19:17: "... if thou wilt enter unto life, keep the commandments." By Belief in Christ: John 3:16: "... whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." By Belief and Baptism: Mark 16:16: "He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." By Words: Matthew 12:37: "For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." By Calling on the Lord: Acts 2:21: "whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Not Works but by Grace & Baptism: Titus 3:5: "Not by works ... but according to his mercy ... by the washing of regeneration." (Note: some denominations will say the washing refers to Christ's blood and sacrifice.) According to Proverbs 16:4: God made the "wicked" for "the day of evil" (i.e. judgement & damnation). Of course, this makes no sense in light of passages that confirm or suggest that Jesus died for a small number of the elect; or that suggest all will be saved: John 1:29, 4:42, 1 Corinthians 15:29, Hebrews 2:9, 1 John 4:14. Salvation Available to the Chosen Few: Matthew 7:14, 22:14, Luke 12:32, 13:24, John 6:37,65,15:16,19, Romans 8:29, 9:11-23, Ephesians 1:4. Salvation Available to Those Who Desire it: Matthew 7:7-8, 11:28, John 3:16, 5:40, 7:37, Acts 2:21, Revelations 3:20. I admit that not all of these passages are in direct contradiction, but there is little overall agreement about what is actually necessary to pass through the pearly gates. There are also some directly contradictory passages: do we pass the test by faith and grace but not works (Ephesians); by faith and works (James); not by works, but by grace and baptism (Titus). And why does only Matthew suggest that keeping the commandments might be important? "Think not that I come to destroy the law or the prophets; I come not to destroy, but to fulfill." (Matthew 5:17) Is this a vague way of saying that Jesus thought we should keep to the laws of the OT? Including all the ridiculous ones in Leviticus (not sowing two crops in the same field or wearing cloth of two woven materials)? I wouldn't expect perfect agreement between all the books of the Bible, and simple bulleted list of steps to get on God's good side, but I would expect more agreement on such an important issue. I would even expect more agreement between different denominations. However, depending on which passage they choose to view as more important, there is the same disagreement as to whether baptism is necessary, whether good works count or not, whether the 10 commandments must be obeyed. Add in the fact that the whole of Christianity might be a red herring and I find it intellectually more honest to disbelieve in God than to pick one at random (God, Allah, Yahweh, Shiva, Zeus, etc., etc., etc.) and hope I'm right. This is where I disagree slightly with Einstein's view. In many areas of physics, there is an inherent beauty in the simplicity that can be seen. All the visible matter in the universe is made up from three basic building blocks (proton, neutron and electron) held together and interacting by four fundamental forces. Admittedly, the constituents of the proton and neutron complicate the picture considerably, but that is likely to be due to the limitations of the Standard Model (previously thought complete, but recent experiments have cast doubt on this). Out of this simplicity grows an extremely complex universe. It is also true that the universe as we know it relies on the balance between the fundamental forces being very finely tuned. But we can't say for sure that that means the universe was designed. Only the universe as we know it relies on this balance. A different balance may have produced a completely different, but still functional universe. Evolution shows how huge variety and complexity can develop from a few simple, self-replicating chemical compounds so complexity does not necessarily imply a designer. Even if I were to accept a designer/creator, there is nothing to say that he/she/it is omnipotent or takes an interest in his creation. For all we know we could be the creation of some hyper-intelligent, hi-tech, but not omnipotent race of aliens in another universe who created our universe purely to observe what would develop when they tweaked the settings. That sticks us in a Matrix-esque recursion and we must ask what created the creator, etc. Better to stick with our current universe and say we don't know what caused it. That is why I don't like the argument by design. It says nothing about the designer and is as much use as saying the universe was created by chance. I hope I have explained my view clearly. This has been an interesting and friendly discussion so far and I hope it continues. I doubt anyone from either side will be swayed much by the arguments, but I find it encouraging that we can listen and try to understand why others believe what they do. If nothing else, I hope discussions like this will break down some of the prejudice felt on both sides. I'm certainly less militant than I was a few years ago having had numerous such discussions!
| |
| Saturday, April 25, 2009 - 12:01 am I agree with you Mr. Zetetic Elench dam Kahveh, I agree with you 100% about being able to have a friendly and interesting conversation about religion. It just shows that people on both sides can be polite and respectful. It is also nice to talk to somebody who has convictions. Christianity is, as you said to a large degree about being saved. And the bible does NOT SAY that unbelievers will roast in hell. In fact the passages used to try to prove this are taken out of context. Which is in itself an interesting discussion. As far as being saved think of it this way! If I was going to build a house for you, one that you were to be truly happy with, would it not be true that there are several steps and procedures that I need to do, in order for you to be happy. First you would require that I put in a level, sturdy foundation, because without that, it's difficult to build the rest of the home. You would also expect that the framing be done correctly and to the local building codes... and so on.... Now if you told me, "Jason, I want this house to have a good foundation and good frame job." Then is that all I need to do to make the house a quality built home? The point is that there is not just ONE way that a person gains salvation, at least according to the bible there isnt. John 5:24 is of curse one of the first steps to be taken to be approved by God, or gain salvation, whichever wording you wanna use. But just think, If you believe the Gods word, then will that not effect your actions? Like if you believed an asteroid was gonna impact the earth in 2-3 days, would your actions most likely be different than normal? And according to the bible, when an individual becomes a believer and lives his/her life accordingly, then they make a dedication to God, which is symbolized by baptism. As for faith and works, both are needed. Because a person CAN have good works, but not have faith, but a person that has faith, well works just come naturally. Thats why James said at James 2:14 of what benefit is faith without works, and says that faith cannot save him. But he later says in verse 18 that he would show or prove his faith by his works. It is not as if we can earn salvation in any way, it is a gift, it is by the grace of god. But according to the bible we can show if we are deserving of that gift. Mt 7:14 talks about the cramped road and that few would be finding it. This is part of what is commonly referred to as the Sermon on the Mount. This scripture is simply saying that many people will choose to go the easy way, to do and act as they see fit, but that few would be humble and meek enough to allow Gods word to direct and guide them. Which is much more difficult than the 'popular' way. That is why just beforehand in verse 12 the 'golden rule' is mentioned. Jesus was telling his listeners that among many other things, being a true Christian would not be the easy popular course, in fact it would be difficult. So as you mentioned these are not examples of contradictions, but they are just a guide that allows the reader to see what the bible says God does require. Because in fact all those things are required for those that choose to believe it! As for Mt 5:17 Jesus said he came to fulfill the Law. The law he was speaking of is what is called the Mosaic Law. Gal 3:19,24,25 says what the purpose of the Law was. The law showed the people then that they could not possibly live perfect lives in harmony with what God required. Nobody could live up to all those laws. It showed that they needed that long promised 'seed' that God promised way back in the garden of eden, just after the first human sin. Jesus was that seed, he 'fulfilled' the Law. But then a new command was given. Jesus said at John 13:34 that that new law, was the law of love. Which intersetingly he stated again when he was asked what the 2 greatest commandment were! 1) love God wholeheartedly. 2) love your fellowman. Although the principles and reasons for the Mosaic Law are still the same, and according to the bible should be followed, the exact way to be done is not! And wow, as far as the disagreement between denominations.... it is crazy. Here is an example... I may be mistaken, but I think the Hindu religion holds cows as sacred. So if I told you I was a Hindu, and a few days later you saw me at the local burger joint, scarfing down a triple cheeseburger, what would you most likely conclude? Either I do not know what a Hindu is, or I am lying, because obviously I'm not a Hindu! The same is true with Christianinty, It is not possible for them all to be right! SIMPLY PUT MANY/MOST THAT CLAIM TO BE CHRISTIAN, DENY THAT BY HOW THEY BELIEVE AND LIVE. That is why a person if they want to be Christian, cannot simply believe what somebody tells them, but it must be proven! And according to science, the atom, of which all things are made, could not be possible without the very very fine precise tuning of the fundamental forces of nature. (strong and weak forces, nuclear, and ummm.. I dont remember the other one. lol. ) Therefore even life based on different systems, either carbon or whatever those basic elements of which the whole universe is made, couldnt exist. And as far as other universes and aliens, I simply do not know. I dont think nobody knows. For the few things I do know, there are many more I do not! But I do know one thing, and that it is hard for me to reason there being a universe that is so well balanced, and a planet in that universe that as far as we can tell is unique, that has very very fine tuned systems, that it just happened by chance! There is just to much evidence for a designer!
| |
| Saturday, April 25, 2009 - 12:30 am Zetetic: You raised some interesting points (with a lot of appreciated detail) about the continuity of the biblical message of salvation. Serpant: You seem to be saying that the proper way to go about being Christian is to do have faith, do good works and possibly (? you werent clear on this, is it necessary?) be baptised. The point about the Hindu is interesting because the point Zetetic seems to be making is that there are many justifiable methods of being a Christian, just choose your passage (Works, deeds and/or baptism. Trumped by faith?). You seem to be saying that the proper way to go about being Christian is to do have faith, do good works and possibly (? you werent clear on this, is it necessary?) be baptised. Which must clearly be the right way to do it (I assume this is way you do it) and all the others are mearly deluded/mistaken. Where do you attain your proof that your version/denomination is correct? Is it through personal interpretation of the bible? What if I personally interperet the bible differently to you, am I equally as correct? To both of you: Your 'fine tuning' arguments are known formally as the anthropic principle. I present a the puddle counter which, for me, allows me to disregard this agrument entirely (until some verifiable evidence is presented). It was first made by Douglas Adams (HHGTTG). A puddle is created after a rainy day. The puddle thinks to itself; 'How wonderful the rain, that created me. How perfect the ground that holds me. Why it perfectly follows my form. Even the slightest pertrubation in the smallest detail of the ground and I would be completely different. Why, I might not even exist at all! Surely the ground was created just for me!'. Clearly the puddle is mistaken. The puddle fits the universe, not the other way round. The universe isnt fine tuned for life, life is fine tuned for the universe. The anthropic principle is, in my opinion, no more than a mistake of perspective.
| |
| Saturday, April 25, 2009 - 03:51 am What I am saying is that to be a Christian, a person must go to the ultimate authority on Christianity, which is the bible! The bible says that all of those things are involved in being a true Christian. (Faith and works. And baptisim is a symbolisim of one of the works) The bible does not give many different ways for a person to choose, on how they want to be a Christian. The point with the Hindu is that all because somebody says they are a Christian, does not mean they are. The way to tell is by finding out what the ultimate authority on Christianity says it means to be Christian. Of course I believe that my denomination of Christianity is the correct one. Otherwise what kind of a person would I be to believe that somebody else was right and I was wrong, and continue on my same old course. No, if I can be proven wrong on what being a true Christian means, by the ultimate authority on the subject, then I have a decision to make. So it is not me, who determines which way is correct. The reason I have come to the conclusion that not all religions can be correct is that, they are to many differences. Just as there is only one truth such as 1+1=2, then there can only be one truth as to what the bible says about Christianity. If a person believes in a higher power and believes that that power divinely inspired the bible to be written and preserved through the ages, despite all kinds of persecution, then is it logical to reason that it does not matter what you believe, that it is up to YOUR own interpretation? If so, then why when the Isrealites, as they promised in a covenant to God, not do as he asked them to do, they suffered? Were they able to choose their own interpretation? 1Pet 3:15&16 says it simply. It says that those who do twist the scriptures to fit their ideas, do so at great harm to themselves. Your last few words were "Clearly the puddle is mistaken. The puddle fits the universe, not the other way round. The universe isnt fine tuned for life, life is fine tuned for the universe. The anthropic principle is, in my opinion, no more than a mistake of perspective. " Notice you used the term 'life is FINE TUNED for the universe. The earth is fine tuned for animal and human habitation. Life is fine tuned for the earth. Both statements are correct, because it is evident in the world around us. More evidence of fine tuning is seen in the fact that no other tuning for life of any kind is found anywhere in the cosmos. Although there may be other habitable planets, there are certainly an exponential number that are not.
| |
| Saturday, April 25, 2009 - 05:00 am God is exclusive of religion. Religion is man made and like all things man creates is flawed. The majority of posters have issues with religion. No one has any logical argument against God that I can see. I will gladly agree with your arguments against religion. However God is the uncreated creator of the universe. The creator of all physical laws. The Master Engineer...I doubt your disbelief has any effect other than to supress in you the strongest common denominator all humanity shares. Faith.
| |
| Saturday, April 25, 2009 - 09:54 pm Serpant: I am sure that the majority of the people who feel differently to you on some aspects also think the bible is the ultimate authority (although I thought God was the ultimate authority, but hey!). The point is that the bible is inconsistent and unclear on exactly what you need to do. This is why there are denominations. Is it faith alone? In which case, murderers (and worse) can get to heaven simply by believing. Is it by faith and works? In which case, no matter how much you believe you cant enter unless you work enough (how much? what kind? Do i build churches or heal the sick?). Is it by baptism? In which case, what if, by accident I was never baptised (say deathbed conversion) even though I believe and did good works. As for the anthropic principle: The earth is most definately NOT fine tuned for life. There are vast areas of the earth which are barren and uninhabitable. In fact, the small area that even could possibly habitable is a thin vaneer on the surface of the sphere. Several times (5) in the history of the earth >95% of ALL life has been exterminated. Is that a fine tuned earth? Furthermore, the point about the cosmos being empty. How do you know? absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Perhaps the flaw is technology. Once a culture gains technology they are overwhelmingly likely to destroy themselves before being able to travel the stars. The point is that we have no idea if the earth is fine tuned for life. But even if it were (and there is no evidence that this is the case), it doesnt mean god did it. Pope: I am not making a logical argument against god. The definition of god (supernatural, incorporeal creator) cannot be disproved by natural methods. There is a logical argument against an omnimax (omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient) god. The uncreated creator is a deist or panentheist belief and cannot be called christianity. Also, how do you define faith? for me, faith is the reason we give when we have no reason.
| |
| Sunday, April 26, 2009 - 03:28 am Maxwell, don't get flustered now, stay sharp. In one paragraph you say the earth is definitely NOT fine tuned for life. Next paragraph you say we have no idea if the earth is fine tuned for life. Fact is, evidence points to the universe itself being highly fine tuned for life as we know it. How you interpret the facts is up to you. Denying them or saying we have no idea is simply wrong though.
| |
| Sunday, April 26, 2009 - 04:12 am Actually, the universe is proven to be a place of cause and effect. It is far more likely that life, as it has evolved, is fine tuned for this universe rather than the other way around. The universe formed. Life evolved within the universe. Of course that universe is going to suit life - the life is suited to that universe by its very presence therein.
| |
| Sunday, April 26, 2009 - 08:58 am A thought on the flat earth... If "flat" is defined as a surface that is on average normal to the direction of gravity, then the surface of earth is flat. Or perhaps nearly flat depending on how you figure the average.
| |
| Sunday, April 26, 2009 - 06:29 pm Ok Jojo, thats a fair point. I will revise my message thus: We have no evidence that the earth (or the universe) is fine tuned for life. This is because we have no point of comparison. So when i say it is not fine tuned I really should say, it is more than likely true that it is not fine tuned. We certainly cannot say that the earth or the universe is fine tuned for life simply because life exist. The fact we exist does NOT prove anything is fine tuned. I am not saying there is definately life elsewhere. Whether there was or wasnt would be irrelevant to whether the earth itself is fine tuned. If there is some evidence for fine tuning I would like to see/hear it. My main issue is with the claim that the earth must be fine tuned because we exist. This is clearly bogus as it is us that are fine tuned to the earth not the other way around (and when I say we I mean life, not humanity). This point is picked up by Miles. Psychotic Chicken: A good point about the definition of flat. But I wonder why god doesnt see fit to mention that he is using the particularly oscure definition of flat. Also, what about the four pillars? and the firmament above and below. This is called the marksman's fallacy.
| |
| Sunday, April 26, 2009 - 10:48 pm Mr. Powers The bible says that there is more than one thing needed for salvation. Just like you need many ingredients to make a loaf of bread. You would be correct if you said 'to make bread you need to have flour. You'd also be correct to say 'you need yeast to make bread. You'd also be right to suggest that you need water. In fact all those things are needed to make bread. According to the bible it says you need faith. It goes on to say that if you have faith, then works are gonna be a natural result. And then works include all the other visible things we can see, like baptisim. Its true I have no evidence of life anywhere else in the cosmos, but I do know where life does exist. And because of that think of this 1. Water mostly in liquid form and in the right proportion for optimum climate. 2. Atmosphere of Oxygen and Nitrogen in the right proportions. 3. Renewing Cycles for both water and oxygen/nitrogen. This is interesting to say the least as both of these relate to life. Earth resources not related directly to life are non-renewable. 4. Exactly right distance from Sun. 5. Stable sun compared to others. Life would be 'fried' by massive solar flares. 6. Axis tilt to give seasons. 7. Space exploration has demonstrated how incredibly inhospitable everywhere else in our solay system really is. The first four conditions are not found anywhere else. For me this is just a little bit of the evidence that humans and earth are tuned. There is much more. Again you said: "This is clearly bogus as it is us that are fine tuned to the earth not the other way around (and when I say we I mean life, not humanity)." Either way fine tuning is exactly the point. For their to be fine tuning, there must be a tuner. You used the marksman or sharpshooters fallacy as an example. But just think, was their somebody who had to make the gun, the ammo? Was there not somebody that fired the weapon? Was there not somebody who built the wall that the bullet hit? Was there not somebody who painted the bulls eye around the bullet hole? The point is that for even that analogy to be used, their had to be fine tuning, there had to be somebody to complete all those steps. Wouldn't it be unreasonable to suggest otherwise? Mr. Pope Samtator IX You are correct. God is independent of religion. By religion, I mean a particular set of beliefs that you hold to be true. There could I suppose be a religion of one! It is also true that Religion has become a snare and a racket. It is mainly used to promote glory and honor to ones self. The bible of course condemns this kind of 'religion'. But the bible also says that there is one correct way. Not many. A person cant just choose what they want and deny the rest, which is what has happened, and this no doubt is one reason you may be disillusioned with religion in general. I feel the exact same way!
| |
| Monday, April 27, 2009 - 12:08 am You are, of course, missing the fact that point 2, 3, 4 and 6 are entirely variable. And points 1 and 5 have proven variable throughout the lifespan of the earth, much to life's detriment. When life formed there was no oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere. It was methane/CO2. It was life itself that created the present atmosphere. Thus, life fine-tuning the earth it its needs. Chemical and physical process.
| |
| Monday, April 27, 2009 - 12:17 am Serpant: This is really important: Your first 6 points all demonstrate a single fallacy. You assume that the current form of life on earth is the one that the earth was fine tuned for. I wonder if you realise that the 'natural' state (ie pre life) of the atmosphere does not satisfy point 2. Your evidence for fine tuning all rely on the idea that humanity are the unique and inevitable product of the earth. Point 3 is overwhelmingly the product of cycles dependant on living things (oxygen, nitrogen, carbon cycles, and to some extent even the water cycle) and is therefore also not due to a fine tuned earth. Are you arguing that the earth + life on earth = good for humanity. Therefore, god? Point 5, the sun (or Sol) is an average star and is not unusual in composition or activity. It is the magnetic field of earth which protects us from solar flares. The magnetic field moves about and periodically flips. What about astroids and comets? If one of those hits the planet (as apparantly one did 76 million years ago), then human life will struggle to survive. What does it say of design that the solarsystem is full of objects which could (and do) extinguish virtually (99%) of life on the planet at regular intervals? Point 6, I dont see how axis tilt informs either way. Is it somehow important to you that it snows in winter and you get a tan in summer? Next you will be telling me that god made clouds to shade you from the sun. Or gave flowers colour to make the world pretty. Point 7, we have sent probes to two planets in the solarsystem (Mars and Venus). Only mars landers have looked for life (biochemical tests, ambiguous results). On the moons of saturn and jupiter (Enceladus, Ganymede) there are likely oceans of liquid water, we see from undersea geothermal vents that life can flourish in the absence of any energy from the sun. Therefore these moons could well host life. You cannot claim that the solar system is without life based on the ambiguous results of a couple of mars landers. You then go on to make the argument from design. Even to ignore the point about the marksman's fallacy (seeing the hits and not taking account of the misses, earlier statements about biblical scientific accuracy should be remembered here). The argument from design is simple. You, as a human, observe design. Design is not an inherrent objective property, but instead a subjective observation based on what the observer knows and understands about the object being observed. You cannot look at something and say; 'There must have been a designer for this thing!' without knowing something about the object. We can say a watch has a watchmaker because we have evidence to say that watches are made by watchmakers. We cannot say that creation has a creator because we have no evidence to support the hypothesis. In any case, what designed the designer? Or is the designer not designed (special pleading, what reason do you have to support this notion)? Even if it were the case that the designer did exist, it doesnt mean that the designer is god, or that it cares about humanity, is capable of reading minds or is going to judge us after we die (all of which are implied by christianity at least). In short, the argument from design is irrelevant to the question of whether theism is justified. As or the needs. I dont doubt that you think that all these things are necessary, or even that they (works, of which baptism is a subset) are all interdependant results of the same thing (faith). The point is that this is rather important. So why not be a bit clearer on the topic. Why do different characters in the bible answer the same question differently? It seems to me that you believe that the answer is self evident after one takes the time to interperet the bible just so. Is this the case? Bit long, sorry! It should just be necessary to point out the fallacies (marksman's, anthropic principle and argument from design) and be done with it.
| |
| Monday, April 27, 2009 - 12:31 am Ah! Just a little bit extra to address the comments made by Serpant to Pope: I contend that the most useful definition of a 'particular set of beliefs' is 'philosophy' and for 'religion': 'a widely held set of beliefs held without evidence and even in spite of contradictory evidence'. Basically, a religon is a popular philosophy held as a result of faith.
| |
| Monday, April 27, 2009 - 03:30 am A person can make all the assumptions that they please! But evidence is evidence. A watch has a watchmaker. A house has a house builder. A machine has a machinist. A novel has a writer. A work of art has an artist. A computer simulation game has a programmer. BUT a very complex set of laws, (we call physics)and a planetary system that suits life has no maker or designer? This is not logical at all. There is just as much evidence to support earth design, as there is watch design! In fact there is more evidence of design than there is for no design. There cannot be as many accidents of physics, astronomy and biology for life as we know to exist. Oh and please re-read my post, I didn't ignore the point of the marksman's fallacy. The answer that all those individuals in the bible gave as to how to gain salvation are all correct. In those instances they were talking to different people at different times, on many different subject matters. That's why if they were speaking about the need to allow faith to motivate the listeners to have good works, then he would say that salvation depends on that. If the listeners were doing some works, but they were just doing it for show, the speaker would say that faith is what is needed. etc.... Thats why if a personal reading of the bible is done, this becomes apparent. As I said before, I do not have all the answers. All we as humans can do is go by what we can observe and have come to know. Without hard evidence, the creation vs. evolution debate wouldn't amount to much more than a philosophical grudge match. Everyone has their own opinion. The question is what is the basis for that opinion? You see, people can believe whatever they want, but that doesn't make them right. It's the hard evidence that separates the proverbial wheat from the chaff. Keep in mind that "evidence" is not the same as "proof". Evidence is helpful in forming conclusions, while proof concludes the matter altogether. If we had proof, the theory of evolution wouldn't be called a theory. Darwin in his origin of the Species supplied the needed mechanism for evolution "natural selection". That was 150 years ago. Today, we know that mechanism to be deficient, even in light of genetic mutation. With the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years we've been exposed to a whole new dimension in living systems that was previously unknown. Evolutionary biologists are now looking for a new mechanism, one that can overcome genetic constraints and other chemical-oriented barriers that have been identified in recent years. Until this mechanism is found, the theory of evolution (a theory which has enjoyed prominence in biological circles for over 100 years) simply lacks feasibility, and thus, credibility. Is it reasonable to acknowledge a Creator? When challenged by skeptics to prove the existence of a Creator scientifically, Dr. Wernher von Braun, the "Father of the American Rocket and Space Program," replied, "Must we really light a candle to see the Sun? The electron is materially inconceivable, and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects that we use it to illuminate our cities, guide our airliners through the night skies and take the most accurate measurements. What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electron as real, while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive of Him? The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which always will lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction." To simply dismiss the concept of a Creator as being unscientific is to "violate the very objectivity of science itself." While we may not be able to comprehend knowledge of a Creator, we certainly can apprehend it.
| |
| Monday, April 27, 2009 - 08:28 am The god of gaps. How beautifully deficient.
| |
| Monday, April 27, 2009 - 02:38 pm I get rather frustrated by non-scientists when they declare that something is "only a theory" as if it had no merit and should be dismissed from the argument altogether. A theory is a predictive description of the natural world based on some assumptions (axioms) that are taken to be true (like 1+1=2). Let's break this down - the theory must describe the natural world as we observe it. Anything that doesn't is of no use whatsoever. It must also be predictive - we observe that liquid water expands when it is converted into a gas (or its pressure increases); we can predict that other liquids will expand when converted into gases. This makes the theory testable and allows us to verify it. Otherwise I would be able to propose nonsensical theories such that the sky is blue because of little pixies with blue wings flying around at high altitude. They are easily scared and fly away extremely fast from anything that approaches them so if you fly up high enough the sky turns black. This should prevent you from verifying my "theory" so it is cannot be classed as one. Any single exception can disprove the theory. But that is not the whole story. Let us extend the prediction that liquids expand when they become gases and say that liquids contract when they become solids. For pretty much every solid/liquid combination out there, this is true. EXCEPT for water. Liquid water expands when it becomes a solid (which is why ice cubes float). Do we throw out the whole theory because of this one exception? No, we investigate and try to correct the theory. It turns out that water forms a crystalline structure that gives it a reduced density in comparison to other substances that do not form crystals when they solidify or form denser crystals. Uranium, neon and silicon are other substances that display the same property. Here's another example. Einstein built his Theory of Special Relativity upon two observations that the addition of velocities is valid (if I am travelling at 40mph and a car passes me at 20mph as I observe it, then it is travelling at 40+20=60mph; this is known as Galilean Transformation) and that light does not obey this (see The Michelson-Morley Experiment on Wikipedia). He modified the Galilean transformation to accommodate the results of Michelson and Morley's experiment and came up with the theory that the speed of light is a constant for all observers. This remained nothing more than a rather neat mathematical trick until he extended it to include Newton's Law of Gravitation. For some decades, it had been known that Mercury's orbit around the sun didn't obey Newton's Law of Gravitation but nobody was willing to throw out Newton as the LoG described the other planets motion so well. An English astronomer, Arthur Eddington, carried out a series of observations of Mercury during May 1919 that confirmed Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. Note that Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravitation are not invalidated by General Relativity, GR merely extends them to high speeds and regions of high gravity. You shouldn't jump out of high windows because GR shows that Newton's Gravity is wrong, it's not and you'll still go splat. Serpent, you say: "Darwin in his origin of the Species supplied the needed mechanism for evolution "natural selection". That was 150 years ago. Today, we know that mechanism to be deficient, even in light of genetic mutation. With the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years we've been exposed to a whole new dimension in living systems that was previously unknown. Evolutionary biologists are now looking for a new mechanism, one that can overcome genetic constraints and other chemical-oriented barriers that have been identified in recent years. Until this mechanism is found, the theory of evolution (a theory which has enjoyed prominence in biological circles for over 100 years) simply lacks feasibility, and thus, credibility." Just as Einstein didn't disprove Newton, but correct his theory to accommodate high speeds and gravity, evolutionary biologists are not seeking a new theory, but are synthesising more recent observations to correct Darwin's early attempts at creating a robust and complete Theory of Evolution. He didn't, he knew he hadn't, but he knew that in time, others would carry out the experiments that would gradually build a picture that would make Evolutionary Theory as widely accepted as General Relativity (which was still a few decades away). The theory of evolution has not been disproved, merely shown to be incomplete. It is still credible as a theory and is providing us with plenty of testable hypotheses that will allow us to verify it. It is also proving to have very practical applications. See this article in the Economist: Evolutionary Theory may help to fight a fatal disease. So please, do not dismiss something because it is "only a theory". Most theories have a huge body of observations to back them up and a vast number of practical applications that act as a means to verify them on a near daily basis.
| |
| Monday, April 27, 2009 - 04:10 pm I am not dismissing anything because it is a theory, I am simply saying that is definatly not a fact. And the observations you speak of definatly show that the current model of the universe and the beginning of life is not true, and now another theory is being discussed. Sure it may be a change, and not a whole complete revamping of the idea. The only thing in common is that it does not allow for an intelligent designer. The fact of water expanding when it becomes a solid is also an interesting point. I have heard some use that as and example of fine tuning. Because what if it didn't, then the world would become a frozen wasteland except for a thin piece of habitable area! There is nothing wrong with theories, in fact many times they can be proven correct, but do not dismiss intelligent design either, or else you deny the very fact you try to prove. When if the scientific method was used, there could only be one conclusion. But the fact is, science cannot prove everything, it is only a tool. But many times science is described as the final verdict of many subjects. And science fact for that matter, as I'm sure you are well aware has itself been proven wrong but you say let the evidence speak for itself, well let it do just that. It is ok to devise theories all because you do not understand things. But then in the same breath dismiss other idea's?
| |
| Monday, April 27, 2009 - 04:46 pm Lets see how this sounds..... Me: "How was all this glorious Universe created?" Scientists: "Well nothing happened and then Bang we had a universe." Me: "Well what caused it?" Scientists: "It was a surprise." Me: "Well how did life form on this planet?" Scientists: "Nothing happened for a long time and then Bang we had bacteria which evolved over billions of years into Richard Dawkins" Me: "Well what caused it?" Scientists: "It was a surprise." So basically its all a surprise and we can do pretty much as we like because God does not exist and Secular Humanity has all the answers. Sounds suspiciously like a religion to me......
| |
| Monday, April 27, 2009 - 05:16 pm Serpent: Dont accuse me of not reading your post. I pointed out the marksman's fallacy and you started talking about the argument from design. That does not address the markman's fallacy in any way. You are welcome to address your own marksman's fallacy with regard to 'scientific accuracy of the bible' at any time. But please also address some of the points below. The watch and the universe are on quite different levels. There is no evidence to say that the universe is designed (coincidence is not evidence), whereas we can actually look at the designs for a watch. We can go to a place where watches are made, we cannot for the universe. The watch maker was made, what made the maker of the universe? In short, we have our shared experience which teaches us watches are made. Complexity does not necessitate design (complex crystals are not designed). You fail to see the point: 1) If everything has a maker, why not god? 2) If it were true that the universe was designed, what makes you think it was designed by the christian god? Creation vs evolution is an opinion? In the same way a verifiable, self-consistent fact and a non-verifiable, inconsistent invention are the same. Imo, they are not the same. Proof is unattainable in science and only exists in mathematics. There is no way to prove the theory on evolution in the same way that there is no way to prove that it was omniscient, all powerful, universe creating pink unicorns that did it. Does that mean I am equally right to believe that invisible pink unicorns did it instead of evolution? I am a molecular biologist. The way you talk about the subject of evolution makes me think you are not. I work with DNA everyday, I am eminently qualified in this regard. Evolution has been shown to be self consistent and sufficient in everycase it has been examined. Evolution is a fact. It is also a theory. It will never be proven. If you think that my use of these words (fact, theory, proven) in this context is inappropriate it is because you do not understand the proper meaning of the words in a scientific (non colloquial). Finally you make an argument from authority. It doesnt matter if Dr. Wernher von Braun was a scientist or a bloke selling ice cream on sundays. He can still be wrong when it comes to the is god plausible question. There is evidence for the electron, there is no evidence for god. Miles mentions that in this paragraph you are demonstrating the god of the gaps argument. the god of the gaps argument is when you look at knowledge and call god what exists but is outside knowledge. As knowledge increases, god gets smaller (it fills the gaps). How small and powerless is it going to become before you think that it is less than likely to be true? For me a god which does not have a role in the physical world and is not implicated to ever have done so is sufficiently small. We dont have to wait until we know everything before we can say that something is less than likely true. A great post by Zetetic talking about the definition of theory. Although I disagree with the implication that evolution has been tested and found lacking. And back to Serpent: I put it to you that you accept ID without assessing the evidence yet you decry others for accepting evolution without assessing the evidence. Your 'evidence' for ID has been refuted point by point and you offer no counter to the refutation. Convinience of coincidence is not the same as evidence. ID is not a theory because there is no evidence to support it. Showing that evolution is false is not the same as proving ID is right. It is not either or. I am not dismissing anything out of hand, I am asking to be shown verifiable evidence for claims before I accept those claims. Even if ID was right, what makes you think the designer is the christian god? Also, tell me... What is your definition of evolution? Do you know what it is that you disagree with?
| |
Monday, April 27, 2009 - 05:23 pm
Its all in the finer details, Sam. Science doesn't claim the Big Bang happened from nothing. What it does claim is that it cannot see any further back than a few pico-pico seconds after it happened. As for the origins of life... Well, that depends entirely upon how you interpret the evidence at hand.
| |
| Monday, April 27, 2009 - 05:35 pm Pope: Are you saying that it takes faith to believe in a naturalistic (ie non supernatural) universe and therefore science is a religion? If so, I disagree. It does not take faith to believe in science. You do not need faith to do experiments and conclude based on results. You make two points. One is the beginning of the universe. The other is the question of abiogenesis. I will address each separately and then make a conclusion and ask you a question. Firstly, your characterisation of what scientists say is inaccurate. A more accurate phrase might be: 'We do not know, and possibly cannot know, what happened prior to the big bang, and then there was a big bang'. I dont understand your definition of surprise in this context. Secondly, your characterisation of what scientists say is, again, inaccurate. A more accurate phrase might be: 'We do not know, and possibly will never know, precisely how life was initiated on this planet. However from the first protocell (not the same as bacteria) to the current state is pretty well mapped out and sufficiently explained by evolution'. Note that, in both, the claim is not: Nothing. Bang. Something. You then go on to imply that scientists (or whoever you are referring to) think that big bang theory or abiogenesis disprove god. This is not the case. Neither of these proposals talk about god in any way. They certainly dont say that secular humanism is the right way to go about your life. Now, the conclusion. You have set up what is called a strawman argument. You inaccurately characterise the argument you seek to counter. You then counter the inaccurate characterisation, which is quite easy, given that you have set up the strawman in such a way for it to be so. You then say that because you have defeated the strawman, the real argument is defeated. This is not the case as you have not addressed the real argument. Finally, a question: What explaination do you accept (hold to be more than likely true) for 1) The existance of the universe and 2) The existance of life on earth?
| |
| Monday, April 27, 2009 - 06:17 pm GAH! Now I will get a little bit insulting. Intelligent Design = Wow this universe is pretty complex! I've never studied science and cannot understand how this complexity could develop without some guiding hand. Therefore: God, Moses, Jesus, 12 disciples, dying on a cross, hurricane Katrina was caused by permissive gay legislation. WOW! That is a whole lot of complexity from a very simple beginning. The fact is that complexity can arise out of simplicity and does so pretty frequently (see Emergence on Wikipedia). Intelligent Design is very much a God of the Gaps argument, but it is seeking to fill a gap that can be explained scientifically. I don't deny that we are still working on it, but I am honest about it. ID basically says, stop working, I have the answer. It is an insipid ideology that would crush human intellect. Nothing useful comes of it, no predictions, no practical applications, nothing.
| |
| Monday, April 27, 2009 - 08:27 pm If you can't recognize sarcasm.... /me shrugs. All the theories and postulations and brilliantly constructed arguments aside. Humanity can not explain the creation of the Universe or the origins of life on this planet with any degree of certainty. Its a guess. One explanation is as valid as another in such a case.
| |
Monday, April 27, 2009 - 08:57 pm
Welcome to Science my friend.
| |
| Monday, April 27, 2009 - 09:07 pm RichardDawkins - Beware the Believers
| |
| Monday, April 27, 2009 - 09:16 pm Pope: I am sorry I did not recognise that your post was sarcastic. One hears these types of arguments quite regularly (and some many rather more bizarre) and so is ready with the canned counters. Perhaps too ready. Although now I read the rest of your post and I wonder what exactly you were being sarcastic about. You seem to repeat the same assertion, just without the strawman argument, still not addressing the issue. I think you may not be using the word sarcastic properly. You are sarcastic if you take a position opposite from the one you really hold in order to ridicule the opposite position, thereby bolstering your position. We have two separate issues here: The origin of the universe and the origin of life on earth (abiogenesis). They should be addressed separately as they deal with quite different topics. There is no reason to assume we cannot know the answers to either of these things. To assume so would be indicative of a closed mind. Since you havent said clearly either way, I will assume that you believe that the supernatural explaination is more likely true (ie you are a theist, or deist: god as an entity). It seems to me to assume to say: 'We cant know, therefore god did it' is just as accurate as saying: 'We dont know, therefore magical, all-powerful, invisible pink unicorns did it'. What evidence do you have that the theistic conclusion is any more likely true than invisible pink unicorns? Personally, I think the answers are more likely to be the result of naturalistic events than supernatural. I am not closed to the possibility of a supernatural event. But in the long history of proposals of supernatural explainations everytime such a hypothesis has been tested by properly designed, unbiased experimentation the evidence has not supported the conclusion that the supernatural explaination is true. Hence, I find it I am more likely to be right if I assume there is a naturalistic explaination. Show me verifiable evidence and I will convert. In short, one explaination is NOT as likely as another even cases where we have insufficient evidence to know for a fact. Naturalistic explainations are more often true than supernaturalistic explainations. Therefore, naturalistic explainations are more likely to be true is all cases.
| |
| Monday, April 27, 2009 - 09:17 pm Zdenek: The URL contained a malformed video ID.
| |
| Monday, April 27, 2009 - 09:30 pm sry about that for some reason i didnt re-check. fixed
| |
| Tuesday, April 28, 2009 - 03:25 am Whoa, I am not accusing anybody of anything, my friend. You made the remark about me not addressing the marksmans fallacy, and I did, sorry you misunderstood me! I never said everything has a maker. I simply said that evidence points to the universe and it's contents as having a maker. And as far as I am concerned, you have the right to believe whatever you want to that created the universe, pink unicorns or whatever you like. And obvioulsy there is a difference between a fact and a theory! Websters dictionary says FACT: the quality of being actual: something that has actual existence: an actual occurrence. THEORY: abstract thought: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action. Now to me these two words are no the same. My "arguement" is not from authority, it is just a humble opinion, made from the evidence and observation. Just as yours is an opinion. For many people the words of Francis Bacon sums the subject up well. "Man prefers to believe, what he prefers to be true" There has been many, many items that I have listed that is evidence of ID. A person can use that evidence as he sees fit, even unicorn design, but the evidence does not change. If we were to go from a strictly scientific stand then the 'theory' of evolution cant stand. Consider such body organs as the eye, the ear, the brain. All are staggering in their complexity, far more so than the most intricate man-made device like a watch. A problem for evolution has been the fact that all parts of such organs have to work together for sight, hearing or thinking to take place. Such organs would have been useless until all the individual parts were completed. So the question arises: Could the undirected element of chance that is thought to be a driving force of evolution have brought all these parts together at the right time to produce such elaborate mechanisms? What is even more interesting is note what Darwin himself noted in his book origin of the species, 1902 edition, part one, page 250. he acknowledged this as a problem. He wrote: "To suppose that the eye could have been formed by evolution, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Hmmmm, very interesting is it not. Again this does not even begin to mention the other complex body systems that keep you and I alive. And while the survival of the fittest tells how they survive, it does not tell how they arrive. Now as for does God have a maker? As I have said before, I do not have all the answers. But think about this. Some scientist say creation, some say evolution. But the divergent theories of scientists always presuppose the existence of something, no matter how they name it. They say, and rightly so, that matter is a form of energy. On that basis, they feel that the material universe could have come about accidentally. But they do not explain how the initial set of circumstances came to be. There is always a preexistent something the origin of which they are incapable of explaining. So atheists presuppose the existence of a thing, whereas believers in God presuppose the existence of a person. In view of all the natural laws, mathematical precision, organization, and wisdom observable on earth and throughout the universe, i think that it is more logical to conclude that the First Cause is a Person rather than a thing, an intelligent Creator rather than a blind force. So if you are a creationist or an evolutionist, you are faced with the same question! Even if you want that to be pink unicorns! Mr. Powers Is faith needed for belief in something you cannot prove, even when the evidence contradicts the conclusion? If so then are evolutionist very faithful people? It seems that there needs to be a different hypothesis, or theory, to explain the current state of events than evolution has been able to do. Admittedly creationists do not have all the answers either. P.S. As always I enjoy this conversation, because all involved seem to be able to remain polite and respectful of others opinions and beliefs.
| |
| Tuesday, April 28, 2009 - 12:17 pm @Serpent "THEORY: abstract thought: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action." That might be the dictionary definition, but it is not how it is used by scientists. Scientific Theory: A theory is a predictive description of the natural world based on some assumptions (axioms or facts, if you prefer) that are taken to be true. You say: 'What is even more interesting is note what Darwin himself noted in his book origin of the species, 1902 edition, part one, page 250. he acknowledged this as a problem. He wrote: "To suppose that the eye could have been formed by evolution, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."' You are quoting out of context. In fact, this is a favourite quote of creationists and proponents of ID. All you need to do is read the next few sentences that Darwin wrote: "Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real." Darwin had spent 40 years collecting evidence to support his theory of evolution. He knew he didn't have the time to examine everything so he left a few pointers at the end of his book to suggest where further research should be concentrated. In fact we now know that the eye has evolved on as many as 40 separate occasions. There are numerous different eye-structures that show a simple progression from patches of light sensitive cells (simple day-night, shadow of a predator detection), through pits of light-sensitive cells (simple directional light-detection that allows some basic navigation), to basic pin-hole camera eyes that can form a rudimentary image. Each one confers a huge benefit on the individual possessing it, but can develop from a series of mutations that accumulate over time. Furthermore, not only is there this simple progression, but there are also a number of other eyes out there which show progression towards eyes that are totally unlike those possessed by mammals. Insect eyes consist of light-sensitive cells at the bottom of long tubes. These allow them to produce a pixellated image that is more than sufficient for them to locate food and evade some predators. Lastly, on the issue of eyes, God is a pretty crap designer if the best he could come up with was the human eye. We don't have the low-light sensitivity of owl eyes, nor the colour-sensitivity of the pigeon or some other birds and tropical fish. Also, we have a botched attempt at connecting the eye to the brain - the optic nerve causes us to have a blind spot (potentially lethal when considering predators) due to the way in which our eye evolved. The octopus has a structurally similar eye, but the optic nerve is connected from behind so that it does not have a blind spot. This, by the way, is an example of convergent evolution - species totally unconnected who have evolved similar mechanisms to address similar problems. "There has been many, many items that I have listed that is evidence of ID." Could you restate them clearly please? I am not sure what you are referring to. My fear is that you have been over-exposed to the propaganda of proponents of creationism and ID. I am sure I can refute any point you make regarding supposed "problems" with evolution because biologists have spent decades doing just that.
| |
| Tuesday, April 28, 2009 - 01:59 pm I believe you are all failing to resolve the fundamental differences between the nature of religious belief versus scientific belief. Until that common understanding is reached, you will continue to move in circles. And insults will begin.
| |
| Tuesday, April 28, 2009 - 06:52 pm Serpent: Saying you addressed something doesnt make it so. I brought up the marksman's fallacy with regard to you claim to 'scientific accuracy of the bible'. You have never (three times asked now) claimed you are not making the fallacy. Please do not sidestep the point, it is important. As for the rest of the fallacies and deceptive comments I shall summarise: 1) Quote mining (Darwin quote) 2) Arguments from authority (Darwin, Bacon etc) 3) Strawman (colloquial definition of theory) 4) Argument from design (complexity => design) 5) Claim of equality ('some sci. say') I agree with Miles, we appear to already be going in circles and without at least some form of fundamental agreement we are unlikely to get anywhere. For me, as a scientist, scientific belief requires no faith. If I dont believe a result I read about, I can get the reagents, prepare the experiment and analyse the results. I can find out for myself without having to trust anything or anyone. Science is about determining what is objectively real in spite of opinion or bias. Again, for me, religious belief requires faith because there is no experiment which can be performed, no results to be analysed which would confirm or deny the belief. You can argue that my claim to atheism (atheism does not equal 'evolutionism', whatever that is. See Francis Collins) requires faith, because there is no experiment which can be performed to confirm or deny the belief. But that is only true is I am making an absolute claim: 'There is no god'. I am not saying: 'There is no god'. I am saying, when presented with the claim that god exists: 'I do not believe in god'. This is the same response given when I am asked if lepricorns, Santa Claus, genies or ghosts exist. I am not saying that no where in the entire universe is there on some far off planet short people sitting at the ends of rainbows on crocks of gold singing happy Irish ditties, I am saying: 'I dont believe they do'. Now, if someone tells me they have £20 in their pocket, I might believe them. They have made a claim without factual evidence to back it up. You might say I have faith in the claim, which could well be the case. But it doesnt change my life if the claim is true or not, so it doesnt really matter if the claim is true or not. I would argue that a claim to a belief in lepricorns (chasing the ends of rainbows looking for gold), Santa (being good all year, leaving cookies etc) and ghosts (offerings, exorcisms etc) do change one's behaviour and/or life. Therefore, these claims need to be supported with evidence. When the evidence is absent, as it is in the case of a claim to the existance of person god, I reject the claim. If evidence is subsequently presented, I accept the claim. Serpent: Do you generally agree with what I have said regarding religious and scientific belief being quite different things, one requiring faith and the other not?
| |
| Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 12:23 am I will agree that any theory of creation is valid. None of us were present at the time. With no possible way to reproduce the results we fall back on experience, logic, and wild ass guesses..... Experience points me towards an engineer rather than blind random chance.
| |
| Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 12:48 am Pope: How many experiences of creation have you had? What experiences point to engineer? And no one ever said there were only two possiblities: 'god' or 'blind random chance'. Imo, a theory of creation which invokes something we have no evidence for and has never been observed is on the level of invisible pink unicorns (A 'wild ass guess', which invokes nothing of logic and experience). A theory of creation which invokes (solely) naturalistic processes is more likely to be true since everything else in the universe has been demonstrated (everything that currently can be demonstrated at least) to occur through such naturalistic processes. God is a guess like guessing a six sided die showed 7 when last rolled (it could have done, you weren't there). Naturalistic processes is like guessing the same die rolled between 1 and 6, its not definitive but it is more likely to be accurate given what we know about the nature of the die. I want to reiterate that the big bang is not a theory of creation. It describes what happened after the Planck time, it does not talk about what occured before this time.
| |
| Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 02:31 am So then even Darwin, although he says it seems absured to the highest degree, he still says that it must have happened. And do you think he had the tools or ability at that time to make those 'guesses? hmmm, very interesting. Can mutations explain evolution. Any mutation that occurs does not increase the amount of information in the DNA. Has a mutation ever produced a different species? How did life evolve out of non-living matter? Can this be reproduced in an experiment? Yes I agree that scientific thought can be different from religious thought. Especially depending on the religion. However keep in mind that all because something is labeled scientific, does not mean it is true. History is full of those 'scientific thoughts and facts.' Just as it is full of religious 'thoughts and facts.' That obviously cant be true. And religious thought does require faith, it does not require blind faith. Blind faith requires no evidence. As for the definition of Scientific Theory, it is based on assumptions? Assumptions of what? But correct me if I'm wrong but the definition of axiom is: 'An axiom or postulate is a proposition that is NOT PROVED OR DEMONSTRATED but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.' So basically a guess used to make other guesses with! Intelligent Design theory claims that the evidence for design in the universe can be detected empirically. Evidences for design show up in nature all the time. I am not a molecular biologist (although I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night ) This is what one scientist (Scott Minnich of the University of Idaho) said regarding molecular biology. "What we do in molecular biology is in effect reverse engineering," "we examine complex structures in the cell and try to figure out the blueprint." Even Darwin did not deny the evidence of design; instead, he hoped to show that living things only appeared designed, while really being the result of chance and natural selection. What makes this inquiry so compelling today, is that design is no longer found only in living things but also in the physical universe itself. In cosmology, the so-called anthropic principle tells us that the universe is 'intentionally gifted by God' and is finely tuned to support life. Mr. Powers I guess I'm a little slow, but I don't understand what you want about the marksman's fallacy? I apologize. Furthermore, what is the definition of science? For most it is typically defined as objective investigation discovering and testing facts. But there is another view held implicitly in the scientific establishment and it is tantamount to the philosophy of materialism or naturalism. This is the idea that science may employ only natural causes in explaining everything we observe. The way this definition operates is to outlaw any questioning of naturalistic evolution. The presupposition is that natural forces alone must account for the development of all life on earth; the only task left is to work out the details. Design is ruled out not because it has been shown to be false but because science itself has been defined as applied materialistic philosophy. Mr. Prower, up to this point I haven't detected any insults flying, and this thread has bee a long one. I see no reason it will change.
| |
| Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 02:55 am Atheist here. As for claiming that God exists, simply because science isn't perfect doesn't really prove anything. Of course science cannot fully explain everything...if it did there would be no need for science courses in school. However, each day it comes closer and closer and closer, coming infinitesimally closer to the fine asymptote of perfection. (sorry for the math reference haha). (as for axioms, they need not be demonstrated because it is simple logical reason. For instance, do you need to prove that a line goes through two points? No, you can just see it, and go hey, it does, axioms don't work in the way you describe it, as being a "guess") But then again, there are thousands of things today that we take for granted as the truth, that would have been explained by religion hundreds of years ago. As for mutations and adding on to DNA...yes mutations can cause evolution...the reason we don't see it is because one stage of evolution would take millions of years to occur (human existence is quite small compared to a million years). As for random mutations that don't cause evolution, that is exactly the point...it required probability, one out of every one zillionth mutation will cause some sort of evolutionary advantage, and then it is left up to survival of the fittest to cause that new mutation to become predominant). As for random science questions, i have my own weird ideas, but i am firm on the position that one day science will grow to explain it, even if it is in thousands of years. As for the existence of God, I just don't see how it is possible. Lots of people prove God simply by saying, if there is no God, how was the Universe created?, if God created the universe how was God created? and if God could be created why couldnt the Universe have been created without God's help? And in reference to human suffering my favorite quote from my favorite book, Catch-22 "âAnd donât tell me God works in mysterious ways,â Yossarian continued, hurtling on over her objection. âThereâs nothing so mysterious about it. Heâs not working at all. Heâs playingâ I agree with serpent, I think this thread was a good idea, I always like to have my ideas challenged.
| |
| Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 04:09 am Serpent: I will summarise your argument, correct me when I error. 1) The universe is designed (complexity => design). We observe/evidence this design through the anthropic principle. This is also known as the teleological arguement. 2) Scientific naturalism does not describe every aspect of the universe. Therefore something supernatural must have done everything that cannot currently be explained (principally, the origin of the universe and abiogenesis). This is known as the god of the gaps argument. Given 2, and assuming the supernatural = god, god must exist. Given 1, god must care for us. Since existance and caring for us are characterisitics of the christian god, the christian god must exist. Is that a fair and accurate summary of your argument? If so, why does the supernatural have to be the god of the bible, this is an unfounded assumption you appear to have made. Also. I (and others) have refuted each of your claims to the validity of the anthropic principle. Please check back offer a counter to the refutations or offer new claims. Otherwise, I will not appreciate you bringing up the anthropic principle in the future. Furthermore, you have repeatedly claimed that complexity implies (=>) design. This has also been refuted without counter. Therefore, you should offer a counter or stop making the arguement. I would kindly ask that you refrain from making pronouncements about what mutations are capable or not capable of doing. My career is dependant on understanding what they are capable of and your charaterisation is, suffice to say, inaccurate. Evolution is demonstrable. The mechanism is natural selection and mutations provide the raw material for natural selection. I do not claim that scientific belief is true and religious belief is not true. I claim that scientific belief is more likely to be true, because it can be tested, whereas religious belief is less likely to be true because it cannot be tested. There have been many scientific beliefs which have been shown to be inaccurate. This is scientific progress, we can show that the superceeding belief is more accurate than the preceeding. Religious belief, by stark contrast, is not so readily improved, although it certainly does change over time. I am also sorry to be tough on you about the markman's fallacy. We have moved on sufficiently for it not to be relevant any more. Suffice to say, it is the primary reason I have for disregarding claims for biblical accuracy on practically any topic (history, geography, science, health). It seems to me that you think that science is closed minded to the possibility of a supernatural explaination. This is not the case. Studies on the effectiveness of prayer, on dowsing, near-death experiences and psychic power have allowed the supernatural a chance to show itself. Each time, there has been no significant improvement relative to controls. Furthermore, scientific theories invoke purely naturalistic explainations and manage to be quite accurate enough. When they are shown to be inaccurate, new theories can be developed and tested which, still, invoke purely naturalistic explainations and managed to be even more accurate. It seems that the supernatural is actively avoiding us when we endevour to look for it. In my experience, whenever supernatural explainations have been tested they have been found lacking. Moreover, naturalistic explainations have been found sufficient. Therefore, when I meet a claim which invokes the supernatural I am skeptical, until I see evidence. So far, no evidence presented has been sufficient (or even unambiguous), and I have looked at a lot. In fact, nothing you have presented is new to me, I can give you a few arguments which are a whole lot more intriguing (although, ultimately, equalling fallacious).
| |
| Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 05:27 am If it was just random chance that created life then the results should be repeatable.... 20 amino acids. How difficult can it be? Its naturalistic after all.
| |
| Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 06:35 am I do agree that the universe is designed, and that the complexity is just one piece of evidence for that. And although naturalism cannot describe everything does not mean it has to be wrong. But a lot of what it tries to explain is wrong. As for God being a christian God, many stereotypes arise when you put the word 'christian' on it. Although the true 'christian' is very different from what the bible says and what the great majority of people, even professed christian's say. And true I am no molecular biologist, but does that mean I cannot have any possible education on the subject? All because I did not make my car (hmmm or did it just happen to be in my driveway. ) I can still change the oil, tires, and other things. And I may not be able to overhaul the engine like you may with molecular biology, I can make some sense out of it. I can think and reason after all. But when you try to refute my claims of creation, you do it with the claim of evolution, which has proven to be not only impossible to test, but relies on those conclusions to make more theories and hypothesis! Whenever I ask questions that you cant answer the response I get is that science cant answer that yet. Which is fine, I understand that science does not have all the answers. But in my opinion, evolution has been a very poor answer for a tough question. For ie... Since you are a molecular biologist I'm sure you know this. Back in 1953 Stanley Miller passed an electric spark through a 'primitive atmosphere', trying to produce amino acids. he was able to get 4 of the 20. Then years later i do not know when, but it was tried again, but still fell short of the 20 needed, although I dont know how many they made. But what is very intresting is that Miller assumed that earth's primitive atmosphere was similar to the one in his experimental flask. Why? Because, as he and a co-worker later said: "The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing [no free oxygen in the atmosphere] conditions." Yet other evolutionists theorize that oxygen was present. The dilemma this creates for evolution is expressed by another scientist named Hitching: "With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have got started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays." But even if those 20 acids were produced and floated down into the oceans, Does not water favor breaking down molecules(depolymerization) not the forming of larger ones? There is, however, another stubborn problem that confronts evolutionary theory. Aren't there over 100 amino acids, but only like 20 are needed for life's proteins. Moreover, they come in two shapes. Some of the molecules are 'right-handed' and others are 'left-handed.' Should they be formed at random, as in a theoretical organic soup, it is most likely that half would be right-handed and half left-handed, or somthing similar. And there is no known reason why either shape should be preferred in living things. Yet, of the 20 amino acids used in producing life's proteins, all are left-handed! Sorry this is so long but just one more thing, please be patient with me! What chance is there that the correct amino acids would come together to form a protein molecule? It could be likened to having a big, thoroughly mixed pile containing equal numbers of red beans and white beans. There are also over 100 different varieties of beans. Now, if you plunged a scoop into this pile, what do you think you would get? To get the beans that represent the basic components of a protein, you would have to scoop up only red ones, no white ones at all! Also, your scoop must contain only 20 varieties of the red beans, and each one must be in a specific, preassigned place in the scoop. In the world of protein, a single mistake in any one of these requirements would cause the protein that is produced to fail to function properly. Would any amount of stirring and scooping in our hypothetical bean pile have given the right combination? No. Then how would it have been possible in the hypothetical organic soup? Im sure you'd agree that the proteins needed for life have very complex molecules. Even the most basic ones. What is the chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup? Evolutionists acknowledge it to be only one in 10to the 113th (1 followed by 113 zeros). But any event that has one chance in just 10to the 50 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening. An idea of the odds, or probability, involved is seen in the fact that the number 10to the 113 is larger than the estimated total number of all the atoms in the universe! And we could go on and on! And this is all about just the start, not to even mention all the next steps that must take place. You said "I (and others) have refuted each of your claims to the validity of the anthropic principle. Please check back offer a counter to the refutations or offer new claims. Otherwise, I will not appreciate you bringing up the anthropic principle in the future. Furthermore, you have repeatedly claimed that complexity implies (=>) design. This has also been refuted without counter. Therefore, you should offer a counter or stop making the arguement." May I please have the same? My point is if a person does not want to believe in ID, that's fine, I respect that. But why propose something that cannot happen, even by scientific methods it cannot happen. Very interesting discussion isn't it? I check in from time to time just to see the replies and opinions!
| |
| Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 06:38 am Pope LOL, I didn't even see your post until after mine! Well, then my post was just to add to Popes! ;)
| |
Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 02:19 pm
I like how this applies to both sides of the argument.
Most likely billions to one. But you're overlooking the fact that it only had to happen successfully once. In a universe of this size and scope, it soon becomes quite a likely probability. Regardless, the point that is being repeatedly overlooked in all this is that Science and Religious Faith ultimately share the same goal; the search for understanding. The former achieves this through accumulating a knowledge base, applying logic and precedence to draw conclusions. The latter does so using personal belief, spirituality and a personal interpretation of the universe as you see it. God as a synonym for the combined forces of nature would be the ideal amalgamation of the two.
| |
Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 04:20 pm
It had to happen in numerous distinct stages. Not just once. So the probability of naturalistic explanations is instead an improbability.
| |
| Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 04:21 pm After reading most of the posts here, I think you guys and gals can handle it on your own. Don't look at me, I'm just a dumb atheist. Not that atheists are dumb, just me. Anywho, I did read Richard Dawkin's book, The God Delusion, and while I myself found some suspect logic several times, and I do think he's a bit hard on religion, I thought it was a good read. But I'm dumb so why are you reading this?
| |
Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 04:37 pm
Why? Care to elaborate? What are these stages? What do they entail? If anything, breaking it down into several smaller, more simple stages argues in favour of life naturally occuring through chemical process, not against it. If you'd like examples of rather complex spontaneous reactions in nature there are plenty to see - the NCO reaction in stars, for example. Is this "complexity" also "proof" of a deity? I'm not really for or against the argument regarding a god. I'd just like something a little bit more substantial than the argument from design as proof. That has always felt like a cop out. All I keep seeing as an argument for a creator is the Affirmation of the Consequent fallacy: "A implies B, B is true, therefore A is true."
| |
| Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 04:49 pm Okay, okay. How does one "quote" from a post, please? I've run out of buttons to push.
| |
| Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 06:14 pm Pope: Again. No one said random chance. Anyway, the fact that you (and serpent) think life arose first from amino acids betrays your ignorance of current leading proposals for a theory of abiogenesis. Currently, it is thought that the first replicating molecule (replication being the necessary and sufficient quality of life) was RNA-based, not protein based. Only at the protocell-cell stage would life require proteins. You are presenting a strawman arguement as well as demonstrating a misunderstanding of statistics. Even though the question of proteins forming at random is irrelevant to abiogenesis, I present an analogy to demonstrate the flaw in your statistics only. Say, I am playing cards. I get dealt a hand of 10 cards. The probability of my being dealt that hand is 1 in 13^10 (number of possiblities to the power of the number of operations). You are saying that when I look at the hand and calculate the staggering odds against my being dealt exactly that hand I must conclude that I could not have got it by chance. Does that make sense? The probability of my being dealt ANY hand of cards is 1 in 1. You claim, groundlessly, that only one hand is important. It can be directly compared to the bean analogy you make. The basic and consisten flaw made is to look at the end product and marvel at how unlikely it is for the end product to exist EXACTLY IN THE FORM IT IS. There is no reason to think that this form is the only possible form (you have a statistical sample of one) or (to use a Dawkins phrase) we climbed Mount Improbable in small, probable steps. Serpent: You make an analogy to the car, still being able to operate it without understanding. Well, your claim about mutations is akin to a claim that cars run because of tiny nuclear explosions under the bonnet. It is possible, but it is not only inaccurate, but demonstrably wrong. I would be willing to teach you about mutation, but it will be a bit dry for most people here (I certainly find it interesting). Email, perhaps? I kindly ask you not to use quotes from scientists in your arguements. Not only is this an argument from authority, you have generally quote mined, which is to take a quote which suits your arguement wholely out of a context which is entirely opposed to your arguement. If I say: 'The laws of thermodynamics are clearly false. Is a clearly false statement as they are demonstrably true'. You can take a quote from me which is completely out of context. This is what you do when you use the upsurd quote from Darwin. Why do you think evolution is impossible to test? Natural selection is demonstrable (genetic algorithms, population change over time in response to changing environment, antibiotic resistance). Speciation has been observed (lizard species, bacteria, bird species). Evolution is occuring right now, how can you claim it cannot be tested? Go to talkorigins.org. Do you think that your assertion on the nature of mutations constitutes a refutation? If so, I would be happy to teach you more about the nature of mutation which is a sufficient counter refutation. You do not seem to understand the structure of a debate: A claim is made. Often supporting reason based upon evidence is provided. Either the reason or the evidence can be refuted, based on further reason based on evidence. A counter refutation may occur and so on. So far, you have made a claim (anthropic principle = true), you provided evidence and reasoned based off that. I (and others) have shown both the evidence is inaccurate and/or inappropriate and the reasoning is faulty. You can now choose to make a counter refutation or stop making the teleological argument. I agree with Miles that the only appropriate use of the word god is as a synonym for fundamental universal truth. But this definition of god is certainly not theistic (it is not concious) and ultimately rather useless (it has no power). I also want to know how to quote from a post, also embed links and write in italic and bold.
| |
| Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 06:53 pm Thanks, Maxwell. Well put. Now... where's that "quote" button? Oh, and as I've read much on Buddhism, I'm fairly certain Gotama was at least an agnostic given his lecture to Sarriputra. Those who don't know it can google it.
| |
| Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 07:08 pm But here's a taste of it for those in need of extra fingers. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/9280/bt-2.htm The lecture I spoke of is not there but essentially Gotama told Sarriputra that he did not promise to speak about whether there is life after death, only about how to (psychologically) end suffering. In my opinion Buddha was a great psychoanalyst.
| |
| Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 07:38 pm Despite many would not label Buddhism as a religion, but rather as a philosophy, mostly due to lack of (personal) God, it is hard to argue its teachings or ethics are not based on (religious) dogmas, just like any other religion. To me anyone who claims to be in possession of ultimate truths, especially with regard to ethics and especially if such truths are based on dogmas, becomes a suspect of distrust. Other elements of religion observeable in connection with Buddhism are "cultism" and "worshiping", which yet again makes Buddhism a suspect of distrust to me. Lastly, from the little I know of Buddhism, Buddha seems like a "smartass" teaching truths on one hand, but when it comes to explaining them turning into vague phraseology of almost agnostic nature.
| |
| Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 08:19 pm Well, read the link. There are many pages. What Gotama said, he said. What was written was written about 80 years after he died, so... And if you know little about something, it is okay to speak or write of it and lack of knowledge thereof, but hardly worth discourse due to ignorance of at least what was written. As I said, I have read and studied much of Buddhism. My opinion is that it is psychoanalysis circa 600 B.C.E. What did anyone know much of in 600 B.C.E.? Not much. What do we know now? Not much. Buddhism split cleverly from Hinduism. I doubt Gotama believed in a caste system, this much is certain from the writing "in my opinion" (which I have at least taken the time to think on). Why wasn't Gotama stoned to death? Indians love philosophy (okay, a great presumption... but read, study, you may agree). What do you think true Hinduism was? Certainly not about gods if one reads well (in my opinion). Read, study, and then you may write/speak. But you may write and speak as you wish. I have no quarrel with that. Neither would Christ, Buddha or Gandhi. Gotama, I highly doubt, held that he had an ultimate truth. But if you read the text, there is much truth in that psychological study. Read before you argue or proclaim. Gotama neither argued nor proclaimed (or so it was written--and remeber that it was written during a time when people were in need of worshiping). A good Nobel prize winning author (1946--The Glass Bead Game) I will recommend. Herman Hesse. The book? Siddhartha. Start there. "Other elements of religion observeable in connection with Buddhism are "cultism" and "worshiping", which yet again makes Buddhism a suspect of distrust to me." What are you? Stupid? People will worship trees. Don't worry about what people worship. Be mindful of what "you" worship; perhaps your vast knowledge of tidbits? But that's okay. Before you open your mouth make sure your bowels are fully evacuated, lest the "shite" come from from your mouth and not the other end. "Lastly, from the little I know of Buddhism..." indeed, since you know little, why write? To praise yourself? I dislike this quarreling that I do. But by golly, you admit you know little, then make a grand pronouncement. Read, good person. Read much. Read from every religion and read what science teaches. Then you may say the earth is flat. You would be wrong, but at least you would be well read. No disrespect intended. Kindly, study what you criticize, otherwise it is wasted breath/keyboard tapping. And from my other posts I do state that I am an atheist. Therefore, of course, my slant on Buddhism would be bent in that direction. But that's why I like the writings so much. They are, well, atheistic, in my opinion. Great psychology I think, but don't be distracted by the "shite" that sprouts bountifully from my mouth/keyboard. Read well, then we can both "shite" cleverly from the mouth. I mean you no disrespect. I have great love for you (at the moment I really feel that). It is love, as Dylan Thomas puts it (here I improvize a "tad"), "...the rough love that breaks all rocks." Okay, well, I have "shite" well from my mouth. And "shite" it is. I insulted you with little more than "learned shite." And I am embarrassed that I insulted you, and even more with little else than "learned shite." Well, you know, some "shite" smells better than others. I wish you well. Read!
| |
| Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 08:45 pm Yes, I am stupid and you bore me.
| |
| Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 08:59 pm You are not stupid. And if I bore you, read good books. Read bad books too.
| |
| Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 09:39 pm I am sure, Zdenek, that if Sesshu bores you then I bore you to death. I do not need comments such as the three directly above, they do not advance the discussion. I regard buddists as atheists, but am highly skeptical of reincarnation or karma. Since these are supernatural things, I cannot see any reason why buddism is more likely that invisible pink unicorns who transfer souls between creatures based on a score system of goodness. I recommend wikipedia. Not so long or dry and has neat pictures, and it is so easy to go accidentally find yourself on 'wet t shirt competions'.
| |
| Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 11:04 pm Maxwell, I thank you for your comment and I apologize for the drivel from my mouth/keyboard in my previous post. I do not belive in reincarnation myself, and in my opinion I don't think Gotama did either. I view Buddhism as a psychological quest by Gotama. I personally do not consider it a religion, though most Buddhists do. There are many offshoots of Buddhism and some, if not most, belive in reincarnation. I personally do not. I think that is why Gotama avoided such questions. I think he would not have lived as long a life as he did if he said otherwise, given the time, perhaps even this time. As for the topic of discussion I will be most happy to give you my view if you desire so, although I think I have summed it up pretty much in my previous post. I was rather venomous in some of my reply to Zdenek and I apoligize for that to both of you, and to the community as well. I was raised as a Catholic and went to a Catholic school in New York City. I must say that, other than a bad teacher in second grade (she was just old and senile), the nuns and priests and the lay teachers were rather good (as I view them now). I had the occasional ruler smacked against my tiny little hand but other than that I found no great fault in them. And oh, yes, I was an altar boy. At the age of 6 I wanted to become a priest. I mean really. If one belives in God who would not? Over the years, well, I developed my own thinking and at the age of 36 concluded the biblical God was an impossibility. Since the age of about 19 I was "into" Zen Buddhism but roughly at 38 or 39 I realized their beliefs were incompatible with my sensibilities. I still like Zen (for the psychology) and franky I have no quarrel with the version of Christ that Paul presents (I think the "real" Christ and "real" Gotama would have no serious disagreements on their "way to live" philosophy/psychology). I am very familiar and comfortable with the scientific method and applaud the other posters who verbalized their thoughts much better than I could have. Isn't quantum physics a great smack in the head? Isn't Feynman and others before him remarkable for saying, "If you think you understand quantum physics you obviously don't?" Although I like Dawkins' recent book... well... I agree with him on most points but he is a few hundred years ahead of his time so I'll leave it at that. Okay, time for me to stop the drivel. My best to you all.
| |
| Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 11:27 pm Sesshu: Accounts of personal experiences are welcome. I find them interesting and enlightening. I myself have been an atheist since the day I was born. At one time or another i might have called myself a deist or a pantheist. Now, however, I find it much easier to call myself an atheist since it is the colloquialisn which most closely represents my views. Although more accurately I would call myself an agnostic atheist, but people dont tend to understand what that means. As to Buddism, I was under the impression that reincarnation, karma and enlightenment were central to buddiest thinking. Can you call your self a buddist if you dont beleive in these things and instead follow only the teachings. Would it be accurate the characterise you as a philisophical buddist? I think Dawkins is quite accurate when he describes religious upbringing as a form of child abuse. I know of no other ideology which is so readily assumed to pass from parent to children that we call the children of Jewish parents Jewish children etc. We do not call the children of republican parents republican children. I think that ignorance harms society and religions often survive and thrive in a culture of ignorance. I do not, howver, think we should ban religion tomorrow. Instead we should teach more religion, particularly historical and comparitive religon from a neutral standpoint.
| |
| Thursday, April 30, 2009 - 12:52 am Oh, please come on. Tell me how to "quote" because I can't find the freaking button. "I myself have been an atheist since the day I was born." Let's get a bit realistic here. But then you may be Salinger's child so I don't know "Although more accurately I would call myself an agnostic atheist..." Given the uncertainty/possibility of this universe being in, say, another, bigger universe (and so on) I would say that I agree with you on that point. The biblical God, no, not for me, but a creator? Well, any technology that superceeds another by a lot looks like magic, as I'm sure you and many others are aware of. A real God in an infinite universe(s)? Okay, I concede the point. I do so because, although I love Mark Twain's (Sam Clemens') saying, (from what I recall), "I was dead billions of years before I was born and I assure you it did not inconvenience me in the least bit," I certainly have no objection to "carrying on" after I pass away. So, yeah, I don't object to that. I might once I get there, but I guess one has to take the final bow to conclusively find out. I think I'm what you would call a "hopeful" atheist. But I know it's wishful thinking. As for Buddhism, yes, I think reincarnation is a hot subject for them but then I think they misunderstand Gotama's "lectures." One person's psychology is another's religion. As for what you say about Dawkins, well, that's why I say he's a few hundred years ahead of his time, as are many of us. No "really moral way" to detach children from their parents and tell them they've been brainwashed. We would be shot dead on sight. The 2 or 3 places where I disagree with Dawkins are only by "my" logical thinking. Otherwise I totally agree with him. Give it a few hundred years. The more educated people become, well... it will take quite some time. What do we do now? Indeed, "religions often survive and thrive in a culture of ignorance." No dispute there and the question is how do we implement the system of change? These posts help. Education helps. I mean, several hundred years from now, after most politicians admit that atheism doesn't further their careers, well, you'll still have some "Brave New World" people clinging to their guns and their religions. Time is the only solution. It will take quite some time. The time may be never. There will always be people who just need that something extra. That something extra will be God. If it's not Zeus, Odin or Christ, it will be Harry The Cow. Or some such. Time. Give it a thousand years. You and I and others may well be shocked at the attitude change a millenium will construct. Or it may be busines as usual.
| |
Thursday, April 30, 2009 - 01:09 am
That's mighty white of you to allow us poor ignorant knuckledraggers to maintain our own beliefs. Thank you.
What a pompous, elitist, arrogant, ivory tower, liberal statement. I think I better stop reading before I break my " No destroying people in game for political beliefs."
| |
| Thursday, April 30, 2009 - 02:02 am Pope: I can speak only for myself when I say I do not mean you offense. Although you certainly dont have a right to not be offended. Imo, there is nothing Sesshu or I have said which is offensive, especially in the quotes you have chosen. I do not, and have never, implied anyone is less intelligent because they hold religious beliefs. Besides, if you destory people in game because they offend you here than surely that is an example of overreactionary intolerance. The fact is that there is a negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence. That doesnt mean that religious people or not intelligent or intelligent people are not religious. Also, would you care to comment about the statistical fallacy (card example, sample size from which conclusions are drawn) you commited earlier on? Sesshu: I agree and disagree with you. I think that time is necessary but not sufficient. I think that education, principally science and ethics, are necessary for people to reject religious dogma. I was an atheist from the moment I was born in the same sense a cat is a lifelong atheist. Something with no concept of god is as atheist as someone who disbelieves the existance of god. Rocks are atheist. Everyone, everywhere is born atheist and only become theist through the teaching of their parents. The correlation between one's own religion and the religion of one's parents is striking. If no theism existed I have no doubt that, in the absence of scientific knowledge, a god of sorts would be invented. This does not make theism any more true.
| |
Thursday, April 30, 2009 - 02:05 am
Step back and think for a minute of who you are accusing of what in that statement.
As though that is a civilized option?
Kidnapping is considered a violent crime in my culture. I don't wish to poison the waters, but I also believe that the best way to counter beliefs that one finds hostile or ignorant is not to ignore them, nor threaten violence or censorship, but simply to show them the light of day and discuss them reasonably...possibly some quirk of my own religious upbringing. So if one acknowledges evolution, and also believes that humans are not especially different than other species, why would one care what other parents teach their children, if it's not directly threatening to oneself or one's family? If parents teaching their children the religious values and beliefs that they themselves hold to be true is evolutionarily disadvantageous, the practice will die out...and if it is advantageous, in opposing it one is fighting a losing battle against nature itself.
| |
| Thursday, April 30, 2009 - 04:41 am Not a flippant question, Maxwell: how do you know that cats are atheists? Especially in light of your statement that there is a negative correlation betweeen religiosity and intelligence.
| |
| Thursday, April 30, 2009 - 05:04 am You said "I kindly ask you not to use quotes from scientists in your arguements. Not only is this an argument from authority, you have generally quote mined, which is to take a quote which suits your arguement wholely out of a context which is entirely opposed to your arguement." Im sorry, but evolutionist themselves say that they cannot prove evolution. Can DNA form without proteins? And proteins depend on DNA to form. So which came first the chicken or the egg? If evolution were a fact, the fossil evidence would surely reveal a gradual changing from one kind of life into another. And that would have to be the case regardless of which variation of evolutionary theory is accepted. Even scientists who believe in the more rapid changes associated with the "punctuated equilibrium" theory acknowledge that there would still have been many thousands of years during which these changes supposedly took place. So it is not reasonable to believe that there would be no need at all for linking fossils. But nowhere in the fossil record are found partially formed bones or organs that could be taken for the beginning of a new feature. For instance, there are fossils of various types of flying creatures like birds, bats, extinct pterodactyls. According to evolutionary theory, they must have evolved from transitional ancestors. But none of those transitional forms have been found. There is not a hint of them. Are there any fossils of giraffes with necks two thirds or three quarters as long as at present? Are there any fossils of birds evolving a beak from a reptile jaw? Is there any fossil evidence of fish developing an amphibian pelvis, or of fish fins turning into amphibian legs, feet and toes? The fact is, looking for such developing features in the fossil record has proved to be a fruitless quest. New Scientist noted that evolution "predicts that a complete fossil record would consist of lineages of organisms showing gradual change continuously over long periods of time." But it admitted: "Unfortunately, the fossil record does not meet this expectation, for individual species of fossils are rarely connected to one another by known intermediate forms ... known fossil species do indeed appear not to evolve even over millions of years." And geneticist Stebbins writes: "No transitional forms are known between any of the major phyla of animals or plants." He speaks of "the large gaps which exist between many major categories of organisms." "In fact," The New Evolutionary Timetable acknowledges, "the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another. Furthermore, species lasted for astoundingly long periods of time." Is that quote mining? Or is that just an excuse to deny what SCIENTISTS have said about the theory. Do all scientist assert that the theory of evolution is the answer to life? Mutations do not produce DIFFRENT species. They produce differences within a species, but never a new one. As stated before, a mutation never increases the amount of genetic information in a cell. Spontaneous generation??? What about symbiosis? Stinging ants live in the hollow thorns of acacia trees. They keep leaf-eating insects off the tree and they cut up and kill vines that try to climb on the tree. In return, the tree secretes a sugary fluid that the ants relish, and it also produces small false fruit, which serves as food for the ants. Did the ant first protect the tree and then the tree rewarded it with fruit? Or did the tree make fruit for the ant and the ant then thanked it with protection? Or did it all chance to happen at once? And just from these things are we asked to believe that all of this (any one event would be mathematically impossible, let alone several accidents or random changes in a step by step, or excuse me a random step of random acts) just happened, without a designer? Of course we all have the right to believe what we choose, and should be respected for that. But it seems as if evolution requires much of the 'blind' faith that religious adherents must have.
| |
| Thursday, April 30, 2009 - 05:12 am Actually if you need to know Maxwell 'Danger' Powers, yes you do bore me so does this discussion because it does not tell me anything new. That is why I stopped posting here long time ago. Then Buddhism was mentioned, and I posted what I think of it. Then I was told I was stupid so I retaliated.
| |
| Thursday, April 30, 2009 - 04:19 pm /me pets Tuco....
| |
| Thursday, April 30, 2009 - 06:25 pm Jojo: I do not make my statement lightly. Think of a cultural practice which not only encourages but demands ignorance of reality. A practice which encourages a feeling of superiority to and hatred of the other causing division where there should be none. A practice which is free from serious criticism. This practice can only be religion. Why do we allow religion to do this when we would prevent it if it were anything else (for instance: racism). I do not wish to ignore nor censor nor threaten violence. I do not believe I have ever done so. I wish to get people to think about the things they accept without thinking. If someone comes away from the dicussion with their faith strengthened then I think that is great: They have thought honestly about their beliefs and come to a conclusion which I dont happen to agree with, which is fine. If someone teaches their children to edify ignorance I care only so far as it affects me. By raising ignorance up to a virtue there is a very real danger that society is harmed. For one religious example I can cite anti-vacinnation campaigns. For a religious example I can cite abstinance only education. Since I desire society to not only survive, but thrive, it is in my interest to address ignorance whenever I see it. Zdenek: Very well then. We can consider this matter closed. Serpent: The very point I am making is that you quotes are inaccurate. You are trying to imply that there is some significant level of disagreement between scientists as to the validity of evolution. This is not true. Even if you found 100 scientists (or 'evolutionists') who thought evolution inaccurate, they could still be wrong (even so, look up 'project steve'). Science isnt a democracy and having any number of people supporting you doesnt make you right. Your claim about the lack of transitional forms is flatly wrong. I direct you to the rather good videos on YouTube by AronRa (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY&feature=channel_page). You ask for examples from giraffes, birds, amphibian pelvis and legs. Transitional forms of ALL of these things have been found. Therefore this arguement against evolution holds no validity. Even if there were no found transitional forms and evolution was clearly a fabrication: How does that make what you are arguing any more true? Surely your arguement is still exactly as plausible and invisible pink unicorns. Even if there were no transitional forms or any fossils at all, DNA evidence alone is sufficient to show that evolution is sufficient to explain the diversity of life. We can measure the interrelatedness of species by the similarity in the DNA sequence even if we had no way of comparing anatomical features. I have asked you to refrain from making assertions about mutations because you clearly lack the necessary knowledge and repeatedly fall into the same fallacies when you try to. So, I will explain a little background, tell me when you learn something new. First some stucture basics: DNA consists of two, transiently bonded chains of base pairs (A; adenine. C; cytosine. G; guanine. T; thymine. In RNA, U; uracil, is used in place of T) linked by phosphodiester bonds. The chains are woven around each other to form a double helix. Each base of one strand 'base pairs' with each base of the other strand (A with T(or U) and G with C). There are many environmental causes of mutations, such as UV light, cancerous chemicals etc. But the most common cause of mutation is during replication. When DNA is replicated, each strand is used as a template to produce the correct strand. Sometimes, an incorrect base pair in incorporated, this occurs about 1 in every 10^6 bases. Several error checking mechanisms get this number down to 1 in every 10^9 bases or one per replication cycle (all numbers relevant in humans). Now onto mutations: A mutation is an event which results in the change of the DNA sequence. As mentioned previously the most common time for mutation is during replication. A base can be added (insertion), removed (deletion) or changes (transversion). Changes in the DNA sequence are OVERWHELMINGLY neutral, they do not have a positive or negative effect, because they do not affect the structure or regulation of proteins. However, in the case that they do, natural selection occurs. Gradual changes plus natural selection based on environment and you get genetic change and variation within a species (see dogs). If you keep two populations separate for long enough they will INEVITABLY drift so far apart they are unable to interbreed. Thus there are now two species where once there was one. This is not the same as saying one species produced another, more accurately two species share a common ancestor. This process has been demonstrated in vertebrates such as lizards. If you accept change within species than you must accept changes that can create new species: They are the same thing, just different time scales. You arguement is analogous to saying that mineral accretion is insufficient to explain stalagmite growth because some stalagmites are so big and apparantly grow so slow that we cant know how they were created. Note the lack of referral to 'information' at anytime. You symbiosis example is a strawman. No one claims it was one and then the other. Rather, small, gradual, mutually beneficial changes over a long time resulting in the form we observe today. You are now frustrating me with you continued referral to the arguement from implausibility (otherwise known as the arguement from ignorance). Until you demonstrate you have read my post about the card example, I will not address this point further. In short, every single point you made in your last point was fallacious. This is quite frustrating as I have addressed all but one of these points previously.
| |
| Thursday, April 30, 2009 - 08:58 pm Serpent: I would also ask you not to copy whole paragraphs without citing sources. You should say: 'The following arguement which I found on usenet says what I mean...'.
| |
| Thursday, April 30, 2009 - 09:34 pm Serpent: A few minutes of googling turned up this refutation of paragraph 29 of chapter 3 of a book called 'Creation'. Which matches the paragraph you wrote word for word. You should cite your sources instead of passing other's work of as your own. http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/part-4-transformation-of-species.html
| |
| Friday, May 1, 2009 - 12:09 am C'mon, are you saying that everything you have 'learned', and have posted is of your own origin? It must be! Because it would be extremely unreasonable of you to expect me to cite all my sources and you not do the same! That would be hypocritical, and I'm sure that's not what you mean! I'm sorry I cannot name every place that I read some of the information. In fact some of the basic things I probably learned in elementary school, like cause and effect, and I do not remember all of my grade school instructors. Some of the material I have found is in the book 'Creation', but it is by no means the only place. What it all boils down to is you decide to put faith in random undirected chance, that things came about by something. And regardless of you refusing to admit that there are several creditable scientists that disagree on the theory of evolution, it does not change the fact. Just as there are many religions that disagree on various topics. So to make a decision, you must become educated on the subject. Of course I am not as educated in biology/evolution as some are, just like you may not be as educated in religious theologies as others are! But never-the-less I am not ignorant of the subject, in either case, religion or biology/evolution. Logic will not allow me to believe that all of this is random chance, life from lifelessness. Oh and the best way to not get frustrated by what is posted is..... by not reading it. Yes you do have the choice. There could be many reasons for becoming frustrated, but don't let an a creationist do it to you! I doubt anybody here expects that by reading some post on a web/browser game to change their feelings to a great degree.
| |
| Friday, May 1, 2009 - 12:28 am Serpent: Everything I have posted is written by my own fair hand. I have never cut and pasted. Such a thing would be plagiarism. Of course, I am not claiming to have taught myself everything, I stand on the shoulders of giants. But I dont pretend that any of their knowledge is my own, or write their words in place of my own. In fact I have referred to various people when making my arguements (Stenger, Dawkins, Adams etc). Also, evolution is about as far from 'random undirected chance' as you can get. Natural selection is not about chance. Evolution is not life from lifelessness, that is abiogenesis. You must choose one to discuss, evolution or abiogenesis. Acceptance of evolution is not acceptance of life from lifelessness. Either way, how does arguing against evolution make theism any more valid? Even if you were able to prove evolution was not accurate, how would that make theism any more likely than invisible pink unicornism? You must address this issue. The 'credible scientists' you quote mine from are not claiming the things you think they are claiming. Fossils showing transitions between phyla is not the same and fossils showing transitions between species, as the author well knew, but which you and the author of creation seem to have missed. Besides, being credible is not the same as being correct. Please reread the card example I provided. If I look at a hand of 13 cards and say: 'There is a 1 in 13^10 chance of this happening'. Would I be right to conclude that I could not have got the hand by chance?
| |
| Friday, May 1, 2009 - 08:08 pm Returning to this forum after an extended period away, this is a fascinating thread. So many points I would like to pick up on, but this post would be extremely long and boring if I did, so I will just make a few of my own. While I resist pigeonholing myself, I wish to engage (see below) so, in order of coming to them, I would describe myself as an Atheist Existentialist Taoist. Atheist (age 12) because I believe there is no god. There is absolutely no reason to think that there might be, no evidence to suggest that there might be ... the only reason the concept even exists is down to humanity's desire for someone else to be responsible and the need for a guaranteed way to 'get it right'. Sidenote: I have every respect for people who disagree with me, so long as they respect the fact that I disagree with them. My main problem with those belonging to organised religion is that most of them believe that because they are 'right', everyone else is 'wrong'. Existentialist (age 16) because I believe that it is supremely important to proactively engage and to take responsibility for every choice you make. In order to engage, you have to decide what is important and act upon it. You also have to rid yourself of external influences that might colour your judgement. Sidenote: Meursualt had no external influences but only engaged when he murdered the Moroccan. That was when he became a true exsistentialist. He followed through by taking responsibility. However, I prefer the juxtaposition of Oreste and Electre in Les Mouches as an illustrative example. Taoist (age 29) because I believe in balance and harmony, and working with the natural flow of energy rather than wasting energy trying to push against it. I also love the fact that the meaning of Taoism is different for each of its adherents and can accommodate any other beliefs (religious or otherwise) that a person has. Sidenote: I am right, but I am only right for me. What is right for someone else is likely to be subtley or entirely different. As a Taoist I can, I have to, respect that I hope I have obliquely responded to a lot of what's above. Any other Athiest Existentialist Taoists out there? Hugs and respect Jo
| |
| Friday, May 1, 2009 - 09:05 pm Hi Jo, I have read about taoism before and it seems practically atheist. I might describe taoism as spiritual (to use the term in a Sam Harris sense) but not religious. I find that existentialism is missing in many sects of the monotheistic religions, particularly (even doctrinally) in Calvinist/Baptist christianity. The belief that we are merely pawns and that our actions in this world matter only in that they might be judged after death is, i think, quite damaging. I think we should do good for goodness' sake and not for the sake of an all powerful supreme overlord/father. I have not heard of the names you refer to in the existentialist italic section. Although this will change soon (thank you wikipedia!).
| |
| Friday, May 1, 2009 - 10:23 pm Maxwell Taoism is atheist ... or not ... depending on the taoist. Taoism does not admit the existance of a god. Neither does it deny it. The Tao is everything, and everything that is not and everything that does not fall into either of those categories, plus everything else. Therefore every god, and every denial of god is part of the Tao. Interestingly, everyone is therefore a Taoist, whether they admit / know it, or not ... (or any other form of perception not already covered ) If you like reading, you may also enjoy Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert Heinlein. It's off the wall and ridiculously biased, but introduces some interesting ideas. Hugs and respect Jo
| |
| Wednesday, May 6, 2009 - 03:37 am Taoism can definitely be a religion. In some interpretation, it can even be a monotheist. You can consider the Tao as the god and Lao'zhi as the messenger. I personally accept Taoism as a philosophy of life not as religion. However, the main problem for me to understand J/C/I family of religion is the claim that one has ability to obtain "favor" from said all powerful God. Just as discussed in Jozism. For the topic of Jozism, what if Jozi exists but he chooses not to interfere with your boring day to day operation? For many people I have met who departed J/C/I faith, the existence of god is not the problem. The problem is the various organization who claim to have the only "right answer". I dream of becoming a butterfly or my life is the dream of a butterfly? Live long and Prosper Just Spock
| |
| Wednesday, May 6, 2009 - 11:22 am Spock: I hear similar comments; essentially against organised religion or claims of absolute knowledge. The term 'spiritual' is often used in such comments. It seems to me that if one does believe in the existance in a theist god than the most sensible thing is to try to determine what he wants and do it rather than risk damnation etc. This generally involves abiding by the strictures of some form of organised religion. I would argue that the bible is a compilation of such strictures. Therefore, it seems to me incongruous to claim to be against organised religion and believe bible is, at some level, a guide to god's will. The apparent non-interference of god in the case of evil is a powerful arguement against the existance of a theist god. All counter arguements that come to my mind basically come in three forms: god chose not to act (pray more/better etc), god was powerless to act or the event was part of the greater good. In the first, god is no all loving (love is dependant on faith). In the second, god is not all powerful. In the third, which is essentially the idea that bad things happen to good people in order to stop them doing more bad things later on, god is not all knowing or the bad thing could be avoided.
| |
| Wednesday, May 6, 2009 - 06:12 pm The Bible is sadly the least understood book in human history. Perhaps a slight demonstration... King James Version:
Which is where we get the people who believe the earth is 6,000 years old. Understandable according to this particular translation... Now the literal translation from Hebrew.
How long did it exist waste and void? How did it become waste and void? Why was God preparing the universe? It does not say...Nor does it contradict our scientific observations about the age of this planet we inhabit. What it does show is the Earth existed in the Universe for an uncertain period of time before it was given its current state. If people actually read the Bible instead of listening to others variations on it the world would indeed be a better place. It is one of several books that must be read and understood for a more complete understanding of the Creator and his master plan for humanity and the Universe as a whole.
| |
| Wednesday, May 6, 2009 - 06:40 pm Assuming one accepts the nature of this creator as a genuine deity, rather than a primitive form of social control. God is a personal entity. Debating his existance seems something of a moot point, as its all about perspective. What I will say is that I find the insistant forcefulness with which organised religion attempts to imprint itself unto our lives both repugnant and distressing - especially those faiths of Abrahamic descent. I care not for anybodys' gods but my own.
| |
| Wednesday, May 6, 2009 - 07:48 pm My thought proviking reply was lost! Curse you, authentication error! If you dislike anything I write, then clearly its because the bettwer version was lost. Anyway a brief synopsis: Pope: You seem to claim that it is translation rather than interpretation that causes doctrinal differences. I would argue that you are interpreting 'void'. Indeed, the claim, that a void exisited before the earth (ie a space, into which the universe expanded: Big bang) is inaccurate. The big bang theory involves an expansion of space itself. Really, it all depends on how you interperet 'void'. I would also argue that if your aim is to transfer knowledge, especially really important, eternity affecting knowledge, then relying on text which must be interpreted is a method which will result in failure a vast majority of the time. It seems to me immoral to damn the majority for eternity because they did not interperet the words in the right way. Surely, an all knowing, all powerful god can do better than that. Klarina: I agree that god is a personal entity. It is clear that two people who read the same text can come away with a radically different idea of what god is like. I would argue further that in the world there are no two identical god concepts. It is an entirely plausible and rational response to many doctrines to want to convince others that your morality and philosophy is the most appropriate. I will readily call myself an evangelist of rational materialism.
| |
| Wednesday, May 6, 2009 - 11:13 pm If there is no God, if he is just a personal entity, does that mean this life of 70-80 yrs really all that there is? Although I do enjoy life, is this all that there is? If there is no God, then who is it that determines what if any are the 'moral' constraints that is acceptable? If there is a God, that did indeed create everything we now see and experience, then would he not also have the power to intervene and make the world a better place? If so, why hasn't he? And would it be reasonable to conclude that a person could choose to have their own 'morality' and he still approve of it? Those are simple questions with complicated and often 'insightful' answers either way you choose to answer!
| |
| Thursday, May 7, 2009 - 04:30 am As a wise old gypsy once told me:
| |
| Thursday, May 7, 2009 - 07:23 am "The apparent non-interference of god in the case of evil is a powerful arguement against the existance of a theist god." Your ensuing argument is that God is not simultaneously all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing, therefore God does not exist. That's not a powerful argument. Further, your definition of all-loving seems to be circular. Finally, it's not difficult to think of other possibilities besides the three you presented.
| |
| Thursday, May 7, 2009 - 05:20 pm Serpent: I do not know the answer to your first question for certain. I personally think that living forever would be terrible. I would get bored after a million or so years and then there is still infinity more years to come. Eternal bliss sounds vegetative to me. As for the origin of morality, I argue that morality is subjective and not objective. I live my life to the fullest and help others to do so too. I determined that moral by a combination of upbringing and personal experience. If I was brought up differently or had different experience, it is quite probable I would use different morals. When I look at the bible or the quran I see some stuff I regard as moral, some stuff which could be improved and a lot of stuff which is downright immoral. By immoral, I mean against my, subjective, morality (such as killing for lack of faith, treatment of women & children). In your next paragraph you seem to say that an all powerful god ought to be able to intervene. I emphatically agree with this. An all powerful god who does not intervene is not all good. A god which cannot intervene is not all powerful. Are you making an arguement that people who have good morals are essentially are in agreement with god? How does this square with the apparant change in what has been popularly regarded as moral over time? Princess: I hope you didnt grace their palm with silver, I could give you better in my sleep. Jojo: We have to be careful about what we are defining as god. My arguement was meant to show the logical fallacy of a *theist* god (omnimax) given the presence of evil. My arguement does not go to the deist god or the uncreated creator, just the omnimax theistic god. An all powerful god which chooses not to act when harm occurs either does not love or is not powerful. Of course, the counter could be that a little evil is allowed in order to prevent a bigger evil. The counter-counter is that why is a little evil necessary, besides, intervention has to be observed and/or has dire implications for free will. I do not see the circularity, if possible, can you be more specific? The arguements are, i feel, sufficient but not exhaustive. I am sure there are other situations which show that god cannot be omnimax.
| |
| Thursday, May 7, 2009 - 11:44 pm I apologize for my ignorance, but what is 'Omnimax"?
| |
| Friday, May 8, 2009 - 05:44 am Why get so hung up over one particular characterization of God, to the point that if you think you've shown God is not that way, then you think there is no god, period? Like getting obsessed with circular orbits when there are thousands of ways to construct ellipses. What in the world do you mean when you refer to God being omnipowerful, or omnibenevolent, anyway? Just for example, let's say you found out for a fact there was a being that had created the material universe, and in a very particular way so as to make beings like us possible, then just left it alone, would you say "Nope, not omnibenevolent, can't be God"? Would you refuse to say "God" if it turned out the creator of the universe could only intervene in it in limited ways, without completely messing it up? Use the old coconut, don't restrict yourself to one or two traditional pictures. "An all powerful god which chooses not to act when harm occurs either does not love or is not powerful." This is not a true statement. Love includes a whole range of attitudes and responses. The obvious example, a parent has to, not just may but has to, allow a child to get hurt at many times in order for the child to develop its independence. Always catch the child before it falls, the child won't learn to do the things it needs to do. Why is this necessary? Answer that yourself, it's simply true and can't be ignored because you don't like that it is that way. Does that mean the parent doesn't exist?? Maybe circularity isn't the correct term for your meaning of "all-loving;" I mean that it's tailored to suit your predetermined conclusion. You seem to imply that "all-loving" necessitates ameliorating all the pain and suffering one can. So sure, by that definition no being active in our world can be called both all-loving and all-powerful. But that's saying very little about God of the world in which we actually live, because it's a poor definition of what loving means. Also, you never spelled out why you believe cats are atheists.
| |
| Friday, May 8, 2009 - 03:42 pm Omnimax is a shortning of omnipotent, omnipowerful and omniscient. It also takes care off the logical impossibility of being able to make something so heavy you cant push it. It is a quality of the theistic god. Jojo: I am not claiming that because I can argue against one god character, that I can argue against them all. I would say that the uncreated creator god is a deist god and not the theist god. I must make it clear that I argue against the theist god, rather than the creator god. Although, I have yet to be presented with convincing evidence of a creator god. You make a fair point about a parent allowing hrm to a child in order for the child to learn from the pain and then drawing an analogy to god and humanity. I would argue that god is quite a neglegent parent by that analogy. Not only does the god allow us to fall down, it never picks us up or, in fact, ever makes any (demonstrable) attempt to avert falling down despite the fact that falling down might translate to mass murder or child rape. Besides, why should some (apparantly) innocent people suffer so that the majority of people learn? If the parent exists, then it does a good job of hiding the fact. In lieu of evidence to the contrary I choose disbelief. I chose the definition of all loving because it is what I understand it to mean. I did also take account of the idea that there is some kind of 'greater good' which is more loving then what I can observe. This latter concept seems strange, because I cant see the greater good in child rape/murder or indiscriminate mass murder (natural disaster). The argument seems to say that there must be some greater evil which can be prevented by some minor evil. In fact the ONLY wy to prevent the greater evil is by doing some minor evil. I find it hard to believe that an all powerful god would not be able to manage without the minor evil. I believe cats are atheist because I have never heard a cat espouse another point of view. I define atheism as a lack of belief in a god or gods. Something without a concept has, in my opinion, a lack of belief in the something. I dont claim to know for certain, but I think it is more than likely true that cats, rocks, planets etc are atheist. I have another interesting implication regarding a theist god is the question of what the purpose of teh universe is. We all have souls and are apparantly judged based on our performance etc in this world. God created everything including our souls. What need does god have for souls? Is this world simply a cosmic sorting machine which sorts the good souls from the bad? How come god cant know this already? Eventually, the world will end there will be a big battle. God, being all powerful, will surely win. In which case, why does the devil even fight? How can it win against a god?
| |
| Friday, May 8, 2009 - 04:48 pm Ok thanks for the definition, Omnimax = Omni-everything! From a biblical standpoint all of those questions that have been presented are answered, of course, if you do not view the bible as an authority, it is little use. But for those that are interested in those answers, here are some of them (according to the bible that is). But first as for living for eternity, would that really be boring? I mean how many times have you seen a sunset, a mountain, or a vibrant colored flower? No doubt many times. Each time you see it does you appreciation and enjoyment diminish a bit, cause you have already experienced it before? What about food? I typically enjoy the same kinds of food. And I enjoy them as much now as I did several years ago. Even with learning games and such, even tho I understand the concept of them, I still enjoy trying to master them. On top of this, there are people that spend a lifetime in study of ONE thing, and at the end of their lives, they remark that there are now more questions than answers. But as for why does God not act because of the wickedness and injustice that is so prevelant today this is a very good question. According to the bible, back when the first human couple was created they were given free will, meaning they could choose to do right or wrong. After all what is so grand about a robot or machine doing what you designed it to do, is that robot or machine truly intelligent? But after God had given them everything they needed, even giving them fulfilling work to do, he did ask a simple thing from them. Not to eat of the one tree in the middle of the garden. Why did he do that? Well it was a simple test to see if they would obey his one law that he gave them. For them, if they obeyed, it would show that they trusted and respected him. But then the devil entered the picture. The bible says that the devil was originally created as a good creature, but he rebelled in a quest for worship and power of himself, in fact he even influenced others to follow him. The devil made the statement that no creature would worship and respect God, if given the choice. So the devil tempted and seduced Eve into eating of the tree. She knew exactly what she was doing because she even stated the command that she had been given to not eat of the tree, so it was deliberate. Then she gave some also to Adam and he likewise deliberately disobeyed that one simple command. The devil even said that if you eat of this tree that your eyes will be opened and you will know good and bad, meaning that now they could make those choices for themselves and not allow God to have any say so as to what was good and bad. It was as if he was accusing God of witholding something from Adam and Eve. Gen 2:7-3:6 Now if God would have destroyed them completly along with the devil right then and there, what would it have proven? It would have proven that God is all powerful for sure, but it would not have proven if the devil was right, and humans and other creatures could make choices for themselves independent from God. But he has allowed humans to try to manage themselves. He has allowed them to rule themselves independent from him. But he didn't just leave humanity to grind itself into the ground, which it has been doing at an ever increasing rate. But he made provisions (Gen 3:15, which is the first bible prophecy) that those who choose to are able to avail themselves of the possibility to get back, what the first human pair lost, which is everlasting life. God had already stated his purpose for humans (Gen 1:27,28), so ask yourself, if Adam and Eve would have never chosen their own path, where would they be now? That is what the bible really says about that subject. Of course there is alot more information in there, but that is basically what it says of the matter as to why has God allowed suffering. And as for souls, notice what the bible says about souls in Gen 2:7, Does it say he was 'given' a soul, or that he 'became' a soul? This is important, there is a difference, because then look at Ezekiel 18: 4, 20. So are souls, according to the bible, immortal?
| |
| Saturday, May 9, 2009 - 06:31 pm Serpent: You didnt seem to get to making a point about living for eternity. Are you implying that it would be like all the things we enjoy, but that never get old? If so, my experience of these things would be vegetative or become profoundly boring after ETERNITY has passed (and I still have another infinite number of eternities to pass). Basically, the offer of heaven (eternal bliss) is my idea of hell. You are right to assume that I would not regard the bible as entirely factual in nature. But this shouldnt affect either of our decisions as to whether the content is moral. Unless you believe in absolute morality. In which case, if god ordered you to commit murder (as it apprantly has, many times) then you would have to regard that murder as moral. Now we have come to the question of free will. The crucial point to the story you related is the free will of Eve (and lesser, of Adam). Basically, was the devil necessary? If so, then Eve wouldnt have taken the apple and no damnation. Therefore, why did an omniscient god create a thing (devil) which would do the tempting? If the devil is not necessary, why did god stack the odds? In short, it seems immoral to me to give someone 'free will' to choose either way but then (all but) kill them (cast out of eden) if they choose the wrong way. Really it doesnt sound so 'free' at all. It seems that the devil was right after all about his claim about respecting god if given the choice. In any case, I dont really understand what this has to do with suffering. Is it the case that god allowed mankind to suffer because we exercised our free will and choose not to do what it said? I was under the impression that the idea was that god created everything. Therefore, god created souls. If god didnt create souls, what did? If god did create souls, what purpose did it create them for? What does god gain from having souls? I would prefer if you would answer these questions rather then refer me to scripture (feel free to use whatever scriptural quote to back up your arguement).
| |
| Sunday, May 10, 2009 - 04:18 am Many religious people have different takes on what the Bible is saying. It is open to interpretation in many respects...perhaps contributing to its popularity and durability. For example, some take every word to be literally true. Others take it all to be allegory. Many, perhaps most, take it that some is literally true, and some allegory, and take upon themselves the difficult task of trying to decide which is which. Not necessarily as a formal, organized endeavor, but piece by piece, as it comes up or as they think of it, over the years, they just naturally take it that some parts make more sense if seen one way, and some the other way. While science seems to be pointing to the fact of an "Eve," a common homo sapiens mother to us all, I see the Adam and Eve story as an allegory, an insightful story of some event in human development, when we developed or recognized we had developed this thing that we call free will. Was it the result of some genetic mutation? Was it a cultural development? Was it some physical change caused by something outside the material universe? Did an evil being literally tempt our ancestor, successfully, and in that action cause a recognition and shame of the sin? Something else? I don't know. Our culture, our language, our laws, acknowledge that an adult has a sense of responsibility for his actions that a child and an animal do not. We have an ability to recognize, however it comes to us, what is wrong and what is right, and to choose one or the other. With that responsibility comes culpability for choosing wrong. We can sin, and we all do so often enough. Anyway, who would rather give up their free will and be an automaton? Ignorance is bliss, but I think most of us prefer the more difficult way, with all its downside. Does God know what we are going to choose before we choose an action? I don't think there's any contradiction, or any blasphemy, to say that perhaps "no," we truly have free will, undetermined and unpredictable, even by God. That it is not a function of the material world, but something different. Certainly that is what my own experience tells me. That would make God less than omniscient in your book, but so what? Maxwell, do you think differently, do you think that everything you do is physically determined and in principle predictable? Or do you think that you have free will?
| |
| Sunday, May 10, 2009 - 05:07 am The point I make about eternity is that all because you may have experienced something before, does that mean it looses it appeal? And there are many many things that we can learn about and do that we can not do in our limited lifespan. I don't understand how somebody can get bored, or tired of living, but oh well, that's just me I suppose! As for the devil, the bible says that at one time the devil was a good creature, but then rebelled and sought worship for himself. Then he tempted Eve. She choose to follow him, instead of the simple command of God. He had given them everything, so how did he stack any odds? If anything the odds were stacked IN their favor, not against them. The devil did not have to succeed in tempting Eve. Free will of course does not mean that you are not accountable for your actions, I'm sure you understand that. I have free will to jump off of a cliff, but there will be consequences of that action, so is that 'free'? No, it just means you can choose, you are not forced to do it. What this has to do with suffering is that God has allowed humans to try their own way of rulership or government apart from him, and that is what has led to much suffering. Although the scriptures do say that this will not last forever, and there will be an end to it, for now he allows it to happen. The bible says that humans are souls, not that they have souls, as if they were different things. Thats why the bible says that when a man sins and dies, his soul dies as well. The soul, being immortal and living on after death is NOT what the bible says.
| |
| Sunday, May 10, 2009 - 11:48 am Jojo: I find this process very interesting. Every individual has a different take on what is literal and what is not. This is the essence of the personal god I talked about earlier. I have less respect for this kind of cafeteria (pick and choose) christianity then I have for entirely literal (ala Fred Phelps) readings. Disclaimer: I am in no way endorsing the Phelps world view. With regards Eve as a 'common mother': There would not be one person who was the 'first human'. It is more like a small band (<1000) strong, which was the separate population which evolved into humans. This is what mitochondiral DNA studies are telling us. This claim is an example of the marksman's fallacy. If the genesis story is referring to this, then it is incredibly vague. Why doesnt the bible refer to antibiotics or atoms or anything else infinitely more useful? You then give a list of possibilites. I do not regard these possibilties as equally likely. Particularly two: The first invokes supernatural and the second invokes 'an evil'. I will assume the 'evil' is also supernatural. I have never observed anything supernatural, I will go so far as to claim I dont believe that anyone has observed anything supernatural. Therefore, why claim something which has never been observed to happen, for which there is no evidence to indicate, as an explaination of an occurance? I posit another possibility: That the bible stories are all made up from folk lore at around the time of the start of the CE. They never represent what really happened so much as what story tellers then imagined what happened. Somehow, the most popular where written in a book. I think this possibility is more plausible than knowledge from a supernatural source was misinterpretted. Now we go on to free will. Apologies if my comments here and below are a little disjointed, I wrote the below reply before this. You are arguing that there is a gap in god's omnisicent capability: it cannot read our minds. Further, it cannot act on our minds. Therefore, god is not fully omnipowerful. I would argue that a god of this type falls short of omnimax and is special pleading with no reason. I will, anyway, endevour to answer the questions posed. Are you saying that free will is not a function of the material world? I think it would be more useful to use the word conciousness here. Really, free will is a product of a concious mind. Conciousness is the product, necessarily and sufficiently, of the brain. Without the brain there is no conciousness, by impairing function of parts of the brain, aspects of conciousness can be lost. Total impairment, total loss. Conciousness is an emergent phenomena of the complex processes of the brain. Sensory responses + memory = comprehension. Comprehension + experience = prediction. Prediction is evolutionarily very useful. I see nothing supernatural in conciousness, I see no soul. Because I have never seen evidence which indicates that anything other than the natural is necessary. Do you regard free will as a property distinct from conciousness and/or the brain? As for ultimate predictability. I will say one thing and then, perhaps, seemingly say the opposite. Bear with me. Everything is knowable, but not everything can be known. For instance, it is possible to know both the position and momentum of a particle, just not at the same time. If one, somehow, did know the position and momentum of every particle in the universe (~10^60) and one was capable of performing the calculations necessary to determine their interactions faster than the interactions occur (this is like using a silicon computer to calculate the motions of the elections in the computer which are doing the calculations, it may well be impossible) then one would, indeed, be able to predict the future. Therefore, everything is, in principle, predictable but it is apparant that such atomic level prediction is technically impossible to achieve (H'sUP). I dont see how free will has to be unpredictable. I can predict what my friends will order in the restaurant and be right 60-70% of the time. Does this mean they dont have free will? Free will is not necessarily unpredictable. Serpent: If this is free will then it is the free will of a slave. God is the master who makes the rules and humanity the slave to his whim. It seems we apparantly had a choice: Either do everything as commanded by our master or make our own decisions. Personally, I am glad that we chose the latter. What I dont understand about suffering is this: If god is all loving, why would he allow us to suffer at all? Apparantly because we brought it on ourselves by exercising free will. But what kind of a god punishes so completely for such a minor and arbitrary crime? The point I made about the odds is this: If god knows everything, it knows the future. Therefore, it knew that the devil would tempt, successfully, Eve, causing the fall of man. Therefore, god knew, from the moment of creation that man would fall: it stacked the odds. Why do you set a test if you know the outcome? Or is free will a special case? I have actually not heard that souls die before. What, if not the soul, goes on to the afterlife? Our bodies dont, we bury/burn them. Either way, what is the point of creation humans? Moreover, what is the point of creating a universe? In short, why? I dont think youve really grasped how long eternity is. I get bored of doig things if I do them repeatedly. There is only so much stuff to do. Eternity means I would do everything enough times to be bored of them (however many times that may require). Therefore, living for eternity would be boring. Eventually, I would be bored of living, but unable to die. That is hell.
| |
| Sunday, May 10, 2009 - 07:45 pm Could somebody offer me a proof of God please?
| |
| Sunday, May 10, 2009 - 07:46 pm and proof of the so-called free will too while at it.
| |
| Sunday, May 10, 2009 - 10:08 pm We first need to define both.
| |
| Sunday, May 10, 2009 - 10:36 pm What type of proof do you mean? How about giving an example...say, prove that Jozi exists, from in-game information only. Or, real-life, prove that William the Conqueror existed. Or prove that grass is green. Show what kind of proof you will find convincing, that will refute the skeptic.
| |
| Sunday, May 10, 2009 - 10:53 pm Well, define it. One would assume that if one talks about something, then one knows what s/he talks about. That is why every discussion, polemic, or thought should begin with definitions of terminology, else its bound to end up in situation where everyone talks about something else. Its impossible for us to prove that God nor free will exists.
| |
| Monday, May 11, 2009 - 01:02 am Jojo: Level and type of proof depends on the claim. The claim that Jim has £20 in his pocket is on a different level from the claim there is a supernatural all powerful entity who cares about my sex life. Zdenek: My claim is that the theistic god, which i define as any omnimax god (such as the christian and muslim gods), is impossible. I make no claims about the existance of the deistic god (an initiator which doesnt have inclination to act) other than I see no reason why one is necessary. I think this defines 'god' fairly well, I am happier to discuss the theistic than the deistic god. Furthermore, I will define free will as a property of conciousness, which is an emergent phenomenum of the processes of the brain. Free will is an expression of the experience of self. I know I exist. I make choices based on prediction of consequences of actions I may take. The action of making the choice is free will. Imo, my action of making choices is demonstrable. If you want to argue that choice is predictable based on upbringing and psychology, then this doesnt preculde my definition. Thus, nothing is impossible, it is a matter of definitions.
| |
| Monday, May 11, 2009 - 02:20 am Yes, a matter of definitions, and in such case anything is possible indeed.
| |
| Monday, May 11, 2009 - 02:52 am Mr Powers, you said "What I dont understand about suffering is this: If god is all loving, why would he allow us to suffer at all? Apparantly because we brought it on ourselves by exercising free will. But what kind of a god punishes so completely for such a minor and arbitrary crime? " It was not so much what they did, but WHY they did it that was wrong. According to the biblical account God is NOT punishing. He is just allowing humans for the time being to reap the consequences of their own decisions, which is absolutely different from him causing it, or punishing humans. God had the power to destroy the three rebels Satan, Adam, and Eve. God was unquestionably stronger than they were. But Satan did not question God's power. Instead, he questioned God's right to rule. The issue affected all creatures having free will. They needed to see that the gift of free will must be used properly within the bounds of physical, moral, and spiritual guidelines from God. Otherwise, harm results, just as surely as injury will occur when a man jumps off the roof of a tall building without regard for the law of gravity. All intelligent creatures could benefit from observing for themselves the bad fruitage of choosing a course of independence from God. This required time. The fact that it requires time to settle some issues can be illustrated this way: Suppose the father of one family challenges the father of another to a contest that will prove which man is stronger. That issue could be decided quickly. Strength could be measured by lifting rocks. The father who lifted the heaviest rock would be the stronger man. But suppose the challenge involved which father truly loves his sons and daughters and whether they love him in return. Or what if the challenge raises the question of which father manages his family in the best way? Neither a display of strength nor mere words would be adequate. Sufficient time would have to pass, careful observation would be required, and right conclusions would have to be drawn in order for the issue to be settled. But you are right in using the term 'free will of a slave', because obviously we cant have absolute free will. We are subject to the laws of physics, which in some degree limits our 'free will.' You are also correct in saying that free will is not always unpredictable, in fact I'd argue that under normal circumstances and knowing a bit about the individual, you can predict their use of free will fairly accurately! Again as stated earlier, imo free will is the ability to choose, not being forced to do anything. Also although God has the ability to look into the future he can choose not to do so. Proof of God, well that has been discussed in this thread many times before, just as their has been 'proof' that there isnt. There are many things that cannot be directly observed or measured, but the effects can be observed and measured. All because you cant see it or feel it dosent mean it dosent exist. I see proof of God, or a Creator, or higher power, whatever term you may wanna use, in the universe and nature. Cause and Effect. For example, prove that black holes exist! You cant see them, you cant measure them, for if anything gets close enuf to measure them, it cannot come back, black holes are unobservable and unmeasurable. The only way to estimate or attempt to 'see' them is by observing their effects, or results on observable things. You see the effect, therefore their must be a cause. Or how about 'dark matter'. Same thing, no measurement is available, no observation, but their is something there that makes up far more mass than we have been able to measure or see. There again, we have an effect, therefore there must be a cause! But need we digress to earlier conversations? As for what the point for creating humans was? Well according to the bible it was for perfect humans to live forever on the earth. And as been previously stated if God is all powerful, then that is what will eventually happen!
| |
| Monday, May 11, 2009 - 04:19 am Evidence, and proof, are two different things. I don't think one can prove that God exists--it's a red herring, you can't prove that anything exists. You can't prove that a chair sitting right in front of you exists. You can give evidence, but if someone doesn't want to accept the evidence they can argue it every step of the way. Descartes, Berkley, Hume, gave good arguments for this.
| |
Monday, May 11, 2009 - 06:08 am
An erroneous statement, and the analogy is also erroneous by extrapolation of the fact. Black holes have in fact been directly observed. Though it is an intriguing conclusion that you draw, and it links back in to the recurring theme of God being a personal creature. What you have basically said is that you see a God because you want to see a God. As for dark matter, that remains a convenient theory. Much like God it simply fits one particular interpretation of the nature of the universe, and it will not be considered "fact" until direct observation has been made. Proving the existance of a creator God becomes something of a paradox. One must prove the existance of intelligent design to prove the existance of the creator, but one must prove the existance of the creator in order to prove intelligent design. Else design can simply be passed off as yet another convenient assumption about the observable universe. And direct observation is what I'm attempting to draw on here as the very point of the argument. The original question of existance or non-existance becomes moot because neither side can fully sway the argument.
| |
| Monday, May 11, 2009 - 06:33 pm Serpant: If god created the universe, it created the 'consequences of their own decisions'. God apparantly set a test in which humanity was doomed to fail. It seems to me that this god character is an egomanical master who wants unswerving obedience what ever the cost. You then make a claim which I have heard before, but never seriously. That god can see the future but chooses not to. Are you serious in this claim? Does something which chooses not to see into the future count as omniscient? I dont think so. Why would it be necessary to put mankind through the suffering if you can just choose to see into the future and settle the arguement? Isnt that the action of a sadist? You havent answered the purpose of the soul question, quite. Besides, at what point in our development from more primative ancestors did Humans begin to be inbued with souls? Was it after we left the trees or before we developed complex language or when we created world-creation myths? Or is it the case that we were created in our current form and all the evidence to the contrary is simply misinterpretted or created to fool us? You did, however, claim that god created the Earth for humans seems far fetched. But if I grant you it for the time being, the question still remains: Why? Why create a world for Humans? What purpose does it serve? Why does god require to know whether inperfect creations (which he created as inperfect) are capable of blind obedience? You claim observation of evidence (regarding a fine tuned universe, anthropic principle) but everytime you try to indicate the evidence, you have failed to present anything convincing. Yet you persist in making the claim anyway, blithly ignoring the evidence to the contrary. Jojo: I think is is perfectly possible to prove god exists. It could do it right now; perhaps by answering prayer (significantly above random chance). It is impossible, at the moment, to prove that a number of definitions of god do not exist. But this number is shrinking by the day and certainly does not include the theistic god described in the bible.
| |
| Saturday, September 26, 2009 - 04:51 pm Ok... one comment and this thread can float right back to the bottom: NOBODY on Earth will argue with me that DNA is programming. Programming demands a programmer. (unless of course we believe a tornado can go through a junk yard and assemble a completely built, ready to fly, fully fueled Boeing 777 complete with pilot. it's like saying Simcountry came together on it's own) I think you all already know I believe that the evidence says that things tend towards disorder, not order.
| |
| Saturday, September 26, 2009 - 11:37 pm Can you be a atheist yet still believe in Jesus Christ as our Lord? Edit: Sorry. just woken up. I don't think what I have written makes any sense. For it is up to me what I believe. Ignore me
| |
| Sunday, September 27, 2009 - 06:54 am Reminds me of a passage from a poem Oh Thou, who Man of baser Earth didst make, And who with Eden didst devise the Snake: For all the Sin wherewith the Face of man Is blacken'd, Mans Forgiveness give ---and take!
| |
| Sunday, September 27, 2009 - 07:01 am Farmer Bob, that poem you quoted. Was that by Rudyard Kipling? truely he is one of the best Frontier Arithmetic: Now that poem should have been required reading for Mr Bush before he committed troops to Iraq & Afghanistan
|
