Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Unknown Target on May 10, 2002, 10:52:56 am
-
Srry, but I had to get this off my chest:
What's yours, what do you think of it, where do you think it originated.
Personally, I think Christianity, Islam, Budhism, etc, are all fakes. Now, before I get flamed to death here, can I explain my points?
OK, it's quite simple, actually. Religion, or at least the way we practice it, was imagined, created, and is followed by humans. Now, unless you're a god, you will make mistakes, as you are human!!!
Therefore, have you ever wondered why science so frequently clashes with religion, or, more specifically, with the bible? It's because, in my opinion, since the bible was written by human hands, it has changed, morphed, and downright differed, from the originall stories. As Ibn Buttuta was forced to right down his travels, he emblemished, and, so has this happened to the bible over time.
For instance, if you don't believe me, look through the news archives, and you'll see that they're coming out with a politically correct version!!!
So, basically, the scandal with the pope? I do not believe that this should meen the end of the religion. No, the pope, and the members in his employ, are humans, and, therefore, are subject to mistake.
Truly, the only being fit to lead a religion and pray to God is God himself.....
EDIT: I know I'm probably going to be banned for this...
-
AAAAAAARGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!
*is incinerated by approaching wall of flames*
-
This is a bad idea... :doubt:
I don't believe that the Pope et al can get away scot-free based on their religion. Although they are victims of personal mistakes, they do appear to have been victims of multiple mistakes over a sustained period. The Catholic Church as an entity didn't abuse children or endorse it, but it created an atmosphere through religious attitude where it could occur, and then failed to check for it and root it out.
Before anyone guesses, I'm an Atheist and have all the contempt for organised religion that implies. :blah:
And admins, don't lock this thread - yet. If we can all be civil I see no reason to, but if we have to *join an0n in the sea of flames* the thread will be pointless.
-
We'll let this go as long as it stays clean, no flaming please - just talk about it :)
-
Originally posted by Thunder
We'll let this go as long as it stays clean, no flaming please - just talk about it :)
Do you honestly believe that there is any way this won't end up as pure flaming?
-
Originally posted by Thunder
We'll let this go as long as it stays clean, no flaming please - just talk about it :)
Oke thunder...
Anyway... Like in startrek... There's no money, cos ppl are intresting in power... so was the christian church... look the middle ages... they had power, money... and were soo soo evil... And this days all the meaning of christian religin was forgotten... But it's still the religion that is everywhere...
-
Originally posted by Infested_Larva
Oke thunder...
Anyway... Like in startrek... There's no money, cos ppl are intresting in power... so was the christian church... look the middle ages... they had power, money... and were soo soo evil... And this days all the meaning of christian religin was forgotten... But it's still the religion that is everywhere...
I won't enter into faith considerations or anuthing, but you're making generalisations. On an historical point of view, during middle age, christian church followed different paths. Cistercian church was supporting a cheap way of living, built chuches w/o fancy decorations, while the Clunisians were the exact opposite. In religion, you can't make generalisations ( and you shouldn't anyway on such a touchy topic )
-
Originally posted by Unkown Target
What's yours, what do you think of it, where do you think it originated.
I do not beleive in any god or such. I believe in myself. I don't think there is a god. Not a allmighty super god like the christian God or Allah. Because if there was no such thing as war would exist. I have no problem with any beliefs though.
I believe in myself because I think I am in control of MY life and nobody else not even Bill Gates!
-
Originally posted by Unkown Target
Srry, but I had to get this off my chest:
What's yours, what do you think of it, where do you think it originated.
Personally, I think Christianity, Islam, Budhism, etc, are all fakes. Now, before I get flamed to death here, can I explain my points?
OK, it's quite simple, actually. Religion, or at least the way we practice it, was imagined, created, and is followed by humans. Now, unless you're a god, you will make mistakes, as you are human!!!
Therefore, have you ever wondered why science so frequently clashes with religion, or, more specifically, with the bible? It's because, in my opinion, since the bible was written by human hands, it has changed, morphed, and downright differed, from the originall stories. As Ibn Buttuta was forced to right down his travels, he emblemished, and, so has this happened to the bible over time.
For instance, if you don't believe me, look through the news archives, and you'll see that they're coming out with a politically correct version!!!
So, basically, the scandal with the pope? I do not believe that this should meen the end of the religion. No, the pope, and the members in his employ, are humans, and, therefore, are subject to mistake.
Truly, the only being fit to lead a religion and pray to God is God himself.....
EDIT: I know I'm probably going to be banned for this...
I was baptised a Roman Catholic at the age of 9. After meeting with the priest every wednesday to learn about Jesus and the lord, thus unlike some people, i actually chose my religion from the outset. Now to refer to your first view
(although not my view, its a view that some people do have and thus deserves to be shown as it does serve as to further the discussion, as im sure some of you will point out that Mohammed could of made it all up or other such facts,also as generally Islam has created a fair degree of suffering in the world because of the strictness involved, which some people take to extremism its a )
, Islam was created by the word of Allah, as Mohammed was told by Allah how he wanted people to lead their lives thus as he is considered a G_D by Muslims, there will be no mistakes.
Science clashes with Religion, because people are too literal, in the times this story was wrote, people wouldnt understand evolution and doing this would tamper with the lords creation, we would not longer be idependant or free, just puppets on strings, our every action controlled by the lord so that we are all perfect. The stories were wrote to be understood without directing interfering with us too much. Take the creation story, what it does say is not literally true, but if you read between the lines, it makes sense. It describes to us, what happened in a way everyone can understand. On the 7th day, the lord rested and left us to our own devices. If the lord didnt, there wouldnt be much point to our lives.
-
As far as I am concerned, I am a god. I will attain power and I will smite people down with it. I will control the destinies of everyone I meet. The only thing more powerful? The universe itself, not a living entity but a bundle of energy and laws. This belief has served me well in the past and will continue to do so in the future.
Not to be taken too literally but still, a fair summation of my beliefs.
-
I think you should post a more serious answer an0n or explain the current one more. You arent a omnipotent being and therfore you are not g_d.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
I think you should post a more serious answer an0n or explain the current one more. You arent a omnipotent being and therfore you are not g_d.
I am serious and being a god, I don't feel the need to explain myself to you, mortal. Now begone, lest my might be thrust upon you, in an entirely non-inuendo kind of way.
-
an0n, kindly shut up with the "I am god" talk and the general spam. Nothing you've said in this thread so far has been discussion worthy and even if you do consider yourself a god in real life - here the admin are above you. Deal with it and cut out the weirdness please :)
-
Originally posted by Thunder
an0n, kindly shut up with the "I am god" talk and the general spam. Nothing you've said in this thread so far has been discussion worthy and even if you do consider yourself a god in real life - here the admin are above you. Deal with it and cut out the weirdness please :)
Fine.
*walks off in an omnipotent, glowing, malevolant sulk*
-
I too think i'm a god. But only for myself nt for others.I shape my own destiny not another person therefor I am my own god.
-
I removed the more aggresive parts of my post, always best to let Admins deal with stuff.
-
Originally posted by TheCelestialOne
I too think i'm a god. But only for myself nt for others.I shape my own destiny not another person therefor I am my own god.
That's a rather defeatist attitude.
-
I'm don't speak English that well... Please explain "defeatist".
Thank you.
-
It means your willing to put up with less than 100% control over everything.
-
Originally posted by TheCelestialOne
I'm not English... Please explain "defeatist".
Thank you.
You believe you have/will be/are beaten.
Thunder: Eh?
http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=defeatist
-
There is precisely zero evidence for any Religious belief, all of them rely on blind faith and faith alone. Of course nobody will ever be able to disprove them in the same way you can't be one hundered percent sure that the Shivans aren't real (but it's pretty unlikely). It's amazing how the supernatural amazingly fills what we don't know (200 years ago: "How did we come about?" "Oh a god must have made us." Now: "How did the Universe come about?" "Oh, a god must have sparked it off"). "The god of the gaps" as it's known is an assumption. For example: if my car goes missing, I wouldn't suddenly jump to conclusions and blame a supernatuarl being for it, which is always a possibility but there are for more likely causes, I would work by a process of elimination starting with the most likely first. Of course Using a "god" to explain the origins of everything is rather short sighted. Assuming that a god does exist, there is always the question of how he/she/it came about which leads us straigt back to where we started from. Yes, certain religious texts contain very good messages; "Love thy neighbour" for example would make the world a better place if everyone took more notice of it. But they can be a double edged sword, anyone ever read Leviticus? The thing we all need to do is keep an open mind and only believe something that has evidence to explain it.
-
If I am my own god I am in control over my own life and thus in control over everything that happens to me.
-
Originally posted by an0n
You believe you have/will be/are beaten.
Thunder: Eh?
I was putting it in context. If it's how you use the word then he isn't defeatest.
-
Originally posted by TheCelestialOne
If I am my own god I am in control over my own life and thus in control over everything that happens to me.
No I wasn't refering to that. I was refering to the fact that you seem to limit your control to yourself. I'm sure you could be a god over lots of people if you worked hard and applied yourself. No reason to believe you couldn't. Therefore, defeatist.
Yes, I know, obscure and badly explained, but....meh.
-
Originally posted by Top Gun
There is precisely zero evidence for any Religious belief, all of them rely on blind faith and faith alone. Of course nobody will ever be able to disprove them in the same way you can't be one hundered percent sure that the Shivans aren't real (but it's pretty unlikely). It's amazing how the supernatural amazingly fills what we don't know (200 years ago: "How did we come about?" "Oh a god must have made us." Now: "How did the Universe come about?" "Oh, a god must have sparked it off"). "The god of the gaps" as it's known is an assumption. For example: if my car goes missing, I wouldn't suddenly jump to conclusions and blame a supernatuarl being for it, which is always a possibility but there are for more likely causes, I would work by a process of elimination starting with the most likely first. Of course Using a "god" to explain the origins of everything is rather short sighted. Assuming that a god does exist, there is always the question of how he/she/it came about which leads us straigt back to where we started from. Yes, certain religious texts contain very good messages; "Love thy neighbour" for example would make the world a better place if everyone took more notice of it. But they can be a double edged sword, anyone ever read Leviticus? The thing we all need to do is keep an open mind and only believe something that has evidence to explain it.
Well some people believe it could be aliens, helping our race develop by shaping us, as the Vorlons did in B5.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Well it could be aliens, helping our race develop by shaping us, as the Vorlons did in B5.
Yeah, Scientology. Lets believe in a religion run by a Sci-Fi writter and then John Travolta.
-
Originally posted by an0n
No I wasn't refering to that. I was refering to the fact that you seem to limit your control to yourself. I'm sure you could be a god over lots of people if you worked hard and applied yourself. No reason to believe you couldn't. Therefore, defeatist.
Yes, I know, obscure and badly explained, but....meh.
Its called being responsible, a concept alien to you i believe.
-
Originally posted by an0n
...No reason to believe you couldn't...
There is because I believe that everyone is in control of his or her destiny. That is why I don't try and don't even WANT to control others.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Its called being responsible, a concept alien to you i believe.
It's not alien, I just don't care for it. Why be responsible for others when you can dominate them?
-
Originally posted by TheCelestialOne
There is because I believe that everyone is in control of his or her destiny. That is why I don't try and don't even WANT to control others.
Ah, ideological pacifist.
http://www.dictionary.com
-
Consider my discussion with you null and void. Simply no point in continuing it and i shall take the advice of our Irish Admin.
-
Originally posted by an0n
It's not alien, I just don't care for it. Why be responsible for others when you can dominate them?
Dominate sounds tiranish and I do NOT want to be a tiran.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Consider my discussion with you null and void. Simply no point in continuing it and i shall take the advice of our Irish Admin.
Okay.
What advice?
-
I don't believe in any kind of higher power. When you die, you die - which is why it's so important to make good the opportunity you have at life. You don't get a chance to review it, play it over, or watch what goes on afterwards. Your body and mind are your most important possessions.
Now I know that sounds annoying and new-agey, but I don't believe in any of the new-age 'energy' stuff either. :blah:
Basically my opposition to religion - and I'm talking organised religion here - stems from the fact that any mass religion has a 'manifesto' of sorts. Eventually that becomes dogma, and different interpretations and views are frowned upon. This dogma can have dire consequences for people, communities, etc. Furthermore, it leads to the religious wars that are all too familiar to us.
Case in point: contraception. Although using it would lead to a reduction in AIDS deaths and other STD illnesses, the Catholic Church opposes it because it was decided, long ago that contraception was ungodly as it was deliberately designed to stop children being born. However, now it sentences far more people to death than would otherwise be the case.
Organised religion is inherently stagnant - or else what would one organise around? As a result, it doesn't reflect the prevailing needs or attitudes of the public.
To a lesser extent, religion has been corrupted over the years and no longer necessarily serves the interest of the people. It was once, for example forbidden by the Christian Church to lend money at interest. However, this is now commonplace and individuals and firms make money from others who may not necessarily be able to pay.
Anyway, those are just a couple of examples. I've already written far too much, so I will have to say goodbye. :wink:
-
Originally posted by TheCelestialOne
Dominate sounds tiranish and I do NOT want to be a tiran.
Pfff. If your a tyrant at least you can make sure things follow some kind of direction, even if it is purely for your own benefit. God (jewish/christian) just sits back and lets things happen. What's the point in that? Create a whole universe and just let it run till everything in it gets wiped out by either another inhabitant or some flaw in there biology.
-
Forget the Irish, take my advice.
Drop it.
-
Originally posted by Kellan
I don't believe in any kind of higher power. When you die, you die - which is why it's so important to make good the opportunity you have at life. You don't get a chance to review it, play it over, or watch what goes on afterwards. Your body and mind are your most important possessions.
No, you don't believe that. If you did you'd also realise that life, by it's very nature, is pointless. You live your life and you make a difference, you're remembered. SO what? What good does that do you? Anyway, eventually you'll be forgotten or your memory will be lost when the human race takes on someone too powerful. Depressing but true.
I'm done.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Pfff. If your a tyrant at least you can make sure things follow some kind of direction, even if it is purely for your own benefit. God (jewish/christian) just sits back and lets things happen. What's the point in that? Create a whole universe and just let it run till everything in it gets wiped out by either another inhabitant or some flaw in there biology.
It was a good discussion and though I do not agree I see your point. I hope there will be no hard feelings but if we would continue it would go on forever.
-
Originally posted by TheCelestialOne
It was a good discussion and though I do not agree I see your point. I hope there will be no hard feelings but if we would continue it would go on forever.
True.
*goes to look for 'Arguing on the internet.....' picture*
-
Well, exactly.
The only point in bothering is making life better for everyone. That way you will be remembered.
-
Oh and BTW, what does everyone mean about Irish? Thunder is Irish? Or is there somebody else? A higher power still? :jaw:
-
Originally posted by Kellan
That way you will be remembered.
Pfff. Name me one non-religious figure who is remembered more than, say, 200 years after there death. Hell, name me one person in the last 50 years who is remembered with only admiration (excluding mother Theresa (sp?)).
The Cycle Of Remeberence
- 1 day - Purely good memories
- 10 days - The mistakes in yer life kill the happy memory crap
- 1 year - Dogged with endless reams of all the crap you did on anniversary of death
- 10 years - Impact on society is analysed by media people and psychologists, remembered as some who did nothing but inspired others to do stuff
- 20 years - A mention on the TV on anniversary of death. School kids might learn about you depending on what exactly you did.
- 50 years - Only infamous people are remembered
- 100 years - Only great warriors and evil tyrants are remembered, and the odd few people are studied by A-level History students
- 2000 years - Nothing but distorted, innacurate, vague information remains
Obviously writters and musicians are remembered longer, they kinda stay on day 10 and are talked about less and less over the years.
-
Originally posted by Kellan
Thunder is Irish? Or is there somebody else? A higher power still? :jaw:
No, and No ;)
-
Originally posted by Kellan
Case in point: contraception. Although using it would lead to a reduction in AIDS deaths and other STD illnesses, the Catholic Church opposes it because it was decided, long ago that contraception was ungodly as it was deliberately designed to stop children being born. However, now it sentences far more people to death than would otherwise be the case.
You know what would lead to reduced AIDS cases and STD cases, which is also a Catholic teaching, absteince from pre-martial sex. Contraception isnt 100% but sex only during marriage would have a much higher degree of success. Of course, times do change and religious practise does slighty. Its not a big sin to use contraception during martial, outside any form of sex is sinning.
Also i was talking about Maeglamor, but couldnt quite remember how his name was spelt, thus i decided to avoid spelling it wrong and to use another naming convention.
-
Here are some tips if you guys wish to continue :
EFFECTIVE ARGUING
I argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win an argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this and steer clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don't even invite me. You too can win arguments.
Simply follow these rules:
*Drink liquor.
Suppose you are at a party and some hotshot intellectual is expounding on the economy of Peru, a subject you know nothing about.
If you're drinking some health-fanatic drink like grapefruit juice, you'll hang back, afraid to display your ignorance, while the hotshot enthralls your date. But if you drink several large martinis, you'll discover you have STRONG VIEWS about the Peruvian economy. You'll be a WEALTH of information. You'll argue forcefully, offering searing insights and possibly upsetting furniture. People will be impressed. Some may leave the room.
*Make things up.
Suppose, in the Peruvian economy argument, you are trying to prove that Peruvians are underpaid, a position you base solely on the fact that YOU are underpaid, and you'll be damned if you're going to let a bunch of Peruvians be better off. DON'T say: "I think Peruvians are underpaid." Say instead: "The average Peruvian's salary in 1981dollars adjusted for the revised tax base is $1,452.81 per annum, which is $836.07 before the mean gross poverty level."
NOTE: Always make up exact figures.
If an opponent asks you where you got your information, make THAT up too. Say: "This information comes from Dr. Hovel T. Moon's study for the Buford Commission published on May 9, 1982. Didn't you read it?" Say this in the same tone of voice you would use to say, "You left your soiled underwear in my bathroom."
*Use meaningless but weighty-sounding words and phrases.
Memorize this list:
Let me put it this way
In terms of
Vis-a-vis
Per se
As it were
Qua
So to speak
You should also memorize some Latin abbreviations such as "Q.E.D.", "e.g.", and "i.e." These are all short for "I speak Latin, and you don't."
Here's how to use these words and phrases. Suppose you want to say, "Peruvians would like to order appetizers more often, but they don't have enough money."
You never win arguments talking like that. But you WILL win if you say, "Let me put it this way. In terms of appetizers vis-a-vis Peruvians qua Peruvians, they would like to order them more often, so to speak, but they do not have enough money per se, as it were. Q.E.D."
Only a fool would challenge that statement.
*Use snappy and irrelevant comebacks.
You need an arsenal of all-purpose irrelevant phrases to fire back at your opponents when they make valid points. The best are:
You're begging the question.
You're being defensive.
Don't compare apples to oranges.
What are your parameters?
This last one is especially valuable. Nobody (other than engineers and policy wonks) has the vaguest idea what "parameters" means.
Don't forget the classic: YOU'RE SO LINEAR.
Here's how to use your comebacks:
You say: As Abraham Lincoln said in 1873...
Your opponent says: Lincoln died in 1865.
You say: You're begging the question.
You say: Liberians, like most Asians...
Your opponent says: Liberia is in Africa.
You say: You're being defensive.
*Compare your opponent to Adolf Hitler.
This is your heavy artillery, for when your opponent is obviously right and you are spectacularly wrong. Bring Hitler up subtly. Say, "That sounds suspiciously like something Adolf Hitler might say," or "You certainly do remind me of Adolf Hitler."
-
Originally posted by an0n
Pfff. Name me one non-religious figure who is remembered more than, say, 200 years after there death. Hell, name me one person in the last 50 years who is remembered with only admiration (excluding mother Theresa (sp?)).
The reason that religious figures are remembered only with admiration is that they are:
A: Remembered only by religious people.
B: Their history is altered to make them seem better.
C: Criticising them is seen as wrong, because they were religious, blah blah, or they have the weight of a religion behind them.
Take Pope Pius XII - about to be Canonised, and thus being praised. However, he didn't stand up to the Nazis, was an anti-Semite, and refused to assisted in the evacutation of the Jews.
I'd rather believe in a flawed person than a supposed saint.
Therefore I don't think there's any point stating who is looked upon as universally admired, as I don't believe such people exist in normal conditions. Oh, and people who are looked on with a good deal of admiration include the Fouding Fathers, Bevan and Atlee, Franklin Roosevelt to name but a few.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
You know what would lead to reduced AIDS cases and STD cases, which is also a Catholic teaching, absteince from pre-martial sex. Contraception isnt 100% but sex only during marriage would have a much higher degree of success. Of course, times do change and religious practise does slighty. Its not a big sin to use contraception during martial, outside any form of sex is sinning.
Pfff. What you mean is Catholic marriage. *cough*Africa*cough*, 6 wives, one dead husband, 6 infected new husbands. Castration and branding (or genocide) would be far more effective.
Don't catholics consider any sexual contact, except missionary, a sin?
-
Originally posted by Kellan
Take Pope Pius XII - about to be Canonised, and thus being praised. However, he didn't stand up to the Nazis, was an anti-Semite, and refused to assisted in the evacutation of the Jews.
Uh, well the Nazi would have kinda slaughtered all the catholics if he had and who can blame him for not helping the Jews. If you'd been competing with an ideology for thousands of years I'm sure you wouldn't want to be risking your ass helping them. They remained as neutral as they could, not very morally right but tactically sound.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
You know what would lead to reduced AIDS cases and STD cases, which is also a Catholic teaching, absteince from pre-martial sex. Contraception isnt 100% but sex only during marriage would have a much higher degree of success. Of course, times do change and religious practise does slighty. Its not a big sin to use contraception during martial, outside any form of sex is sinning.
Like you could stop people having sex entirely before marriage. :ha: You have to be pragmatic about the usage of contraception. I think that the sales of contraceptives have generally defeated this argument. And contraception is 99% or greater - it's a myth manufactured by antis that it's unsafe.
Besides, you can still get AIDS as a result of marital sex if you have ever had a bad blood transfusion, shared needles, etc.
You're sounding like George Bush. :p
-
Originally posted by an0n
Pfff. What you mean is Catholic marriage. *cough*Africa*cough*, 6 wives, one dead husband, 6 infected new husbands. Castration and branding (or genocide) would be far more effective.
Don't catholics consider any sexual contact, except missionary, a sin?
:wtf: No, not at all, not at all.
-
Originally posted by Kellan
You're sounding like George Bush. :p
That's harsh.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Uh, well the Nazi would have kinda slaughtered all the catholics if he had and who can blame him for not helping the Jews. If you'd been competing with an ideology for thousands of years I'm sure you wouldn't want to be risking your ass helping them. They remained as neutral as they could, not very morally right but tactically sound.
So tactical soundness is all I can expect from religions that claim to offer universal salvation nowadays?
How times have changed. :o
-
Originally posted by Kellan
So tactical soundness is all I can expect from religions that claim to offer universal salvation nowadays?
How times have changed. :o
Yeah, in the good old days they would have went on a crusade to wipe them out. Now they just ignore them.
-
Originally posted by an0n
That's harsh.
I only deploy the George Bush in exceptional circumstances. ;)
-
Originally posted by an0n
Yeah, in the good old days they would have went on a crusade to wipe them out. Now they just ignore them.
Wow, that's progress. Would you walk by on the other side? Yes, yes they would.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Pfff. Name me one non-religious figure who is remembered more than, say, 200 years after there death. Hell, name me one person in the last 50 years who is remembered with only admiration (excluding mother Theresa (sp?)).
Yakahidi, yakahida:
caesaor, Atila, Cleopatre(a?), vercingetorix, Galileo, Alexender the Great, Napoleon, ramses II, etc etc etc. Thx god (hehe) religion is not the only way to be famous.
-
Originally posted by Kellan
Wow, that's progress. Would you walk by on the other side? Yes, yes they would.
The Catholic Church offers salvation to all who can:
A) Repent and pledge their faith to the Catholic Church
B) Afford it
It wasn't there problem and they didn't make it there problem. Just like America during WW2, they stayed out of it until it was there problem.
-
Originally posted by Kellan
Like you could stop people having sex entirely before marriage. :ha: You have to be pragmatic about the usage of contraception. I think that the sales of contraceptives have generally defeated this argument. And contraception is 99% or greater - it's a myth manufactured by antis that it's unsafe.
Besides, you can still get AIDS as a result of marital sex if you have ever had a bad blood transfusion, shared needles, etc.
You're sounding like George Bush. :p
You cant get aids as a result of marital sex during a blood transfusion, as it would be a bad thing to do during such an event :p. Also all blood donors are screened, sharing needles is usually between drug users, so its simple, dont do drugs. The best method against STDs and AIDs is abstienence, fact. Its not a myth that contraception isnt 99%, its fact.
-
Originally posted by venom2506
Yakahidi, yakahida:
caesaor Conqueror, Atila Conqueror, Cleopatra Conqueror/Whore, vercingetorix No, idea, Galileo Fair enough, Alexender the Great Conqueror, Napoleon Conqueror, ramses II Conqueror, etc etc etc. Thx god (hehe) religion is not the only way to be famous. Thank God for carnage.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Also all blood donors are screened, sharing needles is usually between drug users, so its simple, dont do drugs That's the most naive thing I have ever heard. The best method against STDs and AIDs is abstienence, fact Wrong, the best way is to eliminate the diseases. Its not a myth that contraception isnt 99%, its fact. Yeah, contraception on average. Condoms are 99% and diaphragms are like 60%, so you're saying that using both is less than 99% effective?
-
Originally posted by an0n
Yakahidi, yakahida:
caesaor Conqueror, Atila Conqueror, Cleopatra Conqueror/Whore, vercingetorix No, idea, Galileo Fair enough, Alexender the Great Conqueror, Napoleon Conqueror, ramses II Conqueror, etc etc etc. Thx god (hehe) religion is not the only way to be famous. Thank God for carnage.
and so what? it's no religious people you wanted, it's non religious people you have :p
You won't get famous by helping grand ma' crossing the street :p
Anyway, I bet in 150 years Elvis and Marilyn Monroe will still be famous :p
mmh, also, there's Thales, pythagoras, Epicure (whatvere you spell it in englich), Plato, Aristotle, and all the bunch of greek philosophers if you want pacifists :p
-
And how often do you hear about Aristotle or Ghandi?
The only people who are truly remembered are the 'evil' (and greeks to some extent).
-
Originally posted by Kellan
This is a bad idea... :doubt:
I don't believe that the Pope et al can get away scot-free based on their religion. Although they are victims of personal mistakes, they do appear to have been victims of multiple mistakes over a sustained period. The Catholic Church as an entity didn't abuse children or endorse it, but it created an atmosphere through religious attitude where it could occur, and then failed to check for it and root it out.
Not exactly what I suggested. What I meant was that the pope and his compatriots should be punished as people not as some bizarre, mystical god-thing;)
-
Originally posted by venom2506
I won't enter into faith considerations or anuthing, but you're making generalisations. On an historical point of view, during middle age, christian church followed different paths. Cistercian church was supporting a cheap way of living, built chuches w/o fancy decorations, while the Clunisians were the exact opposite. In religion, you can't make generalisations ( and you shouldn't anyway on such a touchy topic )
Well, if you think about it, the reason there are two Christian churches today is because the first was so, not really evil, human (I know I'm starting to over use this, but I'm trying to get a point across), that a group of people simply couldn't stand it and broke away...
-
Originally posted by an0n
The best method against STDs and AIDs is abstienence, fact Wrong, the best way is to eliminate the diseases.
But we have no cure so therefore abstinence is the best existing method.
-
Originally posted by Joey_21
But we have no cure so therefore abstinence is the best existing method.
Killing everyone with AIDS or HIV is a sure fire cure, but aside from that, they could just infect everyone and chances are someone would have some kind immunity. Then you just find out why and administer a cure to everyone.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
I was baptised a Roman Catholic at the age of 9. After meeting with the priest every wednesday to learn about Jesus and the lord, thus unlike some people, i actually chose my religion from the outset. Now to refer to your first view
(although not my view, its a view that some people do have and thus deserves to be shown as it does serve as to further the discussion, as im sure some of you will point out that Mohammed could of made it all up or other such facts,also as generally Islam has created a fair degree of suffering in the world because of the strictness involved, which some people take to extremism its a )
, Islam was created by the word of Allah, as Mohammed was told by Allah how he wanted people to lead their lives thus as he is considered a G_D by Muslims, there will be no mistakes.
Science clashes with Religion, because people are too literal, in the times this story was wrote, people wouldnt understand evolution and doing this would tamper with the lords creation, we would not longer be idependant or free, just puppets on strings, our every action controlled by the lord so that we are all perfect. The stories were wrote to be understood without directing interfering with us too much. Take the creation story, what it does say is not literally true, but if you read between the lines, it makes sense. It describes to us, what happened in a way everyone can understand. On the 7th day, the lord rested and left us to our own devices. If the lord didnt, there wouldnt be much point to our lives.
And why is this so? Because people are simply human, and prone to mistakes. As such, we chose to make mistakes by making up stories of what happened....
Plus, Zeronet, a lot of people probably think I'm a blashpemer, and hold myself above all other religions. Not so. What I really did was, break down the facts, the myths, the science, etc., and came to a logical conclusion that would fit my bizarre mind.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Killing everyone with AIDS or HIV is a sure fire cure, but aside from that, they could just infect everyone and chances are someone would have some kind immunity. Then you just find out why and administer a cure to everyone.
I seriously doubt it because the disease has been around for a while and nobody has spotted definate resistance (besides the off-chance they're just lucky but that's about all it is).
-
Originally posted by Joey_21
I seriously doubt it because the disease has been around for a while and nobody has spotted definate resistance (besides the off-chance they're just lucky but that's about all it is).
They're not 'just lucky'. Their body has something which screwed the disease. It is a statistical and practical impossibility that a natural biological agent could never be defeated by the human immune system without mutation or other factors influencing the mix.
-
Ah, religion. A major topic in human affairs today, and one that I plan to discourse about at length in my work later. Most of you already know my views on religion from my arguments here earlier, but I'll summarize them for the rest. ;) I am extremely opposed to religion of any sort, especially organized religion - not so much the principles (although even many of those are worthless) as the methods in which it is accepted by people and so finely ingrained into their minds through the course of their lives that it severely limits their capabilities to think properly.
I have said before many times that as I see it, religion was a requirement for the early formation of human civilization, because it provided two things for a technologically advancing species to socially advance as well and keep things consistent: a government to provide a sense of order (the "code" of religion is the law and god is both the peacekeeper and the punisher), and to account for that which could not be explained by science at the time. (a god to "make" the world and the universe) Over the millennia, other, more sophisticated creations of humanity have taken up those purposes: namely complicated national governments and advanced science, and religion has become sort of an embarassing joke of our civilization. It has also been, and still is, used as an excuse for commiting uncivilized acts. Hitler really believed he was serving god and carrying out god's will, and bin Laden may have/be as well; they are humans just like the rest, so who is to say who is "right" (whatever that means) and who isn't? Once we start working on artificial modification and replication of the human body (which is not too far into the future), the religious sects will once again start to interfere in science as well, just as they did with the development of celestial physics back in the 1600s.
There is precisely zero evidence for any Religious belief, all of them rely on blind faith and faith alone.
One of the reasons I detest it is right there; scientifically this makes no sense and does not appeal to the rational mind. A few axioms are necessary for any formulation of course, but after looking more in depth into the major religions, all I can say is that this is beyond ridiculous in today's world. By its very nature and the early age at which it is taught to people, they will cling to it tightly (since future ideas are built upon it), and it would be a fruitless task to try to eliminate the ideas from people's minds. (as Top Gun said, they go by blind faith and will not accept any evidence) Instead, the social and political "sweeping forces" of history will probably take care of that over many hundreds of years. ;)
Religion has indeed become an "opium of the people," as Marx once said, in an almost literal sense as for the brain is concerned. :p However, I think that it will become a dead force in the coming years; even now, its influence is slowly diminishing over the generations as seen by the current trends.
I don't believe in any kind of higher power. When you die, you die - which is why it's so important to make good the opportunity you have at life.
:yes: :yes:
Organised religion is inherently stagnant - or else what would one organise around? As a result, it doesn't reflect the prevailing needs or attitudes of the public.
This is why I think that science and religion will clash at some point in history, possibly with violence. (with an obvious victor)
I argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win an argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this and steer clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don't even invite me. You too can win arguments.
heheheh; looks like a fellow arguer here... ;7
And how often do you hear about Aristotle or Ghandi?
Aristotle was quite great, but Gandhi was a complete fool of a man unprecendented in recent history. :p
Also, there is another way to render these various biological agents harmless, and that is to ditch the human body altogether, which will happen eventually, but probably not before the major diseases have been forced into submission.
-
Originally posted by an0n
And how often do you hear about Aristotle or Ghandi?
The only people who are truly remembered are the 'evil' (and greeks to some extent).
You're incredible. you ask to say ONE name of non religious famous people, i give you two dozens, and you reply that! damnit, you don't like to be wrong do you? I don't hear more about religious peoples, if you want to know. Those guys are famous. you know them, right? Right. So i don't give a damn if they're not mentioned in every National News posts everyday.
-
Well, they are famous at any rate, evil or not. :p :D
-
Originally posted by venom2506
You're incredible.
I know.
-
Originally posted by Unkown Target
Now, before I get flamed to death here, can I explain my points?
EDIT: I know I'm probably going to be banned for this...
I don't see any point for flaming and banning. Religion is absolutely a positive thing. It is a part of ones personality.
I am an orthodox christian and i am proud of it. I respect other religions. Well like my history teacher once said: "You must respect other peoples religions as well as yours." :nod:
-
Religion? I don't need it.
-
Originally posted by An0n in a most awkward manner, making a response somewhat more difficult
Also all blood donors are screened, sharing needles is usually between drug users, so its simple, dont do drugs That's the most naive thing I have ever heard. The best method against STDs and AIDs is abstienence, fact Wrong, the best way is to eliminate the diseases. Its not a myth that contraception isnt 99%, its fact. Yeah, contraception on average. Condoms are 99% and diaphragms are like 60%, so you're saying that using both is less than 99% effective?
Nothing wrong with not doing drugs. The best method against STDs and AIDs is abstience, 90% of diseases are never eliminated, vaccines may come about, but as they dont exist for AIDs, abstience stands, as it means all forms of sex are avoided.
Also the RC church isnt expensive, its not like the Church of England where everyone dresses up in fancy dress.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Nothing wrong with not doing drugs. The best method against STDs and AIDs is abstience, 90% of diseases are never eliminated, vaccines may come about, but as they dont exist for AIDs, abstience stands, as it means all forms of sex are avoided.
Also the RC church isnt expensive, its not like the Church of England where everyone dresses up in fancy dress.
Actually, the protestant churches (Church of Scotland, Church of England) were founded as a result of the amount of money that the Catholic church was wasting....... basically, the collection money was going to the priests rather than the needy.
To be honest, I don't see any need for organised religion. A/ It's main purpose is to set a code of moral values, which we should have anyway (unless you count the relieving a fear of death thing, with heaven, etc), and b/ God (or you preferred diety) would probably much rather we helped other people and lives 'good' lives, rather than spend a few hours every Sunday (mostly) being bored.
You probably won't be surprised to hear I've not been in a church for about 12 years......I guess I'm ambivalent on the whole higher power thing.... I'm going to hedge my bets on whether I have an afterlife to enjoy, and concetrate on the present :)
-
No the Church of England was set up so Henry the 8th could divorce his wifes and because he didnt like the Pope being the head. Quite simple really, did a few history lessons on all of it. Then a few of the kings of england decided they didnt like my ancestors and invaded Ireland and replaced us with Protestants which created the current NI problem.
-
You should also memorize some Latin abbreviations such as "Q.E.D.", "e.g.", and "i.e." These are all short for "I speak Latin, and you don't."
Dictionary.com
Q.E.D.: Latin. quod erat demonstrandum (which was to be demonstrated).
eg: Latin. exempli gratia (for example).
ie: Latin. id est (that is).
:nod:
-
Originally posted by Unkown Target
And why is this so? Because people are simply human, and prone to mistakes. As such, we chose to make mistakes by making up stories of what happened....
Plus, Zeronet, a lot of people probably think I'm a blashpemer, and hold myself above all other religions. Not so. What I really did was, break down the facts, the myths, the science, etc., and came to a logical conclusion that would fit my bizarre mind.
I think the reason is that we arent super intelligent and at the time of Jesus, people werent that advanced. Your conclusion isnt logical.
-
...
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Nothing wrong with not doing drugs. The best method against STDs and AIDs is abstience, 90% of diseases are never eliminated, vaccines may come about, but as they dont exist for AIDs, abstience stands, as it means all forms of sex are avoided.
But you're missing my point. You would never ever get everyone to believe in abstinence, when sex has its own particular...attractions. And so you have to be pragmatic about contraception. It's a hierarchical model.
Don't have sex, but if you do, use contraception.
You have to be prepared for the fact that people will not abstain. Especially if they don't believe in your religion which preaches it. For this reason Christians in positions of power (thinking GW Bush here) who push for abstinence over contraception are endangering the world.
-
Originally posted by Kellan
But you're missing my point. You would never ever get everyone to believe in abstinence, when sex has its own particular...attractions. And so you have to be pragmatic about contraception. It's a hierarchical model.
Don't have sex, but if you do, use contraception.
You have to be prepared for the fact that people will not abstain. Especially if they don't believe in your religion which preaches it. For this reason Christians in positions of power (thinking GW Bush here) who push for abstinence over contraception are endangering the world.
When i say abstinence, i do mean outside marriage, inside marriage its almost a different issue, if you dont want kids just yet, use contraception.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
When i say abstinence, i do mean outside marriage, inside marriage its almost a different issue, if you dont want kids just yet, use contraception.
And what I mean is that you won't get people to abstain outside marriage, so you have to encourage people to use contraception. Better they do that than die a slow, agonising death.
And you're still awake too? Cripes. ;)
-
What I mean is im not against conctraception, but abstien outside marriage would also be better. Sadly society fails to realise the ideals of many religions, so people act immorally etc, forgetting that many religions promote understanding and love and friendship.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
What I mean is im not against conctraception, but abstien outside marriage would also be better. Sadly society fails to realise the ideals of many religions, so people act immorally etc, forgetting that many religions promote understanding and love and friendship.
Oh, okay. We can begin to agree slightly. I don't deny that religions can promote peace, love, and friendship, but all too often they are used by people as an excuse for hatred, intolerance and war. It's the same reason that I oppose religion that I wouldn't leave a loaded gun round my house.
But at least we can begin to agree...a little. ;)
-
Here's something to take with you next Sunday on your way to church:
In the entire history of mankind, more people have been murdered, executed, and/or tourtured "In the Name Of God" than any other cause.
Examples:
Spanish Inquisition
Salem Witch Trials
World Trade Center and Pentagon
The Crusades
Suicide Bombings
The death and destruction currently exchanged between Israel and Palestine
God Bless :sigh:
-
an0n, you're starting to threatan the integrity of this thread, and I suggest you leave. Now.
My comment about being banned is that I've been to boards where "deep," topics like this are grounds for banning, for some bizarre reasons.
Personally, I agree with religion, of any kind. But, when it's taken to the extent that it is now, and the blind, stupid following of it by humans, it is unreasonable and more of a parasite than a helping hand. That's why I chose my own religion, where I am free to make my own choices, and are not burdened and shunned for other people's mistakes, such as the pope's.
I would really like to see this thread continue, people. It seems to have become a good discussion, where ideas can be shared about such a deep topic as this. So keep it clean. Please.
-
Ok ok I'm just taking a survey here. Can you guys please post if you are more liberal or conservative and what your belief is. I'll do mine for an example.
Conservative
Baptist
I'm trying to draw some political conculsions from this and that's all.
-
Originally posted by an0n
The Catholic Church offers salvation to all who can:
A) Repent and pledge their faith to the Catholic Church
B) Afford it
Excuse me? Since when does the catholic church offer salvation? AFAIK, even though I believe that the catholic church has strayed extremely far off the path set by Jesus, I don't think they claim to have control over salvation - correct me if I'm wrong.
Originally posted by killadonuts
Here's something to take with you next Sunday on your way to church:
In the entire history of mankind, more people have been murdered, executed, and/or tourtured "In the Name Of God" than any other cause.
Examples:
Spanish Inquisition
Salem Witch Trials
World Trade Center and Pentagon
The Crusades
Suicide Bombings
The death and destruction currently exchanged between Israel and Palestine
God Bless :sigh:
Two things:
1) You forgot the "best" example of them all - The Holocaust :(
2) Note that the majority of hatred is not specifically from a religion as much as it is towards a different religion.
Now, to reply in general: I have faith in things unseen. Yes, I've been brought up that way, and yes, I realize that at this point in time I'm following a path that my parents set out for me. I do have questions, however I also believe that I have answers.
Oh, yes - my faith: Messianic Jew (Christian whose Bible starts from Genesis, not just Matthew).
I think it makes sense. I believe that there are hings in this world which we humans are simply not meant to understand (e.g. "Why did God allow such-and-such to occur?!"). I see the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy - heck, I'm even living out a fulfillment of prophecy (that the Jews would return to God's land to possess it. That the land would blossom under their hand. That God would bring His people back from land of the north... etc.) It's quite exciting to see prophecy being fulfilled all around you, y'know? :)
Did you know that the more scientists try to prove the Bible wrong, the more they prove it right?
-
First, before I offend anyones sensibilities:
My opinions on religion are purely based on my LIMITED knowledge of historical fact and are also purely objective given my fairly "unique" outlook on human affairs.
Religion as such is the curse of mankind. It has singularly been responsible for more death, destruction, repression of valuable information and a more potent antigen to progress by any means imaginable than ANY other phenomenon in history.
The crime of religion against humanity is an inexcusable aberration.
Having said that...why do we have religion?
Faith is not only a valuable method of political and social control but also a valuable tool for keeping a cohesive social entity together in times of hardship.
In my opinion...we need to find the middle ground between faith and reason, science and relogion, and sit there.
Science will never be deterministic (phlank proved that) and Religion will never replace science in our ideas of cosmology.
Both are incomplete without the other.
As such, its' up to most of us today to work out which peices are useful and applicable to our current lifestyle, and assemble a framework by which to manage (NOT live, NOT structure, NOT worship) our lives by in a way that causes the least pain to other sentient (and non-sentient) beings. Science without ethics leads to mutations, nukes and the end of life as we know it.
Religion without science leads to superstition and a degenerate, backwards society.
Sort out your differences between them and put together the puzzle youself. For me astrology and physics solved it, for you it may be different. Either way, you're here for a reason. Find it, do it, and then spend whatever time you have left celebrating your accomplishments before you leave for the next task.
This probably isn't enlightning and probably is just the semi-insane rantings of a drunk forumite at 4 in the morning. On the offchance someone reads, and actually by a miracle understands a word i'm saying/typing is: take care- beleive it or not everyone around you does care in their own strange way.
-
The problem is, without some sort of almighty ruler or creator, too many unanswered questions exist: "How did the universe begin?"(who created the "big bang", or any other number of theories on how the universe began), "Why do people exist?", and "Will everything be chrome in the future?" .:confused: :confused:
One of the reasons I detest it is right there; scientifically this makes no sense and does not appeal to the rational mind. A few axioms are necessary for any formulation of course, but after looking more in depth into the major religions, all I can say is that this is beyond ridiculous in today's world.
A god of some sort that makes the universe conforms to science just as much as having a universe pop up out of nowhere. Try to prove their isn't a god. :) The reason the idea is "beyond ridiculous in today's world" happens to be a combination of:
1. "Today's World" being much better off than it used to be and much more sure of itself
2. "Today's World" being your own viewpoint of the world, which may or may not differ from another's view of the world.
If there really isn't an almighty being who created the universe, then their obviously isn't any purpose to life, other than the one that you create yourself, even though you shouldn't be able to create your own reason for existence if their is no reason to exist in the first place.
I don't believe in any kind of higher power. When you die, you die - which is why it's so important to make good the opportunity you have at life.
Why does it matter what you do while your alive if everything that you did immediately disapears once you die? You can't say that you have any impact on the "world". When you die, your own world is gone, in a way. According to your theory, it really doesn't matter whether you suffer your whole life or have a great time. And by considering life an "oppurtunity", you imply that it was given to you.
edit:
I guess I should put that I'm Episcopalian, and I don't really like to think of myself as conservative or liberal
-
Strangely, I understood where you are coming from with that, however some of it I tend to disagree with. :) I mean Wevil not Yoda.
-
I've said this before, and I'll say it again
Gah, religious thread! Kill it kill it!
I'm gonna live my life how I think it should be, and then we'll see where I go
-
Originally posted by YodaSean
The problem is, without some sort of almighty ruler or creator, too many unanswered questions exist
Inability to answer a question is a reflection on you, not the universe. Ascribing all unexplained phenomenon to a magic man in the sky is the ultimate intellectual copout.
Why does it matter what you do while your alive if everything that you did immediately disapears once you die?
You've completely missed the point. It's important to make the most of this life because (so the theory goes), there's no afterlife to fall back on. Someone who lives their life a certain way only because they believe it will influence their (nonexistent) afterlife, can be said to have wasted their life.
And "opportunity" absolutely does not imply something being given. They can be given, or arise by random chance. The origin of an opportunity is not part of its definition.
-
I'm a liberal (radical in some ways) and something between an agnostic and an atheist. :p
Religion as such is the curse of mankind.
That sums up its role in this stage of history.
A god of some sort that makes the universe conforms to science just as much as having a universe pop up out of nowhere. Try to prove their isn't a god. :)
If there really isn't an almighty being who created the universe, then their obviously isn't any purpose to life, other than the one that you create yourself, even though you shouldn't be able to create your own reason for existence if their is no reason to exist in the first place.
Actually, this does not fit in with science at all, as scientific philosophy dictates to disbelieve everything without either theoretical or experimental proof. It may be impossible to prove the nonexistence of a god, but it is then equally impossible to disprove it as well. Unless experimental or mathematical evidence exists (neither does), the idea should be discarded.
The god thing isn't that much of a problem alone; it is this way that people think of a god as a "superhuman" with his own petty ambitions and one who interferes with human affairs. You can call the big bang god for all it matters, but this idea of a god who watches over people and rewards or punishes them is simply ridiculous. Also, the one important question remains: how was this "almighty" created? No religion ever seems to explain that, or even try to think about it, because then their whole dogmatic structure would fall to pieces.
Now, as for the idea of purposes, this had me thinking for quite some time about a year ago. First, nothing has to have a "purpose" except as seen through subjective eyes; causality can include random causes and can go back into history for a transfinite amount of time, foregoing the purpose according to math. For example, regarding the fundamental forces of nature, the current big bang theory suggests that none of the forces existed seperately at one point but were created by independently random particle interactions and other combinations; any other combinations of forces or their properties could have occurred as well, but it was random chance that this happened. People do not need to have a "reason" for existence except by that which they define themselves in their lifetimes.
Once we get into the realm of that which has no effect on our universe, just about anything can be said to exist and it cannot be proved to be right or wrong, which is why we should disregard it until all data on our universe has been collected and analyzed.
Also, if the beginning of the universe can be linked to the end, a loop will have been created and no further explanation would be necessary on that point, as we would have an transfinite number of universes in all of time, which is similarly transfinite in its length.
Why does it matter what you do while your alive if everything that you did immediately disapears once you die? You can't say that you have any impact on the "world". When you die, your own world is gone, in a way. According to your theory, it really doesn't matter whether you suffer your whole life or have a great time. And by considering life an "oppurtunity", you imply that it was given to you.
Your impact on the world lies in however you change it through the course of its history, which is determined by your influence on others and the use of technology to modify the universe. There is no "good" or "bad" impact here as far as the universe as a whole goes. Also, as Zylon said, life in the current sense could simply have been started off by an IRV and the chain of events continues to this day.
-
I said that?
I think this sums up Christianity pretty well (or not... eh, it's funny anyway)--
(http://www.youdamnkid.com/beevnicks20001024.gif)
-
Originally posted by ZylonBane
You've completely missed the point. It's important to make the most of this life because (so the theory goes), there's no afterlife to fall back on. Someone who lives their life a certain way only because they believe it will influence their (nonexistent) afterlife, can be said to have wasted their life.
And "opportunity" absolutely does not imply something being given. They can be given, or arise by random chance. The origin of an opportunity is not part of its definition.
Thank you, ZylonBane, for perfectly articulating the point that I've been trying to explain for so long. And also to CP, for pointing out that your actions live on. YodaSean was seeming to imply that once you die, everything goes back to how it was before you even existed.
And Sandwich, not to get into some kind of massive Holocaust debate too, but the Holocaust was more a result of social darwinism, blame for the loss of WWI, and hatred of the Jews' social position rather than an ancient religious hatred of Judaism because of an idea of 'Christ-killing' or something like that. The Jews had been emancipated in German society for decades.
Oh, and to add to the research ;)
Atheist
Liberal, possibly radical (depends how you define radical I guess :p)
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
abstience stands, as it means all forms of sex are avoided.
Ahh, it was only a matter of time, wasn't it? If you can rationally explain to me why abstinence is better than contraception without using the bible then I'll abstain myself (no chance). Anyway, thank you for presenting me with one of the reasons as to why I reject Judeo/Christianity repulsively. I guess miracles do happen, the biggest one being that an overwhelmingly high percentage of a supposedly intelligent populous thinks that one of the most important human biological functions is, in some way dirty if you have it outside of a silly ceremony. Banning contraception is like banning seatbelts in cars and then saying that the high road death rate is peoples' own fault for driving. Just think how many cases of food poisoning could be prevented if it suddenly became a sin to eat outside a Judeo/Christian ceremony. The Catholic Church's prevention of some of the most vulnerable populations in the world from getting contraception in favor of brainwashing ting them into thinking that sex is a sin is nothing less than an atrocity to which they should be taken to task for.
But of course having a serious argument with a catholic is like arguing with an android. The church goes to extraordinary lengths to make sure its members can't think for themselves: Catechism anyone? A perl script could present the same arguments, it may as well sit them in an auditorium and hypnotize them.
-
Originally posted by ZylonBane
Inability to answer a question is a reflection on you, not the universe. Ascribing all unexplained phenomenon to a magic man in the sky is the ultimate intellectual copout.
Not all unexplained penomenon, of course not. But there are definetly times when you have no choice but to acribe certain happenings to the intelligent and purposeful act of beings outside of this physical realm. I believe in God. I also believe in the existance of angels and demons. These is undoubtedly a spiritual realm "beyond" this physical world that we are aware of with our 5 senses - a realm with beings that can act, react, and affect things in this world. That is the only logical explanation to miracles and, more specifically, healings. Random coincidence of a miraculous healing occuring just as a person is being prayed for is so unbelieveable that it nears the level of the unbelievability of evolution.
Originally posted by ZylonBane
I said that?
I think this sums up Christianity pretty well (or not... eh, it's funny anyway)--
(http://www.youdamnkid.com/beevnicks20001024.gif)
Ever hear of the Prophecy vs. Free Will argument? It basically asks how God can inform prophets of future events, and yet still allow us to have Free Will and make our own descisions. Personally, I've come up with a solution that satisfies me in every way.
I believe that God does not know the future as we think of it. He exists outside of time - it's like looking at an ant crawling along a ruler. He can see any point along this line of time that we are confined by, just as easily as we can see the 10cm mark from the 1cm mark. Obviously, time and the progression of events is much more complex and fluid than a simple ruler, but nevertheless the shoe fits. Since our descisions are also confined by time (one moment we are undecided, the next we have set out upon a course of action), God can see what our free choice is.
Originally posted by Kellan
And Sandwich, not to get into some kind of massive Holocaust debate too, but the Holocaust was more a result of social darwinism, blame for the loss of WWI, and hatred of the Jews' social position rather than an ancient religious hatred of Judaism because of an idea of 'Christ-killing' or something like that. The Jews had been emancipated in German society for decades.
The thing is that the Jewish people and the Jewish religion are inseperable - that's what held together the people over 500-odd years - that's what defines them. And don't tell me that it was a simple hatred of their social position as opposed to hatred of the "Jewish People" - were all those 6 million wealthy? No, but they all were forced to wear one of the symbols of thier religion, the Star of David.
And "Christ-killing"?? First of all, I don't believe that anyone "killed" Jesus - He sacrificed His life for the world, just like you or I would risk (and loose) our lives to save a family member from a burning house.
Second, the Nazis no more had the right to speak in the name of Christianity than did the Crusaders or Osama bin-Laden.
And now, to prevent leaving this post with a "yelling back at" tone: :) :cool: ;) :D
-
Originally posted by sandwich
The thing is that the Jewish people and the Jewish religion are inseperable - that's what held together the people over 500-odd years - that's what defines them. And don't tell me that it was a simple hatred of their social position as opposed to hatred of the "Jewish People" - were all those 6 million wealthy? No, but they all were forced to wear one of the symbols of thier religion, the Star of David.
And "Christ-killing"?? First of all, I don't believe that anyone "killed" Jesus - He sacrificed His life for the world, just like you or I would risk (and loose) our lives to save a family member from a burning house.
Second, the Nazis no more had the right to speak in the name of Christianity than did the Crusaders or Osama bin-Laden.
And now, to prevent leaving this post with a "yelling back at" tone: :) :cool: ;) :D
Thanks for not yelling, Sandwich... ;)
I never said that the Nazis had a right to act in the name of anything. However, with the power they had, they didn't need the right to. As it happens, I think that OBL is more to do with a disparity of power between the West and Arab world than Christians being religious infidels, despite what he says.
As far as Christ-killing goes, if you look at the Bible, there are certain sections (eg. where Pontius Pilate asks if the Jews want Jesus, as a Jew, back - and they say no) that can be interpreted as pointing the finger of blame for Jesus' death at the Jews. I'm not saying I believe it, or you believe it, but some people believe it - or rather, use it as a conveniently-interpreted excuse for prejudice and discrimination.
Thirdly, I wasn't referring necessarily just to the traditional myth of the "Eternal Jew" as a war profiteering capitalist or an anarchy-bent Communist (a very odd dichotomy in Nazi anti-Semitic propaganda that always makes me raise an eyebrow) but as outsiders, marginalised from society either as a result of prejudice and historical nomadism, or by choice in order to keep more Orthodox traditions going. In Poland this still continued. In Germany however, Jewish-German intermarriage was commplace, Jews had equal rights before the law, etc etc.
Finally, I firmly believe that by subscribing to the idea of a 'Jewish race' people are falling into a Nazi trap - a throwback from the Third Reich. It was the Nazis who really pushed the idea that Judaism wasn't a religion, it was a race wth defining genetic and physical characteristics. However, this is clearly false: I can convert to Judaism, for example, but I cannot 'become' black. :p
Now it is a bit of a misnomer to keep on referring to 'Jews' and 'Germans' because they were always just Germans who happened to be Jews. However, it simplifies things, right? :)
-
Originally posted by sandwich These is undoubtedly a spiritual realm "beyond" this physical world that we are aware of with our 5 senses - a realm with beings that can act, react, and affect things in this world. That is the only logical explanation to miracles and, more specifically, healings. Random coincidence of a miraculous healing occuring just as a person is being prayed for is so unbelieveable that it nears the level of the unbelievability of evolution.[/b]
Isn't it azazing how unexplained events never happen where a sizeable amount of people are able to see them. This world has a huge population, strange things are going to happen. That doesn't mean we should jump to conclusions and use it as evidence for the existence of gods, angels, demons ghosties or goolies, it's not. Evolution is happening now. Ever heard about MRSA in our hospitals? What about rodents that dislike the tase of poison that would have previously been irresistable to them a few years ago? There is a rapidly growing mountain of scientific evidence for evolution, not one piece of credible evidence (the Bible isn't credible) has ever been brought against it. That's not to say that it is totally proven but it's by far the most likely explanation. Putting creationism before it cannot be done without blind, unquestioning faith. Faith is the ignorance of fact. Creationism has as much credibility as there being faries at the bottom of my garden. On a final note on the "unbelievability of evolution", which is more credible, imperfect single cell organisms with the ability to mutate changing over millions of years into more complex organisms or a big wizzard up in the sky (that just so happens to be invisible) created the world and everything in it a couple of thousand of years ago because he was bored? We can't see him, we can't communicate with him (prayer doesn't get a response) but we know that when we die we'll be warped in to see him provided we've obeyed a tyrancial religious leader.
-
If god exists as a sentient singular entity then he must be an utter bastard. How anyone with alledgedly omnipotent powers could sit back and let us all kill each other is quite beyond me, EVEN if he was chartered to give us free will - its' quite obvious we're too socially immature to handle it.
-
Originally posted by wEvil
If god exists as a sentient singular entity then he must be an utter bastard. How anyone with alledgedly omnipotent powers could sit back and let us all kill each other is quite beyond me, EVEN if he was chartered to give us free will - its' quite obvious we're too socially immature to handle it.
Agreed, though we're nearing Flamesville, I feel. ;)
-
Oh, before I start the name "God" is a generic term in this post.
Why do people always blame God for war, pain, suffering when it should be obvious that the cause of it all is ourselves. We have been given (or developed) the ability to make our own choices no matter what excuses we come up with.
That makes us immediately responsible for every decision we take every second of our lives and it is an arrogant notion to expect God to come and clean up our mess as it were.
If God were to come sweeping down and remove all the problems we ourselves have caused then He/She/It would have destroyed the very thing that seperates us from every other animal on the Earth, our ability to choose. We would become pets, only allowed to do this and do that.
I'm a Roman cathloic, but over the years I have developed my own personal belief that doesn't really follow the bible or the workings of the church.
Basically it boils down to this...
We have been given the ability to make our own choices, to carve out our own destiny.
It doesn't matter what religion you come from (its just a different story about the same person) or even if you believe in a God. As long as you try to do what YOU believe is right (not what others tell you is right) and are prepared to face the consequences of your choices willingly (for good or bad).
That is enough.
-
Originally posted by Wildfire
Why do people always blame God for war, pain, suffering when it should be obvious that the cause of it all is ourselves. We have been given (or developed) the ability to make our own choices no matter what excuses we come up with.
That makes us immediately responsible for every decision we take every second of our lives and it is an arrogant notion to expect God to come and clean up our mess as it were.
[/B]
It's not God who causes war in him/her/itself but those who follow a religion. They perceive others who don't believe in their God to be infidels/making faces and thus go on a big, happy crusade. Or a Holy War. Or an intifada.
Anyway - it's not God that causes war, but the belief in God and particularly the belief in your own (naturally superior) God. Hence, religion is a cause of war. I'm not saying all religious people are like this, but a significant enough number are to make religion dangerous.
As I said before, I wouldn't leave a loaded gun on my coffee table. I don't leave a religious text there for the same reason.
-
Whilst I'm on the subject, two other things that concern me with religions are:
1. The overwhelming tendency to try and legislate people's lives - as in the case of contraception and the Catholic Church discussed earlier, telling you what you can and can't do, and what's a sin. Now I know that I've just described some of the roles of our beloved national governments, but I for one would rather be dictated to be a government that is at least somewhat democratically answerable and thus has to reflect public opinion to a degree (see the attitudes towards cannabis as an example) than an NGO which takes a bunch of edicts written a couple of thousand years ago as its starting point. They don't reflect modern society in the same way that Jane Eyre or the Canterbury Tales don't reflect modern life. And yet you'd have to be utterly, completely mad to want women to be treated in the manner espoused in Jane Eyre.
2. The indoctrination of children into religion. I don't believe that anyone is born as a Catholic, Presbyterian or Muslim, but they are born into that environment. However, from an age when they can't possibly decide whether they believe in God or not, or if they want to believe in God or not, they are taught Bible stories, sent to Sunday School and Church and so on - basically just because their parents are religious and they want their children to be. Forcing children into religions from an early age is setting them up for a lifetime of prejudice and discrimination. We don't teach kids political ideologies when they're four.
I know that the latter is an extreme view; but it's my view. Make of it what you will. :)
-
I agree with Kellan on most of his statements.
My personal belief system is a kind of mishmash of physics, buddism and astrology (i've done it now - you all think im strange!!)
-
Originally posted by wEvil
If god exists as a sentient singular entity then he must be an utter bastard. How anyone with alledgedly omnipotent powers could sit back and let us all kill each other is quite beyond me, EVEN if he was chartered to give us free will - its' quite obvious we're too socially immature to handle it.
Well im glad i dont share your opinion, i'd rather dig war and suffering than not exist at all.
-
If all we were going to do was make people suffer, it would be better to not exist at all. However, there are a lot of positive things to be had out of life, so I'd like to continue existing - especially since I don't believe there's anything else.
However, if religious people want to stop existing... :rolleyes: Come to think of it, why do you have to earn a place in heaven?
-
Originally posted by Top Gun
Ahh, it was only a matter of time, wasn't it? If you can rationally explain to me why abstinence is better than contraception without using the bible then I'll abstain myself (no chance). Anyway, thank you for presenting me with one of the reasons as to why I reject Judeo/Christianity repulsively. I guess miracles do happen, the biggest one being that an overwhelmingly high percentage of a supposedly intelligent populous thinks that one of the most important human biological functions is, in some way dirty if you have it outside of a silly ceremony. Banning contraception is like banning seatbelts in cars and then saying that the high road death rate is peoples' own fault for driving. Just think how many cases of food poisoning could be prevented if it suddenly became a sin to eat outside a Judeo/Christian ceremony. The Catholic Church's prevention of some of the most vulnerable populations in the world from getting contraception in favor of brainwashing ting them into thinking that sex is a sin is nothing less than an atrocity to which they should be taken to task for. But the Catholic church doesnt prevent it, we merely offer a better route, whenever humanitarian crisis occurs CAFOD are always the first their offering assistance with no questions asked of race or creed and nothing asked in return, period.
But of course having a serious argument with a catholic is like arguing with an android. The church goes to extraordinary lengths to make sure its members can't think for themselves: Catechism anyone? A perl script could present the same arguments, it may as well sit them in an auditorium and hypnotize them.
Well, thanks for the flaming. Now i urge you to relish your prejudice, as i doubt you really know anything about our church.
-
Ouch.
That's why I said we were getting close to Flamesville. :doubt:
-
at the risk of sounding nihilistic - it is utter hubris on the side of the human race to beleive we're anything other than an accident, a cosmic aberration.
Personally i'm ashamed to be a member of this species, most of the time.
-
Wow, that is nihilistic. :blah:
You don't have to be held to account for the actions of other human beings as long as you try to do something about it, though. If you don't, you're buying into the misdeeds of various people and groups.
And calling the human race an accident is a little pessimistic as far as finding other life, intelligent or othewise in the galaxy goes. ;)
-
Unfortunately when people keep passing the buck everyone gets so annoyed someone has to take reponsibility or the whole thing disintigrates.
The entire point, in fact, of every social, economic and political structure seems to be to remove accountability to any individual for the complete state we live in these days.
-
Once again, agreed. The fact that it's very much more difficult to prosecute corporate mansalighter cases than individuals for manslaughter, for example explains this consolidation amoing firms.
BTW, a website that I find particularly interesting for anti-corporate information is www.monbiot.com - George Monbiot writes some very perceptive and persuasive stuff about almost everything leftist. I would urge everyone to read it - even if you don't agree, at least you can understand better where we're coming from and "know your enemy". ;)
-
Hmm, my personal belief on this issure (the coprpate one) is that there's nothing wrong with corporations so long as their governmental influence is limmited and they treat their employees and customers ethically (The BSA is a prime example of the flouting of all of them).
Onto my stance on religion: I think Richard Dawkins (one of my favorite scientists) has hit the nail on the head pretty well on this issue. http://www.world-of-dawkins.com
The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry
-
Second, the Nazis no more had the right to speak in the name of Christianity than did the Crusaders or Osama bin-Laden.
But then who does? You can say the same thing for anyone... :p
But of course having a serious argument with a catholic is like arguing with an android. The church goes to extraordinary lengths to make sure its members can't think for themselves: Catechism anyone?
Exactly what I was saying earlier; the religious institutions will ensure that their people cannot think logically, because if they could, their faith would crumble, and this faith is what the institutions rely on for their existence.
That is the only logical explanation to miracles and, more specifically, healings.
What "miracles" and "healings?" There is no credible evidence for these. Also, there is still the unanswerable question: how did this god come into existence? :D
Finally, I firmly believe that by subscribing to the idea of a 'Jewish race' people are falling into a Nazi trap - a throwback from the Third Reich. It was the Nazis who really pushed the idea that Judaism wasn't a religion, it was a race wth defining genetic and physical characteristics. However, this is clearly false: I can convert to Judaism, for example, but I cannot 'become' black.
Looking at the roots of the Third Reich, it is quite evident that while Hitler's ideas sounded quite silly, they actually had deep roots in German history and thought. (check out The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich - outstanding book ;))
If god exists as a sentient singular entity then he must be an utter bastard.
LOL. :D :yes:
The indoctrination of children into religion.
That is one of the things I hate most about religion. If this had not occurred so much in history, religion would have been dead long ago. As I said before, the ideas that the children assimilate later on in life are built upon these religious ones, and they have been brought up to think that their ideas must be true no matter what - in other words, limiting their ability to think objectively.
Personally i'm ashamed to be a member of this species, most of the time.
I would say the same, as the majority of humans are complete fools, but the species as a whole definitely has future potential due to its need to progress. ;)
The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry
This one is great; I like it just as much as that famous Planck quote. :nod:
That's why I said we were getting close to Flamesville.
No reason to close the topic there, though; it's getting interesting. :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Exactly what I was saying earlier; the religious institutions will ensure that their people cannot think logically, because if they could, their faith would crumble, and this faith is what the institutions rely on for their existence.
Why would they be called religious faiths otherwise? Their very name implies that you have to have faith - ie. belief without explanation - in the edicts of the religion.
Looking at the roots of the Third Reich, it is quite evident that while Hitler's ideas sounded quite silly, they actually had deep roots in German history and thought. (check out The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich - outstanding book ;))[/b]
I disagree. Anti-Semitism is not a uniquely German phenomenon, occurring throughout Europe for hundreds of years in pogroms, and in the current vogue for 'Jewish Capitalist Overlord' conspiracies going around in America, and anti-Semitism in the Muslim world.
Nor is persecution of a religious minority a phenomenon unique to Judaism. All countries and peoples have persecuted, to a greater and lesser extent minorites of a religious and racial nature (although once again, Jews are not a race). Just look at the anti-immigrant attitudes here and in the rest of the world during the 1930s (anti-Semitism was rife in 1935 - Australia said of the Jews that it was not "desirous of importing a racial problem". America said they were of below-average intelligence).
To say that the Holocaust was a uniquely German phenomenon is, IMHO, rubbish. Pogroms had occurred all over the world for years (the latest actually being 1947 in Poland). In addition, the vast majority of those that voluntarily assisted in the exterminated were Latvians, Ukrainians, Estonians and Poles. Blaming the Germans specifically is dangerous - it denies the possibility that the same thing could happen anywhere, at any time, again.
-
Religion always has been a topic that really interests me. For some it defines who they are and how they interact with society for others it is a basic set of rules that may lead to a better life or perhaps the afterlife (if you choose to believe in such a thing). Some revile it as 'mind control for the masses' or the reason why we have had so much war.
Doesn't anyone find it strange that some horrifically bad events in history have been carried out in the name of religion and in the extreme reverse you have acts of astounding compassion occuring for the same cause? Isn't it obvious that the God/prophet/icon you believe in (or perhaps the fact that you don't believe in anything at all) isn't what is truely important? The way that you choose to act on those beliefs is what really matters.
I have a great deal of respect for athieists that are good people, without having the belief (or fear) that you will go to hell if you are a bad person they still have the want to just get along with everyone.
A few very religious people could learn a lot from this if they cared to look past the nonsensical meanderings that were written hundreds or thousands of years ago that they rigidly live their lives by. The bible has always been a sore point for me; it's outdated, often unintelligable and was written for a society that found killing someone a friviolus affair. Would you still think it acceptable to cut someones hands off today if they stole some food? I hope not.
I was brought up a catholic, my mum and dad are catholics as is the majority of my extended family. These people firmly believe in the history of Jesus and his message. More importantly though they recognised that the message was the most important part of the religion, to treat others the way you want to be treated is ultimately what it is all about. They don't pressure me into going to church because they know that although I don't carry out the rituals, I did get the message.
Lastly I think it's important to address the idea that once you die everything that you are and were dies with you. It's true that your name may not be remembered but your actions surely will, if you can reach out and help a few people and show them the value of compassion then you have made a far greater impact than you will ever be able to realise. Those people in turn know that helping people is rewarding and thus have the inclination to do the same for others. Extreme specifics may be lost but more subtle effects remain.
-
Interesting points, Meg... ;)
Contrary to what it may appear in my posts, I don't want to eradicate those of religion simply because they hold those beliefs. The most exasperating thing about religion is how you act based on it - and the fact that people use it as a defence.
I don't have a problem with the central message of peace, tolerance, and understanding Jesus had - just the rest of the damn contradictory book. Perhaps they could have done to make the point of Christianity a little clearer - by putting be nice to people on every single page. Instead, you get a bunch of stuff that Jesus would probably be horrified about (yes, I believe he existed; no, I don't believe he was the son of God, just a very progressive man) carried out in his name. :rolleyes:
The existence of people of incredible faith like Agatheron (for those who don't know, I worked with him on Derelict and he's a Presbyterian Minister) who are kind, intelligent, tolerant and normal tells me that religion can't be all bad. It is however ruined by those who don't get the central message, and are instead conservative (small C ;)), judgemental and close-minded.
I still tend to believe that religion is a dangerous thing because of those people. Children and societies can be taught moral lessons without the Bible. I've never read it, and I'm regarded as tolerant, kind and liberal - I'm told. :p
-
Originally posted by CP5670
your impact on the world lies in however you change it through the course of its history, which is determined by your influence on others and the use of technology to modify the universe. There is no "good" or "bad" impact here as far as the universe as a whole goes. Also, as Zylon said, life in the current sense could simply have been started off by an IRV and the chain of events continues to this day.
No, if there is no afterlife then you have no impact on the universe in anyway. Whatever you might do that affects others or yourself will be completely meaningless to you since you somehow vanish from existence after you die. The universe is only what one sees it as, and if a person doesn't exist then their is no universe for that person. A person wants to take advantage of an oppurtunity so that they can benifit from it. How can you benifit from your life if you cease to exist as an entity once you lose it?
Edit: Hmm...that would be a weird line:
Existance is futile :D
-
I don't beleive you do, but there's no rational explanation for that beleif.
If you do totally cease to exist, then surely you should have as good a time as possible while you can? And more so, surely you should make sure everyone around you has a good time as well?
Life can't be all fun and games but from the massive public apathy wave sweeping our society for the past year or two I think maybe it's a little too LITTLE fun. There's no point in working for no reason, most people either don't understand why they even bother to get out of bed every morning.
Why am I going into the 3D industry for instance? It's volatile, irregular, nomadic and doesn't really pay very well - and on top of that you have to keep on top of every technological innovation that comes your way.
It's because i'm happy doing it, when that scene is sent off and posted I feel like i've done something, and then I can go out and spend my hard-earned cash on a few beers&cigs and kick back with my friends - maybe get into a discussion like this and come out feeling I may have understood something I didn't before.
But the current organisation of everything means that I can't do this. The pressure is there to earn money and spend it, not in the persuit of fulfillment evolving spiritually, intelectually or in any other way, but just for the sake of it. It's turning into a kind of sick circus scenario where nobody really feels anything they're doing - you're just going through the motions because you have to. I mean...its not like you have an alternative way to live anymore, is it?
-
I disagree. Anti-Semitism is not a uniquely German phenomenon, occurring throughout Europe for hundreds of years in pogroms, and in the current vogue for 'Jewish Capitalist Overlord' conspiracies going around in America, and anti-Semitism in the Muslim world.
Well, it wasn't so much a dislike of the Jews, but rather the whole idea of superior and inferior "races" and this philosophy of life based on race that, after the 1800s or so, was definitely more prevalent in Germany than any other country in Europe. It was mainly due to the lasting influence of a number of famous men who vouched for race being the primary basis of a man's worth. (many prominent German philosophers before 1940 were for this) There were of course such people in other nations as well, but their ideas began to fade away with time. Germany for many decades existed as a group of provinces loosely held together by Prussia under Bismarck and the whole "nation" operated on the principle of war and conquest (there was little cultural advance during the Second Reich), and the older ideas mostly stayed on right up to the beginning or WW1.
As for the morals, even they did not exist at one time; they only formed out of the mutual interests of people when they started working together to form societies and civilizations. These culminated in the forming of precise codes of laws; first religious, and now political. Our governments and the historical mass-force of advancing civilization have now taken the place of god for the purpose of morals. One of the big advantages of the political laws is that they can be changed to adjust to the changing societies, but religious morals are pretty much static and cannot keep up with the evolving demands of civilization.
To me, religion is dangerous because it stands in the way of scientific and philosophical thought of the civilization as a whole. It doesn't matter when you deal only with individuals, but humanity can be thought of as one large loosely-connected "organism" as far as scientific progress goes. If things continue as they are going now, the two can coexist; the religious population can continue to go by their religions - at some point, they will reach a minority status and will cease to become a major force in history anyway - while the scientific population alone becomes the driving force of the species. The main thing, however, is that we will soon reach the point where we are able to change our our own bodies, and almost every major religion considers the human the most "sacred" thing (what a surprise :p) and something which should only be changed/created by a god; science and religion may end up clashing once again here.
Their very name implies that you have to have faith - ie. belief without explanation - in the edicts of the religion.
Yes, but this "belief without explanation" is the real bane of all science and logical thought. :p
The universe is only what one sees it as, and if a person doesn't exist then their is no universe for that person.
First fundamental rule shows that the perceptive reality cannot be proved to exist or not exist due to paradoxes that arise, but an absolute reality should be assumed if we are working as a civilization to learn how the universe works. Once everything in the absolute reality has been analyzed, the perceptive bit can then be taken into account.
-
Originally posted by YodaSean
No, if there is no afterlife then you have no impact on the universe in anyway. Whatever you might do that affects others or yourself will be completely meaningless to you since you somehow vanish from existence after you die. The universe is only what one sees it as, and if a person doesn't exist then their is no universe for that person. A person wants to take advantage of an oppurtunity so that they can benifit from it. How can you benifit from your life if you cease to exist as an entity once you lose it?
You seem to be suggesting that you don't benefit from actions in your life as you carry them out. As though life is one huge trial that, at the end you can go to the supposed 'afterlife' and look back on, reflecting on what you have done and getting the benefit of pleasure from it.
This is a ridiculous idea.
First, I and probably everyone - including yourself - can say with certainty that they have carried out actions because they got benefit - why do you play FS2? Because you enjoy it. That's a benefit. In addition, by your theory people would continue to carry out pointless, unenjoyable tasks all their lives and only realise how little benefit they got from them once they're dead. :rolleyes:
As far as benefit to society goes, you'll be remembered for your contribution to society, good or ill, and thus you won't 'cease to exist'. Furthermore, if you live your life believing in an afterlife but doing nothing, you won't be magically remembered just because you believed in it. You'd have to do something to make people remember you.
I wonder what it is in the nature of humans that makes them always want to know 'what happens next'. Certainly it's the motivator for most of the change in the world, but it is a bit silly that actions are judged as worthless if they don't enable you to find out 'what happened next', looking down on the Earth like it was an ant farm. :doubt:
-
Note: I'm answering CP in a different post because the argument here is historical, not religious. :D
Originally posted by CP5670
Well, it wasn't so much a dislike of the Jews, but rather the whole idea of superior and inferior "races" and this philosophy of life based on race that, after the 1800s or so, was definitely more prevalent in Germany than any other country in Europe. It was mainly due to the lasting influence of a number of famous men who vouched for race being the primary basis of a man's worth. (many prominent German philosophers before 1940 were for this) There were of course such people in other nations as well, but their ideas began to fade away with time. Germany for many decades existed as a group of provinces loosely held together by Prussia under Bismarck and the whole "nation" operated on the principle of war and conquest (there was little cultural advance during the Second Reich), and the older ideas mostly stayed on right up to the beginning or WW1.
Social Darwinism was indeed a popular belief at the turn of the 20th Century, and some of those who put forward these theories were also indeed Germans.
However, Bismarck didn't control Germany whilst it was still in its old provincial state - just Prussia. Once Germany was 'united' (and I admit the term is loose; the new German state had no flag, national anthem and was basically an enlarged Prussian state in terms of politics) Bismarck became Chancellor.
Germany was united in part by war - against Austria, Denmark and France - though to a greater extent by the Zollverein and thus trade. Union came about through the need to be a strong trading block. Later, it was brought together by the two again - the need to expland Germany's empire and protect against the Triple Entente through military spending - which boosted the economy immensely.
Although certainly the old elites of Prussia and the principalities - the Junkers - remained in positions of high power until the end of WW1, there was social advance in a number of areas. Germany was the first country to provide elementary social security, for example. Besides, a stangant cultural situation doesn't lead to anti-Semitism.
The main victims of the 'inferior races' tag were negroes, basically because the Colonial powers wanted a good reason to say that they had to rule in Africa. As I said, Jews were emancipated in Western Europe until the Nazis started picking at hundred-year-old scabs.
-
Originally posted by Kellan
Interesting points, Meg... ;)
Contrary to what it may appear in my posts, I don't want to eradicate those of religion simply because they hold those beliefs. The most exasperating thing about religion is how you act based on it - and the fact that people use it as a defence.
I don't have a problem with the central message of peace, tolerance, and understanding Jesus had - just the rest of the damn contradictory book. Perhaps they could have done to make the point of Christianity a little clearer - by putting be nice to people on every single page. Instead, you get a bunch of stuff that Jesus would probably be horrified about (yes, I believe he existed; no, I don't believe he was the son of God, just a very progressive man) carried out in his name. :rolleyes:
The existence of people of incredible faith like Agatheron (for those who don't know, I worked with him on Derelict and he's a Presbyterian Minister) who are kind, intelligent, tolerant and normal tells me that religion can't be all bad. It is however ruined by those who don't get the central message, and are instead conservative (small C ;)), judgemental and close-minded.
I still tend to believe that religion is a dangerous thing because of those people. Children and societies can be taught moral lessons without the Bible. I've never read it, and I'm regarded as tolerant, kind and liberal - I'm told. :p
Your right, Jesus did exists, its an acutal fact. period. Independant sources have proven this, however its your decision to believe he was either a genius or the Son of Man.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
But then who does? You can say the same thing for anyone... :p
Exactly what I was saying earlier; the religious institutions will ensure that their people cannot think logically, because if they could, their faith would crumble, and this faith is what the institutions rely on for their existence.
What "miracles" and "healings?" There is no credible evidence for these. Also, there is still the unanswerable question: how did this god come into existence? :D
Looking at the roots of the Third Reich, it is quite evident that while Hitler's ideas sounded quite silly, they actually had deep roots in German history and thought. (check out The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich - outstanding book ;))
LOL. :D :yes:
That is one of the things I hate most about religion. If this had not occurred so much in history, religion would have been dead long ago. As I said before, the ideas that the children assimilate later on in life are built upon these religious ones, and they have been brought up to think that their ideas must be true no matter what - in other words, limiting their ability to think objectively.
I would say the same, as the majority of humans are complete fools, but the species as a whole definitely has future potential due to its need to progress. ;)
This one is great; I like it just as much as that famous Planck quote. :nod:
No reason to close the topic there, though; it's getting interesting. :D
Funny thing is, i wasnt brought up religiously. I didnt believe in the lord, but i did find him a few years later.
-
We musn't forget that the gospels were written over sixty years after his death and records in those times were patch at best. They may also have succumbed to outside influences like the reformist attitudes of St Paul. Also note that the "Approved version" of the bible was a cut and paste job of various scriptures put together by the Catholics a long time after Jesus died. A lot of what was in the scriptures was manipulated to fulfill the profecy of scriptures beforehand so the Bible's historical credibility is not good. That's not to say it isn't good for cultural and/or anthropological research but it's certainly not concrete fact.
-
ok celestial, you are a freaking genius, i thought i knew how to argue, but damn, am i going to have some fun at school on monday.
-
celestial? huh? what? where?
So to summarise?
Heh..i just thought. I had a 2,500 word essay on semiotics to get done and instead i write a review of Soft|xsi and have a metaphysical debate with enough content to write a decent essay in itself.
-
[Kellan's post]
You're probably right about the history there. (I know almost nothing about European history before 1900 :p) Indirectly however, a stagnant cultural situation can lead to this sort of thing under certain conditions. What happens when culture stops evolving is that people as a whole just go by what they are told (religion, anyone?), and as you said, just about every nation had some philosophies like this abounding in the popular ideas at some point in history. Since things didn't evolve in Germany due to the whole prolonged war situation, the German people were philosophically behind the rest of Europe as far as these kinds of things go (also one of the reasons why the monarchies did not fall there as they had in other nations; popular philosophy dicatated absolute obedience to appointed authority). For example, one reason that the Germans were furious at the Versailles treaty was that it gave some land to Poland, and the Poles had been considered to be an "inferior race" for decades. (this was well before Hitler and others like him had come on the scene)
Funny thing is, i wasnt brought up religiously. I didnt believe in the lord, but i did find him a few years later.
Which means you were subtly influenced by the world around you, most of which does operate on religion today. Now that I look back on my life up to this point, I think that the same would have happened with me if I did not have a rebellious system of thought in general and consequently questioned everything I saw. (my parents did not really force religion all that heavily on me, but I certainly believed in god until about four or so years ago, when I began questioning that as well)
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Also, there is still the unanswerable question: how did this god come into existence? :D
Because he has always existed. That's one of the parts you are not supposed to understand or attempt to understand because it will confuse the hell out of you.
:)
-
Because he has always existed. That's one of the parts you are not supposed to understand or attempt to understand because it will confuse the hell out of you.
:)
No offense intended, but this is really nonsense. :p I have determined that the ultimate objective (not in the usual sense) of all intelligent "life" is most likely the assimilation of all knowledge, which is pretty much what all the major mathematicians and scientists argued for, although I will not post the whole proof here now. Does this god try to determine what we do or do not understand? In that case, it is certainly worth going against his wishes to learn the truth. Also, if people resort to this for their explanation, one could just as easily say that everything has always existed, with periodic "big bangs" taking place in the transfinite history of all existence. (the looped universe theory)
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Which means you were subtly influenced by the world around you, most of which does operate on religion today. Now that I look back on my life up to this point, I think that the same would have happened with me if I did not have a rebellious system of thought in general and consequently questioned everything I saw. (my parents did not really force religion all that heavily on me, but I certainly believed in god until about four or so years ago, when I began questioning that as well)
No, i wouldnt expect you to believe in the lord anyway, you dont in believe in live yet.
-
Oooh, handbags! ;)
Personally I find it hard to swallow that God exists, has always existed, but will not ever, ever let you physically know he exists, or has let anyone know since the Flood. So what, you're supposed to take it as a matter of trust? :rolleyes:
CP, I do see your point about a stagnant cultural situation. This can apply to many other areas in which there is stagnation. For example, there is currently a political stagnation in Europe - and probably around the world - characterised by the reinforcement of the 'new establishment' comprised of corporations; the collapse of the left; and considerable problems with public services, law and order, etc.
Basically, the process of advancement in individual countries has faltered, as has the European Project. In the absence of these motivators, people are turning to the right - old, dogmatic beliefs in racial superiority, religious inferiority, etc.
Another case in point I guess might be the Dark Ages.
-
Two things its stupid to argue about, Politics and religion, its just a fruitless, futile situation.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Two things its stupid to argue about, Politics and religion, its just a fruitless, futile situation.
That's very defeatist. So hey, let's not argue about the BNP, or the Front Nationale. After all, nobody ever defeated racism by disproving it. :rolleyes:
I bet that you've been made to think that. It should always be worth fighting for something.
-
Why? Im never gonna change your opinion and you wont change mine, so why bother arguing about it on the forums. Im not talking about the greater world silly man :p.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Why? Im never gonna change your opinion and you wont change mine, so why bother arguing about it on the forums. Im not talking about the greater world silly man :p.
Oh. And it was so clear from the language you used. ;)
You never know about changing people's beliefs. Suppose I found new evidence, either completely proving God's existence, or completely disproving it - say, the Church was a scam set up by Bob of Nazareth. :p
I know that I have changed my beliefs after I've found out I had incorrect information.
-
yeah me too, i started believing in the lord and learning about Jesus.
-
Good for you then. An open mind is always a good thing to have. Better than an open skull by quite some distance, in my opinion. ;)
-
I'm a Christian (Lutheran denomination) and a firm believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. This thread is purely upsetting.
Better watch where you go with religion and people's lives. :nervous:
BOB OF NAZARETH ????!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?
ARRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH! :mad::mad::mad::mad:
:snipe:
-
Originally posted by Kellan
Good for you then. An open mind is always a good thing to have. Better than an open skull by quite some distance, in my opinion. ;)
It depends whose skull.
-
Originally posted by nuclear1
I'm a Christian (Lutheran denomination) and a firm believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. This thread is purely upsetting.
No it's not, it's an intellectual and metaphysical discussion. It's not a flame of religion, and nobody is making you read it. If you can't handle it, leave it alone.
Besides, if I find religion upsetting and yet I see a Church when I look out of the window, had the religion better be careful with my mind? :blah:
-
Originally posted by an0n
It depends whose skull.
Got anyone in particular in mind? :nod:
-
Originally posted by Kellan
Good for you then. An open mind is always a good thing to have. Better than an open skull by quite some distance, in my opinion. ;)
True.
-
Originally posted by Kellan
Got anyone in particular in mind? :nod:
As a general rule, everyone. But no-one specific at the moment.
-
Originally posted by an0n
As a general rule, everyone. But no-one specific at the moment.
Thou shalt not kill! :mad:
But thou canst maim on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays. ;)
-
Originally posted by Kellan
Thou shalt not kill! :mad:
But thou canst maim on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays. ;)
Thou shalt not kill unless it's a homo or fortune teller. :nod:
Apparently it's okay to stone them to death.
-
Ummm, yeah. :nervous:
Biting.
-
Well some things disgust the lord and should be cast down.
Btw, 3000 posts whoa!!
-
Originally posted by nuclear1
I'm a Christian (Lutheran denomination) and a firm believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. This thread is purely upsetting.
Better watch where you go with religion and people's lives. :nervous:
BOB OF NAZARETH ????!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?
ARRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH! :mad::mad::mad::mad:
:snipe:
Then don't read this thread, simple. We are (were?) having a good discussion and making headway.
In my opinion, you can make a scripture say almost anything you want to twist it to.
But to return to CPS's (i think) earlier statement about dogma getting "in the way" of progress, keeping my above statement in mind, if you can make the words say anything, why isn't there a branch of a large religious establishment that emraces say, genetic engineering.
I certainly embrace it - having had big problems with my wisdom teeth I see no reason at all not to "Geneer" these vestigal traits out of my body. Another good example is hereditary conditions such as heamatitis and bad eyesight.
Another point is that the rate the repository of human information is growing we have reached a point where most people are unable to adequately understand most tasks they will be required to acheive in order to progress to the next cycle. What happens when it takes a genius by todays' standards to make a breakthrough in mathematics or SemiConductors? We are rapidly approaching such an impasse. THere is an argument against tinkering with genes and making "superbabies", but would you rather have a stagnant global society and technocracy while our evolution catches up with us?
-
Originally posted by an0n
Thou shalt not kill unless it's a homo or fortune teller. :nod:
Apparently it's okay to stone them to death.
well i'll roll it OK?
sorry couldn't resist that.
OK - stop the S*P*A*M
-
Watch your spamming this might happen to you. :D:snipe:
-
To put it simply:
Religion is nothing more than a primitive attempt at explaining what cannot be explained.
I grew out of those church lies at a young age.
Go ahead and flame me but it will only further prove my point that weak minds need religion to maintian sanity and a certain level of order.
Knowing that I'm nothing more than a very Intelligent ape does not bother me at all.
I accept nature, what I cannot control and what I can never know.
People who cannt accept these things have religion to fill it all in.
Remember this next time you pray to your god.
-
Originally posted by sandwich
1) You forgot the "best" example of them all - The Holocaust :(
I dont think the Holocaust was about religion at all. Hitler did not believe in any religion as evidenced by his quote: "Religion in the opiate of the masses."
Hitler commited the Holocaust to purify the "German mother Country" and bring about a new Aryan race.
He used the Jewish people to blame and exploit for his own political ends. (Just like Admiral Bosch and the Vasudans.)
The Jewish people have been persecuted for thousands of years.
Each mass murder is just one more example of what I was saying earlier.
I respect people's religions but here I am just voicing my own views on Theology.
Also my first post was targeting ALL religions Not just christianity
-
"Religion...is the opiate of the masses" was a quote from Karl Marx, not Hitler! :eek: A little diametrically opposed in ideological terms... ;)
And I agree that the Holocaust was not primarily about religion. The Nazis tired to shift the focus to race, for a start. The Jews, like the Communists, Socialists, Trades Unionists, Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, Gypsies, alcoholics, prostitutes, and mentally ill were 'impure' in racial terms, did not confrom to the values of the Volksgemeinschaft/i] (ie. not working hard in honourable professions; lack of community spirit) or just made good scapegoats for all of Germany's problems.
-
Originally posted by Kellan
It was the Nazis who really pushed the idea that Judaism wasn't a religion, it was a race wth defining genetic and physical characteristics. However, this is clearly false.
No, it's true. Do a web search on "jewish genetics" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=jewish+genetics), and you'll find thousands of reputable sites on the subject.
-
Originally posted by ZylonBane
No, it's true. Do a web search on "jewish genetics" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=jewish+genetics), and you'll find thousands of reputable sites on the subject.
Really? Hmm, interesting. I'd always considered it a manufacture of Nazi propaganda. The only thing that I am wondering is if it's the whole "Irish people tend to have orange hair" type thing - thus they are a 'race'. Although you could say that they're racially Celtic.
For the record, I don't have orange hair. ;)
-
Originally posted by Kellan
"Religion...is the opiate of the masses" was a quote from Karl Marx, not Hitler! :eek: A little diametrically opposed in ideological terms... ;)
Okay so I was wrong about that quote.
But I do know that Hitler opposed any religion.
-
Originally posted by killadonuts
Okay so I was wrong about that quote.
But I do know that Hitler opposed any religion.
Hitler was brought up as a Catholic, but was not especially religious himself - he was an atheist, or at least an agnostic. However, he did found the Reich Church in Germany, designed to supplant the Catholic Church and deliver Nazi propaganda in the way the Church had delivered its messages for so long.
Instead of a bible, there was a Mein Kampf and a sword...so Hitler was in effect the writer of their holy text. He didn't oppose religion when it was an effective method of control.
-
Originally posted by killadonuts
Okay so I was wrong about that quote.
But I do know that Hitler opposed any religion.
Uh, no. Hitler opposed all:
- Gays
- Lesbians
- Jews
- Blacks
- Mexicans
- Jehovah's Witnesses
- Hindu's
- Budhists
- Sikh's
- .......
Hmm. I think it's just easier to say he wasn't specifically/particularly against any Christian (or variation) religion, Itallians or Japanese. He even started his own little religion called the German National Faith or something.
-
Hitler did not believe in religion.
Instead he used the Church to further bull**** the German people into thinking that he talks to God.
Again, religion is used here to control a bunch of people and maintain order.
-
See above.
And yes, 5 million non-Jews were annihilated alongside them during the Holocaust, bringing the death toll to about 11 million. However, that pales when compared to 26-50 million Russian losses... :eek:
-
Originally posted by Kellan
Really? Hmm, interesting. I'd always considered it a manufacture of Nazi propaganda. The only thing that I am wondering is if it's the whole "Irish people tend to have orange hair" type thing - thus they are a 'race'. Although you could say that they're racially Celtic.
For the record, I don't have orange hair. ;)
Are you of Irish decent too? My family moved during the late 19th/ early 20th century.
-
Originally posted by killadonuts
Hitler did not believe in religion.
Instead he used the Church to further bull**** the German people into thinking that he talks to God.
Again, religion is used here to control a bunch of people and maintain order.
Wrong. He did not see himself as a God, just as conqueror of the world. And he had no beef with religion as long as it didn't screw with his control over the people of Earth.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Are you of Irish decent too? My family moved during the late 19th/ early 20th century.
I'm truly a Briton, not English. I'm something like 50% English, 25% Irish and 25% Scottish. My surname is Regan, which is the name of an 11th Century Irish king, whose clan apparently all Regans and Reagans are descended from.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Wrong. He did not see himself as a God, just as conqueror of the world. And he had no beef with religion as long as it didn't screw with his control over the people of Earth.
Do some research.
And read my last post carefully: I never said he WAS a God but rather he told the German people that he TALKS to him.
Thus control and order is maintained.
-
Originally posted by killadonuts
I never said he WAS a God but rather he told the German people that he TALKS to him.
Or that he would not interfere with their religion if it did not interfere with him, so to speak.
-
Hey cool discussion :D
I think that there is no reason that faith should govern ones life because it's not natural. If you left say, a baby in the woods would the child develop religion/faith to decide his actions? I think not. Rather, I think that the true decision-making in a human should be its logic, which is natural. Religion/faith is supernatural and well, odd :p
For the record I'm a liberal agnostic :)
-
Originally posted by Kellan
I'm truly a Briton, not English. I'm something like 50% English, 25% Irish and 25% Scottish. My surname is Regan, which is the name of an 11th Century Irish king, whose clan apparently all Regans and Reagans are descended from.
If your ever in Ireland, visit Castle O'Dea :D.
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
For the record I'm a liberal agnostic :)
Fascist atheism is much more fun. :D
-
Originally posted by killadonuts
To put it simply:
Religion is nothing more than a primitive attempt at explaining what cannot be explained.
I grew out of those church lies at a young age.
Go ahead and flame me but it will only further prove my point that weak minds need religion to maintian sanity and a certain level of order.
Knowing that I'm nothing more than a very Intelligent ape does not bother me at all.
I accept nature, what I cannot control and what I can never know.
People who cannt accept these things have religion to fill it all in.
Remember this next time you pray to your god.
This is a good example of the inability to live and let live.
Ironically you show the best example of what you describe as a weak mind; you seek to venerate yourself above others by claiming that they are wrong since you know you are right. A lack of respect for what others believe and a closed mind means you can have no clear reasoning.
-
I know that post sounded kinda arrogant but it's just how I feel.
No disrespect was intended.
I just wanted to give people something to think about
BTW I had expected a response like this one.
I'm glad it happened :)
-
Also in genetic terms, 2% is a larger difference than you might expect, so you are more than an intelligent ape. Magic is what is used to describe the unexplained. Religion, also it has caused wars, has caused many great things such as CAFOD. The 10 commandments set out how we should live our lives, if everyone followed them, the world would be a good place indeed. Not everyone does i know, but enough do to make a difference in the world.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Also in genetic terms, 2% is a larger difference than you might expect, so you are more than an intelligent ape. Magic is what is used to describe the unexplained. Religion, also it has caused wars, has caused many great things such as CAFOD. The 10 commandments set out how we should live our lives, if everyone followed them, the world would be a good place indeed. Not everyone does i know, but enough do to make a difference in the world.
You.......IDEALIST!
And for the record, the ape - man difference is about 1.6% if I remember correctly......or was it 0.6?
-
Keep in mind that I'm just telling things according to how I feel and know.
I could very well be talking out of my ass here. :D
You be the judge.
-
Originally posted by killadonuts
Keep in mind that I'm just telling things according to how I feel and know.
I could very well be talking out of my ass here. :D
You be the judge.
We would never be so blasphemous as to judge you.
-
Originally posted by an0n
You.......IDEALIST!
And for the record, the ape - man difference is about 1.6% if I remember correctly......or was it 0.6?
Wrong, 2.67% for the human male, 3.02% for the human female.
-
Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
Wrong, 2.67% for the human male, 3.02% for the human female.
:wtf: :doubt:
-
I looked it up, and women are smarter than men unfortunatly.
-
Gah! Too many replies!!!!!!!!:D:eek:
And, no, the Holocaust was not about religion, it was instead about Hitler trying to shift the [righteous] blame for the economic decline to the Jews....
-
IT WASN'T JUST THE FRIGGIN JEWS!!!!!!!
It's just that 90% of the directors, producers and writters in Hollywood are jews and so they get all the attention.
-
*cough, cough*
Yea, sorry, you're right, it's just that the Jews [I think] were the most, erm, persecuted?
-
Originally posted by Unkown Target
*cough, cough*
Yea, sorry, you're right, it's just that the Jews [I think] were the most, erm, persecuted?
You're confusing 'persecuted' with 'whiney little *****es'. No other ethnic group has ever *****ed about persecution as much as they do. You don't hear all the little Africa tribes going 'Help, help! They're trying to wipe us out. They're only fighting us because of our ancestors'. They do something about it and fight back in a meaningful/bloody way.
-
*cough*Islam*cough, cough*
No offense intended here...
-
Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
I looked it up, and women are smarter than men unfortunatly.
Not smarter. Sneakier.
-
Originally posted by ZylonBane
Not smarter. Sneakier.
To be sneaky you have to be smart but the female maternal nature and her raging hormones makes her seem not as smart as the human male. :rolleyes:
-
But to return to CPS's (i think) earlier statement about dogma getting "in the way" of progress, keeping my above statement in mind, if you can make the words say anything, why isn't there a branch of a large religious establishment that emraces say, genetic engineering.
I certainly embrace it - having had big problems with my wisdom teeth I see no reason at all not to "Geneer" these vestigal traits out of my body. Another good example is hereditary conditions such as heamatitis and bad eyesight.
Another point is that the rate the repository of human information is growing we have reached a point where most people are unable to adequately understand most tasks they will be required to acheive in order to progress to the next cycle. What happens when it takes a genius by todays' standards to make a breakthrough in mathematics or SemiConductors? We are rapidly approaching such an impasse. THere is an argument against tinkering with genes and making "superbabies", but would you rather have a stagnant global society and technocracy while our evolution catches up with us?
Completely agree there; as I said earlier, the people who are against genetic alternation will reject it while the rest will go for it, resulting in them being the "superhumans" and the rest becoming insignificant in the course of history. (technological darwinism)
Religion is nothing more than a primitive attempt at explaining what cannot be explained.
I grew out of those church lies at a young age.
Go ahead and flame me but it will only further prove my point that weak minds need religion to maintian sanity and a certain level of order.
:yes: That was one of the two original purposes of religion and it is why I call it a throwback from prehistory. :p
Religion...is the opiate of the masses" was a quote from Karl Marx, not Hitler!
Such a deep truth, as I said earlier. ;) I think it was "opium of the people," but I'm not sure.
Instead he used the Church to further bull**** the German people into thinking that he talks to God.
Again, religion is used here to control a bunch of people and maintain order.
You are right about this. In fact, all of the churches were either nationalized (and NSDAP leaders appointed as church leaders) or dissolved about a year after Hitler was appointed Chancellor so that there would be little resistance from them.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
You are right about this. In fact, all of the churches were either nationalized (and NSDAP leaders appointed as church leaders) or dissolved about a year after Hitler was appointed Chancellor so that there would be little resistance from them.
The Catholic Church was still allowed to function. Hitler and the Pope signed a Concordat which basically said Hitler would not interfere with the Catholic Church as a whole, but was free to punish individual dissident members. In exchange, the Pope would not criticise the Nazi government - and in the south of Germany, where the population is (or was) almost entirely Catholic, that carried a lot of weight in legitimacy.
And yes an0n, the whole 'powerful Jewish lobby' thing is one explanation as to why the focus of the Holocaust is on the Jews. It could be that the Israeli government and perhaps its people have a talent for self promotion. It could be something entirely more mundane - such as people's inability to recall every single persecuted group; thus they concentrate on the largest.
-
okay, i skipped reading a few replies, so if im repeating anything anyone's already said, ignore me.
WARNING: THIS IS ALL MY OWN OPINION
I'm Protestant Christian, so I believe that God created us and the world and everything; that Adam and Eve stuffed it up for everyone by disobeying God's command; that everyone is born in sin, and its a human thing to sin; that Jesus Christ was sent to die for our sins and now our punishment has been taken away, cos he already took it. (there's a verse in the bible explaining how Adam brought death for everyone, and how Christ gave everyone life again)
Now, some of the stuff that has been said:
God lets all the bad stuff-wars and all that- happen cos if He didn't, we wouldn't know anything. We'd still be in the garden of Eden, happily living as puppets who didn't know anything. Bad stuff makes us feel bad, but bad stuff also teaches us how to live.
all the love stuff- love your god with all your heart and mind and soul, and love your neighbour as yourself- they're basically what living as a christian is based around.
Since we're human, we can't be perfect christians, but it doesn't matter, cos every time we sin, Christ has paid our penalty in full.
And God does know who'll choose to believe in him (and therefore receive eternal life) and who won't, but he can't interfere in the process cos then that would be manipulation, and God won't allow that. He gives us free will to choose to live, or to be tortured in hell.
Also, about the creation: God created everything. As the Creator, He didn't have to create things so that we understood them. But He did; He made things by rules, and He gave us the understanding to see those rules. We should be grateful He bothered, really.
God is God. This means that He can do everything and anything. He also has infinite wisdom, though, which is why He doesn't do everyhting and anything- some of that's bad.
That's what I think, anyway. Now I'll probably get people saying that I'm wrong and why.
-
oh yes, and about gen eng:
it's probably okay up until the point you start cloning people. that'w when you're playing god, which no one can. cloning- who knows if we got the animals right, the brains and mind and everything? and the animals had problems with cancer and arthritis and dying at an early age, anyway. Dolly did, I think.
-
Originally posted by icespeed
And God does know who'll choose to believe in him (and therefore receive eternal life) and who won't, but he can't interfere in the process cos then that would be manipulation, and God won't allow that. He gives us free will to choose to live, or to be tortured in hell.
Why do I have to be tortured in Christian hell because I refuse to believe in a Christian God? :doubt: I mean, it's an interesting theological question - what happens to people who don't believe? Is it just 'bad Christians' in hell, or does everyone who isn't either good or Christian end up there?
In addition, why should people be tortured in hell? Surely the true torment of hell for a Christian would be knowing that they are eternally lost from salvation and have no chance of seeing God. The whole "hell is a fiery pit" thing was written in order to strike greater fear into the hearts of ordinary people who could not comprehend the 'loss of God'.
This isn't an attack on Christianity in particular, but hell. Replace that religion with any other if you desire.
-
that _is_ the whole point of the torture. To be separated from God forever. God is everything good; love, compassion, and everything, and hell is basically everything that isn't God. Having to stay in hell for eternity, away from God, is torture.
And everyone's a special case. You're judged on whether you've been told about the gospel and believe/ don't believe; whether someone's told you about it at all; on your morals and values and stuff if no one's told you anything about it.
hell is for everyone who does not believe that Jesus saved them by dying on the cross, because that's like rejecting the gift God gave us of life. By rights, everyone should be in hell. Those who believe that Jesus saved us, go to heaven. After all, you can't be saved by something you don't believe in. Look at it that way.
oh, I forgot to say this before. Even as a Christian, I believe you should live life to the full- and love everyone. don't waste your time hating things/people.
-
Originally posted by icespeed
And everyone's a special case. You're judged on whether you've been told about the gospel and believe/ don't believe; whether someone's told you about it at all; on your morals and values and stuff if no one's told you anything about it.
hell is for everyone who does not believe that Jesus saved them by dying on the cross, because that's like rejecting the gift God gave us of life. By rights, everyone should be in hell. Those who believe that Jesus saved us, go to heaven. After all, you can't be saved by something you don't believe in. Look at it that way.
But if I don't believe in it, how can I be punished by 'it'? And why should I be punished by it, if I don't believe in all the sin stuff? No wait, let me guess, it's a sin not to believe in original sin and Jesus' death for our sins. :doubt:
-
well, its like this. If you don't believe in something, that doesn't mean it doesnt exist, does it? like covering your eyes with your hands and not seeing... i dunno, a house or something, that doesnt mean the house doesnt exist, does it?
like the future. something that you dont believe ever could happen- your parents die or something- might happen.
you can be punished by something that you dont believe in.
but you cant be saved by something you dont believe in. being saved requires faith- like how sick people need to be determined and believe they'll live, and they have a better chance of surviving.
im no good at explaining things. but that's about the best i can do.
-
After reading through this thread about 3 times, I'd say my opinions most match wEvil way back on page 4.
I've grown out of the church, but I don't rely on math or logic, I don't get that. I just try to get by with myself. But I still have a healthy respect for the church (most of the time :doubt:) If a religion is preaching love and peace and hope, why argue against it? Long live freedom and damn the ideologies.
Oh, and this is probably one of the least-flaming and calm "religion" topics I've ever seen. :yes:
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
The 10 commandments set out how we should live our lives, if everyone followed them, the world would be a good place indeed.
Yeah right! Have you even read them in an analytical way? "Thou shat not worship any god but me." - Ahh, so we all have to worship the judeo/Christian god now?
"Thou shall not murder" - Notice the word murder, turn a couple of pages and I'm sure I'll be able to find a quote where the bible instructs people to stone others to death for a ridiculously silly thing. Obviously if nobody murdered anyone the world would be a better place.
"Thou shall not steal" - Fair enough.
"Thou shall not commit adultery" - This is an interesting one, whilst cheating on your spouse causes considerable distress should it be up there with Murder? Plus it's another instance of sexual repression at the hands of Judeo Christianity, forcing its followers to only have one partner at a time throughout their whole lives. Again, explain to me why having multiple partners is wrong without using a Jewish/Christian/Islamic text.
"Thou shall not make any graven images of anything on earth or in heaven" - That one has just banned all forms of artwork. Can you say Taliban?
"You shall not take the name of your Lord in vain" Well If you believe in that sort of thing I guess disobeying the above is a bit like hoax calls to the fire brigade but if you dont......
"You shall remember and keep the Sabbath day holy" - Thank you for being responsible for making sure that I can't get groceries on a Sunday. It's fine if you believe it, a pain in the ass if you don't. Working on a Sunday, you may be surprised to know, is not the root of the world's problems :rolleyes:
"Honor your father and mother" Fair enough.
"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor" Fair enough.
You shall not covet your neighbor's goods. You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his bull, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's." This is an interesting one. Depending on who you interpret as your neighbor determines the usefullness of this one.
That's four out of ten.
-
Note: In response to IceSpeed's last post.
No, it makes sense. I just think it's the most tyrannical thing I've ever heard. :no:
Perhaps I can better explain myself by stating how I believe religions (and if there were Gods, then Gods) exist. They exist on faith. God 'exists' because people believe it exists. If nobody believed that God existed, it would cease to exist as a concept or a physical being. Thus by refusing to accept God, I am eliminating its influence upon me, and my influence upon it.
-
Originally posted by icespeed
oh yes, and about gen eng:
it's probably okay up until the point you start cloning people. that'w when you're playing god, which no one can. cloning- who knows if we got the animals right, the brains and mind and everything? and the animals had problems with cancer and arthritis and dying at an early age, anyway. Dolly did, I think.
The problems with Dolly I beleive have been identified, although lobby activity prevents further concrete progress.
more to follow later
-
Originally posted by icespeed
well, its like this. If you don't believe in something, that doesn't mean it doesnt exist, does it? like covering your eyes with your hands and not seeing... i dunno, a house or something, that doesnt mean the house doesnt exist, does it?
Try turning that around on yourself.
Originally posted by icespeed like how sick people need to be determined and believe they'll live, and they have a better chance of surviving.
http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=placebo but of course you have to be ill to be cured and I am not. Predicted Response: "But you're a sinner" - No I'm not. There is NO proof of any religion, it revolves around faith, the renouncement of reason. If a god exists (which I very much doubt) then let him tell me what he wants me to do, not you. The bible is not accurate and contradicts itself thousands of times. For this to de inspired by an Omniscient god is Laughable.
-
dude, don't take the commandments in the wrong way.
1. you don't _have_ to worship the christian/judeo god. but if you don't, you go to hell. :)
2. murder in cold blood. killing people for things like sexual immorality and stuff, i think, is reasonable.
4. monogamy is good because it doesn't muck around with your emotions so much... (and cos of all the stuff people said before, about the reducing of STD's and stuff.)
5. It means don't make idols. Don't make statues or paintiings or whatever and worship them.
6. basically, don't swear. that's a good one- don't be offensive to people.
7. everyone needs a rest every now and then, you know. he's just making it more organised.
10. everyone's your neighbour. you shouldn't want other people's stuff. that wastes time envying and being nasty to people, when you could be nice and loving to people.
-
everyone's a sinner. don't tell me you've never lied.
if you're a sinner, you need to be cured.
there has to be a god. the universe doesn't exist by chance.
and for those of you thinking, where did god come from, he didn't. he was just there. all the time. and will be.
-
Originally posted by icespeed
you need to be cured
Question: How?
This is probably one of the main things that puzzles/annoys me about the "maintstream" religions. Not adhearing to their rule immediatly makes you a sinner who needs to be cleansed or shall go to hell or another similar fate for all eternity.
And many religions can't decide on what is considered a hell-worthy trespass and what is acceptable. Meat used to forbidden on certain days and now it isn't. Is this because the old way was wrong or because people started leaving that faith due to the annoying restrictions?
And all this is just a small portion of my view on modern religion.
-
Oh dear, oh dear... :rolleyes:
Originally posted by icespeed
1. you don't _have_ to worship the christian/judeo god. but if you don't, you go to hell. :)
Oh, what a choice that is! Truly, God is merciful and great! I'm so happy that I have such a wide range of similarly appealing choices!
2. murder in cold blood. killing people for things like sexual immorality and stuff, i think, is reasonable.[/b]
WHAT!?!?![/i]
Define what cold blood is, for a start. Second, why the hell is it reasonable to kill someone for sexual misdemeamours and not manslaughter, environmental destruction, etc?
7. everyone needs a rest every now and then, you know. he's just making it more organised.[/b]
And why should God have to choose when I rest? Does he know me better than I do (don't answer that)? What if I don't want to rest on the Sabbath, but another day? And how does this fit with modern society, when my employer forces me to work Sundays and I have to work there to buy food?
The basic fact is the Commandments are backward, contradictory and more than a little ridiculous, if you ask me. Whilst I admire the sentiment of peace, love and understanding, and always try to do that myself, they're hardly the best method for getting the point across any more.
-
As far as i'm concerned the only "sin", or the worst possible thing you can do is something that hurts another sentient (or even non-sentient) being.
There is no excuse for harmful behaviour. I'd like to be able to practise the level of tolerance to others that I aspire to, but when people act irresponsibly and with intent to harm, they void their right to a good existance. Call me a moron but I actually beleive in Karma.
In terms of an afterlife, one of my few firm beleifs is that if you go to hell it will only be self-inflicted. Nobody knows you better than you do, after all, therefore nobody is better qualified to "judge" how to live your life.
On the same point though, is it really that important for a judgement? I don't beleive it is. The popular myth about an all-powerful being seems to have been fabricated out of the human need to know ones-self.
As far as i'm concerned, you're here to learn and experience from the persepective of a human living on earth at this moment in history...where you go after you evolve I don't have a clue - should be interesting at any rate.
-
this is really quick cos i hve to go, but:
thunder: cure is by believing jesus can save you- you can't do it yourself. no one can.
kellan: i think you're just being contradictory just for the hell of it.
but i don't have time to say why, cos i am seriously getting kicked off here.
so, see you guys tomorrow if i can.
love always god bless
icespeed
-
Originally posted by icespeed
everyone's a sinner. don't tell me you've never lied.
if you're a sinner, you need to be cured.
there has to be a god. the universe doesn't exist by chance.
and for those of you thinking, where did god come from, he didn't. he was just there. all the time. and will be.
What if a lie protects people from a greater lie, or a greater pain? Is it justified in that case?
In addition, I am once again being asked to believe here that there is a magical being up in the sky, who just IS, without any kind of proof. And if I don't believe in that, I get sent to hell.
You could say it's a matter of faith, really... :p
-
[q]Dammit, we'll sin if we want![/q]
-
Originally posted by icespeed murder in cold blood. killing people for things like sexual immorality and stuff, i think, is reasonable.
Well, thank you for giving me the response I predicted, it only furthers my point. Sex is a bodily function, like eating, sleeping etc. You can not rationally attribute sinfullness to it without renouncing your reason and having literal faith in a book that contradicts itself over a hundered times. Think for yourself for a second (if you haven't forgotten how to). If there was a big man in the sky that made the world and wanted everyone to worship him then why would he tell everyone to in the Bible, (a book made up of ancient scriptures that have been cut up, stuck back together and twisted to an extent wehere they're no longer reliable) as opposed to making his existence known and giving us clear instructions on how to live.
Originally posted by icespeed everyone's your neighbour. you shouldn't want other people's stuff. that wastes time envying and being nasty to people, when you could be nice and loving to people.
So why don't you practice what wou preach and stop saying we'll all go to hell Predicted Response: Because I'm doing you a favour. It all boils down to faith again, it means nothing. Faith is believing the unbelievable.
-
Originally posted by icespeed
kellan: i think you're just being contradictory just for the hell of it.
but i don't have time to say why, cos i am seriously getting kicked off here.
Icespeed: I believe that one of the routes to a greater understanding is by constantly questioning what is around you. Perhaps then you can wring some answers from it. If those answers make sense and you agree, fine - you've found one more bit of the greater understanding. If not, discard whatever it was.
I'm questioning the Commandments becuase these questions need to be asked. I don't understand - or agree with - your reasoning, but if you explain I might a little more.
And it's not me who's contradictory, it's the Commandments. :p
-
Hmm, I think there's potential to go off topic here - lets try and avoid that because this is looking kinda interesting right now.
When I say off topic I mean discussion wether murder for whatever reason is wrong and wether that should be applied to those who destroy the planet with pollution and so on. That's a whole new topic in it's own.
I've always felt that murder for whatever reason is wrong. However I do believe that those with life sentences in prison should be given the option of a fast death via drugs or whatever. Infact I think this is the only time that murder might be an acceptable thing - but at that it's more of an assisted suicide than a murder.
My point here is that killing, war, murder are all pointless. It's argued that it's necessary but this is simply not the case. No amount of religous sanction can make that ok in my view - especially since those being killed are most likely not of the same religion as those doing the killing.
The upshot of this is that most religious laws are not needed, confine mankind and prevent improvement of society. However people still kill in the name of religion... this seems somewhat ironic to me.
On the other hand many religions carry with them some basic guidelines of what is good and bad, but these are simple moral agreements between most people and are most likely only included in religion to make them appear more accessable. The fact that Christianity wrote these into it's story in the form of the commandments seems quiet amazing to me and I'm suprised more people don't think that it was simply done to try and copyright the idea of these morals.
-
Your choice of words;
"copyright the idea of these morals" is very interesting to me as that seems to be what most of western culture has evolved into.
We are very obsessed these days with owning ideas (the current state of third world countries due to recent WIPO legislation is a good example of this) now that most people can get whatever material possessions they require.
If anything we are 'stripmining' creative people and creative concepts and pulping them for all they are worth.
I know again this is falling slightly off topic but one of the reasons I'm taking part in this conversation is because i'm proud of what, in my opinion, is a fairly unique and for me, correct viewpoint of my reality.
Now, am I proud of it because its' simply different, or because it happens to fit my observational research?
Am I still being influenced by "copyrightmania", trying to find a concept to call my own, or am I just being progressive in my thinking?
Is your religion nothing more than an extension of how you're feeling most of your life?
-
Originally posted by Thunder
When I say off topic I mean discussion wether murder for whatever reason is wrong and wether that should be applied to those who destroy the planet with pollution and so on. That's a whole new topic in it's own.
Agreed.
Is that a sanction for me to do so? ;7
-
I agree wEvil, that's how it seems to be. There are of course exceptions - but in these times this act of copyrighting everything is becoming more and more prominant.
Kellan - if you want to start that kinda topic thats fine by me. So far we're just having healthy discussion. As long as it's stays that way and everyone's happy then it's fine by me :)
-
Originally posted by Thunder
Kellan - if you want to start that kinda topic thats fine by me. So far we're just having healthy discussion. As long as it's stays that way and everyone's happy then it's fine by me :)
And I shall propagate this healthy discussion onto other threads, about other things. And now I will return to the topic. :)
-
Originally posted by icespeed
there has to be a god. the universe doesn't exist by chance.
Why not?
Religion has always been used to explain what simple, primitive minds couldn't grasp. God made the sun rise and fall. God made the seasons. God made rain and lightning. God made people get sick. God made people get healthy. Blah blah etc etc.
Why do you think religions are historically so anti-science? Because they like their control, and the more science explains, the less need there is for a made-up god.
Another cause for the popularity of religion is that people like to think they're right, and religious faith is the ultimate non-disprovable "right".
-
Which sort of leads to the next major battle/question. Science Versus Religion. You might wonder where the question comes - I'll tell you:
Lets assume for a second that the Big Bang happened. That's how it was, there was a lot of something and it exploded which formed the Universe.
The question is - how did that get there? Was there a start to the Universe? How did it come to be, and if the Big Bang occured - not only how did that happen but how did what was before it happen? To this people still look to the Un-caused causer. God. But maybe they're wrong.
Also, what if there is more than one god? What if these gods don't have ultimate power but affect a certain aspect of reality. One might make the stars or the planets and another might make the trees the way they are.
That might seem a fantastic - even unbelievable notion. But it's just as likely as one individual creator. One God.
-
Has anyone got that Occam's Razor gif?
-
Originally posted by Thunder
Lets assume for a second that the Big Bang happened. That's how it was, there was a lot of something and it exploded which formed the Universe.
The question is - how did that get there? Was there a start to the Universe? How did it come to be, and if the Big Bang occured - not only how did that happen but how did what was before it happen?
The latest theory on this is that a cyclic universe may be possible (Imagine an oscillating field of energy). It's still very controversial but here's the link:
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/cosmology-02c.html
-
Personally I subscribe to M theory more - but they still haven't gotten it to work so there must be something wrong somewhere.
Hrrm...builds on string and M theory.
Interesting.
Hey shrike - it even gives you an excuse for gridfire!
But why only 2 braneworlds? I still don't get why the theory can't be articulated in the full ten dimensions, or rather why it isn't articulated.
Then again, I barely understand supersymmetry etc.
(btw - instead of just two branes why couldnt there be a more or less infinate stack of these sheets? it kindof explains why gravity is such a mysterious force, if it propagates not only in the hypothetical 2-d of the brane but also in the Z axis up through the braneStack)
-
OT again... :rolleyes:
-
Well, you have to expect a little OT from someone so egocentric that they put their computer specs in their sig.
-
well...something that soaked up that[/i[ amount of my overdraft deserves to be mentioned :D
-
Originally posted by icespeed
...the universe doesn't exist by chance.
This is a perfect example of what I was saying last night.
A primitive attempt of the human mind to explain to itself what it does not and cannot know.
-
The principle by which I try to live my life is the empathetic principle. Basically, it says "act as you would wish to be acted upon". Thus, if you don't want to be murdered, don't murder. If you don't want to be lied to, don't lie.
It is of course very much like the "do unto others as you would have done unto yourself" bit out of the Bible. However, that single sentence can sum up an entire ideal for living without the other baggage that comes along with religion. It should also supercede any other points about the inferiority of other groups/religions, etc.
So basically, if I abide by that I could, in theory, live a perfectly 'moral' life, discounting sins and so on. And as sandwich pointed out, though I make no provision for the afterlife in that mantra, I don't have to, because I don't believe in it. :D
-
Or - dont have to worry about it.
a good afterlife, like a good life, isn't something you store credits up for. Its how you choose to live it. I might be in the afterlife now from..somewhere else. I'm living it this way, when I leave and go onto the next phase, i'll live it a different way.
It seems quite rational to me, at least.
-
ok ok there is only one way to prove this. *grabs wEvil by the neck and strangles starts strangling him* Hey. It might work. :D
Oh Kellan on the hell thing. There are different portrayments of hell.
1. The whole burn burn get eaten by maggots one.
2. The whole when you die you just cease to exist.
:)
-
Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
ok ok there is only one way to prove this. *grabs wEvil by the neck and strangles starts strangling him* Hey. It might work. :D
Wow...telescopic arms
you just cease to exist.
:)
A little like living in england then. ;)
Only you know what you hate the most, therefore any vision you have of hell is possibly self-imposed.
-
Originally posted by wEvil
Only you know what you hate the most, therefore any vision you have of hell is possibly self-imposed.
Hell is Room 101, then.
-
or a club selling vodka exclusively and playing garage the whole time. and the only cigs in the fag machine would be marlbloro lights. eurgh.
*shivers*
-
Originally posted by wEvil
or a club selling vodka exclusively and playing garage the whole time. and the only cigs in the fag machine would be marlbloro lights. eurgh.
*shivers*
:shaking:
Arrrgh. :blah:
At least you might meet some interesting people in hell. Lots of people have sinned in order to advance civilisation and civil rights.
-
Originally posted by Kellan
At least you might meet some interesting people in hell. Lots of people have sinned in order to advance civilisation and civil rights.
Hehe, playing poker with Hitler, Ghengis Khan and Princess Diana. That'd be fun. "A flush beats two pairs you bastard! AAARRRGGHHH!!".
-
Originally posted by an0n
Hehe, playing poker with Hitler, Ghengis Khan and Princess Diana. That'd be fun. "A flush beats two pairs you bastard! AAARRRGGHHH!!".
So long as it wasn't strip poker.
MMkay..
*gets out a large metal rod and levers topic back onto the rails*
Where were we?
-
There are Philosophersthat belived Heaven and Hell are made by the people who inhabit them. For example Heaven is filled full of nice people that are nice to each other and hell is filled full of nasty people that aren't nice to each other
-
And so it ends(topic closure due to excessive spamming). You were at Science Vs Religion.
-
Top Gun raises a point - nobody really knows what hell is. People can imagine all kinds of horrible things but untill someone actually comes back from hell with a full holiday brochure on the place I don't (personally) think religion has a leg to stand on when it comes to threatening people with hell if they don't comply to that religion.
This is evident since in old times hell was the number one selling point for joining the same religion as everyone else. Now people are more thoughtful on the matter and so religion has had to change to suit the times.
Any religion that claims it's always been right shouldn't have to change to suit society. If it's so great then society will change to suit it.
-
In past times the religion was the society. It's an interesting trend that maybe they are splitting off, devolving into seperate entities?
At the end of the day the debate has been pickled to death and everyone gets caught in their own logic traps.
Still...I'd rather count myself among more open-minded people, if just for the flexilibity such a state provides. I can live without stability.
-
Since the previvous thread discussing horoscopes was locked i'll post it here, which is still relevant as it was once a religious thing,
You do realise the ppl what write them go to a place where they learn of how to write them and in the program i watched they actually found the fact ppl believed in them very funny. I read one telling me about marriage difficulties etc, even though im 15. The only way they work to an extent is in magazines, where they know the audience will have similar interests and use that to their advantage. The fact that life all over the world is vastly different culturally means that people born on the same day will be totally different in every respect. While one may be enjoying good luck one week, another may be starving from a lack of food.
-
Thats just it - I'm starting to realise that it's better just to have your own set of morals and - if you want - to believe in a god like figure. You really don't need a story or belief structure to go with it. As long as you can be a decent human being and if you need to, have something to believe in and fall back on you should be ok. If everyone was that way then yes the questions would still be there but at least humanity would be less likely to kill itself off over an un-seen creator.
-
When i was younger i thought the lord was an alien, who created life on this world and guided it and gave us a set of morals to follow in an attempt to shape us into a better race.
-
Thats just it though - that's perfectly acceptable. It achieves everything a religion goes for without you having to adhere to the word of anyone else.
-
The Catholic Church was still allowed to function. Hitler and the Pope signed a Concordat which basically said Hitler would not interfere with the Catholic Church as a whole, but was free to punish individual dissident members. In exchange, the Pope would not criticise the Nazi government - and in the south of Germany, where the population is (or was) almost entirely Catholic, that carried a lot of weight in legitimacy.
If I remember correctly, I think that the churches did function independently, but the preachers were only allowed to spread the Nazi doctrines instead of their normal stuff. One of the great mysteries of history there is why the people in the mainstream did not speak against again this; I think I had to do with the centuries of cultural influence pointing towards certain ideas. (irrevocably "ingraining" ideas into the minds of the people, just like religion) For example, if Hitler had tried to do the same thing in the US, there is no way it would have worked.
"Thou shall not murder" - Notice the word murder, turn a couple of pages and I'm sure I'll be able to find a quote where the bible instructs people to stone others to death for a ridiculously silly thing. Obviously if nobody murdered anyone the world would be a better place.
LOL that's the bible for you... :p :D
that'w when you're playing god, which no one can
This is what I am talking about: I expect another conflict between science and religion to surface as soon as cloning becomes more mainstream. And also, humans have already "played god" by generating life; so much for that. :p In this battle between science and religion, well, we all know who would win there, even if it does not come to violence.
There is NO proof of any religion, it revolves around faith, the renouncement of reason. If a god exists (which I very much doubt) then let him tell me what he wants me to do, not you. The bible is not accurate and contradicts itself thousands of times. For this to de inspired by an Omniscient god is Laughable.
I fully agree there. :yes: :yes:
1. you don't _have_ to worship the christian/judeo god. but if you don't, you go to hell.
Some famous guy (can't recall the name at the moment) once said "I want to go to hell, because all the other intelligent people who refused to believe this nonsense would be there." I agree with him on that point; it would be nice to see what hell is like out of scientific curiosity.
he was just there. all the time. and will be.
The same can be said about the universe without the inclusion of god. :rolleyes: :p
Religion has always been used to explain what simple, primitive minds couldn't grasp. God made the sun rise and fall. God made the seasons. God made rain and lightning. God made people get sick. God made people get healthy. Blah blah etc etc.
Why do you think religions are historically so anti-science? Because they like their control, and the more science explains, the less need there is for a made-up god.
I am in complete agreement here. The second purpose of religion was just to explain science in a way that would be simple and appealing to the ignorant masses. The average stupid person will of course go for the religion instead of the science because it is simple and they understand it, despite all the contradictions and irrationality. As a man of science, this is why I really detest religion.
The latest theory on this is that a cyclic universe may be possible (Imagine an oscillating field of energy). It's still very controversial but here's the link:
This is basically the one I am going for from the current evidence (the transfinite time-based universes), although I think that one version of this requires a second and/or third time dimension. The other idea here is that the big bang was indeed set in motion by a random particle movement, since it has been shown that two identical particles can be generated from "nothingness."
-
Your horoscopes' only as good as the astrologer interpreting signals for you - it will never be as accurate as you working it out yourself, pretty simple.
Either way, it might all be rubbish, it might not. It's something I found works for me personally - hold me in contempt for that, I don't care.
As thunder said - I do not like the idea of a seen or unseen control mechanism. I can handle the fact you may be influenced by factors beyond your control, but a concerted effort would always allow you to do what you damn well please. It just makes me feel more comfortable, to a degree, that I may be able to predict how people act.
It's a security blanket, nothing more, nothing less.
-
Originally posted by wEvil
It's a security blanket, nothing more, nothing less.
Mmm... to most people. But to those with influence it's untold power - more than any government.
-
Exactly - Because nobody is apparently being forced to do anything.
It's like pre-cognitive mind-control. Not that i'd admit to participating in something like that because I'd get very rapidly bored if everyone did what I expected them to the whole time.
Which they do...Most of the time - not all of it though.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
If I remember correctly, I think that the churches did function independently, but the preachers were only allowed to spread the Nazi doctrines instead of their normal stuff. One of the great mysteries of history there is why the people in the mainstream did not speak against again this; I think I had to do with the centuries of cultural influence pointing towards certain ideas. (irrevocably "ingraining" ideas into the minds of the people, just like religion) For example, if Hitler had tried to do the same thing in the US, there is no way it would have worked.
Don't kid yourself. With complete control of all media forms (considerably easier back then) and no alternative viewpoints, people could be subverted relatively easily, no matter where. Look at Milgram's experiments based on conformity to authority figures - Americans scored the same as Germans.
Now I agree that Nazi propaganda was especially effective when reinforcing existing beliefs, such as equating Judaism with capitalism or Communism (both, actually) but that was a widely-held belief almost everywhere in Europe and elsewhere around the world.
In addition, America has it's own set of ugly little prejudices that could be played upon with ease.
-
Ever wonder why dealing with humans on a nation-state level is so terribly depressing?
No, its not a rhetorical question. I'm actually interested in exploring this peculiar little fact.
-
Don't kid yourself. With complete control of all media forms (considerably easier back then) and no alternative viewpoints, people could be subverted relatively easily, no matter where. Look at Milgram's experiments based on conformity to authority figures - Americans scored the same as Germans.
Now I agree that Nazi propaganda was especially effective when reinforcing existing beliefs, such as equating Judaism with capitalism or Communism (both, actually) but that was a widely-held belief almost everywhere in Europe and elsewhere around the world.
I have not heard of the experiments you speak of, but cultural influences, especially around that period of history, would point completely against it. (remember that the US was founded on freedom and other moral ideals, while Germany was only held together by conquest and force for many years) There was this whole "total obedience to authority" thing that had been put into the people's minds over the years through culture almost like a religion, along with the fact that the German war machine had been badly defeated in WW1 and worse, humiliated and dishonored, after being used to centuries of victorious battles. The average German at that time was not nearly as much of a "freedom lover" as the average American (again, stemming back to that cultural thing); they just wanted to get their jobs back (although the US wasn't doing too well, Germany was much worse off) and also get revenge at their conquerors, and Hitler promised both.
Ever wonder why dealing with humans on a nation-state level is so terribly depressing?
Hey, I agree with that. Seeing the current trends, however, the nation-based system should collapse in a millennium or two, with only three or so major blocks, eventually combining into one block, economically speaking. (the EU is the first major political move towards this) So much for nationalism. :p
-
Nationalism is a petty, silly thing. To suggest that I have something in common with people based purely on geographical location and (formerly) race is nonsense. They're created basically to give legitimacy to rulers who wanted control of a large economic area. The price you pay is nationalism and the ridiculous idea that slights against your nation are like personal attacks.
Milgram's experiments (1963) have little relevance to the manner in which America was founded. Basically an 'experimenter' who looked like a scientist told a participant to administer successively greater electric shocks to another person based on their inability to answer word association questions correctly. With minor encouragement, most participants delivered voltages high enough to kill the person (who wasn't actually being shocked, of course). :p
The experiment was carried out in Stanford. It has been repeated all over the globe with generally similar results. In addition, other authority figures have been used, all of which work. It appears to show that everyone in all (Western) nations is conditioned from an early age to be obedient to an authority they perceive as legitimate. All you have to do to get public conformity and acceptance is appear to be legitimate as an authority.
Oh, and about your comments on America: remember that America was also founded as a slave state, and continued to be a slave state for many years after most European countries ceased to do so. In addition, from what I've seen Americans are some of the least freedom loving (yeah, they love their own freedom to do what they want but this comes at the expense of other peoples' freedom) and most conformist society on Earth.
Where was the criticism of American foreign policy after September 11th, for example?
-
Well, remember that we are talking about 70 years into the future since then. There was little resistance to US foreign policy recently because violent revenge is exactly what the majority of people wanted, even they weren't sure of the specifics of what exactly happened. (an attack on the homeland tends to stir up pro-war sentiments, just as it did in Germany after the defeat of WW1) As you said, the US was a slave state (unless you mean racial slavery and not political "slavery"), but one that broke away and formed an independent nation, and so the original people valued their freedom even more. Due to cultural inertia, this lived on for some decades after that. Today, of course, people are not all that patriotic or anything with all the culutural changes, but I think that things were a bit different about 70 years ago. That's an interesting experiment, though; I need to look around for more details on that. ;)
Nationalism is a petty, silly thing. To suggest that I have something in common with people based purely on geographical location and (formerly) race is nonsense. They're created basically to give legitimacy to rulers who wanted control of a large economic area. The price you pay is nationalism and the ridiculous idea that slights against your nation are like personal attacks.
Again, I fully agree there. Nationalism is almost like religion in that way; very stupid and irrational, but widespread nevertheless. :p
-
Originally posted by Kellan
Nationalism is a petty, silly thing. To suggest that I have something in common with people based purely on geographical location and (formerly) race is nonsense. They're created basically to give legitimacy to rulers who wanted control of a large economic area. The price you pay is nationalism and the ridiculous idea that slights against your nation are like personal attacks.
Well you do, British people share a common heritage and culture. Live in denial if you want.
-
Heritage? British nationalism has forgotten it's heritage. This is going wildly off topic but our nationalism is now controlled by the media. We hate who we are told to hate and those we look up to are not the Queen or Prime Minister but David and Victoria Beckham. No doubt David may be a good football player and whilst I don't like Victorias singing many do - but should they be our national symbols? No. But they are because by being so the media and major corporations can make millions.
Nationalism is now a lost cause - I dispise it in it's current form and am wary of those who support it because of what that tells me about them.
In many ways this can be joined to modern religions. They change to suit society in the hope of gaining more followers and in spreading thier power. But this is not the power of a god but the power of a few men who carry out acts in the name of that god. Wether god exists or not is immaterial because he is no longer the focus of religions - control over others is.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Well you do, British people share a common heritage and culture. Live in denial if you want.
We only share a common heritage as a result of geographical location though. And besides, I don't agree with some of our heritage. Like Margaret Thatcher. :p
And CP, I was referring to racial slavery - abolished before 1830 in Britain, and a source of tension between the two nations for many years afterwards because British naval vessels used to stop and search - and impound - slave ships.
Minor point that Germany itself was never physically attacked, but the deaths of a million soldiers are something of a proxy for that. :D I know that the majority of the public wanted violent retribution immediately, but it's not just the role of the media to represent public opinion. Maybe it wasn't the right time to ask about foreign policy issues, but someone has to broach the issue at some point.
-
Kellan, I am an American and I agree with every word you just said.
-
Originally posted by Thunder
Nationalism is now a lost cause - I dispise it in it's current form and am wary of those who support it because of what that tells me about them.
I would much rather have this frothy, inconsequntial nationalism than the arrogant, superior, racist and expansionary nationalism that existed until 60 years ago, if I had to make a choice. :blah:
-
Originally posted by Thunder
Heritage? British nationalism has forgotten it's heritage. This is going wildly off topic but our nationalism is now controlled by the media. We hate who we are told to hate and those we look up to are not the Queen or Prime Minister but David and Victoria Beckham. No doubt David may be a good football player and whilst I don't like Victorias singing many do - but should they be our national symbols? No. But they are because by being so the media and major corporations can make millions.
Nationalism is now a lost cause - I dispise it in it's current form and am wary of those who support it because of what that tells me about them.
Thats not nationalism. They arent national symbols IMO.
-
Kellan - I agree, but with a different view of sorts. I don't think we need nationalism. Yes we can celibrate a countries achievements and feel good about living there, but there is no need to give it a name and sell it to the masses. Look back at nationalism - first it caused conflict in the form you said was bad, and now the media uses it to control the masses who know no better than what they're told. If there was a sudden massive drive by the media against the French then most would hate the French on that basis alone.
The upshot? Celibrate our achievments, our history and our culture. But don't package it and ship it to control people. This is something both Nationalism and Religion has in common.
Zeronet - They may not be to you, but you may be amongst those with a mind of his own. Look in any newspaper and you'll see a different story. If they weren't national symbols then they wouldn't feature so highly in every form of media this country has.
-
Originally posted by killadonuts
Kellan, I am an American and I agree with every word you just said.
Thank you...As you can probably tell, I am not, but I'm honoured to be able to...erm...talk the same language, so to speak. ;)
-
Originally posted by Thunder
Zeronet - They may not be to you, but you may be amongst those with a mind of his own. Look in any newspaper and you'll see a different story. If they weren't national symbols then they wouldn't feature so highly in every form of media this country has.
Pick up a red-top like The Sun and see just how far nationalist sterotypes of foreign people go (try looking at the football section as an example). It's virulent.
-
Thats my point though - nationality is no longer something I consider worth thinking of, it's a control.
-
Agreed. :)
-
Going onto Europe (it was a natural progression). I remain skeptical about the EU. This is not due to nationalism but due to the fact that I have yet to be convinved that it's anywhere near as democratic as the system we've got in the UK. The EUCD is a prime example of this. Whilst the EU may have brought us many benefits, wildly signing powers over to it without even thinking about the consequenses (just who's going to be making the decisions about our future) should not be encouraged.
-
Im not a Anti-Euro, im Pro-Britain :D.
-
Originally posted by Top Gun
Going onto Europe (it was a natural progression). I remain skeptical about the EU. This is not due to nationalism but due to the fact that I have yet to be convinved that it's anywhere near as democratic as the system we've got in the UK. The EUCD is a prime example of this. Whilst the EU may have brought us many benefits, wildly signing powers over to it without even thinking about the consequenses (just who's going to be making the decisions about our future) should not be encouraged.
I agree that the EU needs a major overhaul before it can be considered as a democratic alternative to national governments. It's also too bureaucratic, and a lot of money slips through the cracks because of this.
However, I don't oppose it in principle. Supranational government would be a good way of stamping out some nationalistic urges, as long as it doesn't turn into a meritocratic government of elites. Which would be bad, but would also be the tendency in a governmental area with a population greater than the US and scattered across land and sea.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Im not a Anti-Euro, im Pro-Britian :D.
Where is this 'Britian'? :D
The Euro is a fine idea that will save money on exchanges, give us greater pan-European price transparency, and encourage free trade between member states. However, we would lose control of monetary policy to the ECB...
-
Originally posted by Kellan
Nationalism is a petty, silly thing. To suggest that I have something in common with people based purely on geographical location and (formerly) race is nonsense. They're created basically to give legitimacy to rulers who wanted control of a large economic area. The price you pay is nationalism and the ridiculous idea that slights against your nation are like personal attacks.
Agreed.
It appears to show that everyone in all[/u] (Western) nations is conditioned from an early age to be obedient to an authority they perceive as legitimate. All you have to do to get public conformity and acceptance is appear to be legitimate as an authority.
Look at that again and think.
Oh, and about the slavery thing. The American Civil War wasn't about slavery until Lincoln made it that way. It was more about sectionalism and states' rights. Note "Confederate".
-
Originally posted by Kellan
Where is this 'Britian'? :D
The Euro is a fine idea that will save money on exchanges, give us greater pan-European price transparency, and encourage free trade between member states. However, we would lose control of monetary policy to the ECB...
Boo!Hisss! The Euro is a foolish idea that will tie our interest rates with Europes and cause untold damage.
-
Why is it that Jesus and God (I am a Christian) names always get used in vain? You don't say, "Oh my Mohmad (or Allah)!" or " 'whatever diety'!" Your taking their names in vain proves that they exist because all the others aren't worth cursing by!
More later.
-
First of all, I want to say that I am a Christian and I believe in the one true God.
Christianity is not a religion. It's a Person. Catholicism, Buddhism, and the like are religions. Becoming a Christian means you've asked Jesus, God's only Son, to come into your heart, to forgive you for all your sins and to save your soul. It's about having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. We are born with a sin-nature. Because of that we are cut off from God. But he sent his only Son, Jesus Christ, to die on the cross to take away our sins. He fills the gap betwen us and God.
Christianity is not about religion but about a relationship. There are (for example) Catholics who are Christians and there are Baptists who aren't Christians. When it comes down to the brass tacks, religion is irrelevant. I could get into the doctrinal issues about why I disagree with the Catholic religion (like how they worship Mary, the mother of Jesus; she was only human so worshipping her is worshipping a false idol) and other religions but that doesn't matter. All that really matters is you having a personal connection with God. The only way to achieve that gap is through Jesus Christ. There is some debate it to whether Jesus is God. He is. He is God the Son, part of the divine Trinity (God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit). They are three and one, all at the same time. When Jesus came into this world in human form, he became fully human but he was also fully God at the same time. Regardless, Christians should not worship Jesus. We are to pray to the Lord our God in the name of Jesus Christ since he's our connection to God the Father.
Now I'm no preacher and I'm not trying to start a flame war. I can't make you believe what I believe. It's your choice. This is simply my attempt to express my beliefs and help you understand why I believe in them. If you want to know more, feel free to email me (flaming via email is not appreciated). Let me just close with this final thought. If there is no God, then you have nothing to worry about. But if there is a God and you don't accept him, you're out of luck when your life ends. There is a heaven and a hell. If you have Jesus in your heart, then you'll go straight to heaven the instant you die. If you don't, then you go to hell, no and's if's, or but's about it. My question is are you willing to take that risk?
Best wishes,
ivorycruncher
-
yes! yes! Become states just like us!!!!!!!! muhhahahahahaha!!!!
The only problem I have with is this wave of people that try not to be trendy and anti-government because they have made it too trendy. "Yea! We like Weezer!!!" Stuff like that gets on my nerves. Same with liberals(no pun intended:p).
I am from the South(of the US that is). The majority is conservative, and don't like people to tell us what to do. Unlike most people think, we are far from stupid racist with missing teeth(however some do have missing teeth). My main problem is with those liberal SOBs from up somewhere in New York or some other little piss ant of a state that trys to tell us what to do.
Before 9/11, 9 out of every 10 flags you seen on the back of a car or truck were CSA flags and not US ones. Wonder why? You might think it is because we want slavery? Well no, most of us don't want slavery, but we don't want to be pushed around specially by a liberal media and government. Think about it. Even though slavery is wrong, it is the fact that the anti-slavery movment sparked rapidly in the North and not in the South because there wasn't much need for people to work farms and bussinesses, and using immagrants to do you work is not much better than slavery when you give them two cents a day.
It was the fact that somebody from some place we have never been to is trying to tell us what to do(sounds familiar doesn't), and that is why the American Civil War started(and the fact they thought is would destroy the economy of the South, but the Jim Crowe Laws helped ease that).
Whatever happened to "Do your part to make a better society?"
Where did this "Do what you want, not what civilization needs" come from?
And why is this "Live life fast and furious" the main attitude of today?
Because it doesn't matter what you believe will happen to you. If you think by not doing what society expects from you you are going to make a difference or change, well sorry to burst your bubble but you're not going to do ****.
I'm not saying conform, but do things that reflect good judgment upon yourself so that your children(if you have any) and the people around you will respect you.
Ok, I talked into a circle and didn't say much but oh well. My brain has to personality that confuse my writing.
;7
-
here here Ivorycrucher
-
Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
I am from the South(of the US that is). The majority is conservative, and don't like people to tell us what to do. Unlike most people think, we are far from stupid racist with missing teeth(however some do have missing teeth). My main problem is with those liberal SOBs from up somewhere in New York or some other little piss ant of a state that trys to tell us what to do.
First of all, I do not like being called a liberal SOB just because I'm from New England and live a half hour from New York. Second of all, who made any generalization against Southerners that they are racist?
Just because I am liberal....well, actually since I can't vote yet I guess I don't really count do I? But anyway, not everybody tries to push the South around. Maybe some politicians do, but that doesn't mean you can generalize about the whole Northeast. And we aren't all small "piss ant" states. Just most of us. Like Connecticut where I live. We have 5 representatives in Congress! (I think anyway). Five! How do we push you around with five representatives? Huh? Also, how do you make the generalization that all of us are liberal? Just explain that to me and I'll be satisfied...
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
Why is it that Jesus and God (I am a Christian) names always get used in vain? You don't say, "Oh my Mohmad (or Allah)!" or " 'whatever diety'!" Your taking their names in vain proves that they exist because all the others aren't worth cursing by!
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Kudos!
-
Originally posted by Alikchi
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Kudos!
LMAO, I agree! :nod::lol: (I hope it was a joke)
-
Originally posted by Corsair
[BHuh? Also, how do you make the generalization that all of us are liberal? [/B]
I didn't generalize all of the North East as liberals. Just a majority except New Hampshire.
-
Originally posted by Kellan
Nationalism is a petty, silly thing. To suggest that I have something in common with people based purely on geographical location and (formerly) race is nonsense.
I would dispute this. Common geography gives you a common language, culture, and possibly even psychological makeup with your neighbors. Modern technology has diminished this, but in the past it was significant. Nationalism also confers a survival advantage... by calling on it a nation can be motivated to band together in defense against hostile nations. Again, modern life has mitigated this need somewhat.
For all their flaws, I'd rather be ruled by a nation than by a corporation, which seems to be the only alternative so far.
-
Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
I didn't generalize all of the North East as liberals. Just a majority except New Hampshire.
Being in the Northeast, I thank you for that generous compliment. :D
-
Originally posted by Alikchi
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Kudos!
Then try this on for size. How come Christians always get picked on? The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) kicks and screams at little things like kids having a Bible study after school on the school grounds. It's not being taught in school and attendance isn't required yet it's supposedly illegal. What happened to free speech? Now if somebody wanted to have a Buddhist meeting or something like that it wouldn't be a problem at all. They're scared of Christianity because they know it's the one faith that has something to it. It's the Truth and they're scared of the Truth.
And btw, while we're on the subject, let's talk about separation of church and state. What exactly does that mean? A lot less than what you think it does. It simply means that the government can't tell you what religion you have to participate in and also that a church can't have a direct influence on the decisions of the government. The common misconception is that no government official can let his religious beliefs affect his decisions of his job and (even more connonly) that nobody can even pray quietly at school. As for prayer, I again bring up the free speech issue. Also, in case you didn't know (lots of people don't), the separation of church and state thing isn't part of our constitution or bill of rights or any of our actual laws. The phrase was in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson (our country's third president) and it's been taken completely out of context. Well, enough said.
-
You know, I can remember a time when this sort of topic would NOT have made me instantly fall asleep.
Do any of you really think you're convincing anyone else of anything? 'Cos you'er not, just like in any 'issues' topic you're not. This one didn't even turn up in a nice tasty flame war; it's just a bunch of people stating and restating your own opinions, and trying to appear terribly clever.
If, given the futility of attempting to convert someone to one's own ideas, you ask why I even posted this here- it's 'cause I'm bored, practically everything else interesting online is down, and my thesis paper is taking friggin' FOREVER to print.
-
Do any of you really think you're convincing anyone else of anything?
Nah, we're just defending our own ideas. :D Using Planck's rule along with the rules of resistance to change and that of simplicity, it can be seen that it is almost impossible to "convince" the popular masses of anything unless the ideas are very simple and therefore appealing; they don't need to be logical or anything. Besides, this is fun, and I am going to have to do this later in my life, anyway, so I better get some practice. :p :D
Anyway, regarding nationalism, I think it is a foolish idea in any form. Nationalism can be defined as a love for country for no particular reason, and the flaws begin to show up right there; nothing of this sort should ever be done for no reason. The future lies in the realm of science and technology, which has nothing to do with grouping people by location (on which nationalism is based), but rather ideas, and nationalism tends to skew these ideas so that they fit location, essentially decreasing the objective thinking potential of the society as a whole. The only real advantage I can see is that it allows for quick rallying of the ignorant mobs in times of war, but wars will soon be fought with technology alone rather than people.
On the liberal/conservative debate, the whole idea behind civilization is for all participants to forsake certain freedoms to make life easier for everyone. Also, the chief principle behind conservatism is resistance to change (note the name), which is the main reason for the problems seen in humanity today. I would say that communism is the ultimate system here, as it can be thought of as the pinnacle of government systems if only these variables are accounted for, but as history has shown, it has other problems that do not allow it to be easily lent to the workings of the people. I value personal freedom just as much as anyone else but only because it allows for diversity of thought and the emergence of new ideas; the common people will cling to their old ideas due to the rules states earlier, but the intellectuals will still be able to progress and lead the entire society. Personally, I think that state governments should just be abolished and become direct subsidiaries of the national government; the federal government system works quite well, but all the state ones have done is caused trouble and stalled progress in the past. The other key thing is that it should be a crime to bribe any government official with money or otherwise try to change their views by these kinds of means; money is why the big corporations have their lead today in their say in government affairs, and without this they would not be able to compete in such ways.
They're scared of Christianity because they know it's the one faith that has something to it. It's the Truth and they're scared of the Truth.
Sorry, but this is one of the silliest statements I have heard in this thread; it is narrow-minded and has absolutely no rational backing behind it. What if I just said that my ideas are the absolute truth and everything else is wrong, my reason being because I said so? :p
-
Lets save nationalism for another topic if we can please ;)
CP has a point regarding the above Truth statement. Also, Don't try using Pascals wager (you've got more to loose by not worshipping than by worshipping since you go to hell if you don't so it's better to worship and take the chance that god exists). It initially seems a good idea but as near as I can tell it's one more method of control - clever logic used to sheppard people into following one religion.
-
For example, if Hitler had tried to do the same thing in the US, there is no way it would have worked.
You'ld be surprised what people will do. If you saw a group of people beating up one other person would you attempt to intervine? As much as it shames me to say this, I probably wouldn't.
The same thing happen in Germany in the 1930's, people did not want to risk themselves. These were not 'evil' people, I'm sure many of them were people you would feel better for knowing, its just people do not like sticking there head above the parapit. The same could happen, with the right circumstances, to any other 'democratic' country
-
Wow - this topic escaped me for long enough, but no more, I say! Muhahaha.... :D
And before I go on, let me apologize for dredging up some earlier parts in this topic, some of which may have been subsequently answered, but there's a lot I want to comment on. I'm also gonna have to split it up into a couple of posts...
NOTES: I left off on page 4, in case you were wondering...
Originally posted by Kellan
As far as Christ-killing goes, if you look at the Bible, there are certain sections (eg. where Pontius Pilate asks if the Jews want Jesus, as a Jew, back - and they say no) that can be interpreted as pointing the finger of blame for Jesus' death at the Jews. I'm not saying I believe it, or you believe it, but some people believe it - or rather, use it as a conveniently-interpreted excuse for prejudice and discrimination.
Interpreted, yes. And it’s a shame that those people who use that passage of the New Testament to argue one way ignore other passages, such as Matthew 16:21-23: From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day.
Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, "Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!"
But He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men."
Or Matthew 26:52-56, Jesus addresses Peter after Peter cut off the ear of one of those who came to arrest Jesus for trial:
But Jesus said to him, "Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels? How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?"
In that hour Jesus said to the multitudes, "Have you come out, as against a robber, with swords and clubs to take Me? I sat daily with you, teaching in the temple, and you did not seize Me. But all this was done that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled."
Then all the disciples forsook Him and fled.
Last quote, and the most relevant: John 10:15-18:
"As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.
"Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father."
Originally posted by Kellan
Finally, I firmly believe that by subscribing to the idea of a 'Jewish race' people are falling into a Nazi trap - a throwback from the Third Reich. It was the Nazis who really pushed the idea that Judaism wasn't a religion, it was a race wth defining genetic and physical characteristics. However, this is clearly false: I can convert to Judaism, for example, but I cannot 'become' black. :p
Actualy this is a point that had had me confused for a while. You see, my father is Jewish but my mother isn't. So, according to the Bible, which goes according to the father, I am Jewish. But according to the State of Israel, which goes according to the mother (for pre-DNA testing reasons, such as the identity of the mother being positively establishable), I'm not. On my Israeli ID card, the nationality says "American". Other options for that slot are Jewish, Arab, French, etc.
Anyway, it turns out that there are two meanings, interconnected to each other, to the word "Jewish". One is racial, having "Jewish genes" (the same kind of thing as being Irish or Morrocan). The other is your chosen religion, of Judaisim. Now, the funny thing is that one can convert to Judaisim, religiously, and he/she will be counted as being Jewish, racially. Their children will have at least that parent as Jewish.
So you see, the religious aspect of one's "Jewishness" prevails over the physical aspect when the two conflict.
Originally posted by Top Gun
We can't see him, we can't communicate with him (prayer doesn't get a response) but we know that when we die we'll be warped in to see him provided we've obeyed a tyrancial religious leader.
No, we can't see Him anymore than we can see someone's spirit.
Uhm... prayer does get a response. The problem lies with the fact that many people refuse to take no for an answer.
Tyrannical religious leader? Who, the Pope? No offense to the various Catholics here, but the Pope no more dictates my relationship with God than the man in the moon does. The only physical thing/person I place myself completely subject to is the Bible. I respect my pastors highly (my dad is one, actually), but if it ever came to a situation where they were contradicting the Bible in what they taught or preached... the choice would hurt, but it woudn't be hard.
Originally posted by Wildfire
Oh, before I start the name "God" is a generic term in this post.
Why do people always blame God for war, pain, suffering when it should be obvious that the cause of it all is ourselves. We have been given (or developed) the ability to make our own choices no matter what excuses we come up with.
That makes us immediately responsible for every decision we take every second of our lives and it is an arrogant notion to expect God to come and clean up our mess as it were.
If God were to come sweeping down and remove all the problems we ourselves have caused then He/She/It would have destroyed the very thing that seperates us from every other animal on the Earth, our ability to choose. We would become pets, only allowed to do this and do that.
I'm a Roman cathloic, but over the years I have developed my own personal belief that doesn't really follow the bible or the workings of the church.
Basically it boils down to this...
We have been given the ability to make our own choices, to carve out our own destiny.
It doesn't matter what religion you come from (its just a different story about the same person) or even if you believe in a God. As long as you try to do what YOU believe is right (not what others tell you is right) and are prepared to face the consequences of your choices willingly (for good or bad).
That is enough.
I agree with the first half of what you wrote, but the second half sounds exactly like the creed of the New Age movement: "Do what thou wilt." *concerned look*
Originally posted by Kellan
Come to think of it, why do you have to earn a place in heaven?
Heaven is not the goal of believing - it's the reward. When you run a race, the goal is to finish first. The reward is the umpteen-million waiting for winner. But in running that race, you have to follow the rules that have been set out. Otherwise, even if you reach the finish line first, you'll be disqualified.
Originally posted by CP5670
What "miracles" and "healings?" There is no credible evidence for these. Also, there is still the unanswerable question: how did this god come into existence? :D
What miracles? My best friend has personally seen God heal people whose legs were not of equal length. He saw the short leg grow out to equal the longer one before his eyes.
The human brain finds it hard to concieve of ultimate expressions of the fourth dimension (time). Try to actually envision existing forever. *ALERT - BRAIN OVERLOAD!* :)
Same thing with God - He always was.
Originally posted by Kellan
Blaming the Germans specifically is dangerous - it denies the possibility that the same thing could happen anywhere, at any time, again.
Agreed. And to those who are willing to open their eyes and see what's going on around them, they can see that it's happening again, especially - although not exclusively - in Europe. Now. :(
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
Doesn't anyone find it strange that some horrifically bad events in history have been carried out in the name of religion and in the extreme reverse you have acts of astounding compassion occuring for the same cause?
Strange? No. Not when you realize that there is truth and deception. No one believes that he believes a lie. Everyone believes that their way is the truth, the only way. And when these ways contradict one another, it's obvious that one of those sides is correct as far as truth goes, and the others are decieved.
There's also the problem of those who are one the "right" "side", but act in contradiction to that truth. Take for example the Crussdes, which pretty much completely went against what Jesus taught, yet were done in the name of Christianity.
Originally posted by Kellan
It is however ruined by those who don't get the central message...
Amen.
Originally posted by YodaSean
Existance is futile :D
LOL!!!
Originally posted by wEvil
But the current organisation of everything means that I can't do this. The pressure is there to earn money and spend it, not in the persuit of fulfillment evolving spiritually, intelectually or in any other way, but just for the sake of it. It's turning into a kind of sick circus scenario where nobody really feels anything they're doing - you're just going through the motions because you have to. I mean...its not like you have an alternative way to live anymore, is it?
You've articulated the exact way I feel about living in the western world (incl. Europe...) as opposed to life here in Israel. My dad describes it like this: "In the US you live 9 hours a day, 5 days a week. In Israel you live 24/7." I prefer it here. :)
Originally posted by Top Gun
We musn't forget that the gospels were written over sixty years after his death and records in those times were patch at best. They may also have succumbed to outside influences like the reformist attitudes of St Paul. Also note that the "Approved version" of the bible was a cut and paste job of various scriptures put together by the Catholics a long time after Jesus died. A lot of what was in the scriptures was manipulated to fulfill the profecy of scriptures beforehand so the Bible's historical credibility is not good. That's not to say it isn't good for cultural and/or anthropological research but it's certainly not concrete fact.
Actually, I forget who it was, Pontius Pilate or Herod, but one of them did not exist in any historical evidence for a long time. The only thing to point to his existance waas the biblical record. Eventually his name was uncovered in a carving or something documenting a transaction, if I'm not mistaken - I probably am. But the point is that until that discovered, the only proof of his very existance was the Bible.
-
Originally posted by nuclear1
I'm a Christian (Lutheran denomination) and a firm believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. This thread is purely upsetting.
Better watch where you go with religion and people's lives. :nervous:
BOB OF NAZARETH ????!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?
ARRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH! :mad::mad:
:snipe:
Why does this thread upset you? Have you been isolated from society so much so that you didn't know that there are people such as our fellow forumites that don't believe in anything religious? I disagree with alot of things people say here, but that's no reason to explode at them. :blah:
Originally posted by Kellan
Really? Hmm, interesting. I'd always considered it a manufacture of Nazi propaganda. The only thing that I am wondering is if it's the whole "Irish people tend to have orange hair" type thing - thus they are a 'race'. Although you could say that they're racially Celtic.
As I said up above, it's like the Irish thingy. :)
Originally posted by Kellan
And yes, 5 million non-Jews were annihilated alongside them during the Holocaust, bringing the death toll to about 11 million. However, that pales when compared to 26-50 million Russian losses... :eek:
But the Russian losses were in battle, no? The 6 million Jews and 5 million non-Jews was manslaughter. Not that on life is more precious than another, it's just the circumstances of death.
Originally posted by Kellan
Why do I have to be tortured in Christian hell because I refuse to believe in a Christian God? :doubt: I mean, it's an interesting theological question - what happens to people who don't believe? Is it just 'bad Christians' in hell, or does everyone who isn't either good or Christian end up there?
It's not a "Christian" hell anymore than the shoes I wear are "Christian" shoes (New Balance). My shoes exist, they're real. So is hell, no matter whether you're Christian or Bhuddist or Agnostic.
-
Originally posted by Thunder
Lets save nationalism for another topic if we can please ;)
:nod: *points to thread title* :D
Originally posted by Thunder CP has a point regarding the above Truth statement. Also, Don't try using Pascals wager (you've got more to loose by not worshipping than by worshipping since you go to hell if you don't so it's better to worship and take the chance that god exists). It initially seems a good idea but as near as I can tell it's one more method of control - clever logic used to sheppard people into following one religion.
Ok, realize that what I'm going to say now is not solely my own opinion, it is the truth (before you flame me, read what I'm going to say) :
Christians like IvoryCruncher and myself are rational beings, who have seen enough evidence, mainly through personal revelations, to convince us that Jesus is Lord. We believe that wholeheartedly. We also believe that acceptance of Jesus' self-sacrifice on the cross is the only way to recieve eternal life.
We also happen to care for everyone here. We honestly do want the best for you - really! :) So put the two together, and realize why we are saying what we say. It will be a very...unpleasant situation when we're in heaven and someone else, whom we knew on earth, is in hell, asking "Why didn't you tell me?! Why!?!" Well, we are - it's fully your choice from here. Either way, I still love you guys (don't take that the wrong way... ;) )
Personally speaking now, I'll never try to force my faith on anyone. The closest I'll come to that is trying to force that person to understand what I believe and why.
-
What miracles? My best friend has personally seen God heal people whose legs were not of equal length. He saw the short leg grow out to equal the longer one before his eyes.
The human brain finds it hard to concieve of ultimate expressions of the fourth dimension (time). Try to actually envision existing forever. *ALERT - BRAIN OVERLOAD!*
Same thing with God - He always was. :)
Well, that's not really credible evidence, as I said earlier; more general proof is needed before accepting this. :p (effect should be reproducible by anyone else under similar conditions) Also, an antimatter leg material portion would have to produced somewhere in reality as well so that the first law of thermodynamics is not violated. Besides, it is not hard at all to envision n-dimensions (including non-integer dimensions) or transfinite periods of time if you use math only and forget about common sense. (which is how the universe works) As I have said before, it could be just as easily said that the material universe "always was." :p
Uhm... prayer does get a response. The problem lies with the fact that many people refuse to take no for an answer.
If this god has human-like ambitions and picks favorites according to who prays more/better, he isn't much better than a human. :p
You'ld be surprised what people will do. If you saw a group of people beating up one other person would you attempt to intervine? As much as it shames me to say this, I probably wouldn't.
Actually I wouldn't either, since I am no fighter and wouldn't have much to gain in such a situation. ;)
The same thing happen in Germany in the 1930's, people did not want to risk themselves. These were not 'evil' people, I'm sure many of them were people you would feel better for knowing, its just people do not like sticking there head above the parapit. The same could happen, with the right circumstances, to any other 'democratic' country
It was true that they did not want to put themselves at risk, but going by the accepted cultural philosophy around that time, the state came before the person, and individuals should be readily willing to give up their lives in the interests of the state (Hitler re-emphasized this but it was very prevalent even before him). However, as I said earlier, most people were quite happy with what the new regime (after 1933) was doing in Germany (again, cultural influence), whereas the majority of people were not loyal to the Weimar Republic government (which was democratic) because it accepted the Versailles treaty and the nation was not economically thriving under it.
-
Originally posted by sandwich
Uhm... prayer does get a response. The problem lies with the fact that many people refuse to take no for an answer.
Are you joking or serious here? Are you saying, "God answers all prayers... but the answer is always NO."? Because if a God existed, that's the only probable scenario.
What miracles? My best friend has personally seen God heal people whose legs were not of equal length. He saw the short leg grow out to equal the longer one before his eyes.
Then your friend is lying, or was tricked. Isn't it curious that all these supposed faith healings NEVER EVER occur in front of credible witnesses or recording devices?
And to those observing that noone in this thread is going to convince anyone to change their mind... sadly true. Belief in a God is faith... and "faith", by definition, is belief without evidence (and belief without evidence can be argued as a form of gullibility or insanity, but that's another topic...).
-
Then your friend is lying, or was tricked. Isn't it curious that all these supposed faith healings NEVER EVER occur in front of credible witnesses or recording devices?
And to those observing that noone in this thread is going to convince anyone to change their mind... sadly true. Belief in a God is faith... and "faith", by definition, is belief without evidence (and belief without evidence can be argued as a form of gullibility or insanity, but that's another topic...).
LOL! :D :D No offense meant to anyone, but I found the later part of that really funny... :D (I agree with all of it)
Planck's rule applies once again here. ;) Also, as Goebbels' law has shown, it is quite easy to trick someone into believing just about anything.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Well, that's not really credible evidence, as I said earlier; more general proof is needed before accepting this. :p (effect should be reproducible by anyone else under similar conditions...
First of all, it ain't a scientific experiment we're talking about here. Believe me when I say that I like science just as much as the next guy - I'm a sci-fi book addict - but you need to chill with the mindset you seem to be stuck in sometimes... no offense, dude. :)
Reproducability.... well, if God was in for making a scientific experiment out of it, reproducability wouldn't be a problem. But realize that the person was healed by God's power, not by some person. So hey, if you can manage to convince God to make an experiment out of His miracles, fine by me. Especially since I personally believe that He does not break the physical laws of the universe in anything He does - but that's just my belief. (Example: I "believe in" the Big Bang, but I believe that it was God who did it. :D )
Originally posted by CP5670
If this god has human-like ambitions and picks favorites according to who prays more/better, he isn't much better than a human. :p
Well then we're all very blessed not to have a God who has Human-like ambitions, aren't we? He actually does play favorites in a sense, according to the Bible. It says that the Jews are the "apple of God's eye". What does that mean? Well, draw the parallel yourself. If someone pokes you in the apple of your eye (your pupil, FYI), it is, at the very least, an annoyance that you will do something to get rid of, quickly. Also, your view of things is through the apple of your eye. God sees the world through how they treat Israel, or more specifically, the Jews. There's no two ways about it - the Bible makes that very clear.
So back to the prayer thing... God has a plan for this world. He has His perfect will, and He has things which He will allow to happen, even though they may not be ideal (and often are extremely far away from ideal). And of course, there are things which He will absolutely not allow. Examples? He won't allow the Jews to be wiped out. Period. They are His chosen people.
He will, and does, allow people to sin. Yes, Christians too.
And His perfect will? That's a harder one. *thinks* Well, I'm trying to avoid the semi-cliche "anything He says He will do in the Bible" response, although it is as accurate as they get. *thinks some more*
I honestly don't know what to say for this one. I could say something like "for everyone to love Him and believe in Him", but I know that His Word has already said that that will not happen, and so He would not will for His Word to be contradicted. Hmmm... The ony thing I can say with asurety is that His perfect will in my life is for me to follow Him with all my heart.
I try. :)
Originally posted by ZylonBane
Are you joking or serious here? Are you saying, "God answers all prayers... but the answer is always NO."? Because if a God existed, that's the only probable scenario.
What miracles? My best friend has personally seen God heal people whose legs were not of equal length. He saw the short leg grow out to equal the longer one before his eyes.
Then your friend is lying, or was tricked. Isn't it curious that all these supposed faith healings NEVER EVER occur in front of credible witnesses or recording devices?
First of all, I was serious (aren't I always serious? :p), but I wasn't clear appearently. I didn't mean to say that the answer is always no - far from it. But some people seem to have the mindset of "If I pray for something, God has to do it/cause it to happen", which is wrong. If I pray for God to give me (ther eterlan example among Christian circles...) a pink cadiallac and He doesn't, does that mean that He didn't answer my prayer? No, it means that I didn't quite pray in line with His will, or not even in line with something He was willing to allow, and He answered with a simple "no."
Define a credible witness. No, wait - lemme define one for you: someone who is not a Christian/believer/whatever, right? Reasonable, I agree that credible witnesses are very important - nowhere more so than in the volatile situation here in Israel (repeat after me: I will not veer off into politics. :D).
Ok, so we're agreed on the need for a credible witness. And I'll assume that you agree on my definition of a credible witness; if you don't, please say so.
Imagine yourself, as you are - atheist, agnostic, whatever, in a "Christian" meeting. You're impartial at best, probably closer to rejection of all the "religious stuff", verging on internal hostility towards it all. But then you see with your own 2 eyes someone get prayed over for an infirmity - not something as questionable as back pains or cancer (you can't see then and there that that person indeed does have that infirmity/sickness). Something like having a shriveled hand, or a short leg, or something of the like. You see that person with his/her unquestionable infirmity. Then you see that infirmity change to wholeness - the hand becomes healthy, or the leg lengthens. Now, would that theoretical situation be what you ask of a credible witness? Again, I'll assume a "yes" - if not, say so.
But, continuing that theoretical situation, what would you be thinking? Would you not believe then and there that that person was healed - truly and miraculously? Could you possibly deny what you just saw - deny your own sight? I think not. So the wuestion now is: Would you then still be counted as a credible witness?
-
God sees the world through how they treat Israel, or more specifically, the Jews. There's no two ways about it - the Bible makes that very clear.
They are His chosen people.
He will, and does, allow people to sin. Yes, Christians too.
You know, this is exactly what Adolf Hitler claimed in 1929 except that Israel would be replaced with Germany and the Bible would be replaced with Mein Kampf. The Aryans are the chosen people of god and the superior race, and the true born leader of the people (i.e. himself) can "sin" all he wants and does not have to be tied down with petty things like morals, while everyone else must follow these things. If your statements there are true, then his must be equally true as well. :p
First of all, it ain't a scientific experiment we're talking about here. Believe me when I say that I like science just as much as the next guy - I'm a sci-fi book addict - but you need to chill with the mindset you seem to be stuck in sometimes... no offense, dude.
Reproducability.... well, if God was in for making a scientific experiment out of it, reproducability wouldn't be a problem. But realize that the person was healed by God's power, not by some person. So hey, if you can manage to convince God to make an experiment out of His miracles, fine by me. Especially since I personally believe that He does not break the physical laws of the universe in anything He does - but that's just my belief. (Example: I "believe in" the Big Bang, but I believe that it was God who did it. :D ) [
Actually, since we think (and argue) by logic, it only makes sense to go logically here. This is a part of the basis behind the first fundamental assumption of my ideas. According to logic and its "double extension," science, none of that stuff can be taken seriously without additional evidence since it is all based on faith, or in other words, gullibility and irrationality, two traits inherent in the common human mind. :p (don't mean to offend anyone, but this is an argument after all :D)
Well then we're all very blessed not to have a God who has Human-like ambitions, aren't we?
Not really; just look at the wretched things we have turned into compared to what we could have been. :p (again, think from a purely logical standpoint and not a common sense human standpoint) But if this god has human-like ambitions, then he can be just as easily tricked and subdued as humans can.
God has a plan for this world.
So let's try to go against it just to see how he reacts. (knowledge is worth more than anything by the rule of purpose) This is how experimental science works.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
You know, this is exactly what Adolf Hitler claimed in 1929 except that Israel would be replaced with Germany and the Bible would be replaced with Mein Kampf. The Aryans are the chosen people of god and the superior race, and the true born leader of the people (i.e. himself) can "sin" all he wants and does not have to be tied down with petty things like morals, while everyone else must follow these things. If your statements there are true, then his must be equally true as well. :p
Ok, well here we have a very divided point of view. I believe fully in the Bible. I do not accept Hitler as anything except a human being (I'm talking absolutely here, ultimately he proved himself to be morally quite below the human, or should I say humane, standard). You (appearently) hold Hitler in the same respect as God (which is to say, barely, if at all), and the Bible with Mein Kampf.
Much of my arguments here are based on accepting the Bible as the Word of God, I realize that. I also realize that that's a point of view which is in the minority here.
Originally posted by CP5670
Actually, since we think (and argue) by logic, it only makes sense to go logically here. This is a part of the basis behind the first fundamental assumption of my ideas. According to logic and its "double extension," science, none of that stuff can be taken seriously without additional evidence since it is all based on faith, or in other words, gullibility and irrationality, two traits inherent in the common human mind. :p (don't mean to offend anyone, but this is an argument after all :D)
Ok, I can see your point of view. I guess you're just arguing/speaking from the basis which you both know best and believe - I can't fault you for that; I do the same. :)
Originally posted by CP5670
Not really; just look at the wretched things we have turned into compared to what we could have been. :p (again, think from a purely logical standpoint and not a common sense human standpoint) But if this god has human-like ambitions, then he can be just as easily tricked and subdued as humans can.
Yes, we have turned into wretched things, haven't we? But I think that your definition of how to "fix" this situation is, at the very least, slightly different then mine. :)
Originally posted by CP5670
So let's try to go against it just to see how he reacts. (seriously; knowledge is worth more than anything) This is how experimental science works.
Ok then - this is something that really interests me. I'll leave the "going against" to you, for obvious reasons. But to go against something, don't you need to know exactly what that something is in the first place? No, I'm not trying to trick you into reading the Bible or anything. What I'm getting at is that if you know what God, through the Bible, states as His will, you will see that by and large, the world is already "going against" it with great fervor. Look where it's gotten us. :rolleyes:
-
Okay, I don't have the time to read through all this - can someone summarize it? :D
-
Ok, well here we have a very divided point of view. I believe fully in the Bible. I do not accept Hitler as anything except a human being (I'm talking absolutely here, ultimately he proved himself to be morally quite below the human, or should I say humane, standard). You (appearently) hold Hitler in the same respect as God (which is to say, barely, if at all), and the Bible with Mein Kampf.
Much of my arguments here are based on accepting the Bible as the Word of God, I realize that. I also realize that that's a point of view which is in the minority here.
Okay, sounds cool, but that's not really an argument there, is it? :p Therefore, for the purposes of this thread Hitler can be said to be just as much a prophet of god (or god himself) as Christ.
Ok then - this is something that really interests me. I'll leave the "going against" to you, for obvious reasons. But to go against something, don't you need to know exactly what that something is in the first place? No, I'm not trying to trick you into reading the Bible or anything. What I'm getting at is that if you know what God, through the Bible, states as His will, you will see that by and large, the world is already "going against" it with great fervor. Look where it's gotten us. :rolleyes
Wait, but didn't you say that the Bible contained what god wanted to see in the future of humanity? And although the world is going against his wishes right now, he doesn't appear to be doing anything, so either he does not care (in which case people can sin all they want) or we are not annoying him enough. Have everyone denounce god as the great satan of humanity and change their mindset to reflect that (an easy task), and see if that gets his attention. :D
Yes, we have turned into wretched things, haven't we? But I think that your definition of how to "fix" this situation is, at the very least, slightly different then mine. :)
Actually, I think I could have rephrased that a bit. We were extremely wretched beings at the beginning, of the same intelligence as the monkeys we evolved from, but over thousands of years we have become much better with the advent of civilization and technology; however, we still have a much longer way to go. ;)
Okay, I don't have the time to read through all this - can someone summarize it? :D
Basically, there is one pro-religion party and one anti-religion party. (you can probably guess which side I am on) Some sub-arguments going on within that as well. (science, history, nationalism, forms of government) To get the details you'll need to read some bits of it. :D
-
Originally posted by Styxx
Okay, I don't have the time to read through all this - can someone summarize it? :D
Some people believe in God, some don't. Neither side will accept they are 'wrong' (naturally) so we're going round in a fairly big circle, though it gets better defined, and more polarised, each time. ;)
-
Originally posted by sandwich
I believe fully in the Bible.
Originally posted by sandwich
Much of my arguments here are based on accepting the Bible as the Word of God, I realize that. I also realize that that's a point of view which is in the minority here.
Interesting, so I take it that you believe that, that all the below is the "word of god". It's amazing how people manage to pick and choose the parts of the bible that are to be obeyed and those that aren't.
Deuteronomy 21:18-21
"If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son. . . bring him out unto the elders of his city. . .And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you. . ."
Psalm 137:9
"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."
Malachi 2:3
"Behold, I will corrupt your seed and spread dung upon your faces."
Deuteronomy 28:53
"And thou shalt eat of the fruit of thine own body, that of thy sons and of thy daughers, which the LORD thy God hath given thee"
-
If that is the "word of god," this god is obviously a pretty stupid person... :p :D (contradictions abound)
-
Originally posted by CP5670
If that is the "word of god," this god is obviously a pretty stupid person... :p :D (contradictions abound)
Can you be any more insultive?
-
Well, it certainly makes a powerful argument at any rate, if that is the best counterstatement. (besides, this thread is for such discussion anyway; my views have taken fire before but I am prepared to defend them to the death unless better ones come up :D)
-
Originally posted by Kellan
Some people believe in God, some don't. Neither side will accept they are 'wrong' (naturally) so we're going round in a fairly big circle, though it gets better defined, and more polarised, each time. ;)
Wheee! Fuuuuun!!
* starts running in circles *
:D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Well, it certainly makes a powerful argument at any rate, if that is the best counterstatement. (besides, this thread is for such discussion anyway; my views have taken fire before but I am prepared to defend them to the death unless better ones come up :D)
No that was out of order, i'd say you flamed everyone who believes in the lord.
-
No that was out of order, i'd say you flamed everyone who believes in the lord.
Really, trying to put up an argument with "I'm offended" is among the worst excuses for any logical discussion; nobody should be truly "offended" by anything, so to speak, and if they are, then they should not participate in such a discussion. For example, when everyone responded to my arguments a few weeks ago with the standard "you're just a kid" response, that could have been as offensive as anything else; I just kept on arguing and put in more points to make my case and refute that bit under everyone got bored of it, and there's no reason why anyone else cannot do the same under similar situations. :p ;)
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Really, trying to put up an argument with "I'm offended" is among the worst excuses for any logical discussion; nobody should be truly "offended" by anything, so to speak, and if they are, then they should not participate in such a discussion. For example, when everyone responded to my arguments a few weeks ago with the standard "you're just a kid" response, that could have been as offensive as anything else; I just kept on arguing and put in more points to make my case and refute that bit under everyone got bored of it, and there's no reason why anyone else cannot do the same under similar situations. :p ;)
Actually it was more like "your not human".
-
That would be a big compliment, actually, considering how stupid humans are... :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Okay, sounds cool, but that's not really an argument there, is it? :p Therefore, for the purposes of this thread Hitler can be said to be just as much a prophet of god (or god himself) as Christ.
No - perhaps for the purposes of your opinion that equation can be made - no further.
Originally posted by CP5670
Wait, but didn't you say that the Bible contained what god wanted to see in the future of humanity? And although the world is going against his wishes right now, he doesn't appear to be doing anything, so either he does not care (in which case people can sin all they want) or we are not annoying him enough. Have everyone denounce god as the great satan of humanity and change their mindset to reflect that (an easy task), and see if that gets his attention. :D
God is far far more active in this world than you think. I'll give you an example of the most "classic" way God is active in the world today: Acts of God, a.k.a. natural disasters. I can't give you the specifics at this very moment, since my dad is the one who's keeping track and he's out for another 2-3 hours or so, but the gist of it is this: When the US in particular or any other nation moves (usually politically) to urge Israel to give away the Land that has been given her to be a steward over (it's God's land, biblically speaking), a natural disaster strikes that nation.
My dad's been following this penomenon for the past 10 years or so, and the "God-incedence" is pretty amazing. No, it's not concrete proof that there is a connection, but the basis for a strong argument is definetly there. I'll post more specific info when he gets home.[/B][/quote]
Originally posted by Top Gun
Interesting, so I take it that you believe that, that all the below is the "word of god". It's amazing how people manage to pick and choose the parts of the bible that are to be obeyed and those that aren't.
Ok, first of all, three of those are taken out of context that makes the meaning clear. :rolleyes: And the one that's left, the first one, is superceeded by Jesus' specific act in the New Testament with the adulterous woman caught in the act, in John 8:3-11:
Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?" This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.
So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first." And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, "Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?"
She said, "No one, Lord."
And Jesus said to her, "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more."
As for the other 3...
Psalm 137:7-9:
Remember, O LORD, against the sons of Edom
The day of Jerusalem,
Who said, "Raze it, raze it,
To its very foundation!"
daughter of Babylon, who are to be destroyed,
Happy the one who repays you as you have served us!
Happy the one who takes and dashes
Your little ones against the rock!
Malachi 2:1-9:
"And now, O priests, this commandment is for you.
If you will not hear,
And if you will not take it to heart,
To give glory to My name,"
Says the LORD of hosts,
"I will send a curse upon you,
And I will curse your blessings.
Yes, I have cursed them already,
Because you do not take it to heart.
"Behold, I will rebuke your descendants
And spread refuse on your faces,
The refuse of your solemn feasts;
And one will take you away with it.
Then you shall know that I have sent this commandment to you,
That My covenant with Levi may continue,"
Says the LORD of hosts.
"My covenant was with him, one of life and peace,
And I gave them to him that he might fear Me;
So he feared Me
And was reverent before My name.
The law of truth was in his mouth,
And injustice was not found on his lips.
He walked with Me in peace and equity,
And turned many away from iniquity.
"For the lips of a priest should keep knowledge,
And people should seek the law from his mouth;
For he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.
But you have departed from the way;
You have caused many to stumble at the law.
You have corrupted the covenant of Levi,"
Says the LORD of hosts.
"Therefore I also have made you contemptible and base
Before all the people,
Because you have not kept My ways
But have shown partiality in the law."
Dealing with traitorous/corrupt priests. (Note: Levi was the priestly tribe, as well as the name of the first "member", as it were.)
And lastly, Deuteronomy 28:53. You can read the whole chapter here (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=DEUT+28&language=english&version=NKJV&showfn=on&showxref=on) - it's a long one. Basically, the whole section is dealing with the curses of disobediance, as shown in verse 15: "But it shall come to pass, if you do not obey the voice of the LORD your God, to observe carefully all His commandments and His statutes which I command you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you:", after which follows a very lengthy list of what God will do to those who disobey Him.
Gosh, reading that chapter again makes me ever the more thankful for the sacrifice of Jesus, so that we now live by grace and not by law. :) (No, that doesn't mean we break the law... :rolleyes: ).
-
This is getting interesting now... :D
No - perhaps for the purposes of your opinion that equation can be made - no further.
Are we assuming an absolute or perceptive truth here? By the first rule of problem-solving, the absolute one should be taken into account first because using the perceptive one, more than one independent thinking unit will not progress anywhere, rendering civilization useless. Going by the absolute truth, that statement makes no sense, since with the given variables, it violates the transitive property of quantities. :p But if we are using a perceptive one, nothing can be proved outside an independent thinker and any attempts to do so are meaningless.
God is far far more active in this world than you think. I'll give you an example of the most "classic" way God is active in the world today: Acts of God, a.k.a. natural disasters. I can't give you the specifics at this very moment, since my dad is the one who's keeping track and he's out for another 2-3 hours or so, but the gist of it is this: When the US in particular or any other nation moves (usually politically) to urge Israel to give away the Land that has been given her to be a steward over (it's God's land, biblically speaking), a natural disaster strikes that nation.
Actually natural disasters in the world are common enough for just about any country to say this if they keep a very close watch of what is happening. Again, the effect should be reproducible under similar controlled conditions by anyone else. Also, since this god is so powerful, why does he feel the need to remain in secrecy by using only natural disasters (which do not appear to be made by a god) and not simply killing off all the offenders instantly by using some uh...special god powers? Besides, we will reach a point sometime in the next 200 or so years where natural disasters will not be able to harm us at all, so what would happen then?
And lastly, Deuteronomy 28:53. You can read the whole chapter here - it's a long one. Basically, the whole section is dealing with the curses of disobediance, as shown in verse 15: "But it shall come to pass, if you do not obey the voice of the LORD your God, to observe carefully all His commandments and His statutes which I command you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you:", after which follows a very lengthy list of what God will do to those who disobey Him.
As I said before, it is worth experiencing all of that for the sake of knowledge - to find out what exactly happens.
I'll wait for some other guys from the non-religious party to back me up on this one. :D
-
alright this thread is finaly sterting to get the right atitude,
pages of quotes
pages of bible pasages
all in single posts
yes the time soon shal come
-
Posts with real CONTENT, right? ;) :D
BTW I am used to quarreling vehemently on this subject; have had to do that many times before in my life. :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
That would be a big compliment, actually, considering how stupid humans are... :D
Hm, can you think of anything smarter than humans? :p
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Posts with real CONTENT, right? ;) :D
Indeed. Just not the right kind of content...
-
And yes, I'm kinda derailing this, but the discussion is pointless. Now please someone try to prove me that the way that I perceive the green color is the way that everyone else perceives the green color. Or any other color, for that matter.
-
come on, you're saying that paragraphs upon paragraphs of this stuff is not CONTENT? :D This is the best topic in existence for an argument! :D
And yes, I'm kinda derailing this, but the discussion is pointless. Now please someone try to prove me that the way that I perceive the green color is the way that everyone else perceives the green color. Or any other color, for that matter.
That is actually mathematically impossible without taking any starting assumptions. :p (first fundamental rule and assumption) Without that assumption, I could say that 1+1=3 and I would be right as far as that goes. :D
-
This is so 0wned is not even funny.
*waits for Thunder*
-
Religion threads... oh well. It's good that I haven't posted more to this thread. I'm sure I miss nothing. :rolleyes: :D
Originally posted by CP5670
1+1=3
:blah:
-
Religion threads... oh well. It's good that I haven't posted more to this thread. I'm sure I miss nothing. :rolleyes: :D
Nah, this has to be one of the most interesting and enjoyable thread discussions ever on HLP. :D
:blah:
Okay, prove to me that 1+1=2. :D (this has actually been done by techniques in number theory, but only as far as an absolute reality goes ;))
-
Originally posted by CP5670
come on, you're saying that paragraphs upon paragraphs of this stuff is not CONTENT? :D This is the best topic in existence for an argument! :D
Hm, as I said, it is content, just not the right type of content. ;)
Originally posted by CP5670
That is actually mathematically impossible without taking any starting assumptions. :p (first fundamental rule and assumption) Without that assumption, I could say that 1+1=3 and I would be right as far as that goes. :D
And that's exactly my point if you didn't notice it. Sandwich starts from the assumption that his faith is irrevocable proof that God exists, the same way that you assume that 1+1=2 is the basis for your whole knowledge of mathematics. You're as much right as he is, inside your very own frame of reference, and for each of you it is impossible to admit otherwise.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Okay, prove to me that 1+1=2. :D (this has actually been done by techniques in number theory, but only as far as an absolute reality goes ;))
1+1=2
There, easy.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Okay, prove to me that 1+1=2. :D (this has actually been done by techniques in number theory, but only as far as an absolute reality goes ;))
That's an abstract concept. What semantic value does "1" have? What semantic value does "2" have? And "+" and "="? It all comes to representations of a simple observation of reality - the same thing that Sandwich is doing. The thing is - your perception of reality is different than his, and therefore no common answer can be found.
-
And that's exactly my point if you didn't notice it. Sandwich starts from the assumption that his faith is irrevocable proof that God exists, the same way that you assume that 1+1=2 is the basis for your whole knowledge of mathematics. You're as much right as he is, inside your very own frame of reference, and for each of you it is impossible to admit otherwise.
Actually, 1+1=2 isn't the basis there, but rather the rules of logic; I could give you a more detailed explanation a bit later, but I am a bit tired now. :p :D
But this stems back to that discussion we had a few months ago; absolute truth must be analyzed before perceptive truth if we are to progress because our society is made up of more than one thinking unit. (first problem-solving rule applied to the first fundamental rule gives the first fundamental assumption ;))
1+1=2
There, easy.
But I can disprove that:
1+1=3
so ha! :D :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Actually, 1+1=2 isn't the basis there, but rather the rules of logic; I could give you a more detailed explanation a bit later, but I am a bit tired now. :p :D
Read my comment again. And then prove me that, if 1+1 wasn't necessarily equals 2, the whole of mathematics wouldn't crumble rather noisily. You're working on bastract concepts manipulated by abstract rules, based on simple observations of reality. Change the perception of said reality, concepts will have different semantic values and the whole ruleset becomes useless.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
1+1=3
And I thought you were good on maths... :doubt: ;)
-
Looks like we are back to that old argument again... :D
As I said before, nothing can be proved if we are going by the perceptive truth, not even the existence of a perceptive truth. That is part of the first fundamental rule. I go by an absolute truth in everyday life because civilization could not form or stay together without assuming an absolute truth of some sort, at least until everything in the absolute truth has been analyzed. We can then deal with the perceptive truth. (first problem-solving rule)
But since we are now going by a perceptive truth here, this is my best argument: I am right and everyone else is wrong! I am the god! Everyone else is stupid! :D :D This cannot be disproved of course, so concepts of right and wrong have no meaning anymore, so ha! ;7 :D
-
You might not know, but any and all truths are derived from perceptive knowledge. You may try to mask it some way or another, but that's the inescapable truth.
Sucks, eh? :p
-
You might not know, but any and all truths are derived from perceptive knowledge. You may try to mask it some way or another, but that's the inescapable truth.
Sucks, eh? :p
um...read my post again; that's part of what the first fundamental rule says. :p :D Also, there is no "inescapable truth," because there is no truth in the first place. See the paradox here? ;) :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
But since we are now going by a perceptive truth here, this is my best argument: I am right and everyone else is wrong! I am the god! Everyone else is stupid! :D :D This cannot be disproved of course, so concepts of right and wrong have no meaning anymore, so ha! ;7 :D
Exacly... inside your own little world, that can perfectly be true. It's sad, though, to see you think that way. Some nice guys in white are coming over to take you to a nice, padded room... :D
-
Actually I don't really think that way (I hope you got the joke there :D), but even if I did, who would be to say whether I was right or wrong? :p
-
Ah, you still didn't show me anything smarter than humans... :D
-
eh? :wtf: That was not my objective in the first place... :p
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Actually I don't really think that way (I hope you got the joke there :D), but even if I did, who would be to say whether I was right or wrong? :p
And that's my point! Under your own frame of reference, you could be right (as it is that you believe you're right thinking the way you do right now), but under the frame of reference of any other observer, you might not be right. And that's why this whole "God exists?" argument is pointless!!
Got it this time? :p
-
Originally posted by CP5670
eh? :wtf: That was not my objective in the first place... :p
Well, you said that humans are stupid, therefore, you - being a part of the category "human" - are stupid too. Don't be too harsh on yourself. :D
-
But that is what the first fundamental assumption is for! I can't wait until I formalize my ideas and publish them; then you may see what I am really talking about here... :D
Well, you said that humans are stupid, therefore, you - being a part of the category "human" - are stupid too. Don't be too harsh on yourself. :D
Actually, when I meant humans, I am thinking of it from a sociological perspective: humanity, not humans. Humans are all of different intelligence, but the average is relatively mediocre. :p Of course I am stupid in many ways too, but better than the average. :p
-
Tell me one absolute truth, then. :)
-
Originally posted by Styxx
Got it this time? :p
We'll see... I highly doubt. :D:p
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Actually, when I meant humans, I am thinking of it from a sociologicaly perspective: humanity, not humans. Humans are all of different intelligence, but the average is relatively mediocre. :p
Nope, your post clearly stated (semantic simplification): "Humans are stupid". That means the same as "Every element of the category 'humans' is stupid". :p
(edit: Category, not set. Sets are flawed constructs)
-
Tell me one absolute truth, then. :)
According to the first fundamental rule, this is impossible. :p There is no such thing as an absolute truth or a perceptive truth as seen from an absolute view. :D
Nope, your post clearly stated (semantic simplification): "Humans are stupid". That means the same as "Every element of the set 'humans' is stupid". :p
Well, you're just twisting words now. I should have probably said that humanity and not humans are stupid, but that is irrelevant now. :p
-
Originally posted by CP5670
According to the first fundamental rule, this is impossible. :p There is no such thing as an absolute truth or a perceptive truth and seen from an absolute view. :D
Which means that...
Talking about absolute truths is pointless!
Ta-da! There, got it this time? :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Well, you're just twisting words now. I should have probably said that humanity and not humans are stupid, but that is irrelevant now. :p
Yeah, I'm messing with you. That's what I have been doing all along...
-
Which means that...
Talking about absolute truths is pointless!
Ta-da! There, got it this time? :D
Nah, not yet. :D Since this cannot be proved, everything has a point and everything is pointless as well, and I think this fun; use that rule again. :p
Yeah, I'm messing with you. That's what I have been doing all along...
Don't worry; I am used to this, having done it my whole life. :D
-
Right, I forgot - we'd have to prove the meaning of "pointless"... ;)
-
Pronunciation: 'point-l&s
Function: adjective
Date: 1582
1 : devoid of meaning : SENSELESS
2 : devoid of effectiveness : FLAT
- point·less·ly adverb
- point·less·ness noun
Well that didn't help much... :p
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Don't worry; I am used to this, having done it my whole life. :D
Er, people have been messing with you your whole life, then? Sucks to be you. :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Well that didn't help much... :p
Indeed, now we'll have to prove the meaning of all those words... :D
-
Er, people have been messing with you your whole life, then? Sucks to be you. :D
LOL of course; when you have radical-sounding opinions on everything, that's what happens. It's become a daily routine now, though. :D
-
Nah, your opinions are not radical. They're just... simple-minded. ;)
-
Pronunciation: 'mEn
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): meant /'ment/; mean·ing /'mE-ni[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English menen, from Old English m[AE]nan; akin to Old High German meinen to have in mind, Old Church Slavonic meniti to mention
Date: before 12th century
transitive senses
1 a : to have in the mind as a purpose : INTEND [she means to win] -- sometimes used interjectionally with I, chiefly in informal speech for emphasis [he throws, I mean, hard] or to introduce a phrase restating the point of a preceding phrase [we try to answer what we can, but I mean we're not God -- Bobbie Ann Mason] b : to design for or destine to a specified purpose or future [I was meant to teach]
2 : to serve or intend to convey, show, or indicate : SIGNIFY [a red sky means rain]
3 : to have importance to the degree of [health means everything]
4 : to direct to a particular individual
intransitive senses : to have an intended purpose [he means well]
- mean·er /'mE-n&r/ noun
- mean business : to be in earnest
Pronunciation: 'flat
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): flat·ter; flat·test
Etymology: Middle English, from Old Norse flatr; akin to Old High German flaz flat, and probably to Greek platys broad -- more at PLACE
Date: 14th century
1 a : lying at full length or spread out upon the ground : PROSTRATE b : utterly ruined or destroyed c : resting with a surface against something
2 a : having a continuous horizontal surface b : being or characterized by a horizontal line or tracing without peaks or depressions pa flat EEG]
3 : having a relatively smooth or even surface
4 : arranged or laid out so as to be level or even
5 a : having the major surfaces essentially parallel and distinctly greater than the minor surfaces [a flat piece of wood] b of a heel : very low and broad
6 a : clearly unmistakable : DOWNRIGHT [a flat denial] b (1) : not varying : FIXED [a flat rate] (2) : having no fraction either lacking or in excess : EXACT [in a flat 10 seconds] (3) of a frequency response : not varying significantly throughout its range
7 a : lacking in animation, zest, or vigor : DULL [life seemed flat without her] b : lacking flavor : TASTELESS c : lacking effervescence or sparkle [flat ginger ale] d : commercially inactive; also : characterized by no significant rise or decline from one period to another [sales were flat] e of a tire : lacking air : DEFLATED f chiefly British, of a battery : DEAD 3c, DISCHARGED
8 a (1) of a tone : lowered a half step in pitch (2) : lower than the proper pitch b of the vowel a : pronounced as in bad or bat
9 a : having a low trajectory b of a tennis stroke : made so as to give little or no spin to the ball
10 of a sail : TAUT
11 a : uniform in hue or shade b : having little or no illusion of depth c of a photograph or negative : lacking contrast d of lighting conditions : lacking shadows or contours e : free from gloss [a flat paint] f : TWO-DIMENSIONAL 2
12 : of, relating to, or used in competition on the flat [a flat horse]
synonym see LEVEL, INSIPID
That was even less useful... :p
The English language is no good for this type of discussion, unfortunately.
Nah, your opinions are not radical. They're just... simple-minded. ;)
Too unconvential for the non-mathematical person to fully grasp, so they are simple minded for everyone else. :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
That was even less useful... :p
Good to see you realize it - because I asked for semantic proof, not a bunch of silly dictionary definitions... :D
-
There is no such thing as true semantic proof, really. :p
-
Originally posted by CP5670
There is no such thing as true semantic proof, really. :p
Huh, there is. I see you never studied Formal Semantics then?
-
I haven't studied that at all, but you yourself said that there is no such thing as an absolute proof, which I agree with as well. :p :D
[edit] whoa, eighth page already? :p
-
Well, I was willing to accept perceptive proof... assuming that it was formal proof, of course. :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
[edit] whoa, eighth page already? :p
Damn, is this ironic or what? I have different posts-per-page settings, and the thread is on page 15 for me. :D :p
-
What is the distinction between a formal and an informal proof? :p
So a semantic proof makes sense to you but a logical/mathematical one doesn't? Cool! :D
I would like to have everything on one page, but the maximum is 50, so I just have it set to that. ;)
-
Er... the semantic proof I asked is a mathematical proof... :p
-
So math is indeed useful there! ;7
Well, I have no idea what a semantic proof looks like or what it is supposed to prove (or for that matter, whatever the heck we're trying to prove here :D); why don't you post one?
[edit] This is my usual time to get off the computer, but I will be back later as usual. ;7
-
Here, check this, you might like it (it's the first article in english I found about it, may not be complete - all reference material I have is in portuguese):
http://www.cuni.cz/~peregrin/HTMLTxt/sl&fs.htm
And I did only minor work on it - my most extensive proof was of the semantics of a simple text-editing language. Proving the semantics of a spoken language would require more time that I have to waste, or anyone has to waste, for that matter. :)
-
Originally posted by sandwich
God is far far more active in this world than you think. I'll give you an example of the most "classic" way God is active in the world today: Acts of God, a.k.a. natural disasters. I can't give you the specifics at this very moment, since my dad is the one who's keeping track and he's out for another 2-3 hours or so, but the gist of it is this: When the US in particular or any other nation moves (usually politically) to urge Israel to give away the Land that has been given her to be a steward over (it's God's land, biblically speaking), a natural disaster strikes that nation.
Oh Please, this is borderline racist. Firstly Natural disasters are happening all of the time. The only reason that they're interpreted as acts of god is because the spotlight is on them at that particular time. When the US isn't urging Isreal to hand over land to the Palestinians they go un-nuticed. The US covers a huge geographical area with perhaps a greater array of climates than any other nation. If you'r interested in studying freak wheather conditions and their causes go to www.metoffice.co.uk (that's the UK's one, there's probably ones more specific to particular regions). This shows you the causes of such thins and it uses that little thing called evidence. I suppose you share Dr Falwell's belief that "god" allowed the WTC attacks to take place?
-
Originally posted by Styxx
And that's exactly my point if you didn't notice it. Sandwich starts from the assumption that his faith is irrevocable proof that God exists, the same way that you assume that 1+1=2 is the basis for your whole knowledge of mathematics. You're as much right as he is, inside your very own frame of reference, and for each of you it is impossible to admit otherwise.
On the colours thing. Research has showed that everybody sees green the same way you or me do.
It's called 'prototypical colours'
read 'Berlin, Brent/Kay, Paul (1969/1991): Basic colour terms. Their Universality and Evolution, Berkeley/Los Angeles/Oxford: California University Press.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Are we assuming an absolute or perceptive truth here? By the first rule of problem-solving, the absolute one should be taken into account first because using the perceptive one, more than one independent thinking unit will not progress anywhere, rendering civilization useless. Going by the absolute truth, that statement makes no sense, since with the given variables, it violates the transitive property of quantities. :p But if we are using a perceptive one, nothing can be proved outside an independent thinker and any attempts to do so are meaningless.
If you can't convince 'em, confuse 'em, eh? ;)
Originally posted by CP5670
Actually natural disasters in the world are common enough for just about any country to say this if they keep a very close watch of what is happening. Again, the effect should be reproducible under similar controlled conditions by anyone else. Also, since this god is so powerful, why does he feel the need to remain in secrecy by using only natural disasters (which do not appear to be made by a god) and not simply killing off all the offenders instantly by using some uh...special god powers? Besides, we will reach a point sometime in the next 200 or so years where natural disasters will not be able to harm us at all, so what would happen then?
THey are "common", but when you look at them occuring alongside Israel-related events, it's more than a coincedence.
As for God remaining secret? :ha: I never said He only uses natural disasters - and even so, why are they also known as Acts of God, hmm?
Originally posted by Styxx
And that's exactly my point if you didn't notice it. Sandwich starts from the assumption that his faith is irrevocable proof that God exists, the same way that you assume that 1+1=2 is the basis for your whole knowledge of mathematics. You're as much right as he is, inside your very own frame of reference, and for each of you it is impossible to admit otherwise.
My faith is not irrevocable proff that God exists - it isn't even revokable proof! I don't know where you got that idea.
You want irrevocable proof of God's existance? Go outside and look at creation. Don't glance - look. Then tell me honestly that we're accidents. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by an0n
1+1=2
There, easy.
ROTFLMAO!!! I was going to post the exact same thing!!
:nervous: Wait a sec - me and an0n thought the same.... You must be a Great Mind™!! :eek: :jaw:
Originally posted by Styxx
You might not know, but any and all truths are derived from perceptive knowledge. You may try to mask it some way or another, but that's the inescapable truth.
Sucks, eh? :p
Yup. :D
-
Originally posted by Top Gun
Oh Please, this is borderline racist. Firstly Natural disasters are happening all of the time. The only reason that they're interpreted as acts of god is because the spotlight is on them at that particular time. When the US isn't urging Isreal to hand over land to the Palestinians they go un-nuticed. The US covers a huge geographical area with perhaps a greater array of climates than any other nation. If you'r interested in studying freak wheather conditions and their causes go to www.metoffice.co.uk (that's the UK's one, there's probably ones more specific to particular regions). This shows you the causes of such thins and it uses that little thing called evidence. I suppose you share Dr Falwell's belief that "god" allowed the WTC attacks to take place?
Hate to break it to ya, but when it comes to His Chosen People, don't mess.
As for the correlations, I'll get them tommorow - my dad's asleep now.
-
OK, I'm looking outside. Is there something I'm looking for? Just because it's familiar doesn't mean it couldn't have happened by a freak accident, and just because you think it came out pretty well doesn't mean it's anything more than the materials of the universe acting according to their physical properties- not at random, but effectively so. There is no proof either way that any God of any sort exists, but if he/she/it/they exist I pray to them that they're not as bigoted, narrowminded, sadistic, and hateful as all of you seem to want them to be.
-
Originally posted by sandwich
My faith is not irrevocable proff that God exists - it isn't even revokable proof! I don't know where you got that idea.
You want irrevocable proof of God's existance? Go outside and look at creation. Don't glance - look. Then tell me honestly that we're accidents. :rolleyes:
Eh... sorry if you got me wrong - but what makes you consider existance the irrevocable proof that God exists is your faith - isn't it?
-
Originally posted by sandwich
Hate to break it to ya, but when it comes to His Chosen People, don't mess.
*cough*Ubermensch*cough*
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
*cough*Ubermensch*cough*
Essentially. And I've found it one of the most instructive lessons in history that the Israeli Jews have ended up using almost exactly the same logic as the Nazis...
-
The strongest cage of all are the ones we build in our heads.
With gratitude, we perfect those cages all our lives, adding one golden bar of self-assurance after another - oh do we know their value!
Unreachable to our perception - we don't even know we're locked up - happy silly prisoners ;)
Now I'll have a good laugh at everything I know about this world/universe/existence/place :D :) :D
Returning to my pretty cell now.... :nod:
-
Originally posted by Styxx
Eh... sorry if you got me wrong - but what makes you consider existance the irrevocable proof that God exists is your faith - isn't it?
I wasn't meaning existance - I was meaning the likelyhood of it all occurring by chance.
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Essentially. And I've found it one of the most instructive lessons in history that the Israeli Jews have ended up using almost exactly the same logic as the Nazis...
Uhm, what 6 million people have the Jews murdered for being themselves? :blah:
-
Hoo boy.... Stop pestering god will you guys? He's got a lot on his plate. Having to keep creation running and all that jazz.
-
Originally posted by sandwich
Hate to break it to ya, but when it comes to His Chosen People, don't mess.
:nod::D
And to anybody who has quoted the bible in this thread to prove their point: DON'T DO IT. Although it may prove your point, almost any point of view can be found in the bible. That's the wonder of it. Whatever you say with the bible backing it up, somebody can come up with a rebuttal from the bible. So just don't. It's stupid.
EDIT: And I agree with sandwich on a bunch of other counts too. For example, the modern Israeli Jews are NOT like the Nazis at all. Just because some people there have prejudices against Palestinians, they might have them for good reason. And again, what 6,000,000 people have the Israeli Jews (or ANY Jews) killed?
-
Originally posted by Styxx
Tell me one absolute truth, then. :)
Girls are good.
Mmm, girls......
-
sandwich: Are you denying you just said that you were, in essence, the ultimate race, favored by god and superior to all men, and all those who displeased you would get a rather vicious comeuppance?
It doesn't matter that the Jews haven't lead any multimillion person massacres yet- with that kind of mentality, it wouldn't take much to make it happen, and with that kind of mentality you probably wouldn't hesitate if there was a chance of it. You need to brush up on your Nazi propaganda, my man- it all comes out to JUST the ideology you describe.
-
:yes:
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
It doesn't matter that the Jews haven't lead any multimillion person massacres yet- with that kind of mentality, it wouldn't take much to make it happen, and with that kind of mentality you probably wouldn't hesitate if there was a chance of it. You need to brush up on your Nazi propaganda, my man- it all comes out to JUST the ideology you describe.
What, that all Jews are evil, greedy, communist (not meant in a bad way...well, now anyways), and out to destroy everybody and take over the world? You're agreeing with that????
And Shrike: I agree. :D
-
No, just that the kind of mentality where you consider your race and yourself superior to all other men, not beholden to their laws and conventions, and given a divine carte blanche to do as you please is what has motivated all of the most horrific hate crimes in history. No all Jews are evil, Sandwich isn't even evil, but he is to all appearances a flaming bigot, and CERTAINLY all Jews aren't that- at least, none of the ones I've met in RL, who weren't too hard-core about the whole thing. But, sadly, this sort of thing is beginning to take over Isreali policy nowadays, and I'd hate to be a Palestinian in a few years...
-
In Islam if the husband commits adultery, the wife gets punished i think. Islam is a interesting religion, so strict yet new.
-
Technically, the Koran is much more open-minded and humanist than most of the Bible, which makes it all the more interesting...
Though I gotta say, any religion without a Leviticus equivalent can't be all that fun.:D
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
No, just that the kind of mentality where you consider your race and yourself superior to all other men, not beholden to their laws and conventions, and given a divine carte blanche to do as you please is what has motivated all of the most horrific hate crimes in history. No all Jews are evil, Sandwich isn't even evil, but he is to all appearances a flaming bigot, and CERTAINLY all Jews aren't that- at least, none of the ones I've met in RL, who weren't too hard-core about the whole thing. But, sadly, this sort of thing is beginning to take over Isreali policy nowadays, and I'd hate to be a Palestinian in a few years...
First of all, that's what the bible says and sandwich is just repeating it. And most of us aren't hardcore, I'm not (or at least I'm not in RL, I don't know what you think of me here). And I wouldn't say that the Palestinians are exactly helping any peace process that might take place. They're doing the exact opposite. You'd be mad too if somebody walked into your town and blew themselves up taking a dozen people with them.
-
Islam is something thats been left out of this topic, a lot of controversy surrounds it(such as the Qu'ran being able to justify people blowing themselves up)
-
Originally posted by Corsair
First of all, that's what the bible says and sandwich is just repeating it. And most of us aren't hardcore, I'm not (or at least I'm not in RL, I don't know what you think of me here). And I wouldn't say that the Palestinians are exactly helping any peace process that might take place. They're doing the exact opposite. You'd be mad too if somebody walked into your town and blew themselves up taking a dozen people with them.
Im fairly stricter than most ppl in RL when it comes to my religion. I was just reading the gospel one day when something clicked and i realised how bad the world had become and that i mustnt let myself fall like the rest. The Palestinians say they want land, but they were offered it all back and refused, they say they want peace but they blow themselves up and yet Israel gets all the blame for everything.
-
Corsair: You're taking this COMPLETELY OT. I'm not talking about the peace process, that's momentarily irrelevant. I'm only peripherally talking politics. Forget all that and read, or don't pretend you did. Guess what? THe KKK, the Nazis, the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, the Aryan Knights- all used the same source Sandwich does, and all got interpretations that are just as clear. I don't care if he quotes the Bible or a box of Wheaties- he's still using it to press an ideology that is, effectively, racist and genocidal. Natural disasters as God's wrath for intervening in a bloodbath? Really. If God's that much of a racist ****, I'd frankly be glad to go to hell- at least the jerk there isn't a hypocrite. If the Bible is really just a tract in hate and racial supremacy, maybe we should all just grab the nearest gun and hold the genocide to end all genocides, right now- every race for itself. Seems to me that it's more of a mediocre philosophy/history, the latter part of whic preaches tolerance and equality, but you never know... Me, I'm gonna go do God's bidding, shoot up a schoolbus full of children headed to a religious school that isn't of my denomination, lynch some non-whites, and then go around hunting for people who are wearing cloth woven of two fibers. How 'bout you?
-
These days its white people who get all the stick.
-
Yeah, like I said, the BIBLE CAN SUPPORT ANY POINT OF VIEW! NAZI, CRUSADER, ANYBODY!!!!!!
And I think you're being an idiot. Sandwich is NOT being genocidal and I don't see why you think he is. Just because he's in the army where he has to be? Just to protect his country from people who are killing innocent citizens? So maybe it is racist what the bible says, but does that mean that people nowadays discriminate? Not really. I mean, come on Stryke! This thing was written over 3,000 years ago! And anyway, you are generalizing about a whole group of people! You just can't do that.
sorry if I took it OT btw.
-
How can the bible be OT in a religious thread?
-
They're momentarily out of fashion in the bigotry world... people keep crowing about how they've eliminated what is to all intents and purposes an integral part of human nature, and it doesn't seem that most are even aware that it's simply that the mindless hatred has turned against its most significant historical wielders... I mean, how many people are willing to stand up for the rights of a white supremacist, these days?
People are sick. People are stupid. And that's all I have to say about that, except that I sincerely regret that I, too, must naturally be sick and stupid. like the rest of my failing species, and thoroughly unable to control it. Ah well.
-
How can the bible be OT in a religious thread?
I don't know...:confused:
Ask Stryke since he knows everything about this. :rolleyes: But I do agree with him that people are sick and stupid. :nod:
-
Corsair: So, saying that natural disasters that can kill hundreds of innocent people are a direct result of the politics of a nation those said people live in, and that the deserve to die because of that, doesn't hold even a tinge of racism?? I'm not generalising, I said specifically that not all Jews believe in this sort of tripe, and I'm not considering anything Sandwich did in any war. I really could care less- to me, the thought is at least as important as the action. In this case, the thought is that people deserve to die because they oppose his race. Simple as that- it doesn't need justification, it doesn't need defense, it's not an inherently 'evil' idea or anything- but it should be recognised for what it is, and what company it's in.
-
In this case, the thought is that people deserve to die because they oppose his race. Simple as that- it doesn't need justification, it doesn't need defense, it's not an inherently 'evil' idea or anything- but it should be recognised for what it is, and what company it's in.
Who said that? Not even amonst all the racism and bigotry in the Bible does it say that other people deserve to die because they aren't "the Lord's people". And yes, obviously it doesn't have to be "evil" (although a lot of times it can be) and your right about what you said there. I just don't totally see where you're coming from.
And also, I didn't say anything about the natural disasters. Sandwich did and he would know better too since he lives in Israel. I live in the U.S. and I wouldn't know about the natural disasters.
-
About the peace process: Both sides are too narrow-minded to see their own mistakes. And having Saddam sponsor the suicide bombers isn't helping. Not to mention the incredibly right-wing Likud party being in power in Israel. But that's beside the point.
The point is (and no offense meant to anyone here, I'm including myself in this) that people in large groups become less rational than they normally would be. If they identify something as "us vs. them" then the majority of people will end up fighting in it in some way.
Now back to the religion discussion:
IMO, I think that all religions could be true in some form. The human brain has enormous amounts of untapped potential. Perhaps when someone dies, his dying mind has one last giant burst of subconscious power, which somehow creates whatever afterlife he actually believes in.
I personally believe each person should choose whichever religion they think is right. Or to avoid them altogether if they don't like any of them. :)
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
sandwich: Are you denying you just said that you were, in essence, the ultimate race, favored by god and superior to all men, and all those who displeased you would get a rather vicious comeuppance?
Originally posted by Stryke 9
No, just that the kind of mentality where you consider your race and yourself superior to all other men, not beholden to their laws and conventions, and given a divine carte blanche to do as you please is what has motivated all of the most horrific hate crimes in history.
Ok, if I came across the way you descirbe, I apologize. To set the record (of what I meant to say, at least) straight:
The only thing special about the Jews is that they are God's Chosen People. They are not superior in any way, mentally, genetically - nada. They not only do not have a "divine carte blanche", but have more required of them by God because of their being His Chosen. Look back a few posts (or is it pages by now?) where I responded to those 4 verses. The last one I didn't quote in the post, because it was too long. But go read it, and then tell me that the Jews have it easy from God. :ha:
A semi-famous saying goes like this: *good Jewish/Yiddish accent* "It's not all that easy being chosen y'know! Why couldn't He have chosen somebody else?"
And as for anyone touching the Jews getting "repaid", so to speak - look at history. Look at all the nations that came and went, steamrolling over the Jewish people en route to world conquest: Babylon, Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome - their status in modern times is minor at best.
I'm not blaming the Jews for wiping out those empires - I'm "blaming" God for dealing with those who touched His people.
-
I hate to say this, but is status of jews in modern times all that major? Really? As compared to say, Italy?
-
Sandwich! :yes2::):yes:
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Corsair: So, saying that natural disasters that can kill hundreds of innocent people are a direct result of the politics of a nation those said people live in, and that the deserve to die because of that, doesn't hold even a tinge of racism?? I'm not generalising, I said specifically that not all Jews believe in this sort of tripe, and I'm not considering anything Sandwich did in any war. I really could care less- to me, the thought is at least as important as the action. In this case, the thought is that people deserve to die because they oppose his race. Simple as that- it doesn't need justification, it doesn't need defense, it's not an inherently 'evil' idea or anything- but it should be recognised for what it is, and what company it's in.
I'm not the one deciding here - I don't control the wind or the rain any more than I control the hurricanes or tornadoes or earthquakes. God's the one in control of all that. So if you have a problem with how He decides to deal with people/nations, please - tell Him.
A big difference between the Jews being the Chosen People and others you've understandably mentioned - such as the KKK, Nazi's, etc - is that the Jews aren't going on violent rampages and killing sprees to get rid of "impure" people or any ridiculous thing like that. Most Jews would rather not be chosen, believe me. It's not all that fun.
Originally posted by Shrike
I hate to say this, but is status of jews in modern times all that major? Really? As compared to say, Italy?
I wasn't comparing the state of those nations to the Jews at all - I was comparing their status before and after they touched the Jewish people.
-
Well, it appears that we are back to the absolute truth and the first assumption once again; that's good. :D
Here, check this, you might like it (it's the first article in english I found about it, may not be complete - all reference material I have is in portuguese):
http://www.cuni.cz/~peregrin/HTMLTxt/sl&fs.htm
And I did only minor work on it - my most extensive proof was of the semantics of a simple text-editing language. Proving the semantics of a spoken language would require more time that I have to waste, or anyone has to waste, for that matter.
I don't have time to read all of it right now, but the translation of ideas into symbolic language has always been a topic that I have some interest in. I'll check it out later tonight. ;)
If you can't convince 'em, confuse 'em, eh?
Look at what I said from a mathematical perspective; it is a condensed version of my first fundamental assumption.
THey are "common", but when you look at them occuring alongside Israel-related events, it's more than a coincedence.
Well, yes it is, because they are definitely common enough for any country to say this. As Top Gun said, in these types of cases, people only pay attention to and publicize events that are favorable to them.
As for God remaining secret? I never said He only uses natural disasters - and even so, why are they also known as Acts of God, hmm?
Never seen this god use anything else (if even that); either he does not have the power to do it or is not interested. Either way, he will soon no longer be a threat, if we assume he exists, since natural disasters really pale in comparison to the wonders of technology. :p (we already have the hydrogen bomb, but that is really nothing compared to what we will get in the future)
You want irrevocable proof of God's existance? Go outside and look at creation. Don't glance - look. Then tell me honestly that we're accidents. :rolleyes:
Simply looking will indeed give you such a type of view (the average man is quite ignorant, which is why religion is so common in today's world); you must carefully observe, analyze and most importantly, theorize. Why cannot we be accidents? All it takes is one IRV and the rest is set off by chemistry and evolutionary principles. :p Although we don't need to be an "accident" either, but merely a continuation of a transfinite reality system. (too lengthy too explain in detail here, but I'll write about it in that book ;))
Hate to break it to ya, but when it comes to His Chosen People, don't mess.
And if I do? If he sends me to hell, I would be one of the lucky few who got a chance to go there and see what it is like.
Girls are good.
Mmm, girls......
eh...girls are just other humans, as far as that goes. :p
You need to brush up on your Nazi propaganda, my man- it all comes out to JUST the ideology you describe.
Exactly. I do not think that Israelis are the same as the Germans in general, as even most Jews do not have this kind of bigoted view of their race. All the rational people seem to agree with me though that Hitler preached exactly the same thing as what you are saying here about racial superiority and the chosen people of god. :p It is true that Jews have been persecuted a lot in history going back to Roman times, but this is no reason for them to be a superior race. And if it says so in the Bible, how can one tell whether it is correct or not?
About the peace process: Both sides are too narrow-minded to see their own mistakes. And having Saddam sponsor the suicide bombers isn't helping. Not to mention the incredibly right-wing Likud party being in power in Israel. But that's beside the point.
Yeah, I really doubt that middle eastern conflict will come to a non-violent solution; as can be seen in this thread, people will stick to their views without foundation, and so there is no way to convince them of anything that is not simple. If either side gets a Hitler-like demagogue, then things might change, but these kinds of people usually serve to strength the already powerful spirit of war in the minds of the people, because it is a very simple idea. (rule of popular simplicity)
IMO, I think that all religions could be true in some form. The human brain has enormous amounts of untapped potential. Perhaps when someone dies, his dying mind has one last giant burst of subconscious power, which somehow creates whatever afterlife he actually believes in.
It's actually not all that powerful; once particle-based IRVs can be used for input in the computer (quantum computer, anyone? ;)), we will have a generic human brain right there. These will eventually progress to the point where our creations are far more advanced than ourselves (due to many minds working jointly on it), and we can finally leave our bodies (including the brain) for a better system. Some will obviously refuse, but they will not become an important factor in history anymore, due to the technological darwinism principle.
-
Originally posted by sandwich
I wasn't comparing the state of those nations to the Jews at all - I was comparing their status before and after they touched the Jewish people.
Actually, Rome has been important for millenia... it has only been in the last couple centuries that is has truly become a backwater.
-
Rome has pretty much secured its place in history with the massive empire it controlled. ;) (just like Berlin)
-
I just wanted to pop in and put in my 3.10832 CDN cents in. A lot of the bad things that are blamed on religion were not actually caused by religion. Religion may be an excuse in places (Crusades, Taliban, whatever) but they probably would've happened without religion, anyway. Also, a lot of the good things that are attributed to religion were not actually caused by religion. Religion may be an excuse in places (charity, don't kill, whatever) but they probably would've happened without religion, anyway.
It's my belief that any war (or similar situation) that appears to be based on ideology is not. The peasants may believe it, but the people who are running the whole thing do not.
I'm a aetheist or agnostic depending on what side of the bed I woke up on, if you care. :)
-
Originally posted by sandwich
\ the Jews aren't going on violent rampages and killing sprees to get rid of "impure" people or any ridiculous thing like that. Most Jews would rather not be chosen, believe me. It's not all that fun.
Basically right here it seems like you're ignoring Strykes point, his point is that the mentality that you hold of being "chosen" (i.e. special) is quite arrogant and not too dissimiliar to various other organizations... it doesn't matter what the jews have done or not done - it's the mindset...
-
Originally posted by NotDefault
I just wanted to pop in and put in my 3.10832 CDN cents in. A lot of the bad things that are blamed on religion were not actually caused by religion. Religion may be an excuse in places (Crusades, Taliban, whatever) but they probably would've happened without religion, anyway. Also, a lot of the good things that are attributed to religion were not actually caused by religion. Religion may be an excuse in places (charity, don't kill, whatever) but they probably would've happened without religion, anyway.
It's my belief that any war (or similar situation) that appears to be based on ideology is not. The peasants may believe it, but the people who are running the whole thing do not.
I'm a aetheist or agnostic depending on what side of the bed I woke up on, if you care. :)
There is something ironic I was thinking about - the Knights that battled in the crusades were bunches more barbaric than their arab counter-parts - ironic considering the wars were based on ideological superiority... :p
-
Basically right here it seems like you're ignoring Strykes point, his point is that the mentality that you hold of being "chosen" (i.e. special) is quite arrogant and not too dissimiliar to various other organizations... it doesn't matter what the jews have done or not done - it's the mindset...
That about sums up my thoughts as well as far as that issue goes. :) It is really not at all different from the NSDAP principle.
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
Basically right here it seems like you're ignoring Strykes point, his point is that the mentality that you hold of being "chosen" (i.e. special) is quite arrogant and not too dissimiliar to various other organizations... it doesn't matter what the jews have done or not done - it's the mindset...
Ok, to be fair, I can understand that point. Looking in from the outside, I can see how it looks very arrogant, superior, etc. Point made. :)
Now try to understand my point: the Jews aren't superior because they are chosen - nothing of the sort. The Jews aren't superior at all. We didn't deserve to be chosen any more than any other racial group. It's not something we did - it wasn't our choice - it was God's choice. He decided, for whatever reasons (actually, that's a good question to ask Him when I get the chance - why Abraham?) to choose Abraham and his offspring. Believe me, the Jews want nothing more than to be just like the rest of the world - not chosen, not schmozen. They want their American McD's, their German cars, their Japanese bikes - anything and everything. But for whatever reasons, God chose Abraham, that through him "all the families of the earth would be blessed." (Genesis 12:3)
What does that mean actually? The primary thing I can think of is that from Abraham, through King David, Jesus was brought to the world.
It's funny - over the past few months we (my like-aged friends and I) have had a discussino on holiness, namely - what is it? It's not what is generally understod to be "holy" - i.e. pure, blameless, etc. Holy is separated for a purpose. The Jews are holy unto God - separated from the world. The Sabbath (get it right - it's saturday, not sunday! :p) is a holy day - separate from the work days. Etc etc.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Planck's rule applies once again here. ;)
Que? How does the behavior of blackbody radiation apply here? :confused:
-
Since there have been a few comments on prayer and healing and whatnot...
Has anyone stopped to consider the sheer arrogance behind prayer? Here you have a theoretical all-powerful, all-knowing, timeless, omnipresent being, with a grand plan for the universe far beyond the comprehension of pathetic little mortals... and this being is expected to, on occasion, respond to their petty requests???
Can someone explain this to me? Say little Timmy has fallen down the well, and people are praying for him. What does this accomplish? God is all-knowing, so the prayer doesn't act to inform, of anything. Everything that happens, happens according to "God's Plan", so it's not like he's going to alter the outcome.
And then there's "group prayer", which must be like the spiritual version of a petition, or an intervention. "Hey look, we got a hundred people to pray for this kid! You HAVE to do what we say now!".
As a random aside-- if anyone here hasn't seen the original "Bedazzled" (not the bland remake), I highly recommend it. Has some nice religious commentary mixed in with the slapstick.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Girls are good.
Mmm, girls......
Aahhh, indeed. Now tell that to CP and laugh at his reply. :D
Edit: damn, he had already replied. Lost a good chance to bug him... :D
-
What "miracles" and "healings?" There is no credible evidence for these. Also, there is still the unanswerable question: how did this god come into existence?
My little brother, for example. He fell through the upper barn floor onto a concrete pad, ruptured his spleen and was healed miraculously (and for a dash of extravagance on God's part :) , instantly) in front of several medical professionals. One moment his abdomen was swollen as large and hard as a basketball so that he could hardly breathe, and the next he was laughing on the exam table! They kept him in overnight for observation and would come in every hour or so to palpate his abdomen while muttering to themselves that this didn't make any sense. In the end they could find no natural medical reason for what happened. We beleive it was God.
God is understood (as best our finite minds can hope to understand the infinite God) to be self-existent, and thus never coming into being. It is a question rather like asking for the highest number.
Belief in a God is faith... and "faith", by definition, is belief without evidence (and belief without evidence can be argued as a form of gullibility or insanity, but that's another topic...).
Actually, belief is the fundamental function of the human mind. Before reason can do any work, it must have some material to work with. All arguments, ideas, opinions, reasons, etc. about the world are ultimately founded on irrational assumptions (or more precisely, pre-rational). Ask CP5670, he'll tell you the same. So really, faith is not irrational and silly, it is the foundation for reason.
Any religion that claims it's always been right shouldn't have to change to suit society. If it's so great then society will change to suit it.
Agreed. Of course, that is why the majority of churches in the world (as opposed to ones that occasionally show up in the news for doing the opposite) don't really. (Of course, all are influenced by their cultural milieu, but the core beliefs of any Christian or Jew or Muslim who realy is one will be the same.)
I'll return to this point later.
Well, that's not really credible evidence, as I said earlier; more general proof is needed before accepting this. (effect should be reproducible by anyone else under similar conditions) Also, an antimatter leg material portion would have to produced somewhere in reality as well so that the first law of thermodynamics is not violated. Besides, it is not hard at all to envision n-dimensions (including non-integer dimensions) or transfinite periods of time if you use math only and forget about common sense. (which is how the universe works) As I have said before, it could be just as easily said that the material universe "always was."
Essentially you are saying that you will not believe in miracles until they are no longer miracles. The entire point of a miraculous occurrence is that it is a transcension of natural "laws." There is nothing to say that a sovereign God who created the natural universe and stands beyond it cannot intervene in nature and do something unexpected if he so chooses.
For the question of credible evidence, I ask you how much evidence is necessary to get you to believe it? Obviously you don't know me, so I wouldn't be surprised if you were doubtful regarding my own testimony, but whose would you believe? Or would you say that no amount of testimony, regardless of the source, is sufficient to convince you? In such a case, one is really begging the question, arguing that "Miracles cannot occur, because if one did occur, that would be a miracle, which cannot occur."
Are you joking or serious here? Are you saying, "God answers all prayers... but the answer is always NO."? Because if a God existed, that's the only probable scenario.
What miracles? My best friend has personally seen God heal people whose legs were not of equal length. He saw the short leg grow out to equal the longer one before his eyes.
Then your friend is lying, or was tricked. Isn't it curious that all these supposed faith healings NEVER EVER occur in front of credible witnesses or recording devices?
Well, actually they do, and have, and will continue to, but it is often the case that even when presented with evidence, people will still not believe that what they are witnessing is a case of divine intervention, for they have already concluded that God doesn't do these things. "Surely there must be another explanation" they say to themselves. "No matter how much it seems that this is an act of God, it must not be, becasue such things do not happen." See above.
The thing I want to add to this discussion is that religion is not about moral principles, or merely proposing that an unknowable, unprovable God exist. In the case of Christianity, at least, the whole point of the religion is certain historical occurences. If this stuff actually happened, if God is actaully real and not our collective imagination, if this is the case, then the consequences are vitally important, and if it is not true, then they consequences are equally important. As Paul so succinctly put it:If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.
But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead,
1Corinthians 15:17-20
Of course, if it really is true, if Jesus really was who he claimed to be and really did rise from death, then the consequences on our lives our tremendous and far-reaching. Such consequences are rather hard to accept at times (much of the time, actually), to be entirely honest, I often don't like them. To be entirely in control of my own destiny and do whatever I want and have no higher authourity to be responsible to seems quite attractive in a lot of ways, all things being equal. If one does not want God interfering with one's life, it is easiest to simply disbelieve in him and go on one's little way.
But all things are not equal. God either is, or isn't. And if he is, we find ourselves in the very uncomfortable position of dealing with a God who talks back. God turns out to be an active agent, who loves and commands, helps and punishes, saves and will one day create anew, and in all sorts of ways seems very much invovled in the actual goings-on of history and human life. The whole idea seems quite distasteful to us, really. We would far prefer that he stop mucking about in things and just disappear.
Of course, there is an out. Perhaps God isn't. All these supposed occurences of of historical mucking about by God could just be lies or myths. One can certainly choose to disbeleive them. It the simplest matter in the world: just disregard and dismiss any so-called evidence that would point towards a God who was mucking around in the world again. One can even come up with all sorts of arguments why it is perfectly reasonable to believe the postulate that "God does not exist" to make oneself feel secure in one's choice. Of course, these arguments are ultimately open to the criticism that they assume God's non-existence as part of their proofs, but they nevertheless do a remarkable job of convincing us that our original choice to disbelieve the God-hypothesis was a good one.
The simple fact of the matter is that we have to choose whether to believe in God or not, whether to recognise the Commandments and the Resurrection and the healing of little brothers' ruptured spleens as the actions of God or to dismiss them as so much fluff and garbage. We have to decide which option we are willing to believe.
For myself, I want to believe what is real. If reality turns out to be a living, breathing God, then so be it. I'll love him and follow him with all my life.
What do yo choose?
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Rome has pretty much secured its place in history with the massive empire it controlled. ;) (just like Berlin)
Britain had the biggest empire ever :p.
-
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
"Surely there must be another explanation" they say to themselves.
People who say this are usually right.
And the whole "Christ died for our sins" thing always seemed like gibberish to me. Makes about as much sense as, "Christ baked a cake for our late rental fees."
-
Originally posted by sandwich
It's funny - over the past few months we (my like-aged friends and I) have had a discussino on holiness, namely - what is it? It's not what is generally understod to be "holy" - i.e. pure, blameless, etc. Holy is separated for a purpose. The Jews are holy unto God - separated from the world. The Sabbath (get it right - it's saturday, not sunday! :p) is a holy day - separate from the work days. Etc etc.
I'll tell you what's holy. A really hot chick.... as in 'holy ****, look at her!' :D
Funny, this thread came up in a conversation I was having with a friend who's catholic while we were having dinner. Don't even remember how we got onto it..... Meh.
It's her birthday monday. Party! Party! :D
-
And guys? Just remember this:
You cannot argue against religion, because there is nothing to argue against. Anything real and factual becomes science, only something which must be taken on faith will be religion, and because it is a matter of faith, cannot be logically debated with.
-
Que? How does the behavior of blackbody radiation apply here?
I was referring to the philosophy one he stated: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." ;)
Has anyone stopped to consider the sheer arrogance behind prayer? Here you have a theoretical all-powerful, all-knowing, timeless, omnipresent being, with a grand plan for the universe far beyond the comprehension of pathetic little mortals... and this being is expected to, on occasion, respond to their petty requests???
This is exactly what I have been saying; what kind of a crazy god would do this? He is essentially just a human then and does not deserve anyone's respect.
Aahhh, indeed. Now tell that to CP and laugh at his reply.
Edit: damn, he had already replied. Lost a good chance to bug him...
I'll give you another chance. :D
Girls as sex tools are simply a diversion for the ignorant masses. In the main, they are roughly equal in cognitive thinking and economic utility to men, and so can be considered to be simply "people" for all purposes.
Actually, belief is the fundamental function of the human mind. Before reason can do any work, it must have some material to work with. All arguments, ideas, opinions, reasons, etc. about the world are ultimately founded on irrational assumptions (or more precisely, pre-rational). Ask CP5670, he'll tell you the same. So really, faith is not irrational and silly, it is the foundation for reason.
Well, that is true, but the belief should be cut down to the most simple and fundamental ideas. When the ideas reach a level of simplicity that cannot be further simplified, that becomes the foundation of rational thought. Now the only way the human brain is able to theorize anything is by using logical constructs, which is why these should be regarded as the assumptions. (this is part of the first fundamental assumption) This kind of unnerving faith in religion remains not only irrational, but stupid to the highest order. :p
My little brother, for example. He fell through the upper barn floor onto a concrete pad, ruptured his spleen and was healed miraculously (and for a dash of extravagance on God's part , instantly) in front of several medical professionals. One moment his abdomen was swollen as large and hard as a basketball so that he could hardly breathe, and the next he was laughing on the exam table! They kept him in overnight for observation and would come in every hour or so to palpate his abdomen while muttering to themselves that this didn't make any sense. In the end they could find no natural medical reason for what happened. We beleive it was God.
Again, more credible evidence is required. First of all, we do not yet know the exact working of a human body (i.e. the whole body has not yet been formulated into an equation), and falling back on the "god cured him" explanation should be viewed as a last resort. In such a situation, if you really desire to know the truth, what you should have done was to try to hold the stomach in place as soon as it started shrinking and see how god responds to that. How exactly did this god cure him? What exact logical constructs went into the curing of him? If god can cure people, why can't humans as well? And most importantly, why are there so many people in the world who suffer injuries, are not similarly cured and end up dying? As wEvil said, "If god exists as a sentient singular entity then he must be an utter bastard." Not only that, but an utter fool as well, if he has the same petty ambitions as humans do, because this is what allows one to manipulate the human so easily, and so the god can be manipulated with equal ease.
Essentially you are saying that you will not believe in miracles until they are no longer miracles. The entire point of a miraculous occurrence is that it is a transcension of natural "laws." There is nothing to say that a sovereign God who created the natural universe and stands beyond it cannot intervene in nature and do something unexpected if he so chooses.
That is exactly what I am saying. Miracles are not miracles anymore when they have been carefully observed and explained by currently accepted laws; that is the basis of science. About 500 years ago, pretty much everyone believed was that the motion of the solar planets around the Earth (geocentric belief was the accepted one) was a true miracle of god. Does it remain a miracle of god anymore? Anything can be explained in such a manner; it's just that we may require more advanced scientific theories to do so. (which may not have been formulated yet) Also, if this god is capable of transcending natural laws, then there is no reason why we eventually cannot as well.
For the question of credible evidence, I ask you how much evidence is necessary to get you to believe it? Obviously you don't know me, so I wouldn't be surprised if you were doubtful regarding my own testimony, but whose would you believe?
Give a mathematical proof showing that in the equation that links up every part of the body, such an occurrence is impossible. That is the evidence required for all of science, pending further evidence of course. In its current state, this "evidence" does not provide enough information to make a conjecture, but that in no way implies the existence of a god. Your case does not violate the first law of thermodynamics as sandwich's does, but it does not seem like it would be something that cannot conform to the laws of biology either.
Of course, there is an out. Perhaps God isn't. All these supposed occurences of of historical mucking about by God could just be lies or myths. One can certainly choose to disbeleive them. It the simplest matter in the world: just disregard and dismiss any so-called evidence that would point towards a God who was mucking around in the world again. One can even come up with all sorts of arguments why it is perfectly reasonable to believe the postulate that "God does not exist" to make oneself feel secure in one's choice. Of course, these arguments are ultimately open to the criticism that they assume God's non-existence as part of their proofs, but they nevertheless do a remarkable job of convincing us that our original choice to disbelieve the God-hypothesis was a good one.
Actually, that simply shows the gullibility of the average human mind and the failure to take more variables into account. (changing of history, to name one; why does this not happen so often today?) In fact, if I was a powerful public speaker like Hitler, I bet I could easily convince all of you into believing that I was the god and absolute ruler of the world.
In the case of Christianity, at least, the whole point of the religion is certain historical occurences.
History can easily be warped to fit the needs of these religious fanatics. As I said before, these "incidents" are not credible enough for a true man of science to accept. In fact, Hitler's principles also stated this: all the great men of civilization, dating back as far as records go, were of "Aryan blood," and so Aryans must be the superior race. :p
For myself, I want to believe what is real. If reality turns out to be a living, breathing God, then so be it. I'll love him and follow him with all my life.
True enough, but that is precisely the reason people accept god and not science; reality is too complex for them, and religion is very simple. (rule of popular simplicity) If a god can be logically proven to exist, I will of course believe in it, but that will not prevent me from continuing to detest him my entire life anyway. :p
Britain had the biggest empire ever .
Still laughable compared to the Roman one in terms of social and scientific progress. :p (British one was essentially held together by force and run by force)
And the whole "Christ died for our sins" thing always seemed like gibberish to me. Makes about as much sense as, "Christ baked a cake for our late rental fees."
LOL! :D
You cannot argue against religion, because there is nothing to argue against. Anything real and factual becomes science, only something which must be taken on faith will be religion, and because it is a matter of faith, cannot be logically debated with.
This is why it looks so silly when people try to explain religion using science. The religious are going by the perceptive truth there, which, going by the first fundamental assumption, is a fruitless task in discovering a "truth." :p
Okay, I think that's it for me for the moment. :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
I'll give you another chance. :D
Girls as sex tools are simply a diversion for the ignorant masses. They are just other human beings and in the main, roughly equal in cognitive thinking and economic utility.
Did we ever state that they weren't? I appreciate a hot girl, but I appreciate one who can talk to me, one who is their own person all the more.....
-
Well, if you accept my statement there, they are for the masses. The intellectual elite of the world has more important things to do in their lives. ;7
-
Originally posted by ZylonBane
Since there have been a few comments on prayer and healing and whatnot...
Has anyone stopped to consider the sheer arrogance behind prayer? Here you have a theoretical all-powerful, all-knowing, timeless, omnipresent being, with a grand plan for the universe far beyond the comprehension of pathetic little mortals... and this being is expected to, on occasion, respond to their petty requests???
Can someone explain this to me? Say little Timmy has fallen down the well, and people are praying for him. What does this accomplish? God is all-knowing, so the prayer doesn't act to inform, of anything. Everything that happens, happens according to "God's Plan", so it's not like he's going to alter the outcome.
And then there's "group prayer", which must be like the spiritual version of a petition, or an intervention. "Hey look, we got a hundred people to pray for this kid! You HAVE to do what we say now!".
Isaiah 62:6-7 (bold emphasis mine):
I have set watchmen on your walls, O Jerusalem;
They shall never hold their peace day or night.
You who make mention of the LORD, do not keep silent,
And give Him no rest till He establishes
And till He makes Jerusalem a praise in the earth.
Do I need to explain why I quoted that verse here? (no, that wasn't a sacrastic question...)
FYI, the word there for "watchmen" in the Hebrew is "Notzrim", which is the modern-day word for "Christians".
Originally posted by ZylonBane
And the whole "Christ died for our sins" thing always seemed like gibberish to me. Makes about as much sense as, "Christ baked a cake for our late rental fees."
Sounds like that on the surface, doesn't it? Ok, to be fair, I can understand you.
In the Old Testament, God required a blood sacrifice once a year to atone for the sins of the people. Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice, atoning for all mankind for all eternity - for those who choose to accept it.
Neat point (for you Christians here; I'm not sure how much others would get out of it.) When Abraham went with Issac up to the mountain to sacrifice him as the Lord commanded, Issac asked his father where the sacrificie was. Abraham responded by saying "My son, God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering." But when the Angle of the Lord stopped Abraham from offering up Issac, what did God provide? "Then Abraham lifted his eyes and looked, and there behind him was a ram caught in a thicket by its horns. So Abraham went and took the ram, and offered it up for a burnt offering instead of his son. "
So, who was the "Lamb" that Abraham spoke about? :D
Originally posted by CP5670
Again, more credible evidence is required. First of all, we do not yet know the exact working of a human body (i.e. the whole body has not yet been formulated into an equation), and falling back on the "god cured him" explanation should be viewed as a last resort. In such a situation, if you really desire to know the truth, what you should have done was to try to hold the stomach in place as soon as it started shrinking and see how god responds to that. How exactly did this god cure him? What exact logical constructs went into the curing of him? If god can cure people, why can't humans as well? And most importantly, why are there so many people in the world who suffer injuries, are not similarly cured and end up dying? As wEvil said, "If god exists as a sentient singular entity then he must be an utter bastard." Not only that, but an utter fool as well, if he has the same petty ambitions as humans do, because this is what allows one to manipulate the human so easily, and so the god can be manipulated with equal ease.
Hold the stomach in place?!? :wtf:
How exactly did God cure him? Good question. Just as good as "If God can do anything, can He create a rock so big He can't move it?" No, but seriously, that question can be taken any number of ways: What biological changes occurred? How did God manuipulate the affected areas? Etc etc.
Why can't humans cure people miraculously? Well, uhm... maybe because they aren't God?
Originally posted by CP5670
That is exactly what I am saying. Miracles are not miracles anymore when they have been carefully observed and explained by currently accepted laws; that is the basis of science. About 500 years ago, pretty much everyone believed was that the motion of the solar planets around the Earth (geocentric belief was the accepted one) was a true miracle of god. Does it remain a miracle of god anymore? Anything can be explained in such a manner; it's just that we may require more advanced scientific theories to do so. (which may not have been formulated yet) Also, if this god is capable of transcending natural laws, then there is no reason why we eventually cannot as well.
So given a theoretical situation where you had the opportunity and ultimate means to study the "inner workings", as it were, of a miracle in progress, what would you say if that miracle was inexpleciable? Given a theoretical capacity of your brain to understand the complete workings of science. Still unable to explain it. Now what?
-
Do you think that God would just reveal himself to people who mock Him and curse Him? No, He wants you to accept it with faith! Why do you put human reasoning into all of this? Science does have to do with God! He created it! Here (freespace.0catch.com/articles/arguments_for_christianity.html) is an article that I wrote (with allot of God's help)....ok ok it's random thoughts put into order. Though like always it's not finished yet.
My little brother, for example. He fell through the upper barn floor onto a concrete pad, ruptured his spleen and was healed miraculously (and for a dash of extravagance on God's part , instantly) in front of several medical professionals. One moment his abdomen was swollen as large and hard as a basketball so that he could hardly breathe, and the next he was laughing on the exam table! They kept him in overnight for observation and would come in every hour or so to palpate his abdomen while muttering to themselves that this didn't make any sense. In the end they could find no natural medical reason for what happened. We beleive it was God.
And you don't believe that it was! How arrogant are you?! This kid almost died!
Do you think that evilution made this highly ordered universe?! It has been proven that things always go into less order and more kaos (i know it's not spelled right), thats the 2nd law of therodynamics. Never anywhere can something go from kaos to order. Unless 1. there is a designer at work, 2. he needs energy. As I said my article is not finished. This and other stuff will go into it.
-
Hold the stomach in place?!? :wtf:
No, I am serious. Your friend's situation was even better, since it may have violated a basic law of science. What he should have done was to put his hand in the wake of the increasing leg, and if it continues to increase, apply pressure in the opposite direction to experimentally measure the force it is increasing with.
How exactly did God cure him? Good question. Just as good as "If God can do anything, can He create a rock so big He can't move it?" No, but seriously, that question can be taken any number of ways: What biological changes occurred? How did God manuipulate the affected areas? Etc etc.
These are exactly the kind of questions that should be asked, but nobody bothers to ask them, becase then their structure would fall apart. :p
Why can't humans cure people miraculously? Well, uhm... maybe because they aren't God?
But you already agreed that god was basically just another human in terms of his mental capacity. Therefore, there is no reason why humans cannot achieve the same level of knowledge and power at some point in the future.
So given a theoretical situation where you had the opportunity and ultimate means to study the "inner workings", as it were, of a miracle in progress, what would you say if that miracle was inexpleciable? Given a theoretical capacity of your brain to understand the complete workings of science. Still unable to explain it. Now what?
It might be beyond my brain alone to understand, but then we have the entire thinking capacity of the future minds of humanity, which will come out to a transfinite amount. I may well conclude that at the moment this cannot be understood, but that in no way means that it will not be understood in the future with the progression of science.
Now this is not what the common fools decide on; they are content with ascribing everything to a superhuman without further explanation because it is simple for them to understand. This is exactly what people did with planetary motion, as I said in my earlier post. Over the centuries, the social intertia became so great and the ideas got so finely drilled into their minds, that they refused to believe anything else, even when the true laws of gravitation came to light. This is no different from what is happening here and will continue to happen in the world for a long time until religion has finally dissipated.
And you don't believe that it was! How arrogant are you?! This kid almost died!
That is completely irrelevant; as I said, you are only applying common human thought rather than more universal logical constructs to the situation. :p
Science does have to do with God! He created it!
Again, how was he then created? And don't give the transfinite time explanation; if you are willing to accept that, the universe could easily function on the same principle without any god.
-
But you already agreed that god was basically just another human in terms of his mental capacity. Therefore, there is no reason why humans cannot achieve the same level of knowledge and power at some point in the future.
Blasfamy! How dare you put yourself in that high a place!
-
Blasfamy! How dare you put yourself in that high a place!
I bet we can get into an even higher place given enough time, since we are progressing while god seems to be stagnating; he is no different than what he was like 2000 years ago. Also, it is "blasphemy." :p
-
Again, how was he then created? And don't give the transfinite time explanation; if you are willing to accept that, the universe could easily function on the same principle without any god.
You believe in evilution, right? What is so scientific about it? No-one has ever proved that beyond a dout it's really true. www.drdino.com
Again read my article if you dare! freespace.0catch.com/articles/arguments_for_christianity.html
-
You believe in evilution, right? What is so scientific about it? No-one has ever proved that beyond a dout it's really true. www.drdino.com
Again read my article if you dare! freespace.0catch.com/articles/argum...ristianity.html
Nothing can be proved to be true "beyond a doubt," by the first fundamental rule. For the purposes of absolute reality however, it has indeed been observed even today for it to become a viable explanation.
No proofs are given in the article; merely statements. We all already know the statements. :p
Can't wait until Zylon and Top Gun get here; they will have a field day on this... :D
-
How do you then explain Job...opps I should say that the Bible being so old how could it know and say that the earth is in space! How can you explain it! Tell me if you can for you know much. (being sarcastic)
I did give proof! Do you mean to say that my 'statement' about the earth in space is purely a statement and could be a false one?
-
How do you then explain Job...opps I should say that the Bible being so old how could it know and say that the earth is in space! How can you explain it! Tell me if you can for you know much. (being sarcastic)
Wow, the Earth is in space. :rolleyes: You know how long people have known that the Earth is probably in some greater medium? Far, far before biblical times, before even the Greek intellectual golden age.
I did give proof! Do you mean to say that my 'statement about the earth in space is purely a statement and could be a false one?
That makes sense, but it does not have any relevance to anything else in there.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Well, if you accept my statement there, they are for the masses. The intellectual elite of the world has more important things to do in their lives. ;7
I think you'd be surprised how many of the 'intellectual elite' are married and have children.....
Hell, both my parents work at a university, dad is a PhD, mom is a Masters. :p
-
I think you'd be surprised how many of the 'intellectual elite' are married and have children.....
Hell, both my parents work at a university, dad is a PhD, mom is a Masters. :p
Just about everyone has a Ph.D. these days; when I refer to the intellectual elite, I mean the true philosophers. (Aristotle, Neitzche, Hegel, etc.) Look at how many of those guys were married. :p
-
Originally posted by CP5670
But you already agreed that god was basically just another human in terms of his mental capacity. Therefore, there is no reason why humans cannot achieve the same level of knowledge and power at some point in the future.
Uhm... refresh my memory - where did I agree that? :confused:
Originally posted by CP5670
It might be beyond my brain alone to understand, but then we have the entire thinking capacity of the future minds of humanity, which will come out to a transfinite amount. I may well conclude that at the moment this cannot be understood, but that in no way means that it will not be understood in the future with the progression of science.
Originally posted by sandwich
So given a theoretical situation where you had the opportunity and ultimate means to study the "inner workings", as it were, of a miracle in progress, what would you say if that miracle was inexpleciable? Given a theoretical capacity of your brain to understand the complete workings of science. Still unable to explain it. Now what?
:rolleyes: Read carefully, please.
-
Wow, this thread gained 100 posts in one day, freaky...
As the HLP turns... (old SW BB ppl will get it, but I guess that means almost nobody then lol...)
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Can't wait until Zylon and Top Gun get here; they will have a field day on this... :D
Feh. He's either trolling, or too stupid to bother with. "EVILution"?? Please.
Maybe he knows the guy who wrote this page...
http://members.aol.com/Savetele/
-
Wow, the Earth is in space. You know how long people have known that the Earth is probably in some greater medium? Far, far before biblical times, before even the Greek intellectual golden age.
You said "medium", I said void. There is a difference! A medium is when something is in something. The earth is not in something (space, but that isn't like air or water). It is in a void. We are in a medium, the air.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Well, if you accept my statement there, they are for the masses. The intellectual elite of the world has more important things to do in their lives. ;7
Yeah, like finding ways to get hotter chicks. :D ;7
-
Originally posted by sandwich
Why can't humans cure people miraculously? Well, uhm... maybe because they aren't God?
Hey, I got an advertisement letter from a woman the other day - she claims to be able to cure any illness, predict your future, find your true love, and basically anything else you might want. Cool, eh? :D
(note: I'm joking, please don't take this seriously ;) )
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
You believe in evilution, right? What is so scientific about it? No-one has ever proved that beyond a dout it's really true. www.drdino.com
Again read my article if you dare! freespace.0catch.com/articles/arguments_for_christianity.html
I dared. Mediocre at best- I've seen much better, and many were much nuttier and still better.
Think of it this way: You're arguing a point that cannot be defended by fact, logic, or any other human faculty except the same sort that makes people collect severed rodent feet, buy lottery tickets, and vote for imbeciles to make decisions on how they should live their lives. Moreover, your argument against the currently "opposing" point is that it cannot be proven without a shadow of a doubt. Ever hear of "doublethink"?
The truth is mutable and subjective- even if there was an objective "fact" or anything of the sort that everybody in the world could wholeheartedly and unequivocally agree with, we don't know it. So that argument can be effectively terminated. What this is, it's a logic argument, and thus is going to get boring fast unless somebody is open-minded enough to even countenance what everyone else has to say.
As for the rest of you, you seem to know what you're doing. (http://www.brunching.com/features/feature-argueusenet.html) :rolleyes:
-
Hey, I buy lottery tickets! What if by some random chance I win? The probability is small, but the possible gains more than make up for the small cost. :D
And, of course, there is The Plan™, but you're not ready to grasp it's scope...
-
Read carefully, please. :rolleyes:
I would say the same to you. The theoretical capacity of a transfinite number of brains in all of the future is similarly transfinite, and theoretically capable of anything. :p We operate as a civilization, not as individuals, when it comes to discovery of science.
Uhm... refresh my memory - where did I agree that? :confused:
Well, you said that "we are lucky to have a god that thinks like us" or something to that effect. :p
As the HLP turns... (old SW BB ppl will get it, but I guess that means almost nobody then lol...)
hey I understood that... :D
Feh. He's either trolling, or too stupid to bother with. "EVILution"?? Please.
Heh yeah that part was just crazy. :p
You said "medium", I said void. There is a difference! A medium is when something is in something. The earth is not in something (space, but that isn't like air or water). It is in a void. We are in a medium, the air.
Again, you are simply picking at words for lack of a better argument. Of course there is a difference between a medium and a lack of a medium, but in the context that it was obvious that I meant that the "Earth exists in something bigger." People started thinking about this ever since they looked at the planets and stars in the sky, which goes back beyond any reliable records
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Well, you said that "we are lucky to have a god that thinks like us" or something to that effect. :p
Yes he might of said that, but how does that corallate with your statement about the lord being as intelligent as a human being? Being able to understand how something thinks does not bring your mental capacity down to the creature in question's level.
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
You believe in evilution, right? What is so scientific about it? No-one has ever proved that beyond a dout it's really true. www.drdino.com
Again read my article if you dare! freespace.0catch.com/articles/arguments_for_christianity.html
Did you know I can semi-prove that every religion (again except Judaism and maybe Islam) is false! Well they say that the earth rests on something like a tree. Well we all know today that that is just not true! We go back to Job 26, "He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing." There you go. The proof that the Bible knows what it is talking about.
I'm not even going to dignify that waste of server space with an answer. The stupidity speaks for itselsf.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Nothing can be proved to be true "beyond a doubt," by the first fundamental rule. For the purposes of absolute reality however, it has indeed been observed even today for it to become a viable explanation.
I think i could prove beyond doubt that i am indeed alive.
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
You said "medium", I said void. There is a difference! A medium is when something is in something. The earth is not in something (space, but that isn't like air or water). It is in a void. We are in a medium, the air.
There's actually quite a lot of things in space (besides the earth) if you believe that satanic, secular science. Here's what the stars really are :rolleyes:
"And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind" (Revelation 6:13).
Nothing more than specs of shiny specs of dust :rolleyes:
Hey look! the earth is flat as well, the bible says so :rolleyes:
"And the devil taking [Jesus] up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time" (Luke 4:5; see also Matthew 4:8)
-
Originally posted by ZylonBane
Maybe he knows the guy who wrote this page...
http://members.aol.com/Savetele/
What does one have to do with the other? Don't try to confuse things by bringing in random elements of web insanity, please - this discussion is staying more or less "sane", and I'd like to keep it that way - at least until we break the Road Trip record. :D
Originally posted by CP5670
I would say the same to you. The theoretical capacity of a transfinite number of brains in all of the future is similarly transfinite, and theoretically capable of anything. :p We operate as a civilization, not as individuals, when it comes to discovery of science.
Which is why I said a theoretical situation. In a way, I agree that, given enough time, humanity is capable of reaching currently incomprehensible heights of knowledge, etc etc. But that's not the point. The point is a theoretical situation where something beyond the "transfinite" occurs - call it magic if that helps you understand what I'm talking about. It's absolutely inexplecible by the transfinite capabilities of humanity, ok? Remember, this is a theoretical situation.
In spite of all the laws of nature, physics, elementary laws of the universe, Bob's Law of Nosepicking - nothing scientific can explain how that stomach shrunk or that leg grew, m'kay? You still with me in this theoretical situation?
Would you then be able to accept the existance of God?
Originally posted by CP5670
Well, you said that "we are lucky to have a god that thinks like us" or something to that effect. :p
Again, please quote me, as we both have written so much in this topic that it's very easy to confuse/forget things.
-
Originally posted by Top Gun
There's actually quite a lot of things in space (besides the earth) if you believe that satanic, secular science. Here's what the stars really are :rolleyes:
Nothing more than specs of shiny specs of dust :rolleyes:
Hey look! the earth is flat as well, the bible says so :rolleyes:
You're all talking about how religions need to change with the times ( :rolleyes: )- yet you refuse to think for a moment about the world in which people lived in, or to be more precise, the words they didn't have to communicate with. Hardly any of the common scientific jargon that we're familiar with nowadays.
Plus, you should realize that the Bible is often written in poetic form.
-
Originally posted by sandwich
...at least until we break the Road Trip record. :D
Hmm... I'll have to take steps to ensure you never reach that number of posts then... :D
-
Originally posted by sandwich
Plus, you should realize that the Bible is often written in poetic form.
Which is precisely the idea I'm trying to put forward to him, when he fails to see Genesis as anything less than the divine truth. By posting them, I'm giving him examples of what else he MUST believe in, should he choose to accept the Bible as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and showing him what a mind bogglingly stupid belief he holds :nod:
-
Originally posted by Styxx
Hmm... I'll have to take steps to ensure you never reach that number of posts then... :D
It was a spam thread, yet it was sticky... it's so wrong... spam thread made by an admin. :headz:
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
edit: I found something better to say while browsing another forum. That, and the inability to be angry for long :p
Great joke! Best thing I've heard in days.
:headz: I'll leave that one though. It's just sooo cool :D
-
You seem to have forgotten that the admin are as human as the rest of you, deal with it :p
Oh, and try and keep it on topic please :)
-
Yes he might of said that, but how does that corallate with your statement about the lord being as intelligent as a human being? Being able to understand how something thinks does not bring your mental capacity down to the creature in question's level.
It indeed does, at a certain point. You see, philosophy is based on a combined synthesis of all ideas of knowledge, and all these parts of knowledge are related at the most fundamental level. (remember what I said earlier? knowledge=wisdom)
I'm not even going to dignify that waste of server space with an answer. The stupidity speaks for itselsf.
I agree with that as well, but I thought I might as well have a little fun there :D
I think i could prove beyond doubt that i am indeed alive.
Okay, go ahead, lets see the proof. :p :D Even Styxx, whose ideas do not entirely coincide with mine, would agree with me here. :p
Which is why I said a theoretical situation. In a way, I agree that, given enough time, humanity is capable of reaching currently incomprehensible heights of knowledge, etc etc. But that's not the point. The point is a theoretical situation where something beyond the "transfinite" occurs - call it magic if that helps you understand what I'm talking about. It's absolutely inexplecible by the transfinite capabilities of humanity, ok? Remember, this is a theoretical situation.
I am not sure what you are trying to imply here. Something "beyond the transfinite" is just another level of transfinity. You see, you are thinking in terms of finite quantities again; the culmination of knowledge through transfinite amounts of times will indeed allow us to become the gods that we speak of; heck, transfinitely times more powerful.
In spite of all the laws of nature, physics, elementary laws of the universe, Bob's Law of Nosepicking - nothing scientific can explain how that stomach shrunk or that leg grew, m'kay? You still with me in this theoretical situation?
Would you then be able to accept the existance of God?
Nothing scientific today can explain these incidents. However, that cannot be said of the future. For the second time, I point you to the example of the planetary motions I stated earlier; the same thing occurred there when people were trying to explain why the planets moved the way they did. You could attribute "god" to simply the unknown (call it whatever you like), but I will not fall back onto this idea of a superhuman unless all ideas (which are of a transfinite quanitity) have been collected and thoroughly analyzed into mathematical formulas. If they still cannot explain it, then of course, I will agree that this god exists. However, we are talking about transfinite amounts of time here, which would go well beyond even the life of the entire universe, much less that of human beings. Think of humans as an advanced civilization that is contantly evolving, not as insignificant individuals with their silly ambitions.
As Zylon said, ascribing these things to a magical man to make things simple and understandable to the average idiot is the last thing we should fall upon and, given the options we have right now, is the stupidest thing we as a civilization can do.
Again, please quote me, as we both have written so much in this topic that it's very easy to confuse/forget things.
Here you go:
Well then we're all very blessed not to have a God who has Human-like ambitions, aren't we?
Which is precisely the idea I'm trying to put forward to him, when he fails to see Genesis as anything less than the divine truth. By posting them, I'm giving him examples of what else he MUST believe in, should he choose to accept the Bible as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and showing him what a mind bogglingly stupid belief he holds :nod:
:D :lol: :yes:
You seem to have forgotten that the admin are as human as the rest of you, deal with it :p
Really?! :eek:
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Just about everyone has a Ph.D. these days; when I refer to the intellectual elite, I mean the true philosophers. (Aristotle, Neitzche, Hegel, etc.) Look at how many of those guys were married. :p
Nietzche was nuts. And how do you know Aristotle didn't pop over to the local cathouse for a quick shagging?
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Nietzche was nuts. And how do you know Aristotle didn't pop over to the local cathouse for a quick shagging?
:lol: :lol:
-
Originally posted by CP5670
It indeed does, at a certain point. You see, philosophy is based on a combined synthesis of all ideas of knowledge, and all these parts of knowledge are related at the most fundamental level. (remember what I said earlier? knowledge=wisdom)
It indeed doesnt, dont try to infuse other things into what i said in a foolish attempt to disprove what i am saying.
-
I agree that Neitzche was a bit crazy with the racial stuff, but he, like all philosophers had some good ideas. Leibniz also had some nice ideas, while others made less sense. All of them can be described in that way.
Actually, the true nut of a philosopher is the notorious Adolf Hitler himself, but even he had one or two sensible ideas, just like the rest of them.
It indeed doesnt, dont try to infuse other things into what i said in a foolish attempt to disprove what i am saying.
So that's the best argument you can think of?
-
Originally posted by CP5670
I agree that Neitzche was a bit crazy with the racial stuff, but he, like all philosophers had some good ideas.
Is that about the Ubermensch-Untermensch stuff?
It is my understanding that Nietzche did NOT have race in mind when he said that, but self-empowerment away from religion.
-
The things I really like about Neitzche is his extreme hostility towards religion (just like me) and his idea that concepts of morality will fade into uncertainty over time. However, he also said the literary truth was the ultimate truth, and not the scientific and mathematical truth as I have concluded, and at least from what I have heard, he did have some race-based ideas about man and superman, although I could be wrong about that.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
The things I really like about Neitzche is his extreme hostility towards religion (just like me) and his idea that concepts of morality will fade into uncertainty over time. However, he also said the literary truth was the ultimate truth, and not the scientific and mathematical truth as I have concluded, and at least from what I have heard, he did have some race-based ideas, although I could be wrong about that.
I hope for your safety you never get into a conversation with a muslim. Anyway its not surprising someone as misguided as you would of missed religion as well as life.
-
I hope for your safety you never get into a conversation with a muslim. Anyway its not surprising someone as misguided as you would of missed religion as well as life.
Once I get my book published, I will be arguing my whole life. :D
Also, this shows that you do not seem to have the ability to defend your viewpoints; this argument, like some of your previous ones, are completely irrelevant to the subject and simply characterize your opponents with traits that have no pertinence to the subject matter. Also, to end this off, "I am offended!" :p :D :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Also, to end this off, "I am offended!" :p :D :D
:lol: :lol:
Note: from now on, my participation at this subject will be restricted to carefully placed :lol: smilies.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
It indeed does, at a certain point. You see, philosophy is based on a combined synthesis of all ideas of knowledge, and all these parts of knowledge are related at the most fundamental level. (remember what I said earlier? knowledge=wisdom)
Philosphy is what is it. Thus cannot be taken for anything more than the some of its value, it bears no relation to the subject in question, which was related to the intelligence of a certain omnipotent being.
I am not sure what you are trying to imply here. Something "beyond the transfinite" is just another level of transfinity. You see, you are thinking in terms of finite quantities again; the culmination of knowledge through transfinite amounts of times will indeed allow us to become the gods that we speak of; heck, transfinitely times more powerful.
We are finite beings on thus earth, we can only learn so much during a lifetime and our physical existance ends.
Nothing scientific today can explain these incidents. However, that cannot be said of the future. For the second time, I point you to the example of the planetary motions I stated earlier; the same thing occurred there when people were trying to explain why the planets moved the way they did. You could attribute "god" to simply the unknown (call it whatever you like), but I will not fall back onto this idea of a superhuman unless all ideas (which are of a transfinite quanitity) have been collected and thoroughly analyzed into mathematical formulas. If they still cannot explain it, then of course, I will agree that this god exists. However, we are talking about transfinite amounts of time here, which would go well beyond even the life of the entire universe, much less that of human beings. Think of humans as an advanced civilization that is contantly evolving, not as insignificant individuals with their silly ambitions.
As Zylon said, ascribing these things to a magical man to make things simple and understandable to the average idiot is the last thing we should fall upon and, given the options we have right now, is the stupidest thing we as a civilization can do.
The lord is not superhuman for he not of men. The Son of Man was however, the big bang happened, but where did it come from, what started it? You can never prove science, only disprove some parts of it. Thus anything that cannot be disproved could be believed without being labeled as stupid. Really whether what we believe in is true or not doesnt matter. The simple matter is, its something to believe in and we all follow our religion which usually benefits the world, either through us being kind and not breaking the law, to organizations such as Cafod.
Also colour is spelt with a U!
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Also colour is spelt with a U!
no! color is spelled without a U! :D
Hmmmm...this thread is out of control. I can't keep up.
-
Good Lord...this is going to take a while...
Firstly, on logic:
Originally posted by Zeronet
I think i could prove beyond doubt that i am indeed alive.
No, you can't. Styxx and CP have explained this in highly technical and correct terms already ( :wink: ) but basically, you can only perceive 'life' in terms of your experience - so you don't know if your life is the same as everyone else's. Who's to say that you're not in some kind of afterlife now, or in a coma dreaming us all up? :D
In experimental terms and terms of 'fact' you cannot prove anything because you have not been present for all instances of an occurence. Thus you can only show that something is probable.
Originally posted by Zeronet
These days its white people who get all the stick.
You ever think it's because they have a historical legacy of deserving it?[/b] Slavery, Colonialism, exploitation of the Third World, unethical foreign policy... :rolleyes:
But I guess I'm just a whining, bleeding heart liberal, self-hating white boy.
Originally posted by Zeronet[/i]
Anyway its not surprising someone as misguided as you would of missed religion as well as life.
[//Judgement] :blah:
(and yes, I'm well aware of the ironies of calling someone judgemental, thank you.)
Originally posted by Sandwich[/i]
And as for anyone touching the Jews getting "repaid", so to speak - look at history. Look at all the nations that came and went, steamrolling over the Jewish people en route to world conquest: Babylon, Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome - their status in modern times is minor at best.
There's one glaring inconsistency in your list there. Germany. I'm sure you'd agree that it's still the economic powerhouse of Europe. Mind you, Hitler was from Austria, a totally insignificant nation. :D Problem is, it was insignificant before WW2 as well.
And Stryke 9: I am surprised to say that I agree with you on almost every point which you have posted on the last couple of pages.
-
Originally posted by Corsair
no! color is spelled without a U! :D
Hmmmm...this thread is out of control. I can't keep up.
It seems to have been re-energised entirely by CP5670. :D By changing the whole point of the thread to perceptive reality and using religion as an example, too... ;)
-
Originally posted by CP5670
(remember what I said earlier? knowledge=wisdom)
Religon completely aside (and I'm not even sure how you got to this point, but what the hey), that's wrong. I'm not getting into literal, super-precise usages of words here, but essentially knowledge is the possesion of data. Wisdom is knowing how to use that data in a manner that is effecient and beneficial.
And yes, I know beneficial is a relative term to whom is benefiting, etc etc.
Originally posted by CP5670
I am not sure what you are trying to imply here. Something "beyond the transfinite" is just another level of transfinity. You see, you are thinking in terms of finite quantities again; the culmination of knowledge through transfinite amounts of times will indeed allow us to become the gods that we speak of; heck, transfinitely times more powerful.
Nothing scientific today can explain these incidents. However, that cannot be said of the future. For the second time, I point you to the example of the planetary motions I stated earlier; the same thing occurred there when people were trying to explain why the planets moved the way they did. You could attribute "god" to simply the unknown (call it whatever you like), but I will not fall back onto this idea of a superhuman unless all ideas (which are of a transfinite quanitity) have been collected and thoroughly analyzed into mathematical formulas. If they still cannot explain it, then of course, I will agree that this god exists. However, we are talking about transfinite amounts of time here, which would go well beyond even the life of the entire universe, much less that of human beings. Think of humans as an advanced civilization that is contantly evolving, not as insignificant individuals with their silly ambitions.
Ok, I can see your point quite clearly. And it is a valid point, strictly speaking. But where we differ in opinion is that I believe that God's working of miracles cannot be understood by any means. I don't believe that it is at all possible to reach a point where His ways are understandable by us. I don't believe that such a point exists, and therefore even if we improve transfinitely, we cannot reach a point that doesn't exist.
Anyways, I've another question for you, this one a bit more.... tame, shall we say? :) What's the difference, if any, between "transfinite" and "infinite"?
Originally posted by CP5670
Here you go:
Originally posted by Sandwich
Well then we're all very blessed not to have a God who has Human-like ambitions, aren't we?
Ahh, much better. Now, I hate to sound like a broken record, but read the post carefully. :nod:
Originally posted by Kellan
There's one glaring inconsistency in your list there. Germany. I'm sure you'd agree that it's still the economic powerhouse of Europe. Mind you, Hitler was from Austria, a totally insignificant nation. :D Problem is, it was insignificant before WW2 as well.
When Job was sent by God to Nineveh to proclaim it's impending destruction, the people repented, and God spared (for the moment) the city.
I know for a fact that Germany has numerous Christians interceeding for thier nation before God. And even secular Germany is by and large apologetic for the Holocaust, even if many of them weren't even born then.
-
Originally posted by sandwich
In the Old Testament, God required a blood sacrifice once a year to atone for the sins of the people. Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice, atoning for all mankind for all eternity - for those who choose to accept it.
So just to make sure I'm understanding here...
The entire point of religious sacrifice is to demonstrate your fear of a vengeful god by taking something you value, and destroying it (in His name).
So Jesus was an extra-special human sacrifice to God. Two problems here--
1. Jesus was executed, not sacrificed.
2. The whole thing was planned by God anyway.
Since the "sacrifice" was to God, of God, and orchestrated by God, to accomplish an end which He could have achieved by just deciding that Original Sin was forgiven, the entire thing seems like nothing more than an exercise in divine masturbation.
-
Ssh, Zylon! Critical thought has no place here- believe me, I've made almost that exact argument before.;)
-
Originally posted by ZylonBane
So just to make sure I'm understanding here...
The entire point of religious sacrifice is to demonstrate your fear of a vengeful god by taking something you value, and destroying it (in His name).
So Jesus was an extra-special human sacrifice to God. Two problems here--
1. Jesus was executed, not sacrificed.
2. The whole thing was planned by God anyway.
Since the "sacrifice" was to God, of God, and orchestrated by God, to accomplish an end which He could have achieved by just deciding that Original Sin was forgiven, the entire thing seems like nothing more than an exercise in divine masturbation.
You probably missed it - I posted earlier in the thread (waaay earlier...) a few verses about Jesus' death being a sacrifice. IIRC it was when we were discussing how the Jews had been blamed for killing Jesus. Read John 10:18 and following.
As for #2 and the following paragraph, I must commend you - very good question/point. I don't claim to have all the answers, but all I know (and the other verses I quoted earlier are the source for this) is that Jesus' self-sacrifice was a fulfillment of prophecy. Which logically is followed by the question of why God had the prophets prophesy those things. I can't answer that one, but then again there's a lot of things that God has allowed or caused throughout history that I, seeing from a human, time-bound perspective, cannot comprehend why He didn't do them in some other way.
Perhaps someone more knowledgable could explain it - I'd guess there's a tie-in with the requirement of sacrifice for atonement, but I'm not familiar enough with that area to argue the point.
And please, let's not get into an endless children's classic - the eternal "Why?" looop. :D Because you know already what the final answer will end up being: "Because". :D
-
'Course, Jesus would hardly be the only case in point- considering that God is essentially in charge of EVERYTHING, the Universe would be more or less a giant puppet show, with God directly orchestrating almost everything, and indirectly controlling the few things that he isn't immediately at the wheel of. Humanity, for instance. I'm not sure if this has been gone over already here, but can anyone explain why a benevolent God would give man the capacity and desire to commit certain acts, then label those acts evil and eternally torment those who do them? What kind of God would create a Hell for people who followed their own nature?
-
I'm baaaaack! :D
Philosphy is what is it. Thus cannot be taken for anything more than the some of its value, it bears no relation to the subject in question, which was related to the intelligence of a certain omnipotent being.
Read my post again. I said that philosophy is a synthesis of all learning; if we bring philosophy down to the precision of logical constructs, we have reached the peak of knowledge. Now, if this god has the same ambitions as we humans do (which you seem to have agreed on), then he can be duped just as easily as we can, because our motives are what are exploited when we are tricked into doing things. (a basic law of human psychology)
We are finite beings on thus earth, we can only learn so much during a lifetime and our physical existance ends.
Even the religious side will disagree with that statement. Of course our individual lives are finite, but we do not operate independently like animals do; we operate as a civilization, and the ideas of one man are passed on to the next generation. Keep repeating this process through a transfinite number of generations, and you get the tranfinitely-timed constantly-evolving "machine" of all of human society.
It seems to have been re-energised entirely by CP5670. :D By changing the whole point of the thread to perceptive reality and using religion as an example, too...
Hey, I can reenergize any of these types of threads with my radical ideas and quarrelsome nature when it comes to defending them. :D These things are all linked together, so to fully understand one we must understand part of another. This perceptive/absolute truth thing is so fundamental that it is the basis for all cognitive human thought. That's why it is called the first fundamental rule. :D
The lord is not superhuman for he not of men. The Son of Man was however, the big bang happened, but where did it come from, what started it? You can never prove science, only disprove some parts of it. Thus anything that cannot be disproved could be believed without being labeled as stupid. Really whether what we believe in is true or not doesnt matter. The simple matter is, its something to believe in and we all follow our religion which usually benefits the world, either through us being kind and not breaking the law, to organizations such as Cafod.
You can never prove or disprove anything in the absolute. (both my first fundamental rule and Godel's theorem show this) Of course it is something to believe in, but not something that multiple independent thinking units (humans, if you will) can agree on, while science is indeed something that all of us can agree on, and it benefits our species far, far more than religion does. (religion played an important part in the forming of civilization, but with the evolving of society and human thought over millennia, it is now unneeded)
Religon completely aside (and I'm not even sure how you got to this point, but what the hey), that's wrong. I'm not getting into literal, super-precise usages of words here, but essentially knowledge is the possesion of data. Wisdom is knowing how to use that data in a manner that is effecient and beneficial.
And yes, I know beneficial is a relative term to whom is benefiting, etc etc.
Wisdom can be defined as the application of abstract knowledge to practical life situations. Therefore, it is still just a form of knowledge at its very core. That is what I said earlier. :p
Ok, I can see your point quite clearly. And it is a valid point, strictly speaking. But where we differ in opinion is that I believe that God's working of miracles cannot be understood by any means. I don't believe that it is at all possible to reach a point where His ways are understandable by us. I don't believe that such a point exists, and therefore even if we improve transfinitely, we cannot reach a point that doesn't exist.
Again, why don't you believe it? It is way too specialized an idea to take as an assumption. Although this makes for a stupid argument, I will go for it, because it is effective in convincing the masses. All of the great mathematicians, physicists and philosophers of history were on divided opinion on the topic of god - some believed in him and some did not - but they all agreed on two points regarding him. These were that god plays absolutely no role in the workings of the universe today and is completely distinct from it, and that it is possible for humans to accumulate all possible knowledge given enough time.
What's the difference, if any, between "transfinite" and "infinite"?
Transfinite quantities are basically something between finite and infinite; they cannot be explicitly expressed by any finite procedure and are larger than any finite quantities, but mathematical operations can be performed on them just like with finite numbers. For computational purpose, they can just be assigned variables; traditionally the first few Hebrew letters are used, the smallest transfinite quanitity being designated as À-0. ;) These quantities occur everywhere in real life when we start to look at things from a philosophical perspective, and things can be easily computed using these methods. Infinite quantities are the highest possible transfinite quantities, so direct computations involving them are meaningless, but these have been mathematically shown not to come up in real life, so they remain a theoretical (but still extremely important) idea.
And please, let's not get into an endless children's classic - the eternal "Why?" looop. :D Because you know already what the final answer will end up being: "Because".
Well, then that is not science. Bring it down to logical constructs, and I will then accept it. Until then, it makes about as much sense as the "Jesus baked a cake" thing Zylon stated earlier. :D
no! color is spelled without a U!
yeah! Look at dictionary.com or webster.com! :D :yes:
'Course, Jesus would hardly be the only case in point- considering that God is essentially in charge of EVERYTHING, the Universe would be more or less a giant puppet show, with God directly orchestrating almost everything, and indirectly controlling the few things that he isn't immediately at the wheel of. Humanity, for instance. I'm not sure if this has been gone over already here, but can anyone explain why a benevolent God would give man the capacity and desire to commit certain acts, then label those acts evil and eternally torment those who do them? What kind of God would create a Hell for people who followed their own nature?
I thought the non-deterministic (random) universe has essentially been experimentally proved to be an accurate description of reality with the IRVs? Doesn't matter in any case, as even if the universe does operate in a predefined manner, then god does not have the capacity to do things any more than we do.
-
Okay, which one of these IRVs (http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?String=exact&Acronym=irv) are you assuming we know?
-
Actually, I stated earlier in this thread that IRV=independently random variable - a random occurrence whose cause was not affected by outside events. Current belief among physicists is that these almost definitely exist in the form of subatomic particles. ;)
-
Originally posted by CP5670
then god does not have the capacity to do things any more than we do.
Then what's the point of worshipping him?;)
-
Then what's the point of worshipping him?;)
Absolutely none. (remember that I am on the anti-religion team, and possibly the most extreme guy there too :D) Actually, it distills confidence into the average man that some higher being is watching over him as the man goes through the perils of his life, and so even if he knows that it does not make sense, he goes by it anyway because it makes him feel better. For the real seekers of truth, however, it is indeed useless. :p
-
Come on everyone, post something! I need more arguments to refute! :D ;7 :D
-
No thanks; I've got a driveler on the line at the moment, and I like to keep only one quibble going at a time.
That, and I more or less agree with you.
-
Actually I meant someone on the pro-religion party. ;)
-
I could pretend, since I'm not really in ANY party...:D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Actually I meant someone on the pro-religion party. ;)
LOL, I could call up a friend... :D
-
As I said before, I am going to have to argue about this my entire life once I get that book published, so it is well to have some practice. :D :D
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
I could pretend, since I'm not really in ANY party...:D
:lol: :lol:
-
Several things:
1a)Philosophically speaking, a siginificant part of your arguments are undermined by a fundamental error, illustrated here, for example: Nothing can be proved to be true "beyond a doubt," by the first fundamental rule. For the purposes of absolute reality however, it has indeed been observed even today for it to become a viable explanation.
You often refer to the difference between absolute and preceived truth (more technical philosophical terms are the noumenal and phenomenal, a la Kant), and base arguments upon it (essentially running along the lines that since God can never be known in the absolute sense, it is silly to believe in him). However, implicit in your arguments, and even somewhat explicit at times, is the assumption that you are able to somehow access the noumenal. You, like all of us, are confined to your perception, and do not have access to noumenal. What the noumenal may be is something that cannot be known by any means whatsoever, for our only access is in, through and to the phenomenal. "Scientific truth" can ultimately make no claim to being the true story of things, but merely the generally agreed upon account of our phenomenal experience.
1b) Well, that is true, but the belief should be cut down to the most simple and fundamental ideas. When the ideas reach a level of simplicity that cannot be further simplified, that becomes the foundation of rational thought. Now the only way the human brain is able to theorize anything is by using logical constructs, which is why these should be regarded as the assumptions. (this is part of the first fundamental assumption) This kind of unnerving faith in religion remains not only irrational, but stupid to the highest order.
Non sequitur.
2) Transfinity: From an atheistic point of view, one has little choice but to conclude that humanity is finite. The species will die, the suns will go out, the rocks will grow cold, the universe will go to its heat death, and in the end we as a whole will be shown to be so very, very finite. (Alternatively, the looped universe theories may be true, but then we still all die).
3) You have not answered my objection re: pre-rational decisions. The choice to believe this or that is primary, as every last one of us here demonstrates, whether realising it or not. Every one of the arguments that you, for example, have put forward assume the non-existence of God from the outset.
4) Credibility: So in other words, you will never concede any amount of evidence as being sufficient to make the account of a miracle credible. This seems remarkably dogmatic.
I would continue, but, alas, I must sleep and rise to go to work tomorrow.
P.S. Actually, that simply shows the gullibility of the average human mind and the failure to take more variables into account. (changing of history, to name one; why does this not happen so often today?) In fact, if I was a powerful public speaker like Hitler, I bet I could easily convince all of you into believing that I was the god and absolute ruler of the world.
The first part needs more explication, as your meaning is unclear. As for the second: umm, no. Methinks thy ego needeth some deflating! ;)
-
Several things: :D :D
You often refer to the difference between absolute and preceived truth (more technical philosophical terms are the noumenal and phenomenal, a la Kant), and base arguments upon it (essentially running along the lines that since God can never be known in the absolute sense, it is silly to believe in him). However, implicit in your arguments, and even somewhat explicit at times, is the assumption that you are able to somehow access the noumenal. You, like all of us, are confined to your perception, and do not have access to noumenal. What the noumenal may be is something that cannot be known by any means whatsoever, for our only access is in, through and to the phenomenal. "Scientific truth" can ultimately make no claim to being the true story of things, but merely the generally agreed upon account of our phenomenal experience.
Again, look at my first fundamental rule. I'm not saying that science is the ultimate - nothing is the "ultimate" as far as that goes - but what I am saying is that it is miles ahead of this popular religion. Science is something that everyone can experimentally test, while religion has already been said here to be "something beyond man" and such, the result being that even the religious people in the world cannot agree on the exact principles of religion, leading to the creation of several different religions that all endlessly bicker with each other, sometimes violently.
Of course, at the most basic level, absolutely nothing can be assumed, as I said earlier many times. Now if we go by this, it is impossible to deduce anything, or even to attempt to think, as long as more than one thinking unit is involved. This is where the perceptive reality paradox comes in. I put in this argument before: I can say that I am the god and ruler of the world, because I perceive it to be so, and so it is correct. :p In that manner, anything can be perceived, and who would be to say whether or not it is correct? Here's another example: gravity is a repellent force, not an attractive force, because I perceive it as such. I am just as correct as those who claim the opposite. If everyone uses this principle, each person will come out with a different view, and the society as a whole will not get anywhere.
To avoid these situations temporarily (they can be dealt with once all the absolute knowledge has been analyzed), the first fundamental assumption of logic must come into play, and this is precisely the premise behind the assumption. The only basis on which multiple thinking units can work together to solve a common problem is the logic rules, and science is merely a distant extension of those. Therefore, going by these logic rules, anything that cannot be observed objectively does not exist in the absolute realm. The amount of knowledge in each realm is obviously transfinite, but the absolute truth area is not only far smaller, but far smaller by a transfinite amount, because in the perceptive realm, everything exists. A god and the lack of a god both exist here, which sounds strange when going by logic (this is different from the quantum world: there, things are indeterminate, but here, anything can be both true and false; I will write a more precise and detailed treatment of this subject in that book) Now, where is it easier to start off the pursuit of knowledge with?
Therefore, this essentially boils down to picking the simplest assumptions. My assumptions are the postulates of logic. Yours are the existence of not only a god, but a human-like god who interferes in human affairs. Which appear to be more fundamental and can be used to construct the other? :rolleyes:
2) Transfinity: From an atheistic point of view, one has little choice but to conclude that humanity is finite. The species will die, the suns will go out, the rocks will grow cold, the universe will go to its heat death, and in the end we as a whole will be shown to be so very, very finite. (Alternatively, the looped universe theories may be true, but then we still all die).
You are discounting the most important variable of them all: technological advance. This is the one big variable that the great philosophers of the past failed to include in their calculations. The currently accepted big bang theory actually shows that the very laws of science can be altered under certain conditions, including the laws of time. Besides, if we continue to progress at even a geometric rate (current rate is at least exponential, if not greater), by the time the universe ends, regardless of the cosmological curvature, we will have long since surpassed the powers of this "god." (which, by the way, are obviously finite; seeing the universe today, either he can only do certain things, or he can do anything but lacks the will, which is equivalent)
Also, if the universe has a transfinite amount of mass, for which there is reasonable evidence (although not enough to be commonly accepted as an absolute truth), then your whole argument would be invalidated anyway. Also, I am thinking that it might be possible to extend the general relativity equation to incorporate three time dimensions instead of one so that it will explain the strange effects seen at the subatomic level; if this can indeed be done in even two dimensions, then time could be turned into transfinity in a limited region of space, resulting in the time-point universe theory and a perpetual humanity. (although I will not vouch for this part just yet, since I am not sure of it myself)
3) You have not answered my objection re: pre-rational decisions. The choice to believe this or that is primary, as every last one of us here demonstrates, whether realising it or not. Every one of the arguments that you, for example, have put forward assume the non-existence of God from the outset.
See first part of the post.
4) Credibility: So in other words, you will never concede any amount of evidence as being sufficient to make the account of a miracle credible. This seems remarkably dogmatic.
Show me the exact procedures in terms of logic and math constructs that god carries out to perform these so-called miracles, and I will readily accept it. I said this earlier, but I will repeat it: nobody who supposedly experiences these miracles ever tries to formulate mathematical equations, or even thinks about this, because their structure will then fall apart. This "god made a miracle happen" thing by itself is crazy. It is like saying "a computer works because of the laws of science;" many, many more details are needed.
The first part needs more explication, as your meaning is unclear. As for the second: umm, no. Methinks thy ego needeth some deflating! ;)
What I meant there was that humans will believe anything they are told with ease if it sounds simple to them. As for the second bit, look at the procedures through which sociology and politics operate, and you will then see how ignorant that statement was. If you're talking about "ego," let me put it this way: any of you could drill your ideas into everyone else here if you had the skill of powerful rabble-rousing oratory (which I unfortunately do not have, I'm the loner :D), but your ideas would need to be simple enough for the common man to accept. (which they definitely are) For the fourth time, humans will adhere to simplistic ideas much more than to complicated ones, even if they are contradictory.
One thing I wanted to mention: why does everyone who believes in the existence of god also like this god? If a god could be mathematically proven to exist, I would obviously accept it, but I would hate him beyond all words. :p
Time for me to go to sleep, but I'll be back in five hours! :D
Oh, one last thing; I am right and everyone else is wrong because I say so! |-|4w |-|4w |-|4w. ;7 :D j/k
-
Originally posted by Top Gun
I'm not even going to dignify that waste of server space with an answer. The stupidity speaks for itselsf.
:confused: What stupidity?! Everything in that article is based on fact, since that's what you non-christians seem to be interested in. I used bible references to tell you were I got the stories from so YOU could look them up and see that I wasn't lying.
Today I have a challenge for you go to your local Christian Church and have this argument with a pastor. And if he knows what he's talking about you will lose you argument that God doesn't exist.
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
You said "medium", I said void. There is a difference! A medium is when something is in something. The earth is not in something (space, but that isn't like air or water). It is in a void. We are in a medium, the air.
Technically speaking, the Earth is in a medium.... vaccum is not a true void. Look close enough and it is not empty, it is a 'froth' of ephemeral, subatomic particles. I read a theory somewhere that a truly empty region of space would result in a Big Bang.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Technically speaking, the Earth is in a medium.... vaccum is not a true void. Look close enough and it is not empty, it is a 'froth' of ephemeral, subatomic particles. I read a theory somewhere that a truly empty region of space would result in a Big Bang.
:confused: Are you telling me that nothing can explode?
So just to make sure I'm understanding here...
The entire point of religious sacrifice is to demonstrate your fear of a vengeful god by taking something you value, and destroying it (in His name).
So Jesus was an extra-special human sacrifice to God. Two problems here--
1. Jesus was executed, not sacrificed.
2. The whole thing was planned by God anyway.
Since the "sacrifice" was to God, of God, and orchestrated by God, to accomplish an end which He could have achieved by just deciding that Original Sin was forgiven, the entire thing seems like nothing more than an exercise in divine masturbation.
AHHHHH
1. You are responsible for your sins.
2. You need someone or something to die in your place to attone for those sins.
3. No-one is sinless (except Jesus). So no-one can die to take away your sins (except Jesus).
It was more for his love for us that he did it. We needed to be shown love so we could love (botherly love not the spouse kinda love) others. That's part of the Christian doctorin.
Make no mistake about it. Jesus is a PART God. Jesus + Holy Spirit + The Father = GOD That's the Trinity.
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
:confused: Are you telling me that nothing can explode?
I'm just repeating a theory I heard about how the Big Bang was caused.
AHHHHH
1. You are responsible for your sins.
2. You need someone or something to die in your place to attone for those sins.
3. No-one is sinless (except Jesus). So no-one can die to take away your sins (except Jesus).
It was more for his love for us that he did it. We needed to be shown love so we could love (botherly love not the spouse kinda love) others. That's part of the Christian doctorin.
Make no mistake about it. Jesus is a PART God. Jesus + Holy Spirit + The Father = GOD That's the Trinity. [/B]
I know I'm responsible for my sins. I accept that.
I also don't believe in the christian god, so the fact that I sin has little relevance to me.
Now, if you don't mind, I have some sinning to get done.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
I'm just repeating a theory I heard about how the Big Bang was caused.
:confused: But does that make sense?! If it does....I hope you can find a.... one of those guy's that has you lay on a couch and you tell him your life. But a pastor at a Christian Church would be better.
I know I'm responsible for my sins. I accept that.
I also don't believe in the christian god, so the fact that I sin has little relevance to me.
Now, if you don't mind, I have some sinning to get done.
Well then you going to hell! And I am sad about that. :( Very sad. :( :( :(
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
Well then you going to hell! And I am sad about that. :( Very sad. :( :( :(
No he won't. Shrike stated not believing in your christian god, ergo he doens't believe in your christian heaven either, ergo he doesn't believe in your christian devil and hell either, ergo he won't go to hell.
And on your article: Bible references do not make science, but jibberish. That's why no creationist anywhere has ever come up with a real scientific paper (up for peer-review) that tries to refute evolution (learn to spell) with science. Why's that? Because creationism is rubbish.
As said before: science is not against religion, it's religion that is against science. If there is a god than there will come a day that science (and science alone) can prove (with science) that it exists. As it stands now nothing needs god to explain how things work. Science does that fine.
On another note: if we'd go by what appears to be your and your fellow religious (most probably Bible Belter/Religious Reich fanatics) people's ideas then we would still be living in the dark ages, where the inquisition ruled supreme. Burning everyone that dared to critise its views.
No thank you.
-
hotsnoj, you're not fooling anyone, y'know.
May as well throw another aerosol can on the fire...
True or False-- An athiest would adapt better to God being proven, than a Christian would to God being disproven.
Frankly I don't think the Chrisitans would fare so well. The decision to believe in God seems to be made from cultural indoctrination, or an inner desperate need to believe in something bigger. Loss of that cultural core/emotional crutch would probably be devastating.
As for the athiests/agnostics... well, if you're already living a moral, "do unto others" life, then there wouldn't really be a need for any change in your life at all. This God would be either compassionate and reasonable, in which case you go to Heaven for being a nice person, or a vengeful, petty, bipolar attention whore... in which case you're going to Hell no matter what.
-
Originally posted by ZylonBane
hotsnoj, you're not fooling anyone, y'know.
May as well throw another aerosol can on the fire...
True or False-- An athiest would adapt better to God being proven, than a Christian would to God being disproven.
Frankly I don't think the Chrisitans would fare so well. The decision to believe in God seems to be made from cultural indoctrination, or an inner desperate need to believe in something bigger. Loss of that cultural core/emotional crutch would probably be devastating.
As for the athiests/agnostics... well, if you're already living a moral, "do unto others" life, then there wouldn't really be a need for any change in your life at all. This God would be either compassionate and reasonable, in which case you go to Heaven for being a nice person, or a vengeful, petty, bipolar attention whore... in which case you're going to Hell no matter what.
Not quite the way i'd put it, but....
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
No he won't. Shrike stated not believing in your christian god, ergo he doens't believe in your christian heaven either, ergo he doesn't believe in your christian devil and hell either, ergo he won't go to hell.
And on your article: Bible references do not make science, but jibberish. That's why no creationist anywhere has ever come up with a real scientific paper (up for peer-review) that tries to refute evolution (learn to spell) with science. Why's that? Because creationism is rubbish.
As said before: science is not against religion, it's religion that is against science. If there is a god than there will come a day that science (and science alone) can prove (with science) that it exists. As it stands now nothing needs god to explain how things work. Science does that fine.
On another note: if we'd go by what appears to be your and your fellow religious (most probably Bible Belter/Religious Reich fanatics) people's ideas then we would still be living in the dark ages, where the inquisition ruled supreme. Burning everyone that dared to critise its views.
No thank you.
Ok now your logic just is not logic any more. Let me put what you just said in different wording.
I can see the winds effects. But I can't see the wind. So then it must not exist. Or. I have never seen Europe, so it must not exist. Now you might say, "I live in Europe you %#@%&!", Then I'd say, "But you have to be lying because I've never seen it so it can't exist."
That is what you said. So there are ultimate truths!
-
Damn, I knew I wouldn't be able to keep my mouth shut for so long... :D
Originally posted by Shrike
Technically speaking, the Earth is in a medium.... vaccum is not a true void. Look close enough and it is not empty, it is a 'froth' of ephemeral, subatomic particles. I read a theory somewhere that a truly empty region of space would result in a Big Bang.
Eh, I guess I showed you my own theory about that, right? ;)
Originally posted by Shrike
I know I'm responsible for my sins. I accept that.
I also don't believe in the christian god, so the fact that I sin has little relevance to me.
Now, if you don't mind, I have some sinning to get done.
Indeed, check last colored line of signature. ;7
Originally posted by hotsnoj
Ok now your logic just is not logic any more. Let me put what you just said in different wording.
I can see the winds effects. But I can't see the wind. So then it must not exist. Or. I have never seen Europe, so it must not exist. Now you might say, "I live in Europe you %#@%&!", Then I'd say, "But you have to be lying because I've never seen it so it can't exist."
That is what you said. So there are ultimate truths!
But you can GO to europe any time tou want... :p
-
just give the UK a miss....unless you want your motivation to be sucked out by the primordial black hole that forms the foundations of the country?
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
Ok now your logic just is not logic any more. Let me put what you just said in different wording.
I can see the winds effects. But I can't see the wind. So then it must not exist. Or. I have never seen Europe, so it must not exist. Now you might say, "I live in Europe you %#@%&!", Then I'd say, "But you have to be lying because I've never seen it so it can't exist."
That is what you said. So there are ultimate truths!
I'm sorry but I think you took the reference of 'see' a little too literally....
-
Here's an interesting question for the religious types out there; purely theoretical. :D
If, through exploration of space we discovered a being that had all the powers over the Earth that your God had (such as ability to control weather) and was aware of all the Gospel, would you accept that as GOD?
Or would you say that because it exists in the context of God's Universe, it's not God, but a creation of God?
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
Ok now your logic just is not logic any more. Let me put what you just said in different wording.
I can see the winds effects. But I can't see the wind. So then it must not exist. Or. I have never seen Europe, so it must not exist. Now you might say, "I live in Europe you %#@%&!", Then I'd say, "But you have to be lying because I've never seen it so it can't exist."
Bad Analogy! The existence of the wind can be explained through preassure systems and the very nature of its effects prove it to exist. The Earth could exist just as easily without god as it could with it, and there remains no proof (the bible isn't proof). You're confusing your causes and effects :D
-
But does that make sense?!
Yes, scientists have concluded that the absence of something - i.e. nothing - is also something, and with only nothing in the universe, something would have to be generated (using the matter/antimatter principle), or else our 4D spacetime would either break itself apart or, more likely, shrink itself to a singular point. And yes it does make sense from a mathematical perspective. However, there is not enough evidence to make it a true law of science just yet.
What stupidity?! Everything in that article is based on fact, since that's what you non-christians seem to be interested in. I used bible references to tell you were I got the stories from so YOU could look them up and see that I wasn't lying.
It is true, but most of it is irrelevant to the subject matter and/or contains inadequate examples in an attempt to prove a rule. (i.e. for every case where your explanation turns out to be true, i can show you ten where it is false)
It was more for his love for us that he did it. We needed to be shown love so we could love (botherly love not the spouse kinda love) others. That's part of the Christian doctorin.
Make no mistake about it. Jesus is a PART God. Jesus + Holy Spirit + The Father = GOD That's the Trinity.
:rolleyes: And your argument behind this is? (and if you are going to say that the bible said so, be sure to have an explanation for why the bible is correct as well)
Now, if you don't mind, I have some sinning to get done.
:lol: Great! :yes:
Well then you going to hell!
As I said twice already, this is really a great thing. Those who go to heaven never find out what hell is like, making them less knowledgeable in one way, and those who go to hell get to be with all the other smart people who refused to take this nonsense for an explanation. :D
And on your article: Bible references do not make science, but jibberish. That's why no creationist anywhere has ever come up with a real scientific paper (up for peer-review) that tries to refute evolution (learn to spell) with science. Why's that? Because creationism is rubbish.
LOL! Absolutely correct! :yes:
True or False-- An athiest would adapt better to God being proven, than a Christian would to God being disproven.
Frankly I don't think the Chrisitans would fare so well. The decision to believe in God seems to be made from cultural indoctrination, or an inner desperate need to believe in something bigger. Loss of that cultural core/emotional crutch would probably be devastating.
Exactly what I was saying earlier! These ideas has been so finely ingrained into the minds of the people (at an early age too, so more ideas build up on htme), that they will outright refuse to believe anything else. For the fourth time, this is precisely what happened with the planetary motion principles when Galileo and Kepler, and later Newton discovered the mathematics behind it all. As Crazy Ivan said, if we did not have these great contrarian minds coming up, we would still be living in a middle age.
Ok now your logic just is not logic any more. Let me put what you just said in different wording.
I can see the winds effects. But I can't see the wind. So then it must not exist. Or. I have never seen Europe, so it must not exist. Now you might say, "I live in Europe you %#@%&!", Then I'd say, "But you have to be lying because I've never seen it so it can't exist."
That is what you said. So there are ultimate truths!
Here is an example of irrelevant points to back your argument. If you can perceive the effects of the wind, then you can indirectly perceive the wind as well. Now, with this god, we cannot percieve the effects or the actual uh, being, so it lies in the realm of the perceptive only, where anything can be shown to exist.
Or would you say that because it exists in the context of God's Universe, it's not God, but a creation of God?
:D Good one; it's kind of obvious what the answer will be, though, or they will try to avoid the question. The common masses for centuries have done just the latter when it comes to these types of questions. :p
-
Originally posted by Kellan
Here's an interesting question for the religious types out there; purely theoretical. :D
If, through exploration of space we discovered a being that had all the powers over the Earth that your God had (such as ability to control weather) and was aware of all the Gospel, would you accept that as GOD?
Or would you say that because it exists in the context of God's Universe, it's not God, but a creation of God?
I guess it meets all of the criteria for it but to rule out the possibility of an even more all knowing all seeing all powerful being would be ignorant. The same as it would be to totally rule out the existence of a god at the minute, although the chances of it are small. What we can do is aknowledge that this "god", should it exist, has a very, very, very, very small chance of being the one mentioned in the Bible.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
That would be a big compliment, actually, considering how stupid humans are... :D
Religion is a product of that stupidity
I seriously believe that Ministers, Priests, etc. People who have devoted their entire lives to their respective religions would literaly go insane if they were convinced that it was all bull****.
Some of us can handle the unexplained (like me) but others who can't must have some kind of religion to fill in the void in their phyche.
Religion is the peace that shattered minds need. People "Turn to God" when they should really be fixing their problems.
While your praying to your invisable man, your problems will not go away and if they do, they call it a "Miracle" or an "Act of God"
These people put down the crack pipe and pick up a bible. Substituting one drug for another.
In case you haven't noticed I am an "Extreme Athiest" :D
-
The EU is yet another pre-mature attempt to globalize this planet.
Our species has not yet evolved to the point of the global-state.
We cant even keep our nation-states in line so how are we supposed to maintain an entire planet?
-
Originally posted by killadonuts
These people put down the crack pipe and pick up a bible. Substituting one drug for another.
Hmm, Interesting :nod: Personally I prefer Richard Dawkins's explanation of it as a Meme (comparable to a virus in computers). This seems to cover all forms of Human Stupidity rather than just one.
-
Originally posted by killadonuts
The EU is yet another pre-mature attempt to globalize this planet.
wrong: the EU is the attempt to stop the French and the Germans from going to war with each other and wrecking the entire continent. All the rest is added... content yeah, that's the word...
But that's another discussion.
-
Religion is a product of that stupidity
I seriously believe that Ministers, Priests, etc. People who have devoted their entire lives to their respective religions would literaly go insane if they were convinced that it was all bull****.
Some of us can handle the unexplained (like me) but others who can't must have some kind of religion to fill in the void in their phyche.
Religion is the peace that shattered minds need. People "Turn to God" when they should really be fixing their problems.
While your praying to your invisable man, your problems will not go away and if they do, they call it a "Miracle" or an "Act of God"
These people put down the crack pipe and pick up a bible. Substituting one drug for another.
In case you haven't noticed I am an "Extreme Athiest" :D
Perfect, simply perfect. You are my kind of guy as far as this subject goes. :D :D
The EU is yet another pre-mature attempt to globalize this planet.
Our species has not yet evolved to the point of the global-state.
We cant even keep our nation-states in line so how are we supposed to maintain an entire planet?
Well, the alternative to civilization is anarchism, which leads to a standstill in terms of progress. I think that the global state is merely a logical continuation of the social advance of our civilization, one that will eventually culminate in a complete cognitive unity by means of technology. The EU is merely a small step towards that end.
-
Ok now your logic just is not logic any more. Let me put what you just said in different wording.
I can see the winds effects. But I can't see the wind. So then it must not exist. Or. I have never seen Europe, so it must not exist. Now you might say, "I live in Europe you %#@%&!", Then I'd say, "But you have to be lying because I've never seen it so it can't exist."
That is what you said. So there are ultimate truths!
Here is an example of irrelevant points to back your argument. If you can perceive the effects of the wind, then you can indirectly perceive the wind as well. Now, with this god, we cannot percieve the effects or the actual uh, being, so it lies in the realm of the perceptive only, where anything can be shown to exist.
:confused: (again)
Here is a evolution view of the wind thing.
The trees sway and rustle (meaning evolution) because it is what matter does. There is no outside force (God) acting upon them.
Matter+Energy=Design Is not the right equation Matter+Energy+Designer=Design, how humans make things. Or If you believe in the Bible God made everything in the universe.
Do you think that a mountain can explode and the rubble will make a highly ordered city? Or a tornado go though a juck yard and put a buncha stuff together to make a 747?
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
wrong: the EU is the attempt to stop the French and the Germans from going to war with each other and wrecking the entire continent. All the rest is added... content yeah, that's the word...
But that's another discussion.
Nope, I'm right and your wrong :p
The next continent to "Unify" will be Africa.
Maybe they wont be such babies about it
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
Do you think that a mountain can explode and the rubble will make a highly ordered city? Or a tornado go though a juck yard and put a buncha stuff together to make a 747?
Highly unlikely, but it's a poor analogy. You and I are no 747, nor anything else of that sort. It takes a little imagination to think of a universe that came out completely differently due to some event or other, sure, but that's entirely because we're used to what there currently is- and it doesn't take a whole lot. We're nothing special, we just ended up this way, and as far as I can tell we didn't end up recreating anything that was constructed by conscious intent, such as a city or airplane.
-
Ok now your logic just is not logic any more. Let me put what you just said in different wording.
I can see the winds effects. But I can't see the wind. So then it must not exist. Or. I have never seen Europe, so it must not exist. Now you might say, "I live in Europe you %#@%&!", Then I'd say, "But you have to be lying because I've never seen it so it can't exist."
That is what you said. So there are ultimate truths!
You're just repeating exactly what you said earlier without even bothering to change the wording. :rolleyes: What exactly is your point?
That is what you said. So there are ultimate truths!
Show me where I said that in there.
Matter+Energy=Design Is not the right equation Matter+Energy+Designer=Design, how humans make things. Or If you believe in the Bible God made everything in the universe.
No clue what point you are trying to make here; the will of the designer is just another element of this "matter+energy." (even those two things are one and the same)
[Do you think that a mountain can explode and the rubble will make a highly ordered city? Or a tornado go though a juck yard and put a buncha stuff together to make a 747?
The probability is low, but of course it is possible if the particles arrange themselves accordingly. But I fail to see what that has to do with anything else in the post.
Nope, I'm right and your wrong
The next continent to "Unify" will be Africa.
Maybe they wont be such babies about it
They will unify everything soon enough. :D
-
I believe that religion itself will (hopefully) be lost in the natural evolution of our race.
The human mind will evolve to a point where the religion mental void I spoke of earlier is replaced with logic.
Don't argue with this either because it's already happening.
An athiest has such an evolved mind.
Religion will be remembered as the appendix of the human mind.
People with religion are incabable of any logical thought and rely on mythology(which is the same as religion as far as I'm concerned) to (again) explain what cannot be explained.
I hope I've offened most of you because it just means I'm right.:p
-
I believe that religion itself will (hopefully) be lost in the natural evolution of our race.
The human mind will evolve to a point where the religion mental void I spoke of earlier is replaced with logical understanding of the Universe as we know it.
Don't argue with this either because it's already happening.
An athiest has such an evolved mind.
Religion will be remembered as the appendix of the human mind.
People with religion are incabable of any logical thought and rely on mythology(which is the same as religion as far as I'm concerned) to (again) explain what cannot be explained.
I hope I've offened most of you because it just means I'm right.:p
Hehe, I'm liking your stuff more and more. ;) As an "analytical philosopher," the first bit precisely constitutes one of the things I am going to write about later on: an increasing trend towards logical complexity of thinking also fosters a greater understanding of reality.
The religious are indeed incapable of grasping reality in terms of logic, because as I said earlier, it is too complex for them. They will take the simplicity of "god did this, god did that, no more explanation is needed" over the mathematics of the universe any day. And the "offended" bit is absolutely true; people say they are offended in an attempt to bug out when they are out of further arguments to put in. :p
-
For all of you americans who think that the EU is an abreviation for a state near alaska, the EU is actually highly important and benefitial to all its member countries. France and Germany wouldnt go to war these days, they have better things to do (unlike the US) so instead the EU quit the military and set up a little buisness. For example, it take money from britain, then gives it to spain so the spannish can build roads. Then it takes Spain's money and gives it back to spain so they can build even more roads.
The EU also means that imigrants who are living in France and getting hassle for it, can come to britain where the goverment is too politcally correct to get turn them down.
The EU also lets spannish fishing boats steal all the fish from britians seas.
The EU wants to get rid of proper coins, and replace them with ones that all look the same, kind of like american ones. Maybee they dont like the Queen.
The EU means british farmers (who have lots of expenses to pay) loose out trade to some spannish farmers because it cost them less to produce food.
Finally, the EU means you cant have Duty Free anymore, but it doesnt limit how much u take across the border, so u can fill your car with things that cost twice as much in the Uk, and hop back on the ferry saving thousands of pounds.
Oh and you can cross the border without showing a passport or filling any forms in like the US has.
So thats why the EU is great. For spain.
pete
(dunno why i am attacking spain)
-
I am an American and still quite a supporter of the EU looking from both a European view and a global view. As I said before, it is merely the next step in the advance of society. The European nations are already intertwined economically, and it only makes so to extend this to politics as well. Some of the petty individuals will of course resist, but they cannot stop either the "mass social forces" of history or the people with the money. Same thing goes with the US, Canada and possibly Mexico as well; they can all be considered as one economy on a global scale since they all function so similarly. It shouldn't be all that long before these two merge into the US as well.
-
Killadonuts: Meh. You've simply replaced one god with another. I'm an agnostic with atheist leanings, and I'm not "evolved" any further than anyone else- I simply tried very hard to take an objective viewpoint in earlier years, and as far as I can tell I've more or less found one (meaning I probably haven't).
Religion is a byproduct of philosophy, a rather old one, and a rather institutionalized one, but a core part of philosophy it remains. The reason why much of it seems silly and irrational now is simply because it has become institutionalized: religion nowadays smacks of "I know everything there is to know about the universe, because I place blind faith in a few scraps of quasi-historical lore from thousands of years ago." Religion can mesh perfectly well with what we know of the universe today, it's simply that few of the established religions have found a good way to cling to their old doctrines while conceding that the Earth is round and that there aren't any sea monsters in the local lake. They've started contradicting themselves- which in itself does not even mean the basic ideas in each religion are not sound, simply that it's likely mixed in with superstition and junk (though, who knows, even that may not be entirely bosh). In fact, all you're doing is treating atheistic science as a new God, with the same unquestioning worship, sense of superiority, and all else that goes with religion- hate to break it to ya, but there's no saying we know a whole lot more about the Universe than people did a few thousand years ago, and no saying that a lot of what we think we know today won't seem kinda silly centuries from now. We've got more and better tools to measure the unknown, but it will always remain more or less the unknown, and if there's anything less reliable than the truth, it's the mind that interprets it.
And if you think that any human mind that does not even attempt to encompass what no devices we will ever have can measure, that never even tries to comprehend the incomprehensible workings of the universe, is somehow superior, I'd have to stop being objective and say you're flat-out wrong. Lack of imagination breeds walking zombies, not a perfect man.
-
but there's no saying we know a whole lot more about the Universe than people did a few thousand years ago.
Actually, that is quite wrong, mainly due in part to some major advances made during the 20th century. (i.e. Godel's theorem) This has had an incredible impact on philosophy, especially in the last fifty years, as has the randomized view of science.
And if you think that any human mind that does not even attempt to encompass what no devices we will ever have can measure, that never even tries to comprehend the incomprehensible workings of the universe, is somehow superior, I'd have to stop being objective and say you're flat-out wrong. Lack of imagination breeds walking zombies, not a perfect man.
Of course it is stupid to not make any attempt to understand the complexities of existence, which is probably the reason that I most dislike religion, because this is exactly what religion tries to prevent people from doing. You are right in that philosophy and religion started out as one and the same thing (as did every other aspect of learning), but they have become seperated in today's age: religion is just simple philosophy for the average man, but it has taken away all the reasoning that made philosophy so great.
-
We eventually realized that the Earth is round.
We will eventually realize the lies of the "Invisable Man Who Lives In the Clouds".
A lot of people in the history of mankind have parished because of your Invisable Man!!!
Think about that for a second or two.
However people throughout history have learned the powerful effect religion has on the human mind.
Results: Theocracies
Ultra-Puritanist Societies (Taliban)
Holy Wars
The State Of Utah
People have died and are continuing to die because of your God!!!!
Stop the Insanity and learn the truth!
-
Originally posted by CP5670
I am an American and still quite a supporter of the EU looking from both a European view and a global view. As I said before, it is merely the next step in the advance of society. The European nations are already intertwined economically, and it only makes so to extend this to politics as well. Some of the petty individuals will of course resist, but they cannot stop either the "mass social forces" of history or the people with the money. Same thing goes with the US, Canada and possibly Mexico as well; they can all be considered as one economy on a global scale since they all function so similarly. It shouldn't be all that long before these two merge into the US as well.
Thanks but no thanks. The EU is nowhere near as democratic as Britain at the minute and until it is I will oppose it. As for the US ..... :eek: I have nothing against Americans but some of your Politicians make Mr Le Penn look like a Liberal.
-
As far as thought goes, yes, we have had some innovations. I was referring to putting excessive faith in scientific theorems and instruments. Already much of last year's revolutionary new discovery often turns out to be this year's laughable junk, and if you've kept track of much of the silliness that comes under the heading "quantum physics", it draws several parallels to the myths of old. And overall, even finding new universal theories and novel ways of thinking about the Universe doesn't mean we've come any closer to understanding it.
-
and people die due to natural disasters, crime, famine. If CAFOD wasnt here to help, if religious groups didnt help, it would all be a lot worse. Stop it with the war scapegoating, if the war wasnt about religion they'd of fought about something else. And the lord isnt invisible, for i see his work all around me, helping those in need. Also try to post in a less insultive manner killadonuts.
-
Originally posted by killadonuts
We eventually realized that the Earth is round.
We will eventually realize the lies of the "Invisable Man Who Lives In the Clouds".
A lot of people in the history of mankind have parished because of your Invisable Man!!!
Think about that for a second or two.
However people throughout history have learned the powerful effect religion has on the human mind.
Results: Theocracies
Ultra-Puritanist Societies (Taliban)
Holy Wars
The State Of Utah
People have died and are continuing to die because of your God!!!!
Stop the Insanity and learn the truth!
...said the man, pounding his pulpit.:p
Yes, religion has been the excuse given to much of the ugliness that humanity has exhibited throughout history. That's not religion, that's people being horrible to each other and rationalising it- has nothing to do with God, religion, anything of the sort. If everyone in the world were an atheist, an analytical scientist, what you will- people would still be monsters to each other.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
and people die due to natural disasters, crime, famine. If CAFOD wasnt here to help, if religious groups didnt help, it would all be a lot worse. Stop it with the war scapegoating, if the war wasnt about religion they'd of fought about something else. And the lord isnt invisible, for i see his work all around me, helping those in need. Also try to post in a less insultive manner killadonuts.
Spoken just like the liars of the Church themselves
Clergy=Liars
If I've insulted you then you should seriously reconsider your Theological state of mind.
Like I said before: If I offend then it just means I'm right
-
From arguing about how pure logic and rationality were ideal to a statement like that in 3 posts. Not bad, killadonut.
Ignore. Moving on... where were we?
-
I think it is about the same actually, except that it appears to be run simply by the upper classes with all the money, which of course is not good, but it is unavoidable; the same occurs in any republic, including any existing ones. It really boils down to a compromise between political freedom and economic prosperity. ;)
-
Originally posted by Top Gun
Thanks but no thanks. The EU is nowhere near as democratic as Britain at the minute and until it is I will oppose it. As for the US ..... :eek: I have nothing against Americans but some of your Politicians make Mr Le Penn look like a Liberal.
I'm American and you won't see any arguments from me about this post. I think your absolutely right. :)
As Russia gets better the US gets worse.
-
We need more ultra-radical politicians around; I like those kinds of people. :D
As far as thought goes, yes, we have had some innovations. I was referring to putting excessive faith in scientific theorems and instruments. Already much of last year's revolutionary new discovery often turns out to be this year's laughable junk, and if you've kept track of much of the silliness that comes under the heading "quantum physics", it draws several parallels to the myths of old. And overall, even finding new universal theories and novel ways of thinking about the Universe doesn't mean we've come any closer to understanding it.
Sorry, but that last sentence there made no sense. :p Apply that first assumption of logic again and it can be seen that we have two alternatives here: either to stagnate completely, or to use the rules of logic, the only system of thought that humans in the generality are familiar with (or maybe even capable of using), to determine how things work. Progress is of course going slow in the grand scheme, but it's like comparing f=1 and f=1+.0001x as both approach transfinity. :p
And the lord isnt invisible, for i see his work all around me, helping those in need
But I also see his work all around me, hurting those in need, and therefore something seems to be wrong here. Refer to wEvil's statement about god a pages ago once again. :D
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
and people die due to natural disasters, crime, famine. If CAFOD wasnt here to help.
True as that may be it is still a tiny proportion of the Catholic Church's Vast fortune. Please explain to me how the church can Justify having all of that wealth while there is still so much third world suffering going one.
-
While we are on the topic, when it comes to helping the poor, many churches apply a rather tricky tactic. What they do is to offer the people help if they will agree to join the church and accept its principles, an offer which the people obviously take up. Most of these people are uneducated and will easily fall prey to simple ideas such as those taught by the churches; the church leaders know this well, but it is a good tactic for quickly converting masses of people to a given faith.
-
Originally posted by Top Gun
True as that may be it is still a tiny proportion of the Catholic Church's Vast fortune. Please explain to me how the church can Justify having all of that wealth while there is still so much third world suffering going one.
I don't even think the high "ranking" clergy members (you know, the Vatican people) even believe their own religion. They just selfishly cash in on the lies and "charities". They just want to control people.(Another natural function of the human mind)
Conformity=Heaven
Resistance=Hell
Thats their basic message as I percieve it.
-
Yeah, that is probably true for at least some of them, as it provides a quick and easy way to gain access to large sums of money, and history shown what lengths people are willing to go to for that.
Conformity=Heaven
Resistance=Hell
Thats their basic message as I percieve it.
This ties in to what I said earlier about religion discouraging the further pursuit of knowledge. So much for independent and original thought.
-
It gets real sad when the lies get mixed in with government.
Name one government that is NOT a Theocracy in some way.
-
Originally posted by beatspete
(dunno why i am attacking spain)
because they deserve it?
and BTW: our coins don't look the same.
Every Euro-nation has it's own coins: only one side is the same all over the euro-zone, the other side is national.
Only the paper (monopoly) money is the same.
-
BTW this is the best thread I have ever posted on! :D
Very Entertaining!!! :D :D
-
Originally posted by killadonuts
I
Conformity=Heaven
Resistance=Hell
Thats their basic message as I percieve it.
Now that goes for every religion out there. So stop bashing the Catholic Church only. The protestant and reformist religions aren't better. And neither are the more exotic religions.
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
Now that goes for every religion out there. So stop bashing the Catholic Church only. The protestant and reformist religions aren't better. And neither are the more exotic religions.
Each religion has its own version of Heaven and Hell. I'm speaking of Religion in general.
-
Originally posted by beatspete
For example, it take money from britain, then gives it to spain so the spannish can build roads. Then it takes Spain's money and gives it back to spain so they can build even more roads.
To be fair pete, there's no more room for roads in Sunny Enger-land. If they try to add any more lanes onto the M25 it'll be in my house. And I live near Milton Keynes. :p
The EU also means that imigrants who are living in France and getting hassle for it, can come to britain where the goverment is too politcally correct to get turn them down.[/b]
Have you seen the language the government has been using recently? About "swamping" by immigrants? That's Thatcher language, and shows that everything has moved to the right as a result of the bloody woman. The main reason that there are still so many immigrants here is that even the failed ones still come from places like Iraq, with which there are no diplomatic relations and will not accept "Western-tainted" citizens.
Besides, economic migrants are essential to the economy - not only in terms of professionals like doctors. Who here grows up aspiring to work in Burger King? Well, the immigrants make sure you don't have to. :rolleyes:
The EU wants to get rid of proper coins, and replace them with ones that all look the same, kind of like american ones. Maybee they dont like the Queen.[/b]
Really? Who doesn't? I got a sticker today saying "celebrate the Queen's Golden Jubilee". Needless to say, I won't. In fact, I'm working because they'll pay me £13.00 per hour. :D
On the subject of pounds, why are people so attached to a currency that has in its present form existed for about 30 years? That's peanuts compared to the Franc or even the troubled Deutschmark.
The EU means british farmers (who have lots of expenses to pay) loose out trade to some spannish farmers because it cost them less to produce food.[/b]
And they all get the CAP, which represents 2/3rds of the whole EU budget per year. Farmers deserve no sympathy. :p
Oh and you can cross the border without showing a passport or filling any forms in like the US has.[/b]
Hurrah! You have no idea how convenient this is for everyone. :)
I realise this went somewhat OT but I felt like it. And yes, the EU is an undemocratic, unanswerable, bureaucratic apparatus of state at the moment and I don't advocate pan-European government just yet (though eventually, yes). But as an economic community, I have no problems with it at all really. Except maybe losing control of monetary policy.
-
Protestants believe faith is enough for eternal life, they dont believe in helping others like we do.
-
Bah Euro, "G_D save the pound!"
-
And Stryke: your post near the top of the page was the best thing I've read all day, and the reason I don't associate myself too closely with Atheism. Thank you for your articulate pearls of wisdom. :nod:
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Protestants believe faith is enough for eternal life, they dont believe in helping others like we do.
And yet they still do. Besides, as Top Gun said, if the Pope can afford a bulletproof glass limo, he's got too much money. :p
Once again I ask, "why the pound?" - staying out of the Euro has some definite economic costs, political costs in terms of commitment to Europe, and besides, Euro coins look Cool. :D
And I hate the monarchy.
-
Originally posted by killadonuts
Each religion has its own version of Heaven and Hell. I'm speaking of Religion in general.
Wrong again. Not every religion has a hell, or a heaven.
-
Thanks, Kellan.:o
Even though that emoticon still looks like it's yawning or drunk...
Zero: I wouldn't generalize. "Protestant" pretty much is any Christian who doesn't call themselves Catholic- that's Jehova's Witnesses and Quakers and people who believe that lettuce is pod people from Mars come to eat our brains. Many of the most significant proselytizing and charity groups are Protestant.
And how did this get from religion to the EU?
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
Wrong again. Not every religion has a hell, or a heaven.
Yeah, like Buddism with it's Nirvana (right? or is that Hindu?) and reincarnation...
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
Wrong again. Not every religion has a hell, or a heaven.
That's not really what I meant. I meant that religions have some kind of tremendously bad thing that happens if you don't conform.
Exactly the opposite if you chose to follow the religion: Something tremendously good will happen--Like Heaven and finally seeing God...yadda yadda yadda
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
I was referring to putting excessive faith in scientific theorems and instruments.
Excess can ruin anything. Science is no different in this regard.
And you're ignoring that, in the "church of science" you're proposing, "faith" by definition has no place. The scientific method rules it right out. Everything must be proven, repeatedly, by multiple parties, to gain acceptance. And even then they're still open to question.
Already much of last year's revolutionary new discovery often turns out to be this year's laughable junk
So? New theories are always getting proposed and tossed out. That's how science works. This is a GOOD thing.
And overall, even finding new universal theories and novel ways of thinking about the Universe doesn't mean we've come any closer to understanding it.
But mapping out the local structure of the universe sure doesn't hurt.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Well, the alternative to civilization is anarchism, which leads to a standstill in terms of progress. I think that the global state is merely a logical continuation of the social advance of our civilization, one that will eventually culminate in a complete cognitive unity by means of technology. The EU is merely a small step towards that end.
Yes eventually. But I bet theres not a human alive today that will ever see it happen.
-
Regarding different religions, my take on this is that all of the Semite religions (Judaism, the various forms of Christianity, and Islam) share the same general philosophy that I am criticizing here, although it is not limited to them either. There is a god who is basically a human, a prophet of god to spread his "message," and a book of god that contains the answer to all of man's problems. :rolleyes: I would say that a few of the Eastern religions (Buddhism and Hinduism) are somewhat better because the ideas that they started off with at least allowed for some freedom of thought (the basis of all science), but over the years they have become even more dogmatic than the Semite ones and should be thrown out as well. :p
Bah Euro, "G_D save the pound!"
Doubt he will, as there is no reason to.
So? New theories are always getting proposed and tossed out. That's how science works. This is a GOOD thing.
:yes: :yes:
Yes eventually. But I bet theres not a human alive today that will ever see it happen.
Of course, we are dealing with several tens of millennia at the very least, possibly much longer. This is where we start to look at ourselves as a true civilization, which can in theory last perpetually, and not as merely a group of short-lived humans.
BTW this is the best thread I have ever posted on!
Very Entertaining!!!
You got that right. :D I also think that this is probably the best thread ever on any board I have seen. :D
On a side note, who is this Thatcher? I should be knowing about this, but I unfortunately have not followed contemporary European politics too closely. (I'm more into Asian politics, where all the governments are messed up :D)
-
Thatcher was the British Prime Minister 1979 - 1993. Very free market and quite right-wing - counts General Pinochet among her friends. :eek:
-
Originally posted by killadonuts
That's not really what I meant. I meant that religions have some kind of tremendously bad thing that happens if you don't conform.
Exactly the opposite if you chose to follow the religion: Something tremendously good will happen--Like Heaven and finally seeing God...yadda yadda yadda
That explains it better.
still, not every religion has the concept. Although I have to say that most of these religions are either gone or have changed.
-
Unknown Target
Srry, but I had to get this off my chest:
What's yours, what do you think of it, where do you think it originated.
Personally, I think Christianity, Islam, Budhism, etc, are all fakes. Now, before I get flamed to death here, can I explain my points?
OK, it's quite simple, actually. Religion, or at least the way we practice it, was imagined, created, and is followed by humans. Now, unless you're a god, you will make mistakes, as you are human!!!
Therefore, have you ever wondered why science so frequently clashes with religion, or, more specifically, with the bible? It's because, in my opinion, since the bible was written by human hands, it has changed, morphed, and downright differed, from the originall stories. As Ibn Buttuta was forced to right down his travels, he emblemished, and, so has this happened to the bible over time.
For instance, if you don't believe me, look through the news archives, and you'll see that they're coming out with a politically correct version!!!
So, basically, the scandal with the pope? I do not believe that this should meen the end of the religion. No, the pope, and the members in his employ, are humans, and, therefore, are subject to mistake.
Truly, the only being fit to lead a religion and pray to God is God himself.....
EDIT: I know I'm probably going to be banned for this...
This is what I first responded to in this tread.
I'll say this again. Everything that is in my article is based on fact. Look at it! How could it have know that the earth was in space(Job 26)? Or how could it know that there are springs in the deep (Job 38:16 "Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea
or walked in the recesses of the deep?")? There are other examples, AND I WILL FIND THEM!
I ask you, "Is there anything evolving today? Can we see anything evolving today?" Well if things did evolve then how come we can't see any of them evolving now? Like half bird and half something else.
Did you know that evolution hasn't been proven?! Ya, it is still just a theory. There is not rock hard evidence to back it up.
-
Answer these questions if you can. I just want to prove weather (I think thats not the right one) Evolution is true or Creation and the Bible are true. If you can't prove that something other then Creation happend then you have no basis for say there is no God. BTW I would love it if you can provide me with links to matirial you used to try to prove me wrong (I know you can't so there really is no point).
1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
2. Where did matter come from?
3 Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
4 How did matter get so perfectly organized?
5 Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
6 When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?
7 When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
8 With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
9 Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kindsince this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
13. When, where, why, and how did:
Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
Single-celled animals evolve?
Fish change to amphibians?
Amphibians change to reptiles?
Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes,reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
How did the intermediate forms live?
14. When, where, why, how, and from what did:
Whales evolve?
Sea horses evolve?
bats evolve?
Eyes evolve?
Ears evolve?
15. Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
Which evolved first how, and how long, did it work without the others)?
The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the
body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
The immune system or the need for it?
16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?
18. When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
19. *How did photosynthesis evolve?
20. *How did thought evolve?
21. *How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?
22. *What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?
23. What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?
24. *Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?
25. *What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?
26. *Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
I ask you, "Is there anything evolving today? Can we see anything evolving today?" Well if things did evolve then how come we can't see any of them evolving now? Like half bird and half something else.
Did you know that evolution hasn't been proven?! Ya, it is still just a theory. There is not rock hard evidence to back it up.
Clearly, you have no understanding of evolution whatsoever.
Things are evolving today. Bacteria are evolving today, becoming resistant to our most potents medicines. And that's the simplest example.
Half bird, half something else: irrelevant. Every lifeform is intermediate. Birds evolved out of reptiles, reptiles out of amphibians, and so forth....
As a basis evolution happens on a generational scale. In other words you're not going to evolve some new organs overnight. That's why evoluton in bacteria and fast-lining animals like flies, rats and mice are easy to spot, while you generally need fossils to see evolution in slower-living animals like humans, apes, horses, cats, cows and most of the other animals.
Evolution has been proven in a laboratory, and in the field by all fossils that were found.
And you are using the word THEORY in a wrong way.
THEORY in science means that it is backed up by tons of facts and proof, but that there are still things to be improved.
THEORY as you use it is HYPOTHESIS in science, which means that there is very little, or even no proof. Something which clearly doesn't go for evolution.
Creationism however is not a THEORY nor HYPOTHESIS, but CONJECTURE, also known as FAIRY-TALE. Which is why no Creationist has ever put up creationism for peer-review by other scientists of the world. Not even your most revered proponent Behe has done that. Everthing he puts up for peer-review supports evolution.
Get your nose out of the bible and into a sciencebook.
anyway: I'll give you some links because I'm sure not going to bother to explain everything myself when there are other people that can do it better than me.
Link one: plenty of stuff to go to and read (http://chem.tufts.edu/science/FrankSteiger/urllist.htm)
Link 2: Talk.Origins site. Also has a very big database of links; from both evolution and creationist sides. (http://www.talkorigins.org/)
P.S. I alwways wonder why the US seems to be the only Western country where a significant minority of people takes creationism serious. Is your educationals system really that bad that they don't even teach basic science anymore?
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
I ask you, "Is there anything evolving today? Can we see anything evolving today?"
Yes. Viruses and bacteria. In fact it's a significant health concern because they evolve to become immune to vaccinations over the course of only a few years.
Of course, it's obvious from your remarks that you don't even understand what Darwinian evolution is. You'd probably find Lamarck more plausible.
-
I'll say this again. Everything that is in my article is based on fact. Look at it!
I already told you; the stuff is certainly true, but it is either irrelevant to the point you are trying to make or insufficient evidence in light of other facts.
As to your questions:
1: either random particle space/antispace reactions,the previous universe in the "time loop" (remember that the lack or something, or nothing, is technically something as well) or a combination of both.
2: see #1
3: IRV-based particle interactions, most likely. they are not all that organized at more advanced levels.
4: who said it is perfectly organized? that is a matter of definition.
5: see #1
6: there is no fundamental difference between life and dead matter.
7: if the universe reproduces itself ("time loop" theory), it could be said to inherit that from matter, but I'm not sure of this.
8: no idea, probably some prehistoric marine animal.
9: my take on this is that the individual, whether organized or unorganized, has the drive to survive, the unorganized species has no drive as a whole, and the civilization has a drive not to survive but to progress.
10: here is an example: humans could be made to use electrical energy for input instead of chemical (food) energy.
11: the possibility cannot be ruled out of course, but then the question of who created the creator comes up.
12: this trend appears to be part of the natural selection process.
13-15: these are all technicial biology questions that I have no knowledge of; sorry.
16: because it is the best explanation currently available; there are of course flaws in it, but there are many more flaws with the other explanations.
17: some sort of natural genetic alteration over time seems to be a reasonable explanation here.
18 see #17 ; the original natural selection theory did not take genetic mutation into account.
19-21: see #17
22: what?
23: "show me."
24: the theory is too recent as of yet to experimentally observe because it predicts effects over long periods of time for the most part. a better solution at the moment would be to mathematically prove or disprove the predictions based on the genetic code.
25: eh?
26: it is possible, but a better explanation in my opinion would be the transfinite loop one, because that allows one to effectively circumvent the idea of cause when dealing with such things.
And now I have a question to ask of you: Where did god come from? And if god has always been there, why cannot reality always have been there as well?
It seems that you have not studied the evolution theory in depth, however, as some of your conjectures about it make no sense. I would recommend you take a closer look at it before trying to disprove it.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
3: IRV-based particle interactions, most likely. they are not all that organized at more advanced levels.
Y'know, I seriously doubt anyone here would jump your case if you just said "random" in place of "IRV-based". This is a bulletin board, not a doctoral thesis. :)
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
Answer these questions if you can. I just want to prove weather (I think thats not the right one) Evolution is true or Creation and the Bible are true. If you can't prove that something other then Creation happend then you have no basis for say there is no God. BTW I would love it if you can provide me with links to matirial you used to try to prove me wrong (I know you can't so there really is no point).
Actually, just because we can't prove there is no god doesn't mean there's an equal chance of evolution being true or creationism being true; it just means we can't prove it one way or the other. Evolution is a far more likely theory, IMO.
I realize only a suicidal person would tackle this list.
1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
2. Where did matter come from?
3 Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
Although it is not without a few flaws, the Big Bang Theory (http://ssscott.tripod.com/BigBang.html) seems to be the generally accepted explanation.
4 How did matter get so perfectly organized?
5 Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
First of all, you are making a statement that matter is "so perfectly organized." I would disagree with this. Strongly.
Energy probably comes from the Big Bang, as referenced above.
6 When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?
7 When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
These are actually one and the same, because life is defined by the ability to reproduce itself. There are a variety of theories about the origin of life, so I'll find a few...
Here's one. (http://www.ultranet.com/~jkimball/BiologyPages/A/AbioticSynthesis.html)
8 With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
Try this. (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/07/0709_sexorigin.html)
Or this. (http://www.panspermia.org/sexual.htm)
9 Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kindsince this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
The species does not have a drive to survive. Assuming that it does is a common misconception, and it relates to the innate human need to ascribe intelligence to things which simply have none (such as the unknown, which is probably the origin of religion).
A plant or animal has the drive to reproduce because the ones that didn't didn't pass on their genes. Only the ones that passed on their genes have offspring around nowadays, for obvious reasons. This is the very basis of the theory of evolution.
Evolution FAQ (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html)
10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
Maybe you are confused as to what mutations are. I point you to the above FAQ.
11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
Objection! You are leading the witness :). Seriously, it is indeed possible. It is also possible it proves that we're all under the direction of aliens. That doesn't mean it's true or even that it's likely to be true. Quantum mechanics has shown that it is very rare that something is strictly impossible.
In some cases, a common ancestor is responsible. In other cases, it is convergent evolution.
You want references, you get references. (http://library.thinkquest.org/19926/java/library/article/02a.htm?tqskip1=1&tqtime=0516)
12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
I'm not sure quite what you mean by this. Obviously natural selection does not keep a species stable. The whole basis of evolution is that a species is constantly adapting to new situations. A species will probably be in an arms race with its prey and its predators, and that at the very least will drive its evolution forward.
13. When, where, why, and how did:
Here we go.
Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
I hope (http://www.ipef.br/pesquisa/genoma/pdfs/subramanian2000.pdf)
Single-celled animals evolve?
that you (http://www.space.com/searchforlife/life_origins_001205.html)
Fish change to amphibians?
are bored. (http://www.zooregon.org/cards/Rainforest/lungfish.african.htm)
Amphibians change to reptiles?
This is kind of archaic, I know. Sorry. (http://tolweb.org/tree/eukaryotes/animals/chordata/terres_vert_lichen/phylogeny.html)
Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes,reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
Dinosaurs changed to birds, not reptiles, silly. (http://www.howcomyoucom.com/originoflife/flight.htm)
How did the intermediate forms live?
Just the same as any other form. The only reason they're called intermediate forms is because they're in between two groups, but the groups were defined by human science, not evolution. as far as the evolution process is concerned, all animals living today are intermediate forms to what they will be a few years from now.
14. When, where, why, how, and from what did:
[/B]
I'm not sure it's fair you took so much less time writing these questions than I took answering them.
Whales evolve?
Joy. (http://www.sciencenews.org/20010922/fob1.asp)
Sea horses evolve?
Silly question. You people are always obsessed with the cute flashy things :).
Unfortunately, this is a very specific question (small group), so I'll have to get back to you on this one.
bats evolve?
This was the best I could find. Too many baseball links and rabies warnings cluttering up the 'net. (http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/anat/bat_wings.html)
Eyes evolve?
Good question. The eye is quite a remarkable little thing.
Luckily, this link looks up to the task. (http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/eye.html)
Ears evolve?
Ear? (http://tolweb.org/tree/eukaryotes/animals/chordata/terres_vert_lichen/hearing.html)
If that's what floats your boat. (http://fig.cox.miami.edu/Faculty/Tom/bil160/20_verts2.html)
15. Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
AAAAAAh! No fair, 7+ questions in one. :)
Which evolved first how, and how long, did it work without the others)?
Scales, nails, and claws obviously evolved first, since reptiles were around first. Mammals came next, with the hair, then Birds, with the feathers.
I'll get feathers, just to placate you.
F3@ht3rs! (http://www.academicpress.com/inscight/03072001/grapha.htm)
Tehy r teh FLUFFLY!!!1!!!!!!11111 (http://www.cmnh.org/fun/dinosaur-archive/1997Jun/msg00438.html)
The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
Whee. :sigh:
Hurk... must... sleep... (http://bioresearch.ac.uk/browse/mesh/detail/C0012240L0012240.html)
The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
That would be required for evolution, for obvious reasons. You don't evolve if you don't reproduce.
The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
The gasses that we breath in did not evolve, silly. We just adapted to use them.
url=htt*zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz*
-
Ok I'll admitt that I didn't read them all....yet.
When you talk about Bacteria you're talking about 'micro-evolution' (WOW new word for you guy's). The difference is that with micro-evolution is that the species can evolove to have natual resistance to curtain things. For instance. You spray a wall full of flies with DDT 99% of them die from it. The 1% left have a natual resistance to DDT so they then pass that on to most or all of their offspring. Now when they have had enough time to fill that wall again you spray DDT. Now only 10% fall and die because they didn't get the gene to resist DDT.
'Macro-evolution' (oh another new word. I'm not making this up) is were a 'kind' change into another 'kind'. Supposedly dinos to birds(can't happen, not even in 'billions' of years)
BTW What I am triying to prove in my article (ok, ok random thought (on the subject) put into a little bit of order) the validness of the Bible. Because once I prove that you have no other choice. Unless of course you really don't want to accept it.
And as always I am heart broken for you that you keep on denying what I have said and to a curtain extent what I've proved. And if you don't accept it you will go to hell. The really sad part about that is that we'll (the Christians) will either forget you or we'll just not care that you're in hell. :(
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
Ok I'll admitt that I didn't read them all....yet.
1. When you talk about Bacteria you're talking about 'micro-evolution' (WOW new word for you guy's). The difference is that with micro-evolution is that the species can evolove to have natual resistance to curtain things. For instance. You spray a wall full of flies with DDT 99% of them die from it. The 1% left have a natual resistance to DDT so they then pass that on to most or all of their offspring. Now when they have had enough time to fill that wall again you spray DDT. Now only 10% fall and die because they didn't get the gene to resist DDT.
2. 'Macro-evolution' (oh another new word. I'm not making this up) is were a 'kind' change into another 'kind'. Supposedly dinos to birds(can't happen, not even in 'billions' of years)
3. BTW What I am triying to prove in my article (ok, ok random thought (on the subject) put into a little bit of order) the validness of the Bible. Because once I prove that you have no other choice. Unless of course you really don't want to accept it.
4. And as always I am heart broken for you that you keep on denying what I have said and to a curtain extent what I've proved. And if you don't accept it you will go to hell. The really sad part about that is that we'll (the Christians) will either forget you or we'll just not care that you're in hell. :(
1. good, look slike you have atleast a basic understanding of evolution. See, it's not that hard after all
2. But it looks like you're not that good after all. Now add up all those little percents togheter and after many many generations you will end up with a new species. That's exactly how birds evolved out of dinosaurs. And yes: some dinosaurs were very small, just like some mammals were are big as dinosaurs.
3. I've reread your...article. I have come to the following conclusion: You're trying to convince yourself that you're correct, while deepdown you know science is right.
4. The amount of hubris shown by all those self-professed reborn christians (who coincidentally also think that every other type of christian is a heathen) never ceases to amaze me.
If we were to switch 'God' with 'Marx' and 'Hell' with 'Capitalist Indenture' you'd be promoting Communism.
-
Originally posted by Kellan
To be fair pete, there's no more room for roads in Sunny Enger-land. If they try to add any more lanes onto the M25 it'll be in my house. And I live near Milton Keynes. :p
Have you seen the language the government has been using recently? About "swamping" by immigrants? That's Thatcher language, and shows that everything has moved to the right as a result of the bloody woman. The main reason that there are still so many immigrants here is that even the failed ones still come from places like Iraq, with which there are no diplomatic relations and will not accept "Western-tainted" citizens.
Besides, economic migrants are essential to the economy - not only in terms of professionals like doctors. Who here grows up aspiring to work in Burger King? Well, the immigrants make sure you don't have to. :rolleyes:
Really? Who doesn't? I got a sticker today saying "celebrate the Queen's Golden Jubilee". Needless to say, I won't. In fact, I'm working because they'll pay me £13.00 per hour. :D
On the subject of pounds, why are people so attached to a currency that has in its present form existed for about 30 years? That's peanuts compared to the Franc or even the troubled Deutschmark.
And they all get the CAP, which represents 2/3rds of the whole EU budget per year. Farmers deserve no sympathy. :p
Hurrah! You have no idea how convenient this is for everyone. :)
I realise this went somewhat OT but I felt like it. And yes, the EU is an undemocratic, unanswerable, bureaucratic apparatus of state at the moment and I don't advocate pan-European government just yet (though eventually, yes). But as an economic community, I have no problems with it at all really. Except maybe losing control of monetary policy.
Yeah, all of that. I never said anything bad about free borders, mabybee i should have made that clearer. Anyway the post started out as a joke.
And yeah, all the imigrants do tend to work in Burger king (where as macdonalds is just full of thick people)
pete
Anyway, the EU is even more OT than the where fish evolved from, so who cares.
-
'Macro-evolution' (oh another new word. I'm not making this up) is were a 'kind' change into another 'kind'. Supposedly dinos to birds(can't happen, not even in 'billions' of years)
See my answer to question 24 you posed. But even still, how do you define a 'kind?' There could really be just about any degree of differences between two 'kinds' of species.
3. I've reread your...article. I have come to the following conclusion: You're trying to convince yourself that you're correct, while deepdown you know science is right.
Heh, I had similar thoughts after reading the article. I think that this "shield" of religion has provided a buttress for long enough that once it is removed, the people cannot get quickly used to its absence and stubbornly continue to believe that it still exists simply to make themselves feel good, and in some cases, maintain their sanity. :p
And as always I am heart broken for you that you keep on denying what I have said and to a curtain extent what I've proved. And if you don't accept it you will go to hell. The really sad part about that is that we'll (the Christians) will either forget you or we'll just not care that you're in hell. :(
Repeat after me: hell is good. hell is good. :D :D (for the reasons stated in earlier posts)
Y'know, I seriously doubt anyone here would jump your case if you just said "random" in place of "IRV-based". This is a bulletin board, not a doctoral thesis. :)
LOL, actually the reason I tend to put that in every now and then is that there is a bit of a difference between "independently random" and "dependently random," and since we are talking about the origins of things here, the independents are usually the ones we are concerned with. ;)
Tehy r teh FLUFFLY!!!1!!!!!!11111
:lol: :D
And yeah, all the imigrants do tend to work in Burger king (where as macdonalds is just full of thick people)
Actually, while I'm not quite sure what the statistics are over in the UK, at least in the US a considerable portion of white-collar skilled professionals (scientists, engineers, doctors, etc.) is made up of immigrants.
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
'Macro-evolution' (oh another new word. I'm not making this up) is were a 'kind' change into another 'kind'. Supposedly dinos to birds(can't happen, not even in 'billions' of years)
[/b]
And just how did you come to that conclusion? Macro Evolution is just a long term version of Micro Evolution. We can't observe it in motion because it takes so long. What we can do is look at fossil records (dated accordingly) and look at the geology of the area and the environment in which particular spicies lived to give us an accurate account of what happened. It takes millions of tiny changes to make any significant difference to the Phenotype of a species not one large change (duh).
Originally posted by hotsnoj
BTW What I am triying to prove in my article (ok, ok random thought (on the subject) put into a little bit of order) the validness of the Bible. Because once I prove that you have no other choice. Unless of course you really don't want to accept it.
The same could be said for you and science. Plus, how the hell do you intend to do that, the whole religious attitude revolves around faith (a belief without any evidence). Unless the big bloke in the sky beams his ass down here now and lets us all know he exists there will be no proof.
Originally posted by hotsnoj
And as always I am heart broken for you that you keep on denying what I have said and to a curtain extent what I've proved.
You haven't proved it though :rolleyes: You give examples of where the Bible has got things right and use that as a reason to believe the whole thing totally ignoring the many instances where the Bible hasn't.
Originally posted by hotsnoj
And if you don't accept it you will go to hell. The really sad part about that is that we'll (the Christians) will either forget you or we'll just not care that you're in hell. :(
Thanks, you're really dishing out the good ol' True Christian (TM) (http://www.landoverbaptist.org) love by the truck load today. There's nothing like a nice healthy dose of emotional blackmail to start the day :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Actually, while I'm not quite sure what the statistics are over in the UK, at least in the US a considerable portion of white-collar skilled professionals (scientists, engineers, doctors, etc.) is made up of immigrants.
Oh, I'm not denying that a great number of doctors and other professionals are immigrants, nobody seems to care about them because they have a skill that is desperately needed, and because they're wealthy, educated and urbane - more like we perceive ourselves, in other words than how we perceive the people of the counrty they came from.
And people like us can't possibly be frightening. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by CP5670
It takes millions of tiny changes to make any significant difference to the Phenotype of a species not one large change (duh).
That is, unless you believe that evolution can jump forward through mutations - bypassing some of the 'tiny' stages to move onto a further stage because the mutation is so well adapted to an environment or an environmental change.
-
Originally posted by Kellan
That is, unless you believe that evolution can jump forward through mutations - bypassing some of the 'tiny' stages to move onto a further stage because the mutation is so well adapted to an environment or an environmental change.
It's all relative, mutations are large changes but it would still take loads of them over millions of years to turn a Dinosaur into a bird.
-
Originally posted by ZylonBane
Excess can ruin anything. Science is no different in this regard.
And you're ignoring that, in the "church of science" you're proposing, "faith" by definition has no place. The scientific method rules it right out. Everything must be proven, repeatedly, by multiple parties, to gain acceptance. And even then they're still open to question.
Already much of last year's revolutionary new discovery often turns out to be this year's laughable junk
So? New theories are always getting proposed and tossed out. That's how science works. This is a GOOD thing.
Perhaps I phrased that badly. Empirical science is, in my opinion, one of the farthest things from religion. But, at least right now, it can't explain many things about the universe beyond our ken, and shouldn't be expected to- it will fail miserably. Moreover, putting excessive, wide-eyed, irrational faith in scientific principles in the manner killadonuts is exhibiting is treating it in the same way as religion, which makes it just the same sort of thing. Science is not a religion, but it can be treated like one, and no matter how advanced, physics makes a poor excuse for metaphysics.
-
4. The amount of hubris shown by all those self-professed reborn christians (who coincidentally also think that every other type of christian is a heathen) never ceases to amaze me.
If we were to switch 'God' with 'Marx' and 'Hell' with 'Capitalist Indenture' you'd be promoting Communism. [/B]
Watch it. We can't stand the born-again proselytizers either, so you'd do well not to just equate them with OUR propoganda, capitalist pig-dog. Need I quote a Reagan or McCarthy speech?:p
That sort of mentality is seen in every opinion. It's how certain noisome sorts act, regardless of whether they're arguing for their version of God, the WTO, or passenger-side air bags.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Watch it. We can't stand the born-again proselytizers either, so you'd do well not to just equate them with OUR propoganda, capitalist pig-dog. Need I quote a Reagan or McCarthy speech?:p
No you don't, I hate them too. McCarthy more than Reagan. You could say the Reagan was out of his mind :D Or out of mind if you want to be precise.
Just using communists because it rings a bell with the Religious Reich.
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
'Macro-evolution' (oh another new word. I'm not making this up) is were a 'kind' change into another 'kind'. Supposedly dinos to birds(can't happen, not even in 'billions' of years)
Wow, thanks for just demonstrating your ignorance. I give you a link that explains not only why it's possible that dinos evolved into birds, but that's it's likely, and you completely ignore it and just state it's impossible. I can find more references if you like, but I believe (just running from my own knowledge so it may be spotty) that the evolution went something like this:
Little dinosaurs were running around. Some little dinosaurs got small feathers through mutations. Although these feathers were not very good for flying, they did keep the little dinosaurs slightly warmer and made them more aerodynamic. The feathered little dinosaurs survived. Some of the feathered little dinosaurs got bigger feathers through mutations. These worked well, too. Some feathered little dinosaurs mutated lighter bone structure, and became able to fly. These then became birds, but didn't take over from the non-flying little dinosaurs becuase creatures that glide and fly eat different things than creatures that run. In addition, the changed body form was a disadvantage sometimes, so the two types balanced pretty well. The birds eventually got very far diverged from the little dinosaurs. When the meteor hit (or whatever even it was, there's some debate), the birds were better able to adapt to the conditions afterward.
There's a multitude of evidence that dinosaurs became birds, too.
Like this. (http://howstuffworks.lycoszone.com/news-item154.htm)
And this. (http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/jdp.htm)
This too. (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html)
-
My goodness, I go away for a day, and look at the posts piling up!
Anyway, back into the mudpit I go...
Therefore, this essentially boils down to picking the simplest assumptions. My assumptions are the postulates of logic. Yours are the existence of not only a god, but a human-like god who interferes in human affairs. Which appear to be more fundamental and can be used to construct the other?
I find this answer rather lacking. Logical argumentation always ultimately follows the form "If A, then B,"and makes this leap using certain principles of rationality component to the human mind. Our minds are built in such a fashion that we must interpret reality in certain ways: "The understanding does not derive its laws (a priori) from, but prescribes them to, nature."1 For example, our ability to perceive is predicated upon the a priori foundations of space and time,2 while our ability to understand what we perceive is based upon such concepts as quantity (unity/plurality/totality), quality (reality/negation/limitation), relation (substance/causality/ community), and modality (possibility/existence/necessity).3 These logical constructs alone are empty, only the apparatus of rationality, not its content. Before reason can begin its work, it requires given conditions to function as a foundation.
It is my contention that an attempt to dismiss theism as irrational as opposed to atheism is unjustified, and that the assumption of an atheistic conception of ultimate reality is equally as irrational as a theistic one. The scientific atheist must, like all human beings, posit initial assertions about the nature of reality, such as there is no God and all that exists is Nature, before he can begin the task of understanding his universe. These initial assertions amount to one's concept of ultimate reality.
A concept of ultimate reality is essentially a formulation of our beliefs about "how things truly are". It tells us what is the underlying reality behind the world we perceive (i.e. God, Brahman, oneself, mathematically governed energy, nothing), establishes our understanding of the nature of reality, and thereby sets out the paradigm for our understanding of the world we experience. The place of a concept of ultimate reality in an attempt to understand the world is found only in the role of a base upon which to build.
One of the major concerns of any religion, or indeed of Religion in general, is the question of what ultimate reality actually is. This is not its only concern, or necessarily even its primary concern, but it is an integral concern. If religion is to accomplish its primary goals, there must first be an understanding of the nature of the reality in which this problem takes place. Without such an understanding, nothing can be grounded, and no statements can be made about anything.
The most basic thing the human mind does in forming understanding is believe. Any logician, theologian, philosopher, or psychologist will tell you that before the mind carries out, indeed is even able to carry out, any type of reasoning, it must first have some previous extra-rational foundations upon which to build. And so, to understand anything about anything, the mind must have some final, irreducible "truths" upon which all its further understanding and belief is based. These irreducible assumptions form the structure of one's concept of ultimate reality. This structure can be fleshed out by reasonings and beliefs based on these assumptions, but the core lies in the irreducible assumptions themselves.
Our ultimate reality, then, is our basic reality. As we go through life, experiencing the universe, other people, and ourselves, the only way we can understand or find meaning in it all is by interpreting it according to our irreducible truths, or in other words, by integrating the data into the framework of our concept of ultimate reality. We base our understanding on our beliefs about "how things truly are".
It is not so much true that seeing is believing, as it is that to believe is to see. In the search to understand reality, it is our basic assumptions about ultimate reality that inform our conclusions. Insofar as our irreducible assumptions differ, our ultimate realities will differ, and our views of the world around us will differ.
Thus it is that different religious persuasions have vastly different ideas about the nature of the universe, of man, of man's problem, and of its solution. Adherents to a belief system hold to certain concepts of ultimate reality, and thus form their ideas of God (or lack of therein) as part of that. The Judeo-Christian God, the Hindu qualityless Brahman, the Tao of Taoism, the raw nature of atheism, and so on, are each embodiments of ultimate reality as accepted by the followers of the respective religions; and the meaning and significance of, as well as the believer's relationship to, these ideas of God/ultimate reality are as varied as the religions they come from.
Philosophers have long tried to make arguments proving the truth or falsity of various concepts of ultimate reality. These arguments have all, as far as I have ever seen, failed. The primary failure is to be found not in the truth or falsehood of the particular concept of ultimate reality under scrutiny, but in the logical invalidity of the arguments themselves. Any attempt to prove a concept of ultimate reality is an attempt to prove the basic premise upon which it is founded. As a basic, pre-rational belief, a concept of ultimate reality cannot be the conclusion of the argument without begging the question in some fashion.
For example, I have yet to encounter any argument either for, or against, the existence of the Judeo-Christian God which has not at some point assumed, however subtly, the existence or non-existence which it was trying to prove. The strongest argument I have yet encountered for the existence of God is the Cosmological Argument of Keith Yandell as laid out in his book Philosophy of Religion,1 but even in this argument fails to actually prove God's existence (although it does do a very good job of arguing that either God exists, or we have no explanation for why anything exists).(I can post this argument if someone is interested in it, but it would take a great deal of typing, so I'll only do it by request :) )
Interestingly, the strongest argument that I have encountered aimed specifically against the Judeo-Christian (and Islamic) God, has actually been very weak at disproving the existence of God completely. The argument from the problem of evil succeeds only in making Semitic monotheism more difficult, and does not succeed in actually disproving such a God, let alone in disproving a non-Semitic conception of God. Meanwhile, all arguments, in the author's experience, that actually do try to disprove the possibility of any God have assumed the non-existence of God to make their arguments.
In fact, there are few such arguments that attempt to disprove God. For the most part, there are merely many different theories posited as explanations of the concept of God under the assumption that God does not exist.5
Subjective reality is all anyone can directly know. All our experience and reasonings have to be filtered through our subjective schemas and paradigms to become meaningful to us. Our paradigms are, of course, built in turn upon those irreducible, extra-rational "truths" which we accept as forming our concept of ultimate reality.
The reasonableness of any religious persuasion is not absolute. We cannot look at any religion or concept of ultimate reality and declare it to be utterly ridiculous, nor utterly certain. Each religion is only relatively reasonable, because they are all founded upon extra-rational assumptions. We cannot prove or disprove any of them via logical argument, since each concept of ultimate reality is a premise, and not a conclusion, in an argument.
Whatever the nature of objective reality is, our concept of God, or any other alternative concept of ultimate reality, is not something logically provable. Our concepts of ultimate reality form the basic, extra-rational "truths" by which we live and evaluate all experience and all other truths, and as such form the basis of our arguments and understanding about reality. This is why we cannot discover any certain proof for or against any particular concept of ultimate reality. Therefore, it seems that the charge that belief in theism is irrational can be met with the countercharge that belief in atheism is equally irrational.
While looking for a place where you have actually stated your "first fundamental assumption of logic," I came across this: Actually, this does not fit in with science at all, as scientific philosophy dictates to disbelieve everything without either theoretical or experimental proof. It may be impossible to prove the nonexistence of a god, but it is then equally impossible to disprove it as well. Unless experimental or mathematical evidence exists (neither does), the idea should be discarded.
I am afriad this falls to the same objection that logical positivism did back in the 1950's. We ought to discard everything that has neither mathematcial nor experimental proof is a statement which lacks mathematical or experimental proof.
Show me the exact procedures in terms of logic and math constructs that god carries out to perform these so-called miracles, and I will readily accept it. I said this earlier, but I will repeat it: nobody who supposedly experiences these miracles ever tries to formulate mathematical equations, or even thinks about this, because their structure will then fall apart. This "god made a miracle happen" thing by itself is crazy. It is like saying "a computer works because of the laws of science;" many, many more details are needed.
I started to put thse out in a propositional format, but it is getting late, so I will simply summarise in a single paragraph: If God as traditionally understood exists, it is possible that he could act in such a fashion as to alter or insert new elements into the functioning of nature without reference to prior causes in nature. By way of analogy, the laws of physics should allow us to predict the motion of billiard balls on a table following the application of a force upon one of the balls by a cue, but if one should suddenly toss another ball onto the table that was not present before, it is to be expected that the results will not be what we had predicted. In a similar fashion it is possible that God could introduce something new into nature so as to produce results that otherwise would not have been expected. There is no necessity that these new elements would not immediately be subject to the laws of nature, so if we seek to understand the mechanics of a miraculous occurence, we might be well advised to consider what would have been needed to produce the effect discovered, and look for our miracle there.
Again, there is more that I would say, but I do not have the luxury of time that others seem to. :(
Anyway, until later, my friends. :)
Sesq.
P.S. Stryke9, I have deep respect for your position and conduct in this topic. I believe you have done an admirable job in trying to maintain an openminded and level-headed perspective. I also found your last set of posts quite refreshing amongst all the slagging and mud in here. :D
1. Kant, Immanuel. Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics. Classics of Western Philosophy. Trans. Paul Carus, James W. Ellington. Ed. Stephen M. Cahn. 4th ed. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, Inc., 1995. p. 1019.
2. Kant, pp. 997-998.
3. Kant, pp. 1009.
4. Yandell, Keith E. Philosophy of Religion. New York: Routledge, 1999. pp. 195-202.
5. Durkeim's objectification of social consciousness, Huxley's pre-scientific explanation of the universe, Freud's mental projection, etc.
-
All of the so called 'evidence' that I've seen and heard can go both ways. So you must accept evolution happend by faith.
You claim that the universe is billions of years old and that the earth is millions of years old. Now lets have a better look at that last statment. If the earth is millions of years old then the sun would have at a time touched the earth surface or it's (the sun) surface would be past earth. How would you explain that?
Lets look at 'Big Bang' THOERY. If (and that's a BIG if) it really happend how come planets are spining oppossite ways? Assuming that it was spinning.
Lets talk polystrata fossiles. How would you explain that a tree in through several layers that supposedly were layed down in millions of years?
Or lets talk about fossiles. How come 99% - 100% of all fossile sea shells are shut? That means that rapid burial happend. When something dies it goes limp so a sea shell animal would be open!
How come you call me ignorant? Everything that I've said about science is true. You anly say that because 1. I'm a Christian and 2. I'm right.
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
1All of the so called 'evidence' that I've seen and heard can go both ways. So you must accept evolution happend by faith.
2.You claim that the universe is billions of years old and that the earth is millions of years old. Now lets have a better look at that last statment. If the earth is millions of years old then the sun would have at a time touched the earth surface or it's (the sun) surface would be past earth. How would you explain that?
3.Lets look at 'Big Bang' THOERY. If (and that's a BIG if) it really happend how come planets are spining oppossite ways? Assuming that it was spinning.
4.Lets talk polystrata fossiles. How would you explain that a tree in through several layers that supposedly were layed down in millions of years?
5. Or lets talk about fossiles. How come 99% - 100% of all fossile sea shells are shut? That means that rapid burial happend. When something dies it goes limp so a sea shell animal would be open!
6. How come you call me ignorant?
7. Everything that I've said about science is true. You anly say that because 1. I'm a Christian and 2. I'm right.
1. We can accept evolution on evidence: both in fossils and in repeatable experiments done in a lab. No faith is needed
2. The Universe is billions of years old, the sun is billions of years old and the Eath is billions of years old (ca 4.5 to be precise). What you say there clearly shows that you have no understanding of science. The sun's surface never touched that of Earth... If that is what you're trying to say.
3. Big Bang has nothing to do with the way planets rotate. When you know nothing of a subject my friend, you might do well to do some research first to get your facts straight.
4. Ever heard about post-dipositional factors? It's not because something is in the ground that it stays in exactly the same place. Roman coins regularly show up in layers that have nothing to do with Roman periods, it's just on a smaller scale.
5. So what? Rapid burial can happen, ever heard about landslides?
6. Because you're asking for it.
7. Most of the things you said about science tell me that you nothing or very little about science. About you being a fundamentalist christian (you know, like fundamentalist muslims or fundamentalist hindus, etc etc. The kind that flies planes into buildings and calls the US the 'Great Satan') isn't exactly helping you to understand science.
-
Okay, I've read a chunk from the beginning of this thread and a chunk from the end, but to be perfectly honest, it's developing WAY too fast for me to keep up with. There, that's my disclaimer for anything that seems out of place, or outdated, or whatever. (-:
To start things off, I'm a nondenominational Christian. I don't like religion at all. When I talk about relgion, I'm referring to pompous ceremonial stuff, rules, regulations, and all the other meaningless stuff that goes on in many churches. What I believe in is a heart-to-heart, one on one relationship with my God, the God of Abraham and Isaac, the Father of Jesus, the Alpha and the Omega, the One called "I Am."
Now, I've seen a fair amount of discussion about free-will and the like. Here's my question for you folks. I see that life exists in one of two ways. Either we are created by a divine God, given free will, allowed to live our lives as we see fit (a drastic simplification), or we're products of a massive universal hiccup.
If we're products of that massive universal hiccup, then everything that exists exists because of the laws of probability. Similarly, everything that happens, happens because of the laws of probability. The organic constructs which we refer to as "people" should be no different. There can be no free will in this situation, only beings that think they have free will, but merely do whatever it is they're likely to do. They may think they have free-will, but that's only because the laws of probability have caused various neurons to fire which cause those thoughts to exist.
I don't know about you folks, but I've decided to believe that I was created for a purpose by a divine God (of Whom I spoke earlier), not that everything that happens to me is subject to the laws of probability. Of course, I didn't just choose to follow this path because of this reason - I have seen far too many things happen. I know people who should be dead of cancer (one person I can think of was given a couple weeks to live. I think that was 2 years ago) but aren't because of prayer. I have attended a church for 12 years of my life where EVERY SUNDAY "coincidences" would happen. Well, they were coincidences if you take them individually. After a few years of nonstop coincidences, it starts to seem less like a purely random occurence.
As I once heard said, if God does everything right, nobody will know for sure that He did it at all.
--TurboNed
Is this making sense, or is it the ramblings of a college student who's been awake for far too long? (-:
-
Originally posted by TurboNed
Okay, I've read a chunk from the beginning of this thread and a chunk from the end, but to be perfectly honest, it's developing WAY too fast for me to keep up with. There, that's my disclaimer for anything that seems out of place, or outdated, or whatever. (-:
To start things off, I'm a nondenominational Christian. I don't like religion at all. When I talk about relgion, I'm referring to pompous ceremonial stuff, rules, regulations, and all the other meaningless stuff that goes on in many churches. What I believe in is a heart-to-heart, one on one relationship with my God, the God of Abraham and Isaac, the Father of Jesus, the Alpha and the Omega, the One called "I Am."
Now, I've seen a fair amount of discussion about free-will and the like. Here's my question for you folks. I see that life exists in one of two ways. Either we are created by a divine God, given free will, allowed to live our lives as we see fit (a drastic simplification), or we're products of a massive universal hiccup.
If we're products of that massive universal hiccup, then everything that exists exists because of the laws of probability. Similarly, everything that happens, happens because of the laws of probability. The organic constructs which we refer to as "people" should be no different. There can be no free will in this situation, only beings that think they have free will, but merely do whatever it is they're likely to do. They may think they have free-will, but that's only because the laws of probability have caused various neurons to fire which cause those thoughts to exist.
I don't know about you folks, but I've decided to believe that I was created for a purpose by a divine God (of Whom I spoke earlier), not that everything that happens to me is subject to the laws of probability. Of course, I didn't just choose to follow this path because of this reason - I have seen far too many things happen. I know people who should be dead of cancer (one person I can think of was given a couple weeks to live. I think that was 2 years ago) but aren't because of prayer. I have attended a church for 12 years of my life where EVERY SUNDAY "coincidences" would happen. Well, they were coincidences if you take them individually. After a few years of nonstop coincidences, it starts to seem less like a purely random occurence.
As I once heard said, if God does everything right, nobody will know for sure that He did it at all.
--TurboNed
Is this making sense, or is it the ramblings of a college student who's been awake for far too long? (-:
If it is this tread that brought you to Christ I am very glad I stuck to it! It is not rambling, it is you seeing the light!
-
About kinds. -
Kind is broder then species. For instance man'kind'. Then after mankind there are different species of man black, white, tan, and others. And then those can be broken down more by how that guy is built. How tall he is, is he heavy set or skinnyer then a rail. Long legs or short.
Felines (cats. don't know if I spelled that right) are a 'kind. And those can be broken up also by the sub 'kind' or species. Lion, tiger, house cats, and wild cats. But they are all cats.
Also works for many others. Like Canines; Wolf, Dalmation, Dingo, and coyote. They are all Dogs (canines)!
Like wise if a fly has a resistance to DDT and passes that on to its offspring. The offspring are still flys.
About evolution. -
Why can't we see and monkeys (or any other animal) change, however so little, today? Why aren't allot of animals mutating today to make the species better? Why can't we see that? Why aren't there more humans that have mutations (to make us better in the future)?
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
About kinds. -
Kind is broder then species. For instance man'kind'. Then after mankind there are different species of man black, white, tan, and others. And then those can be broken down more by how that guy is built. How tall he is, is he heavy set or skinnyer then a rail. Long legs or short.
Felines (cats. don't know if I spelled that right) are a 'kind. And those can be broken up also by the sub 'kind' or species. Lion, tiger, house cats, and wild cats. But they are all cats.
Also works for many others. Like Canines; Wolf, Dalmation, Dingo, and coyote. They are all Dogs (canines)!
Like wise if a fly has a resistance to DDT and passes that on to its offspring. The offspring are still flys.
About evolution. -
Why can't we see and monkeys (or any other animal) change, however so little, today? Why aren't allot of animals mutating today to make the species better? Why can't we see that? Why aren't there more humans that have mutations (to make us better in the future)?
Oh No, you're really starting to get on my nerves. Stop being such a moron and have an open mind. We've explained to you a thousand times that for a change as radical as that, it would take millions of years. Don't post again unless it's going to be something you haven't said before and read a book (other than the Bible) while you're at it.
There are animals mutating but most of the time the mutations are harmful. It takes thousands of them in exactly the right conditions to make a new species. There are thousands of cases of humans with genetic mutations, although our survival rate is now such that our evolution has slowed to a negligable amount.
-
And because our evolution has slowed down due to our ability to alter our environment to suit us, it's time we started altering ourselves.
Because we've already been buggering around with genetics for over three thousand years (selective breeding IS GM, i'm sorry to say)
Anyone who runs around ripping up plants just because they came out of a soya bean is obviously some kind of life hating, backwards, anti-progressive moron.
-
I find this thread utterly astounding.
I think I've learned more here about evolution theories, scientific views on religion and religious thoughts than a great deal of pages on the web had to offer.
This is cool :nod:
-
Originally posted by Top Gun
Oh No, you're really starting to get on my nerves. Stop being such a moron and have an open mind. We've explained to you a thousand times that for a change as radical as that, it would take millions of years. Don't post again unless it's going to be something you haven't said before and read a book (other than the Bible) while you're at it.
There are animals mutating but most of the time the mutations are harmful. It takes thousands of them in exactly the right conditions to make a new species. There are thousands of cases of humans with genetic mutations, although our survival rate is now such that our evolution has slowed to a negligable amount.
I think reading the bible would benefit him. :p :p
-
Long post coming up! :D
Sesq: While most of your points are indeed quite valid, they do not really serve to augment either of our arguments. ;)
I find this answer rather lacking. Logical argumentation always ultimately follows the form "If A, then B,"and makes this leap using certain principles of rationality component to the human mind. Our minds are built in such a fashion that we must interpret reality in certain ways: "The understanding does not derive its laws (a priori) from, but prescribes them to, nature."1 For example, our ability to perceive is predicated upon the a priori foundations of space and time,2 while our ability to understand what we perceive is based upon such concepts as quantity (unity/plurality/totality), quality (reality/negation/limitation), relation (substance/causality/ community), and modality (possibility/existence/necessity).3 These logical constructs alone are empty, only the apparatus of rationality, not its content. Before reason can begin its work, it requires given conditions to function as a foundation.
This I'm not too sure about. You are essentially repeating the ideas of Berkeley and Kant here, but those are under big debate today (equal-sided debate, too), and the precise relationship, if one exists, between material things and ideas remains undetermined as of yet. (personally, I like the ideas of Hegel and Russell, but that's just me) There are branches of mathematics which are quite detached from what we see in the world today, and I think that more data is required here before putting in a good guess. Also, the first portion of the pursuit of science involves going backwards in a way, since we first gather experimental data and then attempt to work back to more basic constructs that could work together to form those ideas. These ideas were discovered from existing things in reality, but that does not mean that they could not have come in other ways as well. (this is how the concept of the number came up, but do we actually see numbers anywhere directly in life?) Also, from these basic rules, new conjectures can come up as well, which may or may not have any relationship to the material reality; in fact, looking at the way things have occurred in history, I think there may well be a transfinite number of ideas directly linked to any one given idea. I know I am sort of thinking in terms of logic here as my mind is used to that, but I could say the same about you, or just about anyone else in the world. :p
Whatever the nature of objective reality is, our concept of God, or any other alternative concept of ultimate reality, is not something logically provable. Our concepts of ultimate reality form the basic, extra-rational "truths" by which we live and evaluate all experience and all other truths, and as such form the basis of our arguments and understanding about reality. This is why we cannot discover any certain proof for or against any particular concept of ultimate reality. Therefore, it seems that the charge that belief in theism is irrational can be met with the countercharge that belief in atheism is equally irrational.
Yes, that is as irrational, but there are still some reasons why we should prefer it to the alternative. Remember that atheism has one major advantage over any form of religion; it fits in with the currently accepted science, most notably the cosmological principle of general uniformity and the looped-universe system. (you yourself are saying that this god does is not subject to any natural laws) Now you have stated numerous times that it cannot be shown whether either explanation is the more probable one, and I fully agree with that. Therefore, to keep the number of additional variables as low as possible for the purposes of temporary problem-solving, the atheism course should be taken into account first, fully analyzed using the rules of logic, and then we should go for the religions. This is the way any theoretical problem in real life is solved; the fastest course to the end is first tried using absolutely necessary variables only, and the secondary variables are then taken into account one by one after that. (heck, that's how the general relativity equation was formulated, and why the special one came first) The best thing, however, is to keep this problem in an indetermined state as far as science and philosophy goes, but to follow a course of atheism in everyday life, once again to prevent complications that may or may not be necessary; religion merely acts as a shield from what most people perceive, which makes individuals feel good, but leads to stagnation of society as a whole. (nobody perceives a god, directly or indirectly; they just assume that he exists) Unlike in most situations, the accuracy of the religion/science/whatever is not an issue here, as both explanations are equally accurate as far as we know, and so we must go by what we perceive. (for the moment anyway)
One thing I have already stated in this thread many times is that I do not have so much of a problem with the religious ideas themselves, but rather the manner in which people accept them. In topics like these, where much is open to speculation, people should try to think independently unless a more precise, logical proof comes up, for each existing one is about equally correct. Now these religions completely discourage independent thought (Hinduism started off better here, but I have seen that in practice it has become the same); for example, many of the pro-religion people here seem to "believe in the Bible," which a considerable portion of the world uses as an assumption for an absolute truth (including you), since the book is essentially a set of rules to follow - "obey these rules and god sends you to heaven; break them and god sends you to hell," both of which are simply things that appeal to the practical side of humans. I stand behind my contention that it is less likely that an archaic book full of logical contradictions and cryptic language contains all of the possible knowledge in the universe than it is for the knowledge not to exist in the concentrated form of ideas just yet. (this is confusing to explain here in detail, but I'll write more in the book)
The most basic thing the human mind does in forming understanding is believe. Any logician, theologian, philosopher, or psychologist will tell you that before the mind carries out, indeed is even able to carry out, any type of reasoning, it must first have some previous extra-rational foundations upon which to build. And so, to understand anything about anything, the mind must have some final, irreducible "truths" upon which all its further understanding and belief is based. These irreducible assumptions form the structure of one's concept of ultimate reality. This structure can be fleshed out by reasonings and beliefs based on these assumptions, but the core lies in the irreducible assumptions themselves.
I already stated this exact same thing in my earlier post; what is the point you are trying to make here?
It is not so much true that seeing is believing, as it is that to believe is to see. In the search to understand reality, it is our basic assumptions about ultimate reality that inform our conclusions. Insofar as our irreducible assumptions differ, our ultimate realities will differ, and our views of the world around us will differ.
So basically what you are saying here is that the absolute truth does not exist, but only the perceptive does. You have reached the "perceptivity paradox" here, because if everything is perceptively true and false at the same time, while nothing can be absolutely true or false (it is indeterminate in the absolute), then the statement of the perceptivity differing between each person is also not absolutely true. Because of this type of thing that comes up in every attempted deduction (mainly due to the fact that the reflexive property is both true and false), we cannot pursue this means to an answer at all; that fundamental assumption allows one to derive a set of rules from what we see.
Philosophers have long tried to make arguments proving the truth or falsity of various concepts of ultimate reality. These arguments have all, as far as I have ever seen, failed. The primary failure is to be found not in the truth or falsehood of the particular concept of ultimate reality under scrutiny, but in the logical invalidity of the arguments themselves. Any attempt to prove a concept of ultimate reality is an attempt to prove the basic premise upon which it is founded. As a basic, pre-rational belief, a concept of ultimate reality cannot be the conclusion of the argument without begging the question in some fashion.
Sounds good, but we both seem to agree on the point of assumptions, which is just the implication of what you are saying here.
While looking for a place where you have actually stated your "first fundamental assumption of logic," I came across this:
Actually, that has nothing to with that assumption. The first fundamental assumption is an application of the second rule of problem-solving to the first fundamental rule; it says that the absolute truth should be collected and analyzed before the perceptive truth in an attempt to keep things as simple as possible for the purposes of deduction.
I am afriad this falls to the same objection that logical positivism did back in the 1950's. We ought to discard everything that has neither mathematcial nor experimental proof is a statement which lacks mathematical or experimental proof.
Of course, that is why it is called an assumption. I already said, as you did as well, that at least one assumption is required for any kind of thinking process. The assumed information should be kept down to a minimum, while still explaining everything seen in reality in some way or another. Now, your assumption appears to be that there must be a human god who takes care of humans, which is fine at the moment since it cannot be proved or disproved, but it fails to explain other things in the world, such as why he is not doing a very good job of it. It needs to be either altered or discarded altogether.
Subjective reality is all anyone can directly know. All our experience and reasonings have to be filtered through our subjective schemas and paradigms to become meaningful to us. Our paradigms are, of course, built in turn upon those irreducible, extra-rational "truths" which we accept as forming our concept of ultimate reality.
The reasonableness of any religious persuasion is not absolute. We cannot look at any religion or concept of ultimate reality and declare it to be utterly ridiculous, nor utterly certain. Each religion is only relatively reasonable, because they are all founded upon extra-rational assumptions. We cannot prove or disprove any of them via logical argument, since each concept of ultimate reality is a premise, and not a conclusion, in an argument.
That is true to some extent, but then again, nothing can be proved or disproved. We can, however, give things a probability with regards to existing science constructs and that which we can objectively perceive. For the third time, I give you this example: suppose I were to say that I am the god and have created the universe and given it its laws, and so I must be right about everything. This proposition could of course not be disproved, but most people (well, most people with any tad of sense anyway :D) would reject it because it does not fit in with what they directly perceive. (and don't use gravity or something as a counterexample here, as we need something to not only explain why we feel an attractive force, but also to predict what the attractive force will do in theoretical situations)
I started to put thse out in a propositional format, but it is getting late, so I will simply summarise in a single paragraph: If God as traditionally understood exists, it is possible that he could act in such a fashion as to alter or insert new elements into the functioning of nature without reference to prior causes in nature. By way of analogy, the laws of physics should allow us to predict the motion of billiard balls on a table following the application of a force upon one of the balls by a cue, but if one should suddenly toss another ball onto the table that was not present before, it is to be expected that the results will not be what we had predicted. In a similar fashion it is possible that God could introduce something new into nature so as to produce results that otherwise would not have been expected. There is no necessity that these new elements would not immediately be subject to the laws of nature, so if we seek to understand the mechanics of a miraculous occurence, we might be well advised to consider what would have been needed to produce the effect discovered, and look for our miracle there.
I have a feeling you are trying to avoid the question here. What you are saying is that simply because the logic system is not adequate for explain these "miracles," (which is doubtful in the first place) they should go unexplained? Here is what I mean about religion discouraging further thinking; this need to progress both scientifically and socially is in my opinion what seperates the man from the animal, and religion tries to dull the scientific part of it. If you are convinced that it is not possible to explain using logic, then devise a new system of thought (it is possible in theory to do this from existing ideas) to break this "miracle" into basic constructs simple enough to predict a similar thing in theoretical situations, and maybe even change in practice. (technology) As for the "god putting new things into the universe" part, I said earlier that the laws of science are theoretically alterable, so this sounds perfectly fine, but - and I will use your analogy here - people will try to find out how the third billiard ball came onto the table instead of just accepting its new existence there, and so it should be similarly seen on a larger scale how or why this god suddenly changed the laws and whether or not he will try to change the laws again in the future, rather than merely accepting the effects of the change. (thinking "backwards" once again, so to speak)
And finally, I post the same questions yet again, that still remain unanswered: How or why did god come into existence, and also, why do you like the god? He cannot be the absolute, or anything even close, if he is what they say in any of the religions, for he would then have no effect on human affairs in the manner which he supposedly does. (and if we are going by the Bible being the "word of god," he must have forgotten what he did with the universe by the time he uh, dictated it, judging from the number of errors in it :p)
If we're products of that massive universal hiccup, then everything that exists exists because of the laws of probability. Similarly, everything that happens, happens because of the laws of probability. The organic constructs which we refer to as "people" should be no different. There can be no free will in this situation, only beings that think they have free will, but merely do whatever it is they're likely to do. They may think they have free-will, but that's only because the laws of probability have caused various neurons to fire which cause those thoughts to exist.
This I like, as it is the most reasonable explanation with the currently accepted ideas, whether it is true or not.
I have attended a church for 12 years of my life where EVERY SUNDAY "coincidences" would happen. Well, they were coincidences if you take them individually. After a few years of nonstop coincidences, it starts to seem less like a purely random occurence.
Refer to my earlier posts about us possessing inadequate knowledge about our own bodies. Also, remember that cancer in some form or another is the most prevalent and common disease in the world; some survive and some do not, but there are enough people in the world for this to be a fairly common affair. What I think is happening here is that people only look at the evidence that suits their argument; it might be true that such things are happening on Sundays, but I can bet that they are happening every other day as well if you look around enough, alongside many deaths on Sundays as well. The church priests, of course, only publicize that which will help to make their point, but that is like believing everything the media tells you unconditionally. :p
I find this thread utterly astounding.
I think I've learned more here about evolution theories, scientific views on religion and religious thoughts than a great deal of pages on the web had to offer.
Arguing here is one of the methods in I like to use to bring my ideas to better precision. :D I need to have the stuff in that book as perfect as I can make it, so this is the time to practice. :D
-
Are you going to try and sell it?
-
Well, it probably will not sell much as popular material with all the technical stuff; usually the only people interested in this kind of stuff are the ones in that field academically. At the most it will really only appear in university libraries, but that's all I care about. :D Also, if I decide to go into philosophy in terms of academics (still have not decided between that and some other fields), it would also work for a phd thesis paper. ;)
-
Whoa! Sh1t! I didn't think this would go so long!:D
So, erm, what did I miss..... I sort of lost track of everything around the 3rd page, and I leave the computer for about two days, and, boom, it's on page 9!
EDIT: What's the book (exactly) about?
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Well, it probably will not sell much as popular material with all the technical stuff; usually the only people interested in this kind of stuff are the ones in that field academically. At the most it will really only appear in university libraries, but that's all I care about. :D Also, if I decide to go into philosophy in terms of academics (still have not decided between that and some other fields), it would also work for a phd thesis paper. ;)
If ya make the book, tell us the title and author! (as in: your name) :nod: :)
-
Originally posted by Top Gun
Oh No, you're really starting to get on my nerves. Stop being such a moron and have an open mind. We've explained to you a thousand times that for a change as radical as that, it would take millions of years. Don't post again unless it's going to be something you haven't said before and read a book (other than the Bible) while you're at it.
There are animals mutating but most of the time the mutations are harmful. It takes thousands of them in exactly the right conditions to make a new species. There are thousands of cases of humans with genetic mutations, although our survival rate is now such that our evolution has slowed to a negligable amount.
You got on my nerves waaay before now! Like 10-15 pages ago! My setting is at 20 replies a page.
Mutations are happening, I don't deny it. But have any of them been helpful? Most if not all have been diseases, like MS. If there were any 'helpful' mutations it would only 'help' a contained area, like a remote tribe in South America. *Admins I trying to make a point here so please don't ban me for it.* Would you sleep with a four eyed freak or some other mutant to make humans 'better'? I really doubt it. And changes wouldn't really help you. More over why do you care about humans evolving, since it wouldn't even effect you?
On Me(, God, and any one else that cares here) and Creationism vs. You and Evolution
Any so called evidence thats for evolution model/belief can be explained with the creation model/belief. For instance fossiles. They were buried by the world wide flood that is in Genises. That also works for coal and oil. And the so called evolution of man or the horse - different animals. And in the case of man - monkeys and humans put into and order so it looks like we evolved. BTW you can't ask me to explain the 'Big Bang' because it was the beginning of the universe for you who believe in it (evolution). Yes evolution must be accepted by faith too.
Well that's all I can think of right now. Until we either meet during the Judgement or I post again.
Josh Erickson (AKA HotSnoJ)
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
You got on my nerves waaay before now! Like 10-15 pages ago! My setting is at 20 replies a page.
1. Mutations are happening, I don't deny it. But have any of them been helpful? Most if not all have been diseases, like MS. If there were any 'helpful' mutations it would only 'help' a contained area, like a remote tribe in South America. *Admins I trying to make a point here so please don't ban me for it.* Would you sleep with a four eyed freak or some other mutant to make humans 'better'? I really doubt it. And changes wouldn't really help you. More over why do you care about humans evolving, since it wouldn't even effect you?
2. On Me(, God, and any one else that cares here) and Creationism vs. You and Evolution
3. Any so called evidence thats for evolution model/belief can be explained with the creation model/belief. For instance fossiles. They were buried by the world wide flood that is in Genises. That also works for coal and oil. And the so called evolution of man or the horse - different animals. And in the case of man - monkeys and humans put into and order so it looks like we evolved. BTW you can't ask me to explain the 'Big Bang' because it was the beginning of the universe for you who believe in it (evolution). Yes evolution must be accepted by faith too.
Well that's all I can think of right now. Until we either meet during the Judgement or I post again.
Josh Erickson (AKA HotSnoJ)
1.mutations are happening and they are not all beneficial, neither are they all deadly. But what you don't understadn is that these mutations are small, very small. Helpfull mutations would spread, usually over a big area because they give the ceature an advantage. The best example of this is the human brains. Evolutionary mutations gave our species (and its previous incarnations) bigger brains, in turn giving us an advantage over other creatures in Africa. This advantage enabled the line of Homo (habilis, erectus, neanderthalensis, sapiens) to spread over more territory each time (habilis over a large part of Africa, erectus over Africa and a large part of Asia, neanderthalensis over Europe, North Africa and to the Aral Lake, sapiens took the world and is into space).
Also, in case of humans. We form societies. Anything that is out of order by a large degree gets filtered out through social structures. Only now humanity has been able to keep a very large percentage of the genetic mutations alive through various means, mostly medicine.
2. And evolution wins every time.
3. no it can't, unless you shut your brains off (which you have apparently done, or maybe it's a recessive gene. In any case, I pity you). The Flood as in Genesis has been debunked even before Darwin; geology made sure of that (of which you also seem to lack even besic understanding).
In case of evolution of horse and man. Different animals maybe, but the same process. Doesn't change a thing and doesn't even dent the validity of evolution (which is clearly superiour to the relifgious clap-trap you seem to believe.)
And you saying that monkeys and humans were put in a certain order to make it seem like th.ey... you know. That shows once again that you now nothing about evolution. Monkeys are not the ancestors of humans, they are the cousins. Meaning that we have a common ancestor: namely the Purgatorius, about 45 million years ago.
Oh by the way: that you say this... Do you see black choppers with the UN emblem flying outside?
Big Bang and evolution are two seperete things.
Evolutio, is accepted by evidence, not by faith. If it were to be accepted by faith we'd all be very lousy scientists.
P.S. Like I said before: you won't find any paper on creationism in the world that has been put up for peer-review, not even by known creationist biologists like Michael J. Behe. His creationist works are for the common citizen (like you) that doens't know squat about evolution; Behe's scientific works (htose up for peer-review) support evolution.
The only evidence for creationism is the bible, and that's no evidence at all as the bible can be used to say anything. Evolution on the other hand has tonnes of evidence: from fossils to independently repeatable experiments (the basis of science: repeatable experiments)
So I'm sorry to say hotsnoj: but the only thing you succeded in demonstrating/proving is that your science education is lacking big time (if you had any to begin with) and that scientific thought seems to be beyond you. And this makes you look like an idiot. It's harsh but it's the truth.
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
1.mutations are happening and they are not all beneficial, neither are they all deadly. But what you don't understadn is that these mutations are small, very small. Helpfull mutations would spread, usually over a big area because they give the ceature an advantage. The best example of this is the human brains. Evolutionary mutations gave our species (and its previous incarnations) bigger brains, in turn giving us an advantage over other creatures in Africa. This advantage enabled the line of Homo (habilis, erectus, neanderthalensis, sapiens) to spread over more territory each time (habilis over a large part of Africa, erectus over Africa and a large part of Asia, neanderthalensis over Europe, North Africa and to the Aral Lake, sapiens took the world and is into space).
Also, in case of humans. We form societies. Anything that is out of order by a large degree gets filtered out through social structures. Only now humanity has been able to keep a very large percentage of the genetic mutations alive through various means, mostly medicine.
2. And evolution wins every time.
3. no it can't, unless you shut your brains off (which you have apparently done, or maybe it's a recessive gene. In any case, I pity you). The Flood as in Genesis has been debunked even before Darwin; geology made sure of that (of which you also seem to lack even besic understanding).
In case of evolution of horse and man. Different animals maybe, but the same process. Doesn't change a thing and doesn't even dent the validity of evolution (which is clearly superiour to the relifgious clap-trap you seem to believe.)
And you saying that monkeys and humans were put in a certain order to make it seem like th.ey... you know. That shows once again that you now nothing about evolution. Monkeys are not the ancestors of humans, they are the cousins. Meaning that we have a common ancestor: namely the Purgatorius, about 45 million years ago.
Oh by the way: that you say this... Do you see black choppers with the UN emblem flying outside?
Big Bang and evolution are two seperete things.
Evolutio, is accepted by evidence, not by faith. If it were to be accepted by faith we'd all be very lousy scientists.
P.S. Like I said before: you won't find any paper on creationism in the world that has been put up for peer-review, not even by known creationist biologists like Michael J. Behe. His creationist works are for the common citizen (like you) that doens't know squat about evolution; Behe's scientific works (htose up for peer-review) support evolution.
The only evidence for creationism is the bible, and that's no evidence at all as the bible can be used to say anything. Evolution on the other hand has tonnes of evidence: from fossils to independently repeatable experiments (the basis of science: repeatable experiments)
So I'm sorry to say hotsnoj: but the only thing you succeded in demonstrating/proving is that your science education is lacking big time (if you had any to begin with) and that scientific thought seems to be beyond you. And this makes you look like an idiot. It's harsh but it's the truth.
I'll start at 3 since I can't at the moment have a good defense. BTW I do not have my brain shut off. What do you think I do almost all day! I think on how to shake the foundations of evolution of course!
3. What the heck! Geology doesn't prove anywhere that evolution is true. If you were talking about the layers, that can be explained be the flood. Ha!
Throw anything that you say proves evolution and I will also tell you how it can fit into the creation model!
Also tell me this since you claim to be wise. Does this story about evolution put into layman's terms. This story does not mean I believe evolution happend.
Did you know that everthing that exists evolved from nothing! Yup, nothing. You see in the beginning there was nothing and then it exploded! Yup nothing exploded. Then after a long time the sun and earth formed out of the dust that came from nothing exploding. A while later there were chemicals in the oceans. Then while they were floating around lightening struck them and they formed the first living cell! After that a buncha animal evolved and then us! The End.
Now I go into some detail.
Do you honestly believe that in 2 gazillion (emphisized) tons of water and other stuff that all of the chemicals were in the right place at the right time to struck by lightening to combine? One thing wrong about saying that you can do it in a lab is that you don't have room for all of the water and other junk that you say was in that ocean! You also need to factor in the randomness of the lighening you need.
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
3. What the heck! Geology doesn't prove anywhere that evolution is true. If you were talking about the layers, that can be explained be the flood. Ha!
You really are Mentally deficient aren't you (consider this not as an attack but an observation)?. By Using geology we are able to observe the movements of the various land masses which explain the distribution of the species around the world today. We can use Isotope dating of fossils to determine their age and we are able to analyze the sediment in which the fossils were found. Although I'm not expecting you to believe any of this because the Bible doesn't say anything about it :rolleyes:
Oh and BTW. the latest evidence (geological and archaeological) suggests that the flood was in fact the sea flooding a depression making the black sea.
Originally posted by hotsnoj
Now I go into some detail.
Do you honestly believe that in 2 gazillion (emphisized) tons of water and other stuff that all of the chemicals were in the right place at the right time to struck by lightening to combine? One thing wrong about saying that you can do it in a lab is that you don't have room for all of the water and other junk that you say was in that ocean! You also need to factor in the randomness of the lighening you need.
YES it is perfectly possible.
You are an ignorant fool, may I suggest that nobody replies to his threads from now on so we may be able to continue with some intelligent discussion.
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
I'll start at 3 since I can't at the moment have a good defense. BTW I do not have my brain shut off. What do you think I do almost all day! I think on how to shake the foundations of evolution of course!
3. What the heck! Geology doesn't prove anywhere that evolution is true. If you were talking about the layers, that can be explained be the flood. Ha!
Throw anything that you say proves evolution and I will also tell you how it can fit into the creation model!
Also tell me this since you claim to be wise. Does this story about evolution put into layman's terms. This story does not mean I believe evolution happend.
Did you know that everthing that exists evolved from nothing! Yup, nothing. You see in the beginning there was nothing and then it exploded! Yup nothing exploded. Then after a long time the sun and earth formed out of the dust that came from nothing exploding. A while later there were chemicals in the oceans. Then while they were floating around lightening struck them and they formed the first living cell! After that a buncha animal evolved and then us! The End.
Now I go into some detail.
Do you honestly believe that in 2 gazillion (emphisized) tons of water and other stuff that all of the chemicals were in the right place at the right time to struck by lightening to combine? One thing wrong about saying that you can do it in a lab is that you don't have room for all of the water and other junk that you say was in that ocean! You also need to factor in the randomness of the lighening you need.
sigh, how can someone be that... blind. Or as my mum would say:" when God was dealing out the brains you weren't in the front line."
On the difference between science and pseudoscience. (http://skepdic.com/creation.html)
And to make sure you read it...
creationism and creation science
...the evolution of the cosmos is more than just "compatible" with theism. Faith in a God of self-giving love...anticipates an evolving universe.* John F. Haught
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Theodosius Dobzhansky (1973)
We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigations anything about the creative processes used by the Creator. Duane Gish, Evolution? The Fossils Say No!
Creationism is a religious metaphysical theory which claims that a supernatural being created the universe. Creation Science is a pseudoscientific theory which claims that (a) the stories in Genesis are accurate accounts of the origin of the universe and life on Earth, and (b) Genesis is incompatible with the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution. “Creation Science” is an oxymoron since science is concerned only with naturalistic explanations of empirical phenomena and does not concern itself with supernatural explanations of metaphysical phenomena.
Creationism is not necessarily connected to any particular religion. Millions of Christians and non-Christians believe there is a Creator of the universe and that scientific theories such as the theory of evolution do not conflict with belief in a Creator. However, those Christians calling themselves ‘creation scientists’ have co-opted the term ‘creationism’, making it difficult to refer to creationism without being understood as referring to Scientific Creationism. Thus, it is commonly assumed that creationists are Christians who believe that the account of the creation of the universe as presented in Genesis is literally true in its basic claims about Adam and Eve, the six days of creation, making day and night on the first day even though He didn’t make the sun and moon until the fourth day, making whales and other animals that live in the water or have feathers and fly on the fifth day, and making cattle and things that creep on the earth on the sixth day, etc.
Creation scientists claim that Genesis is the word of God and thus infallibly true. They also claim that Genesis contradicts the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution. Thus, those theories are false and scientists who advocate such theories are ignorant of the truth about the origins of the universe and life on Earth. They also claim that creationism is a scientific theory and should be taught in our science curriculum as a competitor to the theory of evolution.
One of the main leaders of creation science is Duane T. Gish of the Institute for Creation Research, who puts forth his views mainly in the form of attacks on evolution. Gish is the author of Evolution, the Challenge of the Fossil Record (San Diego, Calif.: Creation-Life Publishers, 1985), Evolution, the Fossils Say No! (San Diego, Calif.: Creation-Life Publishers, 1978), and Evolution, the Fossils Still Say No! (Spring Arbor Distributors, 1985). Another leader of this movement is Walt Brown of the Center for Scientific Creationism. Despite the fact that 99.99% of the scientific community considers evolution of species from other species to be a fact, the creation scientists proclaim that evolution is not a fact but just a theory, and that it is false. The vast majority of scientists who disagree about evolution disagree as to how species evolved, not as to whether they evolved.
Scientific creationists are not impressed that they are in the minority. After all, they note, the entire scientific community has been wrong before. That is true. For example, at one time the geologists were all wrong about the origin of continents. They thought the earth was a solid object. Now they believe that the earth consists of plates. The theory of plate tectonics has replaced the old theory, which is now known to be false. However, when the entire scientific community has been proved to be wrong in the past it has been proved to be wrong by other scientists, not pseudoscientists. They have been proved wrong by others doing empirical investigation, not by others who begin with faith in a religious dogma and who see no need to do any empirical investigation to prove their theory. Erroneous scientific theories have been replaced by better theories, i.e., theories which explain more empirical phenomena and which increase our understanding of the natural world. Plate tectonics not only explained how continents can move, it also opened the door for a greater understanding of how mountain ranges form, how earthquakes are produced, how volcanoes are related to earthquakes, etc. Creationism is not a scientific alternative to natural selection any more than the stork theory is an alternative to sexual reproduction (Hayes 1996). The theory has not and is unlikely ever to lead to a serious understanding of biological phenomena in the natural world.
Darwin & Gish
Darwin’s theory of how evolution happened is called natural selection. That theory is quite distinct from the fact of evolution. Other scientists have different theories of evolution, but only a negligible few deny the fact of evolution. In the Origin of Species Darwin provided vast amounts of data about the natural world that he and others had collected or observed. Only after providing the data did he demonstrate how his theory accounted for the data much better than the theory of special creation. Gish, on the other hand, assumes that whatever data there is must be explained by special creation, because, he thinks, God said so in the Bible. Furthermore, Gish claims that it is impossible for us to understand special creation, since the Creator “used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe.” Thus, Gish, rather than gather data and demonstrate how special creation explains the data better than natural selection, must take another approach, the approach of apologetics. His approach, and that of all the other creation scientists, is to attack at every opportunity what they take to be the theory of evolution. Rather than show the strengths of their own theory, they rely on trying to find and expose weaknesses in evolutionary theory. Gish and the other creation scientists actually have no interest in scientific facts or theories. Their interest is in defending the faith against what they see as attacks on God’s Word.
For example, creation scientists, mistaking the uncertain in science for the unscientific, see the debate among evolutionists regarding how best to explain evolution as a sign of weakness. Scientists, on the other hand, see uncertainty as an inevitable element of scientific knowledge. They regard debates on fundamental theoretical issues as healthy and stimulating. Science, says evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, is “most fun when it plays with interesting ideas, examines their implications, and recognizes that old information may be explained in surprisingly new ways.” Thus, through all the debate over evolutionary mechanisms biologists have not been led to doubt that evolution has occurred. “We are debating how it happened,” says Gould (1983, 256).
"creation science" and pseudoscience
Creation science is not science but pseudoscience. It is religious dogma masquerading as scientific theory. Creation science is put forth as being absolutely certain and unchangeable. It assumes that the world must conform to its understanding of the Bible. Where creation science differs from creationism in general is in its notion that once it has interpreted the Bible to mean something, no evidence can be allowed to change that interpretation. Instead, the evidence must be refuted.
Compare this attitude to that of the leading European creationists of the 17th century who had to admit eventually that the Earth is not the center of the universe and that the sun does not revolve around our planet. They did not have to admit that the Bible was wrong, but they did have to admit that human interpretations of the Bible were in error. Today’s creationists seem incapable of admitting that their interpretation of the Bible could be wrong.
Creation scientists are not scientists because they assume that their interpretation of the Bible cannot be in error. They put forth their views as irrefutable. Hence, when the evidence contradicts their reading of the Bible, they assume that the evidence is false. The only scientific investigation they do is aimed at proving some evolutionary claim is false. Creation scientists see no need to test their theory, since God has revealed it. Infallible certainty is not the hallmark of science. Scientific theories are fallible. Claims of infallibility and the demand for absolute certainty characterize not science but pseudoscience.
What is most revealing about the creation scientists’ lack of any true scientific interest is the way they willingly and uncritically accept even the most preposterous of claims, if those claims seem to contradict traditional scientific beliefs about evolution. For example, any evidence that seems to support the notion that dinosaurs and humans lived together is welcomed by the creationists. And the way creation scientists treat the second law of thermodynamics indicates either gross scientific incompetence or deliberate dishonesty. They claim that evolution of life forms violates the second law of thermodynamics, which “specifies that, on the macroscopic scale of many-body processes, the entropy of a closed system cannot decrease (Stenger).”
Consider simply a black bucket of water initially at the same temperature as the air around it. If the bucket is placed in bright sunlight, it will absorb heat from the sun, as black things do. Now the water becomes warmer than the air around it, and the available energy has increased. Has entropy decreased? Has energy that was previously unavailable become available, in a closed system? No, this example is only an apparent violation of the second law. Because sunlight was admitted, the local system was not closed; the energy of sunlight was supplied from outside the local system. If we consider the larger system, including the sun, entropy has increased as required (Klyce).
Creation scientists treat the evolution of species as if it were like the bucket of water in the example above, which, they incorrectly claim, occurs in a closed system. If we consider the entire system of nature, there is no evidence that the second law of thermodynamics is violated by evolution.
Finally, although Karl Popper’s notion that falsifiability distinguishes scientific from metaphysical theories has been much attacked by philosophers of science (Kitcher), it seems undeniable that there is something profoundly different about such theories as creationism and natural selection. It also seems undeniable that one profound difference is that the metaphysical theory is consistent with every conceivable empirical state of affairs, while the scientific one is not. “I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know,” writes Gould, “but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs. Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science” (Gould, 1983).
Creationism can’t be refuted, even in principle, because everything is consistent with it, even apparent contradictions and contraries. Scientific theories allow definite predictions to be made from them; they can, in principle, be refuted. Theories such as the Big Bang theory, the steady state theory, and natural selection can be tested by experience and observation. Metaphysical theories such as creationism are “airtight” if they are self-consistent, i.e., contain no self-contradictory elements. No scientific theory is ever airtight.
What makes scientific creationism a pseudoscience is that it attempts to pass itself off as science even though it shares none of the essential characteristics of scientific theorizing. Creation science will remain forever unchanged as a theory. It will engender no debate among scientists about fundamental mechanisms of the universe. It generates no empirical predictions that can be used to test the theory. It is taken to be irrefutable. And it assumes a priori that there can be no evidence that will ever falsify it.
creationism as a scientific theory
Religious creationism could be scientific, however. For example, if a theory says that the world was created in 4004 B.C. but the evidence indicates that Earth is several billions of years old, then the theory is a scientific one if it is thereby taken to be refuted by the evidence. But if, for example, the ad hoc hypothesis is made that God created the world in 4004 B.C. complete with fossils that make the Earth look much older than it really is (to test our faith, perhaps, or to fulfill some mysterious divine plan), then the religious theory is metaphysical. Nothing could refute it; it is airtight. Philip Henry Gosse made this claim in Darwin’s time in a work entitled Creation (Omphalos): An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot, published in 1857.
If the age or scientific dating techniques of fossil evidence is disputed, but considered relevant to the truth of the religious theory and is prejudged to be consistent with the theory, then the theory is a metaphysical one. A scientific theory cannot prejudge what its investigative outcomes must be. If the religious cosmologist denies that the earth is billions of years old on the grounds that their own “scientific” tests prove the Earth is very young, then the burden of proof is on the religious cosmologist to demonstrate that the standard scientific methods and techniques of dating fossils, etc., are erroneous. Otherwise, no reasonable person should consider such an unsupported claim that would require us to believe that the entire scientific community is in error. Gish has tried this. The fact that he is unable to convert even a small segment of the scientific community to his way of thinking is a strong indication that his arguments have little merit. This is not because the majority must be right. The entire scientific community could be deluded. However, since the opposition issues from a religious dogmatist who is not doing scientific investigation but theological apologetics, it seems more probable that it is the creation scientists who are deluded rather than the evolutionary scientists.
metaphysical creationists
There are many believers in a religious cosmology such as that given in Genesis who do not claim that their beliefs are scientific. They do not believe that the Bible is to be taken as a science text. To them, the Bible contains teachings pertinent to their spiritual lives. It expresses spiritual ideas about the nature of God and the relationship of God to humans and the rest of the universe. Such people do not believe the Bible should be taken literally when the issue is a matter for scientific discovery. The Bible, they say, should be read for its spiritual messages, not it lessons in biology, physics or chemistry. This used to be the common view of religious scholars. Allegorical interpretations of the Bible go back at least as far as Philo Judaeus (b. 25 BCE). Philosophical analyses of the absurdity of popular conceptions of the gods were made by philosophers such as Epicurus (342-270). Creation scientists have no taste for allegorical interpretations.
creationism and politics
Advocates of creation science have campaigned to have their Biblical version of creation taught as science in U.S. public schools. One of their successes was in the state of Arkansas, which passed a law requiring the teaching of creationism in public schools. This accomplishment may seem significant but it must be remembered that until 1968 it was illegal to teach evolution in Arkansas! In 1981, however, the law was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge who declared creationism to be religious in nature (McLean v. Arkansas). A similar Louisiana law was overturned by the United States Supreme Court in 1987 (Edwards v. Aguillard). In 1994, the Tangipahoa Parish school district passed a law, under the guise of promoting “critical thinking,” requiring teachers to read aloud a disclaimer before they taught evolution. This dishonest ruse was thrown out by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in 1999. Another tactic was tried by creationist biology teacher John Peloza in 1994. He sued his school district for forcing him to teach the “religion of evolutionism.” He lost and the the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that there is no such religion. In 1990 the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that school districts may forbid the teaching of creationism since it is a form of religious advocacy (Webster v. New Lenox School District). Many religious leaders support this ruling. They recognize that allowing school districts to teach creationism is to favor one group’s religious views over the religious views of others and has nothing to do with critical thinking or fairness in the science curriculum.
Creation scientists may have failed in their attempts to have evolution banned from the classroom and to have creationism taught alongside evolution. However, politically active creationists have not given up; they have just changed tactics. Creationists have been encouraged to run for local school boards to try to gain control of the teaching of evolution that way. School boards can determine what texts the schools may and may not use. Creationists who complain to school boards about the teaching of evolution are more likely to be successful in their efforts at censoring science texts if the school board has several creationists.
In Alabama, biology textbooks carry a warning that says that evolution is “a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things. . . .No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life’s origins should be considered as theory, not fact.” In Alabama, it seems, if you wake up to snow on the ground, but no one saw it snowing, then you may only propose a theory as to the origin of the snow.
In August of 1999 the Kansas State Board of Education rejected evolution and the Big Bang theory as scientific principles. The 10-member board voted six to four to eliminate these topics from the science curricula. The Kansas Board did not ban the teaching of evolution or of the Big Bang Theory. The Board simply deleted any mention of evolution and the Big Bang theory from the science curriculum and from the materials used to test graduating students. Creationists, such as Board Member Steve Abrams, a former head of the state Republican Party, hailed the decision as a victory in the war against evolutionists. A new Board restored the scientific theories to their previous place in February 2001. Creationists want children to believe that God made them and every other species individually for a purpose. They do not want children to think that a divine power might be behind the Big Bang or evolution of species.
At the same time that militant creationists are trying to censor textbooks that treat evolution properly, they complain of censorship against creationist works.* This tactic of fighting fire with fire has led creationist Jerry Bergman to argue that evolution (unlike Genesis?) teaches that women are inferior to men. The goal of militant creationists is to debunk evolution wherever possible, not to forward scientific knowledge. (See Revolution Against Evolution.) One of their favorite tactics is to blame all sin and crime on lack of proper Bible study and the teaching of “godless” theories such as evolution and the Big Bang theory. Marc Looy of the group Answers in Genesis says that the 1999 Kansas vote was important because
students in public schools are being taught that evolution is a fact, that they're just products of survival of the fittest. . . .It creates a sense of purposelessness and hopelessness, which I think leads to things like pain, murder, and suicide.
That there is no scientific evidence to support these claims is a matter of indifference to those who believe them. When science does not support their beliefs, they attack science as the handmaiden of Satan. I wonder what Mr. Looy has to say about Christian Identity (Buford Furrow Jr.) or Erich Rudolph or Operation Rescue (Randal Terry) and other Bible-loving groups that preach hatred and inspire violence and murder. What would he say about Matthew and Tyler Williams who, in the words of their mother, "took out two homos" because that's what God's law [Leviticus 20:13] demands? (Sacramento Bee, "Expert: Racists often use Bible to justify attacks," by Gary Delsohn and Sam Stanton, Sept. 23, 1999.*) These killers have certainly found a purposeful existence, but there is clearly no connection between purposefulness and the end of pain, murder, or suicide. Had more people been forced to read Biblical quotations on their schoolroom walls or in their textbooks, for all we know, there would be more, not less pain, murder, and violence.
The desperation of many creationists is evident from the fact that despite numerous corrections by evolutionists, they still try to get the public to identify evolution with Social Darwinism. This straw man tactic is common and is exemplified in the following letter to the Sacramento Bee. The letter was in response to an article on an expert who claims that racists often use the Bible to justify their hate.
It is Darwinian evolution, not holy Scripture, that justifies racism.... evolution teaches survival of the fittest, including (as Hitler recognized) survival of the fittest "branch" of the human family tree. Genuine evolution has no place for true equality. This same evolutionist thinking underlies the hatred that racist groups display toward homosexuals. They view homosexuals as defective and thus inferior. (-------10/3/99)
The view that Darwin’s theory of natural selection implies racism or inequality is a claim made by one either ignorant of Darwin's theory or by one who knows the truth and thinks a lie spread in the name of religion is a morally justified lie.
militant creationism evolves
Creation science has developed a new concept, useful not to science but to polemics: the concept of microevolution. They invented a distinction between macroevolution and microevolution to allow them to account for development and changes within species, without requiring them to accept the concept of natural selection.
Macroevolution is the direct attempt to explain the origin of life from molecules to man in purely naturalistic terms. In doing so, it is an affront to Christians because it deliberately tries to get rid of God as the creator of life. The idea that man is a result of millions of happy accidents that mutated their way from slime through the food chain to monkeys should be offensive to every thinking person (Sharp).*
What should be an affront to many Christians and non-Christian creationists is the insinuation that if one does not adhere to this Christian’s interpretation of the Bible, one is offending God. Many creationists believe that God is behind the beautiful unfolding of evolution (Haught).* There is no contradiction in believing that what appears to be a mechanical, purposeless process from the human perspective, can be teleological and divinely controlled. Natural selection does not require that one “get rid of God as the creator of life” any more than heliocentrism requires one to get rid of God as the creator of the heavens.
This one is also fun, it's creationist :D (http://darwin.ws/contradictions/)
-
Originally posted by Top Gun
You really are Mentally deficient aren't you (consider this not as an attack but an observation)?.
Why not make it a theory (scientific sense), we have enough evidence. :D
-
Science, in all it's nuke building, rail-gun making wisdom cannot reasonably prove that we evolved from apes, the only evidence that they give being a few vague transitional apes skeletons. That being said, the Bible cannot give any good reason why there seem to be lots of dead apes that show a vague pattern of evolution.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Science, in all it's nuke building, rail-gun making wisdom cannot reasonably prove that we evolved from apes, the only evidence that they give being a few vague transitional apes skeletons. That being said, the Bible cannot give any good reason why there seem to be lots of dead apes that show a vague pattern of evolution.
Right on. That is exactly what I've been trying to tell these guy who have their headz in that sand and can't see past their eyeballs.
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
Right on. That is exactly what I've been trying to tell these guy who have their headz in that sand and can't see past their eyeballs.
you did read the second sentence right?
-
EDIT: What's the book (exactly) about?
It will pretty much be a treatise on philosophical issues with some mathematics applied to it. I intend to cover most subjects of human affairs: namely, the concepts of reality/existence, the system of ideas and popular human thought, religion and god, government and politics, and finally, a combined synthesis of everything and what its implications are. ;) :D
If ya make the book, tell us the title and author! (as in: your name) :nod: :)
I haven't really decided on the title yet - still trying to choose between a few choices - and my name is Gaurav Thakur. (I know, it's weird :D)
What do you think I do almost all day! I think on how to shake the foundations of evolution of course!
What can I say here... :rolleyes:
You are an ignorant fool, may I suggest that nobody replies to his threads from now on so we may be able to continue with some intelligent discussion.
After reading some of his stuff, I sadly have to agree. :p :D
Right on. That is exactly what I've been trying to tell these guy who have their headz in that sand and can't see past their eyeballs.
And what are you using for perception? Your brain alone? :p
-
Originally posted by CP5670
And what are you using for perception? Your brain alone? :p
Uh, that's kind of the only thing anyone can perceive things with.
-
Uh, that's kind of the only thing anyone can perceive things with.
The brain by itself? It cannot actually perceive anything directly; it can only analyze and theorize from the information provided by the eyes/ears/nerves/etc. ;)
-
Originally posted by CP5670
The brain by itself? It cannot actually perceive anything directly; it can only analyze and theorize from the information provided by the eyes/ears/nerves/etc. ;)
You didnt say direct perception :p
-
Ivan, I was about to congratulate you on your article until I realized at was copy-pasted :D I guess it hits the nail on the head as far as my opinions on this issue goes. Take a look at www.world-of-dawkins.com he's a very good scientist and writer even if you don't share his views.
-
Originally posted by Top Gun
Ivan, I was about to congratulate you on your article until I realized at was copy-pasted :D I guess it hits the nail on the head as far as my opinions on this issue goes. Take a look at www.world-of-dawkins.com he's a very good scientist and writer even if you don't share his views.
:D yes it was an article... I though the link made that clear. I'm not going to waste hours of my life writing up something of that length to convince a person who doesn't seem to understand anything about science. It's just not worth it.
And why bother anyway? I recently saw a nice cartoon depicting the creationist problem very accurately:
There were 2 frames, one with a scientist and a kid, and one with a creationist and a kid. Each was holding a book.
The scientist says to the kid: "Here we have all the facts, now what conclusion can we draw from them?"
The creationist, Bible in hand, says to the other kid: "Here we have the conclusion, what facts can find to back it up?"
Ah yes, Dawkins... Quite a special case. He certainly has added some new and important elements to the debate on evolution over the years. Some of them valuable, others less so.
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
:D yes it was an article... I though the link made that clear. I'm not going to waste hours of my life writing up something of that length to convince a person who doesn't seem to understand anything about science. It's just not worth it.
And why bother anyway? I recently saw a nice cartoon depicting the creationist problem very accurately:
1. There were 2 frames, one with a scientist and a kid, and one with a creationist and a kid. Each was holding a book.
The scientist says to the kid: "Here we have all the facts, now what conclusion can we draw from them?"
2. The creationist, Bible in hand, says to the other kid: "Here we have the conclusion, what facts can find to back it up?"
Ah yes, Dawkins... Quite a special case. He certainly has added some new and important elements to the debate on evolution over the years. Some of them valuable, others less so.
1. & 2. These should be - "This is what we believe, now let's find some evidence to back it up."
The theory of evolution is just a theory. It is a belief/theory (though more belief), just like any other.
On carban-13 & other methods of dating old stuff-
Carban-13 and other dating meathods are not as fool-proof as you'd think they are. For one thing you don't know how much of the original parent element that was in the sample. Second you don't know if any more of the parent element has been added or subtracted since. Third you also don't know how much of the daughter element was in it or has been added or subtracted to/from it. Fourth Carban-13 is only reliable up to about 10,000 years! As for the others I don't know the dates, but I pretty sure it's much less not millions or billions of years.
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
1. & 2. These should be - "This is what we believe, now let's find some evidence to back it up."
The theory of evolution is just a theory. It is a belief/theory (though more belief), just like any other.
Except that the cartoon is totally accurate. Evolutionists don't believe the theory of evolution because they want to, they found evidence that led to the theory of evolution. If facts were found that made evolution highly unlikely, and suggested something else instead, they would switch over (after extensive examination to make sure the facts were facts).
This is very different from Creationists, who believe in Creationism because they want to. When challenged that Creationism is highly unlikely, they dredge up questionable evidence and counter by saying "It's possible!" Creationists would not switch over to another theory if a more likely one was presented, as a more likely one has already been presented.
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
Fourth Carban-13 is only reliable up to about 10,000 years!
I don't feel like verifying the validity of that claim, but consider that even if you say that it's still 4,000 longer than most Creationists would have you believe the Earth has been around. :)
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
On carban-13 & other methods of dating old stuff-
Carban-13 and other dating meathods are not as fool-proof as you'd think they are. For one thing you don't know how much of the original parent element that was in the sample. Second you don't know if any more of the parent element has been added or subtracted since. Third you also don't know how much of the daughter element was in it or has been added or subtracted to/from it. Fourth Carban-13 is only reliable up to about 10,000 years! As for the others I don't know the dates, but I pretty sure it's much less not millions or billions of years.
I refuse to beleive anyone who spells carbon with an 'a'.
-
Isotope decay ageing can be done in varying incriments based on which isotope yer measuring. The bands are something like 4000+ to about 8000 for some isotope I can't remember and 10000+ for carbon.
-
Originally posted by beatspete
I refuse to believe anyone who spells carbon with an 'a'.
True enough.:nod:
EDIT: You may want to fix "beleive" before he notices, though. ;)
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
1. & 2. These should be - "This is what we believe, now let's find some evidence to back it up."
The theory of evolution is just a theory. It is a belief/theory (though more belief), just like any other.
On carban-13 & other methods of dating old stuff-
Carban-13 and other dating meathods are not as fool-proof as you'd think they are. For one thing you don't know how much of the original parent element that was in the sample. Second you don't know if any more of the parent element has been added or subtracted since. Third you also don't know how much of the daughter element was in it or has been added or subtracted to/from it. Fourth Carban-13 is only reliable up to about 10,000 years! As for the others I don't know the dates, but I pretty sure it's much less not millions or billions of years.
in the theory thing. Evolution is not 'just' a theory. It has tons of evidence, more tons than the creationists will ever find because they don't have a case.
on Carban-13 dating.
You really are dense, aren't you? Carban-13 doesn't exist. It's CARBON-14 dating. And it is reliable up to ca 40.000 years ago (Chinese even say up to 80.000, but that's not verified). We do know the original relation between C-14/C-12. Ever heard about the ice-cores they get from the north and south poles???!!!
overview:
Carbon-dating:
Developed by US scientist Willard Libby in 1949 buased on research used for the Manhattan-project. Based on proportion of C-14/C-12 in the atmosphere and the inherent instability of C-14 (8 neutrons instead of 6, as in C-12), he deduced that it might be possible to us the proportion between the two types of carbon as a dating mechanism.
This was possible because the proportion remains constant in any living thing as long as it is alive (plants too). Once dead the C-14 starts to decay at a steady rate of 5730 years (half-life). Originally, Libby assumed that the atmospheric concentration of both elements had been a constant forever. This is not correct but has sionce been rectified through calibration of the C-14 timescales. all objects dated before the calibration are therefor dated wrong however, because we now know what the real concetrations were at the time of death we have been able to calibrate these artefacts too.
Contamination, of course, ruins the sample and that's the reason why archaeologists take utmost care when taking monsters from the sites they investigate.
The most famous application of Cabon-dating was the dating of the Shroud of Turin, which has been dated to AD 1260-1390. Carbon-dating itself is used for every site encountered and is therefor part of the standard arsenal of dating mechanisms of Archaeologists, Anthopologists, Paleontologists, ...
Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) dating:
Mainly used by geologists to date rocks hundreds or even millions of years old. Also appropriate for dating early human (hominid) sites in Africa, which can be up to 5 million years old. Restrected to volcanic rock no less than 100.000 years old.
Uranium-series dating:
Based on the radiactive decay of uranium. Particularly useful for the period 500.000-50.000 years ago, which lies outside the range of C-14 dating. Used in areas where there is little volcanic rock available to use the K-Ar method on. Therefor very useful for dating early human sites in Europe.
These are but a few dating mechanisms available to scientists around the globe, but many more are used.
Like:
Calendars and Historical Chronologues, Varves and Tree-rings (dendrochronology), Fission-Track dating, Thermoluminescence dating, Optical dating, Electron Spin Resonance dating. And those are only some of the more famous absolute dating mechanisms we have, there's relative and caibrated relative methodes too.
Source: Renfrew, C. & Bahn, P., 1991, Archaeology, Theories, Methods and Practice, Thames and Hudson, London (Second edition, 1996 annd reprinted 1998)
So instead of making a complete fool of yourself each and every time, you should do better to do some research, using real science.
-
btw uranium has a 4.3 billion year halflife... so you can how back longer than our solar system is old with precision in uranium dating
-
It depends which Isotope, 238 has four billion whilst Uranium 235 has one of 713 million :D
-
Originally posted by Top Gun
It depends which Isotope, 238 has four billion whilst Uranium 235 has one of 713 million :D
yep..., still both are very useful
-
Yeah, well, but all that Unarium and Carban was put in by God to make it seem like Creationism is wrong to test our faith!!!!!11111
How do you answer that, science-boy????????????????/////
:p ;)
-
God, the big practical joker in the sky.:D
-
NotDefault that is a cop out - but it quite nicely fits the behavioral pattern i have seen in the thousands of debates with religious people I have had in my time.
Religion is an addiction and it shows itself as such when you corner the religious subject and they know they cannot win the arguement - the begin making excuses, bs'ing, like a 5 year old trying to justify a ludicris statement or an addict supporting their addictions. I have seen it litterally a thousand times without failure.
Religion is an addiction - neurotheosis proves this - participating in religion/having a religious expirience causes the release of pleasurable neurotransmitters in your brain. Evolution has made sure that those neurotransmitters are the most addictive thing known to humans. This is because those neurotransmitters are used to 'reward' you for eating, mating, etc.
On the subject of evolution - we have OBSERVED AND DOCUMENTED it happening in the wild over several hundred years. We have demostrated a knowledge of the mechanisms by using selective breeding and cross polinating to promote features we want in our livestock and crops.
I was raised Lutheran - and i turned on my critical thinking skills in relation to religion when i realized that should a deity exist he had to be an @$$hole through and through. When i turned on those critical thinking skills I looked at myself in the mirror and said "how stupid were you!".
I am quite often described as a moral person though, and I am rather fair handed about religion. I don't hold it against a person, holding a persons vices against them is unfair - but i will blast their vices without mercy or hestitation, but still respect the person.
As for this "this person is considered the most intelligent.... and beleives in ____". there is a think called "compartmentalization" where you have certain things you beleive outside of critical thinking, most people put religion here - some of us have minds that literally CANNOT do such compartmentalization [my thinking-type cannot, I'm Abstract Sequential - A. Seq.s and A. Randoms cannot compartmentalize - only Concrete Seq.s and Concrete Rands], and some that REFUSE to [the redeeming factor of ConSeqs and ConRands is some are smart enough to overcome their learning/thinking patterns shortcomings]
My philosophy is very much like Nietzsche's, as people have observed before.
-
Originally posted by NotDefault
Yeah, well, but all that Unarium and Carban was put in by God to make it seem like Creationism is wrong to test our faith!!!!!11111
How do you answer that, science-boy????????????????/////
:p ;)
:D
I'd say:
'Then who are you to question the wisdom of your god. If he made it appear so old, it is because he wants it to be so old' :D
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
Carbon-dating:
Developed by US scientist Willard Libby in 1949 buased on research used for the Manhattan-project. Based on proportion of C-14/C-12 in the atmosphere and the inherent instability of C-14 (8 electrons instead of 6, as in C-12), he deduced that it might be possible to us the proportion between the two types of carbon as a dating mechanism.
Neutrons, not electrons. Neutrons. Whoever wrote that should be shot, or at least locked in a room with creationists. :p
C-14 is formed by the interaction of cosmic rays (mostly from the sun) with Nitrogen-14, which makes up the bulk of the atmosphere.
And the technical term for the entire method of dating via radioistope decay is called radiometric dating. Of course there's problems with it, have you had contamination or depletation of the parent or daughter element is a big one. But then again, I think it's a bit more reliable than someone who wrote down what a burning bush told him......
-
Kazan: I agree, pretty much, but you do realize NotDefault was joking, yes?;)
-
Well, CP, the full extent my argument has actually only been that it is neither more nor less rational to believe in theism as it is to believe in atheism. Which may be correct was never something I intended to touch upon in this argument (though if you are interested, I'll summarise my thoughts in that regard by saying that it is through exploring of the consequences of this or that concept of ultimate reality in comparison with our experience and other beliefs that we have the best hope of evaluating them). Certain statements earlier in the topic lead me to contest this.
This I'm not too sure about. You are essentially repeating the ideas of Berkeley and Kant here, but those are under big debate today (equal-sided debate, too), and the precise relationship, if one exists, between material things and ideas remains undetermined as of yet. (personally, I like the ideas of Hegel and Russell, but that's just me) There are branches of mathematics which are quite detached from what we see in the world today, and I think that more data is required here before putting in a good guess. Also, the first portion of the pursuit of science involves going backwards in a way, since we first gather experimental data and then attempt to work back to more basic constructs that could work together to form those ideas. These ideas were discovered from existing things in reality, but that does not mean that they could not have come in other ways as well. Also, from these basic rules, new conjectures can come up as well, which may or may not have any relationship to the material reality; in fact, looking at the way things have occurred in history, I think there may well be a transfinite number of ideas directly linked to any one given idea. I know I am sort of thinking in terms of logic here as my mind is used to that, but I could say the same about you, or just about anyone else in the world.
I am directly citing Kant at that spot, actually. Significant portions of that post were excerpts from some of my old papers, and certain parts of them were maintained not because they were vitally important to this discussion, but because removing them would have upset the flow of the arguments. Check out the footnotes and everything! ;)
But anyway, I still find that "If A, then B" is empty in and of itself. I can do whatever logical gymnastics I want with the argument by itself, but in the end I still need to say "If A, then B, and A is the case, therefore B" if I want to actually be able to make some sort of truth claim about the world. Regardless the exact nature of the relation of ideas to objective reality, logic cannot pull itself up by the bootstraps. Heck, even the Ontological Argument for God assumes that it is the case that God is that greater than which nothing can be thought, and obviously that someone has thought about that, and it is the closest thing going to logic trying to prove itself. No, logic can only tell us the consequences of something if it is the case, it cannot tell us whether it is, in fact, the case. For that we need to look to something outside of logic.
Regarding the backwards motion of science, I would point out the ideas of Thomas Kuhn in The Nature of Scientific Revolutions. Essentailly, Kuhn argues that scientific revolutions are a matter of paradigm shift rather than of new discoveries. According to his model, scientific knowledge is dependent on the hypotheses held by the scientist. Einstein's theory of relativity came after a long period of everyone trying to figure out some very puzzling experimental results. The thing was, the experiments didn't do anything to change the physicists' ideas of space and time, they were just some puzzling results. What changed everything (at an incredibly deep and fundamental level, too) was not the evidence. What changed it all was Einstein's idea. Scientists have to think first before they can see and understand the universe; it is impossible to understand it without a prior idea of what one will find. The universe today seems still quite determined to do some very puzzling things that don't make sense in either relativity or quantum mechanics, but nobody has come up with any revolutionary new ideas, so science still sees things much the same way because it still thinks much the same way. If you've read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series, you might remember Wonko the Sane, who isn't, and he isn't precisely because he actually tries to see first and think second. The model of inquiry he describes, "See first, think later, then test," is a wonderfully ideal conception of science, and "the way it should be"; the problem is that its doesn't actually work.
When Wonko says "But always see first. Otherwise you will only see what you were expecting," he is quite right. In conducting experiments, the experimenter tests his hypothesis and finds out if it is true or false. But in so doing, the whole thing is geared towards the results one is expecting, and moreover, one will generally discard those results deemed irrelevant to the hypothesis, and ignore all the variables deemed irrelevant.
Incidentally, this criticism more or less undermines the scientific claim to true and unbiassed knowledge, and as we read in Lyotard's The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge if you are familiar with it, means that the scientific way of seeing things is dependent on the scientific rules of discourse. Its knowledge arises as a function of its metanarrative, not from things as they really are. Your thought regarding a web of interconnected ideas might also be another reason to check out Lyotard: he has some similar things to say about language (i.e. the conveyor of ideas, information and knowledge) that you might find interesting.
Anyway, I don't intend to do anything with that right now, I thought I might just bring it up for interest's sake as much as anything. :D
Yes, that is as irrational, but there are still some reasons why we should prefer it to the alternative. Remember that atheism has one major advantage over any form of religion; it fits in with the currently accepted science, most notably the cosmological principle of general uniformity and the looped-universe system. (you yourself are saying that this god does is not subject to any natural laws) Now you have stated numerous times that it cannot be shown whether either explanation is the more probable one, and I fully agree with that. Therefore, to keep the number of additional variables as low as possible for the purposes of temporary problem-solving, the atheism course should be taken into account first, fully analyzed using the rules of logic, and then we should go for the religions. This is the way any theoretical problem in real life is solved; the fastest course to the end is first used only using absolutely necessary variable, and the secondary variables are then taken into account one by one. (heck, that's how the general relativity equation was formulated, and why the special one came first) The best thing, however, is to keep this problem in an indetermined state as far as science and philosophy goes, but to follow a course of atheism in everyday life, once again to prevent complications that may or may not be necessary; religion merely acts as a shield from what most people perceive, which makes individuals feel good, but leads to stagnation of society as a whole. (nobody perceives a god, directly or indirectly; they just assume that he exists) Unlike in most situations, the accuracy of the religion/science/whatever is not an issue here, as both explanations are equally accurate as far as we know, and so we must go by what we perceive. (for the moment anyway)
Well, first of all, I do not agree that religions are necessarily incompatible with currently accepted scientific theories. Returning to Christianity, since it is the example with which I am most familiar, it is not necessarily true that a Christian must demand that the entire universe was created in 144 hours and that the theory of evolution is a falsity. Certainly some do, but that is just their opinion and way of interpreting the Bible, rather than something intrinsic to the religion. It is my opinion, in fact, that the hardline "creationism" that insists upon Genesis chapter 1 being a literal, blow by blow account of the mechanics of God's creative act is actually the product (I refrain from using the term aberration, though it was my gut instinct) of a mixture of Christian faith with the general manner of thinking of modern Western culture. Westerners are a scientifically oriented people. We like our knowledge to be universal, absolute and static, and generally regard literal, factual, and preferably empirically verifiable statements to be somehow of greater truth value than any other kind. In modern Western culture, it is almost natural that a mind which was not paying attention to what it was doing would assume that the Bible, which is supposed to be the revelation of God (written by human hands, to be sure, but under divine inspiration such that through these writings God reveals Himself to humanity) and thus a vehicle of truth, would have to deliver truth in the form of literal, factual statements.
However, this is forcing the Bible into a mould it was never meant to fit. The Hebrews did not live in the same sort of culture as modern Westerners, and the Bible is not written to reflect modern Western culture. The Bible is not a science text, and never was intended to be. Literary analysis of the Genesis 1 account reveals, for example, three "days" of creating an environment, and three of filling that environment, indicating purposes at work in the story which were not that of technical description. It is interesting to note that nowhere else in the Bible is any reference made to Genesis 1 that would indicate the sort of literal, mechanically factual understanding of the passage that fundamentalist Christians insist upon today. Also, fundamentalist creationists often fail to appreciate properly that "day" in Hebrew had a far more extended idiomatic range than it does in English, and to talk of a "day" was only to talk of a period of time. Some FC's have tried to use another passage of Scripture that says "A day is as a thousand years to the Lord" to argue that it was actually six thousand years that God took to make the universe, but this I regard as a very silly argument on a number of levels, and one which moreover reveals again the modernist mode of thinking trying to force the Bible into a form it was never meant to fit.
Regarding evolution specifically, neither the statements of Genesis 1 that God said ‘Let there be _____' and it was so, nor the statement of Genesis 2's more specifically human-oriented account that God made man out of the dust of the earth in any way tell us the mechanics of the how these things occurred. The evolutionary process could just as easily explain the mechanics of these things as any other theory. It might even be better. At any rate, I myself give considerable credence to the theory of evolution, and find it in no way incompatible with a well thought out Christianity.
Basically, the Bible isn't a science text, and was never intended to be. The idea of God creating the universe is as compatible with Aristotelian spheres as it is with quantum mechanics, and is tied to none of them. Those who try to use the Bible as a science text are misusing it, while those who reject it for not being a science text, or for supposedly being a bad science text, are likewise making demands of it that it was never meant to fulfill.
Anyway, on to the next sentence of your quote :) :
The fact that I say that God is not subject to natural laws does not mean that the idea of God is incompatible with current scientific thought. A God who is not subject to natural laws and can actively engage with nature (both in ways that conform to natural laws or do not) is incompatible with the metaphysical idea of a closed, inviolable Nature, but metaphysical statements are outside the ken of scientific enquiry. To describe the manner in which things usually behave within the natural realm and thereby make general predictions and further hypotheses with which to investigate the behaviour of nature is the task of science. To describe realities that might exist outside of nature is not science's task; it lacks the necessary tools to do so. When science tries to make claims about what may or may not exist beyond the natural realm, it has stepped out of its bounds. The idea of a closed universe is the claim that nothing exists outside of the natural realm that could interfere with it in any way, but this is not a scientifically ascertainable claim: it is a metaphysical claim. The moment any scientist makes an assertion about reality beyond the confines of nature, he has left science behind and entered the realm of metaphysics. And he is certainly allowed to do so if he wishes, but he cannot them claim that his metaphysical position is a scientific one. In short, the idea of God is not incompatible with current scientific thought, but with certain metaphysical thoughts currently circulating among the scientific community.
Next small point (just a matter of clarification):
Most technically I would not say that I believe it cannot be shown which position is the more probable, but that I believe neither position can be demonstrated to be less rational than the other.
Moving right along...
When you say that the atheistic position enjoys a simpler set of assumptions than does the theistic, you are also making a certain assumption about the atheists assumptions. By this view, the atheist views the universe in accordances with a set of assumptions (A) regarding that universe, whereas the theist views the universe with the set of assumptions (A+G), where (G) is the assumption of God's existence. Applying Occam's Razor, you find the atheistic position to be superior.
I contest this view. The atheist has a very specific assumption regarding God, namely the assumption (G*) of God's non-existence. Without this assumption, one is by definition no longer an atheist. With this in mind, let us now call (A) a set of assumptions regarding the universe that makes no reference to God. Since the atheist does have an assumption regarding God, namely (G*), and the theist likewise has an assumption, namely (G), regarding God, it seems that neither one holds merely to (A), but rather to (A+G*) and (A+G) respectively. Occam's Razor finds neither (A+G) nor (A+G*) to be any simpler than the other, and thus neither position is found superior according to this criterion.
If neither position can be demonstrated to be superior according to the criterion of simplicity, then the remainder of your argument for the following of atheism in everyday life is unjustifiable.
Continuing along...
Regarding your statements about religion acting as a shield, this seems to be an emotionally rooted position, rather than a rational one.
Also...
I would not grant the premise that no one can any perception of God. Mystics of all sorts claim to have had encounters with the divine, and a Christian will point you to such stories as that of Moses (to choose a prominent example) or Jeremiah or Paul or innumerable others as people who directly perceived God in some fashion. Numerous Christians today most certainly believe that God is actively involved in our world and have had experiences that confirm this to them (my brother's healing, as but one example). It still remains that any and all of these perceptions of God require that one be willing to grant that they actually are manifestations of God and not something else if they are to be recognised as such. It is possible that Moses standing on the mountain talking to God could have instead perceived it as a delusion or the result of something funny is his goat milk, but he did not because he found more probable the idea that what he had experienced could be explained as an encounter with God. The experience itself will only be granted as a perception of God if we are willing to grant that such things are possible.
Now, I do not believe that an experience of God can be had by an individual without he have the concept of God resident in his concept of ultimate reality, but that is because he will not recognise such an experience as such, rather than that the experience itself might not be God actually doing something.
One thing I have already stated in this thread many times is that I do not have so much of a problem with the religious ideas themselves, but rather the manner in which people accept them. In topics like these, where much is open to speculation, people should try to think independently unless a more precise, logical proof comes up, for each existing one is about equally correct. Now these religions completely discourage independent thought (Hinduism started off better here, but I have seen that in practice it has become the same); for example, many of the pro-religion people here seem to "believe in the Bible," which a considerable portion of the world uses as an assumption for an absolute truth (including you), since the book is essentially a set of rules to follow - "obey these rules and god sends you to heaven; break them and god sends you to hell," both of which are simply things that appeal to the practical side of humans. I stand behind my contention that it is less likely that an archaic book full of logical contradictions and cryptic language contains all of the possible knowledge in the universe than it is for the knowledge not to exist in the concentrated form of ideas just yet. (this is confusing to explain here in detail, but I'll write more in the book)
I will concede that many adherents to a religious persuasion (any religious persuasion, I might add, including atheism) do so without any real critical thought about what they believe. Many people in the Western world today embrace atheistic ideas, not because they have really thought them through, but simply because that is what is to be found in our cultural milieu these days. But this is not really a fault of the religion in question (it is probably obvious by now, but I consider atheism to be a religion, at least for purposes of this discussion), but the fault of laziness and/or stupidity on the part of the uncritical believer.
To answer your charge in more specific detail, I'll use the specific objections you raise. First of all, the idea that the Bible is the "absolute truth" is one in serious need of definition. I wouldn't phrase things that way at all, if it were me (which right now it is :D ). The Bible is understood to be one of the primary mediums by which God has revealed himself to humanity. It is possible to say therefore that the Bible "is" true, but I find that this particular formulation causes a great deal of confusion in the minds of believers, and questions in the minds of disbelievers, and is not very helpful. If we want to understand what the Bible is all about in regard to this issue, we had best start from the position of asking what the Bible's intentions are, rather than what it "is".
If, as we said, the Bible amounts to a collection of writings which together reveal God to humanity, then it is safe to assume that its intention is in fact to reveal God to us, and that its writing will be geared towards that goal. Now the collection of writings that is the Bible span a considerable time period, over 1400 years or so, and include all manner of literary genres. Moreover, these individual writings are each addressed to a different situation, and within themselves have different intentions guiding their composition. Histories are very different from love poetry, which is very different from legal stipulations, which are very different from proverbs, which are very different from letters. In each book of the Bible, however, it is contended that God reveals something of himself to us, and it is this revelatory factor that guides the decision to include or not include any particular writing in to the Bible.
Now, if these many different books of different times and genres are each speaking to a different situation, it is not unreasonable to expect tem to say different things, and this seems to be precisely the case. At certain times, God is represented as wrathful because it was needed for God's wrathful side to be shown to rectify the problems being addressed by that particular book. At other times he shows his mighty protective side, and at others his tender and loving side. You see, God reveals himself in and through the world he has put us in, and as the world is a dynamic and changing place, so also is his interaction with us in the world. In effect, what I am saying is that the Bible is contextually based, and must always be understood in reference to its context. The truth of the Bible is not a disconnected truthfulness, floating above the chances and changes of the passing world, but one which is entirely situated within the world, for that is where God reveals himself to us.
This also address the concern that the Bible is contradictory. Some people object to the Bible on the basis of some apparently contradictory statements, while others will adamantly insist that the Bible isn't contradictory at all. The fact is that the Bible does contain statements which, when isolated, do appear contradictory. This is perhaps most easily illustrated in encapsulated form by the Book of Proverbs (near the middle of the Bible if anyone is interested), which is, not surprisingly, a book full mostly of one- and two-liner proverbs. Many of these proverbs will outright contradict one another, but when reading them it is blatantly clear that each one of these proverbs is meant to address a different situation. It is not that this or that proverb is not true, but that some speak to this context and others to that. In like fashion, when trying to learn from the Bible and apply it to our lives, it is important to consider carefully the context of a biblical account in question and compare it with our own situation to determine the suitability of the passage of showing us how God would reveal himself it a situation like ours.
In short, the truth of the Bible is a contextual, situated truth entirely unlike, say, the absolute and universally applicable categorical imperative of Kant and followers. We in our modern mindset tend to consider truth to be set apart, floating above the flux, change and motion of reality as the immutable governing rule. The Bible does not carry this peculiarly post-17th century Western tendency in its nature, and appears to carry a different way of thought about truth. I find that the easiest way to grasp this different understanding of truth is to think of truth as something organic, part of an active, dynamic, changing and growing reality. Essentially, truth must always have its context under a dynamic model, and that context can and does change. Moment by moment the world is created afresh, and its meaning grows, though the past remains too. In a world ever-renewed, no static, totalising truth can suffice. In a world that is new each day, we must be able to find meaning freshly each day. Truth in such a context is no longer absolute, but is narrative and dynamic, growing with the story of the world each day. The truth of the past can be added to as new situations emerge. Christianity is not Paramenidean, it is not timeless truth. From the Biblical and Christian perspective, truth is real and grows even as the world grows through time. Biblical truth is contextual, situated truth intimately involved with the changing world, not the rarified and detached truth that we modern scientific Westerners so easily and unconsciously slip into assuming. I will admit that reorienting our view of truth seems at first a bit of a difficult thing to do (the power of habit is not to be underestimated :) ), but once we do so we find ourselves in a far better position to understand the Bible and its message.
To say that the Bible is essentially just a book of rules to follow is analogous to saying that science is what tells us why dropped objects fall to the ground; such a description is grossly inadequate, and misses the point entirely. The Bible is, as I said above, the written medium of God's revelation of himself to humanity. That God's moral precepts would be a part of that revelation is to be expected, but the revelation is far broader than that, meant to show us all sorts of things about God, not just his moral directives. Christianity's central claim and concern is not really about moral precepts. It is Christ's resurrection and his promise of resurrection to us that are Christianity's primary concern. Moral precepts are adjuncts to the fuller explication of the how's and why's of this concern, and arise again as a part of the consequences of Christianity, but they are not the point of it all.
Finally, if ever I met a Christian who claimed that the Bible somehow contained within it pages all of the knowledge there was to be had in the universe, my response would be :wtf: . I'd probably then go find someone else to talk to so that I could have an actually meaningful conversation. Of course the Bible doesn't contain all knowledge! It reveals to us some important things we need to know about God, that's all. If I want to learn something about economics, I go read an economics text, not the Bible.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most basic thing the human mind does in forming understanding is believe. Any logician, theologian, philosopher, or psychologist will tell you that before the mind carries out, indeed is even able to carry out, any type of reasoning, it must first have some previous extra-rational foundations upon which to build. And so, to understand anything about anything, the mind must have some final, irreducible "truths" upon which all its further understanding and belief is based. These irreducible assumptions form the structure of one's concept of ultimate reality. This structure can be fleshed out by reasonings and beliefs based on these assumptions, but the core lies in the irreducible assumptions themselves.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I already stated this exact same thing in my earlier post; what is the point you are trying to make here?
Only to state clearly the position from which I am arguing. See above for further discussion.
So basically what you are saying here is that the absolute truth does not exist, but only the perceptive does. You have reached the "perceptive paradox" here, because if everything is perceptively true and false at the same time, while nothing can be absolutely true or false (it is indeterminate in the absolute), then the statement of the perceptivity differing between each person is also not absolutely true. Because of this type of thing that comes up in every attempted deduction, we cannot pursue this means to an answer at all; that fundamental assumption allows one to derive a set of rules from what we see.
Ah, now that is not actually what I am saying. As a Christian, I do believe that there is an objective, non-perception-based reality about which our perceptions are true or false. It is one thing to say that our views of reality differ, and another to say that reality itself is indeterminate. One can argue that all our perceptions of reality are informed by our categories of interpretation, yet it still remains true that believing in certain categories is one thing and believing that some thing or event has been encountered that fits into those categories is another. For example, the statement "John F. Kennedy is dead" may depend on my categories of identity, time, and death, but regardless whether those categories are granted they are being employed to posit a description of an encountered situation. Likewise, if I encounter a situation which my currently held categories of interpretation are inadequate to explain to me, I need to modify my categories to account for the new experience, not discount the experience.
Perhaps I should clarify one very important point: I am not arguing that it is impossible to judge between two different concepts of ultimate reality, but only that neither one can be dismissed as inherently illogical (unless, of course, a given concept includes logically necessarily false statements, but such are hardly of concern to us here: both "God exists" and "God does not exist" are logically contingent statements). So long as we remain strictly within the bounds of logic and reason, there is no way to determine whether (G) or (G*) is correct. However, I do believe that evaluations can be made between when we look beyond the scope of pure reason and consider how well the ramifications of this or that concept of reality fit with our experience (although even then we must be careful not to exclude experiences that may not fit our expectations, and in general remember our own fallibility). I have not attempted any such comparison in this topic, but only have been trying to disabuse people of the notion that theism is inherently illogical so that they will be open-minded enough to consider embarking upon such a comparison.
Actually, that has nothing to with that assumption.
Oh, I know. :D I just meant that as I was looking for a place where you stated it, I came across this other unrelated thing, and decided to comment on it.
it says that the absolute truth should be collected and analyzed before the perceptive truth in an attempt to keep things as simple as possible for the purposes of deduction.
This, I am assuming, is your first assumption. Unless you are using these terms to signify something quite different from what I understand those terms to mean, absolute truth is what is true apart from anyone's perception of it, while perceptive truth is the truth that we perceive about absolute reality. Now, if it is true that we can only directly access our perceptions, then we cannot collect the absolute truth or analyse it directly at all.
Now, your assumption appears to be that there must be a human god who takes care of humans, which is fine at the moment since it cannot be proved or disproved, but it fails to explain other things in the world, such as why he is not doing a very good job of it. It needs to be either altered or discarded altogether.
First of all, God is beyond our comprehension entirely. He has revealed himself to us in human terms because that is the only way anything of his revelation could be at all comprehensible to us, but it would be folly to assume that God really was nothing more than an omnicompetent "human." We don't understand God, we haven't the capacity; we can only accept what he has chosen to show to us using a means we can grasp, and a clear-thinking Christian will frankly tell you that all this is only a dim approximation of the truth regarding God and his nature.
As for explaining other things in the world, that is the task of theology, or one of its tasks anyway. Theology is the attempt to use our reason to try to extend our knowledge regarding God and associated beliefs and beliefs systems. The specific question you raise, the Problem of Evil, does in fact have its theological answers, and if one cares to look into the discipline, one will find them. If you want a particularly brilliant and lucid discussion of the subject, you might try C.S. Lewis' The Problem of Pain, although there are all sorts of things out there to read on the subject.
That is true to some extent, but then again, nothing can be proved or disproved. We can, however, give things a probability with regards to existing science constructs and that which we can objectively perceive. For the third time, I give you this example: suppose I were to say that I am the god and have created the universe and given it its laws, and so I must be right about everything. This proposition could of course not be disproved, but most people (well, most people with any tad of sense anyway ) would reject it because it does not fit in with what they directly perceive.
See above regarding the evaluation of different schemas. :)
I have a feeling you are trying to avoid the question here. What you are saying is that simply because the logic system is not adequate for explain these "miracles," (which is doubtful in the first place) they should go unexplained? Here is what I mean about religion discouraging further thinking; this need to progress both scientifically and socially is in my opinion what seperates the man from the animal, and religion tries to dull the scientific part of it. If you are convinced that it is not possible to explain using logic, then devise a new system of thought (it is possible in theory to do this from existing ideas) to break this "miracle" into basic constructs simple enough to predict a similar thing in theoretical situations, and maybe even change in practice. (technology) As for the "god putting new things into the universe" part, I said earlier that the laws of science are theoretically alterable, so this sounds perfectly fine, but - and I will use your analogy here - people will try to find out how the third billiard ball came onto the table instead of just accepting its new existence there, and so it should be similarly seen on a larger scale how or why this god suddenly changed the laws and whether or not he will try to change the laws again in the future, rather than merely accepting the effects of the change. (thinking "backwards" once again, so to speak)
Not trying to avoid it at all. :D I do not mean in any way to say that logic is inadequate to explain miracles, nor that they are to go unexplained. Whether a miracle is ultimately the occurrence of a creatio ex nihilo or a temporary alteration of the usual behaviour of nature, in neither of these cases do I see any reason to think that logic would have to be revoked. Indeed, if logic were revoked, the idea of miracle would go with it, for without rationality the perceived events would become utterly meaningless to us, and if they were meaningless we could not understand them to be acts of God. As I said at the end of the paragraph you were referring to, if we want to find the point at which a miracle occurred, we need to examine the results and determine what was needed to bring them about. This obviously implies the continued viability of logic and reason in dealing with the occurrence of a miracle.
As for finding out how a creatio ex nihilo works, that is perfectly fine with me. Go right ahead, I'd be very happy to hear anything you might discover (not sarcastic). :) Of course, if you want to understand anything of the causes leading up to a creatio ex nihilo you must step outside of the natural realm, since such a thing has, by its very definition, no antecedent natural causes. A creatio ex nihilo is a terminus point so long as our field of view is confined to the natural.
And finally, I post the same questions yet again, that still remain unanswered: How or why did god come into existence, and also, why do you like the god? He cannot be the absolute, or anything even close, if he is what they say in any of the religions, for he would then have no effect on human affairs in the manner which he supposedly does. (and if we are going by the Bible being the "word of god," he must have forgotten what he did with the universe by the time he uh, dictated it, judging from the number of errors in it )
Basically, God did not come into existence. Coming-to-be is a concept that requires the idea of temporality in order to be formulated, and God, it is maintained, does not exist subject to a temporal mode. The idea of atemporal existence is a hard one for us to really wrap our minds around, of course. The closest approximation I have found is to think of everything as being in the present to God. In this eternal present, God simply is.
If that isn't a good enough explanation for you of why no explanation for God's existence can be given, I offer this argument:
1. The truth of There exist things whose existence it is logically possible to explain cannot be explained by there being things whose existence it is logically possible to explain (the existence of those things is just what is to be explained).
If little Susie asks about why there are golden retriever puppies, she can be told about golden retriever parents. If she asks about golden retriever parents, she can be told about golden retriver grandparents. But if she then asks about why there are golden retrievers at all, she cannot be told about golden retriever parents, or grandparents, or great-grandparents, or the like; these will all be the tings she want to know about - why have any golden retrievers existed at all. If little Susie asks why there ever have been any possibly explicable things at all that exist though they might not have existed, she cannot properly be told about there being possibly explicable things that exist but might not have existed; these are what she is asking about.
Premise 1 is plainly true; whatever Xs are, there being Xs cannot explain there being Xs.
2. That a logically contingent existential proposition is true can only be explained by some other existential proposition being true.
If, in the relevant sense of explanation, A's truth entails B's truth, A entails B. No existential proposition is entailed by a set of propositions that does not contain any existential propositions.
3. If an existential proposition does not concern something whose existence it is logically possible to explain, it concerns something whose existence is logically impossible to explain.
4. The truth of There exist things whose existence it is logically possible to explain can only be explained by a true existential proposition concerning something whose existence it is logically impossible to explain (from 1, 2, 3).
The upshot of this argument is that it is inevitable that one should come to something whose existence it is impossible to explain. For the theist, this is God. The atheist is left to find for himself something that exists and whose existence is logically impossible to explain. By this argument, it is shown that demanding an explanation for the existence of God is invalid.
As for why we love him, it is because we believe in the Judeo-Christian God, who has revealed himself to us as a God who loves us and has done astounding things on our behalf because of it. When you love your mother, it is because she is your mother, the woman who has done so much for you, indeed sacrificed herself in so many ways for your benefit. In the case of people who do not love their mothers, it is invariably because they had mothers who did not love them as they should have. Similarly, we love God because he first loved us. It is not without reason that God is often described as our Father. To believe, really believe, in Christianity and still to despise God seems to us Christians so contrary to human nature as to be nearly incomprehensible. If one actually believes that God did all that Christianity says he did, if he came to earth and became a man like us and suffered and died, and then rose again to defeat death for us, and promised us that we too will be resurrected to a life better than anything we could ever imagine, how could one respond to such incredible love with anything but love in return?
-
Religion threads-
:jaw::jaw:THE SIZE:eek:, AAAAH THE SIZE :eek: IT EATS MY EYES:eek::jaw::jaw:
-
True, but just look at it! All this great conversation from people all over the world and with all kinds of beliefs without flaming eachother. I'm very impressed!
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Neutrons, not electrons. Neutrons. Whoever wrote that should be shot, or at least locked in a room with creationists. :p
C-14 is formed by the interaction of cosmic rays (mostly from the sun) with Nitrogen-14, which makes up the bulk of the atmosphere.
And the technical term for the entire method of dating via radioistope decay is called radiometric dating. Of course there's problems with it, have you had contamination or depletation of the parent or daughter element is a big one. But then again, I think it's a bit more reliable than someone who wrote down what a burning bush told him......
It was a misquote by me,; dear Shrike. When I wrtote that it was pretty later here so I was virtually asleep. :D
Now that I'm awake again I recall that neutrons was written in Renfrew&Bahn. :)
-
Sesquipedalian love your last post!
Anyway about Carbon-14 dating.
You claim to be really, really smart, I don't, so you can't say the about me now. So why do you believe in a problem (math) that you can't solve? E.g. 2x - z=c. C standing for the parent element in the sample now. Now x & z can be any number. But Since we don't know what x & z are we can't solve the to get a number answer. This is the problem with Carbon-14 and other dating meathods. You don't know what was in the sample before this moment. Unless of course you had done that before now and are doing it again. So you have to guess how much there was. And you have to trust that the sample wasn't contaminated before you brought it into the lab. Or that stuff hadn't been added or taken away from it.
I'm no math whiz so if anything I posted doesn't make sense to you just tell me and I'll put into another tearm so you'll get what I'm saying.
Earlier some one said, "Since I don't believe in the Christian stuff I'm not going to go to Christian Heaven or Hell." Maybe not the exact words but you ge the meaning. If you believe that then you should also believe this.
Since I believe that I was created by God then I was created by Him. And since you believe that you evolved then you evolved. This means that while I was created you evolved. In the same reality.
I think I know the reason you (the athiests and maybe others) are saying I'm ignorant & stupid. It is because;
1. I'm a Christian.
2. I'm making sense to you with my simle yet highly complicated in meaning questions.
3. You can't come up with a better defence then that.
4. I can't spell good.
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
Sesquipedalian love your last post!
Anyway about Carbon-14 dating.
You claim to be really, really smart, I don't, so you can't say the about me now. So why do you believe in a problem (math) that you can't solve? E.g. 2x - z=c. C standing for the parent element in the sample now. Now x & z can be any number. But Since we don't know what x & z are we can't solve the to get a number answer. This is the problem with Carbon-14 and other dating meathods. You don't know what was in the sample before this moment. Unless of course you had done that before now and are doing it again. So you have to guess how much there was. And you have to trust that the sample wasn't contaminated before you brought it into the lab. Or that stuff hadn't been added or taken away from it.
in C-14 dating you know:
the half-life of C-14, which is constant at 5730 years
the amount of C14 currently in the sample
the current amount of C-14 in the air
Using these you get the old, uncalibrated dates.
The ice-cores that are extracted from polar ice yield ancient air. Fossilised atmosphere you could say.
This yields the amount of C-14 in the ancient air*. Not to mention you can determine what type of weather they had during that year (on average: cold year, warm year...) or wether there was a disaster or not. Coincidentally this science is called paleoclimatology.
This data yields the modern, calibrated C-14 dates.
As you can see there are no unknowns in the equation other than the age of the artefact that's being tested.
*There are other ways to get to ancient air: ocean-cores, vulcanic stones...
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
Earlier some one said, "Since I don't believe in the Christian stuff I'm not going to go to Christian Heaven or Hell." Maybe not the exact words but you ge the meaning. If you believe that then you should also believe this.
Since I believe that I was created by God then I was created by Him. And since you believe that you evolved then you evolved. This means that while I was created you evolved. In the same reality.
Incorrect analogy.
Your part has been proven to be incorrect.
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
in C-14 dating you know:
1. the half-life of C-14, which is constant at 5730 years
the amount of C14 currently in the sample
the current amount of C-14 in the air
Using these you get the old, uncalibrated dates.
2. The ice-cores that are extracted from polar ice yield ancient air. Fossilised atmosphere you could say.
3. This yields the amount of C-14 in the ancient air*. Not to mention you can determine what type of weather they had during that year (on average: cold year, warm year...) or wether there was a disaster or not. Coincidentally this science is called paleoclimatology.
This data yields the modern, calibrated C-14 dates.
4. As you can see there are no unknowns in the equation other than the age of the artefact that's being tested.
*There are other ways to get to ancient air: ocean-cores, vulcanic stones...
1. Yes you may know that. But you still don't know how much was in the sample in the first place. BTW what does air have to do with it?
2. Look at 3
3. No it's not summer, winter or what you said. It's warn weather, cold weather.
4. There are. Look at 1 and 3.
Incorrect analogy.
I was directing it at the person who said it.
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
1. Yes you may know that. But you still don't know how much was in the sample in the first place. BTW what does air have to do with it?
2. Look at 3
3. No it's not summer, winter or what you said. It's warn weather, cold weather.
4. There are. Look at 1 and 3.
1 Yes we do know what the original amount was. And air has to do with it because the element's two variations (C-14/C-12) are in the air. And, surprise... not, the exact proportion of both Carbon-variations we find in the air we also find in all living things that live NOW! So if the amount is split 60/40 in the air now, the amount will be split 60/40 in you too now.
2/3. Sorry, that's only a bit they can gather from that. They can also gather from it if there were distasters during that year or not. Example: the eruption of the Pinatubo (Phillipines) ejected a whole lot of dust into the atmosphere. That dust can be found on north pole, the south pole, the Himalaya, the Andes, The Alpes, The Rocky Mountains, etc... And that's only the beginning.
4. no there are not, except the age we're trying to find.
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
I think I know the reason you (the athiests and maybe others) are saying I'm ignorant & stupid. It is because;
1. I'm a Christian.
2. I'm making sense to you with my simle yet highly complicated in meaning questions.
3. You can't come up with a better defence then that.
4. I can't spell good.
An y'all hate me 'cause I'm black.:rolleyes:
What a cop-out. There are rational points I've heard made on the creationism side, but you have yet to post one- you're just being blithering and stubborn, and now paranoid. There were other argunents on this thread that went somewhere before- but simply posting and reposting the same "points" with no factual substantiation. Just because nobody's really getting anywhere doesn't give you an excuse to dig a rut- if you can't be open-minded, at least have the copnsideration to try and steer towards another subject- this endless circle of non-point against non-point is incredibly dull for those of us waiting for something substantial to come up.
You should also be alarmed to know, you've posted heresy.:D
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
Sesquipedalian love your last post!
It hurt my eyes. :sigh:
Earlier some one said, "Since I don't believe in the Christian stuff I'm not going to go to Christian Heaven or Hell." Maybe not the exact words but you ge the meaning. If you believe that then you should also believe this.
Since I believe that I was created by God then I was created by Him. And since you believe that you evolved then you evolved. This means that while I was created you evolved. In the same reality.[/b]
That was me. You kisquoted me slightly - I said I didn't believe I was going the Heaven or Hell. Since this is a personal belief it is internal - personal to me - and so I have every right to hold it. By the same token, I don't deny your right to believe in God or to believe that you were created.
However, I do deny your right to refute what others believe on these personal matters - ie. ones that don't affect society.
-
But anyway, I still find that "If A, then B" is empty in and of itself. I can do whatever logical gymnastics I want with the argument by itself, but in the end I still need to say "If A, then B, and A is the case, therefore B" if I want to actually be able to make some sort of truth claim about the world. Regardless the exact nature of the relation of ideas to objective reality, logic cannot pull itself up by the bootstraps. Heck, even the Ontological Argument for God assumes that it is the case that God is that greater than which nothing can be thought, and obviously that someone has thought about that, and it is the closest thing going to logic trying to prove itself. No, logic can only tell us the consequences of something if it is the case, it cannot tell us whether it is, in fact, the case. For that we need to look to something outside of logic.
Yes, we do need at least one assumption for any kind of deduction, whether or not it has anything to do with reality, as even the logic rules themselves are assumptions. That is what I was saying about assumptions (axioms) earlier.
Regarding the backwards motion of science, I would point out the ideas of Thomas Kuhn in The Nature of Scientific Revolutions. Essentailly, Kuhn argues that scientific revolutions are a matter of paradigm shift rather than of new discoveries. According to his model, scientific knowledge is dependent on the hypotheses held by the scientist. Einstein's theory of relativity came after a long period of everyone trying to figure out some very puzzling experimental results. The thing was, the experiments didn't do anything to change the physicists' ideas of space and time, they were just some puzzling results. What changed everything (at an incredibly deep and fundamental level, too) was not the evidence. What changed it all was Einstein's idea. Scientists have to think first before they can see and understand the universe; it is impossible to understand it without a prior idea of what one will find. The universe today seems still quite determined to do some very puzzling things that don't make sense in either relativity or quantum mechanics, but nobody has come up with any revolutionary new ideas, so science still sees things much the same way because it still thinks much the same way.
I have heard about Kuhn's ideas as well, but I am somewhat leaning against them at the moment. Science currently may not be able to explain everything we see, nor can we envision a time when it could do so (because it may well be a transfinite distance away in the time dimension), but the rate of change is definitely positive. Think about what humanity was like when it first came into being - essentially the same as what we see in the animals today - compared to how much understanding we have today. (the statement that we don't know any more about our place in the universe than we did long ago is pretty much nonsense, such as the determinism/probability discovery) Kuhn argues that we have just as little of an understanding of the working of the universe as a whole as we did at our beginning; if this was about a century ago, I would probably have agreed, but these last hundred years have been absolutely monumental to the development of philosophy. Sure, you could attribute things to these "paradigm changes," but then those could be easily described and predicted as well. I would not say that science is exactly a linear advance because a transfinite number of starting points and branching paths can exist, but it is not completely free-form either; if one can envision this god, an end to our pursuit can similarly be seen as well. Science does sees things in a similar way as it did thousands of years ago, but as I said, it is more plausible to assume that there is no finite number of paths to reach the end, and unless we reach a contradiction that invalidates all of our existing laws and assumptions (it has not happened yet, but a remote possiblity still exists), there is no reason to stop going after we have come this far. Incidentally, if you have heard about this recently, a man named Stephen Wolfram has claimed to basically have discovered a slightly different path to learning about the universe using some sort of computer simulations, which he claims makes things much simpler to understand; it does sound a bit too ambitious, but if the guy's history and stature is any indicator, there may well be some credibility to his ideas.
I contest this view. The atheist has a very specific assumption regarding God, namely the assumption (G*) of God's non-existence. Without this assumption, one is by definition no longer an atheist. With this in mind, let us now call (A) a set of assumptions regarding the universe that makes no reference to God. Since the atheist does have an assumption regarding God, namely (G*), and the theist likewise has an assumption, namely (G), regarding God, it seems that neither one holds merely to (A), but rather to (A+G*) and (A+G) respectively. Occam's Razor finds neither (A+G) nor (A+G*) to be any simpler than the other, and thus neither position is found superior according to this criterion.
If neither position can be demonstrated to be superior according to the criterion of simplicity, then the remainder of your argument for the following of atheism in everyday life is unjustifiable.
I am using the logic-based view of "simplicity" here, as it is the system through which the human brain thinks. Now, the factor (G) cannot be used in that form in such an equation, as it is more of a tensor than a scalar variable in comparison to the assumptions; (G) basically denotes a set of many variables. Now think for a second about what the existence of god would mean here. We are assuming that this god essentially thinks like one of us, for the method in which the Bible describes him is basically an average (not even a relatively intelligent; just a powerful) human. It is generally agreed upon that the brain of an individual (not of a mob) is among the most complex and difficult things to predict in the universe, if it is possible at all. Now, if the entire universe was solely in the power of a single human, think about how unpredictable and disorderly it would be. (look at the absolute monarchies of older times and observe how they operated; this god would be no different, except on a larger scale) He could simply make or break things according to his own random whims, and the whole universe would be in a perpetual state of unpredictability. This would not only add in many extra variables, but some of them would be IRVs, which should be avoided at all costs when trying to put together an explanation. (decidedly indeterminate forms are second only to paradoxes and contradictions in their annoyance in problems ;))
Now, we shall try assuming the atheistic view and that god does not exist. The primary variable that this would introduce is the one of purpose: why do we exist, and do we have a reason for our existence, or do we merely exist out of a random chance and hence have no real purpose? Is the entire concept of purpose simply a human-based idea that has no relevance in the real world? This question is currently indeterminate as well, but it cannot be proven that it is not possible to determine this either, as is the case with IRVs, and so it is undecidedly indeterminate. However, the god assumption also raises the same question, because no religion adequately explains the purepose in a form that is consistent with what we see in the world. Following the Bible rules is no purpose, because what do we do once we get to heaven? I personally think that an eternal and unlimited happiness is almost as bad as eternal sadness, because it does not change with time and thus leads to stagnation, as there is no end to think of. There is really nothing observed today that completely contradicts our logic and science laws and therefore requires a god to explain (cannot be explained using logic and math); it is just that we have not yet determined an exact structure from the assumptions to the effects, or proven that it is impossible to find such a path. If history is any indicator, however, that should change with time.
On a side note, if neither position can be accepted, everyone should live their lives by the outcome of a coin toss. :D
This, I am assuming, is your first assumption. Unless you are using these terms to signify something quite different from what I understand those terms to mean, absolute truth is what is true apart from anyone's perception of it, while perceptive truth is the truth that we perceive about absolute reality. Now, if it is true that we can only directly access our perceptions, then we cannot collect the absolute truth or analyse it directly at all.
That is true, which is why we must assume that an absolute truth exists and also that we can access it based on what we directly sense, once again in an attempt to avoid the dreaded perceptivity paradox. The whole issue of the paradox comes up because we operate as a group of thinkers, not simply as individuals. (in which case the perceptive and absolute would be one and the same) Science provides a temporary solution to determine whether or not something lies in this absolute realm: all thinkers should be able to confirm any given observation, and if that cannot be done, then it is not in the absolute and should be disregarded for the moment. You have been reading too much Berkeley. :D
If, as we said, the Bible amounts to a collection of writings which together reveal God to humanity, then it is safe to assume that its intention is in fact to reveal God to us, and that its writing will be geared towards that goal.
Why then does he not simply shape our brains so that we must accept his existence and cannot think otherwise? Also, if the Bible is assumed to be the truth here, the god described there is very limited in terms of his capabilities and thought process, almost as limited as we are, as he does things just like an average human would. As Top Gun said, why does this god simply not "beam himself down from the sky" and reveal himself to us, which is probably within his power, and instead chooses to remain only partially unknown?
Likewise, if I encounter a situation which my currently held categories of interpretation are inadequate to explain to me, I need to modify my categories to account for the new experience, not discount the experience.
But how does one determine whether the current categories are adequate for explaining an event or not? Simply changing the categories will not do much if one system has not yet been analyzed to its fullest potential.
Certainly some do, but that is just their opinion and way of interpreting the Bible, rather than something intrinsic to the religion.
Well, it cannot really be determined what is "intrinsic" to a religion and what is not. (Hitler really believed that he was serving god and christianity, so technically his ideas would be "intrinsic" to it as well) I would say that anything that is purely an idea that cannot be put into reality can only be defined as how the majority of humans/thinkers interpret it. One thing though: the existence of a god is not all that hard to accept for me; it is the existence of a human god, a book of god, and a reward/punishment (heaven/hell) system similar to our governments that sounds less likely to me. What do you think of these other extras? (just curious :))
Regarding your statements about religion acting as a shield, this seems to be an emotionally rooted position, rather than a rational one.
It is based on an analysis of what one can see in the world, and certainly makes sense in terms of science; not sure where the "emotional" thing comes up here.
As for finding out how a creatio ex nihilo works, that is perfectly fine with me. Go right ahead, I'd be very happy to hear anything you might discover (not sarcastic). Of course, if you want to understand anything of the causes leading up to a creatio ex nihilo you must step outside of the natural realm, since such a thing has, by its very definition, no antecedent natural causes. A creatio ex nihilo is a terminus point so long as our field of view is confined to the natural.
Is this "creatio ex nihilo" some sort of Latin phrase? Sorry, I'm not too well acquiainted with those; could you explain what that means? :p ;)
Christianity's central claim and concern is not really about moral precepts. It is Christ's resurrection and his promise of resurrection to us that are Christianity's primary concern.
That really seems to undermine the reputation of Christianity to me. The main thing is this resurrection concept? What if one does not want to be resurrected? I think what is happening here is that the majority of people have always been obsessed with eternal life, and so the creators of this faith decided to drop in something that would appeal to the common man to gain support; I don't mind extending life by a large amount, but a transfinite life for humans with all their flaws would cause some serious problems to humanity as a whole. The process of human thought needs to be changed before this can be done.
I would not grant the premise that no one can any perception of God. Mystics of all sorts claim to have had encounters with the divine, and a Christian will point you to such stories as that of Moses (to choose a prominent example) or Jeremiah or Paul or innumerable others as people who directly perceived God in some fashion. Numerous Christians today most certainly believe that God is actively involved in our world and have had experiences that confirm this to them (my brother's healing, as but one example). It still remains that any and all of these perceptions of God require that one be willing to grant that they actually are manifestations of God and not something else if they are to be recognised as such. It is possible that Moses standing on the mountain talking to God could have instead perceived it as a delusion or the result of something funny is his goat milk, but he did not because he found more probable the idea that what he had experienced could be explained as an encounter with God. The experience itself will only be granted as a perception of God if we are willing to grant that such things are possible.
I am certainly willing to grant that such a thing is possible, but everyone should be able to confirm it by direct observation to put it into the absolute realm. If some people see a god and some do not, that is not very credible evidence as far as science goes. Also, when so many people claim to have seen this god and just about every single one has a different interpretation, how can one tell whether someone is telling the truth or simply faking or hallucinating the whole thing? (it is possible that the god is everything, but then anyone could claim to have seen the god without any chance of dispute) Hitler while in prison wrote that he had truly seen god in all his greatness, and that this god had endowed him with the great vision he had for the future of humanity, and to be objective, he is equally as correct as anyone else who claims the same thing. The only objective stance here (which we can all agree on) is to discard the idea completely at the moment, and return to this issue when we have completed our present goal of collecting objective data.
First of all, God is beyond our comprehension entirely. He has revealed himself to us in human terms because that is the only way anything of his revelation could be at all comprehensible to us, but it would be folly to assume that God really was nothing more than an omnicompetent "human." We don't understand God, we haven't the capacity; we can only accept what he has chosen to show to us using a means we can grasp, and a clear-thinking Christian will frankly tell you that all this is only a dim approximation of the truth regarding God and his nature.
Well, it cannot be shown that anything is definitely beyond human comprehension; scientists are assuming that it is not, so that we can at least attempt to find this truth. (no harm in at least trying with the potential benefits; simply giving up like you seem to be doing sounds quite silly to me, no offense intended :p) Also, we have not directly perceived anything yet for which an explanation would truly invalidate our starting axioms, which is the only way that a set of rules can be shown to be completely illogical; phenomena are always otherwise undecidedly indeterminate, not even decidely indeterminate, which means that the probability of a future explanation still exists. (this can be applied to just about everything today) The only thing that has been even semi-proved to be decidedly indeterminate is the actions of IRVs, and even many scientists today are not accepting it completely. There is really no reason why we should not try to understand this god in its entirety. (after all, it has not yet been shown that we do not have the capacity)
Also, the Bible does indeed describe this god as basically the "omnicompetent human" you are talking about, and one that is not right at the edge of human understanding either; we can certainly imagine things far, far greater than him.
I will admit that reorienting our view of truth seems at first a bit of a difficult thing to do (the power of habit is not to be underestimated ), but once we do so we find ourselves in a far better position to understand the Bible and its message.
Well, here is where the issue of what we can perceive comes in. How can we tell whether or not the Bible has any credibility when we cannot objectively perceive most of the stuff contained within it? I put this example earlier in the thread: for all we know, the Mein Kampf is an equally accurate description of reality as the Bible is. People take these things on faith and choose whatever appeals to their common sense, which is why so many people accept the heaven/hell system (it is just like the reward/punishment in today's society and it looks familiar to them), and also why so many embraced the NSDAP ideas in 1930 but were said to be perfectly normal people otherwise. Also, as I said earlier, why did this god make this Bible when he could simply have put the idea permanently into our minds? (that has become the case for some people, but not everyone, so something is wrong here)
Basically, God did not come into existence. Coming-to-be is a concept that requires the idea of temporality in order to be formulated, and God, it is maintained, does not exist subject to a temporal mode. The idea of atemporal existence is a hard one for us to really wrap our minds around, of course. The closest approximation I have found is to think of everything as being in the present to God. In this eternal present, God simply is.
This sounds fine to me actually, as a transfinite loop can indeed be used to forego the whole idea of cause. Now, my question is that, if you are willing to accept a transfinite god, why should a transfinite reality without a god not be equally plausible? (in terms of time)
As for why we love him, it is because we believe in the Judeo-Christian God, who has revealed himself to us as a God who loves us and has done astounding things on our behalf because of it. When you love your mother, it is because she is your mother, the woman who has done so much for you, indeed sacrificed herself in so many ways for your benefit. In the case of people who do not love their mothers, it is invariably because they had mothers who did not love them as they should have. Similarly, we love God because he first loved us. It is not without reason that God is often described as our Father. To believe, really believe, in Christianity and still to despise God seems to us Christians so contrary to human nature as to be nearly incomprehensible. If one actually believes that God did all that Christianity says he did, if he came to earth and became a man like us and suffered and died, and then rose again to defeat death for us, and promised us that we too will be resurrected to a life better than anything we could ever imagine, how could one respond to such incredible love with anything but love in return?
I would disagree with this. One issue is that if this god made the world, he would be solely responsible for all the ignorance and suffering we see today, and more importantly, he would also be responsible for shaping our minds so that we do not like some of what we see. Also, we do not know of our true purpose for existence; the god could have made us in an act of random foolishness for all we know. The main reason to detest the god is not any of that though, but rather because he designed our brains poorly enough that we would be incapable of "understanding" him, thus limiting our knowledge, and it also seems that he desires to keep us in the dark. That is enough reason to hate the guy beyond all imagination. Think like the counter-enlightenment philosophers; focus more on what needs work in the world rather than what is favorable. ;) Sure, the god did some work to make the universe, but he could have done a whole lot more, and with ease too, if his "powers" are as you say they are.
Also, this love is simply a human conception and has no real relevance outside human affairs, and I think it will not be all that long before it becomes a dead force in human affairs as well. (although it will certainly outlast religion) Even parental love is simply something we were brought up to think with and therefore cannot envision the absence of it easily; outside the human, it has no real existence. The universe essentially operates on indifference, if you want to ascribe it an emotion.
One last thing: you already asked me this question, so I will ask a slightly modified version to you. ;) Suppose it was mathematically proven that a god could not exist, would you readily accept it? Basically, I am wondering whether the religious man will agree to the nonexistence of a god more easily or the atheist would accept the existence.
-
Creatio ex Nihilo
Latin for: creation from nothing (literally) or somethign from nothing. In context of discussion probably the Big Bang.
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
1 Yes we do know what the original amount was. And air has to do with it because the element's two variations (C-14/C-12) are in the air. And, surprise... not, the exact proportion of both Carbon-variations we find in the air we also find in all living things that live NOW! So if the amount is split 60/40 in the air now, the amount will be split 60/40 in you too now.
2. Sorry, that's only a bit they can gather from that. They can also gather from it if there were distasters during that year or not. Example: the eruption of the Pinatubo (Phillipines) ejected a whole lot of dust into the atmosphere. That dust can be found on north pole, the south pole, the Himalaya, the Andes, The Alpes, The Rocky Mountains, etc... And that's only the beginning.
3. no there are not, except the age we're trying to find.
1. Sorry you still don't make sense. You are also assuming that the fossiles had the same percentage as we do. For alls we know it could have been 30/70!
2. How do you know that it is that dust?! Your own argument now says that what I said about the layers in the glaciers & the North-South Poles.
3. Don't get where you're coming from here.
Well I think I won't post back here again unless someone gets me really ticked off or some other Christian wants me too stay and keep up fight with him.
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
1. Sorry you still don't make sense. You are also assuming that the fossiles had the same percentage as we do. For alls we know it could have been 30/70!
2. How do you know that it is that dust?! Your own argument now says that what I said about the layers in the glaciers & the North-South Poles.
3. Don't get where you're coming from here.
Well I think I won't post back here again unless someone gets me really ticked off or some other Christian wants me too stay and keep up fight with him.
Read my lips!!!
1 we did assume at one that the concentration was the same thoughout history. This led to the uncalibrated dates. Now we now that the concentration was not the same throughout history, but know also know the ancient concentrations. That's is what've been saying for the last 50.000 posts or so, but you just don't understand do you?
2. We know because it is that dust because we can compare it to dust close to tha particular vulcano.
3. doesn't matter, you're to thick
And please don't post here again. unless you get some basic understanding of science first!
-
Originally posted by CP5670
One last thing: you already asked me this question, so I will ask a slightly modified version to you. ;) Suppose it was mathematically proven that a god could not exist, would you readily accept it? Basically, I am wondering whether the religious man will agree to the nonexistence of a god more easily or the atheist would accept the existence.
If the religious person was fanatic enough, he/she would probably believe that God gave us the ability to do all this math, and under this "illusion," is testing the faith of all Christian followers.
Looking the other way around (ie myself), most of us non-believers would probably just say something to this effect: "Hey really? Cool!"
-
Chew on this you evilutionist. (misspelling mine.)
‘I know of no finding in archaeology that’s properly confirmed which is in opposition to the Scriptures. The Bible is the most accurate history textbook the world has ever seen.’
Dr Clifford Wilson, formerly director of the Australian Institute of Archaeology, being interviewed by radio by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR radio transcript No. 0279–1004).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'But some will object, “If we allowed appealing to God anytime we don't understand something, then science itself would be impossible, for science proceeds on the assumption of natural causality.” This argument is a red herring. It is true that science is not compatible with just any form of theism, particularly a theism that holds to a capricious god who intervenes so often that the contrast between primary and secondary causality is unintelligible. But Christian theism holds that secondary causality is God's usual mode and primary causality is infrequent, comparatively speaking. That is why Christianity, far from hindering the development of science, actually provided the womb for its birth and development.'
Moreland, J. P., 1989. Christianity and the Nature of Science: A Philosophical Investigation, Baker Book House Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, p. 226.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"ONE IS FORCED TO CONCLUDE THAT MANY SCIENTISTS AND TECHNOLOGISTS PAY LIP-SERVICE TO DARWINIAN THEORY ONLY BECAUSE IT SUPPOSEDLY EXCLUDES A CREATOR"
Dr. Michael Walker, Senior Lecturer — Anthropology, Sydney University.
Quadrant, October 1982, page 44.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Biologists would dearly like to know how modern apes, modern humans and the various ancestral hominids have evolved from a common ancestor. Unfortunately, the fossil record is somewhat incomplete as far as the hominids are concerned, and it is all but blank for the apes. The best we can hope for is that more fossils will be found over the next few years which will fill the present gaps in the evidence.' The author goes on to say: 'David Pilbeam [a well-known expert in human evolution] comments wryly, "If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we've got he'd surely say, 'forget it: there isn't enough to go on'."
(Richard E. Leakey, The Making of Mankind, Michael Joseph Limited, London, 1981, p. 43)
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
Chew on this you evilutionist. (misspelling mine.)
1. ‘I know of no finding in archaeology that’s properly confirmed which is in opposition to the Scriptures. The Bible is the most accurate history textbook the world has ever seen.’
Dr Clifford Wilson, formerly director of the Australian Institute of Archaeology, being interviewed by radio by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR radio transcript No. 0279–1004).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 'But some will object, “If we allowed appealing to God anytime we don't understand something, then science itself would be impossible, for science proceeds on the assumption of natural causality.” This argument is a red herring. It is true that science is not compatible with just any form of theism, particularly a theism that holds to a capricious god who intervenes so often that the contrast between primary and secondary causality is unintelligible. But Christian theism holds that secondary causality is God's usual mode and primary causality is infrequent, comparatively speaking. That is why Christianity, far from hindering the development of science, actually provided the womb for its birth and development.'
Moreland, J. P., 1989. Christianity and the Nature of Science: A Philosophical Investigation, Baker Book House Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, p. 226.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. "ONE IS FORCED TO CONCLUDE THAT MANY SCIENTISTS AND TECHNOLOGISTS PAY LIP-SERVICE TO DARWINIAN THEORY ONLY BECAUSE IT SUPPOSEDLY EXCLUDES A CREATOR"
Dr. Michael Walker, Senior Lecturer — Anthropology, Sydney University.
Quadrant, October 1982, page 44.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 'Biologists would dearly like to know how modern apes, modern humans and the various ancestral hominids have evolved from a common ancestor. Unfortunately, the fossil record is somewhat incomplete as far as the hominids are concerned, and it is all but blank for the apes. The best we can hope for is that more fossils will be found over the next few years which will fill the present gaps in the evidence.' The author goes on to say: 'David Pilbeam [a well-known expert in human evolution] comments wryly, "If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we've got he'd surely say, 'forget it: there isn't enough to go on'."
(Richard E. Leakey, The Making of Mankind, Michael Joseph Limited, London, 1981, p. 43)
1. Only fundamentalist christians think that. You'll have to do a lot better. And this quote is probably the reason why is a 'former director', someone so stupid shoudln't be allowed to be director of any scientific institution.
2. especially the last sentence is important. It is true that the moders wave of science came about by people who were trying to prove the beauty of creation (Kepler's introduction of his elliptic solar system still talks about the 'music of the spheres) , problem is that the church opposed those same early scientists when their findings were in contradiction with the Bible. So maybe christianity birthed modern science, but it certainly didn't help it along. On the contrary.
3. Bollocks, scientists agree with Dawinian evolution because it is better than always syaing 'Got did it'. Only fundamentalist religious people would be so arrogant to assume that science is directed against them. This mind-set is called a siege-mentality and is used by these same fundamentalists to be biggoted b*stards.
4. Good try but you failed to notice one thing! The date. Leakey published this in 1981, that's 21 years ago. In that time a lot has changed and a lot more evidence has been found. So this doesn't count as evidence for ceationism, only as an admittance that science is an ongoing process in which ever more data is collected.
In effect you managed to redeem yourself a bit because now at least you seem to be coming with some sources. Good. Now for the critiacal thinking and the scientific mindset of going out for research and experimentation. Maybe we can make a scientist out of you yet.
-
Argh... Must not flame, flame is the threadkiller...
The first time I noticed this thread I thought "Yes! a religion thread!", and this thread hasn't definitely disappointed me, as usual, the ones who speak for the religion(namely hotsnoj) use the most annoying method of arguing ever. He constantly keeps on trying to find evidence why the evolution theory is wrong, and when someone proves his point wrong, he forgets the subject and goes find other things.
But more importantly, he should not try to find evidence against the evolution, he should find evidence _for_ the creationism! Just think about it, using excatly the same evidence you've posted, I could say that the world was created on the 6:th of May 1326 BC by a furry purple dragon, and still be as right as you are.
-
Creatio ex Nihilo
Latin for: creation from nothing (literally) or somethign from nothing. In context of discussion probably the Big Bang.
Ah I see; thanks. This is not really necessary to describe anything in the atheistic view either though, since the beginning can come from the end without any god, creating a transfinite loop. ;)
1. ‘I know of no finding in archaeology that’s properly confirmed which is in opposition to the Scriptures. The Bible is the most accurate history textbook the world has ever seen.’
Okay, this had to be one of the funniest things I have ever seen. Bible being an "accurate history textbook?" LOL! :D
I could say that the world was created on the 6:th of May 1326 BC by a furry purple dragon, and still be as right as you are.
It wasn't?! :eek: :D
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
The Bible is the most accurate history textbook the world has ever seen.’
Pah :ha: I suppose you literally believe the story of the fall as well.
Originally posted by hotsnoj
"ONE IS FORCED TO CONCLUDE THAT MANY SCIENTISTS AND TECHNOLOGISTS PAY LIP-SERVICE TO DARWINIAN THEORY ONLY BECAUSE IT SUPPOSEDLY EXCLUDES A CREATOR"
One could say the same about yourself and Creationism. As a matter of fact, the discovery of the big bang is a lot more "creator friendly" than other theory for the beginning of everything. Pull your head out of your arse or get the hell out this thread! Your very pressence brings the average IQ of everyone here down.
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
Chew on this you evilutionist. (misspelling mine.)
*whomp*
Not only have you completely perverted the idea of this thread, which was DESIGNED to be a friendly conversation, not a form of verbal boxing, and in fact WAS until you started being a jerk, but you're repeating yourself, you're descending into insults and that's easily the least clever twist on a word I've heard in weeks. This is a conversation, not a competition (mark yourself lucky), and if you want to pick a fight, go elsewhere. Now get the hell out, and don't come back. Twit.
Now- assuming there's a god, would he have a physical form? I've always gathered that he was supposed to be manifested in everything, a sort of conscious Universe itself, and not something separate. I've heard some disagreement before- is there any actual consensus on this or anything?
-
Mmmh, good question Stryke....
Well, one thing we do know is that the Western religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) seem to have an antropomorphic god.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Now- assuming there's a god, would he have a physical form? I've always gathered that he was supposed to be manifested in everything, a sort of conscious Universe itself, and not something separate. I've heard some disagreement before- is there any actual consensus on this or anything?
Are you talking about the Judeo/Christian god or just any old god? A lot of Theologists and Philosophers focus on this issue. The Judeo/Christian approach is that there's a Holy Trinity, made up of the Father (the big bloke up in the sky) an son (Jesus) and the holy spirit (which came down at Pentecost. Other Religions believe in different gods for different jobs, physically existing gods, ghosts (or whatever you want to call them), a spirit that enriches all living things (or all things), aliens (Not Just Modern ones, read the end of Genesis) or any combination or manifestation of any of the above.
-
Now- assuming there's a god, would he have a physical form? I've always gathered that he was supposed to be manifested in everything, a sort of conscious Universe itself, and not something separate. I've heard some disagreement before- is there any actual consensus on this or anything?
That is what the Hindu conception of the god is like. As others have said, the Semite gods may have some sort of physical existence, but I'm not sure.
-
Originally posted by Pera
Argh... Must not flame, flame is the threadkiller...
1. The first time I noticed this thread I thought "Yes! a religion thread!", and this thread hasn't definitely disappointed me, as usual, the ones who speak for the religion(namely hotsnoj) use the most annoying method of arguing ever. He constantly keeps on trying to find evidence why the evolution theory is wrong, and when someone proves his point wrong, he forgets the subject and goes find other things.
2. But more importantly, he should not try to find evidence against the evolution, he should find evidence _for_ the creationism! Just think about it, using excatly the same evidence you've posted, I could say that the world was created on the 6:th of May 1326 BC by a furry purple dragon, and still be as right as you are.
1. I keep trying to find more evidence because the dopes that believe Evolution won't execpt most if not all the evidence I put in front of their faces! For instance I started with the sun and moon and then moved to fossiles and dating meathods.
2. I was trying to prove that the Bible is valid, but that proved to be really hard. So I switched to trying to shake the foundations of Evolution instead. I have posted evidence that would take allot of faith to twist and bend to fit in with the evolution model. Trying to prove that it (evolution) is a religion. The only difference is that it claims to have rock solid science backing it up.
-
hotsnoj, lack of evidence does not disprove a claim.
When we say something like "Look at all this evidence that backs up evolution," and you respond "Oh yeah? There're some holes in the fossil record, so you're wrong," you are offering no evidence that evolution is incorrect or that Creationism is correct. The evidence that was provided for evolution still stands, and all that you are showing is that there is still more to be discovered.
On the other hand, there is quite a bit of substantial evidence against Creationism, such as Carbon dating. When you offer evidence against these claims, such as Carbon dating, they generally consist of things that have already been explained to you by those who are more knowledgable about Carbon dating. Lack of knowledge about a subject is hardly evidence against it.
So far you have not offered any supported evidence against evolution or for Creationism. Appeal to Authority (http://nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html) is not evidence for a claim. If you say that the Bible is an accurate history textbook, providing a quote of someone else saying that, too, is not an effective way to construct an argument. A better way to do this would be to offer evidence that the Bible is an accurate history textbook and to refute (after researching the subject) evidence that has been provided that the Bible is not an accurate history textbook.
Originally posted by hotsnoj
1. I keep trying to find more evidence because the dopes that believe Evolution won't execpt most if not all the evidence I put in front of their faces! For instance I started with the sun and moon and then moved to fossiles and dating meathods.
You have offered no relevant evidence that has not been countered. Opinions on how dating methods cannot possibly be correct mean little.
Originally posted by hotsnoj
2. I was trying to prove that the Bible is valid, but that proved to be really hard. So I switched to trying to shake the foundations of Evolution instead. I have posted evidence that would take allot of faith to twist and bend to fit in with the evolution model. Trying to prove that it (evolution) is a religion. The only difference is that it claims to have rock solid science backing it up.
Religion
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
The evolutionary explanation of the origin of life on Earth is merely a theory based on very strong evidence. It is not a religion. The difference that evolution is based on rock solid science and Creationism is not is quite a strong argument for evolution.
If you have relevant and valid evidence against evolution, please feel free to post it instead of moaning about how we're ignoring you. We have provided evidence when you've requested it, so give some back.
-
Bad, bad NotDefault!
*whomp*
Ignore the issues troll, lest you be grouped with him!
Well, I know there's the whole argument that man was made in God's image, but it seems I also learned from my Catholic school teacher (an infinite number of years ago, when I went to a Benedictine monastery/school) that God is "in everything", et al. I dunno, this isn't one of the things I'm strong on, but can anyone explain this, or am I missing the point?
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Bad, bad NotDefault!
*whomp*
:(
*goes and hides in a corner*
-
Whatever made you think that people made their choice blind? Many Christians became Christians after lots of thinking and looking at the evidence. Many a Christian used to be atheist. Before you go around saying there is no evidence, take a look at these sites for just a hint of the evidence: -
Archaeology (http://christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html)
Evidence against evolution and for creation (http://christiananswers.net/creation/home.html)
another site for creation and evolution (http://trueorigins.org)
another site for creation (http://www.origins.org)
science (http://www.godandscience.org)
Another for creation (http://www.answersingenesis.org)
For those atheists take a look at this... (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheists.html)
363 other web sites (http://www.trueorigin.org/camplist.asp)
And before you start flaming me, take a look at the evidence, ok?
-
There's been no flaming in this thread.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
There's been no flaming in this thread.
No **** sherlock:p
The only thing that bugs me abit, is that we already had like 10 threads that go about religion;) anyway's cary on pilot:)
-
OK mr blank man, I just looked at those sites
all I saw was ignorance and misinformation, I'm too tired to go through in detail but the one thing that did stick out was that first sites (can't put it any other way) stupid explaination of mutation,
and everyone knows there are situations were C14 dating can screw up it doesn't mean that every test is always wrong,
what I did see quite a lot of was how we all must not even think about evolution as an answere becase it is evil and degrades the wonderfull spirit of man, and it's all some big plot to destroy cristianity. I can't beleve sites of this level of moronicosity are alowed online
now that this thing has finaly warmed up I might start partisipating :)
-
Whatever made you think that people made their choice blind? Many Christians became Christians after lots of thinking and looking at the evidence.
This is definitely among the top five stupidest statements I have heard in this thread. :rolleyes: Although it is to be expected from someone who must hide behind an alternate alias. :rolleyes: Many more Christians became so because they were brought up with that nonsense and therefore did not get a chance to examine other ideologies when they were still young; later on it became too late, because other ideas built up upon these and therefore these started serving as an irremovable foundation. People who actually think about this enough end up following their own ideology, not one of these existing ones. :p
Oh, and most of that "evidence" boils down to saying "this is right because I cannot think of how it might be otherwise, and if I say it is right, it is right."
-
Wow the __ guy is really smart. You can't even PM him!
Anyway the sites he pointed do have scientific backing. BTW Just because a site doesn't explain things in terms that the ordinary Joe can't understand doesn't mean that it doesn't use good science to back up it's claims. And did you look past the home page?
A few Questions for you evolutionists.
Were you there when supposedly that animal crawled out of the ocean?
Did you see that spec of stuff exploded?
Were you around for the 'billions' of years it took (from when the earth form and to the present day) for humans to evolve?
I was brought up in a Christian home and I'm really glad I am. I used to believe somewhat in evolution and other stuff that goes with it. Then I got into science, I read anything I could get my hands on. And you know what I found out! I look closely at the evolution model and said, "Hey this doesn't agree with God's word ('cuz I also believed the Bible, just never questioned what I learned in school about evlution)!" Now I was in a bind. What do I believe! I was taught that Creation was the way to go but I was also taught that Evolution was scientific. I dug deeper and deeper. And then I reading (about the same time my mom started homeschooling me) Christian science books. And you know what?! I read the geology section which lead into Evolution and Creation. There is where I found out about evolutions lack of rock solid evidence. That's because no one was there to see it happen, as with creation. So both must be accepted by faith!
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
...And you know what I found out! I look closely at the evolution model and said, "Hey this doesn't agree with God's word"...
*bangs head on the keyboard*
You really like pissing people off, do you? I don't even have to say how stupid the statement I quoted is. For the rest of your post, you're once again forgetting one thing:
No-one made evolution up by saying "hey, I smoked weed yesterday and got this nice idea about how everything evolved!". Instead, people found evidence supporting it. True, it's not 100% solid, but IT'S JUST A THEORY! If someone makes a better theory, with more proof, I believe in it right away. You, however, believe in creationism, even though there is more evidence supporting evolution. Therefore:
Creationism= religion
Evolution= science
And BTW, how can you know what's "god's word"? Did you have a chat with him/her someday?
The Bible? Last time I checked, it was written by an ordinary man, and unless you read the original version(not translated or changed in any way) you can't tell what did it say.
http://christiananswers.net/creation/home.html
Oh yes, I read far beyond the front page here. For example, take a look here (http://www.christiananswers.net/spotlight/games/home.html ) (this kind of stuff makes me scared :nervous: )
And anyway, I really can't consider websites as very credible evidence, I mean, anyone can write absolutely anything in the web, and claim it as truth. Just search google using "revisionist", and you'll get my point.
-
"Were you there when supposedly that animal crawled out of the ocean?
Did you see that spec of stuff exploded?
Were you around for the 'billions' of years it took (from when the earth form and to the present day) for humans to evolve? "
were you there when the magic man in the sky formed the world out of the mud of a river bank?
were you there when man suddenly materialised?
did you see the garden of eden?
:rolleyes:
I want you creationists to explain to me the proces of evolution, becase you have studied it and understand it so well, and made your disition based on sound knowlege of the subject at hand and not just useing religon as a replacement for thinking
-
I look closely at the evolution model and said, "Hey this doesn't agree with God's word ('cuz I also believed the Bible, just never questioned what I learned in school about evlution)!" Now I was in a bind. What do I believe! I was taught that Creation was the way to go but I was also taught that Evolution was scientific. I dug deeper and deeper. And then I reading (about the same time my mom started homeschooling me) Christian science books. And you know what?! I read the geology section which lead into Evolution and Creation. There is where I found out about evolutions lack of rock solid evidence. That's because no one was there to see it happen, as with creation. So both must be accepted by faith!
Okay, I don't think that people of such intelligence are even worth dealing with. :rolleyes: This post speaks for itself.
BTW Just because a site doesn't explain things in terms that the ordinary Joe can't understand doesn't mean that it doesn't use good science to back up it's claims.
I think you need to repeat that to yourself when looking at true science. :p
Oh yes, I read far beyond the front page here. For example, take a look here (this kind of stuff makes me scared )
I checked out the UT review just for fun there; one of the user reviews says that "aliens are a Christian theme." :D :D
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
Wow the __ guy is really smart. You can't even PM him!
It's alright, I've given him the name Blitz_Lightning in accordance with part of his email so it's less confusing for everyone else.
-
oooo... a religion thread. can i post here, even though i'm your basic everyday nonexistent newbie?
I am not a christian, nor an atheist. the best way to describe what i am is an ideogrammatical pagan (don't ask me if that's spelled right, i have no clue >)~ )
as far as creation versus evolution, i figure there's a simple answer. it's one that's been around for a couple centuries now. it's called deism.
the long and short of it is that the gods (or God with a capital G if you happen to be christian or some other monotheistic branch) did not actually step in and create the earth. instead, they created the natural processes needed for the earth to be formed. they devised a unviers with all the laws of physics. they set the stage for the big bang to occur. they set up the process of evolution as a means for humans to come into existence.
basically, whatever deity or deities you happen to believe in, set up the universe like a machine or a clock, initiating the scientific processes that have been discovered in order to establish the kind of universe they desire.
dunno if that helps anybody, but that's my take on things >)~ :D
more in a second...
-
God made everything and set it so that certain things would have to happen in accordance with the laws of physics.
Don't believe in God/gods but if I did, that'd be the belief system I'd follow.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
I checked out the UT review just for fun there; one of the user reviews says that "aliens are a Christian theme." :D :D
I looked at that too, what a site. :rolleyes: Almost all games were at least slightly offensive, and many were much more offensive rated there. :headz:
-
now, let's take a look in this Bible at the story of creation. i was born into a christian family and know quite a bit about this, but please, let me know if i screw anything up.
first off, obviously, no human was present to witness the creation. how then do we come to have written record of it? i'll grant you your belief in the existence of God (capital G) if you'll work with me for a minute.
God would have had to plant the ideas in the mind of someone who then wrote those ideas own on paper. i believe it is generally accepted that Moses or someone who worked with him penned the story of Genesis, though i'm not sure on that score.
tell me, how would God plant ideas in someone's head? i'll tell you how, he did it all through the Old Testament, he sent them dreams. now, the Bible says,
a wind from God swept over the waters.
could those waters be the nebula that the sun formed from? nebulaic clouds can look like liquid. then there's the "Let there be light" thing. the birth of the sun, peraps?
now, onward to the life forms. the Bible says God brings forth plants, then sea creatures, then air creatures, then land creatures, then humans. To a person viewing this in a dream, it would all seem to take place very quickly, even if God had taken millions of years to do it.
incidentally, the order in which life is brought forth matches the theory of Evolution. first there were colonies of cells, unable to move themselves (plants). then tiny creatures of the sea, that eventually grew larger. then insects and other such things (air creatures). then land creatures. then, at the last, humans.
just a couple ideas to tickle the mind >)~ take them apart as you wish
-
Originally posted by an0n
God made everything and set it so that certain things would have to happen in accordance with the laws of physics.
Don't believe in God/gods but if I did, that'd be the belief system I'd follow.
exactly. you've hit the basis of theory right on the head.
-
Originally posted by DemonInGray
exactly. you've hit the basis of theory right on the head.
Yay me!
-
But the big question still remains: how was the god made? If the usual answer is going to be given again, I will quote myself: :D
Now, my question is that, if you are willing to accept a transfinite god, why should a transfinite reality without a god not be equally plausible? (in terms of time)
-
Anything which lasts until the end of time and space, or which does not operate within the confines of time and space can reasonably be considered a God. Some things are infinite.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Anything which lasts until the end of time and space, or which does not operate within the confines of time and space can reasonably be considered a God. Some things are infinite.
Not always, who's to say such beings don't exist? But the typical premise is that God is all powerful, all good and so on. The fact that this arguement brakes down with the problem of evil and so on. But we're covering ground that's already been covered before here. My point is that it's perfectly possible to have a being or conciousness that operates outside space and time as we know it but is not God in any form.
Chidlish point edit: Woo! 14th page ;)
-
Some kind of "I don't give a ****" kind of apethetic being? I tend to think that if such a being did exist it'd either have to be ignorant to our existence, non-sentient or really smug.
And who says you can't have an evil/malevolant god? The Hindu religion has plenty, and the Greeks, and Romans.
Hmmm. There's a thing. If God is all powerful, how the hell was there a war against Lucifer? Not so much all powerful as really powerful.
Also: If yer on 10 per page, it's the 70'th page......or is it the 71st?
-
Some kind of "I don't give a ****" kind of apethetic being? I tend to think that if such a being did exist it'd either have to be ignorant to our existence, non-sentient or really smug.
Yeah, well that is possible. We've got no proof to support it but then again - no proof to disprove it either.
And who says you can't have an evil/malevolant god? The Hindu religion has plenty, and the Greeks, and Romans.
Christians mainly, the whole problem of evil deal is levelled squarely at Christianities God. Since the claim that he's all powerful and all good is instantly dis-proved by the existance of evil.
Hmmm. There's a thing. If God is all powerful, how the hell was there a war against Lucifer? Not so much all powerful as really powerful.
The problem of evil in a nutshell. If God is all powerful and all good then he could have and should have destroyed evil or negated it's appearence in the first place. There should be no evil ever with this supposed God around. Since there is quite obviously of natural and human kind around this dis-proves God.
However. It's argued by Christians that Evil was bought about when mankind fell and that since then the balance has been un-done by the fouls of mankind. Thus all evil is our fault, anything else such as earthquakes can be attributed to Gods plan, same as miricales really. Forgive me if I'm wrong about any of this btw - I'm a little rusty on it.
So anyways, yeah - in a nutshell you cannot have a Christian God who's all good and all powerful, at least not as long as you don't accept their reasons for evil.
Also: If yer on 10 per page, it's the 70'th page......or is it the 71st?
...Meh.
-
That's why I hate most western religions. It's all "Man has brought evil to the world. Repent, sinners". Yeah, coz they've got perfect morales and ethics.
I really hate the Salvation army though. They say they do Gods work and help the unfortunate, but there are so many problem with them and their ways:
- God can do his own friggin work
- They charge the homeless for a place to stay. £6 a night last I heard.
- Most of the donations made to them go towards buying their members new instruments so they can have a nice band.
[/b]
-
Whilst I've got less against the salvation army than you do - you've got a good point, guilt.
Probably the most powerful tool in some religions, it's not faith and it's not love. It's making people feel guitly - like they've got something they should be repenting for, something they should alter their lives to make amends for. If it isnt amongst the ten commandments or some other rule set, it's bound to be worked in somewhere. Mankind is portrayed as a fallen race, doomed to suffering and pain and only those who do as a religion instructs have any hope in this life or any other.
It's one of the things that pisses me off the most about many religions, and one of the reasons I'm looking more and more at the ones that I am.
-
Yeah, I agree there. Something was needed to enforce these laws of religion, and fear of punishment alone was not enough because it was a bit too intangible, so they added in guilt as well. :p
However. It's argued by Christians that Evil was bought about when mankind fell and that since then the balance has been un-done by the fouls of mankind. Thus all evil is our fault, anything else such as earthquakes can be attributed to Gods plan, same as miricales really. Forgive me if I'm wrong about any of this btw - I'm a little rusty on it.
It could be indirectly attributed to god though, if god made us. :p :D
-
Originally posted by Thunder
However. It's argued by Christians that Evil was bought about when mankind fell and that since then the balance has been un-done by the fouls of mankind. Thus all evil is our fault, anything else such as earthquakes can be attributed to Gods plan, same as miricales really. Forgive me if I'm wrong about any of this btw - I'm a little rusty on it.
Well, he made humanity fallible and gave us a prediliction for sin, so it's his mistake in the first place either way, no? I've heard the arguments about how God wanted to test us, etc., but it seems to me that an omniscient God would know the results of a test on his own creation before they even happened and that an omnipotent and infallible being wouldn't be inclined to stick himself in the eye like that.
On the other hand, we're not exactly the best candidates to decide what is "good" and "evil" anyway. Even given that there is a God and it gave us a list of don'ts a few thousand years ago, it might have had in mind that there'd be violations, and it's part of the 'plan' that we sin.
I'm gonna get flak from the atheist "side" for that post, no doubt.
-
as an argument against the Christian deity, just for kicks....
an omnicient and omnipotent being would be self-fulfilled. it would never need to do anything for any reason, because it would already know exactly what would happen. if it had any negative feeling, it could fill itself with positive feeling. if it had the need for excitement, it could dream up excitement.
in short, if the Christians are right, why did your god make humans in the first place? he wouldn't need them for anything.
-
...because he's a Western god? :D
-
Going back to that Christian Games Review site, I found this...
In a nutshell, Soldier of Fortune is the most revolting game to ever appear on my computer screen. I have been involved with computers for the better part of fifteen years; therefore, I have seen, amongst the boring productive applications, a host of titles that span all genres of gaming. The first FPS (first person shooter) that I encountered was Wolfenstein, with images of horror carried out in simulated Nazi camps and dungeons. Then came the Doom series, with ghastly alien monsters and subtle pentagramic symbols that created the illusion of the lair of Satan himself. Quake brought the satanic realm to light in gaming with unnecessary pentagrams incorporated into the maps themselves. All three of these games depicted realistic blood and gore that incited young hackers (hax0rs, as they call themselves) to perform wanton acts of violence.
:lol:
:wakka:
Normal service now resumes.
-
Anyway...to make a little more sense: on Hell. And heaven, too, but I'm more interested in Hell for the purposes of this discussion.
Now - a Christian (and other religions, but Christianity is my example) believes in God and heaven and hell. I'm willing to accept their beliefs in this, but here are my questions:
1. Are they physical or metaphysical places - after all, it's your 'spirit' or whatever that leaves your body.
2. What is hell like? Is it a place of fiery physical torture, blah blah, or is the true nature of hell the knowledge that one is eternally separated from God?
3. An extension of (2) - Sandwich told me that the punishment in hell would be like physical torture even if it was not. Why, if there are no physical forms, or if the latter condition of (2) applies?
4. Does everyone who doesn't believe in God go to hell? If so, why?
===
I'm assuming for all the above that CP5670 isn't going to interject with a "religion is being used to control the masses through fear appeals" until after someone has replied... ;)
-
Kellan: This doesn't apply for all, but if you read the Catholic catechism (sp?), it says that it's only if you intentionally refuse to believe in or worship God despite one's predilection or evidence at hand that you get the shaft. Otherwise, Limbo, I suppose.
-
Weird that people still read the cathechismus (sp?)... We used to have it in school (I heard), but that got abolished (even in catholic schools) long before I got there :D
-
Hell, you don't learn **** in school. Wanna know something, you go for it yourself.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Hell, you don't learn **** in school. Wanna know something, you go for it yourself.
Maybe that's true on the other side of the pond, but here things are quite different :)
The question is of course: for how much longer??
-
Eh?
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Eh?
? anyway, we're digressing
back to topic
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
On the other hand, we're not exactly the best candidates to decide what is "good" and "evil" anyway.
True, but "good" and "evil" are human words (English words, to be precise :)). If we can't define them, who can?
It is a pretty big question, though, but then it all gets into the meaning of life and such, and there's no particular reason to tread there in this thread.
As for the theory that God created physical laws and the big bang and such, and then basically put it on autopilot, there are problems with this. For example, what would be the difference between God being there and creating the Big Bang, or the Big Bang just being there? Since there's basically no difference (assuming God is truly letting us run on autopliot), they're basically the same thing.
One of the reasons I find any notion of God a bit bogus is the mere fact that there are so many planets without life on them. Why would a God create other planets in such detail if they weren't going to be used for anything?
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
? anyway, we're digressing
back to topic
It's nice that you get back on the topic of arguing about Christianity with reply 666. ;7
-
Originally posted by NotDefault
It's nice that you get back on the topic of arguing about Christianity with reply 666.(http://www.wizards.com/community/images/boards/graemlins/diablo.gif)
There goes my cover :D
-
Well I think all the pro-religion people have left due to lack of further arguments, leaving the anti-religion guys victorious. :D
-
I'll give you a brief overview over some evidence against evolution.
First of all, about all the "radiometric dating". Only the uranium-lead method of dating is the method that gives all those billions of years. But it is now known that radioactive thorium (the stuff that is always found in the ores that are used to date the age of the world) itself changes normal lead into radiogenic lead when it decays (which is the lead produced by the decay of uranium into lead, which ratio of which (lead-uranium) is used to date the earth). Now when you consider that uranium emits alpha particles (helium nuclei) when it decays into lead, you would ask, where is all the supposed helium? The amount of helium found on earth and in the atmosphere, supposing that it was made just from this decay, is nowhere near the amount it should be if the earth was billions of years old. The amount of helium found now suggests to scientists that the earth is <10000 years old. Now you might say that all the helium escapes from the earth. This is not true. Only hydrogen is light enough to escape the earth, for those who study physics would realize. In fact, earth gains helium when travelling through the space dust around the earth. And this amount gained this way is about the same as from decay of uranium. Thus, the amount of helium is only gaining.
Another radiometric dating is C14. Did you know that the amount of C14 is now known not to be at equilibrium, as it should have after only 30 000 yrs? The rate of creation of C14 is about 25% more than it is destroyed. Tracing this rate back to a time in which the amount of C14 is zero, it gives a date of the earth as <10000 yrs!
Fred Hoyle (the man who coined "the big bang" phrase) stated that the probability of the making of the simplest possible organism by chance would be around 10^7800 (this is for an organism with 200 genes, while the most simple one known has 300). The universe has only 10^80 particles, and only 10^18 seconds have elapsed, according to the big bang model. This is a truly staggering figure. Now, this is even only a very conservative estimate. Neutral scientists on this issue have even suggested values such as 10^10500!. Take a look at this article,
why abiogenesis is impossible (http://www.trueorigins.org/abio.asp)
We can also consider the strengths of the weak and strong nuclear force. If either of these forces were off by a fraction of a percent, then either all the elements that could exist would be either hydrogen or helium, as all the elements such as lithium and beyond would be unstable. Or, on the other hand, hydrogen would automatically merge to form helium, all carbon to form heavier elements, etc.
If the amount of matter in the universe was to be over by a trillionth of what it is, big bang theorists say that the universe would have started contracting before the inflationary epoch. If it was a fraction less, galaxies, clusters, etc would be impossible.
Now don't tell me you'll suggest natural selection in these properties of the universe?
Evidence against evolution (http://trueorigins.org)
Now, recent evidence shows that early on in earth, it had no HCN (which was suggested with malicious forethought for which there is no evidence existed on earth at the start), or such high levels of CH4 and H2 in the atmosphere. For substances other than alanine, etc which are in fact the most simple of proteins, they need at least a 1:2 or 1:1 ratio of C to H in the atmosphere. Any less, then it would be impossible for the stuff to form. Take note, as well, as things such as lightning, etc which form these just as easily destroy them. How convenient it is for evolutionists to forget that all reactions are equilibriums!!! Take a look at this article
Instability of building blocks (http://www.trueorigins.org/originoflife.asp)
and this article
the information problem (http://www.trueorigins.org/dawkinfo.asp)
Now, evidence from archaelogy.
Now all of you people believe that Julius Ceasar existed, yes? However, the number of ancient documents found about Julius
Ceasar is much less than that found for Jesus Christ's life. Now, if you don't believe that Jesus existed, you might as well believe Julius Ceasar didn't exist. Accuracy of the bible? Not a problem! The dead sea scrolls confirm the accuracy of the bible. Much less than 1 word in 1000 is arbitrated, less than 3 in a thousand had just different wording (synonyms, etc).
evidence from archaelogy (http://christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html)
Now, if you had 30 or so modern writers, what is the probability of them all agreeing on everything? Nil! In the bible, all the supposed contradictions have been answered! Refutations (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/contralinks.html)
Extra refutations (http://christiananswers.net/menu-at1.html#contradictions)
Now, that great example used to promote evolution
pepper moths (http://www.trueorigins.org/pepmoth1.asp)
and this one, it is proven that Haeckel fudged his embryo diagrams (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1339.asp)
Now, all those missing links between birds, reptiles, dinosaurs, etc still haven't been found, if you look at the evidence carefully. A refutation of the
crown jewel of evolution is refuted here (http://www.trueorigins.org/therapsd.asp)
Now, I could go on and on with evidence, but these sites should give you some food for thought...
trueorigins archive (http://trueorigins.org)
origins.org (http://origins.org)
answersingenesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org) godandscience (http://www.godandscience.org) yfiles (http://www.yfiles.com)
Institute of Creation Research (http://www.icr.org)
christiananswers (http://chistiananswers.net)
363 other sites (http://www.trueorigins.org/camplist.asp)
-
Jesus Christ, as he is presented to us in the New Testament, and as he stands forth from all its writings, is too single and too great to have been invented so uniformly by all these writers. The force of Jesus Christ unleashed these writings; the writings did not create the force. Jesus is far bigger and more compelling than any of his witnesses. His reality stands behind these writings as a great, global event stands behind a thousand newscasters. Something stupendous unleashed these diverse witnesses to tell these stunning and varied, yet unified, stories of Jesus Christ.
Nobody has ever explained the empty tomb of Jesus in the hostile environment of Jerusalem where the enemies of Jesus would have given anything to produce the corpse, but could not. The earliest attempts to cover the scandal of resurrection were manifestly contradictory to all human experience—disciples do not steal a body (Matthew 28:13) and then sacrifice their lives to preach a glorious gospel of grace on the basis of the deception. Modern theories that Jesus didn't die but swooned, and then awoke in the tomb and moved the stone and tricked his skeptical disciples into believing he was risen as the Lord of the universe don't persuade.
Cynical opponents of Christianity abounded where claims were made that many eyewitnesses were available to consult concerning the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. “After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep” (1 Corinthians 15:6). Such claims would be exposed as immediate falsehood if they could. But we know of no exposure. Eyewitnesses of the risen Lord abounded when the crucial claims were being made.
The early church was an indomitable force of faith and love and sacrifice on the basis of the reality of Jesus Christ. The character of this church, and the nature of the gospel of grace and forgiveness, and the undaunted courage of men and women—even unto death—do not fit the hypothesis of mass hysteria. They simply were not like that. Something utterly real and magnificent had happened in the world and they were close enough to know it, and be assured of it, and be gripped by its power. That something was Jesus Christ, as all of them testified, even as they died singing.
The prophesies of the Old Testament find stunning fulfillment in the history of Jesus Christ. The witness to these fulfillments are too many, too diverse, too subtle and too interwoven into the history of the New Testament church and its many writings to be fabricated by some great conspiracy. Down to the details, Jesus Christ fulfilled dozens of Old Testament prophecies that vindicate his truth.
The witnesses to Jesus Christ who wrote the New Testament gospels and letters are not gullible or deceitful or demented. This is manifest from the writings themselves. The books bear the marks of intelligence and clear-headedness and maturity and a moral vision that is compelling. They win our trust as witnesses, especially when all taken together with one great unifying, but distinctively told, message about Jesus Christ.
The worldview that emerges from the writings of the New Testament makes more sense out of more reality than any other worldview. It not only fits the human heart, but also the cosmos and history and God as he reveals himself in nature and conscience. Some may come to this conclusion after much reflection, others may arrive at this conviction by a pre-reflective, intuitive sense of the deep suitability of Christ and his message to the world that they know.
When one sees Christ as he is portrayed truly in the gospel, there shines forth a spiritual light that is a self-authenticating. This is “the light of the knowledge of the glory of God” (2 Corinthians 4:6), and it is as immediately perceived by the Spirit-awakened heart as light is perceived by the open eye. The eye does not argue that there is light. It sees light.
When we see and believe the glory of God in the gospel, the Holy Spirit is given to us so that the love of God might be “poured out in our hearts” (Romans 5:5). This experience of the love of God known in the heart through the gospel of Him who died for us while we were yet ungodly assures us that the hope awakened by all the evidences we have seen will not disappoint us.
-
Could the Moon Form by Itself?
Evolutionists (and progressive creationists) deny the moon’s direct creation by God. They have come up with several theories, but they all have serious holes, as many evolutionists themselves admit. One astronomer said, half-jokingly, that there were no good (naturalistic) explanations, so the best explanation is that the moon is an illusion![9]
Fission Theory, invented by the astronomer George Darwin (son of Charles). He proposed that the earth spun so fast that a chunk broke off. But this theory is universally discarded today. The earth could never have spun fast enough to throw a moon into orbit, and the escaping moon would have been shattered while within the Roche Limit.
Capture Theory—the moon was wandering through the solar system, and was captured by Earth’s gravity. But the chance of two bodies passing close enough is minute; the moon would be more likely to have been ‘slingshotted’ like artificial satellites than captured. Finally, even a successful capture would have resulted in an elongated comet-like orbit.
Condensation Theory—the moon grew out of a dust cloud attracted by Earth’s gravity. However, no such cloud could be dense enough, and it doesn’t account for the moon’s low iron content.
Impact Theory—the currently fashionable idea that material was blasted off from Earth by the impact of another object. Calculations show that to get enough material to form the moon, the impacting object would need to have been twice as massive as Mars. Then there is the unsolved problem of losing the excess angular momentum.[10]
-
An extract from this article (http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-300.htm)
Supposedly the Sun has been a main-sequence star since its formation about 4.6 billion years ago. This time represents about half the assumed ten-billion-year main-sequence lifetime of the Sun, so the Sun should have used about half its energy store. This means that about half the hydrogen in the core of the Sun has been used up and replaced by helium. This change in chemical composition changes the structure of the core. The overall structure of the Sun would have to change as well, so that today, the Sun should be nearly 40% brighter than it was 4.6 billion years ago.
This obviously has consequences for the temperatures of the planets. It is generally believed that even small fluctuations in the Sun's luminosity would have devastating consequences on Earth's climate. A 40% change in solar luminosity should have produced dramatic climatic changes, changes perhaps comparable to the current differences between Venus, Mars, and Earth. According to evolution, about four billion years ago when life supposedly first arose on Earth, the temperature had to have been close to what the temperature is today. But if that were the case, the subsequent increase in the Sun's luminosity would have made Earth far too hot for life today. One could naively suggest that Earth began cooler than it is today and has been slowly warming with time. But this is not an option because geologists note that Earth's rock record insists that Earth's average temperature has not varied much over the past four billion years, and biologists require a nearly constant average temperature for the development and evolution of life. This problem is called the early faint Sun paradox.
-
There is a huge force of gravity between the earth and moon-some 70 million trillion pounds (that's 70 with another 18 zeroes after it), or 30,000 trillion tonnes (that's 30 with 15 zeroes).
The effect of gravity depends on distance as well as mass, so the pull on the near side of the earth (to the moon) is greater than on the far side. This causes the land and (especially) sea surfaces to bulge in response, as is apparent to us in tides.
Because the presence of the moon over any part of the earth does not cause an immediate bulging response, this slight delay results in a continuous, slight, forward 'pull' on the moon, causing it to spiral slowly outwards, away from the earth. The rate at which the earth-moon distance is presently increasing is actually being measured at about 4 centimetres a year. It would have been even greater in the past.
This immediately raises the question as to whether the earth-moon system could be 4.5 billion years old, as most evolutionists insist. Would we not have lost our moon a long time ago? Using the appropriate differential equation (which takes into account the fact that the force of gravity varies with distance), Dr DeYoung shows that this gives an upper limit of 1.4 billion years.
That is, extrapolating backwards, the moon should have been in physical contact with the earth's surface 'just' 1.4 billion years ago. This is clearly not an age for the moon, but an absolute maximum, given the most favourable evolutionary assumptions. Obviously, in a creation scenario, the moon does not have to begin at the earth's surface and slowly spiral out.* Evolutionist astronomers have not yet satisfactorily answered this, nor the lack of geological evidence that the moon has dramatically receded over the past 4.5 billion years, which would have to be so if their framework was correct.
FOOTNOTE
* The moon was probably created close to its present distance from the earth. Over 10,000 years, lunar recession amounts to less than one kilometre.
For the technical reader: since tidal forces are inversely proportional to the cube of the distance, the recession rate (dR/dt) is inversely proportional to the sixth power of the distance. So dR/dt = k/R6, where k is a constant = (present speed: 0.04 m/year) x (present distance: 384,400,000 m)6 = 1.29x1050 m7/year. Integrating this differential equation gives the time to move from Ri to Rf as t = 1/7k(Rf7 - Ri7). For Rf = the present distance and Ri = 0, i.e. the earth and moon touching, t = 1.37 x 109 years.
Also, note that, if the universe is really as old as evolutionists say, the moon should be covered by tens of feet of dust (from the solar dust in the solar system accumulating) using basic math. That's why in the 1960's NASA was concerned that the moon was covered with dust, but when they landed on the moon, they found little evidence of dust.
The earth should also have tens of feet of dust. Now, space dust is rich in substances such as iridium. Then why does the earth have so little of it? Now, this proves that the universe can't really be all those billions of years old.
-
An extract from this site (http://www.creationresearch.org/membership.htm)
Several categories of membership are available, each of which requires agreement with the CRS statement of belief. Since the CRS is a scientific society governed by scientists, voting membership requires an earned postgraduate degree in a recognized area of science. All remaining categories are nonvoting. For those who have an interest in origins but lack the advanced science degree, sustaining membership is available. Student (those enrolled full time in high school or undergraduate college) and senior (voting or sustaining members who are age 65 or older) memberships are available at reduced rates. A special life membership (for either voting or sustaining members) is also available.
Membership includes subscription to the journal (the CRS Quarterly) and the bimonthly newsletter (Creation Matters). Institutions (such as schools, libraries, churches, etc.), or individuals who cannot in good conscience ascribe to the statement of belief, may also obtain subscriptions to the CRS Quarterly without membership.
The annual membership and subscription year for the Creation Research Society begins in June 2002. When you join, you will receive all back issues for the current subscription year.
Memberships and subscriptions over the past few years have been steady with a total of over 1700 worldwide. About 650 are voting members. Foreign members/subscribers number about 250.
-
Okay, some of that stuff really had me laughing. :D I'm not even going to bother with people of such intelligence and gullibility (don't have the time to argue at the moment; need to go sleep :p), but I'm sure that some others will come up soon to argue with that. ;) :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
don't have the time to argue at the moment; need to go sleep :p
Likewise.
-
such as
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by NotDefault
Yeah, well, but all that Unarium and Carban was put in by God to make it seem like Creationism is wrong to test our faith!!!!!11111
How do you answer that, science-boy????????????????/////
BTW, u dont have to flame me, ppl!!!
Sigh...
Most of my information is on page 27 as well as this page...
-
Originally posted by CP5670
but I'm sure that some others will come up soon to argue with that. ;) :D
Sorry, but no chance. If a person(I'm referring to this Blitz guy, not you :) ) doesn't even read the goddamn thread he's posting to, his posts aren't worth replying.
As for your post(s), Blizt_lighting, here's a really short overview:
Read my lips: "JUST BECAUSE THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS NOT FOOLPROOF, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT CREATIONISM IS CORRECT, DO NOT WASTE TIME ARGUING AGAINST EVOLUTION, BUT INSTEAD FIND SOME PROOF FOR CREATIONISM"
Sorry for shouting, but this point has already been made several times throughout this thread.
And as for your links: Sorry to say this, but the sites you are referring to, are bull****. If you really take them seriously, get some help. But first of all, read the whole thread all over again, and then try to argue, until then, shut up.
Oh BTW, what makes you think the old testament was necessarily written before the new one?
-
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
Memberships and subscriptions over the past few years have been steady with a total of over 1700 worldwide. About 650 are voting members. Foreign members/subscribers number about 250.
Hoo Boy. :rolleyes: ....and so the lies spread.....
-
What do you think all the evidence from archaelogy, etc are?
Evidence for creationism, that the bible is true!
Evidence for design? Did you take a look at the probabilities for the simplest organism? 1 in 10^7800? That to me seems like evidence for design. Take a look at the properties of substances such as carbon, water. Take a look, if the amount of matter in the universe varied by 1 in a trillion, life couldnt exist.
-
Answering if took a look at some of the pages I gave for creationism, you'd find tons of information for creationism... take ATP (http://www.trueorigins.org/atp.asp) for example... The evidence from the radiometric dating for an earth <10000 yrs old.... The moon... The sun... did you even look at my other posts? lol... nm, dont answer me :rolleyes:
-
Can you try and keep your points in one post as opposed to spreading them over several please? Thanks :)
-
I went to your site.
Everything is just more Church lies.
You oviously have no grasp on logic at all. :(
Do you believe In Santa Claus too? :eek:
Maybe the Sandman? :ha:
You need to grow out of those bible fairy tales.
-
Non-coding ("junk") DNA is Functional!
Electron microscopy of Cryptomonad
A recent study has shown that eukaryotic non-coding DNA (also called "secondary DNA) is functional as a structural element in the nucleus. Previously, there were two evolutionary theories that attempted to describe the reason for the existence of non-coding DNA One theory stated that non-coding DNA was "junk" that consisted of randomly-produced sequences that had lost their coding ability or partially duplicated genes that were non-functional. The second theory stated that non-coding DNA was "selfish", in that it consisted of DNA that preferentially replicated more efficiently that coding DNA, even though it provided no selective advantage (in fact was somewhat detrimental in that it was parasitic).
The new study examined the genomes of the single-celled photosynthetic organisms know as Crytomonads. These organisms exist as vastly different cell sizes, with the nucleus being proportional in size to that of the cell. Researchers discovered that the amount of non-coding DNA was proportional to the size of the nucleus, suggesting that more non-coding DNA was required in larger nuclei. As an added proof, the nucleomorph, a small piece of DNA contained within the plastid that codes for itself and photosynthetic function, was not changed in size, despite changes in cell size and nuclear content.
The new study is a stunning rebuttal to the evolutionary theories that attempt to discredit design and promote concepts such as "junk" DNA and "selfish" DNA. According to the authors:
"Furthermore, the present lack of significant amounts of nucleomorph secondary DNA confirms that selection can readily eliminate functionless nuclear DNA, refuting 'selfish' and 'junk' theories of secondary DNA"
Beaton, M.J. and T. Cavalier-Smith. 1999. Eukaryotic non-coding DNA is functional: evidence from the differential scaling of cryptomonal genomes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 266:2053-2059.
Related Story - "When 'Junk' DNA Isn't Junk"
Design of Proteins
Scientists have been attempting to be able to determine a protein's native conformation (or folding) by examining the amino acid sequence. Despite years of study, the ability to do this using even the fastest computers is beyond our reach. For example, for a typical 100 amino acid protein (moderate to small in size) could exist in any of 3200 possible backbone configurations. Using a super fast computer (10^12 computations/sec) it would take 10^80 seconds, which exceed the age of the universe by a factor of 60 orders of magnitude! This fact alone may give you a better perspective on the mind of God.
IBM is now making a new supercomputer to attempt to address the protein folding problem. A $100 million research initiative will build a supercomputer 500 times more powerful than the current record holder and be able to process 10^15 computations/sec. Dubbed "Blue Gene," the computer will include over 1 million processors, each capable of 1 billion operations per second. Using special estimation techniques, the computer may be able to solve the protein folding of a small protein in about a year. However, at the end of that time, researchers may discover that it didn't work. If the estimations are not close enough to actual conformations, the folding may be incorrect. Calculating the exact folding of all positions would require 10^77 seconds, only 57 orders of magnitude longer than the age of the universe. This is what we in research call a long-term project!
-
Ok Thunder, I'll try to keep em in one post...
If people want some general and scientific rebuttals against evolution, here they are: -
General Rebuttal (http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolution.html)
Scientific Rebuttal (http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/locke.html)
:)
-
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
What do you think all the evidence from archaelogy, etc are?
Evidence for creationism, that the bible is true!
Evidence for design? Did you take a look at the probabilities for the simplest organism? 1 in 10^7800? That to me seems like evidence for design. Take a look at the properties of substances such as carbon, water. Take a look, if the amount of matter in the universe varied by 1 in a trillion, life couldnt exist.
As someone who's in constant contact with archaeology I can say that there is no archaeological evidence whatsoever that supports creationism or intelligent design.
As for the rest: go here, it's an index that debunks all you've said (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-index.html)
As for more works found on christ than on julius ceasar: doesn't mean that christ existed. (mayb he did, maybe he didn't), only that people wrote more about christ than about Caesar. Also the fact that christian theology has been active for 2000 years probably doesn't have anyhing to with it.
Or to use your reasoning but with different characters: just because we now find more writing about Luke Skywalker than we do about Caesar must mean that Luke Skywalker is a real person...
Intelligence may be able to cross the distance between stars, but stupidity (as displayed by certain people, coincidentally all in the creationist camp) surely knows no boundaries....
Have fun trying to convince the scientific community (which aren't that gullible as your usual targets) and come back here when you can make a decent scientific case. Toodaloo.
-
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
Scientific Rebuttal (http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/locke.html)
:)
first line of article:
"I AM NOT A CREATIONIST,"
icon next to article:
(http://www.godandscience.org/index.html)
(could someone fix this? Don't know how.)
He effectively succeeded in destroying credability on the first line.
Note: He bases himself also on Michael Behe, a known scientist but also creationist. Important to know is that all of M. Behe's scientific works (e.g. those up for peer review) support evolution and no creationism. Why? Because the evidence creationist claim to have isn't able to stand up against peer-review. Ergo, creationists resort to convincing the gullible masses, those that know little or nothing about evolution. These are the only people they can convince as th others are too smart.
-
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
If people want some general and scientific rebuttals against evolution, here they are: -
General Rebuttal (http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolution.html)
Scientific Rebuttal (http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/locke.html)
:)
You see people, "Einstein" here cant handle the fact that finally, we have proof that Religion is bull****. He and people like him are now trying to spread the lies and at the same time, they are trying to organize all the other liars and they are trying to brainwash the world (again).
Evolution is cleansing Religion from the human race.
So give up and let nature take it's course.
-
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
Evidence for creationism, that the bible is true!
:lol: :lol: :lol:
I think you understood what I thought about that :D
About Jesus:
Sure he could have existed, in fact, he most likely was a real person, but _not_a_son_of_"god"_, period
You know, I've actually argued with some creationists who made good points and were relatively sane, you're not one of them.
-
nobody knows for sure what happened at the beginning of the universe. nobody knows for sure how humans came into being.
all we have are guesses and theories, with maybe a little evidence supporting wither side.
i really don't think anyone will be converting as a result of this thread. nor is it likely that anyone will be convinced of a certain viewpoint.
-
Right; the purple dragon thing posted earlier is just as plausible. We should therefore stick to explanations that fit in with that which we directly sense and our currently accepted ideas to prevent from reinventing things when it may or may not be necessary.
When one sees Christ as he is portrayed truly in the gospel, there shines forth a spiritual light that is a self-authenticating. This is “the light of the knowledge of the glory of God” (2 Corinthians 4:6), and it is as immediately perceived by the Spirit-awakened heart as light is perceived by the open eye. The eye does not argue that there is light. It sees light.
The same could be said about Adolf Hitler and the Mein Kampf. There shines forth a spiritual light from this gospel. The light of the knowledge and glory of the Führer. The eye sees this light. :D
Read my lips: "JUST BECAUSE THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS NOT FOOLPROOF, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT CREATIONISM IS CORRECT, DO NOT WASTE TIME ARGUING AGAINST EVOLUTION, BUT INSTEAD FIND SOME PROOF FOR CREATIONISM"
Sorry for shouting, but this point has already been made several times throughout this thread.
I agree completely. I bet he will still miss it, though. :p :D
And as for your links: Sorry to say this, but the sites you are referring to, are bull****. If you really take them seriously, get some help. But first of all, read the whole thread all over again, and then try to argue, until then, shut up.
My thoughts exactly. But look at where he is getting that information: sites with names like "Institute of Creation Research." :rolleyes: These things are no different than the Flat Earth Society; there is an organization for just about every wacky idea these days. :p
Likewise.
LOL, it was 7 in the morning when I posted that, and I had been up all night. :D
-
Originally posted by DemonInGray
all we have are guesses and theories, with maybe a little evidence supporting wither side.
Don't be bloody stupid, there's mountains of evidence for evolution and nothing but faith for crationists.
-
momy, what does filabustering mean?
was anyone desputing the past existance of Jesus?
you're little thing on "junk" DNA, what was that suposed to prove?
do you think the moon could have been formed in a maner similar to all the other moons (and \or planets) in the solar system posably?
you have yet to prove to me you have a firm understanding of how evolution works,
and it does work, wether or not it is the cause of all life on earth is the point in despute here,
but evolution does work now, I have seen it with my own eyes
if you are still not beleveing me when I say evolution works, next time you get some sort of bacterial infection and the doctor gives you antibiodics I want you to only take them untill you feel beter, then stop, if you start feeling sick again take some more, when you run out go to the doctor and tell him you're still sick and ask for more, if he asks you if you did this don't tell him, becase he has been brainwashed by us anti-relegon nuts and will think the bacteria are evolving to the antibiotics, do this untill the medicen no longer works then get a diferent type of antibiotic, do the same thing untill this new medicen stops working, and continue this paturn untill there are no more new antibiodics left,
then i want you to see if God will save you, and I want you to pray with all the people how have educated you over the years and all the people who think like you, be sure to get in real close,
if you do this it should provide a winner between evolution and religon :)
(note: don't do this, it would cause a super resistant bacteria, becase evolution is real, and likely kill you and everyone around you)
-
GAAAH!
IF YOU CAN'T HAVE A RATIONAL DEBATE ABOUT EVOLUTION/CREATION, SHUT UP ABOUT IT!!!
Both sides here are being imbeciles. Seriously, this was a good topic for a while. Now it's just crap, descending into flamewar, and frankly none of you are evidently capable of reading each others' posts in the first place. I give up. The Earth is flat, I'm right because I say I am and I'm the final authority on everything, and thought beyond sorting of known facts has no place in life.
-
WOW :eek: Bobboau, I never knew you had it in you :jaw:
The fact that evangelists manage to find a partner (with them being so sexist) and reproduce is the biggest flaw in evolution I've ever found.
I have nothing against Christians who are willing to accept the proven and adapt their belief system so it's implementable in an intelligent age (I give them my respect), even though I remain firmly agnostic myself, Just those who have blind, unquestioning faith that can't be wrong.
-
Originally posted by Top Gun
Don't be bloody stupid, there's mountains of evidence for evolution and nothing but faith for crationists.
you misunderstood me, i'm sorry, i should have been clearer.
i didn't mean their is little proof for evolution. as was said in another post, the constantly evolving bacteria is an example. what i meant was that there is little proof for a scientific version of spontaneous generation, the origin of life. similarly, there is little to no evidence that supports a creationist version of life's beginning as well.
Originally posted by DemonInGray
nobody knows for sure what happened at the beginning of the universe. nobody knows for sure how humans came into being.
all we have are guesses and theories, with maybe a little evidence supporting wither side.
substitute the word "life" for "humans". i know humans evolved, what i don't know is how there came to be life in the first place.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
GAAAH!
IF YOU CAN'T HAVE A RATIONAL DEBATE ABOUT EVOLUTION/CREATION, SHUT UP ABOUT IT!!!
Both sides here are being imbeciles. Seriously, this was a good topic for a while. Now it's just crap, descending into flamewar, and frankly none of you are evidently capable of reading each others' posts in the first place. I give up. The Earth is flat, I'm right because I say I am and I'm the final authority on everything, and thought beyond sorting of known facts has no place in life.
:( Oh boo hoo :(
Nobody's flaming anyone
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
momy, what does filabustering mean?
was anyone desputing the past existance of Jesus?
you're little thing on "junk" DNA, what was that suposed to prove?
do you think the moon could have been formed in a maner similar to all the other moons (and \or planets) in the solar system posably?
you have yet to prove to me you have a firm understanding of how evolution works,
and it does work, wether or not it is the cause of all life on earth is the point in despute here,
but evolution does work now, I have seen it with my own eyes
if you are still not beleveing me when I say evolution works, next time you get some sort of bacterial infection and the doctor gives you antibiodics I want you to only take them untill you feel beter, then stop, if you start feeling sick again take some more, when you run out go to the doctor and tell him you're still sick and ask for more, if he asks you if you did this don't tell him, becase he has been brainwashed by us anti-relegon nuts and will think the bacteria are evolving to the antibiotics, do this untill the medicen no longer works then get a diferent type of antibiotic, do the same thing untill this new medicen stops working, and continue this paturn untill there are no more new antibiodics left,
then i want you to see if God will save you, and I want you to pray with all the people how have educated you over the years and all the people who think like you, be sure to get in real close,
if you do this it should provide a winner between evolution and religon :)
(note: don't do this, it would cause a super resistant bacteria, becase evolution is real, and likely kill you and everyone around you)
That is MICRO-evolution. The bacteria may become resistant to drugs, but it is still the same bacteria.
Edit: Just sorted the quote out :)
-
Stationary-phase Mutation: For 50 years the world believed that mutations occur at random. The discovery of "adaptive mutation" in bacteria shook that dogma, implying the existence of a new sort of mutation that differs from normal spontaneous mutations: The "adaptive" mutations occur when they are selected, in cells that appear not to be dividing (the DNA may not even be replicating when the mutations occur!), and had been found only in genes whose functions were selected. We are elucidating the molecular mechanism by which these mutations form. We have found that genetic recombination enzymes are required for some adaptive mutations. We are uncovering a new and unexpected molecular mechanism for mutation in non-dividing cells that includes DNA double-strand breaks, recombination, DNA synthesis, suspension of post-synthesis mismatch repair, and which occurs in a hypermutable subpopulation of the cells. The mutations are similar to those characteristic of some cancers. This new mutation mechanism in non-dividing cells may be an important model for mutations that give rise to some cancers and genetic diseases, cause resistance to chemotherapeutic and antibiotic drugs, lead to pathogenicity of microbes, as well as to many other systems previously thought to follow the rules of classical growth-dependent mutation.
In fact, you may now consider antibiotics to be sex drugs for bacteria. If bacteria detect it's present, they increase the rate that they exchange information with nearby organisms by over 1000 *. They can exchange information with totally different organisms! Bacteria can exchange their information with viruses, other bacteria, and have even been discovered to exchange information with plants!
-
Note that this could not
be an example of evolution since evolution supposedly occurs through
random mutations without any mechanism controlling the mutations.
-
"We feel guilt when we do something wrong, because God built us that way, by design, crafting and shaping us directly in his image. Our moral sense could never have been generated by natural selection from animal precursors, no remotely plausible evolutionary explanation exists for the origin of morality, and that whatever makes us moral creatures points to the handiwork of a Creator, before whom we are responsible."
-
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
Note that this could not
be an example of evolution since evolution supposedly occurs through
random mutations without any mechanism controlling the mutations.
Evolution has no such clause. As long as the life is changing its DNA to adapt to its enviroment, it's evolving. I'm not going to bother responding to your little thing about stationary-phase mutation because whether it's correct or incorrect is irrelevant.
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
"We feel guilt when we do something wrong, because God built us that way, by design, crafting and shaping us directly in his image. Our moral sense could never have been generated by natural selection from animal precursors, no remotely plausible evolutionary explanation exists for the origin of morality, and that whatever makes us moral creatures points to the handiwork of a Creator, before whom we are responsible."
I strongly disagree. Our moral sense gives us many advantages. Killing people to get what you want doesn't work very well, because then others will realize that they are potential targets and so will join up against you. Our current justice system comes in a large part from our sense of morality. It would be impossible to argue that the justice system does not help society; it's clear that it does. Considering that people benefit when society benefits, I think our sense of morality helps.
I'll use "he" as a gender-neutral pronoun in the next paragraph.
You may ask why someone would risk his life to save another. There are a few possible explanations for this. All of these are unconcious effects. He may do it so that when he is in risk of his life, the person he rescued may give back some of the saving. He may do it because it's one of his offspring. He may do it because his brain has been rewired (not with some kind of device, but through training) to interpret risking his life for another as a beneficial thing.
Because those are all unconcious effects, they can easily be imprecise and make him want to do things that would not actually be beneficial to him.
I think this (http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/sociobiology.html) site says about the same thing I am, but in a clearer fashion, and with more research into the subject.
edit: spelling
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
That is MICRO-evolution. The bacteria may become resistant to drugs, but it is still the same bacteria.
Edit: Just sorted the quote out :)
It seems to be a misconception of yours that micro-evolution is somehow different from macro-evolution. It isn't. It's the same thing. If you accept that little changes can happen through evolution, what happens when you get a lot of little changes? Yep, you get a new species.
The trick it to figure out what the little changes were in some of the more drastic large changes (dinos->birds, for example) and why they happened. New research is cropping up all the time to figure out why dinosaurs got feathers. New research is cropping up all the time to figure out why a proto-eye is useful.
Sure, evolutionists haven't figured out absolutely everything yet, but the things that haven't been figured out show promise that they will be figured out at some point in the future.
-
"We feel guilt when we do something wrong, because God built us that way, by design, crafting and shaping us directly in his image. Our moral sense could never have been generated by natural selection from animal precursors, no remotely plausible evolutionary explanation exists for the origin of morality, and that whatever makes us moral creatures points to the handiwork of a Creator, before whom we are responsible."
Now explain why criminals exist in today's world. No evolutionary explanation is needed for the question of morality; the answer is sociological. The first men were about as "moral" as the animals of today are. Morality started off as a set of mutually accepted rules more than anything else; people decided that everyone's life would become simpler if everyone cooperated to some extent by following certain rules. This especially started to gain momentum when technology began to advance rapidly and humanity became thinkers and not simply survivors. Over the millennia, cultural inertia has finely embedded these same ideas into our minds while we are growing up, and each generation passes the stuff on to the next. (same system through which religion lives on)
Also, I am the creator of that creator, so |-|4w |-|4w! :D :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Now explain why criminals exist in today's world. No evolutionary explanation is needed for the question of morality; the answer is sociological. :p
Actually, I consider criminals more as a defect, considering that they are a reasonably small percentage of the populace (I'm talking serious criminals here).
-
Humans are moral creatures because we are social creatures.
You can't maintain a group (of at least 2 people) without developing some code of conduct (e.g. morals).
One could easily say that the very basis of human morality comes all the way down from our ape-like ancestors that lived in groups (much like chimpansees do now). Studies of such chimpansee-groups have shown that ther is conflict between the individual and the group, but that in the end the individual submits to the rules of the group... or gets ostracised.
The question is of course: why do they work together? Why a group? The answer is simple: survivability. In a group the individual has more chance to survive (compare it to single-celled and multi-cellurar organisms if you like), so in order to stay alive longer the individual needs to keep the group alive.
So it all boils down to instinct, pragmatism and common sense.
Oh yes, a sidenote. Morality as set by God would be static, definitive. Reality and historical studies have shown this to be false. Morality too adapts to new situations, but only (!!!) if it is beneficial to the group as a whole.
-
Actually, I consider criminals more as a defect, considering that they are a reasonably small percentage of the populace (I'm talking serious criminals here).
Well, one could also question how Hitler was able to convince so many millions of the morality of his ideas with such ease; just goes to show that, as Crazy Ivan said, the concept of morality changes with the conditions needed for the time period. ;)
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Well, one could also question how Hitler was able to convince so many millions of the morality of his ideas with such ease; just goes to show that, as Crazy Ivan said, the concept of morality changes with the conditions needed for the time period. ;)
:D we all know that fear-mongering can change quite a lot of morals :D
-
It is true that the population was partially controlled by fear, but the majority of the people undoubtedly liked what he was doing and promised to do. (check out The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich :D)
Also, why would this creator make defective humans in the first place if he had "unlimited power?" :p
-
a a species of nuturing mammals, community morals are instituted to bring stability to the family in order to promote the growth of offspring. if everything was chaotic, then the children would have difficulty surviving and more genetic libes would die off because of the deaths of children.
by establishing moral codes and behaving according to them, a society, be they raindeer or humans, better ensures the chance that multiple genetic lines will continue to exist.
the fact of an ingrained moral code is even easier. those that go with the community and abide by its rules are more likely to procure a mate then those that rebel. how many women actually WANT to date criminals? ingrained "conscience" was EVOLVED by some genetic lines as a means of ensuring that the children would procure mates and thus continue the line. those without such evolutions died off because the community rejected them and they were left without mates.
granted some managed to find mates in some way, either through deceit or by mating with other rebels, thus you wind up with people without any inherited sense of morals.
like me >)~ :devilidea :D
-
*gasp*
DISOG!!!!!
-
the biggest difference between theists and atheists is that theists have an unending trust in Deductive reasioning and Atheists have little or none and prefer to use inductive reasoning
oh incase you don't know
Deductive Reasoning
Major Premise ["Big Truth" must be universal, instant note that opinions can be stuck in here and form the weakness of Deductive reasoning]
Minor Premise [Specific example, Predicate of MajPrem is Subject MinPrem]
Conclusion
an example
Gravity draws objects togeather.
The Sun and the Earth are objects.
There is a gravitational pull between them.
that was sound Deductive Reasoning here's an example of unsound deductive reasoning [crap.. even thinking of an example is hard because i don't think like this]
Surviving Cancer is an act of God [ie miracle]
Bob survived cancer
It was a miracle
there are MANY errors in that... first is it's an opinion [not universally accepted MajPrem] second Predicate doesn't switch to Subject
wtf is that conclusion?
-----------------------------------
Inductive
Moving from expirience [specifics] to generalities
Yesterday I ate ****** and today I was sick, the last time I ate ***** I was sick the next day, come to think of it everytime I eat ****** I am sick the next day.
Everytime I eat ****** I become sick.
I shouldn't eat ******.
much more sound wouldn't you say?
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Also, why would this creator make defective humans in the first place if he had "unlimited power?" :p
Why create something to love you without giving it the choice to love you? If it didnt have a choice, then it wouldnt really love you would it? We had a choice, we screwed up, and we're born screwed up... well, I'm sure you've heard the rest of the story plenty of times and I've made my point now.. :)
-
the biggest difference between theists and atheists is that theists have an unending trust in Deductive reasioning and Atheists have little or none and prefer to use inductive reasoning
Well, I'm not too sure about that. Inductive reasoning can be faulty at times because it is based on experimental evidence alone and therefore may include errors, while deductive reasoning is the basis of all logic, but requires starting assumptions to get anywhere. They are both essential for science, though. ;) I would say that theists have an unending trust in their assumptions for no real reason, not even to circumvent difficulties. :p (as in the "flawed reasoning" example you posted)
Why create something to love you without giving it the choice to love you? If it didnt have a choice, then it wouldnt really love you would it? We had a choice, we screwed up, and we're born screwed up... well, I'm sure you've heard the rest of the story plenty of times and I've made my point now.. :)
So now this god desires love? (and people tell me he is above humans :p ) Why cannot he simply modify his own brain so that he feels it all the time? Why did he need to create these people which do not work very well?
-
Originally posted by Ulala
Why create something to love you without giving it the choice to love you? If it didnt have a choice, then it wouldnt really love you would it? We had a choice, we screwed up, and we're born screwed up... well, I'm sure you've heard the rest of the story plenty of times and I've made my point now.. :)
Where is this love?!
People are flying airplanes into buildings and saying its the will of God
People are being terrorized constantly for praying to a different invisible man.
People have waged entire wars over square miles of worthless dirt that just happen to have some kind of religious signifigance.
You show me proof of this love becuase I don't see it.
-
Well, that's just human stupidity
Note it's 2:30am and I probably won't make that much since
And why haven't any of you literalists proven to me that you do really know the way evolution (supposedly :rolleyes: ) works, I honestly think that no one who truly understands it doesn't believe it.
from you're coments I am guessing that you were educated (incorectly) that evolution is ether
A) totaly random
B) has some sort of internal guidance
or
C) things sudenly sprout new arms, eyes, stuff like that
Morality is a very very good evolutionary strategy (one which we are not alone in developing), compassion is probably one of the most important features for us becoming the most dominant animals on earth, the strong family bonds insure our children survive and are healthy, our communities have division of labor which allows us to develop agriculture and technology,
I am sure you will agree with me that a community that has no moral code and no common beliefs has less of a chance of surviving in a harsh environment that some community that strives to help each other and work together
An interesting note you can see the laws of evolution at work in your very own religion, as in the old testament God is all powerful and deals out strict laws, gives out a set of punishments for things we would consider trivial (hope you aren't wearing a cotton wool blend:)) but if you look at the situation, the old Hebrews were in they needed to have a separate identity for themselves and they needed a war god and that message was the most successful, as time went on you can see changes, the most evident is the new testament were now we are to love everyone and everything, the Jews were a concurred people and this new message grew popular throughout the world because it left more people happier and led to more compassion and caring, which as I have pointed out are good things from an evolutionary point (as well as other points), unfortunately this new widespread religion gets hijacked and is used to control people :sigh:
The thing is, one of the things I think is realy clever about the bible it's first two chapters directly contradict each other if you are reading them in a literal view, this is to make the point (in my opinion and interpretation) that the bible is not a book of literal truths, but one of moral truths, and that the Bible and Christianity (not the organized establishments) are really very good ideals to strive for in you're life,
Unfortunately many people get too caut up in the stupid literalist conflicts,
and between religions this has caused more wars than I can think of, in spite of the fact that the basic message of the religions is generally the same, be compassionate to others
Also let me see the sources for the bacteria communicating with viruses and plants thing, I am aware of some level of this but I don't know the extent of it
-
"From the facts above enumerated it is clear that certain fishes come spontaneously into existence, not being derived from eggs or from copulation. Such fish as are neither oviparous nor viviparous arise all either from mud or from sand and from decayed matter that rises thence as scum; for instance the so-called froth of the small fry comes out of sandy ground."
Modern readers find this quotation from Aristotle amusing. This is an example of how science can easily go wrong. Despite evidence in the 17th century to the contrary such ideas were finally laid to rest only from the work of Louis Pasteur.
Two good reasons for taking young earth creationism seriously and for not relagating it to the same shelf as speculations about the lost city of Atlantis are as follows.
Firstly, young earth creationism has grown and developed intellectually over time. One need only compare seminal works such as the Genesis Flood published in 1961, and with the papers coming out of the last International Conference on Creationism in 1998, and other examples I have given in previous pages. These papers manifest a great increase in the sophistication of arguments being deployed. If creationism is a pseudoscience, it is only one we are aware of that has grown in this manner.
Second, young earth creationism is intellectually exciting. It has a ton of empirical evidence already in its favour (see the collected Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism ). The pivotal fact is that good and interesting science can now be done in a young earth framework.
-
The Bible says that morality is a result of choices that people make, and not the result of some conditioned evolutionary response. Is there any experimental evidence supporting this viewpoint? In a newly released book, Three Seductive Ideas, Harvard University psychologist, Jerome Kagan, makes the claim (and backs it up with experimental evidence) that humans are radically different from every other species of life on earth. Dr. Kagan refutes the ideas of evolutionary psychologists, including "infant determinism" (the idea that all human behavior is set by age 2) hedonism (the idea that all human behavior is motivated by a desire to maximize pleasure and minimize pain), and "abstractionism" (the idea that all human behavior is controlled by a limited set of laws or rules). He points out that men who committed terrible atrocities had loving parents during their childhood years and that "evolutionary arguments are used to cleanse greed, promiscuity, and abuse of stepchildren of moral taint." Instead, Dr. Kagan shows that humans are a special creation, endowed with a spiritual nature, and motivated by a desire to maintain a feeling of virtue, which is unique among sentient animals. He points out that there are no non-human animal models for human pride, shame, and guilt. Humans also appreciate the difference between moral right and wrong. According to Dr. Kagan, "Not even the cleverest ape could be conditioned to be angry upon seeing one animal steal food from another." According to a recent review of the book in Science, "The idea of the duality of human nature (of meaning over and above mechanism, or mind over and above mechanism, of angel over and above beast), and of the remarkable discontinuity of human nature from everything that came before, is alive and well for Kagan precisely because he has such a high regard for facts."12
-
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
Aristotle
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
science
Aristotle != science.
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
Two good reasons for taking young earth creationism seriously and for not relagating it to the same shelf as speculations about the lost city of Atlantis are as follows.
I don't put them on the same shelf. I find the speculations about the lost city of Atlantis more likely (not the more insane stuff, just the speculation that the myth may have been based on a real city). Troy was thought to be fiction until it was found.
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
Firstly, young earth creationism has grown and developed intellectually over time. One need only compare seminal works such as the Genesis Flood published in 1961, and with the papers coming out of the last International Conference on Creationism in 1998, and other examples I have given in previous pages. These papers manifest a great increase in the sophistication of arguments being deployed. If creationism is a pseudoscience, it is only one we are aware of that has grown in this manner.
Your argument is as such:
Premise: Pseudo-science does not grow.
Premise: Creationism has grown.
Conclusion: Creationism is not pseudo-science.
You have not established your first premise. It seems to me that pseudo-science has grown in many ways over time. UFOs are generally regarded as pseudo-science, and yet they are a relatively recent invention (1940s/1950s, somewhere around there I think).
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
Second, young earth creationism is intellectually exciting. It has a ton of empirical evidence already in its favour (see the collected Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism ). The pivotal fact is that good and interesting science can now be done in a young earth framework.
Premise: Young earth creationism is exciting.
Premise: Pseudo-science is not exciting.
Conclusion: Young earth creationism is not a pseudo-science.
I would disagree with both those premises. Young earth creationism does not excite me. Pseudo-science can be exciting, at least until it's proven incorrect; remember cold fusion.
-
Like most people, I grew up believing in evolution. It was taught at school. There was that Dawkins dude. But after reading books such as M. Behe (1996)- Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, I wanted to find out the truth. If you people want to know the truth, why don't you people try and find all about Christianity, evolution, and creationism?
Me personally, I find it hard to believe that anyone who has read Mere Christianity? by C. S. Lewis with a geniune search for the truth could not become a Christian. (Mere Christianity is a book about Christianity, not about evolution or creationism as such).
-
Modern readers find this quotation from Aristotle amusing. This is an example of how science can easily go wrong. Despite evidence in the 17th century to the contrary such ideas were finally laid to rest only from the work of Louis Pasteur.
And that's excactly what makes science science. It changes. Creationists believe the world was created by god, and won't change their opinion even if the whole world shouted "You're wrong!" at their faces. Once again, if someone makes a theory which has more evidence that evolution, then I believe it's more true than evolution. Creotionism isn't.
The Bible says that morality is a result of choices that people make, and not the result of some conditioned evolutionary response
It doesn't matter what the bible says, it's just a collection of stories by a 2000-year old nomad tribe.
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
Firstly, young earth creationism has grown and developed intellectually over time. One need only compare seminal works such as the Genesis Flood published in 1961, and with the papers coming out of the last International Conference on Creationism in 1998, and other examples I have given in previous pages. These papers manifest a great increase in the sophistication of arguments being deployed. If creationism is a pseudoscience, it is only one we are aware of that has grown in this manner.
Second, young earth creationism is intellectually exciting. It has a ton of empirical evidence already in its favour (see the collected Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism ). The pivotal fact is that good and interesting science can now be done in a young earth framework.
There's one problem with this evidence. The creationists believe they know how things are, and then desperately try to find things to support those beliefs.
You see, I've heard someone say, that before the big flood(or whatever it's called in english, the one with Noah's ark) there was a large amount of water in the atmosphere. Indeed, if this was how it happended, the flood would have been possible. However, there is no evidence saying that the atmosphere once was like this. They just needed an explanation on how the flood was possible. And that's not science, it's speculation.
That was just one example, but most of the creationists evidence is just like that.
BTW, I understood you believe in young earth creationism? Now, my english is a bit rusty, but does that mean you think the earth was created not so long ago? Say 5000-10000 years ago? If this is the case, then you must see that the flood(in the way bible describes it) is completely impossible, and therefore, the earths fossile layers could not have been created by the flood.
Edit: language
-
10 reasons to believe (http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/rtb/)
In this site, there are: -
10 reasons to believe in the Christian Faith (http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/rtb/2rsn/)
10 reasons to believe in the Bible (http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/rtb/6rsn/)
10 reasons to believe in the existence of God (http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/rtb/1rsn/)
10 reasons to believe in a God who allows suffering (http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/rtb/4rsn/)
10 reasons to believe there is life after death (http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/rtb/7rsn/)
10 reasons to believe in Christ rather than religion (http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/rtb/3rsn/)
10 reasons to believe Christ Rose from the Dead (http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/rtb/8rsn/)
10 reasons to believe God became a man (http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/rtb/9rsn/)
10 reasons why Real Christians can look like they're not ........... (http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/rtb/5rsn/)
-
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
The Bible says that morality is a result of choices that people make, and not the result of some conditioned evolutionary response. Is there any experimental evidence supporting this viewpoint? In a newly released book, Three Seductive Ideas, Harvard University psychologist, Jerome Kagan, makes the claim (and backs it up with experimental evidence) that
Nice, you reference a book that I have absolutely no desire to read, and then proceed to provide an incomplete summary of what it says.
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
humans are radically different from every other species of life on earth.
You think? :rolleyes:
Other species don't generally use computers, drive cars, or have arguments like this. Of course humans are different.
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
Dr. Kagan refutes the ideas of evolutionary psychologists, including "infant determinism" (the idea that all human behavior is set by age 2)
Erm, I don't see this as fundamental to evolutionary theory. Of course human behavior isn't set by age 2. That's obvious.
What exactly is his point? (http://nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html)
On the other hand, if you ever read or watch a biography of a person, it's obvious that what occured to them in their childhood had a drastic affect on the way they acted later in life.
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
hedonism (the idea that all human behavior is motivated by a desire to maximize pleasure and minimize pain),
Although I can't see the book, I'd guess this is based upon a distorted view of what provides pleasure and what provides pain. Pure physical pleasure and pure physical pain are not the only punishment and reward system that humans have.
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
and "abstractionism" (the idea that all human behavior is controlled by a limited set of laws or rules).
I can't comment without knowing more about "abstractionism" or the arguments he makes to shoot it down.
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
He points out that men who committed terrible atrocities had loving parents during their childhood years and that "evolutionary arguments are used to cleanse greed, promiscuity, and abuse of stepchildren of moral taint."
Riiiight... (http://nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-consequences.html)
Originally posted by Blitz_LightningInstead, Dr. Kagan shows that humans are a special creation, endowed with a spiritual nature, and motivated by a desire to maintain a feeling of virtue, which is unique among sentient animals. He points out that there are no non-human animal models for human pride, shame, and guilt.
I'm going to fire back your quote at you: "humans are radically different from every other species of life on earth."
First of all, how could we even tell if an animal was showing pride, shame, or guilt? After all, they would likely have a different way of expressing it. Second, most primates do not have TVs. This doesn't mean that it's impossible that we evolved from them and yet build and use TVs.
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
Humans also appreciate the difference between moral right and wrong. According to Dr. Kagan, "Not even the cleverest ape could be conditioned to be angry upon seeing one animal steal food from another."
"humans are radically different from every other species of life on earth."
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
According to a recent review of the book in Science, "The idea of the duality of human nature (of meaning over and above mechanism, or mind over and above mechanism, of angel over and above beast), and of the remarkable discontinuity of human nature from everything that came before, is alive and well for Kagan precisely because he has such a high regard for facts."12
It seems to me the book isn't about disproving evolution, anyway. It's about showing that humans are very distinct mentally from those which we evolved from. This is reasonable. I don't see why you put this forward as evidence for Creationism.
-
Many Christians maintain that the Bible says that the flood account of Genesis requires an interpretation that states that the waters of the flood covered the entire earth. If you read our English Bibles, you will probably come to this conclusion if you don't read the text too closely and if you fail to consider the rest of your Bible. Like most other Genesis stories, the flood account is found in more places than just Genesis. If you read the sidebar, you will discover that Psalms 104 directly eliminates any possibility of the flood being global (see Psalms 104-9 - Does it refer to the Original Creation or the Flood?). In order to accept a global flood, you must reject Psalms 104 and the inerrancy of the Bible. If you like to solve mysteries on your own, you might want to read the flood account first and find the biblical basis for a local flood.
Give me a break! The Bible says that the water covered the whole earth... Really?
When you read an English translation of the biblical account of the flood, you will undoubtedly notice many words and verses that seem to suggest that the waters covered the entire earth.2 However, one should note that today we look at everything from a global perspective, whereas the Bible usually refers to local geography. You may not be able to determine this fact from our English translations, so we will look at the original Hebrew, which is the word of God. The Hebrew words which are translated as "whole earth" or "all the earth" are kol (Strong's number H3605), which means "all," and erets (Strong's number H776), which means "earth," "land," "country," or "ground." We don't need to look very far in Genesis (Genesis 2) before we find the Hebrew words kol erets.
The name of the first is Pishon; it flows around the whole [kol] land [erets] of Havilah, where there is gold. (Genesis 2:11)
And the name of the second river is Gihon; it flows around the whole [kol] land [erets] of Cush. (Genesis 2:13)
Obviously, the description of kol erets is modified by the name of the land, indicating a local area from the context. In fact, the term kol erets is nearly always used in the Old Testament to describe a local area, instead of our entire planet.3
The "whole earth" often refers to the people not geography
However, there are many more examples of where kol erets is used without reference to any specific land, although the interpretation clearly indicates a local area. For example, in Genesis 11 (the Tower of Babel) the text says, "the whole [kol] earth [erets] used the same language."4 We know that this reference is not really to the earth at all (and certainly not to the "whole earth"), but to the people of the earth, who all lived in one geographic location. It wasn't until later that God scattered the people over the face of the earth.5 There are many other examples of where kol erets actually refers to people rather than the geography of the "whole earth".
This extract is from this site (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html)
-
Blitz, stop spamming with links to sites containing 5 cent philosophy, and answer to other peoples posts.
-
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
Many Christians maintain that the Bible says that the flood account of Genesis requires an interpretation that states that the waters of the flood covered the entire earth...]
This leads to an obvious guestion, if the flood didn't cover the whole world, then how did the fossile layers get there? :)
And what makes you think english bible is any closer to the truth than the Finnish(my home country) one? Actually, I believe it was translated to finnish _earlier_ than english(though not 100% sure about this), which would make it even closer to the original.
-
NotDefault obviously hasnt been reading the last few pages... those people were saying that morality comes from evolution.
The last post of mine was to say that humans have morality only, that is one of the reasons why we are so different to other animals. My last post gave a reason why morality could'nt come from evolution. Read stuff in context, plz!
-
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
10 reasons to believe (http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/rtb/)
In this site, there are: -
10 reasons to believe in the Christian Faith (http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/rtb/2rsn/)
10 reasons to believe in the Bible (http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/rtb/6rsn/)
10 reasons to believe in the existence of God (http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/rtb/1rsn/)
10 reasons to believe in a God who allows suffering (http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/rtb/4rsn/)
10 reasons to believe there is life after death (http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/rtb/7rsn/)
10 reasons to believe in Christ rather than religion (http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/rtb/3rsn/)
10 reasons to believe Christ Rose from the Dead (http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/rtb/8rsn/)
10 reasons to believe God became a man (http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/rtb/9rsn/)
10 reasons why Real Christians can look like they're not ........... (http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/rtb/5rsn/)
Give me a break. That's ridiculous. I started looking at it but gave up when I realized that it was only quoting the Bible.
Saying the Bible says that such and such was healed by Jesus, therefore Jesus is the son of God, therefore the Bible is accurate, therefore you should believe in the Christian faith is stupid.
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
I find it hard to believe that anyone who has read Mere Christianity? by C. S. Lewis with a geniune search for the truth could not become a Christian.
Obviously. You're a Christian. I find it hard to believe anyone could read a book on evolution and not realize that Creationism is bogus.
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
*various things about the flood
Erm, the flood may have happened (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_923000/923400.stm). That doesn't make the Bible correct.
-
Originally posted by NotDefault
Erm, the flood may have happened (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_923000/923400.stm). That doesn't make the Bible correct.
But not in the way the bible describes it.
-
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
NotDefault obviously hasnt been reading the last few pages... those people were saying that morality comes from evolution.
Actually, I have read the last few pages, and guess what, I was the one who said that morality comes from evolution (well, maybe "those people" did as well). Nothing you have said disproves that! I find it very hard to figure out what you're trying to argue against in your posts because you post pages upon pages of links to irrelevant sites and information and you never quote anyone you're trying to argue against.
I'll assume you're talking about the "Three Seductive Ideas" book; if so, human morality being unique doesn't mean it didn't evolve! Most of the changes leading up to humans had to do with changing our brains. On the other hand, maybe the book did present arguments against it, but you just failed to mention them. In that case, shut up about how I didn't read your post until you provide said arguments.
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
The last post of mine was to say that humans have morality only, that is one of the reasons why we are so different to other animals. My last post gave a reason why morality could'nt come from evolution.
It did not give a reason why morality couldn't come from evolution! Read your own posts before you complain about me not reading them! :mad:
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
Read stuff in context, plz!
Maybe if you didn't post massive amounts of irrelevant information, I'd have more time to carefully analyze each of your posts to figure out what you meant by it. Until then, I'm heading for bed.
-
Originally posted by Pera
But not in the way the bible describes it.
Yep. I didn't realize you were talking about him saying that the flood explains the fossil record. This debate nearly moves faster than I can read it and post about it...
-
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
The last post of mine was to say that humans have morality only, that is one of the reasons why we are so different to other animals. My last post gave a reason why morality could'nt come from evolution. Read stuff in context, plz!
Ha, you're making me laugh. Go and study animal behaviour. A species would not survive for very long if they randomly attacked each other without restraint.
-
You people haven't yet posted anything contrary to the evidence for a young earth on pages 27, 28... not one whit...
Here's a sample of what I posted... :)
First of all, about all the "radiometric dating". Only the uranium-lead method of dating is the method that gives all those billions of years. But it is now known that radioactive thorium (the stuff that is always found in the ores that are used to date the age of the world) itself changes normal lead into radiogenic lead when it decays (which is the lead produced by the decay of uranium into lead, which ratio of which (lead-uranium) is used to date the earth). Now when you consider that uranium emits alpha particles (helium nuclei) when it decays into lead, you would ask, where is all the supposed helium? The amount of helium found on earth and in the atmosphere, supposing that it was made just from this decay, is nowhere near the amount it should be if the earth was billions of years old. The amount of helium found now suggests to scientists that the earth is <10000 years old. Now you might say that all the helium escapes from the earth. This is not true. Only hydrogen is light enough to escape the earth, for those who study physics would realize. In fact, earth gains helium when travelling through the space dust around the earth. And this amount gained this way is about the same as from decay of uranium. Thus, the amount of helium is only gaining.
Another radiometric dating is C14. Did you know that the amount of C14 is now known not to be at equilibrium, as it should have after only 30 000 yrs? The rate of creation of C14 is about 25% more than it is destroyed. Tracing this rate back to a time in which the amount of C14 is zero, it gives a date of the earth as <10000 yrs!
Fred Hoyle (the man who coined "the big bang" phrase) stated that the probability of the making of the simplest possible organism by chance would be around 10^7800 (this is for an organism with 200 genes, while the most simple one known has 300). The universe has only 10^80 particles, and only 10^18 seconds have elapsed, according to the big bang model. This is a truly staggering figure. Now, this is even only a very conservative estimate. Neutral scientists on this issue have even suggested values such as 10^10500!.
We can also consider the strengths of the weak and strong nuclear force. If either of these forces were off by a fraction of a percent, then either all the elements that could exist would be either hydrogen or helium, as all the elements such as lithium and beyond would be unstable. Or, on the other hand, hydrogen would automatically merge to form helium, all carbon to form heavier elements, etc.
If the amount of matter in the universe was to be over by a trillionth of what it is, big bang theorists say that the universe would have started contracting before the inflationary epoch. If it was a fraction less, galaxies, clusters, etc would be impossible.
Now don't tell me you'll suggest natural selection in these properties of the universe?
-
Extract from this site (http://www.trueorigin.org//dating.asp#Carbon%2014%20dating)
Of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth, 90 percent point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists. A few of them follow.
Evidence for a rapid formation of geological strata, as in the biblical flood. Some of the evidences are: lack of erosion between rock layers supposedly separated in age by many millions of years; lack of disturbance of rock strata by biological activity (worms, roots, etc.); lack of soil layers; polystrate fossils (which traverse several rock layers vertically -- these could not have stood vertically for eons of time while they slowly got buried); thick layers of "rock" bent without fracturing, indicating that the rock was all soft when bent; and more. For more, see books by geologists Morris[26] and Austin.[27]
Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years -- certainly not the 65 Ma since the last dinosaurs lived, according to evolutionists.[28]
The earth's magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it looks like it is less than 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the flood year and fluctuations shortly after would have caused the field energy to drop even faster.[29]
Radioactive decay releases helium into the atmosphere, but not much is escaping. The total amount in the atmosphere is 1/2000th of that expected if the universe is really billions of years old. This helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it has not had time to escape -- certainly not billions of years.[30]
A supernova is an explosion of a massive star -- the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few moderately old (Stage 1) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic Clouds. This is just what we would expect for "young" galaxies that have not existed long enough for wide expansion.[31]
The moon is slowly receding for the earth at about 4 centimeters (1.5 inches) per year, and this rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance from the earth. This gives a maximum age of the moon, not the actual age. This is far too young for evolutionists who claim the moon is 4.6 billion years old. It is also much younger than the radiometric "dates" assigned to moon rocks.[32]
Salt is entering the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the sea could not be more than 62 Ma years old -- far younger than the billions of years believed by the evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age.[33]
-
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
Only the uranium-lead method of dating is the method that gives all those billions of years. But it is now known that radioactive thorium (the stuff that is always found in the ores that are used to date the age of the world) itself changes normal lead into radiogenic lead when it decays (which is the lead produced by the decay of uranium into lead, which ratio of which (lead-uranium) is used to date the earth).
That's misleading and almost an outright lie. Yes, Thorium is a problem, which is why, when dating rocks using this method, we need to be careful that the rock hasn't taken up any thorium. The places where it is least likely to have done is in caves, deep water and land fall areas. Now why don't you focus your amazing critical thinking skills on the Bible, which has thousands of faults which you seem to be able to ignore :rolleyes:
-
A survey of the 15,000 radiocarbon dates published through the year 1969 in the publication, Radiocarbon, revealed the following significant facts:27 a. Of the dates of 9671 specimens of trees, animals, and man, only 1146 or about 12 percent have radiocarbon ages greater than 12,530 years.
b. Only three of the 15,000 reported ages are listed as “infinite.”
c. Some samples of coal, oil, and natural gas, all supposedly many millions of years old, have radiocarbon ages of less than 50,000 years.
d. Deep ocean deposits supposed to contain remains of the most primitive life forms are dated within 40,000 years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it is interesting that so few specimens have old dates, suggesting a rapid increase in the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere.
On the same subject, some fossils from the Paluxy River are “anomalous” as well. Carbonized (burnt) wood was discovered in Cretaceous limestone, and dated to 12,800 to 45,000 YBP.
Coffin gives quite a bit of evidence from increases of C14 ages with depth that the concentration of C14 has increased rapidly in recent years, making C14 dates too old, especially after about 4000 years ago. The fact that C14 is still increasing in the atmosphere shows that the earth recently went through some kind of a catastrophe, and this increase is even admitted by some evolutionists.
It has been claimed that Carbon 14 dating was revolutionized in 1969 or so. But it remains to establish how much in error the old dates were. It seems to be a common pattern that when dating methods are revised, we are told how inaccurate the old methods were, but are not told how inaccurate the current methods are.
A number of people requested references for my statements about young carbon 14 dates for coal and oil and fossils. Here is what I found at http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider this: if a specimen is older than 50,000 years, it has been calculated that it would have such a small amount of C14 that for practical purposes it would show an infinite radiocarbon age. So it was expected that most deposits such as coal, gas, etc. would be undatable by this method. In fact, of thousands of dates in the journals Radiocarbon and Science to 1968, only a handful were classed “undatable” - most were of the sort which should have been in this category. This is especially remarkable with samples of coal and gas supposedly produced in the Carboniferous period 300 million years ago! Some examples of dates which contradict orthodox (evolutionary) views:
Coal from Russia from the “Pennsylvanian,” supposedly 300 million years old, was dated at 1,680 years. (Radiocarbon, vol. 8, 1966).
Natural gas from Alabama and Mississippi (Cretaceous and Eocene, respectively) should have been 50 million to 135 million years old, yet C14 gave dates of 30,000 to 34,000 years, respectively. (Radiocarbon, vol. 8, 1966. Many of the earlier radiocarbon dates on objects such as coal and gas, which should be undatable, have been attributed to contamination from, for example, workers’ fingerprints, creationist researchers are currently working on the construction of an apparatus, using existing technology, to look for very low levels of C14 activity in, for example, coal after excluding contamination. Such low-level activity would not be expected on the basis of old earth theory, and so is not looked for at present.)
Bones of a sabre-toothed tiger from the LaBrea tar pits (near Los Angeles), supposedly 100,000-one million years old, gave a date of 28,000 years. (Radiocarbon, vol. 10, 1968)
-
Originally posted by Pera
1. And that's excactly what makes science science. It changes. Creationists believe the world was created by god, and won't change their opinion even if the whole world shouted "You're wrong!" at their faces. Once again, if someone makes a theory which has more evidence that evolution, then I believe it's more true than evolution. Creotionism isn't.
2. It doesn't matter what the bible says, it's just a collection of stories by a 2000-year old nomad tribe.
1. So what you are saying here is. That one guy (can't remember his name) said the earth revolved around the sun instead of the sun revolving around the earth. Now what you said to Blitz Lightning was that what the masses say is true is true. So back when that guy said differently to what was believed he was wrong. But now we know today that he was right!
It will be the same with God! You will one day bow on your knee before him and confess that He is Lord!
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
It will be the same with God! You will one day bow on your knee before him and confess that He is Lord!
Yes, it's possible(you weren't excpecting me to say that, didn't you ;) )
BUT:
That only happens, if someone scientifically proves gods existance. So how about going out there, and trying to prove that there is a god, instead of arguing about it. Just remember two things:
1. Bible is no good.
2. Fighting against evolution is no good
I've almost given up my hopes of possibly having a discussion with this Blitz guy, but let's try anyway. Two things for you too:
1. Have you checked out every single one of those books you are referring to? If not, how can you be sure that website is correct? It's possible(and very likely in fact) that the content of those books and studies are higly mispresentated in that site.
2. Once again, though now I already know it's not going to help: "JUST BECAUSE THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS NOT FOOLPROOF, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT CREATIONISM IS CORRECT, DO NOT WASTE TIME ARGUING AGAINST EVOLUTION, BUT INSTEAD FIND SOME PROOF FOR CREATIONISM"
Thank you :)
-
Just something I found in the net. And less OT than you might think:
Ovulation vs. Cretinism
Excerpt from Georgia Skeptic Electronic Newsletter, Fall 1993
Author Unknown
Two different theories exist concerning the origin of children: the theory of sexual reproduction and the theory of the stork. Many people believe in the theory of sexual reproduction because they have been taught this theory at school. In reality, however, many of the world's leading scientists are in favour of the theory of the stork. If the theory of sexual reproduction is taught in schools, it must only be taught as a theory and not as the truth. Alternative theories, such as the theory of the stork, must also be taught. Evidence supporting the theory of the stork include the following:
1.It is a scientifically established fact that the stork does exist. This can be confirmed by every ornithologist.
2.The alleged human fetal development contains several features that the theory of sexual reproduction is unable to explain.
3.The theory of sexual reproduction implies that a child is approximately nine months old at birth. This is an absurd claim, since everyone knows that a newborn child is newborn.
4.According to the theory of sexual reproduction, children are a result of sexual intercourse. There are, however, many well-documented cases where sexual intercourse has not led to the birth of a child.
5.Statistical studies in the Netherlands have indicated a positive correlation between the birth rate and the number of storks. Both are declining.
6.The theory of the stork can be investigated by rigorous scientific methods. The only assumption involved is that children are delivered by the stork.
Does this look like familiar? ;)
-
Did I mention at the start of this thread that I'm a Perl Monk?
-
Looks like Blitzlightning here knows as much about science as his buddy, in other words too little to be of importance.
I don't think I've ever seen so much bull in such a small space. Like I said before: only fanatics would even assume that science is out to get them.
Well, boohoo, it is not. On the contrary: some of the most important scientific thoughts have been fomulated by people who believed (not in the fanatic way of of the creationists: that's a disgrace to humanity). Examples of these are the Big Bang: postulated by an Italian cleric around the beginning of the 20th century; and genetics: the inventor of which was an Austrian cleric somewhere in the 19th century.
Conclusion: even mainstream religion has moved beyond the fanatic and detrimental view that our "friends" still hold. View, to be frank, lead to excesses like we're seeing in Saudi Arabia and until recently in Afghanistan.
Both of you Hotsnoj and Blitz_Lightning) claim to have been in contac with real science before you were swayed to the Dark Side... er... creationism; after such a statement you go on telling us about how you changed your mind after it came in conflict wit your religious views. Well -newsflash- that is no the mindset of independent thought, but of a mind imprisoned by dogma.
Very much like the minds of the people that forced Galileo Galilei to abjure his theory, imprisoned Copernicus in his house just for writing down what he saw, burned both Giordani Bruno who first stated that the sun was just a star amongst billions, and Vesalius for studying human corpses to get real medical data... These people were the people of the Church and they too couldn't accept that reality was different from biblical dogma. It was them who fought against science, not the other way around. Science never had the intention of fighting christianity, it only had (and still has) the goal of providing humanity with real data/knowledge. And sadly fo bible-thumpers around the world this data renders biblical dogma invalid.
P.S. as for morals: like said before: go study the behavior of animals. You'll see that we're very much alike, even with all our technology and culture.
P.P.S. Remember that the bible is nothing more than the bundling of the myths and legends of a nomadic people that had become sedentary. Now if we assume these myths and legends, adn in particular genesis, to be true then we have to accept that every other myth explaining the origins of the Universe is true also. Therefore I now claim that the Earth is giant turtle carried by four elephants. this must be true because my gods have said so!
P.P.P.S. Since you like reading the Bible so much I order ou to read it again but change every word 'God/Jahweh/E.T.' with the word 'Fairy'. There you'll learn that it was a fairy that created the world in six days... Sounds ridiculous? Well, prove that it wasn't a fairy then!
-
Originally posted by Top Gun
Did I mention at the start of this thread that I'm a Perl Monk?
You too? :D
When's the next service? And who do we sacrifice?
-
It is really pathetic when people try to use science to explain religion. :p :D
Blitz, stop spamming with links to sites containing 5 cent philosophy, and answer to other peoples posts.
I think he is not doing that because he cannot think of answers to anything others respond with. :p I think someone said this earlier (maybe you): when these people cannot think of an answer to something, they just move to another topic. :p
2. Once again, though now I already know it's not going to help: "JUST BECAUSE THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS NOT FOOLPROOF, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT CREATIONISM IS CORRECT, DO NOT WASTE TIME ARGUING AGAINST EVOLUTION, BUT INSTEAD FIND SOME PROOF FOR CREATIONISM"
I wonder if he will see it this time... :D
Does this look like familiar? ;)
LOL, as I said before, there is an organization for almost every crackpot idea these days, especially with the advent of the internet. Check out the Flat Earth Society page; it is just like this thing. :D
I'm not going to argue a whole lot here unless Sesquipedelian comes back, as he is definitely worth arguing with, but these other guys appear to real morons. :p :D
-
CP5670 i said deductive is more prone to error, not that inductive was without error
Origionally from Blitz_Lightning
Second, young earth creationism is intellectually exciting. It has a ton of empirical evidence already in its favour (see the collected Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism ). The pivotal fact is that good and interesting science can now be done in a young earth framework.
show me this evidence, and it better be indepentantly confirmable
Origionally from Blitz_Lightning
The Bible says that morality is a result of choices that people make, and not the result of some conditioned evolutionary response.
nobody said it was an evolutionary "Response". Primates are social creatures though, and the ones that have genes that keep them following the rules of the group are going to stay in the group and breed. Social evolutionary pressure - from withing the species. Sort of like many of us skinny people being disgusted by obese people.
btw Blitz - the rest of your arguement doesn't follow - and infact contradicts itself.. the terrorist with 'loving parents' supports hedonism. The terrorist is somehow getting pleasure out of causing people pain.
Origionally from Blitz_Lightning
Like most people, I grew up believing in evolution. It was taught at school.
your word choice betrays you - evolution isn't something you 'believe' in.. it's something that is supported by testable evidence - evidence that can be tested by any scientist - creationism on the other had has zero testable evidence, just a whole crapload of logic arguements with massive fallacies
BTW Blitz on all your "10 reasonings..." SOMETHING CANNOT USE ITSELF TO SUPPORT ITSELF, and all other arguements are AD HOM! there is NO EVIDENCE THERE
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
who do we sacrifice?
ASP ans IIS users: for Blasphemy, we tie them between two Camels and then chant.
-
You people haven't yet posted anything contrary to the evidence for a young earth on pages 27, 28... not one whit...
when these people cannot think of an answer to something, they just move to another topic.
ding ding ding, we have a winner!!
you have posted SOOO much unfounded crap we only have time to go after that wich we are currently discussing, now do you want to stick with this or something else, and keep arguing it untill one of us is proven right
of course science has an advantage, we can conceed that we don't totaly understand something, other evedence will step in and hold our positions up,
you on the other hand rely wholy on the Bibble's absolute and total unquestionable reliability, if you concede that any point is inacurate, that disqualifys all you're evedence,
so when you know you've been backed into a corner you change the subject,
I think we should stay on the morality being evolved thing, but if you want to despute the age of the earth, we can do that
-
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
Extract from this site (http://www.trueorigin.org//dating.asp#Carbon%2014%20dating)
Of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth, 90 percent point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists. A few of them follow.
Evidence for a rapid formation of geological strata, as in the biblical flood. Some of the evidences are: lack of erosion between rock layers supposedly separated in age by many millions of years; lack of disturbance of rock strata by biological activity (worms, roots, etc.); lack of soil layers; polystrate fossils (which traverse several rock layers vertically -- these could not have stood vertically for eons of time while they slowly got buried); thick layers of "rock" bent without fracturing, indicating that the rock was all soft when bent; and more. For more, see books by geologists Morris[26] and Austin.[27]
Even myths are based on truth. Take Atlantis - it could be anumber of places, with some of the information distorted by the passage of time.
Saying we had a cataclysmic flood serves no purpose beyond indicating we have always lived in a world volatile to climatic change.
Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years -- certainly not the 65 Ma since the last dinosaurs lived, according to evolutionists.[28]
Your making very broad assumptions about the state of these bones, and how the blood was preserved.
The earth's magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it looks like it is less than 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the flood year and fluctuations shortly after would have caused the field energy to drop even faster.[29]
[/b]
Guess what.... the ozone layers benn declining, too.... oh wait, that was us!
Radioactive decay releases helium into the atmosphere, but not much is escaping. The total amount in the atmosphere is 1/2000th of that expected if the universe is really billions of years old. This helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it has not had time to escape -- certainly not billions of years.[30]
Expected? We don't have a bloody start level or composition- how can we predict the level of decay? again, you're making a baseless assumption that this is a concept, immune to enviromental impact - or even us.
A supernova is an explosion of a massive star -- the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few moderately old (Stage 1) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic Clouds. This is just what we would expect for "young" galaxies that have not existed long enough for wide expansion.[31]
Time lag between us and distant space. Very obvious, really. Plus you assume that all galaxies in the Universe would be the same age- the 'Big Bang' theory is impossible to prove.
Also, there is no true raw data to make anything beyond guesses on the true nature and aging process of stars - we only have the Sun, and all other stars are viewed as they were many,many years in the past.
The moon is slowly receding for the earth at about 4 centimeters (1.5 inches) per year, and this rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance from the earth. This gives a maximum age of the moon, not the actual age. This is far too young for evolutionists who claim the moon is 4.6 billion years old. It is also much younger than the radiometric "dates" assigned to moon rocks.[32]
You're assuming that there have not been changes to the Solar System since it existed...... scarring on the moon is evidence that there are massive impacts during the lifetime on this system. here is also no documentaiton on any fluctuations on the changes in the suns and even the others pantes gravity field - which may been altered themselves. not to mention the possiblity of the asteroid belt being a former moon of Jupiter, for example - not discountable.
Salt is entering the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the sea could not be more than 62 Ma years old -- far younger than the billions of years believed by the evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age.[33]
What makes you think slat will have been entering the sea for all eternity? also, what about the flooding affect of the end of the Ice Age, which would certainly alter the time frame.
A survey of the 15,000 radiocarbon dates published through the year 1969 in the publication, Radiocarbon, revealed the following significant facts:27 a. Of the dates of 9671 specimens of trees, animals, and man, only 1146 or about 12 percent have radiocarbon ages greater than 12,530 years.
b. Only three of the 15,000 reported ages are listed as “infinite.”
c. Some samples of coal, oil, and natural gas, all supposedly many millions of years old, have radiocarbon ages of less than 50,000 years.
d. Deep ocean deposits supposed to contain remains of the most primitive life forms are dated within 40,000 years.
Wait a minute.......
firstly, carbon dating is not yet 100% accurate - this is well known - dating of the Turin Shroud has revealed 2 different dates, one proving and one disproving that it came from the target dat (25Ad? not sure - no-ones actually accurately dated the bible, because it depends on the interpetation of what the Star of Bethlehem was).
Especially in 1969....science changes a lot in 33 years.
Secondly, are you trying to use one scientific theory to prove another one as fallible? Because, surely that could mean carbon dating is wrong, and evolutionism sound?
Thirdly, evolution is not an anti-creationist view. Evolutionary theory shows that life should not have started on Earth (through testing of random protein iteractions to form DNA) for billions of years after it did.
For a Christian, surely this is just a scenario of God setting the process in action and letting it 'go'. If God is perfect, then surely that means the creatures they created are also -for the purposes of this analogy- faultless - i.e. able to choose their own destiny? not to mention that belief in heaven does not rule death as failure - merely the ending of one plane of existance, and possiby ascension to heaven?
so far, all I've read is totally unsubtantied guesses, masquerading as definate proofs. I've not read anything that would make me even consider the validty of evolutionary theory.
-
damn this topic has gone on....
and on
and on.
Can some enlightened soul do a brief summary? I dont have time to read through the whole thing right now.
-
Hey...I just visit for the free confectionary :D
-
I agree, could someone please help us guys out?:D
Provide a summary-please-
-
I'd attempt it but the fact is there's just to much information here to bother re-posting it. You'll have to read through the whole thing to get a good idea of what's been said - it's well worth it though if you want to get up-to-date on whatever everyone thinks and so on - a really interesting thread!
-
700 posts??? Whoa, I've got to reserve an entire day for that. A summary would be nice.
oh well, I could go without posting in this thread for 700 posts, I think I can stand another 700.
-
Hmmm, I see a few too many 'I've read something in a book/the net so it has to be true' people. I'm sure they've run through countless pages disproving their theories before finding one that proves it and then posting a link.
Everyone should remember the first rule of learning: Accept, then verify.
i.e. don't just believe something because someone looks or sounds reputable. Take it that they are telling the truth and then figure out how they came to that conclusion. Many people are just willing to accept but finding out the background will often show that the person you're quoting is biased in some way.
On a different note, I find it highly improbable that God would make a half assed effort at creating a universe that seemingly started billions upon billions of years ago with a big bang and then leave blundering evidence that totally disproves that theory. He might have a wicked sense of humor though.
[heavenly booming voice]This evolution joke will really mess with their heads...[/heavenly booming voice] :wink:
More likely that we simply don't have all the facts and hence there are 'plot holes' in the mighty story of the universe's creation.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
[B
firstly, carbon dating is not yet 100% accurate - this is well known - dating of the Turin Shroud has revealed 2 different dates, one proving and one disproving that it came from the target dat (25Ad?
[/B]
There's only one date for the Shroud of Turin... well, actually there are two but those two dates give a range of time between which it could have happened. This range goes from 1260 to 1390 AD: about 130 years.
There has been no other dating of the Shroud because the Church wouldn't allow it. When the Church finally agreed to let the Shroud be dated they only gave us one fiber! Seems little, but is was enough as only a few grammes of artefact are needed nowadays.
Just needed to mention that. :)
As for the rest: yeah! woohoo, you show them!
-
Actually, if you read the recent book The DNA of God? , you will find out that later on, they discovered that bacteria and other microbes had coated the fibres of the shroud of turin. Over 40-60% of the fibre actually came from bacterial remains and other microbial remains. This is enough to skew the date from 0 AD to 1400 AD. So, in reality, they do not know what date the shroud of turin should be...
-
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
Actually, if you read the recent book The DNA of God? , you will find out that later on, they discovered that bacteria and other microbes had coated the fibres of the shroud of turin. Over 40-60% of the fibre actually came from bacterial remains and other microbial remains. This is enough to skew the date from 0 AD to 1400 AD. So, in reality, they do not know what date the shroud of turin should be...
Bollocks, the dating they did was genuine and correct. And if what you say indeed happened it shoudl have put the date to even more recent periods. And when the Shroud was dated it was done according to the double-blind standards to make sure no one cheated. And no one did.
They wer even able to trace the cloth and the product used to create the face:
the Cloth indeed comes from the Middle East (Palestine to be more precise): this could be proved by using palynology (using pollen).
The 'paint' does not come from the middle east but from somewher in France (probaby Burgundy or Champagne).
Written sources first mention the Shroud as being located in France, near Burgundy, during the period to which the cloth has been dated. Before that there are no mentions whatsoever. Total destruction of earlier sources cannot be excluded, but following the laws of Historical Criticism, combined with Carbon-dating, the conclusion is that the cloth was imported (somehow) to France and painted on demand by some aristocrat living there (probably the same one mentioned in the earliest sources), after that we can more or less follow the Shroud's path through history until it ends up in Turin. There is currently no proof whatsoever to sustain your claim that the Shroud is older than 1260-1390 AD.
-
Take a look at this extract from this site National Book Review (http://www.nrbookservice.com/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=C5235) about the book
The DNA of God? :)
While investigating age-old Mayan artifacts, Leoncio Garza-Valdes discovered an amazing fact about ancient textiles that changed the science of archaeological dating forever. Indeed, the scientific community hailed his findings and used them to establish the new discipline of archaeomicrobiology. Unknown to many of these same scientists, Garza-Valdes's discoveries also held explosive consequences for the Shroud of Turin. Alas, what scientists did not know in 1988, when they dated the Shroud to the 14th century, has come back to haunt them. Even the secular Publishers Weekly can't hold back:
"In a book that is part detective story, part medical thriller, and part memoir, Garza-Valdes recalls the steps that led him to examine the Shroud scientifically and determine its possible date and purpose. Through a series of tests, the physician made two important discoveries that led him to believe that the Shroud could be dated to the first century and that it could have been Jesus' burial cloth. First, he found that the cloth itself was covered in an organic 'bioplastic coating, a type of clear encasing invisible to the naked eye but composed over time of millions of living microbial organisms.' Such a coating, which he had first witnessed in his study of ancient Mayan artifacts, distorts radiocarbon dating and skews the results of such tests to indicate an origin later than the actual origin. Second, through tests upon bacteria found in the blood stains found on the Shroud's fibers, Garza-Valdes discovered that they contained acetic acid, or vinegar. This evidence indicates that the person buried in the shroud would have been exposed to vinegar, much like Jesus at his crucifixion, at his death. This finding, coupled with 'infinitesimal splinters of hard wood found near the wound areas,' and the human male DNA found in the blood stains, led the author to ask whether this cloth was indeed the burial shroud of Jesus."
-
British Archeology 1998 - http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba38/ba38lets.html
According to the Oxford radiocarbon dating lab, the carbon date of organic material can indeed be affected by
later contamination, such as by bacteria and fungi. However, to make a supposedly 2,000-year-old piece of linen appear to be
13th century, huge quantities of modern carbon contamination would be needed - enough to double the weight of the shroud.
This seems improbable.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/1998/dom/980420/cover4.html
Garza-Valdes and Mattingly kept up their research for several years and then
parted ways. "Dr. Garza's science was fine," says Mattingly, "but then he
started talking about the Holy Grail, among other things." Garza-Valdes has
speculated that some of the bacteria isolated from the shroud could be
remnants from the vinegar Jesus was force-fed while on the Cross. "That's
absurd," says Mattingly, who nonetheless continues to back the doctor's
contention that the bioplastic coating exists on the shroud.
Not an unbiased scientific observer, then...
"The only people who have ever seen these bacteria are Drs. Mattingly and Garza-Valdes," says Arizona's Timothy Jull. "In my opinion, our sample of the shroud was very clean, and there was no evidence of any coating." Even if the hypothetical varnish existed, Jull adds, the amount necessary to throw off the dating by 1,300 years would have been visible to the naked eye. Snipes U.C. Riverside's Taylor: "At the present time, the 'bioplastic theory' has many of the characteristics of cold fusion," the here-one-day-ridiculed-the-next physics fiasco of 1989.
.
.
.
Of the tests, Tryon says, "All I can tell you is that DNA contamination is present and that the DNA belonged either to a human or another higher primate. I have no idea who or where the DNA signal came from, nor how long it's been there." It is, he says, not necessarily the remains of blood. "Everyone who has ever touched the shroud or cried over the shroud has left a potential DNA signal there." Tryon quit the project soon after his tests. "I saw it as a multidisciplinary project involving archaeology, physiology and other fields. But I came to believe there was another agenda present too. It was my first encounter with zealotry in science."
http://www.uiowa.edu/~anthro/webcourse/lost/shroud/c-14.htm
The most rational explanation, though still not entirely believable, is Leoncio Garza-Valdes' and Stephen Mattingly's theory that
microbes on the fibers threw off the dates. This idea was first proposed in 1995, when infrared and mass spectroscopy tests indicated
that the swatches from the Shroud were not pure cellulose, which is the main ingredient of linen (www.direct.ca/trinity/shroud1.html).
Microbes on the sample included those found to grow in natrol, a bleaching agent which may or may not have been used on the Shroud
(Travis 1995:346). This theory sounds so plausible, that many non-skeptics have accepted it as the reason for such a late date on their
religious relic (see www.treasure.com/shroud.html;www.iea.com/~bradh/shroud/ and www.uthscsa.edu/mission/spring96/shroud.htm).
Rational scientists are not quite as accepting--Garza-Valdes and Mattingly did not submit their results for peer review
(home.fireplug.net/~rshand/reflections/messiah/shroud.html). Furthermore, the control samples, at all three labs, tested reasonably close
to their known dates--were they unaffected by these microbes? This is a compelling question, raised by Joe Nickell (Nickell 1995:5).
Garza-Valdes' and Mattingly's theory falls apart here--it is just too coincidental that the Shroud of Turin was the only historical piece of
linen affected by the mysterious biogenic varnish.
control samples - the key to all science. the test results on these are very important. Also, no-none else has ever proven Garza-Veldes claims - or even seen their techniques and experiments.
-
Christianity is not a religion; it's a relationship.
Now here's my reasons:
Christianity changed my life completely. Back when I was 13, I almost got expelled from school because of some stupid joke I played on the vice principle. Then God came into my life and I accepted Him as my Lord and personal Savior, since I had nowhere to go. My life had taken a new path from that very moment. I established healthy relationships with my collegues and my parents. (God Bless them for all the times they have been there to comfort me.) I'm a family man and I bring God into my family at every single moment.
I'm not pressuring you guys to accept Jesus, although I would love to see that. (All the angels and saints in Heaven party after the salvation of one sinner.) We're all human: flawed, imperfect, flesh. But God can include His spirit in your life.
To find Him is your job. Shoveling Jesus down another person's throat is not a good thing, as experience taught me before. God loves you no matter what. He wishes that none shall perish, but since He gave you free will, He cannot stop that from happening.
-
Originally posted by "Multiple People"
DNA of God
You can't put God in a test tube.
Of course there are some lady out there who's trying to find the corpse of Jesus. Jesus is risen. So she is doomed to search for the rest of her life and never find it.
There is another case where they made a Eucharist host radioactive and traced the Body of Christ after being taken by a man. It drives me nuts when people do that kind of thing to God.
Please Note: God created science. You cannot use a creation to test a creator.
EDIT: Edited quote.
-
Originally posted by Rampage
Christianity is not a religion; it's a relationship.
Now here's my reasons:
Christianity changed my life completely. Back when I was 13, I almost got expelled from school because of some stupid joke I played on the vice principle. Then God came into my life and I accepted Him as my Lord and personal Savior, since I had nowhere to go.
If you've changed your life by conforming to the instructions of the Bible then that's not proof of "God"'s existence. Even though the changes were positive. Although I agree with you that religion should be down to the individual and never forced upon someone. The Bible does contain some very positive codes of ethics which would benefit the world if everyone respected them (Love thy Neighbour etc.) although it has been used to justify sexual repression and barbarity as well.
-
Originally posted by Rampage
Please Note: God created science. You cannot use a creation to test a creator.
So there's no way to test if he exists, or the origins of the universe, religious relics, and so on. But you can test other earthly things (referring to the relics).
You've made it impossible to disprove your assertion. However, I do find it a little hard to take entirely on, ah, faith. :)
-
:cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:
anything that exists in a system affects that system and is therefore discernable.
The universe is a system, if he existed he would affect that system, and we would be able to discern him.
In simplier english - if he existed we'd have empirical evidence
:cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:
-
Originally posted by Kazan
:cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:
anything that exists in a system affects that system and is therefore discernable.
The universe is a system, if he existed he would affect that system, and we would be able to discern him.
In simplier english - if he existed we'd have empirical evidence
:cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:
Well..... there's some fundamental flaws there though - firstly, that God may not exist in a form we can understand - he may even be entire universe.
Also, we can't be certain we have the methods to gain emprical evidence - or even recognising it for what it is.
There is noever going to be a solution to this debate, though - it's based entirely on beliefs.
-
Originally posted by Rampage
Please Note: God created science. You cannot use a creation to test a creator.
or to put it in other words: You cannot use creation to test for invisible purple dragons...
At least you agree on the basic principle of Freedom of Religion: everyone should choose his/her own religion and not force it upon others... For which you have my respect.
DISCLAIMER: religious fanatics trying to pervert science AND religion are not included in this statement. Such people and their efforts should be resisted. Fanaticism/Fundamentalism does not produce positive results.
-
Topic to long.......must be closed......seen to many of this.....stuff.
-
Take this story I once heard...
A college student attended a philosophy class which held a discussion about God's existence. The professor presented the following logic: "Has anyone in this class ever heard God?" No one spoke. "Has anyone in this class ever touched God?" Again, no one spoke. "Has anyone in this class ever seen God?" When no one spoke for the third time, he said, "Then there is no God."
One student thought for a second and then asked for permission to reply. Curious to hear this bold student's response, the professor agreed. The student stood up and asked the following: "Has anyone in this class ever heard our professor's brain?" Silence. "Has anyone in this class ever touched our professor's brain?" Absolute silence. "Has anyone in this class ever seen our professor's brain?" When no one in the class dared to speak, the student concluded, "Then, according to our professor's logic, it must be true that our professor has no brain!"
The student received an 'A' in the class.
-
Originally posted by darkage
Topic to long.......must be closed......seen to many of this.....stuff.
Let's let it live until it hits 1000 posts, at least. :nod:
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
Take this story I once heard...
A college student attended a philosophy class which held a discussion about God's existence. The professor presented the following logic: "Has anyone in this class ever heard God?" No one spoke. "Has anyone in this class ever touched God?" Again, no one spoke. "Has anyone in this class ever seen God?" When no one spoke for the third time, he said, "Then there is no God."
One student thought for a second and then asked for permission to reply. Curious to hear this bold student's response, the professor agreed. The student stood up and asked the following: "Has anyone in this class ever heard our professor's brain?" Silence. "Has anyone in this class ever touched our professor's brain?" Absolute silence. "Has anyone in this class ever seen our professor's brain?" When no one in the class dared to speak, the student concluded, "Then, according to our professor's logic, it must be true that our professor has no brain!"
The student received an 'A' in the class.
Cute. It doesn't really mean anything, though.
-
The Probability of a Protein Being Formed by Chance is Zero
There are 3 basic conditions for the formation of a useful protein:
First condition: that all the amino acids in the protein chain are of the right type and in the right sequence
Second condition: that all the amino acids in the chain are left-handed
Third condition: that all of these amino acids are united between them by forming a chemical bond called "peptide bond".
In order for a protein to be formed by chance, all three basic conditions must exist simultaneously. The probability of the formation of a protein by chance is equal to the multiplication of the probabilities of the realisation of each of these conditions.
For instance, for an average molecule comprising of 500 amino acids:
1. The probability of the amino acids being in the right sequence:
There are 20 types of amino acids used in the composition of proteins. According to this:
-The probability of each amino acid being chosen correctly among these 20 types = 1/20
-The probability of all of those 500 amino acids being chosen correctly = 1/20^500= 1/10^650
= 1 chance 10^650
2. The probability of the amino acids being left-handed:
-The probability of only one amino acid being left-handed = 1/2
-The probability of all of those 500 amino acids being left-handed at the same time = 1/2^500 = 1/10^150
= 1 chance 10^150
3. The probability of the amino acids being combined with a "peptide bond":
Amino acids can combine with each other with different kinds of chemical bonds. In order for a useful protein to be formed, all the amino acids in the chain must have been combined with a special chemical bond called a "peptide bond". It is calculated that the probability of the amino acids being combined not with another chemical bond but by a peptide bond is 50%. In relation to this:
-The probability of two amino acids being combined with a "peptide bond" = 1/2
-The probability of 500 amino acids all combining with peptide bonds = 1/2^499 = 1/10^150
= = 1 chance 10^150
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL PROBABILITY = 1/10650 X 1/10150 X 1/10150 = 10950
= 1 chance 10^950
-
from this site (http://godsway.www2.50megs.com/evolution.html)
What Were the Odds For Evolution?
Borel's law of probability states that if the odds of an event happening are worse than 1 in 1*10^50, then that event will NEVER HAPPEN.
Dr. Harold Morowitz, former professor of biophysics at Yale University, estimated that the probability of the chance formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 out of 10^340,000,000. One out of ten to the 340 millionth power is unimaginable odds. This large figure is a "1" followed by 340,000,000 zeroes. As you can see, Morowitz' odds against even the simplest life evolving were infinitely more than 1*10^50, making them impossible.
The very popular evolutionist, Dr. Carl Sagan of Cornell University, figured even steeper odds against the simplest life beginning naturally on a planet such as earth. According to Sagan, the probability would be about 1 out of 10^2,000,000,000. Try to imagine ten to the 2 billionth power. Pretty astounding odds. Interestingly, these impossible odds against evolution came from one of the most prominent evolutionists of our time.
According to evolutionists, we just got lucky. However, the odds against this luck have been shown above. Borel's law of probability should have been enough to refute evolution completely, but I know that the evolutionary "intellectuals" need more convincing data.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How Many Events Have Ever Occurred?
Here is a good mental workout: Let us attempt to figure the total amount of things that have taken place in the universe. Even evolutionists will agree that only a certain amount of events have taken place in this universe. If this total number of possible events is even barely close to the number of chances needed for the first step in evolution to take place, then we will agree that life did evolve from non-life. Here we go.
How Big Is the Universe?
We are attempting to determine how many events have ever taken place in the universe. To do so, we must first determine the size of the universe so that we can pack it with event-accomplishing particles.
So how big is the universe? Scientists have estimated it to be about 5,000,000,000 light years across. To give the evolutionists a little help, let's assume that it is a million times wider, taller, and deeper. The new diameter would be 5*10^15, or 5 quatrillion light years. This will make our experimental universe 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 bigger than the real universe. Many events can occur in such a big place.
5,000,000,000,000,000 light years = 30 octillion miles, or 3*10^28 miles in diameter.
How Small Is a Proton?
Now that we have thought big, lets think small. The effective diameter of a proton is about 2.4*10^-15 meters, or 2.4 femtometers. To help understand this tiny size, one inch is equal to about 10 trillion protons lined side to side.
Remember, we are trying to figure how many events could ever happen. We need to know how many particles exist so they could do stuff through the ages. That's what we're calculating.
We should use particles a good bit smaller than protons, so that the evolutionists will have enough particles to do lots and lots of events. By volume, the real universe contains billions and billions of times more space than particles. Since we are attempting to determine how many events have ever occurred in the universe, let us give the evolutionists the benefit of the doubt by completely filling our experimental universe with particles. This will give them billions of times more events to produce life.
Protons are way too big. We are figuring the total amount of events that have ever taken place, and more particles can do more events. We should give the evolutionists lots and lots of particles so that life has a better chance of evolving. Therefore, we will be using particles having a diameter 1 trillion times smaller than protons. This will allow us to pack our experimental universe with (1 trillion)^3, or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, more particles than would be possible with "large" protons.
How Many Particles Could Fit In Our Universe?
First, let us determine how many of our extra-small particles could be lined across the diameter of our extra-large universe.
3*10^28 miles = 5*10^31 meters = 1.2*10^47 proton diameters = 1.2*10^59 extra-small particle diameters.
Therefore, 1.2*10^59 of the "smaller than possible" particles lined side to side would stretch across the "larger than possible" universe. This should provide plenty of particles to interact and make life from non-life.
So, How Many Particles?
Evolutionists believe that the Big Bang blew everything from a central point in the beginning. Therefore, this universe should be spherical. We will now figure the volume of our universe and pack it with particles.
Universe Diameter = 3*10^28 miles = 1.2*10^59 "small-particle" diameters
Universe Volume = (4/3)*(PI)*[(Diameter)^3]*(1/8)
Universe Volume = (4/3)*(PI)*[(1.2*10^59 "small-particle diameters)^3]*(1/8)
Universe Volume = 8*10^177 particles.
As mentioned before, our real universe is full of empty space, but this theoretical universe is packed full of "smaller than possible" particles. This increase in the number of particles has helped the terrible odds against evolution. The total amount of particles possible is 8*10^177. Remember that we generously allowed for a universe 1 million times wider than reality, and we used particles 1 trillion times smaller than protons.
How Quickly Could Each Particle Make Life?
Okay, now we have the number of particles available for life-making. How much can each particle do in a second? Since we don't know, let's be generous to our evolutionary friends. Let's assume that each of the 8*10^177 particles can participate in one trillion trillion trillion events at one time. This factor would be 1*10^36 events per second.
Activity of each particle = 1*10^36 events per second.
How Much Time To Produce Life?
Now that we know the amount of particles and the work-rate of each, let's determine the amount of time that they have to perform their life-producing tasks. I think that the current estimated life expectancy of the universe is about 30 billion years. This could be a little small or large; I'm not sure (I believe that the universe is only a couple of thousand years old). Anyhow, to give the evolutionists a little more time than they really have, let's multiply their time by 1 billion. This would give the universe 30 quatrillion years to produce life.
How many seconds are contained in 30 quatrillion years?
3*10^19 years = 1.1*10^22 days = 2.6*10^23 hours = 1*10^27 seconds
Finally, How Many Events Could Ever Occur?
The universe, crammed with 8*10^177 particles working at 1*10^36 events per second for 1*10^27 seconds, could only make:
(8*10^177)*(1*10^36)*(1*10^27) = 8*10^240 events.
Only 8*10^240 events could ever happen!
Dr. Morowitz postulated that life could evolve from non-life every 1 out of 1*10^340,000,000 events. The great Dr. Sagan calculated 1 out of every 1*10^2,000,000,000 events. However, only 8*10^240 events could ever be possible, in the entire universe, with all of the time possible.
According to Morowitz, we would need 1*10^340,000,000 events to produce life. Unfortunately, we would need 10^339,999,759 TIMES AS MANY EVENTS to have 1*10^340,000,000 events. Compared to Sagan's predictions, we would need 10^1,999,999,759 TIMES AS MANY events to achieve the odds necessary for life.
The total number of events ever possible was only 8*10^240. This was only 10% of 8*10^241, or 1% of 8*10^242, or 0.1% of 8*10^243. You can see that 8*10^240 was not enough events by any means to reach the number of events needed for the evolution of life. And we're talking about the most primitive, simple kind of life forming. These odds are impossible.
It is hard to argue with basic probability. Simple mathematics has helped us to realize that life could never evolve from non-life.
-
you seem to like this aproch
but I'm just gona edit this post as I find more
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/1990/may09/23124.html
http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/ghadiri.htm
http://nai.arc.nasa.gov/news_stories/news_detail.cfm?article=rna.cfm
http://www.nobel.se/chemistry/laureates/1989/illpres/index.html
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/rnaworld171.htm (note this is actualy a Critique of the theory, this is how science works, we think of something find what's wrong then try to find a way that we can make it right)
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/1378/molrec.html
http://www-space.arc.nasa.gov/displaypage.cfm?page=Weber&branch=ssx
http://www.sp.uconn.edu/~gogarten/progenote/progenote.htm
im tired of reading through all this, here (http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&q=self+replicating+molecules&spell=1)'s about 9,620 more sites on the subject, you should look through as you will find a few of you're anti evolution sites that give more psudo-science "evedence" againced this
-
Blitz you are posting crap, individual sources of pure musings with no back up.
First condition: that all the amino acids in the protein chain are of the right type and in the right sequence
there is no such thing as "right type" and "right sequence" life will build itself upon what it has, which is what ever type and sequence is there
Second condition: that all the amino acids in the chain are left-handed
once again wrong - looking at current state and saying because it's this way now, it must always be this way and that way must be a requirement - WRONG.. they just happened to be left-handed and that from then on their formed that way. If they had origionally be right-handed they would be all right handed now
Third condition: that all of these amino acids are united between them by forming a chemical bond called "peptide bond".
easy chemistry
btw - odds are never zero. Have you ever heard of the [confirmed many times] expiriement where they produced a chamber of atmosphere like the earth's early atmosphere and then sent 2 million volt bolts of man-made lightning through it [2 million volts is much less than real lightning] - AMINO ACIDS FORMED, in fact USEABLE AMINO ACIDS FORMED
in this planets early atmosphere the odds were IN FAVOR of it happening - every time they performed this expiriement amino acids formed, consistantly and without failure
-
"btw - odds are never zero"
what are the odds that he'll stick to the earliest starting of life now that he's getting backed into a corner and he has to actualy understand what he's talking about and not just copy and paste whole pages that he finds with google
-
simple probability
the only thing that is completely impossible is complete impossibility itself
-
Fools. Life does not exist, the universe is empty, and the babelfish proves there is no God. To whit:
[list=1]
- Area: Infinite
The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy offers this definition of the word "Infinite": Infinite: Bigger than the biggest thing ever and then some. Much bigger than that in fact, really amazingly immense, a totally stunning size, real 'wow, that's big' time. Infinity is just so big that by comparison, bigness itself looks really titchy. Gigantic multiplied by colossal multiplied by staggeringly huge is the sort of concept we're trying to get across here.
- Imports: None
It is impossible to import things into an infinite area, there being no outside to import things from.
- Exports: None.
See Imports.
- Population: None.
It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the people you meet from time to time are merely the product of a deranged imagination.
Screw this 'odds of life forming' crap. The math is already against life from the jump.
And all this from a man who was known to go by 'D.N.A.'.
-
damn you, I wanted the 777th post!!!
-
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
Borel's law of probability states that if the odds of an event happening are worse than 1 in 1*10^50, then that event will NEVER HAPPEN.
I was just skimming your posts, and frankly any article that accepts this obviously has no grasp on reality.
-
You obviously don't comprehend how small 1 in 1^50 is. The number of seconds in 15 billion years is less than 1^18. The thing is, WE CAN"T COMPREHEND SUCH A SMALL NUMBER.
It is even harder for Carl Sagan's value of 1 in 1^2000000.
Or the value of 1^57 million, using the supposition that the simplest organism uses 60 000 proteins, and the value of an average protein coming into existence from a soup of proteins. And this value (1^57 million) doesn't include the probability that each of the amino acids coming into existence by chance, and the small probability of amino acids randomly forming a bond with each other. Do you understand that for amino acids to bond to each other is against the energy gradient? Or, for that matter, that for 1 molecule of protein of good enough size to exist in water by chance, you would need a pool of size 1^50 particles? For enough of these proteins to get together for even the possibility of a simple organism to get together by chance would make it, what, 1^1 billion?.
Now, the estimated number of particles in the universe is 1^80. To get a grip of how big 1^57 million is, imagine a universe with that number of particles. Now, imagine each of those particles split into 1^80 particles again. And then those again. Repeat that 712500 more times. Do you understand why such numbers can be considered nil?
-
My internet connection was down for the last few days and it looks like more stuff has sprouted up here in the meantime. :D
Well..... there's some fundamental flaws there though - firstly, that God may not exist in a form we can understand - he may even be entire universe.
Also, we can't be certain we have the methods to gain emprical evidence - or even recognising it for what it is.
That is a faulty assumption; unless it can proved that god is decidedly indeterminate (and even then, this can only be done for current methods of observation; it cannot be proved completely for all systems), there is an equal chance that we can understand him as the chance that we cannot. There is nothing to be gained in just giving up on this, while there is a 50% possibility that we can understand things by taking the opposite assumption. This is one of the key axioms of all science.
You can't put God in a test tube.
Yes, you can. As Kazan said, anything in the universe can be "put in a test tube."
To find Him is your job. Shoveling Jesus down another person's throat is not a good thing, as experience taught me before. God loves you no matter what. He wishes that none shall perish, but since He gave you free will, He cannot stop that from happening.
If this is what the god is like, he is even worse than the average human. If someone with such powers actually has explicitly defined "wishes," he should have had enough sense to design people so that they would always follow the wishes. :p
Borel's law of probability states that if the odds of an event happening are worse than 1 in 1*10^50, then that event will NEVER HAPPEN.
As many others have said, this is total nonsense. The only way to get a truly impossible event would be to have a probability of 1/¥, or in other words, 0.
The thing is, WE CAN"T COMPREHEND SUCH A SMALL NUMBER.
That does not mean anything. Mathematicians and scientists have long since learned that they cannot rely on their intuition at all and must use precise logic for everything. (the Weierstrass function is a good example here; continuous everywhere, but differentiable nowhere)
Also, tell me why it is not any more likely that the purple dragon made the god and I made the purple dragon rather than the god existing indefinitely. :D
-
This experiment was designed to test the hypothesis of Oparin/Haldane.
The hypothesis remained untested until 1953, when University of Chicago graduate student Stanley Miller reported an experiment in which methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water (thought to be the components of the ‘primitive’ atmosphere) were mixed in a closed glass apparatus. The water was heated and the gases circulated past a high-voltage electric spark to simulate lightning. This provided the energy to break the chemical bonds of the compounds present, and the resulting free radicals combined to form a mixture of simple organic compounds, including trace quantities of some amino acids.
Crucial to the success of the experiment was Miller’s water trap in which the amino acids generated could dissolve and thus be protected from subsequent destructive contact with the spark. But on the hypothesized primordial Earth with no oxygen (and therefore no ozone), the products would have been exposed to destructive ultraviolet rays. This is so even if they reached the oceans, because UV radiation can penetrate tens of metres of water.
Per se, this experiment does not pose difficulties to the creationist. With the most astute intelligent guidance, such an experimental set-up, which generates a multitude of interfering organic acids and bases (plus racemic and biologically useless amino acids) cannot produce a single biologically relevant protein strand. To claim this experiment as evidence for evolution would be akin to allowing water to flow over a bed of coal, and upon identifying a little ink-like substance, claiming the Encyclopaedia Britannica was produced by natural, random processes.
Oxygen, deliberately removed from Miller’s apparatus, destroys amino acids. But geological evidence indicates oxygen was always present on earth. It is produced by photolysis of water vapour in the atmosphere, where hydrogen escapes gravitation and oxygen thereby increases in concentration.
Currently, the most probable early atmosphere is deemed by evolutionists to have consisted of water, carbon dioxide, nitrogen and hydrogen, a very different composition than used by Miller. Hydrogen would have been present in small concentrations at most, because it could escape Earth’s gravity; ammonia and methane would have been destroyed by ultraviolet light. In 1983, Miller reported that if carbon monoxide is added to the more realistic mixture, plus a large proportion of free hydrogen, then only glycine, the simplest amino acid, could be produced, and in trace amounts only.
The experts know the experiments provide no support for an abiogenesis model. But nevertheless, biology textbooks and popular magazines like National Geographic continue to mislead the public into thinking that the Miller-Urey experiment is evidence for evolution.
-
yes we I don't think anyone here is imlpying that a fully formed cellular organisim just sudenly came into existance, I don't think anytone here is even sudgeting a fully functioning peice of DNA just magicly apeared, I don'te even think were all that confedint that a single protein would for on it's own, science has only been looking into this for about 100 years, and we have covered a lot of questions, and were still working on it, right now I think the best explaination for the origins of life is the simple self replicating molicule, not DNA, not nesicarily even a protein, just a simple organic molicule that could replicat it's self, this is all that is needed.
-
If the amount of matter in the universe was greater by 1 trillionth, the universe would have started collapsing before the average temperature in the universe reached ~6000 degrees C, according to the current big bang model.
A fraction smaller, and galaxies and clusters could not be formed.
The strong and weak nuclear forces are fine tuned. If it was 1% smaller, nuclei greater than helium would not exist.
If it was 1% smaller, stars wouldn't be shining.
The probabilities given before were given assuming that each particle was one in which evolution could occur. Most of the matter in the universe is in stars, black holes, etc. And that each particle makes a trillion trillion trillion collisions each second in which a different bond occurs. Obviously, this is really generous figures. If we were more strict about it, all the probabilities would make, what, 1 in 1^1 trillion?
-
The probabilities given before were given assuming that each particle was one in which evolution could occur. Most of the matter in the universe is in stars, black holes, etc. And that each particle makes a trillion trillion trillion collisions each second in which a different bond occurs. Obviously, this is really generous figures. If we were more strict about it, all the probabilities would make, what, 1 in 1^1 trillion?
We already know that. 1/10^10^12 is quite different from 0. :rolleyes: As I said before, do not rely on your intuition, but rather on precise mathematical logic.
Let's find out if he sees it this time. :D
JUST BECAUSE THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS NOT FOOLPROOF, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT CREATIONISM IS CORRECT, DO NOT WASTE TIME ARGUING AGAINST EVOLUTION, BUT INSTEAD FIND SOME PROOF FOR CREATIONISM
Also, since nobody seems to dispute my new fundamental theory, it is indeed very true that I made the purple dragon, the purple dragon made god and god made the universe. I'm going to write a book, start up a website and create a new institution based on this idea! ;7 :D :D
-
Response---
A group led by Julius Rebek synthesized a molecule called amino adenosine triacid ester (AATE), which itself consists of two components, pentafluorophenyl ester and amino adenosine. When AATE molecules are dissolved in chloroform with the two components, the AATE molecules act as templates for the two components to join up and form new AATE molecules.
There are a number of reasons why this is irrelevant to an evolutionary origin of life
This system carries very little information, in contrast to even the simplest cell. Mycoplasma genitalium has the smallest known genome of any living organism, which contains 482 genes comprising 580,000 bases. This organism is an obligate parasite. A free-living organism would need many more genes.
The new AATE molecule binds too strongly to the parent, so no new reactants can come in and join, as Rebek himself admits.
Replication only occurred in highly artificial, unnatural conditions.
A reaction in chloroform is irrelevant to living organisms.
In particular, chloroform would not hinder condensation reactions as water does.
Most polymerisation reactions in life are condensation reactions, that is, they eject a small molecule like water. If there is much water around as there is with all living things, the reverse reaction is favoured, that is the hydrolysis (break-up) of polymers.
The molecule reproduced too accurately — there is no possibility of neo-Darwinian evolution by mutation and natural selection.
The slightest change would be disastrous... not a single mutation is possible that would be beneficial for this self-replicating molecule.
-
Looks like you missed it again. :rolleyes:
I will put that text up once again a bit later, but this time in glowing red or something. :D
-
you know you realy should give links or something when you copy and past from those sites,
this is one self replicating molicule, there are others,
in this molicule, level of information is irrelivent,
we know very little of the chemistry of early earth, for all we know there could have been seas of chloroform (though I SERIOSLY doubt this)
this page (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3974.asp) wich is suprisingly similar to you're post, gives no reasons why this molicule's replication is incapable of mutation, just says it is,
but it's probly true,
but the point of this experemint wasn't to find THE SRM (self replicating molicule, that's to much to wright), but A SRM, to prove that a simple molicule could replicate it's self, wich it proved, there are other SRMs, there are SRMs that exist in nature and are more robust (though more complicated)
I am more interested in the Reza Ghadiri molicule (http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/ghadiri.htm) wich is (as said i this article)
1. It is self-replicating.
2. It is self-sustaining.
3. It is capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution.
there is enough evedence for this theory, that I think it is currently the most likely
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
I am more interested in the Reza Ghadiri molicule (http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/ghadiri.htm) wich is (as said i this article)
1. It is self-replicating.
2. It is self-sustaining.
3. It is capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution.
there is enough evedence for this theory, that I think it is currently the most likely
Great read and very true.
Anyway: anyone noticed how the topic changed again? :D
Psuedo-science does not science make. -Yoda-
-
That's an interesting article; I did not know of the existence of such a molecule until now. Looks like experimental science is starting to lean towards the evolution theory. ;) Also, there was an article in the Washington Post a few days ago about some new discoveries regarding human will and consciousness; the scientific community appears to be going for the idea that consciousness is merely the interplay of intricate chemical reactions within the brain, which is exactly what my theory was/is. :D
-
Ernst Haeckel fudged diagrams (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1339.asp)
And this site (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tj_v15n2_icons_review.asp)
shows how flawed the Miller-Urey experiment is,
and this extract from the site shows how peppered moths don't even land on tree trunks, how Darwin's finches is actually evidence for creationism, the four-winged fruit flies, fossil horses and directed evolution, homology, tree of life, archaeopteryx, and others aren't scientific and not really evidence for evolution.
Moths in the wild are now known to be nocturnal fliers and virtually never remain exposed on tree trunks, but rather high in the trees on the underside of small branches where birds rarely seem to find them. Had the theory been correct, the light coloured varieties would have long since disappeared from heavily polluted areas such as Manchester, England. But this never happened. In regions with little industrial pollution, where the light-coloured ‘typicals’ seem better camouflaged, the melanic proportion unexpectedly reached 80%. And below the latitude 52°N melanism increased after pollution control measures were introduced. Furthermore, a decrease in pollution levels was matched by an increase in the proportion of melanics north of London but a decrease in the south. Although melanics seem better camouflaged in south Wales, they make up only about 20% of the population.Although decreasing pollution allowed the light coloured lichens to cover tree trunks again, the increase in proportion of typicals preceded lichen growth, i.e. the hider recovered before the hiding places. Finally, a decline of the melanic proportion in the United States was independent of changes in the lichen cover.
Several factors may be involved here. R.C. Steward collected data from 165 sites in Britain and found a correlation between moth proportions and concentration of sulphur dioxide, which is a pollutant transported by air.
What is disturbing in this matter is that the photographs, showing camouflaged moths on tree trunks, found in virtually all standard biology textbooks, have been staged. Dead moths had been glued to tree trunks, or moths released in desired positions during daylight, when they are torpid and remain where they land. University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne discovered to his dismay the flaws in what he called this classical ‘prize horse in our stable of examples’ of evolution only in 1998. Badly flawed experiments such as these continue to be reported uncritically merely because the evidence for evolutionary notions is in such short supply.
(http://www.answersingenesis.org/images/embryo4.jpg)
(http://www.answersingenesis.org/images/embryo3.jpg)
-
I have no knowledge of the details of that experiment, but it is not really necessary here; please tell me how creationism is anything more than a silly substitute for science intended for those who are too weak-minded to explain things any further. :p
How about the so called science currently used in biology textbooks?
And your science would be? God did this, god did that, god did everything, end of story. :rolleyes:
(and god was made by a purple dragon, who in turn was made by me :D)
-
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
You obviously don't comprehend how small 1 in 1^50 is.
1 in 1^50? That's actually not too bad. It's 1.
...
Ok, I know you meant 1 in 10^50. Still,
1 in 10^50 is not 0!
Perhaps there are infinite universes, and we just happen to be living in the one where life has appeared (in this form). I state again that whoever says 1/10^50 = 0 has no grasp on reality.
Bah, the only reason I'm focusing on this small issue is that I simply can't handle endless streams of copy&pasted text. You hardly ever provide any links, so I can't even easily check the veracity of the information you provide. For example, this 1/10^50 could be something you just made up for all I know. I simply don't have the time to check ever bit of information (or misinformation, as the case may be) that you post.
For that reason, I think I'll bow out of this discussion now.
P.S. What is with the big picture you just posted?
-
Originally posted by NotDefault
P.S. What is with the big picture you just posted?
haven't got the slightest idea, but I do know what the picture is.
Is a part of the several phases an embryo (and the other incarnations) goes through durigng pregancy. This is only one phase of it, but if you'd take a look at the entir sequence one would see that a human embryo goes trough a lot more of those, each time resembling a more complicated creature before said creature gets born.
So very early on all creatures resemble only a very simple animal like a fish (the left picture is how a fish gets 'born' more or less). After that it moves on and on and on... so that near the end human and ape embryos look very much alike when they get born. Humans usually go a further and some parts (like the head) continue to grow even after birth (because otherwise our head would be to big to get through)
Such a sequence is one of the big showcases that evolution did happen as it proves that all creatures, simple and complicated, have common DNA (which has been proven by DNA testing too).
by Blitzy...
What is disturbing in this matter is that the photographs, showing camouflaged moths on tree trunks, found in virtually all standard biology textbooks, have been staged. Dead moths had been glued to tree trunks, or moths released in desired positions during daylight, when they are torpid and remain where they land.
Very funny, and I expect you believe in the black UN helicopters too.
-
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
The experts know the experiments provide no support for an abiogenesis model. But nevertheless, biology textbooks and popular magazines like National Geographic continue to mislead the public into thinking that the Miller-Urey experiment is evidence for evolution.
who wrote this garbage - because initial abiogenesis and evolution are not connected
-
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
If the amount of matter in the universe was greater by 1 trillionth, the universe would have started collapsing before the average temperature in the universe reached ~6000 degrees C, according to the current big bang model.
A fraction smaller, and galaxies and clusters could not be formed.
The strong and weak nuclear forces are fine tuned. If it was 1% smaller, nuclei greater than helium would not exist.
If it was 1% smaller, stars wouldn't be shining.
The probabilities given before were given assuming that each particle was one in which evolution could occur. Most of the matter in the universe is in stars, black holes, etc. And that each particle makes a trillion trillion trillion collisions each second in which a different bond occurs. Obviously, this is really generous figures. If we were more strict about it, all the probabilities would make, what, 1 in 1^1 trillion?
that's complete bullhockey and shows a total lack of understanding of anything in this area.
If any of these values were changed the result would be forward affecting from the begining of time - everything would be adapted to it.
You're confusing cause and effect - THINGS ARE NOT FITTED TO US - WE'RE FITTED TO THINGS
-
You're trying to disprove the thoery of evolution by quoting other science?!
Tht's just idiotic[/c]. Or naive. You assume that the results are not skewed by the scientist?
Thre is no such thing as an uninvolved observer - every measurement made affects something else - you measure the position of an satom, you cahnge it's velocity. Etc.
RE: oxygen on earth - surely life changing to cope with that is evidence of beneficial mutations occuring - especially with less ozone layer blocking solar raditation. Also, life started in water first (or rather, a primordial soup of amino acids), in which there would be a lesser concentration of oxygen - H2O (ok, not strictly, but you get the idea).
-
If the amount of matter in the universe was greater by 1 trillionth, the universe would have started collapsing before the average temperature in the universe reached ~6000 degrees C, according to the current big bang model.
A fraction smaller, and galaxies and clusters could not be formed.
I agree with Kazan on this; you don't really have any idea of what you are talking about. This can only occur if the universe is elliptic and therefore closed, and scientists do not have enough information to make a good guess on the cosmological curvature, so we must assume it as indeterminate in all our calculations. Remember that the gravitational force did not exist at this time as a force independent from the other three until far after the big bang had already occurred.
I simply don't have the time to check ever bit of information (or misinformation, as the case may be) that you post.
I think that is the case for all of us. :D Besides, it does not appear to be worth replying to his things, as he does not seem to ever actually respond to the stuff; he just goes to look for more nonsensical quotes to post here. :rolleyes: The only guy that was worth dealing here was Sesq, as his posts at least had some degree of coherence, but he appears to have left for now.
Let me try again, though. :D
[glow=blue][color=00FFFF]JUST BECAUSE THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS NOT FOOLPROOF, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT CREATIONISM IS CORRECT, DO NOT WASTE TIME ARGUING AGAINST EVOLUTION, BUT INSTEAD FIND SOME PROOF FOR CREATIONISM[/color][/glow]
-
maybe you should try makeing it flash and give it sound effects
-
Heh, the one time when use of the Blink tag isn't abuse of it.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
maybe you should try makeing it flash and give it sound effects
:lol::lol::lol:
-
Sorry it's been awhile, but I'm back now! The minor nuisances of real life have a way of interfering with more important things, and for someone who is supposed to be on a hiatus from academia, it is amazing how little time I have available to me these days.
Anyway, CP5670, we've been talking for some time now, and I think I see at least part of the reason why our conversation has yielded much argument, and little resolution. In effect, while I am speaking from the Christian perspective, you seem quite determined not to deal with the Judeo-Christian God in your ideas, but rather this alternative conception of God which you have. :) As arguments against the Judeo-Christian God, your arguments amount to setting up a straw-man (or straw-god, as it were ;) ) and knocking him over. Firstly, you insist that this god would be nothing more than essentially a very powerful but still fallible human, despite my explicitly describing to you the Judeo-Christian understanding of God. By insisting upon this and making such a being the target of your objections, you are arguing against the existence of Zeus or some similar sort of god, but not against the Almighty and perfect God of Semitic monotheism. Secondly, you insist that this god can and must be subject to empirical verification any time an investigator wishes to put him under the microscope. In this you are essentially demanding that he, or better, it should be like a mute force of nature, and not the being that Christianity posits. Finally, the god you describe as so despicable and the reasons you give for despising him once again assume a very different story than the one that Christianity would tell you.
According to it, God made us free to choose our path, whether to follow his best or not. Automata were not what he wanted to create; he wanted to create other free beings like he himself was free. That there would be consequences to the choice seems to have been inevitable: one cannot allow the possibility of good if there is not likewise the possibility of evil. So you ask why God did not create a universe and inhabitants of that universe which had no possibility for evil, and I rejoin that such a universe and such an existence would be far less than this one. If I were forced to recognise God and forced to follow his ways and forced to be his puppet on a string, his piano-key to be played, I would lose all that it means to be human. If we are not free to choose, are not given the possibility, are not given the I can, then whatever existence is left to us is far below this one, and indeed hardly worthy of the name. God did not make a world full of evil. He made a world that carried the possibility of evil and the possibility of good, and set us free in it. Without this choice, without this freedom of will, there may not have been the possibility of suffering, ignorance, and dislike, true enough, but neither would there be any possibility for true joy or happiness, for we would all be mere executions of the vast divine computer program. In other words, the entire point of creation would be lost.
You would despise God because you find evil in the world. But I say to you that God did not make an evil world, did not make a world of suffering and pain and ignorance and despair. God created a world that was good, and a people that were good and whole and pure and perfect after their kind, and he set them in that world and gave them the choice of good and evil, of life and death. That choice stands before us every day, and whether we rail against it or not, we must make it, and face the consequences of our choice. Would you have the choice removed from you, and be rendered nothing more than the execution of a program, devoid of will or meaning? Would you not then become nothing, and surrender all that is in you to make you human? What kind of existence would that be, this forced obedience, this puppet-on-a-string action, this unknowing, unfree, unmeaning love of God? It would be nothing, unworthy of existing. If the world is now fallen and broken from the perfection that once it was, God has promised us that he will restore it to us anew, made perfect once again. The resurrection you despise is far greater a thing than you or I know, CP5670. All that is marred, smeared and bleared now will be made anew, and we will be changed, no longer the fallible, weak and degenerate creatures we now know ourselves to be, but the perfected beings that the depths of our hearts tell us we are supposed to be. God will indeed make the world good again, and he will restore it to all who choose. On that day, we are promised, that though "now we see through a glass, darkly," that then we shall see "face to face," for "Now I know in part; but then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." (1 Corinthians 13:12)
If you wish only to argue against the sort of god whom you have described, I will wholeheartedly agree with you. I have no use for Zeus, either. But one cannot knock Zeus on his ass and justifiably declare it a victory over Yahweh. He is an entirely different, and more potent, matter.
Anyway, that having been said, I move on to the specifics of you last post me:
Yes, we do need at least one assumption for any kind of deduction, whether or not it has anything to do with reality, as even the logic rules themselves are assumptions. That is what I was saying about assumptions (axioms) earlier.
So you cannot then claim that merely the rules of logic are your base assumptions. There must be more (and there is).
Incidentally, if you have heard about this recently, a man named Stephen Wolfram has claimed to basically have discovered a slightly different path to learning about the universe using some sort of computer simulations, which he claims makes things much simpler to understand; it does sound a bit too ambitious, but if the guy's history and stature is any indicator, there may well be some credibility to his ideas.
Interesting. I've not heard about this before. I shall have to read up on it.
I am using the logic-based view of "simplicity" here, as it is the system through which the human brain thinks. Now, the factor (G) cannot be used in that form in such an equation, as it is more of a tensor than a scalar variable in comparison to the assumptions; (G) basically denotes a set of many variables. Now think for a second about what the existence of god would mean here. We are assuming that this god essentially thinks like one of us, for the method in which the Bible describes him is basically an average (not even a relatively intelligent; just a powerful) human. It is generally agreed upon that the brain of an individual (not of a mob) is among the most complex and difficult things to predict in the universe, if it is possible at all. Now, if the entire universe was solely in the power of a single human, think about how unpredictable and disorderly it would be. (look at the absolute monarchies of older times and observe how they operated; this god would be no different, except on a larger scale) He could simply make or break things according to his own random whims, and the whole universe would be in a perpetual state of unpredictability. This would not only add in many extra variables, but some of them would be IRVs, which should be avoided at all costs when trying to put together an explanation. (decidedly indeterminate forms are second only to paradoxes and contradictions in their annoyance in problems )
Now, we shall try assuming the atheistic view and that god does not exist. The primary variable that this would introduce is the one of purpose: why do we exist, and do we have a reason for our existence, or do we merely exist out of a random chance and hence have no real purpose? Is the entire concept of purpose simply a human-based idea that has no relevance in the real world? This question is currently indeterminate as well, but it cannot be proven that it is not possible to determine this either, as is the case with IRVs, and so it is undecidedly indeterminate. However, the god assumption also raises the same question, because no religion adequately explains the purepose in a form that is consistent with what we see in the world. Following the Bible rules is no purpose, because what do we do once we get to heaven? I personally think that an eternal and unlimited happiness is almost as bad as eternal sadness, because it does not change with time and thus leads to stagnation, as there is no end to think of. There is really nothing observed today that completely contradicts our logic and science laws and therefore requires a god to explain (cannot be explained using logic and math); it is just that we have not yet determined an exact structure from the assumptions to the effects, or proven that it is impossible to find such a path. If history is any indicator, however, that should change with time.
This seems to me, if I may say so, CP5670, simply balderdash.
First, it is true that (G) entails a great deal of other propositions (P), but even if we regard (G*) as nothing more than the denial of (G), (G*) entails the denial of (P), and thus is still no more simple than (G). But of course, (G*) is not simply a negation of (G), but is a positive idea of its own, and entails its own peculiar set of propositions (Q), which of course are denied by (G) in turn. So if we want to be more specific, (G) entails (P+Q*), while (G*) entails (P*+Q), and since (P*) is no more simple than (P), and (Q*) is no more simple than (Q), for they are denials of their respective counterparts and thus must be of the same complexity as that which they deny, (G*) is still neither more nor less simple than (G).
Secondly, I once more rejoin that the Judeo-Christian God is not "basically an average (not even a relatively intelligent; just a powerful) human." The Judeo-Christian God is omniscient and omnipotent, and, I repeat, his reason for using human terms and forms in his revelation is to make the communication effective and meaningful - the same reason why one is best advised to speak Malay if one wants to communicate with Malaysians. An omniscient and omnipotent God is perfectly capable of maintaining an orderly universe; he is, after all, omniscient and omnipotent. If you want to argue against a Greek sort of god, go right ahead just the way you are going, but if you want to argue against the Judeo-Christian God, then, for heaven's sake, argue against the Judeo-Christian God! ;)
Actually, Christianity would posit a purpose to human existence. In the words of the Westminster confession, for example, "Man's chief end is to glorify God and serve him forever," or in an alternative way of saying much the same idea, the purpose of our lives is indeed life itself lived in communion with God. If I may follow this trail for a moment, the idea that our eternal destiny is to sit in heaven in a state of bliss that would be extremely boring if not for its superlative blissfulness would most expressly not seem to be the case that Christianity would posit. It seems to me that when we are resurrected, it will be to an existence whose vibrancy and depth we can now barely imagine. So far from sitting on some cloud fingering a harp in some sort of ecstatic stupor, we will discover that this life we now live was but a shadow in comparison to what we will live then. All that is good in us will become the more powerful, and the dross shall have been burned away in the glories of our new existence. Our creative exercise will be greater and deeper than it is now, our emotions at once made holy and made the more passionate, our reason the clearer, our bodies imperishable and strong, and indeed more than can be said awaits us on that day. We are told of a new heavens and a new earth, and the way the Bible tells it, we seem to inhabit both, being both spiritual and physical creatures at once, even as now in our fallen and broken state we are cut off from the spiritual and long for it, if ever so obscurely in the depths of our hearts, as the fulfilment of what we were meant to be. We shall live at last in communion with God, in the light of his life and greatness and love. There we shall discover that, so far from winding down into stagnant, torpid bliss, life in all its true vibrancy will have just begun. Life in communion with God is the purpose of life, and is the state (or better, the starting point) where we at last find our fulfilment and meaning.
Finally, the statement "There is really nothing observed today that completely contradicts our logic and science laws and therefore requires a god to explain (cannot be explained using logic and math)"is predicated upon assumptions regarding the nature of God and his relation to the universe that are, well, :wtf: . God is not contradictory to natural or logical laws. Indeed, the assumption of order in the universe which begat scientific enquiry is historically rooted in the belief that God, in his omniscience and omnipotence, made it so. God is supposed to be the source of logical and natural laws, and if evidence is ever found that these are in fact contradictions, that will be far more potent ammunition in the atheist's bag than will the continued appearance of a logical and rational universe.
Science provides a temporary solution to determine whether or not something lies in this absolute realm: all thinkers should be able to confirm any given observation, and if that cannot be done, then it is not in the absolute and should be disregarded for the moment.
It is extremely and unjustifiably presumptive to believe that science provides such a solution, for the criteria you describe fail to yield results in the simplest of tests. "All thinkers should be able to confirm any given observation" immediately excludes all of history, for but one example, for we have no way to test whether, say, the Roman empire actually did exist, or whether I ate toast for breakfast on Tuesday morning, and can rely solely on testimonial data. So unless you want to throw away all of history, we are going to have to admit the possibility that we can regard some things as objectively real without requiring that they be immediately accessible to all would-be observers.
Why then does he not simply shape our brains so that we must accept his existence and cannot think otherwise? Also, if the Bible is assumed to be the truth here, the god described there is very limited in terms of his capabilities and thought process, almost as limited as we are, as he does things just like an average human would. As Top Gun said, why does this god simply not "beam himself down from the sky" and reveal himself to us, which is probably within his power, and instead chooses to remain only partially unknown?
See above regarding freedom of choice and the nature of God vis a vis his revelation of himself to us. As for beaming himself down from the sky, his becoming incarnate as one of us in the person of Jesus Christ rather one-ups that, doesn't it? ;) And if he did one day appear as a 500 foot tall fellow or something, would we still not be able to find all sorts of reasons why not to believe that this was a manifestation of God? Maybe it was a mass hysteria or delusion, maybe it was some grandiose trick perpetrated on the masses by some twisted prankster or religious fanatic, or any of an unknown number of explanations that could be put forth. What if we recorded it on videotape? Easily enough faked. The testimony of many witnesses? We didn't believe it last time, why would we this time? If a direct revelation of God is what you are looking for, such things are not uncommon, and are regularly reported among converts to Christianity today, but one has to be willing to believe in the possibility or one will stubbornly refuse to accept the revelation, no matter what the evidence might be. I refer you to your own response to the story of my brother's miraculous healing: an explanation is readily available to account for the occurrence, but you refuse to consent to that explanation and insist that some alternative explanation must be the real one, despite the fact that there is no posited alternative. Such attitudes are common in humanity, and I find it hard to believe that any action by God could convince someone with free will to become a Christian unless he were willing to have an open mind.
But how does one determine whether the current categories are adequate for explaining an event or not? Simply changing the categories will not do much if one system has not yet been analyzed to its fullest potential.
Well, technically an expansion of the categories of a system is still a modification of the categories, but to get to your intended meaning: it is always, of course, possible that this or that system of categories could be expanded or modified to account for any given phenomenon. Nevertheless, if a system does not currently exhibit the ability to provide an explanation for a given phenomenon, and an alternative does exhibit that ability, logical pragmatism would lead us to adopt and/or integrate that alternative into our categories. To make an example of myself, I find that no viable alternative to a supernatural explanation yet exists to explain the events of my brother's miraculous healing, but I do not discount the possibility that an entirely natural explanation might be found one day. If and when that were to occur, and I were satisfied that this new explanation indeed accounted for the phenomenon in a simpler and more plausible fashion than my currently held position of a creatio ex nihilo intervention by God, then I would unhesitantly adopt the new position. However, no such explanation is currently evident, and so I am left either to accept the available explanation (an intervention by God) or live with no answer to the question at all, despite there being a readily available one.
Well, it cannot really be determined what is "intrinsic" to a religion and what is not. (Hitler really believed that he was serving god and christianity, so technically his ideas would be "intrinsic" to it as well) I would say that anything that is purely an idea that cannot be put into reality can only be defined as how the majority of humans/thinkers interpret it. One thing though: the existence of a god is not all that hard to accept for me; it is the existence of a human god, a book of god, and a reward/punishment (heaven/hell) system similar to our governments that sounds less likely to me. What do you think of these other extras? (just curious )
Actually, it was in the early centuries of Christianity's existence that were fomulated the Christian creeds. These creeds amount, in typical Greek style, to succinct summaries of what it means to believe Christianity. In essence, they are the statements of what is integral to the Christian religion, as anyone accepting these statements is considered an orthodox Christian, and anyone not accepting them is, by definition, not. The two primary Christian creeds can be found here (http://www.mit.edu/~tb/anglican/intro/lr-nicene-creed.html) and here (http://www.mit.edu/~tb/anglican/intro/lr-apostles-creed.html). These creeds are by no means the fullness of Christianity, but as shorthand renderings of what is integral to Christian belief they serve extremely well.
Also, if Christianity is true, it does not exist merely as an idea but can be "put into reality" as it were - Christianity posits a description of objective reality. For this reason, it is possible to evaluate Christianity as a truth claim, rather than confining it to the sphere of non-objectively-related idea.
About the "extras" as you call them ;), while maintaining my reservations regarding the way you phrase and conceptualise them, I shall say that God has chosen to reveal himself to us in the fashion that he has (presumably so that his revelation would be understandable to all manner of men, and not just the intellectual elite) and if he has so chosen then I find that I must encounter God in this same fashion. If God wants to portray himself to us using human terms, and wishes to outline our options regarding eternity in the forms of life or destruction, and so on, I do not see how I am in a position to argue with that revelation, anymore than I am in a position to argue with gravity not being a repellant force.
It is based on an analysis of what one can see in the world, and certainly makes sense in terms of science; not sure where the "emotional" thing comes up here.
I call it emotional because it is stereotyping. It is, if I may say so, a very biassed analysis that would say that religion somehow inhibits our intellects. Lack of critical thought is a reflection of the laziness and/or stupidity of the individual in question, not of what beliefs he might hold. I hope that I am something of an example of a Christian who can nevertheless engage in critical thought, even as you seem to me an example of an atheist who isn't one unthinkingly. To equate religious with irrational and unthinking, and non-religious with rational and thoughtful, is entirely unjustifiable. If observation leads someone to conclude such a thing, I am inclined to think that the observer is observing through tinted glasses.
That really seems to undermine the reputation of Christianity to me. The main thing is this resurrection concept? What if one does not want to be resurrected? I think what is happening here is that the majority of people have always been obsessed with eternal life, and so the creators of this faith decided to drop in something that would appeal to the common man to gain support; I don't mind extending life by a large amount, but a transfinite life for humans with all their flaws would cause some serious problems to humanity as a whole. The process of human thought needs to be changed before this can be done.
The resurrection is central. It wasn't just "dropped in," it is the foundation and central point. As I quoted earlier in this topic: And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. (1 Corinthians 15:17-20)
If Jesus were not resurrected, then Christianity would be redundant, merely a restatement of Judaism at best. It is because of Jesus' resurrection that Christianity exists, and without it Christianity falls.
As for why we should want to be resurrected at all, see my words at the beginning of this post, and also consider the following:
If your concern is that resurrected and thus eternally living humans would cause all sorts of problems for the race as a whole, I remind you that our resurrection will also involve our perfection. The foibles and weaknesses and evils that now plague us will no longer. If I may quote 1 Corinthians again: So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body...
And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven. (1 Co. 15:42-44, 49)
In short, the imperfections that worry you will be no longer. The resurrected life will be greater by far than we know now. You personally, CP5670, appear to look forward to the day when we humans will have a clear and true knowledge of things. In the resurrection, this will at last be attainable, and more by far besides.
I am certainly willing to grant that [a manifestation of God] is possible, but everyone should be able to confirm it by direct observation to put it into the absolute realm. If some people see a god and some do not, that is not very credible evidence as far as science goes.
As I said above, the thing is that God has revealed himself as a person, not a force. Now, when dealing with a person, we do not use the same sort of criteria at all for evaluation as we do with a force. If George claims that one day he said to me "Ooga-booga," and that I relied "Unga-bunga," that does not mean that I shall always reply "Unga-bunga" to every occurrence of someone saying "Ooga-booga," nor that my reply of "Unga-bunga" on that one occasion should be banished from the realm of objective reality if I do not. Likewise, if a personal being exists with the power to make himself directly perceptible to human beings or not, we cannot say that because he sometimes makes himself perceptible that he must always be so. His actions are determined by his own choice for his own reasons, not by involuntary necessity. If he should not choose to manifest himself in certain ways at certain times, we cannot simply dismiss out of hand the claim that he once did, any more than we can dismiss George's claim that once I chose to reply "Unga-bunga" to his "Ooga-booga." No, when dealing with persons, we have to investigate the objective probability of a claimed action by other means than we do claims regarding forces of nature. This is the stage where actual evaluation of Christianity begins.
Well, it cannot be shown that anything is definitely beyond human comprehension; scientists are assuming that it is not, so that we can at least attempt to find this truth. (no harm in at least trying with the potential benefits; simply giving up like you seem to be doing sounds quite silly to me, no offense intended ) Also, we have not directly perceived anything yet for which an explanation would truly invalidate our starting axioms, which is the only way that a set of rules can be shown to be completely illogical; phenomena are always otherwise undecidedly indeterminate, not even decidely indeterminate, which means that the probability of a future explanation still exists. (this can be applied to just about everything today) The only thing that has been even semi-proved to be decidedly indeterminate is the actions of IRVs, and even many scientists today are not accepting it completely. There is really no reason why we should not try to understand this god in its entirety. (after all, it has not yet been shown that we do not have the capacity)
Also, the Bible does indeed describe this god as basically the "omnicompetent human" you are talking about, and one that is not right at the edge of human understanding either; we can certainly imagine things far, far greater than him.
I base my assessment of the human mind's inability to comprehend God in his entirety on the assumption that the finite cannot comprehend the infinite (I do not use the term transfinite here, but infinite; more on transfinitude later). It is certainly true that there is no harm in trying to understand - that is what the discipline of theology is all about! As we try to understand the revelation we have received, we learn much about God and his relationship with us and the world in general. It is certainly a rewarding pursuit, and one I would encourage anyone to embark upon. Yet any theologian will tell you that no matter how deep and far we plumb the depths of God's mode of existence, we will have only scratched the surface. God is infinite, and therefore the knowledge of him to be had is inexhaustible. We can imagine comprehending him in his entirety only by imagining him as ceasing to be infinite.
As for invalidating starting axioms, who said anything about invalidating starting axioms (except for (G*), if that is what you mean)? God's existence is not a contradiction of logic, nor would it reflect a delegitimation of the natural laws we see in action around us.
As I said before, God has revealed himself to us using human terms. It is metaphoric communication, even as we must constantly be using metaphoric communication to express intangible concepts. Try defining the word "understand" for example. Looking it up reveals definitions like grasping, perceiving, or comprehending something, each of which is metaphoric, as is "understand" itself: standing under = supporting (an idea or concept) = giving a foundation to = etc. Grasp and comprehend are both metaphorically extended in this case from physical meanings ("hold with the hand," and "take in or embrace"), while perceive's semantic range is likewise extended from it basic meaning of "become aware of, know, or identify by means of the senses" to refer to the intangible "grasping" of concepts by the mind (incidentally, perceive is also derived from a Latin word meaning "to grasp"). God's revelation to us is metaphoric as all our language is, and while it is useful in teaching us about God, we must always recognise that the anthropomorphic imagery in the Bible is imagery. So yes, God is often described using such imagery in the Bible, and it would be folly to assume that the metaphor was literal.
Incidentally, what counts as "greater"? What criteria are used for deciding that? What would something greater than an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, loving and personal God look like, anyway? An impersonal Force of some kind? That would seem far lesser, not greater, so then what?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will admit that reorienting our view of truth seems at first a bit of a difficult thing to do (the power of habit is not to be underestimated ), but once we do so we find ourselves in a far better position to understand the Bible and its message.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, here is where the issue of what we can perceive comes in. How can we tell whether or not the Bible has any credibility when we cannot objectively perceive most of the stuff contained within it?
How does that follow? I was talking about reorienting our view of truth from the Western mode (static, rarified, and decontextualised) to the Biblical mode (dynamic, organic, and contextual).
This sounds fine to me actually, as a transfinite loop can indeed be used to forego the whole idea of cause. Now, my question is that, if you are willing to accept a transfinite god, why should a transfinite reality without a god not be equally plausible? (in terms of time)
Ah, now this one I have been looking forward to since I first read the post!
Before I start, here is that brief word regarding transfinitude. In short, I do not grant a transfinite God, but an infinite one. The term "transfinite" is one which I have never encountered outside of my conversation with you, CP5670, and I do not feel familiar enough with the term to start throwing it around before I understand its nuances better. Moreover, given the definition you gave to sandwich, it seems that transfinitude amounts to some sort of intermediate state between finitude and infinitude, or perhaps a kind of continuum in which both are somehow subsumed so that the infinite becomes as the finite, and the finite the infinite. I remain skeptical of the value of this concept, at the very least in regard to the way it has been used in this conversation. In effect, it seems that here transfinitude has been used in an attempt to pull God down from the infinite while at the same time to bring us out of the finite and onto the same level as God - a means of trying to usurp the throne while mitigating the consequences. I will thus insist upon an infinite God, since that is the sort of God that Christianity assumes, and will continue to speak in terms of infinitude and finitude in my arguments and discussion. :)
Anyway, here we go!
I would like to refer you to the argument I posted earlier regarding the logical impossibility of explaining God's existence: 1. The truth of There exist things whose existence it is logically possible to explain cannot be explained by there being things whose existence it is logically possible to explain (the existence of those things is just what is to be explained).
If little Susie asks about why there are golden retriever puppies, she can be told about golden retriever parents. If she asks about golden retriever parents, she can be told about golden retriever grandparents. But if she then asks about why there are golden retrievers at all, she cannot be told about golden retriever parents, or grandparents, or great-grandparents, or the like; these will all be the tings she want to know about - why have any golden retrievers existed at all. If little Susie asks why there ever have been any possibly explicable things at all that exist though they might not have existed, she cannot properly be told about there being possibly explicable things that exist but might not have existed; these are what she is asking about.
Premise 1 is plainly true; whatever Xs are, there being Xs cannot explain there being Xs.
2. That a logically contingent existential proposition is true can only be explained by some other existential proposition being true.
If, in the relevant sense of explanation, A's truth entails B's truth, A entails B. No existential proposition is entailed by a set of propositions that does not contain any existential propositions.
3. If an existential proposition does not concern something whose existence it is logically possible to explain, it concerns something whose existence is logically impossible to explain.
4. The truth of There exist things whose existence it is logically possible to explain can only be explained by a true existential proposition concerning something whose existence it is logically impossible to explain (from 1, 2, 3).
The upshot of this argument is that it is inevitable that one should come to something whose existence it is impossible to explain. For the theist, this is God. The atheist is left to find for himself something that exists and whose existence is logically impossible to explain. By this argument, it is shown that demanding an explanation for the existence of God is invalid.
The proposition The natural realm exists is an existential proposition whose truth it is logically possible has an explanation. A monotheistically-conceived creator God is one such available explanation, but there are others of course. As such, by the preceding argument, 1) the truth of The natural realm exists is not sufficient to explain the truth of The natural realm exists, and 2) the truth of The natural realm exists can only be explained by a true existential proposition concerning something whose existence it is logically impossible to explain. Therefore, one is left with two options: one can either posit a existential proposition as an explanation of the natural realm which refers to something that exists outside of the natural realm and is logically impossible to explain, or one can simply refuse to answer the question. The former option is the positing of some sort of supernatural reality, and the later is to leave onself in the awkward position of having a question (Why does anything in the natural realm exist, even though it might not have?) which is intelligible and basic and very well could have had an answer, but simply does not. One can adopt this later position if one wishes to undermine the basic assumption If it is logically possible that the truth of a logically contingent existential proposition be explained, then there actually is an explanation of its truth (whether we know what it is or not), but then mystery lies on your side of the fence, not the supernaturalist's.
This argument also speaks to your fun and playfully specious little purple dragon theory. If one were to attempt the gargantuan task of trying to draw up the full definition of God, one would have to include the idea of being logically impossible to explain (for if one could explain this being's existence by reference to some other thing, then this being would cease to be regarded as God). Now, if "God" (i.e. the being who created the universe) were created by the purple dragon, and the purple dragon was in turn created by you, neither "God" nor the purple dragon are really God. At this point we are left to consider whether you are God (that is, whether your existence is logically impossible to explain). Looking at you, we find that your existence is logically possibly explicable, and that therefore you are not God either. So continuing backwards through the chain of explanations we suddenly arrive once again at the original being "God" who created the universe. We thus find no being about whom the proposition There exist things whose existence it is logically impossible to explain is true. If this situation occurs, then no explanation can be posited whatsoever for any existential proposition being true, and the rules of logic implode into a very nasty mess. Therefore, I conclude that your theory is false! :D
I think I have addressed in one form or another most of the issues you raise for despising God already in this post (which is getting very, very long), so I'll move to your last question...
If it were somehow irrefutably proven by the rules of logic that God could not exist, I would, after getting over my initial shock and incredulity (I've been arguing that such logical proof in either direction is impossible), accept it, but I would despise this new reality with all vehemence in my body and soul. As a theist I could accept the fact that I had been wrong, but as a human being I would find the results to be vile. I find the idea of reality without God hateful in the extreme, because it destroys everything in me that I value as a human being. If there is no God, there is... nothing. My philosophical mind would inexorably lead me to nihilism. If all that exists is the physical universe, then it is a closed system and everything that happens inside it is determined beforehand by the chain of cause and effect, including all acts of human "will". There is no such thing as freedom, and any appearance of freedom is only an appearance. Without my freedom, without free will, without choice, I am no longer a man, but like Dostoevsky said, only a "stop in an organ" or "a piano key." The only possible exception to this horrible determinism is events of pure chance, which does not introduce freedom (self-determination) into the situation, only haphazard and causeless meaninglessness. Either way, we are non self-determining; we have no choice. Either we and our actions are determined, and thus meaningless, or we and our actions are random, without cause, purpose or direction, and thus again meaningless. Reality without God negates everything that human nature demands that there should be: reason, meaning, significance, value, dignity, worth, etc. Such an existence, one without any truth or an absolute of any kind save senseless, brute matter, is insufferable. In rebellion against this, well, this nothing that I would despise so thoroughly if only I could find something to despise, I would probably try pursuing atheistic existentialism for awhile. Of course, atheistic existentialism amounts to nothing more than trying to invent for ourselves some sort of meaning in the face of nihilism, and is thus nothing more than a lie we tell ourselves. I think the best summary of how I would, as a human being, react to such proof might be found in Dostoevsky's Notes from the Underground (http://www.pagebypagebooks.com/Fyodor_Dostoevsky/Notes_from_the_Underground/) (especially chapters 7 and 8).
On the other hand, the atheist when faced with incontrovertible proof of God's existence, if he were as open-minded a man as I hope I am, would accept that he had been wrong, and would not suffer the same sort of consequences that I would in the reverse situation. He would have found that, despite whatever misgivings he may have held or did still hold towards God, that his existence as a human being would have been ratified. He would have a justification for his existence, and a free will, and a meaning and truth and objective value and all the rest, in spite of his always not wanting to buy the package at all. In other words, I believe the atheist would indeed have a far better (i.e. happier) time adjusting to the consequences of proof against his belief than vice versa, because the consequences would be what his human nature demands be the case (even though he may not want them to be the case).
Anyway, that's enough of a post for now!
P.S. I thank you for the compliments, sir. You have been quite engaging to talk with as well.
-
Looks like another long post! w00t! :D
Well Sesq, I have read over your last post a few times, but I must say that this post was less logical and properly thought out than your previous posts, and that I expected better of you judging from your last few posts (which, in contrast, contained quite a bit of wisdom), but it is nevertheless still great to talk to you about this. ;) You seem to be falling into the same trap as most other religious people wherein you take everything that conforms to a given religion as part of your assumptions, and not to circumvent a difficulty either, but only because you have been brought to believe a certain idea and cannot let go off it because of the idea foundation system. Even worse, you seem to be accepting the religion not because you actually thought about it carefully and reached the conclusion, but because you have been brought up to think like this. I have said this earlier: it is much, much better if you come to the conclusion that the human god, heaven/hell, resurrection, and whatever else (heck, even the purple dragon) all must exist by thinking about it based on what you perceive and coming to the solution independently, instead of looking it up from a book (Bible) or hearing it from someone and then trying to prove or disprove it, because as we have seen, the average human mind is a very vulnerable thing and it is prone to subtle influence from anything that it perceives. Just like the elementary particle cannot be observed using photons without changing its very properties, so we see that the human brain on average cannot assimilate new ideas without modifying the entire process of thinking to better suit the ideas. This especially holds true for ideas that are both logically simple and emotionally appealing.
As arguments against the Judeo-Christian God, your arguments amount to setting up a straw-man (or straw-god, as it were ) and knocking him over. Firstly, you insist that this god would be nothing more than essentially a very powerful but still fallible human, despite my explicitly describing to you the Judeo-Christian understanding of God. By insisting upon this and making such a being the target of your objections, you are arguing against the existence of Zeus or some similar sort of god, but not against the Almighty and perfect God of Semitic monotheism. Secondly, you insist that this god can and must be subject to empirical verification any time an investigator wishes to put him under the microscope. In this you are essentially demanding that he, or better, it should be like a mute force of nature, and not the being that Christianity posits. Finally, the god you describe as so despicable and the reasons you give for despising him once again assume a very different story than the one that Christianity would tell you.
What I am saying is that in his "human existence," he fell far, far short of the capabilities of human understanding. This would be easier to accept if he had gone down from his "normal state" to only the limit of our thoughts; good enough to allow us to "understand" him but also enough to leave us in awe. He did an utterly miserable job on the latter. Therefore, he is either incapable or unwilling, which both amount to the same thing. Lastly, if the god cannot be "put under a microscope," then we are indeed mere puppets in his universe, contrary to what you say. These religions may say that god is this great power and all when questioned explicitly, but that is deceptive; look at the way that they treat the god in all of the applications to humans.
According to it, God made us free to choose our path, whether to follow his best or not. Automata were not what he wanted to create; he wanted to create other free beings like he himself was free. That there would be consequences to the choice seems to have been inevitable: one cannot allow the possibility of good if there is not likewise the possibility of evil. So you ask why God did not create a universe and inhabitants of that universe which had no possibility for evil, and I rejoin that such a universe and such an existence would be far less than this one. If I were forced to recognise God and forced to follow his ways and forced to be his puppet on a string, his piano-key to be played, I would lose all that it means to be human. If we are not free to choose, are not given the possibility, are not given the I can, then whatever existence is left to us is far below this one, and indeed hardly worthy of the name. God did not make a world full of evil. He made a world that carried the possibility of evil and the possibility of good, and set us free in it. Without this choice, without this freedom of will, there may not have been the possibility of suffering, ignorance, and dislike, true enough, but neither would there be any possibility for true joy or happiness, for we would all be mere executions of the vast divine computer program. In other words, the entire point of creation would be lost.
Well, he is quite a fool, isn't he? First he designs us this way so to make things more interesting, and then he tries to correct his mistake by using his feeble powers to steer us towards his own path? He should either make us completely the "computer programs" you are talking of, or give us this free will and have absolutely no interference in our affairs. And what exactly does it mean to be human? That is just a common conception that has developed in our minds throughout the years; the concept of a human system of thought is entirely subjective and varies between people. Many scientists today still think that we are puppets as far as this goes, whether or not there is a god, and I am inclined to agree with them.
You would despise God because you find evil in the world. But I say to you that God did not make an evil world, did not make a world of suffering and pain and ignorance and despair. God created a world that was good, and a people that were good and whole and pure and perfect after their kind, and he set them in that world and gave them the choice of good and evil, of life and death. That choice stands before us every day, and whether we rail against it or not, we must make it, and face the consequences of our choice. Would you have the choice removed from you, and be rendered nothing more than the execution of a program, devoid of will or meaning? Would you not then become nothing, and surrender all that is in you to make you human? What kind of existence would that be, this forced obedience, this puppet-on-a-string action, this unknowing, unfree, unmeaning love of God? It would be nothing, unworthy of existing. If the world is now fallen and broken from the perfection that once it was, God has promised us that he will restore it to us anew, made perfect once again. The resurrection you despise is far greater a thing than you or I know, CP5670. All that is marred, smeared and bleared now will be made anew, and we will be changed, no longer the fallible, weak and degenerate creatures we now know ourselves to be, but the perfected beings that the depths of our hearts tell us we are supposed to be. God will indeed make the world good again, and he will restore it to all who choose. On that day, we are promised, that though "now we see through a glass, darkly," that then we shall see "face to face," for "Now I know in part; but then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." (1 Corinthians 13:12)
Sorry, but this makes no sense at all; you are only trying to shift the blame of this god in an attempt to make him appear to be an amalgamation of the popular accepted idea of "good" as a moral state. If this god made us so, and we did all this, then he is indirectly entirely responsible for everything, because he shaped our "free wills," he shaped the ideas (however subjective) of "good and evil," and everything that follows from them into reality.
First, it is true that (G) entails a great deal of other propositions (P), but even if we regard (G*) as nothing more than the denial of (G), (G*) entails the denial of (P), and thus is still no more simple than (G). But of course, (G*) is not simply a negation of (G), but is a positive idea of its own, and entails its own peculiar set of propositions (Q), which of course are denied by (G) in turn. So if we want to be more specific, (G) entails (P+Q*), while (G*) entails (P*+Q), and since (P*) is no more simple than (P), and (Q*) is no more simple than (Q), for they are denials of their respective counterparts and thus must be of the same complexity as that which they deny, (G*) is still neither more nor less simple than (G).
List the P* propositions, and I bet I can give you more Q* propositions. :D What you are saying is true as far as the logic alone goes, but you are discounting the practicalities of the situation. We are not talking about how simple these variables are in relation to the other variables in the system, but rather in relation to the variables of science and perception that are not included in this system. If you judge the simplicity of say, P and P* with respect to a third, independent variable (science), one can indeed say that one is simpler (more like the existing) than the other.
Actually, Christianity would posit a purpose to human existence. In the words of the Westminster confession, for example, "Man's chief end is to glorify God and serve him forever," or in an alternative way of saying much the same idea, the purpose of our lives is indeed life itself lived in communion with God. If I may follow this trail for a moment, the idea that our eternal destiny is to sit in heaven in a state of bliss that would be extremely boring if not for its superlative blissfulness would most expressly not seem to be the case that Christianity would posit. It seems to me that when we are resurrected, it will be to an existence whose vibrancy and depth we can now barely imagine. So far from sitting on some cloud fingering a harp in some sort of ecstatic stupor, we will discover that this life we now live was but a shadow in comparison to what we will live then. All that is good in us will become the more powerful, and the dross shall have been burned away in the glories of our new existence. Our creative exercise will be greater and deeper than it is now, our emotions at once made holy and made the more passionate, our reason the clearer, our bodies imperishable and strong, and indeed more than can be said awaits us on that day. We are told of a new heavens and a new earth, and the way the Bible tells it, we seem to inhabit both, being both spiritual and physical creatures at once, even as now in our fallen and broken state we are cut off from the spiritual and long for it, if ever so obscurely in the depths of our hearts, as the fulfilment of what we were meant to be. We shall live at last in communion with God, in the light of his life and greatness and love. There we shall discover that, so far from winding down into stagnant, torpid bliss, life in all its true vibrancy will have just begun. Life in communion with God is the purpose of life, and is the state (or better, the starting point) where we at last find our fulfilment and meaning.
I say that in the event that a god exists, man's chief end is to rid the universe of the god and become the gods ourselves. Why should we have to submit to a god who is not much better than us? Also, our emotions are made more "holy" and passionate? I do not want any emotions whatsoever! (aside from ambition) I have determined that true emotions are one of the great curses of all human affairs; with the notable exception of ambition, emotions are what has kept us down for so long. And who decides what is good and what is bad? As I said earlier, Hitler was just as "good" as any of us, as he truly thought that he was serving god. Also, if he is capable of maintaing an "orderly universe" (whatever that means), why is it so disorderly? It has some mathematical order in certain places, but in other ways things make less sense. (i.e. why did he choose the C constant to be exactly what it is? why not some round integer?) Finally, how do you know that this new life is so much better? It could be much worse for all we know; we cannot take the word of a human god (Bible) for granted, because the human brain may lie based on what its motives are, and you have already said that the god has motives and is therefore a human.
It is extremely and unjustifiably presumptive to believe that science provides such a solution, for the criteria you describe fail to yield results in the simplest of tests. "All thinkers should be able to confirm any given observation" immediately excludes all of history, for but one example, for we have no way to test whether, say, the Roman empire actually did exist, or whether I ate toast for breakfast on Tuesday morning, and can rely solely on testimonial data. So unless you want to throw away all of history, we are going to have to admit the possibility that we can regard some things as objectively real without requiring that they be immediately accessible to all would-be observers.
There is a difference there. We do indeed have to rely on historical records to determine whether or not the Roman empire existed, but these historical records fit in with current science. This is why I am willing to accept some parts of the Bible and not others; sure, this Christ fellow existed, but he was just another person and was quite certainly not resurrected.
Seriously, in my opinion these various religious prophets throughtout history are definitely the worst people who ever lived due to their incredible lasting influence on the common minds.
I call it emotional because it is stereotyping. It is, if I may say so, a very biassed analysis that would say that religion somehow inhibits our intellects. Lack of critical thought is a reflection of the laziness and/or stupidity of the individual in question, not of what beliefs he might hold. I hope that I am something of an example of a Christian who can nevertheless engage in critical thought, even as you seem to me an example of an atheist who isn't one unthinkingly. To equate religious with irrational and unthinking, and non-religious with rational and thoughtful, is entirely unjustifiable. If observation leads someone to conclude such a thing, I am inclined to think that the observer is observing through tinted glasses.
I think your own signs of subjective thought are beginning to show here. It is true that rational thought and irrational beliefs can coincide in most minds due to the generally accepted atomistic view of things, as long as a train of logical reasoning does not lead to something that is in error with an assumption. Now, the issue comes up when you try to think rationally and reach a contradiction that does not fit in with what was accepted before. As long as we stick to things that are not directly related to religion (math, most of science, etc.), we are fine, but the effects of religion on the cognitive capability of the mind start to show when one thinks about philosophy and possibly reaches a logical conclusion that does not go with what is current accepted. Take Newton for example: possibly the greatest scientist who ever lived, but a rotten philosopher for the most part. (heck, he took everything in the Bible at literal face value and tried to base the world off that)
As I said above, the thing is that God has revealed himself as a person, not a force. Now, when dealing with a person, we do not use the same sort of criteria at all for evaluation as we do with a force. If George claims that one day he said to me "Ooga-booga," and that I relied "Unga-bunga," that does not mean that I shall always reply "Unga-bunga" to every occurrence of someone saying "Ooga-booga," nor that my reply of "Unga-bunga" on that one occasion should be banished from the realm of objective reality if I do not. Likewise, if a personal being exists with the power to make himself directly perceptible to human beings or not, we cannot say that because he sometimes makes himself perceptible that he must always be so. His actions are determined by his own choice for his own reasons, not by involuntary necessity. If he should not choose to manifest himself in certain ways at certain times, we cannot simply dismiss out of hand the claim that he once did, any more than we can dismiss George's claim that onqce I chose to reply "Unga-bunga" to his "Ooga-booga." No, when dealing with persons, we have to investigate the objective probability of a claimed action by other means than we do claims regarding forces of nature. This is the stage where actual evaluation of Christianity begins.
If someone says "oonga-boonga" do you, and all other universal conditions are exactly the same, the probability that you will reply with "unga-bunga" is "transfinitesimally" smaller than 100%. (not quite equal to 100% but rather 100-1/À° ; but it can be assumed as equal for any finite number of occurrences) I actually found this sort of hard to accept for a while, being a calculus-oriented person, until I learned of the clear distinction between the transfinite and the infinite.
But this is all beside the point, and I fail to see how it has anything to do with my earlier statement. Why did he reveal himself as a person and not a force? And as I said earlier, as a person, he was not impressive at all. Also, you seem to be saying that his actions are determined by his own whimsical wants, and therefore he is a human as far as his thought processes go.
In short, the imperfections that worry you will be no longer. The resurrected life will be greater by far than we know now. You personally, CP5670, appear to look forward to the day when we humans will have a clear and true knowledge of things. In the resurrection, this will at last be attainable, and more by far besides.
If a god exists, I am also looking forward to the day that he will cease to exist and we will become the gods. :p If we get everything in this "resurrection" that we ever wanted, we should get that as well. Also, why cannot this ultimate knowledge be attained in our current state without any resurrection?
The resurrection is central. It wasn't just "dropped in," it is the foundation and central point.
Are you kidding or serious about this? If this is really the case, the entire religion would instantly become total rubbish, even more so than the others. Even many Christians do not believe in this resurrection stuff.
If Christ was resurrected, why then were Hitler and bin Laden (if he's dead) not resurrected and put back into the world? They are just as much "prophets of god" as any of these other people, because so many other followed their paths, and nobody can really dispute that.
Before I start, here is that brief word regarding transfinitude. In short, I do not grant a transfinite God, but an infinite one. The term "transfinite" is one which I have never encountered outside of my conversation with you, CP5670, and I do not feel familiar enough with the term to start throwing it around before I understand its nuances better. Moreover, given the definition you gave to sandwich, it seems that transfinitude amounts to some sort of intermediate state between finitude and infinitude, or perhaps a kind of continuum in which both are somehow subsumed so that the infinite becomes as the finite, and the finite the infinite. I remain skeptical of the value of this concept, at the very least in regard to the way it has been used in this conversation. In effect, it seems that here transfinitude has been used in an attempt to pull God down from the infinite while at the same time to bring us out of the finite and onto the same level as God - a means of trying to usurp the throne while mitigating the consequences. I will thus insist upon an infinite God, since that is the sort of God that Christianity assumes, and will continue to speak in terms of infinitude and finitude in my arguments and discussion.
The infinite is an abstract quantity that cannot arise in reality; the transfinite is similar to the infinite, but it can be numerically manipulated and compared with other transfinite quanitites, and can also be used as a multiplier to work with finite quantities. Infinity is kind of the ultimate thing here; one cannot go beyond that, as anything added in any way to it will result in the same quantity. However, the infinite cannot interface at all with the transfinite, much less the finite, which shows that there is no way that this god could have made anything that was not equally as infinite as him.
The reason why infinity is harder to work with is that it is more an arbitrary symbol than a distinct number; there are an infinite number of quantities that all are different from each other but equal to infinity, and infinity as a mathematical concept violates the reflexive property of logic. If the god is infinite, he cannot be compared to any finite thing which goes with what you say, but then he cannot be compared to himself either, and more importantly, he cannot have any relationship whatsoever with finite or transfinite things such as ourselves. If he has no relationship to our universe (which is transfinite, if not finite), then he does not exist at all in the realm of the absolute and we can disregard him completely.
And yes, I am trying to bring god down and pull ourselves up. I do indeed not only want to "usurp the throne," but completely rid the universe of this god once and for all. He has messed things up long enough. :p
Premise 1 is plainly true; whatever Xs are, there being Xs cannot explain there being Xs.
3. If an existential proposition does not concern something whose existence it is logically possible to explain, it concerns something whose existence is logically impossible to explain.
Where did that stuff come from? You seem to be contradicting youself here, because you are saying that a statement cannot be used to explain itself, but that is precisely what you are doing here. (this statement and the concluding statement are the same thing) But anyway, this is precisely what the system of logic assumptions and axioms is for.
The proposition The natural realm exists is an existential proposition which it is logically possible has an explanation. A monotheistically-conceived creator God is one such available explanation, but there are others of course. As such, by the preceding argument, 1) The natural realm exists is not sufficient to explain The natural realm exists, and 2) The natural realm exists can only be explained by a true existential proposition concerning something whose existence it is logically impossible to explain. Therefore, one is left with two options: one can either posit a existential proposition as an explanation of the natural realm which refers to something that exists outside of the natural realm and is logically impossible to explain, or one can simply refuse to answer the question. The former option is the positing of some sort of supernatural reality, and the later is to leave onself in the awkward position of having a question (Why does anything in the natural realm exist, even though it might not have?) which is intelligible and basic and very well could have had an answer, but simply does not. One can adopt this later position if one wishes to undermine the basic assumption If it is logically possible that the truth of a logically contingent existential proposition be explained, then there actually is an explanation of its truth (whether we know what it is or not), but then mystery lies on your side of the fence, not the supernaturalist's.
I agree with your first few sentences and statement 1, but statement 2 is not so good. It may or may not be true, but if it is true, we need to start adding in extra axioms into our system, but these new assumptions should be chosen so that they fit in best with the axioms we current have, which in turn are based on perception. Contradictory axioms are the last thing we need here. The other option is, of course, to leave it as undecidedly indeterminate until more data has been collected, but for certain operations we require a temporary result of the question to proceed, so we may have to move to the assumption system once again.
This argument also speaks to your fun and playfully specious little purple dragon theory. If one were to attempt the gargantuan task of trying to draw up the full definition of God, one would have to include the idea of being logically impossible to explain (for if one could explain this being's existence by reference to some other thing, then this being would cease to be regarded as God). Now, if "God" (i.e. the being who created the universe) were created by the purple dragon, and the purple dragon was in turn created by you, neither "God" nor the purple dragon are really God. At this point we are left to consider whether you are God (that is, whether your existence is logically impossible to explain). Looking at you, we find that your existence is logically possibly explicable, and that therefore you are not God either. So continuing backwards through the chain of explanations we suddenly arrive once again at the original being "God" who created the universe. We thus find no being about whom the proposition There exist things whose existence it is logically impossible to explain is true. If this situation occurs, then no explanation can be posited whatsoever for any existential proposition being true, and the rules of logic implode into a very nasty mess. Therefore, I conclude that your theory is false!
Well, who is to say that my existence is logically explicable? It is not explicable without external assumptions (nothing is), and if none of those are used, then I am indeed the god. Again, I point you to the systems of assumptions and mathematical simplicity. Also, remember what I said earlier about a looped series being used to forego the concept of cause. And so, your theory is false and mine is true, and I made the purple dragon and the purple dragon made god! :D
If it were somehow irrefutably proven by the rules of logic that God could not exist, I would, after getting over my initial shock and incredulity (I've been arguing that such logical proof in either direction is impossible), accept it, but I would despise this new reality with all vehemence in my body and soul. As a theist I could accept the fact that I had been wrong, but as a human being I would find the results to be vile. I find the idea of reality without God hateful in the extreme, because it destroys everything in me that I value as a human being.
Interesting. For me, it would destroy almost everything in me that I hate about myself as a human being, leaving only the good stuff. :D
Reality without God negates everything that human nature demands that there should be: reason, meaning, significance, value, dignity, worth, etc. Such an existence, one without any truth or an absolute of any kind save senseless, brute matter, is insufferable.
All of those are entirely subjective concepts and have no real meaning even within human nature when multiple subjects are taken into account. I think you are being influenced by your emotional upbringing as a human here, because we have been taught to think like this throughout the course of our lives and base everything on these concepts one way or another. I am pretty certain that emotion and religion are in some fundamental way intimately connected to each other, and the existence of one brings up the existence of the other; this leads into why people are so unwilling to give up either one and why they sometimes use contradicatory statements as assumptions to base all of their other reasoning on. (it's kind of like the way people wondered why e^x and sin(x) shared so many properties, until they found out what was really going on ;)) This is something I will have to explain in detail later in that book as it is too messy to go over in detail here. The existence of senseless, brute matter is exactly what I want, because the idea of "sense" has no meaning outisde a single human, which would make sensible and senseless matter the same thing.
maybe you should try makeing it flash and give it sound effects
That's a good idea. :D
I now have one more question for you: do you believe in the purple dragon theory, and why or why not? (I'm serious here :D)
-
Impressive. I'm going to have to set aside a big chunk of time to look over those posts in detail.
-
you two have fun. i don't have the patience to read all that... but what if Sesquipedalian's post I did read was a decent arguement, but still had no evidence - and to say something can exist and be outside empirical observation is complete bull
-
and to say something can exist and be outside empirical observation is complete bull
I completely agree; if something has no effect on our universe, it does not exist in the absolute, and that is all we are concerned with here.
-
Now, I probably am not anywhere near as good as sesq at arguing, but I'll give it a shot.
Also, if he is capable of maintaing an "orderly universe" (whatever that means), why is it so disorderly? It has some mathematical order in certain places, but in other ways things make less sense. (i.e. why did he choose the C constant to be exactly what it is? why not some round integer?)
Let us take science. Although many of us do not realize this, science requires the basic belief that there is an underlying order in the universe. It depends on the fact that the universe is rational and can be explained. Science depends on the belief that there is an Order of Things .
According to Loren Eisley, the origin of modern science was due to: "The sheer act of faith that the universe possessed order and could be interpreted by rational minds . . . The philosophy of experimental science . . . began its discoveries and made use of its method in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a Creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation. The experimental method succeeded beyond man's wildest dreams but the faith that brought it into being owes something to the Christian conception of the nature of God. It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption." .
The C constant is defined by whatever units mankind has given it. The meter is defined as 1650763.73 wavelengths of the orange-red line of krypton-86 propagating in a vacuum. Of course, we could just as easily define the speed of light as 1 [whatever]. However, whatever units you give the speed of light, the relationship between it and other constants are the same. This shows how the universe is ordered. Take e=mc^2 (actually, it is e^2=m^2c^4 to take into account anti-matter, but never mind). Take the fine structure constant, alpha. It is defined as e^2/h-bar*c.
Well, he is quite a fool, isn't he? First he designs us this way so to make things more interesting, and then he tries to correct his mistake by using his feeble powers to steer us towards his own path? He should either make us completely the "computer programs" you are talking of, or give us this free will and have absolutely no interference in our affairs. And what exactly does it mean to be human? That is just a common conception that has developed in our minds throughout the years; the concept of a human system of thought is entirely subjective and varies between people. Many scientists today still think that we are puppets as far as this goes, whether or not there is a god, and I am inclined to agree with them.
Actually, he didn't make a mistake. We made the choice to disobey God. It isn't the mistake of God. He gave us the choice whether to obey or disobey God. Love cannot exist where there is no freedom to chose. Through the one act of sin, death reigned. It is because we disobeyed God that he had to send his son, Jesus, to die on the cross for our sins. Through this one act of righteousness, sin and death were defeated. Now, of course, God still gives us the choice whether to accept his gift (Jesus). He gives us this choice as there are people who would prefer to go to hell than to stop rebelling against him, instead of obeying him. It is because he loves us that he sent his son into the world. Take fathers for example. Although we have free will, they discipline us. They do what is good for us. Now, most people think that suffering is always bad. This is not true. Suffering refines us, like gold in fire to get rid of impurities. Storms make us realize what we really need in life, what excess baggage we don't really need. It makes us realize that this too shall pass . The definition of wisdom is (as the bible gives it), the ability to realize the reality of a situation. The reality that, this life too will pass away when we die. We won't get to keep our material possessions.
If we are but puppets, we are assuming that the universe is deterministic. As we now know from quantum physics, all things are NOT predefined. You cannot predict whether a photon polarized 45 degrees to polarized glass will be absorbed or allowed through. Now, you might say then, how does God know beforehand what we will chose?
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle applies only to humans, since we a restricted to only one dimension of time. God, existing in two or more dimensions of time can know all properties of all particles, since He can exist at any point on our line of time any numbers of times. Therefore, God can measure both the position of a particle, remain at the same point on our line of time, then measure the speed of the same particle. Two dimensions of time allow one to do some pretty awesome things. Think about the implications of this characteristic of God.
Then you might say, if God knows beforehand what we will chose, then we don't really have free choice.
However, God's knowing what choices we will make is simply knowledge - it doesn't remove our free will, for we are still the ones making the choices.
Sorry, but this makes no sense at all; you are only trying to shift the blame of this god in an attempt to make him appear to be an amalgamation of the popular accepted idea of "good" as a moral state. If this god made us so, and we did all this, then he is indirectly entirely responsible for everything, because he shaped our "free wills," he shaped the ideas (however subjective) of "good and evil," and everything that follows from them into reality.
If (for argument's sake) God gave us the ideas of "good and evil", God still gives us a choice. It is because God is responsible that he must punish sinners by putting them into hell. Note, however, we are all sinners. We are sinners by nature since the fall. However, when God gave us the choice whether to accept the gift of Jesus, it is a choice of whether to accept Jesus as our substitute for punishment.
I'm not sure what the next section is about, so I'll skip it and look at it later.
I say that in the event that a god exists, man's chief end is to rid the universe of the god and become the gods ourselves. Why should we have to submit to a god who is not much better than us? Also, our emotions are made more "holy" and passionate? I do not want any emotions whatsoever! (aside from ambition) I have determined that true emotions are one of the great curses of all human affairs; with the notable exception of ambition, emotions are what has kept us down for so long. And who decides what is good and what is bad? As I said earlier, Hitler was just as "good" as any of us, as he truly thought that he was serving god. Finally, how do you know that this new life is so much better? It could be much worse for all we know; we cannot take the word of a human god (Bible) for granted, because the human brain may lie based on what its motives are, and you have already said that the god has motives and is therefore a human.
Now, this is already taking into assumption that God is not much better than us. Of course God is much better than us! He is omniscient, we are but humans. So that makes your argument nil.
It is God who decides who is good or bad. It is God who judges Hitler for what he did. About how do we know the new life is better, it is up to you. Some people may not want to go to God's heaven. Therefore God gives us a choice. The next section, you got it all the way around. Man was made in the image of God , not the other way around. Man has motives, just as God has motives. But what do you really define as motives anyway? Of course we can take the word of God. God is omniscient. You forget that Jesus was human for a period of time. But he is still omniscient.
Well, I got to go to sleep. I'll leave it up to sesq to make a better answer and to answer the rest :)
-
still no evidence
-
If you want a good site that gives a summary of evidence, this (http://www.tcc.org.au/evidence/) is a pretty good site. There's probably lots more that are better, so you can probably search for some on google.
-
Evidence?! :confused: :mad: What evidence would you accept?! You obvisly won't accept our aguments telling you evolution is just a religion. Why should we give you more when you won't even pay attention to the stuff we have told you!
-
I don't think that you can possibly prove / disprove the existence of a supreme being with any method - to our perception, God does not exists - any supreme deity would be, by nature, beyond our senses.
It's apparent this is an impossible argument to win for either side. That's fair enough. the only thing I object to is the attempt to discredit the likes of evolutionary theory, and science, on the basis on a religion - when the 2 are clearly inclusive.
Science is a basis of understanding and observing our surroundings - the world we live in. as science improves, we understand more of that world. If that world has been created by a supreme deity, does that matter?
This does not preclude the existance of God. furthermore, the existance of God would not invalidate scientific theory. Only we can do that, because it's based on our perceptions.
Personally, I'm sitting right in the middle. I don't overtly bvelieve in God - nor do I overly doubt His existance. i don;t see it as relevant to my life, because I already know what is required to be a decent, honest person -so I don't need any spiritual guidance from that respect.
And anywa, even if our lives are directed and we have no free will - how would we know?
-
because
A) the evidence you provided is skewed and has been ruled irrelevant in the court of peer review
B) you didn't provide much evidence
C) HOW MANY MOTHER FARKING TIMES DO WE HAVE TO TELL YOU THIS - JUST BECAUSE A SCIENTIFIC THEORY ISN'T ROCK SOLID AND HASN'T BEEN PUT IN IT'S FINAL FORM AND PROVEN DOESN'T MAKE CREATIONISM PROVEN
D) YOU HAVE PROVIDED _NO_ EVIDENCE FOR CREATIONISM - ONLY ARGUEMENTS THAT STARTED IOUT UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT HE EXISTED - ALL OF THEM SAY IN SHORT "HE EXISTS! BECAUSE I HOPE HE DOES"
-
According to Loren Eisley, the origin of modern science was due to: "The sheer act of faith that the universe possessed order and could be interpreted by rational minds . . . The philosophy of experimental science . . . began its discoveries and made use of its method in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a Creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation. The experimental method succeeded beyond man's wildest dreams but the faith that brought it into being owes something to the Christian conception of the nature of God. It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption." .
This is such garbage that I'm not going to even going to bother with it a whole lot. Since when does Christianity say that the universe can be rationally interpreted? In fact, just a few posts ago some people were talking about how god is beyond the understanding of humans. Also, the modern experimental method existed at least 600 years before Christianity was formed.
The C constant is defined by whatever units mankind has given it. The meter is defined as 1650763.73 wavelengths of the orange-red line of krypton-86 propagating in a vacuum. Of course, we could just as easily define the speed of light as 1 [whatever]. However, whatever units you give the speed of light, the relationship between it and other constants are the same. This shows how the universe is ordered. Take e=mc^2 (actually, it is e^2=m^2c^4 to take into account anti-matter, but never mind). Take the fine structure constant, alpha. It is defined as e^2/h-bar*c.
Okay, I will concede that point, but there are a number of other areas in science where things do not work out so nicely. (i.e. certain forms of the GR field equations) Also, you could just write |e|=mc². :p
Actually, he didn't make a mistake. We made the choice to disobey God. It isn't the mistake of God. He gave us the choice whether to obey or disobey God. Love cannot exist where there is no freedom to chose. Through the one act of sin, death reigned. It is because we disobeyed God that he had to send his son, Jesus, to die on the cross for our sins. Through this one act of righteousness, sin and death were defeated. Now, of course, God still gives us the choice whether to accept his gift (Jesus). He gives us this choice as there are people who would prefer to go to hell than to stop rebelling against him, instead of obeying him. It is because he loves us that he sent his son into the world. Take fathers for example. Although we have free will, they discipline us. They do what is good for us. Now, most people think that suffering is always bad. This is not true. Suffering refines us, like gold in fire to get rid of impurities. Storms make us realize what we really need in life, what excess baggage we don't really need. It makes us realize that this too shall pass . The definition of wisdom is (as the bible gives it), the ability to realize the reality of a situation. The reality that, this life too will pass away when we die. We won't get to keep our material possessions.
Again, you are trying to shift the blame off god. He gave us this freedom to choose. And the second bit is really nonsense for a god that is supposedly "all-powerful;" you are telling me that he has to send another human down to "atone for our sins?" Why does he not simply revoke the entire concept of sin? I also think that suffering is a necessary component of human advance, but at the same time I am told that nobody suffers in heaven. :rolleyes:
If we are but puppets, we are assuming that the universe is deterministic. As we now know from quantum physics, all things are NOT predefined. You cannot predict whether a photon polarized 45 degrees to polarized glass will be absorbed or allowed through. Now, you might say then, how does God know beforehand what we will chose?
Well, even quantum physics has not been able to answer this question. All we know is that we as humans cannot determine certain properties about particles as long as we use other particles to measure these properties. That does not say much about whether the universe is inherently deterministic or probabilistic, which is why the scientific community is sort of divided on this issue today.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle applies only to humans, since we a restricted to only one dimension of time. God, existing in two or more dimensions of time can know all properties of all particles, since He can exist at any point on our line of time any numbers of times. Therefore, God can measure both the position of a particle, remain at the same point on our line of time, then measure the speed of the same particle. Two dimensions of time allow one to do some pretty awesome things. Think about the implications of this characteristic of God.
How do you know that humans do not live in multiple time dimensions? In fact, I think it may well be possible, as it would perfectly account for all of the strange effects seen at the particle level, and I am thinking of doing some work later on with this.
If (for argument's sake) God gave us the ideas of "good and evil", God still gives us a choice. It is because God is responsible that he must punish sinners by putting them into hell. Note, however, we are all sinners. We are sinners by nature since the fall. However, when God gave us the choice whether to accept the gift of Jesus, it is a choice of whether to accept Jesus as our substitute for punishment.
So now he is indeed responsible for everything; he can be considered a sinner himself for creating the concept of sin in the first place. And I already said that hell is no punishment; it is equally as good as heaven, because you get to learn and experience what the people in heaven do not. :p
Of course God is much better than us! He is omniscient, we are but humans. So that makes your argument nil.
See what I said earlier about indirect questioning. You may say that this god is omnipresent, but everything attributed to him in the Bible and the way he works with things (he has his own will, from what you said) shows that he is most certainly not any better than a human.
Man was made in the image of God , not the other way around. Man has motives, just as God has motives. But what do you really define as motives anyway? Of course we can take the word of God. God is omniscient. You forget that Jesus was human for a period of time. But he is still omniscient.
Well, if the human is made in the image of god, then the god will probably share some of the flaws with the human. Motives are one of those things that we all know well but which is somewhat hard to define mathematically; once you reach a certain point of logical complexity in a given system, it can be thought of as having a motive, but this point has not been explicitly defined yet. Also, how can we take the word of god if he has this free will? As long as he has a will, it is possible that he may lie, just like humans.
-
Well, if the human is made in the image of god, then the god will probably share some of the flaws with the human. Motives are one of those things that we all know well but which is somewhat hard to define mathematically; once you reach a certain point of logical complexity in a given system, it can be thought of as having a motive, but this point has not been explicitly defined yet. Also, how can we take the word of god if he has this free will? As long as he has a will, it is possible that he may lie, just like humans.
:confused: A mirror image is not the same. It's 2d instead of 3d like you. So it looks like you but it is not you.
-
:confused: A mirror image is not the same. It's 2d instead of 3d like you. So it looks like you but it is not you.
He has the "free will" at any rate though, which is enough to make my point.
-
I did have something far more meaningful and insightful (I hope) to say after reading Sesq's last post, which currently is escaping me. Hopefully it'll come back to me but for the time being, I'll just post a few other things.
In the words of the Westminster confession, for example, "Man's chief end is to glorify God and serve him forever," or in an alternative way of saying much the same idea, the purpose of our lives is indeed life itself lived in communion with God.
I don't believe that these two statements are one and the same as you seem to. The first would better be expanded as "man's life has no role except to praise God and serve him forever". I may be getting the ancient wording wrong, but to me, both words 'serve' and 'glorify' imply servility and a master-slave relationship. The second sentence, by comparison carries no such implications and is thus not the same in terms of meaning.
In addition, addressing Sesq; do you believe in hell? Nobody seems willing to answer my questions why Blitz_lightning and others believe in it as a (physical or metaphysical) place and why those who refuse to believe in God, or remain unsaved, have to go there.
In terms of describing hell, what is it? The eternal separation from God accompanied by the knowledge that he existed all along? Physical torture (without physical form, which I find contradictory)? Is there some kind of intermediate realm; after all, it would be unnecessarily vindictive to condemn those who had never heard of God and had the chance to convert to hell.
In addition, I think that in discussing the existence of God on a universal scale, you're all somewhat missing the point. IMO, a God can exist in theory and even have created the universe without any kind of difficulty. However, the topic is "religion" not God - ie. the construction of a system based around that belief in God. Whilst God may be a perfectly rational, capable, responsible being, religion is an invention of man, and thus suffers from all the problems that fallible humans bring to it. Based on the enormous influence or religious groups and the negative consequences for the world that result from their existence, would it not be better that God just exists, not communicating with living humans but evaluating individuals based on their moral conduct?
Finally, I'm wondering what the religious types (that sounds derogatory, but I'm just using it as a catch-all, I assure you ;)) think of the possible existence of life on other planets. I read a very interesting book by James Blish about this subject and the Vatican's official line on what form aliens, if disocvered, would take (they don't deny the possibility of them existing, as it happens - just not on the same terms as humans).
-
Well, the thing is that most of the pro-religion people here are saying that the whole concept of religion is not a totally human invention at all, but "insipired by an act of god" or something and therefore not susceptible to the same problems as other human knowledge. You can probably guess what I think of that whole idea. :p :D
-
One very interesting series of book i've been reading is the Rama series by A.C Clarke.
Some interesting takes on the effect of aliens on religion in there.
-
I have read the first book in that series (Rendezvous with Rama) and it was very nice, but I haven't checked out the others yet.
I think that these religions will accept the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life if we encounter it, but they will stick to the idea that we are the superior species and the only true manifestation of god. :p
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Well, the thing is that most of the pro-religion people here are saying that the whole concept of religion is not a totally human invention at all, but "insipired by an act of god" or something and therefore not susceptible to the same problems as other human knowledge. You can probably guess what I think of that whole idea. :p :D
You seem to be the only one who has not flamed me for saying this but I'll say it one last time.
Religion is simply a mental appendix that the human race no longer needs. It was a primitive attempt to explain what we cannot and will never know.
I also believe (to much of the dismay of most everyone else here ) that the evolution of our race will eventually cause religion to be non-existant.
People with religion have an obsolete philosophy on life.
I find it hard to believe that there's an Invisable Man in the clouds who watches everything we say and do.
That's why I'm a sun worshiper. :D At least you can SEE the sun.
-
I haven't argued with you on that point because I wholeheartedly agree with you. ;) :D
-
word killa, word
-
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
If you want a good site that gives a summary of evidence, this (http://www.tcc.org.au/evidence/) is a pretty good site. There's probably lots more that are better, so you can probably search for some on google.
I refuse to believe any site that starts off with an argument that goes something like: "I don't understand how the eye could've evolved, therefore it was designed." Gag.
Originally posted by hotsnoj
Evidence?! :confused::mad: What evidence would you accept?! You obvisly won't accept our aguments telling you evolution is just a religion. Why should we give you more when you won't even pay attention to the stuff we have told you!
Evolution is not a religion. It is the theory that currently best explains the origin of life on Earth.
Originally posted by CP5670
Also, you could just write |e|=mc². :p
Stop butchering math. I cringe everytime you put out an equation, and that's annoying because generally I agree with what you have to say.
e²=m²c^4 is not the same as |e|=mc².
Neither does Blitz's equation adequately compensate for antimatter. I believe the equation you're looking for is e=|m|c².
Originally posted by aldo_14
I don't think that you can possibly prove / disprove the existence of a supreme being with any method - to our perception, God does not exists - any supreme deity would be, by nature, beyond our senses.
This is somewhat true. It depends how you define existence, though. I would define existence as it must be able to be observed somehow, directly or indirectly. A supreme being cannot be observed, so I would say it doesn't exist.
-
Stop butchering math. I cringe everytime you put out an equation, and that's annoying because generally I agree with what you have to say.
e²=m²c^4 is not the same as |e|=mc².
Neither does Blitz's equation adequately compensate for antimatter. I believe the equation you're looking for is e=|m|c².
:D Whoops, you're right; my equation is somewhat incorrect, but yours is even worse. :p I believe antimatter yields a negative energy value, but the mass is still positive, thereby giving two energy values (one matter and one antimatter) for each mass value, so the equation would be my original |e|=mc² one. However, that is not quite right either, as it does not take negative and complex values of m into account - they may not mean anything in the physical world, but as a theory-oriented guy these values are just as important to me as the realistic ones. :D Assuming that Blitz's original equation is correct, the absolute values would need to be on both sides to take both negative and complex values into account; something like |e|=|m|c². (c would be predefined so we don't need to worry about that)
-
I'm going to see my brother tommorow, and he doesn't quantum physics shizat... so im going to ask him about antimatter being plugged into the conversion equasion
-
If you want a good site that gives a summary of evidence, this is a pretty good site.
ok the site's main point's of evedence are
a) life is too complex to have just hapened
b) the Universe needed to have a cause for it to be created (ie God)
c) that humans have a value system
a) evolution
b) ok we don't have that good of an answere at this point, this is what I generaly consider the anti-creation argument's one and only weak point, becase it requires quantom mechanics ect..., and quantum mechanics is just illogical to me in many situations, this however does not effect evolution, if you're arguments for free will (in responce to why the world isn't absolutly perfict) are true than an eveolutionary system seems to fit right in with Gods mentality,
further I will let someone with a better knowlege of Quantom mechanics feild this
c) evolution
-
Actually, regarding b, the looped-universe system makes perfect sense and works without any god. And if you do not agree here, you should not be accepting that god "always existed" either, so how was god made? Religion does not close up that question at all; it just drops in an extra stage into the universal history. As I said countless times before, "god" is simply the weak mind's way of explaining natural phenomena in a manner that is logically simple and emotionally appealing.
-
"According to it, God made us free to choose our path, whether to follow his best or not. Automata were not what he wanted to create; he wanted to create other free beings like he himself was free...."
If God wished to create equals with free will, then why punish them when they go against the deity's wishes? The only explanation would be the love of a parent, giving guidelines which must be followed. However by nature this states that the creations are not equals.
You need to seriously rethink your theology there since you have serious lapses :wink:
One point to ponder: By definition the universe is all knowing, all powerful, and sentient.
Now before someone tries to argue that, look at the definition of the word universe :)
-
That is the second purpose of religion: the purpose of government. This includes a code of laws and a system of enforcement based on fear of punishment. (hell)
-
Originally posted by CP5670
:D Whoops, you're right; my equation is somewhat incorrect, but yours is even worse. :p
I'm not sure about that. :p Actually, you're probably right.
I believe antimatter yields a negative energy value, but the mass is still positive, thereby giving two energy values (one matter and one antimatter) for each mass value, so the equation would be my original |e|=mc² one.
Maybe. I wrote that in complete ignorance of the physics; I just assumed the mass was negative and that there's no such thing as anti-energy.
However, that is not quite right either, as it does not take negative and complex values of m into account - they may not mean anything in the physical world, but as a theory-oriented guy these values are just as important to me as the realistic ones. :D Assuming that Blitz's original equation is correct, the absolute values would need to be on both sides to take both negative and complex values into account; something like |e|=|m|c². (c would be predefined so we don't need to worry about that)
That would be the most accurate equation assuming that the mass can be negative or positive and the energy can be negative or positive, and whether the energy is negative or positive or the matter is negative or positive does not depend on the sign of the other (whew!).
The problem I would have is that logically if you added two energy values,
x+y=e
to get your energy value, these two groups of equations,
|e|=|m|c²
|x|=|m|c²
|y|=|m|c²
would yield different values for e. |e|=|m|c² could yield two different values, while the second group could yield anything between -e and e.
It's quite possible energy isn't used that way, though.
We ought to team up on this; you seem to understand the physics, and I seem to understand the math, so I'm sure we could figure it out together. ;)
-
Originally posted by CP5670
That is the second purpose of religion: the purpose of government. This includes a code of laws and a system of enforcement based on fear of punishment. (hell)
I believe this was the main purpose of Western religion (I'm not sure about Eastern religion). I mean, just look at the Catholic church and what it controlled. It has a much smaller effect these days, but before the seperation of church and state, it dominated...
-
the equations e=mc2 and e2=m2c4 differ only if negative energies and mass have any physical meaning. The reason why e2=m2c4 is the preferred version is that in e=mc2 a negative mass value implies negative energy (which can't exist, since it is scalar, not vector). Also, e2=m2c4 allows it to be solved using both matter and antimatter.
-
If you want a more precise answer, however, use
E = [(p2c2) + m2c4]1/2 where p is the object's momentum. This is called, if you really want to know, the momentum-energy-4-vector, which is used in special relativity. By the way, don't ask me too much about this, because I am not a physicist!
-
This is such garbage that I'm not going to even going to bother with it a whole lot. Since when does Christianity say that the universe can be rationally interpreted? In fact, just a few posts ago some people were talking about how god is beyond the understanding of humans. Also, the modern experimental method existed at least 600 years before Christianity was formed.
Christianity believes that the universe can be rationally interpreted because the universe was created by an intelligent, creative, and elegant God.
And actually, if you do a bit of research, the modern scientific method was invented by Galileo.
Again, you are trying to shift the blame off god. He gave us this freedom to choose. And the second bit is really nonsense for a god that is supposedly "all-powerful;" you are telling me that he has to send another human down to "atone for our sins?" Why does he not simply revoke the entire concept of sin? I also think that suffering is a necessary component of human advance, but at the same time I am told that nobody suffers in heaven.
It's like saying that it is not your fault for burning yourself because somebody invented the oven. It is your choice whether to burn yourself, so it is you to blame.
Well, even quantum physics has not been able to answer this question. All we know is that we as humans cannot determine certain properties about particles as long as we use other particles to measure these properties. That does not say much about whether the universe is inherently deterministic or probabilistic, which is why the scientific community is sort of divided on this issue today.
Well, what do you mean by inherently deterministic? if I use the the definition provided by dictionary.com,
1. Describes a system whose time evolution can be predicted exactly.
well, since we can't predict quantum phenomena, doen's this mean that the universe isn't deterministic?
How do you know that humans do not live in multiple time dimensions? In fact, I think it may well be possible, as it would perfectly account for all of the strange effects seen at the particle level, and I am thinking of doing some work later on with this.
Well, what I mean about multiple time dimensions is knowing the future. Us humans don't know the future.
So now he is indeed responsible for everything; he can be considered a sinner himself for creating the concept of sin in the first place. And I already said that hell is no punishment; it is equally as good as heaven, because you get to learn and experience what the people in heaven do not.
Why is a being a sinner for creating the concept of sin? Please explain to me how this works. So if I invented the concept of a computer, am I a computer? No. If you think that hell is no punishment, go ahead. Are you sure you would prefer to go to hell? :)
See what I said earlier about indirect questioning. You may say that this god is omnipresent, but everything attributed to him in the Bible and the way he works with things (he has his own will, from what you said) shows that he is most certainly not any better than a human.
Mmm... really? If all-knowing, being able to create the universe isn't any better than being a human, I don't know what is.
Well, if the human is made in the image of god, then the god will probably share some of the flaws with the human. Motives are one of those things that we all know well but which is somewhat hard to define mathematically; once you reach a certain point of logical complexity in a given system, it can be thought of as having a motive, but this point has not been explicitly defined yet. Also, how can we take the word of god if he has this free will? As long as he has a will, it is possible that he may lie, just like humans.
Well, of course, why would God need to lie? He could easily make anything he says into a truth. Why would he lie if he could make it in truth?
-
For those of you who believe in a theory (Evolution).
Why do you believe in evolution? It says you are an animal and you have no soul. So you no chance at living forever, spirit wise. Why go though life thinkin' you are not important? Wouldn't you want to think even when no human loved you God and Jesus do?
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
For those of you who believe in a theory (Evolution).
Why do you believe in evolution? It says you are an animal and you have no soul. So you no chance at living forever, spirit wise. Why go though life thinkin' you are not important? Wouldn't you want to think even when no human loved you God and Jesus do?
Do _you_ believe in your religion because of that? Is the only reason you believe in god, that you have a chance of "living forever"?
Let me tell you something, your chances of living forever are pretty grim, you see, there are no noubt hundreds of religions in the world, each offering some kind of view to what happens after death. And then there is the most likely alternative, when you die, you die, that's it.
Now, as none of these can be proven right or wrong in any way, every single one of them have an equal chance of being right. So, even if I was a christian, it would be highly unlikely that I would end up "living forever". That's definitely not worth wasting your limited lifetime on pointless superstition, don't you think?
And oh, why should it be Jesus and god who loved me. I could just as well make up two imaginary friends named Bill and Ted, that's excatly the same.
-
Originally posted by Pera
1. Do _you_ believe in your religion because of that? Is the only reason you believe in god, that you have a chance of "living forever"?
2. Let me tell you something, your chances of living forever are pretty grim, you see, there are no noubt hundreds of religions in the world, each offering some kind of view to what happens after death. And then there is the most likely alternative, when you die, you die, that's it.
Now, as none of these can be proven right or wrong in any way, every single one of them have an equal chance of being right. So, even if I was a christian, it would be highly unlikely that I would end up "living forever". That's definitely not worth wasting your limited lifetime on pointless superstition, don't you think?
And oh, why should it be Jesus and god who loved me. I could just as well make up two imaginary friends named Bill and Ted, that's excatly the same.
1. I most certianly do!
2. Christianity differs from others because it says, "By faith you are saved, not by works so no one can boast." It's somewhere, can't remember where, but it's there. Others say you can get to heavan by doing good works (deeds). Musilums even if they do good things thier whole life Allah can still send them to Hell. So they have no garenete of where they are going.
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
2. Christianity differs from others because it says, "By faith you are saved, not by works so no one can boast." It's somewhere, can't remember where, but it's there. Others say you can get to heavan by doing good works (deeds). Musilums even if they do good things thier whole life Allah can still send them to Hell. So they have no garenete of where they are going.
What the flying fudge has that got to do with my post? Of course it differs from others, every single religion differs from others, but it doesn't make them any more true.
And remember, originally, christians did get to heaven only by doing good deeds, you are apparently a protestant, and your religion broke off from catholic church in the sixteenth century. How can you tell you are more right that every other christian church?
-
brainfart
-
Christianity believes that the universe can be rationally interpreted because the universe was created by an intelligent, creative, and elegant God.
And actually, if you do a bit of research, the modern scientific method was invented by Galileo.
If this is the case, why was it used by Archimedes, Euclid and a number of other ancient scientists? Galileo sort of brought it to logical precision and formulated a set of rules, so he can be considered its "father" to some extent, but he did not exactly create the whole thing either. And Galileo is not a really good example as far as your argument goes, seeing as the Catholic Church was responsible for most of the misfortune in his life. :rolleyes:
And modern science assumes that everything in the absolute can be interpreted in some way, including this god, if he exists.
It's like saying that it is not your fault for burning yourself because somebody invented the oven. It is your choice whether to burn yourself, so it is you to blame.
The inventor incurs a very small part of the blame, although he is much less to blame because although he made the oven, he did not make you, and both objects are directly responsible for what happened. In the original case, the god indeed has absolute power, including that of our own wills, and so he must take all of the blame one way or another.
Well, what do you mean by inherently deterministic? if I use the the definition provided by dictionary.com,
1. Describes a system whose time evolution can be predicted exactly.
well, since we can't predict quantum phenomena, doen's this mean that the universe isn't deterministic?
Not at all; this ties into the looped 5D universe system I was talking about earlier. If it is deterministic, it means that the same events can occur repeatedly throught the history of reality, thereby completing the loop. Better read up more on this before contesting someone's arguments. :p
Well, what I mean about multiple time dimensions is knowing the future. Us humans don't know the future.
Yes we do, to some extent. If astronomers detect a comet heading towards a solar orbit, one can predict where it will be after X amount of time with very high accuracy due to our improved conception of reality. About 2000 years ago, this was impossible; with the advance of science, it has now become very easy. One of the axioms of science is that we can eventually understand everything, and therefore predict everything.
Why is a being a sinner for creating the concept of sin? Please explain to me how this works. So if I invented the concept of a computer, am I a computer? No. If you think that hell is no punishment, go ahead. Are you sure you would prefer to go to hell?
If sin did not exist, there would be no sinners. He is basically creating a whole species of sinners by creating this concept in the first place. Therefore, he is not only a sinner, but the greatest and most despicable sinner of them all. Your analogy is irrelevant, because the "computer" in the manner you are using it is not a trait that can be ascribed to human will, whereas the "sinner" is. You already said that this god thinks like we do and his a similar type of free will, so the characteristic can be given to him.
I have no big preference between hell and heaven if you only consider the loactions alone, since they both have the same benefits, although yeah, I would prefer hell because all of the other intelligent people who did not give in to this crap would be there.
Mmm... really? If all-knowing, being able to create the universe isn't any better than being a human, I don't know what is.
It is quite possible that in the distant future, the human species will be able to do exactly this with the wonders of technology. So much for the god's powers. :p (again, assumptions of science) We have already modified the Earth extensively to suit our needs, a feat which only 500 years ago would have been considered a total impossibility. Follow the trend, and you shall see where we are headed. We may well become exactly the gods that we speak of now.
Well, of course, why would God need to lie? He could easily make anything he says into a truth. Why would he lie if he could make it in truth?
Because he is a human. Why do humans need to lie? They have independent motives and these motives sometimes require the manipulation of people. This becomes more of an issue when lying about past events than the future, which cannot be as easily changed.
2. Christianity differs from others because it says, "By faith you are saved, not by works so no one can boast." It's somewhere, can't remember where, but it's there. Others say you can get to heavan by doing good works (deeds). Musilums even if they do good things thier whole life Allah can still send them to Hell. So they have no garenete of where they are going.
Now, the god has limited powers once again, because he cannot send people to hell and heaven as he pleases. And every single religion says that "faith is the way to salvation" or some variation of such nonsense. :rolleyes: Also, I wouldn't really talk about the originality of Christianity, as it is essentially the same thing as Judaism as far as its philosophy goes.
btw.. the correct mathmatic distribution of a square through out the eqausion e=mc^2 is
e^2 = c^4 + m^2 + 2mc^2
Sorry to tell you this, but that is actually wrong, because you are taking it to be (m+c²)², which would give the m²+2mc²+c^4 polynomial, but the equation is (mc)² and not (m+c)², which yields m²c^4. ;)
-
yeah CP5670 you're right.. brainfart
-
IMO there's alot science still doesn't understand -
Take the big push for a Grand Unification Theory. We can't make Electroweak and Gravity forces Mix (or was it Electrostrong? can't remember).
Then M theory comes along. And we find that the huge diaspora of String theories are actually part of a supersymmetrical equation. Quite elegant?
What about other forces we haven't even yet observed?
I find it hard to beleive that you can tell someone is behind you just by the miniscule change in absorbed light, or the faint sound of their breathing.
Call me weird but there must be some kind of 6th (or 7th or even 8th?) sense. When I start babbling on about Auras or Atrology some people actually sit up and listen and others just go "thats crap".
I'm not an irrational person, I hope i've proved that in my previous posts.
Now astrology isn't something that dictates your life, because you can do whatever you want to if you put the effort in, but what it does do is Affect you in certain ways that makes you more Likely to do something.
Now I don't beleive that this particular system is in contention with either science or Religion.
Science dictates Gravity as a macroscopic force...what if a massive body has more effects than just a gravitic one? what if gravity affects us in ways other than are directly observable? What if, as I stated above, there's another fundamental force?
As far as religion goes...well, could simply be a kind of celestial signpost telling us what God wants us to do?
Either way, I can see i'm inviting a good flaming here but please try to just think about it before you excuse me from your discussion as some kind of 70's new age throwback.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
One of the axioms of science is that we can eventually understand everything, and therefore predict everything.
the infamous Demon of Laplace.... :cool:
-
I find it hard to beleive that you can tell someone is behind you just by the miniscule change in absorbed light, or the faint sound of their breathing.
Call me weird but there must be some kind of 6th (or 7th or even 8th?) sense. When I start babbling on about Auras or Atrology some people actually sit up and listen and others just go "thats crap".
Well, most of the time people actually do not notice when someone is behind them if the guy in the back is trying to stay undetected. :p I usually recognize it when this occurs by the sound of breathing, which is distinct and noticeable, but people tend to stop breathing temporarily when they are in mental suspense (i.e. not wanting to be seen); if they are not breathing, it can be pretty hard to detect them. :p
Now astrology isn't something that dictates your life, because you can do whatever you want to if you put the effort in, but what it does do is Affect you in certain ways that makes you more Likely to do something.
I guess you could say that it has an effect on the way the brain thinks, because if you are told for example, that you will do a certain thing, then this knowledge will undoutedly affect your choice later on about whether to perform the action or not.
yeah CP5670 you're right.. brainfart
happens to me every now and then too. :p :D
the infamous Demon of Laplace.... :cool:
yep, that's where I got it. ;)
The problem I would have is that logically if you added two energy values,
x+y=e
Actually, when adding two complex number energy values, you would need something a bit more complicated, but if you are sticking to real numbers only but including negatives, it would indeed reduce to x+y=e. As you noticed, four different values are possible for every x-y pair, but that is because every mass value can actually yield multiple energy values, and the math equation makes no distinction between the two. You would basically need two more variables in the equations that simply indicate whether x and y are positive or negative. I'll call these variables s and t, and the equation would become |x|×sign(s)+|y|×sign(t)=e, with the original mass equations turning into |x|×sign(s)=|m|c² and |y|×sign(t)=|m|c², the s and t designating whether the masses are matter or antimatter. Extending this to complex variables, you would need two more variables to determine the signs of the imaginary components, say u and v, such that:
x=a×sign(s)+bi×sign(u)
y=c×sign(t)+di×sign(v)
The equation would be the following:
Re(x)×sign(s) + Re(y)×sign(t) + i( Im(x)×sign(u) + Im(y)×sign(v) ) = Re(e) + Im(e)
(equation has been split into scalar form here)
We ought to team up on this; you seem to understand the physics, and I seem to understand the math, so I'm sure we could figure it out together. ;)
To tell the truth, I am quite ignorant of relativistic physics as well at this point, even though I am planning to go into theoretical cosmology later on; I also only know the math part. :p (I know the classical physics stuff well, but have not really studied the SR and GR equations in depth yet) Just happened to have picked up that bit about the energy values somewhere.
the equations e=mc2 and e2=m2c4 differ only if negative energies and mass have any physical meaning. The reason why e2=m2c4 is the preferred version is that in e=mc2 a negative mass value implies negative energy (which can't exist, since it is scalar, not vector). Also, e2=m2c4 allows it to be solved using both matter and antimatter.
Hey, as a "mathematical physicist," they all exist for me; screw the real interpretations. :D
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
1. I most certianly do!
Excuse me, but does that not expose Christianity as ultimately selfish and narcissistic? The only reason that you believe in God, in your own words, is that he promises you'll live forever. Nobody else, just you.
2. Christianity differs from others because it says, "By faith you are saved, not by works so no one can boast." It's somewhere, can't remember where, but it's there. Others say you can get to heavan by doing good works (deeds). Musilums even if they do good things thier whole life Allah can still send them to Hell. So they have no garenete of where they are going. [/B]
Apart from the obvious logic flaw between the second and third sentences (in Islam you go to heaven through doing good deeds. Even if you do good deeds you can go to hell. :wtf: ?) how is having to do good deeds a bad thing? Essentially it would create an army of religious people doing good throughout the world. That would be better than doing nothing, as your (1) seems to suggest is equally valid in terms of going to heaven.
Now I know there is the problem of what constitutes a 'good deed' - i.e. helping lepers vs. attacking the WTC...but on the whole a good deed is a good thing for everyone.
Oh, and what makes you think that Christianty 'guarantees' anything? I'm sure all the other religions claim the same thing; yet you do not have any proof.
-
What about other forces we haven't even yet observed?
I find it hard to beleive that you can tell someone is behind you just by the miniscule change in absorbed light, or the faint sound of their breathing.
Call me weird but there must be some kind of 6th (or 7th or even 8th?) sense. When I start babbling on about Auras or Atrology some people actually sit up and listen and others just go "thats crap".
wEvil, I hear you there.
Through science we know to be oh so many things that go on around us every day that in some ways we percieve and in others we are not aware of at all. Heck, until a few years ago, nobody knew about all of the phenomenon that goes on above major thunderstorms (blue jets, and sprites) and alot of people still can't agree on ball lightning.
With that in mind I think we can almost say for certain that there is the potential for forces that we cannot detect (as of yet) but that impact on ourselves.
There's been alot of tests done on 6th senses and while some of it is absolute baloney, there are a number of slightly more credible tests that have been done and I have a personal fascination with them.
And the concept of being able to know that someone is watching you without being able to see, smell, touch, or hear them isn't entirely far fetched. You could definately classify it as a survival trait.
The concept of an "aura" isn't all that hard to believe either...every living thing (and non-living in many cases) has an eletromagnetic field. The only way for sharks to be able to catch their prey is by sensing the eletromagnetic field (because they can't see their prey during the last few seconds because of their eye placement). If an "aura" is an eletromagnetic field or an extension of one that we don't know about yet....then its not entirely impossible that we could detect it.
Most of its conjecture, few scientific results, and alot of "hocus pocus" but perhaps someday an entire civilization of people will laugh at us one day for not believing in all this stuff....just as we laugh at the people who didn't think that gravity was real or that planets weren't glass spheres with Earth at the center.
-
Originally posted by Kellan
Excuse me, but does that not expose Christianity as ultimately selfish and narcissistic? The only reason that you believe in God, in your own words, is that he promises you'll live forever. Nobody else, just you.
Apart from the obvious logic flaw between the second and third sentences (in Islam you go to heaven through doing good deeds. Even if you do good deeds you can go to hell. :wtf: ?) how is having to do good deeds a bad thing? Essentially it would create an army of religious people doing good throughout the world. That would be better than doing nothing, as your (1) seems to suggest is equally valid in terms of going to heaven.
Now I know there is the problem of what constitutes a 'good deed' - i.e. helping lepers vs. attacking the WTC...but on the whole a good deed is a good thing for everyone.
Oh, and what makes you think that Christianty 'guarantees' anything? I'm sure all the other religions claim the same thing; yet you do not have any proof.
In Islam Allah can send you to hell even if you did good deeds because he dicides if he likes yo or not. He could send you to hell 'cuz you pi**ed on his favorite bush when you were 6!
-
hotsnoj- and this supporst your side of the arguement how?
-
With that in mind I think we can almost say for certain that there is the potential for forces that we cannot detect (as of yet) but that impact on ourselves.
I would definitely agree with that, as scientists today are seriously thinking of a new "fifth force" that ascribes properties to particle. None of the fundamental natural forces discovered so far really have any exclusive relationship to large objects that do not apply to small particles as well, but the possibility still remains.
And the concept of being able to know that someone is watching you without being able to see, smell, touch, or hear them isn't entirely far fetched. You could definately classify it as a survival trait.
An electromagnetic sensor of some sort? It would be able to pick up other, much stronger fields as well though, which we know it cannot. If this idea is assumed to make sense, it would be more likely for a new kind of force to be put in, but some new questions would then arise, particularly on what (if any) is the force carrier particle and what particle(s) exhibit the force. (since we know all that all particles cannot, which would again be a departure from the other four forces, which apply for everything)
The thing is though, a good sneak can easily creep up right behind anyone without being detected nine out of ten times. The brain also seems to follow the rule of change resistance very closely when dealing with sensed information; even if the person notices a very slight pixel-size shadow movement in a place where there was no visual change detected for a while, it immediately puts the sub-conscious portion of the brain into a kind of "alert mode," causing the main portion of the brain to react unexpectedly and the physical body to quickly jerk. Same goes for very faint noises. The human eyes, ears, nerves, etc. all pick up much more information than that is actually interpreted by the primary conscious brain, and I think it is quite possible that some of it gets picked up by the subconcious part but not the main part.
I remain somewhat skeptical of this mainly because it does not work most of the time, and also because we have many other explanations that do not introduce possible contradictions as this one does and therefore are "simpler." However, if those all are shown to be inadequate, then we must of course fall onto this answer at least temporarily.
hotsnoj- and this supporst your side of the arguement how?
I guess all it is doing is saying that "Allah" is more powerful than "God." Not really helping to reinforce anyone's point. :p
-
Originally posted by CP5670
1. The thing is though, a good sneak can easily creep up right behind anyone without being detected nine out of ten times. The brain also seems to follow the rule of change resistance very closely when dealing with sensed information; even if the person notices a very slight pixel-size shadow movement in a place where there was no visual change detected for a while, it immediately puts the sub-conscious portion of the brain into a kind of "alert mode," causing the main portion of the brain to react unexpectedly and the physical body to quickly jerk. Same goes for very faint noises. The human eyes, ears, nerves, etc. all pick up much more information than that is actually interpreted by the primary conscious brain, and I think it is quite possible that some of it gets picked up by the subconcious part but not the main part.
2. I remain somewhat skeptical of this mainly because it does not work most of the time, and also because we have many other explanations that do not introduce possible contradictions as this one does and therefore are "simpler." However, if those all are shown to be inadequate, then we must of course fall onto this answer at least temporarily.
1. maybe these things are old remnant from when our ancestors needed to rely on instinct and quick reactions to survive. The individuals wih the best reactions lived longer/were more succesful and thus had more offspring... Just an idea
2. that's because those survival instincts are much less needed than in the old times. No chance of a sabre-tooth sneaking up to you nowadays... But I'm speculating that these reactions might still be much stronger in hunter-gatherer societies
-
~-=! The brain works on change. Try staring at something for a while and see how well your concentration and focus hold up. !=-~
~-=! It's based mostly around past experience. If you've been taught to jump and turn when something scares you that will be programmed into your subconciousnesseeses defense mechanisms. If you've been taught to turn and punch, you'll turn and punch. Instinct is the trigger but experience dictate the action taken. !=-~
-
Originally posted by Kazan
hotsnoj- and this supporst your side of the arguement how?
Go back a little and you'll see why I said what I saiid. Da** Library Computer
-
For those of you who believe in a theory (Evolution).
Why do you believe in evolution? It says you are an animal and you have no soul. So you no chance at living forever, spirit wise.
Worshipping God out of fear of death is not true belief.
Taking an active role in life is what Jesus preached, helping others. It matters not if evolution is true or false, if humanity has or lacks a soul, make the world a better place. Preaching does nothing, take action to actually aid a person wether they believe what you do or not.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
That is the second purpose of religion: the purpose of government. This includes a code of laws and a system of enforcement based on fear of punishment. (hell)
Thats why we have executions. :)
-
Psychic senses and astrology are both complete baloney. They have been disproved so many times it's not even funny. If you have any halfway decent evidence, I invite you to throw it this (http://www.randi.org/research/) way. Until then, stop spreading your lies.
-
"For those of you who believe in a theory (Evolution).
Why do you believe in evolution? It says you are an animal and you have no soul. So you no chance at living forever, spirit wise.
"
did someone actualy say this and I just missed it, or are you just bringing this up to make a point
-
*wanders around aimlessly, totally lost* I must find a guide for this place..really. Anyway! Hello all, yes I'm a newbie, please excuse that, though. I'm Bobboau's younger sister, Kit.
Well, back to the topic at hand. I have to say, I agree quite a bit with Kellan and Maeglamor. Kellan, you're posts really are logical, and they make sense, unlike other posts I've previously read. I'll admit, I haven't read all the posts. (Is this topic long or what? :D) Anyway..as far as Religion, I'm Christian, although I have to say that I haven't much gone along with the religion during my life.
I'd prefer to say--I suppose--that I'm moreso indifferent, overall. *sighs and glances off sarcastically* But my views are rather pointless anyway...Ah well. Off that odd little topic.
Religion and Science are like light and dark. Basically complete opposites, but without one, the other just doesn't seem logical. *shrug* I'm probably making no sense, and considering that I'm not exactly a scholar on all this Religion stuff. A lot of different people often have a lot of different views, but who really had the right to change someone's view on life, death, God, and Religion?
Children are influenced, yes, by their parents mainly. The parents simply want their children--sometimes--to follow in their footsteps. Religion is so important that the adults just don't want a child that will suddenly say, "Oh, I'm into some other Religion. Sorry. Suppose I'm an outcast now, oh well."
Alright, so I'm probably embellishing a bit, but who cares? It's not like it's something new on this board. All I can say it, that I'm pretty much indifferent over Religion. Whatever happens, happens, and I prefer being in control of my own destiny, life or death..
(Please..don't flame me for this pathetic post..I am a newbie, afterall..please?)
-
Although I have no idea what this topic is about, I believe that there shouldn't be any religions. If everyone were to believe in the same nothingness, all those middle-east countries would be at peace and the world would be a much better place.
-
Christian god is a OK! :yes:
Greek gods Hold grudges and get you back in the end by sleeping with your wife and daughters
Egyptian gods......
Every god on the known planet will forgive, curse you and put you some place hot. ok maybe not i'm just sayin sometimes they send you to a place of NOTHINGNESS or to the VOID.
thank you
live long and prosper
~Frellac II~
it's suppose to be funny you know :ha: :ha: :nod:
gosh where am i. :mad: :rolleyes:
-
2. that's because those survival instincts are much less needed than in the old times. No chance of a sabre-tooth sneaking up to you nowadays... But I'm speculating that these reactions might still be much stronger in hunter-gatherer societies
I don't think that the animals of today really exhibit this either, though. I would assume that they would have some of this so-called sixth sense as well, seeing as they have survived to this day without any advances in thought processes.
Psychic senses and astrology are both complete baloney. They have been disproved so many times it's not even funny. If you have any halfway decent evidence, I invite you to throw it this way. Until then, stop spreading your lies.
I am inclined to go for this view as well, seeing as we have explanations that are far less contradictory and problematic than this one. (adding new senses when better explanations exist is just like attributing the unknown to this magical "god" ) Astrology seems even worse to me though, because it brings up a whole new set of problems that would not only contradict science in a number of ways, but would also go against what is observed.
For those of you who believe in a theory (Evolution).
Why do you believe in evolution? It says you are an animal and you have no soul. So you no chance at living forever, spirit wise.
You believe your thing simply because of that? And besides, science is definitely starting to move completely against the "spirit" theory in the first place; we have no more of a "spirit" than the closest rock does.
Okay, now according to my purple dragon theory, everyone can get to be the creator of him for a little while. Basically, the purple dragon finds everyone who believes in him and randomly chooses a person from that group, and determines who is his creator based on that. He is like the god, so he can put information into people's minds by means of telepathy to let them know that they are now his creator for the next 12 hours. After one 12-hour period, the cycle repeats but with a new person. He makes the god and the god makes the universe, but people take turns being the creator of the purple dragon. If you join in this faith, YOU can get a chance to be the CREATOR for the next 12 hours! ;7
Religion and Science are like light and dark. Basically complete opposites, but without one, the other just doesn't seem logical.
I wouldn't really say that, because science can use the far superior system of philosophy instead. ;) (philosophy not based on any of the existing religions, that is) As I said before, religion is just simple and emotionally appealing philosophy for the masses.
Children are influenced, yes, by their parents mainly. The parents simply want their children--sometimes--to follow in their footsteps. Religion is so important that the adults just don't want a child that will suddenly say, "Oh, I'm into some other Religion. Sorry. Suppose I'm an outcast now, oh well."
This is one of the things I absolutely despise about religion - the method in which it spreads. The children are vulnerable to just about any strange ideas at young ages, and once these ideas have been put firmly into them, the ideas will become the irremovable foundation I was talking of earlier. The children should be given a chance to think for themselves and build their own ideas until something more definite comes up in this field; instead, the children end up sometimes becoming more fanatical than even the parents. :p
Although I have no idea what this topic is about, I believe that there shouldn't be any religions. If everyone were to believe in the same nothingness, all those middle-east countries would be at peace and the world would be a much better place.
I think they will fade away in time completely, maybe in another millennia or so. The signs and trends are subtle but noticeable. ;)
-
and BTW, Bobbeau's Sister:
:) :cool: :D WELCOME TO HLP!!! :D :cool: :)
Emergency exits are to the left and the right and you can find shotgun under your seat. Have a pleasant flight.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau's Sis
*wanders around aimlessly, totally lost* I must find a guide for this place..really. Anyway! Hello all, yes I'm a newbie, please excuse that, though. I'm Bobboau's younger sister, Kit.
Awww, it's Bobboau's younger sister[/i]! It's like a family affair, with him and her, Styxx and Levythan...oh, and thanks for the compliment. ;)
Originally posted by CP5670
Astrology seems even worse to me though, because it brings up a whole new set of problems that would not only contradict science in a number of ways, but would also go against what is observed.
Perhaps from a scientific perspective astrology is worse, but from a moral perspective I find it far more agreeable. For example, nobody has ever fought wars over the tides of the moon (song reference :D ) and wEvil is making his points to fairly adult people who can make their own choices about the value of his claims.
Basically he's not forcing it on anyone - he has an individual set of beliefs. I don't think that you can stop anyone from having these personally - it's a fundamental human right. However, at the same time people should not be forcing their belief onto others - or to some extent even putting it out in the public domain - because that interferes with the internal beliefs of others.
Originally posted by CP5670
This is one of the things I absolutely despise about religion - the method in which it spreads. The children are vulnerable to just about any strange ideas at young ages, and once these ideas have been put firmly into them, the ideas will become the irremovable foundation I was talking of earlier. The children should be given a chance to think for themselves and build their own ideas until something more definite comes up in this field; instead, the children end up sometimes becoming more fanatical than even the parents.
Amen. :) And also, see above for my reasoning on this, or just refer to CP's actual quote there.
BTW, as a matter of personal interest why do religious people say that religion gives them free will? And what is it that makes the universe inherently deterministic or probabilisitic; where's the room for a form of 'natural free will'? What's to say that God isn't deterministic?
-
I got a question for all you unbelievers.
When all the true Christians vanish from earth will you then believe what I'm saying is true? Wait but by then you might be dead so you will believe anyway, it'll just be to late if you die first. Or if what (maybe not to the letter. So must remember Pual was a 1st century man given a 21st or better vision of the future) was writen in Revelations happens will you believe? But you might be dead before then too.
Bobboau's Sis you must not be indifferent! If you are a Christian you must fight all that opposes God, like this tread for instance. Though I must admitt I don't always do but I try.
-
Astrology seems even worse to me though, because it brings up a whole new set of problems that would not only contradict science in a number of ways, but would also go against what is observed.
Well, I have to agree with that... Astrology is based on what is seen in the stars... and since the light comes from the past, it is pretty stupid to predict the future with it!
You believe your thing simply because of that? And besides, science is definitely starting to move completely against the "spirit" theory in the first place; we have no more of a "spirit" than the closest rock does.
Ever heard of an NDE (near death experience)? From information from this site (http://www.iands.org/nde.html) ,
A 1982 Gallup Poll estimated that at least eight million adults in the US alone have had an NDE; the figure is now believed to be closer to thirteen million.
From other sources and research, it is estimated that the percentage of people who had been near death was 35--40%.
There is a pattern in NDEs.
-Feeling that the "self" has left the body and is hovering overhead. The person may later be able to describe who was where and what happened, sometimes in detail.
-Moving through a dark space or tunnel.
-Experiencing intensely powerful emotions, ranging from bliss to terror.
-Encountering a light. It is usually described as golden or white, and as being magnetic and loving; occasionally it is perceived as a reflection of the fires of hell.
-Receiving some variant of the message "It is not yet your time."
Meeting others: may be deceased loved ones, recognized from life or not; sacred beings; unidentified entities and/or "beings of light"; sometimes symbols from one's own or other religious traditions.
-A life review, seeing and re-experiencing major and trivial events of one's life, sometimes from the perspective of the other people involved, and coming to some conclusion about the adequacy of that life and what changes are needed.
-Having a sense of understanding everything, of knowing how the universe works.
-Reaching a boundary-a cliff, fence, water, some kind of barrier that may not be crossed if one is to return to life.
-In some cases, entering a city or library.
-Rarely, receiving previously unknown information about one's life-i.e., adoption or hidden parentage, deceased siblings.
-Decision to return may be voluntary or involuntary. If voluntary, usually associated with unfinished responsibilities.
-Returning to the body.
If you want more information on NDEs, just search using google.
From www.tcom.co.uk/hpnet/polls.htm+percentage+people+near+death+experience+poll&hl=en&ie=UTF8 (http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:yKFfqKa3cm8C:[url)]this site[/URL] , there is some interesting poll data.
An overwhelming majority of Americans believe that God performs miracles and nearly half say they have personally seen or experienced one, according to a new Newsweek poll.
Eighty-four percent of Americans said that God performs miracles. Seventy-nine percent say they believe that the miracles described in the Bible actually took place, according to the Newsweek poll. Sixty-three percent say they know someone who claims to have experienced a miracle, and 48 percent believe they have experienced or witnessed one.
It is overwhelmingly Christians (90%) who believe in miracles, compared to 46 percent of non-Christians. Faith in miracles among Evangelical Protestants is 98 percent. And 87 percent of those polled said that miracles can happen to people of religious faiths different than their own.
About two-thirds of Americans (67%) say they have prayed for a miracle. Strong majorities of Americans believe God or the saints cure or heal sick people who have been given no chance of survival by medical doctors (77%). People who face death in accidents or natural disasters can be saved by a miracle, say 72 percent of those polled.
I'll just ignore your next bit, it is quite irrelevant.
This is one of the things I absolutely despise about religion - the method in which it spreads. The children are vulnerable to just about any strange ideas at young ages, and once these ideas have been put firmly into them, the ideas will become the irremovable foundation I was talking of earlier. The children should be given a chance to think for themselves and build their own ideas until something more definite comes up in this field; instead, the children end up sometimes becoming more fanatical than even the parents.
Mmm... Really now!?! A survey conducted by Dr Winfield Arn polled some 4000 new christians. What were the doors of entry to which they were introduced to christianity?
6-8%: Just walked in
2-3%: Came through the church programs
8-12%: Were attracted by the pastor
3-4%: Came out of special need
1-2%: Were visited by church members
3-4%: Came through Sunday School classes
79-80%: Invited by friends/relations (not family)
Interesting isn't it?
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
When all the true Christians vanish from earth will you then believe what I'm saying is true? Wait but by then you might be dead so you will believe anyway, it'll just be to late if you die first.
If all the true Christians vanish from the earth those of us left might be truly thankful. :p And if I'm dead, it won't matter to me because even if I end up in your hell, I'll have no hope of salvation (and no idea what salvation would be like) so I won't care.
Bobboau's Sis you must not be indifferent! If you are a Christian you must fight all that opposes God, like this tread for instance. Though I must admitt I don't always do but I try. [/B]
Oh, that's great. So you're fighting against our fundamental rights to believe what we want to believe, and forcing us to accept your view of events. How narrowminded of you that although I accept your right to believe in God and the resurrection, you won't accept my right not to believe in it - even if I'm not trying to destroy your religion. It's my life; as Sesq said earlier even if God made us, he gave us free will - so don't say that I can't do what I choose with it.
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
It is overwhelmingly Christians (90%) who believe in miracles, compared to 46 percent of non-Christians. Faith in miracles among Evangelical Protestants is 98 percent.
What a surprise. :)
EDIT: sorted out quote. Also, is it not the case that God is actually a moderator on HLP? Show yourself, God! ;)
-
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
Mmm... Really now!?! A survey conducted by Dr Winfield Arn polled some 4000 new christians. What were the doors of entry to which they were introduced to christianity?
6-8%: Just walked in
2-3%: Came through the church programs
8-12%: Were attracted by the pastor
3-4%: Came out of special need
1-2%: Were visited by church members
3-4%: Came through Sunday School classes
79-80%: Invited by friends/relations (not family)
Interesting isn't it?
new christians, an in not grown up with it
-
Ever heard of an NDE (near death experience)? From information from this site ,
A 1982 Gallup Poll estimated that at least eight million adults in the US alone have had an NDE; the figure is now believed to be closer to thirteen million.
Look, you are giving all these statistics, but no scientific reasoning and explanations. The reason I do not believe in any of this is that it introduces glaring contradictions with the most fundamental laws of physics, which have experimentally been shown to be true. The main problem here is that the person has mental links with other people; I guess you could explain this using quantum tunneling, but you would need a fairly large number of particles to convey these kinds of messages, and the probability, already being quite low, would geometrically dwindle down. (it would definitely not account for the effects, and we must look elsewhere for a solution) Secondly, since the subject matter is the spirit/soul/etc., I will assume that you are implying that this "spirit" has something to do with it. (let me know if that is not so) Where do these spirits go when a human dies? They must either stay with the dead body or evenly dissipate into the surroundings. Which of the forms of energy do they take? (thermal, EM, mechanical, etc.) How were these spirits created? They cannot have been there indefinitely, because the Earth's population is constantly rising, giving rise to new "spirits" in some way. If the spirits just spontaneously appear out of nowhere, where are their antimatter/antienergy counterparts located?
A much better explanation that fits in with current theories would be that the brain is prone to all kinds of hallucinations during periods of very intense mental stress, especially random input from the subconscious brain, which in turn assimilates information based on what it has experienced throughout its lifetime. If a person has been seduced into thinking that the purple dragon theory is the correct one, chances are that he will claim to have seen the purple dragon talking to him about his life being incomplete or whatever. Also, you are talking about powerful emotions, which is quite understandable considering that their rational brain is under stress, giving way to the emotional section, which is much more prone to pseudorandom output, to take control of things.
And eight million is not a very high number compared the total number of people who at some point lived in the US and did not have an NDE and died. Are you telling me that the god plays favorites among the people? :rolleyes: It's either all or nothing, or something close to either end.
6-8%: Just walked in
2-3%: Came through the church programs
8-12%: Were attracted by the pastor
3-4%: Came out of special need
1-2%: Were visited by church members
3-4%: Came through Sunday School classes
79-80%: Invited by friends/relations (not family)
As I said earlier, these church priests are very skilled at mob persuasion - they cannot compare to the master, Hitler, but they are still quite effective - and can easily convince these silly people. Most people either use one of the commonly accepted religions or do not have a firm foundation on which to base other ideas. Those who are not firmly rooted into a certain ideology will go by just about anything they are told that once again, sounds simple and emotionally appealing. All of the choices you have listed their boil down to "convinced by the priests" at some point.
Now come on; lets have some more people join in the Faith of the Purple Dragon®©™ Who Rules the Universe Alongside the God®©™ With Great Justice®©™ But Sometimes Gets Into Arguments With God®©™ About How to Run the Universe®©™! Look at the great benefits! He may choose YOU next! Sign your brain up today! You cannot escape the Purple Deluge®©™! All your base are belong to us!
-
Mr Lighting, your last post was one steaming pile of statisical bullhockey
that's called the logical fallacy of "Bandwagon" ie "X many people beleive this, you should to" - just because X number of people believe something DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE!
INFACT it can suggest that is' wrong if you know human pyschology
"Can you feel that? can you?!"
-
Originally posted by CP5670
All your base are belong to us!
Rip the system.
Personally I find the neuron-shorting-out-due-to-lack-of-whatever theory more than enough to explain an NDE.
Having said that I do beleive, maybe not in an Immortal soul but at least that there's something there we havent discovered yet. Whether it will wind up being Final-fantasy style 'Bio-etherics' or something even stranger, there are way too many people around with a sensitivity to their surroundings surpassing what can be reasonably accounted for by their nominal 5 senses.
But I beleive that science holds the keys to discovering this - religion would just deny its' existance entirely.
And in my experience curiosity never killed a cat.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
As I said earlier, these church priests are very skilled at mob persuasion - they cannot compare to the master, Hitler, but they are still quite effective - and can easily convince these silly people.
You think about Hitler way WAY too much. :D
And besides, he wasn't a great persuader. His oratory style, from what I have seen and heard consisted of shouting louder and louder as he got to the end of sentences for emphasis. All of the actual words were crafted by Goebbels. Have you ever read Mein Kampf? It's the most rambling, poorly-structured piece of prose EVAR. And it's a brick, too.
Goebbels is the master. :)
-
Originally posted by Kellan
You think about Hitler way WAY too much. :D
True. He's a nazi! Kill him!!! :D
-
Mr Lighting, your last post was one steaming pile of statisical bullhockey
that's called the logical fallacy of "Bandwagon" ie "X many people beleive this, you should to" - just because X number of people believe something DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE!
INFACT it can suggest that is' wrong if you know human pyschology
I completely agree there. I have said this many times: the human will prefer the simplest explanation, which is exactly what this "spirit" thing is. Why not just add in a god and a spirit to account for everything instead of trying to define things into an exact science and coming up with complicated equations? :p
You think about Hitler way WAY too much. :D
Hey, I am total WW2 politics nut. :D But Hitler has given us a unique opportunity in history to study the effect of an alternate system of morality on the masses, so I can make quite a few references there. ;)
His oratory style, from what I have seen and heard consisted of shouting louder and louder as he got to the end of sentences for emphasis.
Exactly, and look how many otherwise normal people were genuinely convinced by the righteousness of his ideas, which would appear to be nonsensical to any rational mind today. These kind of techniques can be used to convince the foolish masses of just about anything with an incredible effect. This is what I mean when I talk about emotionally appealing ideas that are simple enough for anyone to understand, a category which every religion-based philosophy out there falls into.
All of the actual words were crafted by Goebbels. Have you ever read Mein Kampf? It's the most rambling, poorly-structured piece of prose EVAR. And it's a brick, too.
Yeah, I would agree that he was a terrible writer, and most people never got to the end of the entire book before they got bored and gave up. (and this was after a bunch of his colleagues had went over the book and corrected all the grammar mistakes and removed most of the repeated ravings) His methods of oratory were still a powerful force, though.
Goebbels is the master. :)
Goebbels was quite good at this type of stuff as well, but he was more of a behind-the-scenes type of guy who, as you said, crafted most of the propaganda ideas and wrote the speeches rather than actually posing as the popular figurehead everywhere like Hitler. (although he also gave some speeches on Hitler's behalf when he was occupied)
Goebbels, along with Strasser, was actually a big opponent of Hitler in the early days of the NSDAP and at one time even said that "the fool should resign from the party" or something like that. After listening to one or two Hitler orations though, he wrote in his diary that "Hitler can really make you doubt your own views," and became a fanatically loyal Hitler follower for the rest of his life. (and this guy, unlike the other party leaders, had recieved a sound education along with a Ph.D. degree :p)
Having said that I do beleive, maybe not in an Immortal soul but at least that there's something there we havent discovered yet. Whether it will wind up being Final-fantasy style 'Bio-etherics' or something even stranger, there are way too many people around with a sensitivity to their surroundings surpassing what can be reasonably accounted for by their nominal 5 senses.
I think that there are a lot of things out there that we have not discovered yet, but they mostly do not have anything to do with humans. ;) (the questions of the human body will almost definitely be answered by the end of this century) I personally am somewhat absent-minded and am prone to disregarding this kind of stuff, bit I almost never notice someone coming into the same room as me unless they wave their hand in my face or something, and I can easily come up behind other people without letting them see me as well. :p
-
Originally posted by Styxx
True. He's a nazi! Kill him!!! :D
You're the one who wouldn't kill Dr. Mengele for me... ;)
-
Anyway, I have started a new religion! Do we have any takers for the Theory of the Purple Dragon®©™ Who Rules the Universe Alongside the God®©™ With Great Justice®©™ But Sometimes Gets Into Arguments With God®©™ About How to Run the Universe®©™ ? This is the only true faith that has rational thought behind it, unlike those other false religions!
:D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Anyway, I have started a new religion! Do we have any takers for the Theory of the Purple Dragon®©™ Who Rules the Universe Alongside the God®©™ With Great Justice®©™ But Sometimes Gets Into Arguments With God®©™ About How to Run the Universe®©™ ? This is the only true faith that has rational thought behind it, unlike those other false religions!
:D
I was the one who first had an enlightment, don't forget me!
-
Hitler wasn't a genius but he was clever enough to surround himself with people clever enough to make his plans work.......most of his plans work. The world domination thing kinda went pear shaped.
Goebbels was a master of keeping the populous happy, even when Germany was getting whooped.
Himmler was a master of keeping the peace using force and ultimately slaughtering everyone.
Jessie Owens was lucky he wasn't detained for drugs tests and never heard from again.
As much as Hitler was a genocidal dictator he was nothing compared to Himmler. Hitler just wanted the blacks and stuff out of the way so he could create a super-race (ie he had a decent, well thought out reason). Himmler wanted them dead just beacuse they were black/gay/whatever. He was a complete and utter Hitler-Youth, gun totting, jew killin, gas pipe laying psychopath. If Hitler was a small fluffy bunny, Himmler was a huge ****ing dragon with massive teeth, cyanide coated scales and bubonic plague laden blood.
-
Hitler wasn't a genius but he was clever enough to surround himself with people clever enough to make his plans work.......most of his plans work. The world domination thing kinda went pear shaped.
Goebbels was a master of keeping the populous happy, even when Germany was getting whooped.
Himmler was a master of keeping the peace using force and ultimately slaughtering everyone.
Jessie Owens was lucky he wasn't detained for drugs tests and never heard from again.
As much as Hitler was a genocidal dictator he was nothing compared to Himmler. Hitler just wanted the blacks and stuff out of the way so he could create a super-race (ie he had a decent, well thought out reason). Himmler wanted them dead just beacuse they were black/gay/whatever. He was a complete and utter Hitler-Youth, gun totting, jew killin, gas pipe laying psychopath. If Hitler was a small fluffy bunny, Himmler was a huge ****ing dragon with massive teeth, cyanide coated scales and bubonic plague laden blood.
Lol...that is true though. Hitler wasn't so crazy...he did have a goal unlike Bin Laden or Himmer or something, but his methods were unethical and atrocious. He could've just told everyone he didn't like to get out of his country instead of killing them...he got what he had coming to him though, commiting suicide like a ball-less old fruit.
-
I don't really see what's so wrong with being indifferent, but oh well. *shrugs a bit* Religion isn't the easiest thing in the world to understand, anyway. I find it slightly easier to simply let the present take its course. The past can't be changed, so all we can really do is try to improve the present and preprare for the future ahead of us.(By the way Kellan, you're welcome! ^^ Oh, and thank you for the welcome and directions, Crazy_Ivan80!)
Anyway, I'm still Christian, and I still follow that religion.. Indifference just seems like something that comes almost naturally, I guess. Ah well, I have trouble making sense..ask Bobboau.. :doubt:
-
slowly religion is falling out
-
Originally posted by Ace
Worshipping God out of fear of death is not true belief.
Originally posted by CP5670
That is the second purpose of religion: the purpose of government. This includes a code of laws and a system of enforcement based on fear of punishment. (hell)
The fear of the Lord isn't fearing eternity in hell. It isn't fearing punishment and its not for (as we know as) fire insurance. Fearing God isn't to just get you out of hell. I myself being a Christian don't serve God to just get into Heaven or whatever... being a Christian is getting to know God personally, like a friend, a Father, and when you know him that way you'll want[/B] to serve him.
A guy from my school said this, and I think its an awesome quote:
What it means to fear the Lord, is to fear breaking His heart.
-
As much as Hitler was a genocidal dictator he was nothing compared to Himmler. Hitler just wanted the blacks and stuff out of the way so he could create a super-race (ie he had a decent, well thought out reason). Himmler wanted them dead just beacuse they were black/gay/whatever. He was a complete and utter Hitler-Youth, gun totting, jew killin, gas pipe laying psychopath. If Hitler was a small fluffy bunny, Himmler was a huge ****ing dragon with massive teeth, cyanide coated scales and bubonic plague laden blood.
LOL, yeah the Himmler guy was quite a character. He actually started off as a chicken farmer or something but like so many others, was completely taken in by Hitler's speeches and turned out to become even more of a nasty guy than Hitler himself. :p (although lot by a whole not, seeing as he got most of his orders from Hitler)
The fear of the Lord isn't fearing eternity in hell. It isn't fearing punishment and its not for (as we know as) fire insurance. Fearing God isn't to just get you out of hell. I myself being a Christian don't serve God to just get into Heaven or whatever... being a Christian is getting to know God personally, like a friend, a Father, and when you know him that way you'll want to serve him.
A friend who leaves you in the dark about his true nature and also designs you very poorly is not much of a friend. :p Besides, what kind of friend is it that you have to serve without him serving you?
-
Ulala actually understands what I meant, Christianity is about believing in God the way Christ believed in him, a personal relationship.
As I said before worshipping God out of fear of death is not true belief.
Christianity as well as all true religion is about helping others and making a difference in the world, not evangelicalism and cowing others to believe what you wish for them to. Sadly we live in a world where religion is used as an excuse for blind hate and lack of reason, as well as entertainment for the masses.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
A friend who leaves you in the dark about his true nature and also designs you very poorly is not much of a friend. :p Besides, what kind of friend is it that you have to serve without him serving you?
Well you need to know a little Bible history for that.
Since the Fall of man things have been getting worse (2nd law of therodynamics, not spelled right). Sooo that means the capability our minds are also getting worse. But for this you must believe in something called "Original Sin". Don't get me wrong. Adam (first human) was perfect...for a while anyway. Then he sinned so now we all are sinners.
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
Well you need to know a little Bible history for that.
Since the Fall of man things have been getting worse (2nd law of therodynamics, not spelled right). Sooo that means the capability our minds are also getting worse. But for this you must believe in something called "Original Sin". Don't get me wrong. Adam (first human) was perfect...for a while anyway. Then he sinned so now we all are sinners.
oh bollocks... The 2nd law of Thermodynamics has nothing to do with religion. Don't be stupid.
And a kid is not guilty for the mistakes of his parents. That is just wrong. Original sin is just a big load of bull to bully the weak into submission.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
LOL, yeah the Himmler guy was quite a character. He actually started off as a chicken farmer or something but like so many others, was completely taken in by Hitler's speeches and turned out to become even more of a nasty guy than Hitler himself. :p (although lot by a whole not, seeing as he got most of his orders from Hitler)
No...must not...argue...points....AIIEEEGG!! :eek:
Too many questions. My history classes have left me with some sort of inherent desire to argue with people about history. Hitler wasn't the all-seeing, all-knowing person you suppose him to be. The Nazi state was totally chaotic, a confusion of private empires. Genocide wasn't Hitler's original plan, but a result of the failures of his other plans. If you want explanation of any of these odd beliefs, I have essays-worth of it... :sigh:
Oh, and as an interesting side note, Himmler wasn't totally against everyone who was white. He admired the Romany Gypses for their pure bloodlines; the way they intermarried despite being around so many others. Strange as it may sound, he actually wanted to give them a reservation - kind of like a Gypsy Theme Park for all the Aryans to gawk at.
Plus there's the perpetual rumours about his sexuality... :p
===
hotsnoj, as long as a single star has exploded I'm sure that there's enough entropy going on elsewhere in the Universe to allow every human ever to exist (above the equilibrium of births/deaths - ie. if the population is growing) to improve the capacity of their brains.
Oh, and why must we believe in The Fall? And also, why have you moved on from the previous points I (and we) made without answering? Do you accept my right, as an individual being with free will to believe in anything I want to believe, to speak freely about my opinions on religion and to 'disobey God' in doing so?
-
Just because you have free will doesn't mean you can make up what reality is.
-
Hitler didn't really have total control of Germany, unlike what you may have heard. The army tried to have him assassinated early on. The other assassination attempt you should all know is the suitcase bomb which blew up at the wrong time, allowing Hitler to live. The thing is, Hitler used anti-semitism as a means to power. It was something that all the German people rallied behind. The Germans saw Jews as stealing all the jobs and wealth. Anti-semitism was just a means to power for Hitler. After he gained power, he didn't really go after killing all the Jews. Rather, it was his subordinates, such as Himmler, who went around massacreing Jews.
Answering Kellan's
hotsnoj, as long as a single star has exploded I'm sure that there's enough entropy going on elsewhere in the Universe to allow every human ever to exist (above the equilibrium of births/deaths - ie. if the population is growing) to improve the capacity of their brains.
From this article (http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp)
The classic evolutionist argument used in defending the postulates of evolutionism against the second law goes along the lines that “the second law applies only to a closed system, and life as we know it exists and evolved in an open system.”
The basis of this claim is the fact that while the second law is inviolate in a closed system (i.e., a system in which neither energy nor matter enter nor leave the system), an apparent limited reversal in the direction required by the law can exist in an open system (i.e., a system to which new energy or matter may be added) because energy may be added to the system.
Now, the entire universe is generally considered by evolutionists to be a closed system, so the second law dictates that within the universe, entropy as a whole is increasing. In other words, things are tending to breaking down, becoming less organized, less complex, more random on a universal scale. This trend (as described by Asimov above) is a scientifically observed phenomenon—fact, not theory.
The evolutionist rationale is simply that life on earth is an “exception” because we live in an open system: “The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things.” This supply of available energy, we are assured, adequately satisfies any objection to evolution on the basis of the second law.
But simply adding energy to a system doesn’t automatically cause reduced entropy (i.e., increased organized complexity, or “build-up” rather than “break-down”). Raw solar energy alone does not decrease entropy—in fact, it increases entropy, speeding up the natural processes that cause break-down, disorder, and disorganization on earth (consider, for example, your car’s paint job, a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass, both with and then without the addition of solar radiation).
Speaking of the general applicability of the second law to both closed and open systems in general, Harvard scientist Dr. John Ross (not a creationist) affirms:
“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”
[Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]
So, what is it that makes life possible within the earth’s biosphere, appearing to “violate” the second law of thermodynamics?
The apparent increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) found in biological systems requires two additional factors besides an open system and an available energy supply. These are:
a “program” (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity
a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy.
Each living organism’s DNA contains all the code (the “program” or “information”) needed to direct the process of building (or “organizing”) the organism up from seed or cell to a fully functional, mature specimen, complete with all the necessary instructions for maintaining and repairing each of its complex, organized, and integrated component systems. This process continues throughout the life of the organism, essentially building-up and maintaining the organism’s physical structure faster than natural processes (as governed by the second law) can break it down.
Living systems also have the second essential component—their own built-in mechanisms for effectively converting and storing the incoming energy. Plants use photosynthesis to convert the sun’s energy into usable, storable forms (e.g., proteins), while animals use metabolism to further convert and use the stored, usable, energy from the organisms which compose their diets.
So we see that living things seem to “violate” the second law because they have built-in programs (information) and energy conversion mechanisms that allow them to build up and maintain their physical structures “in spite of” the second law’s effects (which ultimately do prevail, as each organism eventually deteriorates and dies).
While this explains how living organisms may grow and thrive, thanks in part to the earth’s “open-system” biosphere, it does not offer any solution to the question of how life could spontaneously begin this process in the absence of the program directions and energy conversion mechanisms described above—nor how a simple living organism might produce the additional new program directions and alternative energy conversion mechanisms required in order for biological evolution to occur, producing the vast spectrum of biological variety and complexity observed by man.
In short, the “open system” argument fails to adequately justify evolutionist speculation in the face of the second law. Most highly respected evolutionist scientists (some of whom have been quoted above with care—and within context) acknowledge this fact, many even acknowledging the problem it causes the theory to which they subscribe.
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
Just because you have free will doesn't mean you can make up what reality is.
Then I don't have free will. :p
But do you recognise that I can ignore what you regard as the 'true nature of things' if I want? Or do I have to be converted?
EDIT: Blitz_Lightning, my understanding of thermodynamics is very limited, so I will have to go away and research this further before I reply. Don't think I'm avoiding it - as people have said before, scientific theories have flaws - which is why they are still theories, I guess. Oh, and my name is Kellan. :D
-
Kellan (sorry for the previous spelling mistake:) )
Then I don't have free will
Are you saying that you can make up reality? lol... Hotsnoj just said that even if you have free will, that doesn't mean that you can make up reality. I think you accidentally misunderstood what hotsnoj said...
Well, anyway, you can ignore what hotsnoj regards as the true nature of things, but the question is should you? You don't have to convert, but in the end, it is you who suffers the consequence of what you choose.
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
And a kid is not guilty for the mistakes of his parents. That is just wrong. Original sin is just a big load of bull to bully the weak into submission.
Agreed, though I always considered original sin to be some kind of ecuse to get people to do good in the world...heh, like that worked...
-
Well, I'm actually a little divided on the concept of original sin. It was a concept invented by St Augustine. This doctrine has not always existed.
If you want some good information on "original sin", this (http://www.gospeltruth.net/menbornsinners/mbsindex.htm) is a good site to look at. It is a christian site too, that disagrees with the concept of original sin.
Are men born sinners? Our answer to this question will affect our attitude toward sin and will ultimately affect our conduct as well. The Christian's views on sin cannot help but affect his conduct. If the Christian believes he is born with a sinful nature and sins unavoidably because of that nature, he is not likely to view his sins as the serious crimes they really are. If he believes he has a nature that makes holiness impossible, he is not likely to be concerned about sinning against God. If he believes that God is his Creator and that he has been created with a sinful nature, this must affect his attitude toward God and the justice of God's dealings with man.
Just a bit of food for thought.
From the site,
But babies fuss and scream, refuse to eat, throw tantrums, etc., not because of a sinful nature, but in response to pain and discomfort, the likes and dislikes of appetite, and the urges and desires of the sensibility. True, they do things which we think are selfish and sinful, and things which would in fact be selfish and sinful if they did them knowing them to be wrong. But while they have no knowledge of right and wrong, their actions have no moral character, and therefore their actions are not and cannot be "sinful." It is only when a child's reason has developed and he has a clear understanding of right and wrong (an understanding of his accountability and the moral nature of his actions) that he becomes a moral agent and is responsible and accountable for his actions.
And a kid is not guilty for the mistakes of his parents. That is just wrong. Original sin is just a big load of bull to bully the weak into submission.
From the site, I'll just copy the answer.
OBJECTION: But the Bible does teach that God condemns the children for the sins of the fathers. It says, "I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me." Ex. 20:5.
ANSWER: It is true that this text would seem to teach that God condemns the children for the sins of their fathers, but the text itself shows that God does not visit the iniquity of the fathers upon innocent children. It is only upon those children who hate and disobey him that he visits the iniquity of the fathers.
First, we have many direct statements in the Bible which teach that God does not punish the children for the sins of the fathers. Since we have these statements, they should alert us to the fact that, if there is another scripture that seems to contradict them, somewhere we have either taken the scripture out of its context or in some other way misinterpreted it. Let us look first at some of the direct statements teaching that God does not punish the children for the sins of their fathers:
What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sours grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge? As I live, sayeth the Lord God, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel...Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father?...The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. Ez. 18:2, 3, 19, 20
Now, lo, if he beget a son, that seeth all his father's sins which he hath done, and considereth, and doeth not such like...he shall not die for the iniquity of his father, he shall surely live. Ez. 8: 14, 17
The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. Deut. 24:16
But he slew not their children, but did as it is written in the law of the book of Moses, where the Lord commanded, saying, The fathers shall not die for the children, neither shall the children die for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin. II Chron. 25:4
From the above passages we know that it is contrary to the character of God to visit the iniquity of the fathers upon those who are innocent. When God said in Ex. 20:5 that he would visit the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, he was not talking of innocent or godly children. He was talking of wicked and ungodly children who were following the wicked example of their fathers. This is seen directly from the text itself, which says, "unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me." The iniquity of the fathers is visited upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate God, and not upon children who are innocent and obedient to God.
Other Scriptures testify to this as well. God did not judge the innocent children of the Israelites for the sin and unbelief of their fathers. Deut. 1:39. There were wicked kings who had godly sons, and God did not judge their sons but blessed them. II Chron. Chapters 28-35. Also, Ez. 18:14, 17 declare: "Now, lo, if he beget a son that seeth all his father's sins which he hath done, and considereth, and doeth not such like...he shall not die for the iniquity of his father, he shall surely live." All of chapter 18 of Ezekiel is written to show that the godly do not have the iniquity of their fathers visited upon them, and that every man is condemned and judged only for his own sins. The only way that the iniquity of the fathers can be visited upon the children is for the children to walk in the sins of the fathers, for to follow in the steps of our father's sins is to approve what they have done. Jesus himself taught this:
Wherefore be ye witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can you escape the damnation of hell? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Matt. 23:31-35
Jesus makes the amazing statement in this passage that the scribes and Pharisees would be guilty of all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the righteous blood of Abel right on down to the righteous blood of Zacharias, whom they slew between the temple and the altar. Now, the scribes and Pharisees did not actually slay Zacharias the son of Barachias, but they had the heart of a murderer, and in a few short days they crucified the Son of God. The man who willfully takes the life of another man is giving tacit approval to every murder that has ever been committed or that ever will be committed. The rapist gives his approval to every act of rape committed, just as much as if he had committed those acts. And Jesus taught the compounded guilt of those children, who, knowing the guilt of their fathers, go on and break the same commandments. To commit the sins of our fathers is to justify their sins. It is to give tacit approval to their wickedness, and so to justly deserve that the iniquity of our fathers should be visited upon us. God never visits the iniquity of the fathers upon those who are innocent. God is just and so cannot condemn the children for the sins of their fathers, except when they willfully follow the wicked example of their fathers.
-
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
Hitler didn't really have total control of Germany, unlike what you may have heard. The army tried to have him assassinated early on. The other assassination attempt you should all know is the suitcase bomb which blew up at the wrong time, allowing Hitler to live. The thing is, Hitler used anti-semitism as a means to power. It was something that all the German people rallied behind. The Germans saw Jews as stealing all the jobs and wealth. Anti-semitism was just a means to power for Hitler. After he gained power, he didn't really go after killing all the Jews. Rather, it was his subordinates, such as Himmler, who went around massacreing Jews.
Answering Kellan's
From this article (http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp)
The classic evolutionist argument used in defending the postulates of evolutionism against the second law goes along the lines that “the second law applies only to a closed system, and life as we know it exists and evolved in an open system.”
The basis of this claim is the fact that while the second law is inviolate in a closed system (i.e., a system in which neither energy nor matter enter nor leave the system), an apparent limited reversal in the direction required by the law can exist in an open system (i.e., a system to which new energy or matter may be added) because energy may be added to the system.
Now, the entire universe is generally considered by evolutionists to be a closed system, so the second law dictates that within the universe, entropy as a whole is increasing. In other words, things are tending to breaking down, becoming less organized, less complex, more random on a universal scale. This trend (as described by Asimov above) is a scientifically observed phenomenon—fact, not theory.
The evolutionist rationale is simply that life on earth is an “exception” because we live in an open system: “The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things.” This supply of available energy, we are assured, adequately satisfies any objection to evolution on the basis of the second law.
But simply adding energy to a system doesn’t automatically cause reduced entropy (i.e., increased organized complexity, or “build-up” rather than “break-down”). Raw solar energy alone does not decrease entropy—in fact, it increases entropy, speeding up the natural processes that cause break-down, disorder, and disorganization on earth (consider, for example, your car’s paint job, a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass, both with and then without the addition of solar radiation).
Speaking of the general applicability of the second law to both closed and open systems in general, Harvard scientist Dr. John Ross (not a creationist) affirms:
“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”
[Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]
So, what is it that makes life possible within the earth’s biosphere, appearing to “violate” the second law of thermodynamics?
The apparent increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) found in biological systems requires two additional factors besides an open system and an available energy supply. These are:
a “program” (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity
a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy.
Each living organism’s DNA contains all the code (the “program” or “information”) needed to direct the process of building (or “organizing”) the organism up from seed or cell to a fully functional, mature specimen, complete with all the necessary instructions for maintaining and repairing each of its complex, organized, and integrated component systems. This process continues throughout the life of the organism, essentially building-up and maintaining the organism’s physical structure faster than natural processes (as governed by the second law) can break it down.
Living systems also have the second essential component—their own built-in mechanisms for effectively converting and storing the incoming energy. Plants use photosynthesis to convert the sun’s energy into usable, storable forms (e.g., proteins), while animals use metabolism to further convert and use the stored, usable, energy from the organisms which compose their diets.
So we see that living things seem to “violate” the second law because they have built-in programs (information) and energy conversion mechanisms that allow them to build up and maintain their physical structures “in spite of” the second law’s effects (which ultimately do prevail, as each organism eventually deteriorates and dies).
While this explains how living organisms may grow and thrive, thanks in part to the earth’s “open-system” biosphere, it does not offer any solution to the question of how life could spontaneously begin this process in the absence of the program directions and energy conversion mechanisms described above—nor how a simple living organism might produce the additional new program directions and alternative energy conversion mechanisms required in order for biological evolution to occur, producing the vast spectrum of biological variety and complexity observed by man.
In short, the “open system” argument fails to adequately justify evolutionist speculation in the face of the second law. Most highly respected evolutionist scientists (some of whom have been quoted above with care—and within context) acknowledge this fact, many even acknowledging the problem it causes the theory to which they subscribe.
For those of you who don't quite get what Mr. Blitz_Lightning is saying I'll try to put it into simpler terms. And a few thing I think myself.
The universe is all there is (physicly anyway). So right there you have a closed system. Now for the energy. Allot of energy was added to Peral Harbor but that didn't organize a thing! There was allot more energy added to the two cities in Japan when we (USA) dropped the A-bombs there. But still no organization.
An uncontroled fire (heat) will destroy stuff. But a controled fire (heat) will make a delicious cake or heat your home. So as you can (hopefuly) see things need to be designed to do good.
-
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
Kellan (sorry for the previous spelling mistake:) )
Are you saying that you can make up reality? lol... Hotsnoj just said that even if you have free will, that doesn't mean that you can make up reality. I think you accidentally misunderstood what hotsnoj said...
Well, anyway, you can ignore what hotsnoj regards as the true nature of things, but the question is should you? You don't have to convert, but in the end, it is you who suffers the consequence of what you choose.
I am prepared to live with the consequences of my actions as long as I can make them freely. Thank you for letting me. :)
Oh, and I was looking at hotsnoj's post from this perspective: I realise that I cannot shape reality in the sense that I can change the laws of physics. However, I could in theory change physical reality by addition to it, such as by making a house. On a grander scale than that, I could be said to 'change reality'. Then there's the whole Matrix thing - now that is a relaity change. :lol:
Anyway - back to the point. I am free to construct my own perception of reality, if I wish. I could, for example deny the fact that God existed. Then he wouldn't exist - to me, at least.
Oh, and the spelling mistake is no problem... ;)
-
Originally posted by Kellan
I am prepared to live with the consequences of my actions as long as I can make them freely. Thank you for letting me. :)
Oh, and I was looking at hotsnoj's post from this perspective: I realise that I cannot shape reality in the sense that I can change the laws of physics. However, I could in theory change physical reality by addition to it, such as by making a house. On a grander scale than that, I could be said to 'change reality'. Then there's the whole Matrix thing - now that is a relaity change. :lol:
Anyway - back to the point. I am free to construct my own perception of reality, if I wish. I could, for example deny the fact that God existed. Then he wouldn't exist - to me, at least.
Oh, and the spelling mistake is no problem... ;)
Well what if I wanted to deny that the law of gravity existed? Would that mean that it wouldn't apply to me?
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
Well what if I wanted to deny that the law of gravity existed? Would that mean that it wouldn't apply to me?
You're deliberately construing my words to sound ridiculous. What I mean is basically, if I want to ignore something, I can - and in a sense then I don't have to deal with it and it doesn't concern me. It doesn't exist in my perception.
Perhaps the qualifier "within reason" should be applied, the reason being that the object or force and its effects cannot be directly observed. I'm not suggesting that by my thoughts I can actually change reality - but I can have that effect within myself. I know its a form of elaborate delusion, but what gives your elaborate delusion any more credence than mine? :p
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
For those of you who don't quite get what Mr. Blitz_Lightning is saying I'll try to put it into simpler terms. And a few thing I think myself.
The universe is all there is (physicly anyway). So right there you have a closed system. Now for the energy. Allot of energy was added to Peral Harbor but that didn't organize a thing! There was allot more energy added to the two cities in Japan when we (USA) dropped the A-bombs there. But still no organization.
An uncontroled fire (heat) will destroy stuff. But a controled fire (heat) will make a delicious cake or heat your home. So as you can (hopefuly) see things need to be designed to do good.
Very funny.
May I remind you that despite the Big Bang the universe is so big it can be considered infinite. So there is still uncertainty about the entire universe being as closed as you make it seem.
Anyway: your Pearl Harbor example is pure bull. Going by the same logic everything we make is a violation of said law.
You're adding attributes to the second law that do not deal with said law:
read this:
Creationist arguments are often based on assuming that a scientific theory or law possesses an attribute that it does not, in fact, possess. The creationist thermodynamics argument is a typical example of how this technique is used to twist well established scientific principles into meaningless gibberish. The reader should refer to Chapter III of "Scientific Creationism," edited by Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research for specific details. This chapter can be summed up as follows.
Creationist claims:
The second law of thermodynamics requires that all systems and individual parts of systems have a tendency to go from order to disorder. The second law will not permit order to spontaneously arise from disorder. To do so would violate the universal tendency of matter to decay or disintegrate.
Creationists recognize that in many cases order does spontaneously arise from disorder: seeds grow into trees, eggs develop into chicks, crystalline salts form when a solution evaporates, and crystalline snowflakes form from randomly moving water vapor molecules. In cases like these, creationists have assigned an attribute that there must be a programmed energy conversion mechanism to direct the application of the energy needed to bring about the change.
This energy conversion mechanism is postulated to "overcome" the second law, thus allowing order to spontaneously arise from disorder.
Creationists believe that changes requiring human thought and effort, such as constructing a building, manufacturing an airplane, making a bed, writing a book, etc. are covered by the science of thermodynamics. Creationists believe that a wall will not build itself simply because to do so would violate the laws of thermodynamics. In building the wall, the stonemason overcomes the laws of thermodynamics!
In the case of organic change, like seeds growing into trees and chicks developing from eggs, creationists believe that the directed energy conversion mechanism that overcomes the laws of thermodynamics comes from God.
Comments on the above five claims:
The degree of thermodynamic disorder is measured by an entity called "entropy." There is a mathematical correlation between entropy increase and an increase in disorder. The overall entropy of an isolated system can never decrease. However, the entropy of some parts of the system can spontaneously decrease at the expense of an even greater increase of other parts of the system. When heat flows spontaneously from a hot part of a system to a colder part of the system, the entropy of the hot area spontaneously decreases! The ICR chapter states flatly that entropy can never decrease; this is in direct conflict with the most fundamental law of thermodynamics that entropy equals heat flow divided by absolute temperature.
There is no need to postulate an energy conversion mechanism. Thermodynamics correlates, with mathematical equations, information relating to the interaction of heat and work. It does not speculate as to the mechanisms involved. The energy conversion mechanism can not be expressed in terms of mathematical relationships or thermodynamic laws. Although it is reasonable to assume that complex energy conversion mechanisms actually exist, the manner in which these may operate is outside the scope of thermodynamics. Assigning an energy conversion mechanism to thermodynamics is simply a ploy to distort and pervert the true nature of thermodynamics.
The use and application of thermodynamics is strictly limited by the mathematical treatment of the basic equations of thermodynamics. There is no provision in thermodynamics for any mechanism that would overcome the laws of thermodynamics.
Thermodynamics does not deal with situations requiring human thought and effort in order to create order from disorder. Thermodynamics is limited by the equations and mathematics of thermodynamics. If it can't be expressed mathematically, it isn't thermodynamics!
Creationism would replace mathematics with metaphors. Metaphors may or may not serve to illustrate a fact, but they are not the fact itself. One thing is certain: metaphors are completely useless when it comes to the thermodynamics of calculating the efficiency of a heat engine, or the entropy change of free expansion of a gas, or the power required to operate a compressor. This can only be done with mathematics, not metaphors. Creationists have created a "voodoo" thermodynamics based solely on metaphors. This in order to convince those not familiar with real thermodynamics that their sectarian religious views have scientific validity.
or this:
It is often asserted by creationists that the evolution of life is impossible because this would require an increase in order, whereas the second law of thermodynamics states that "in any natural process the amount of disorder increases", or some similar claim. "Entropy" is frequently used as a synonym for "disorder".
Of course, this represents a serious misunderstanding of what thermodynamics actually states. It can be explained patiently (or less than patiently, after the 1000th iteration or so) that entropy only strictly increases in an isolated system; that there are no completely isolated systems in nature, save maybe the universe as a whole; and that the whole idea of isolated systems is really an abstraction for pedagogical purposes; but still the creationist won't let go. There just has to be some reason why "order cannot come from disorder", and the reason must be in thermodynamics. That's the science that talks about order and disorder, isn't it?
In fact, it isn't. Look through any thermodynamics text. You will find discussions about ideal gases, heat engines, changes of state, equilibrium, chemical reactions, and the energy density and pressure of radiation. Entropy and the second law are powerful tools that allow one to calculate the properties of systems at equilibrium. At the very most, there may be a paragraph or two somewhere in that thick book alluding to some kind of relation between entropy and "disorder". Writers of pop science books like to make the same kind of relation, and will ask their readers to consider things like the state of their rooms--tidy or messy--and compare the (supposed) decrease in orderliness of the room over time to the "tendency of entropy to increase". But what of entropy and disorder? Where does that identification fit into the structure of thermodynamics?
The answer is, nowhere. It is not an axiom or first principle, it is not derived from any other basic principles, and nowhere is it required or even used at all to do any of the science to which thermodynamics applies. It is simply irrelevant and out of place except as an interesting aside. The only reason that that identification has been made stems from the different field of study called "statistical mechanics". Statistical mechanics explains thermodynamics, which is a science based on observed phenomena of macroscopic entities, such as a cylinder full of gas, in terms of more basic physics of microscopic entities, such as the collection of molecules that comprises the gas. This was a great achievement of nineteenth-century physics, led by Ludwig Boltzmann, who wrote down the only equation that connects entropy with any concept that might be called "disorder". In fact, what is commonly called "disorder" in Boltzmann's entropy equation has a meaning quite different from what creationists--and some writers of pop science--mean by disorder.
The equation in question reads:
S = k ln W.
That admittedly won't tell the reader much without some background. Boltzmann's entropy equation talks about a specific kind of system--an isolated system with a specified constant total energy E (although the constant E does not explicitly appear in the equation, it is implied and crucial) in a state of equilibrium. It tells us how to calculate the entropy, S, of that system in terms of the microscopic particles (molecules) which make it up. On the right hand side, k is a universal constant now known as Boltzmann's constant [1.38 �~ 10-23 joules/kelvin, for the curious --Ed]. The function "ln" is the natural logarithm, and the argument of the logarithm function is the quantity W. W is a pure number that connects the microscopic with the macroscopic.
Suppose the system we are looking at is a volume of gas inside an insulated container. The gas is specified to have total energy E, which is constant because the container is insulated so that no heat can enter or leave and rigid so that no work can be done on the gas by compression. There are roughly 1022 molecules of gas in a wine-bottle-sized container if the gas is at atmospheric pressure and room temperature. At any particular moment, each molecule is at a particular position inside the container and has a particular velocity. The position and velocity of a particle constitute its state, for Boltzmann's and our purposes. The collection of the states of all the molecules at any moment is called a microstate of the whole volume of gas. A microstate of the gas system is constrained by two requirements: first, the positions of the molecules are constrained to lie within the container (which has volume V); and second, each molecule's velocity determines its energy, and the sum of the energies of all the molecules must equal E, the total energy of the gas. An interesting question is, how many different microstates are there that satisfy these requirements at energy E and volume V? The answer to that question, provided we can calculate it, is the number W, which is the number sometimes referred to as the measure of "disorder".
Right away it can be seen that there are some problems squaring this with the everyday concept of "disorder". For one thing, this number is not even a property of any single completely specified state (microstate) of the system, but only a property of all possible microstates--in fact, it is the number of possible microstates. And W is a very large number indeed. Consider the bottle of gas: moving any one of the 1022 different molecules in it slightly from a given position counts as another microstate. Imagine then moving them two at a time in all possible combinations, then three, then four...
(As an aside, it turns out that the number of microstates, though enormous, is not infinite, as it might seem from considering that space is [so far as we know] continuous, so that one could consider moving a molecule [or adding to its velocity] by ever smaller amounts, racking up microstates with no limit. The uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics puts a lower limit on the difference in position or velocity that can be distinguished as a separate state.)
The point of thinking about the number of possible microstates consistent with the observable macroscopic state is that the system never stays in one microstate for long. In a gas in equilibrium, the molecules collide with each other constantly; with each collision their velocities change and the state changes. This happens something like 1014 times per second for every molecule in a gas at normal pressure and temperature. The states are so randomized by all these collisions that that at any given moment, every single microstate is equally probable. This is a postulate of statistical mechanics for an isolated system at equilibrium. The collection of microstates is called a statistical ensemble; it is the universe of possible states from which the system draws its actual state from moment to moment.
So in what sense can a system with large W be said to be highly disordered? Just this: the larger W is (the more possible microstates there are), the greater is the uncertainty in what specific microstate will be observed when we (conceptually) measure at a predetermined moment.
It can be seen from this that a liquid has less entropy than an equal mass of gas, and a solid has less still. In a solid, the molecules are constrained to stay very near their original positions by intermolecular forces (that is, they cannot move very far without acquiring a large amount of potential energy and thus violating the requirement that the total energy be constant and equal to E), and have average velocities much smaller than the velocities of gas molecules; but they do vibrate around their average positions and so contribute some uncertainty in the instantaneous microstate. If the solid is heated up, the vibrations increase both in size and velocity and the entropy of the solid also increases, all in agreement with thermodynamics. In fact, the statistical definition of entropy reproduces all the results of thermodynamics.
Does it make any sense to apply this to the arrangement of furniture and other items in a room in the classic pop science analogy? To do so, we would have to be sure that the situation fits all the postulates of statistical mechanics that are applicable to the statistical definition of entropy. The room could be assumed to be at least approximately isolated, if the building was very heavily insulated with no windows. We might think the room was approximately at equilibrium, if it was left undisturbed for a long time. But something is wrong here. There are an abundance of possible "microstates" of the system--as many as there are possible ways of arranging all the items in the room, and moving any item by less than a hair's breadth counts as a rearrangement. In principle, a rearrangement could be made without altering the total energy E of the system, unlike in a solid object.
But in fact, there is very little uncertainty in the actual arrangement from moment to moment. The system stays in a set of very few "microstates" for as long as we can watch without becoming bored. What's wrong? The room is not truly in equilibrium in the statistical sense--the "microstates" are not equally probable, because they are not being randomized between "measurements". The statistical definition of entropy fails, and it makes no sense to talk about the thermodynamic "disorder" of the room.
Creationists sometimes point to the complicated molecules in living cells as examples of highly "thermodynamically ordered" systems that need some special explanation, or that can only "degrade" from that highly "ordered" state because of the second law, etc. But the identification of a specified molecule with a well-defined state of thermodynamic "order" fails for a similar reason that the example of the untidy room failed.
The argument goes something like this: "There is only one possible arrangement of amino acids that makes up a specified 'functional' protein (or only one possible arrangement of nucleotides that makes up a specified gene in DNA), while there are an astronomical number of possible arrangements that are 'nonsensical' with respect to the life functions of the cell." Therefore, the functional protein (or gene) is presumably in an extremely low-entropy state, as calculated according to S = k ln W.
Is this true? This line of argument considers the overall macroscopic state of the system to be not a particular protein or a particular gene, but just "a protein" or "a gene", and considers the statistical ensemble to be the whole group of possible configurations of the same set of smaller constituent molecules. In other words, the actual "specified" macromolecule that is observed is not taken as the overall state, but only as one of the microstates.
But this runs into the same problem as the untidy room did: the configurations of molecules in cells are not randomized moment to moment; the supposed microstates are not equally probable, because once in one configuration, a molecule tends to stay in that same one. In this case, it's because there is generally an energy "bump" that has to be gotten over in the process of converting from one configuration to another. At a fixed energy less than the peak of the "bump", a pre-existing configuration will stay the way it is. If the molecule is in the same supposed microstate every time we look at it, its state is not being randomized, and it makes no sense to apply to it a statistical calculation that assumes that the probability of observing that particular "microstate" at any time is vanishingly small, when in fact, that probability is near one.
By the same token, if this line of reasoning were correct, one could look in one of the reference books where the thermodynamic properties of various chemical compounds are tabulated, and find that nearly all of them would have zero or very small specific entropies, because "there is only one way" to combine two hydrogens and an oxygen to form a water molecule, for instance. Of course, this is not the case. So how do we calculate the entropy of a molecule statistically? We calculate the number of ways it can vary--these could involve vibrational states, changes in overall shape, bond angle bending, and similar effects. These changes all leave the molecule recognizable as the same specific combination of atoms. By this calculation--the only one that matters--all the possible configurations have very similar entropies. There is no thermodynamic reason why a molecule or gene cannot, by slight changes, go from one configuration to a different one that turns out to work better.
It is worth mentioning that a statistical ensemble can also be defined for the case where the condition of constant energy is relaxed, so that energy can be exchanged with the system's environment, and another case still where both energy and matter can be exchanged. These ensembles are useful in many more practical calculations than the fixed-energy ensemble is, because only rarely do we study systems that are so well isolated that the latter can apply. Much more often the system under study is in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings, where everything has some fairly constant temperature and energy is exchanged to keep that temperature equal on both sides of the system boundary. When this is the case, the most important change is that the microstates of the ensemble are not all equally probable, and instead of Boltzmann's equation we have to use for the entropy the more generalized equation,
S = -k ƒ° Pi ln Pi
Here Pi is the probability of the ith microstate, and the Greek capital "sigma" (ƒ°) means that we take the sum over all the microstates. This formula was first written by another of the founders of statistical mechanics, the American physicist J. W. Gibbs. This is a more complicated expression, but has the same basic meaning as Boltzmann's formula: the entropy is a measure of the uncertainty in which microstate will be observed in the next measurement. By using the mathematical properties of probabilities and of the logarithm function, it is simple to show that if the probabilities are in fact all equal, Gibbs' formula reduces back to Boltzmann's original equation, as it should.
Here's a quick quiz. Which of the following patterns is more "ordered" in the thermodynamic sense?
ABAABBABBBBBABBAABABB
ABAABAABAABAABAABAABA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
ABABABABABABABABABABA
Answer: the question is meaningless, because none of the patterns is an ensemble; all are possible individual microstates of some unspecified ensemble. Statistical mechanics, and by extension thermodynamics, has exactly nothing to say about the kind of order we think about intuitively in everyday life.
-
You lost me around the equation. But I'll come back to it later and have a good look. :)
-
Originally posted by Kellan
You lost me around the equation. But I'll come back to it later and have a good look. :)
It came from the talk.origins website. Forgot to mention that.
I'm not a physics buff myself and it has been too long ago since I studied physics in high-school so the equations don't make a lot of sense anymore.... :( The rest of text I do understand though :)
Basically, as you have no doubt gathered, it is an explanation why the Pearl Harbor analogy is rubbish
-
I do not believe in God because I have not seen sufficient evidence to support such a claim that a God exists. Many people come to the conclusion that a God does exist because of things that seem to have no explanation or an insufficient explanation. This is called the "argument from personal incredulity." In other words, if it seems impossible to me, then it must be impossible. This hugely anthropocentric fallacy assumes that nature conforms to our imaginations. For example, how did the universe and the people that inhabit the earth get here? Because of our current lack of knowledge on the origins of life, many people jump to the conclusion that it must be a God that did it. This reminds me of the ancient Greeks who did not understand the cause of natural phenomena such as thunder. So what did they do? They attributed this to a God (Zeus). Now that our knowledge has advanced we know that this notion of a God causing thunder is silly. To be honest, I have never seen any evidence for the existence of a God. I have only seen evidence for the gaps in human understanding. In other words, for most people, where knowledge ends, God begins. With me, this is not the case. I follow the evidence wherever it may lead. If there is insufficient evidence for a claim, I simply suspend judgement until further evidence comes along to establish that claim.
Now, I would like to explain why I do not believe in the God of a western religion called Christianity. This alleged God is described in a book called the Bible. Many people believe that this book called the Bible is God's Word. They also believe that this God of the Bible is ominscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), and ominbenevolent (all-good). This religion also claims that the contents of the Bible are free from error and contradiction.
NOT TRUE! The Bible is supposed to show how good God is doesn't it? Consider this then :
The numerous contradictions and errors found in the Bible, the character and behavior of God as described in the Bible is repulsive, horrific, and obscene. Some of the stories in the Bible are simply disgusting. Look at the following:
Genesis 7:22-23, God drowned everything that lived on earth except those on the ark.
Exodus 12:22-29, God destroys all the firstborn. (also see, Numbers 33:4)
Numbers 31:17-18, God orders male children to be killed and the women to be kept for yourselves for sex. (also see, Deuteronomy 21:10-14)
Deuteronomy 2:33-34 In the defeat of King Sihon God delivers men, women, and children to be killed.
Joshua 6:17-21, In the conquest of Jericho God again shows his mercy in killing everyone, including children.
Joshua 10:28-40, In conquering the south, God goes another killing rampage of men, women, and children.
Joshua 11:6-15, In conquering the north, God continues his killing spree of innocent children.
-
On the topic of thermodynamics law, I quite agree with Crazy Ivan. The second law of thermodynamics is usually stated vaguely in most places; the concept of "disorder" has no meaning at all unless you are talking about disorder with respect to something that is "orderly." A better statement of this law when relating it to the common minds would be that no energy conversion process can completely convert all of the energy without "losing" some energy in the process in the form of thermal energy.
Well you need to know a little Bible history for that.
Since the Fall of man things have been getting worse (2nd law of therodynamics, not spelled right). Sooo that means the capability our minds are also getting worse. But for this you must believe in something called "Original Sin". Don't get me wrong. Adam (first human) was perfect...for a while anyway. Then he sinned so now we all are sinners.
I'm not even going to bother here, as way too many contradictory assumptions are being made.
Too many questions. My history classes have left me with some sort of inherent desire to argue with people about history. Hitler wasn't the all-seeing, all-knowing person you suppose him to be. The Nazi state was totally chaotic, a confusion of private empires. Genocide wasn't Hitler's original plan, but a result of the failures of his other plans. If you want explanation of any of these odd beliefs, I have essays-worth of it...
Well, the thing was that he picked the right people for his job. The entire system was based on a complicated heirarchy of ranks, and it was designed in such a way so as to be redundant; if one section of the Schutzstaffel turned on him, he made sure that the rest were all fanatically loyal enough to defend the party, and if some high-ranking political official turned traitor and starting messing up the party, it would not matter much as the seperation of powers ensured that no one man had enough power to do a lot by himself, except of course the Führer himself. (this was in the later days or the party; post-1938 or so) Also, Hitler made sure to select men that, if they must work together, would be ideological enemies of each other and would constantly fight amongst themselves, decreasing the chances of them teaming up on him. (eventually the fighting became so bad that he had to set up a mock court system, not to give any sort of justice, but that would temporarily silence them and make it look from the outside as if the party was greatly disciplined) One reason that the various attempts on his life failed was that the conspirators were poorly organized and were all at each other's throats the whole time; the only reason they had temporarily teamed up was that they all wanted to get rid of Hitler and thus had a mutual interest. Some men in the party hated him but did not have the courage to try anything, as the purge of 1934 had shown them what Hitler does to traitors.
Plus there's the perpetual rumours about his sexuality...
The SA commander, Roehm, was a notorious homosexual, along with some other high-ranking guys in the party. :D The party leaders, with the exception of Goebbels, were all failures in their earlier lives in some way or another. :p
Well, anyway, you can ignore what hotsnoj regards as the true nature of things, but the question is should you? You don't have to convert, but in the end, it is you who suffers the consequence of what you choose.
That is how I regard things, and the concept can be extended to the "technological darwinism" system. The social machine can subtly weed out the useless elements anyway, and freedom of thought is necessary for new ideas to come up, even if it means the existence of a hundred stupid ideas for every novel idea. ;)
The man who willfully takes the life of another man is giving tacit approval to every murder that has ever been committed or that ever will be committed. The rapist gives his approval to every act of rape committed, just as much as if he had committed those acts. And Jesus taught the compounded guilt of those children, who, knowing the guilt of their fathers, go on and break the same commandments.
This only serves to reinforce my original statement: the god gives his approval for every act of murder, rape, etc. because he created the entire concept and thus unleashed this "sin" into the universe.
I do not believe in God because I have not seen sufficient evidence to support such a claim that a God exists. Many people come to the conclusion that a God does exist because of things that seem to have no explanation or an insufficient explanation. This is called the "argument from personal incredulity." In other words, if it seems impossible to me, then it must be impossible.
Perfect, just perfect. I totally agree here. :yes: Those Bible things are really funny as well. :D
-
the second law of thermodynamics only applies to a closed system with no forces acting upon it. The universe has forces acting upon it just for reference.
Any force and do Work [Work = Force * Displacement] - there is no intelligence to Work in a physics sense
It is completely IRRELEVANT when it comes to behavior, and you should no better than to make such a stupid remark
-
Might I suggest using the size=1 tags?
-
I do not believe in God because I have not seen sufficient evidence to support such a claim that a God exists. Many people come to the conclusion that a God does exist because of things that seem to have no explanation or an insufficient explanation. This is called the "argument from personal incredulity." In other words, if it seems impossible to me, then it must be impossible.
I agree...there is absolutely no evidence that a god exists. Ancient civilizations invented gods becuase they were too damn stupid to explain why something happened.
-
If the universe is all there is then it is a closed system! And the 2 law of therodynamic says that order will decress. Now I can make order, but at the exspense of order that is someplace else. So I get order over here if only for a while. And less order over there (where I got the order). Now the second place has much less order then it would have if I had just left it alone.
I can also say this like this.
To bake a cake *yum* (putting some stuff in order to make it taste better) I take the order/energy of the fuel that powers the generator that powers my oven. But if I just turn on the oven I'm just heating the house and not really putting it to some other use (like baking a cake :D) of putting something to order (for a while).
-
Originally posted by Kazan
the second law of thermodynamics only applies to a closed system with no forces acting upon it. The universe has forces acting upon it just for reference.
Originally posted by hotsnoj
If the universe is all there is then it is a closed system! And the 2 law of therodynamic says that order will decress.
perhaps you should proof read your statements
there are FORCES at work in the universe, for example - gravity
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
1 .If the universe is all there is then it is a closed system! And the 2 law of therodynamic says that order will decress. Now I can make order, but at the exspense of order that is someplace else. So I get order over here if only for a while. And less order over there (where I got the order). Now the second place has much less order then it would have if I had just left it alone.
2. I can also say this like this.
To bake a cake *yum* (putting some stuff in order to make it taste better) I take the order/energy of the fuel that powers the generator that powers my oven. But if I just turn on the oven I'm just heating the house and not really putting it to some other use (like baking a cake :D) of putting something to order (for a while).
1. Prove to me that the universe is a closed system. Have you seen it's borders? Can you prove that there are only 4 dimensions and not 10 for example?
Probably not: so currently there is no proof that the universe is a closed system
The rest of part one doens't make sense: in effect your saying that if you build a house at location A then, according to your voodoo law of thermodynamics, a house at location B should crumble. Sorry to break you the news, but reality doesn't work that way.
2. Bad analogy. Firstly, your oven is not a closed system and secondly, It doesn't really matter if you put the cake in or not.
-
...
-
The numerous contradictions and errors found in the Bible, the character and behavior of God as described in the Bible is repulsive, horrific, and obscene. Some of the stories in the Bible are simply disgusting. Look at the following:
Well, I'll take the answer straight from this site (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/killergod.html)
If you were to read atheist's websites, you will often find complaints that the God of the Bible arbitrarily ordered the destruction of entire cities, just to allow the Jews to have a homeland in the Middle East. How could a loving God command the destruction of all those innocent people? The argument sounds good, but it is utterly false. The unstated assumption is that the people who God ordered destroyed were morally equivalent to the Jews, who replaced them. However, this is what the Bible says about the people who were destroyed:
"It is not for your righteousness or for the uprightness of your heart that you are going to possess their land, but it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD your God is driving them out before you, in order to confirm the oath which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. (Deuteronomy 9:5)
Okay, how "wicked" could those people have been? How about killing their own sons and daughters by burning them in sacrifices to their gods:
"You shall not behave thus toward the LORD your God, for every abominable act which the LORD hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods. (Deuteronomy 12:31)
The wickedness of these people is confirmed in other verses of the Bible.3 So we see that these people are not quite as innocent as the atheists would like you to believe. Then again, maybe those atheists believe that killing your children is not all bad. After all, killing viable pre-born babies is legal in this country (it's called a choice, a.k.a. abortion). For these reasons (and others4), God ordered the destruction of the peoples whom the Israelites dispossessed.
In order to maintain His righteousness, God must judge sin - everything that goes against His character. If God let everyone into heaven, then He would have to allow in people such as Stalin and Hitler. Obviously, heaven would not be a good place to be with the likes of those people there. Therefore, God's righteousness requires the judgment of all sin. Only those people who agree with God and are willing to allow themselves to be changed into sinless beings can enter into heaven.
For those of you who know history, there is evidence that the Phoenicians (the Canaanites in the bible) sacrificed their children. You can go research this yourself if you really want to.
-
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
Okay, how "wicked" could those people have been? How about killing their own sons and daughters by burning them in sacrifices to their gods:
Ah, so it's bad to kill your own children for your god, but your god is allowed to mass murder other people's children. This seems a bit hypocritical to me.
Further evidence that god is a jerk:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought god said to "go forth and multiply."
Why, then, is multiplying (sex) a sin?
-
But why does sin exist in the first place? :rolleyes:
I detest sex for completely different reasons, but the idea of sex being a "sin" before a stupid ritual and perfectly okay after that is just nonsense. :p
-
Originally posted by NotDefault
Ah, so it's bad to kill your own children for your god, but your god is allowed to mass murder other people's children. This seems a bit hypocritical to me.
Further evidence that god is a jerk:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought god said to "go forth and multiply."
Why, then, is multiplying (sex) a sin?
Sex isn't a sin that is if you only do it with you wife. If it is outside of marrige or before it is a sin.
-
i wonder how bill clinton was able to have sex outside of his marrige and not get millions of religous fanatics rioting
-
In my opinion religion is pointless...I will stick to being an atheist
-
same here, Atheisim Rules!
-
I do seem to remember a few protestors out side the white house,
and hmmm,
something else...,
oh ya ,
he was impeached
-
Almost impeached.
-
he went to court but i don't think he was impeached...if he was impeached he would've left office.
-
no he was impeached,
a common misconseption,
impeached means acused
so the republican congress acused him of... being a slut I guess, but he wasn't convicted or removed from office
-
they tried to impeach him for lying under oath
and he didn't lie underoath - due to the way the defined the term 'sexual relations' as strictly vaginal sex
[bobboau - they didn't impeach him, they didn't get enough votes for the impeachment - if there were it would have gone to trial]
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Besides, what kind of friend is it that you have to serve without him serving you?
Whatever, look at all the blessings you have, I have, America and Europe has. Just having a roof over your and my own head is Him giving something to us.
[Edit] No way discriminating against countries not in Europe and America... sorry, should have worded that better. [/Edit]
-
Originally posted by CP5670
But why does sin exist in the first place? :rolleyes:
Why create a being to love you when it doesnt have the chioce to love you? Its not really love if you dont get to choose to love.
-
Originally posted by Ulala
Whatever, look at all the blessings you have, I have, America and Europe has. Just having a roof over your and my own head is Him giving something to us.
No, that is because a whole of people work very hard...God didn't plop down houses for everyone.
-
Sex isn't a sin that is if you only do it with you wife. If it is outside of marrige or before it is a sin.
Read what I said earlier. Why? This makes about as much sense as "you are not allowed to jump off a cliff before you are 30 years old, but it is okay after that." :p
Whatever, look at all the blessings you have, I have, America and Europe has. Just having a roof over your and my own head is Him giving something to us.
Wait, what blessings? Even the first-world G7 nations of today have had their share of misfortunes in the past. Most recently, there is the 9/11/01 incident, which must have been an "act of god" (actually an act of allah :D), and if you go a bit into the past, you have WW2, another act of god. Anything that is favorable to you can be construed as an act of god, but then you must take everything he does into account, inlcuding everything in the universe that you do not like. Either the god is stupider and less logical than even the human in his thought processes, there are several gods all bickering amongst themselves about what to do with the world, or my preferred explanation: everything in the universe is due to a complex interplay of scientific laws and equations.
Why create a being to love you when it doesnt have the chioce to love you? Its not really love if you dont get to choose to love.
True enough, but then why do people love him in first place? I gave several reasons a bit earlier in this thread about why god would be an utterly despicable fellow if he existed, even if he gave us this choice, which nobody has really refuted yet.
same here, Atheisim Rules!
:D :yes:
-
I suppose you people think that America is all innocent?
Take Iraq during the Gulf War. Did you know that about a week before it occured Iraq offered an uncondional withdraw, but America didn't listen? More than 250 000 Iraqis died from bombing, many of them civilian. But oh, you say then, weren't the weapons used high-tech, minimizing collateral damage (civilian death)? In fact, a senior Pentagon official admitted years later that only 7% of the weapons used were "smart", and some of them even dated back to WWII!
The military who died were mainly Kurds and Shi'as. These were the main opponents of Suddam Hussein, and were tricked. Remember Hussein's gassing of 6 000 kurds in front of Britain's Foreign Minister? And yet, a week later, Britain gave Iraq over $375 million worth of trade credits. And then there's the aftermath of the war. It was estimated by UNICEF and WFO (world food organisation) that more than 576 000 children died from starvation.
Then take East Timor. Britain and America supplied Hawk aircraft and other military equipment. Ever seen the film Death of a Nation ? Britain, America and other countries continued to supply weapons to Suharto, even during the peak of the massacre. It is estimated by the UN that 1/3 of the East Timor population died during the invasion by Indonesia. That means millions of people! Try watching the film Death of a Nation sometime.
Then take Cambodia. President Nixon secretly authorized the bombing of Cambodia. 2-3 times as many sorties were sent against Cambodia than against Japan during WWII! More than 7.5 million tons of bombs killing 2.5 million people. Horrifying. Ever seen the films Year Zero, Year One, Year Ten ?
Then take Nicaragua. America's CIA secretly trained thousands of Contra to terrorize the land, because it was a clear demonstration to nearby countries the power of regional nationalism at last succeeding to abolish pobreterria. This people's movement removed the tyrant Anastasio Somoza. During the period of power of the Sandistinas, by the people for the people, the number of babies who died was zero for one whole year. Unprecedented! The production and consumption of basic foods rose by 100%,thus eliminating serious malnutrition.
However, America just had to butt in, didn't they?!
Then take the Khmer Rouge and the Pol Pots. America and Britain continued to supply, equip and train these murderous groups, even though they were blacklisted by Amnesty International, UN, Redcross as some of the worst human rights abusers in history.
There are numerous other examples, try reading books such asDistant Voices & Hidden Agendas sometime.
Wake up, America!
-
Who said America is innocent? They are just as much "terrorist" as their enemies are, and as is every nation out there. It is all a matter of competing national interests and an objective observer cannot say that a country is more "good" or "bad" than another. (whatever that means) But what the devil does this have to do with anything we were talking about earlier? :rolleyes:
Here is yet another example of what I was saying earlier; they cannot think of anything to say and therefore lost the argument, so they simply move on to another topic, sometimes a completely irrelevant one. :p
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Wait, what blessings? Even the first-world G7 nations of today have had their share of misfortunes in the past. Most recently, there is the 9/11/01 incident, which must have been an "act of god" (actually an act of allah :D), and if you go a bit into the past, you have WW2, another act of god. Anything that is favorable to you can be construed as an act of god, but then you must take everything he does into account, inlcuding everything in the universe that you do not like. Either the god is stupider and less logical than even the human in his thought processes, there are several gods all bickering amongst themselves about what to do with the world, or my preferred explanation: everything in the universe is due to a complex interplay of scientific laws and equations.
These "acts of God" them are part of his plan. Yes, they seem like crap to us right now, but we can only see the most microscopic part of the picture when he can see the whole canvas. He knows what hes doing. Of course you don't believe that... so I'm done for awhile. Thanks for listening and keeping things civilized too! :)
Oh, and I think we should take out the :rolleyes: and :p smilies for this thread. Lol... j/k. :wink:
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
1. Prove to me that the universe is a closed system. Have you seen it's borders? Can you prove that there are only 4 dimensions and not 10 for example?
Probably not: so currently there is no proof that the universe is a closed system
The rest of part one doens't make sense: in effect your saying that if you build a house at location A then, according to your voodoo law of thermodynamics, a house at location B should crumble. Sorry to break you the news, but reality doesn't work that way.
Er... Hotsnoj was right. The Universe, by definition, is EVERYTHING, and thus everything is contained within it- and, by deduction, nothing is NOT contained within it, and nothing is OUTSIDE of it. The number of dimensions makes no difference (many quantum physyscists, etc. postulate dozens, and there could be a billion without it changing a single bit of reality)- dimensions are a method of measuring the universe. Nothing more. And "Chaos" is not defined by some superficial measurement- if you take a stone and carve it into a square, it is MORE chaotic, not less, regardless of the form. Chaos in this sense is on an atomic scale, chiefly regarding energy- you can make a refrigerator, it will cool an area and reduce the heat energy dispersal at the expense of using and diffusing another kind of energy. The levels of energy throughout the universe are constantly equalizing, and in a few bajillion years energy levels will theoretically be the same everywhere, rendering all energy useless. Second law of thermodynamics, I believe, and it is QUITE demonstrably true. Hotsnoj knows what he's talking about.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Er... Hotsnoj was right. The Universe, by definition, is EVERYTHING, and thus everything is contained within it- and, by deduction, nothing is NOT contained within it, and nothing is OUTSIDE of it. The number of dimensions makes no difference (many quantum physyscists, etc. postulate dozens, and there could be a billion without it changing a single bit of reality)- dimensions are a method of measuring the universe. Nothing more. And "Chaos" is not defined by some superficial measurement- if you take a stone and carve it into a square, it is MORE chaotic, not less, regardless of the form. Chaos in this sense is on an atomic scale, chiefly regarding energy- you can make a refrigerator, it will cool an area and reduce the heat energy dispersal at the expense of using and diffusing another kind of energy. The levels of energy throughout the universe are constantly equalizing, and in a few bajillion years energy levels will theoretically be the same everywhere, rendering all energy useless. Second law of thermodynamics, I believe, and it is QUITE demonstrably true. Hotsnoj knows what he's talking about.
only partly...
Actually I know that the universe is everything... As I've said in earlier posts :p
And I know about the 'cold-death' of the universe if it keeps expanding. But that means there is no interaction possile anymore as that needs energy. Cold-death is ultimate stability, ultimate order... The opposite of what he attributes to the second law.
-
what happens if this topic gets to 1000 posts?
-
These "acts of God" them are part of his plan. Yes, they seem like crap to us right now, but we can only see the most microscopic part of the picture when he can see the whole canvas. He knows what hes doing.
But isn't it equally possible that he does not know what he is doing and may end up messing things up completely? In fact, this is actually more likely, seeing as he is said to be infinite in logical complexity, and so his creations are also of equal logical complexity in terms of their "infiniteness." They can therefore comprehend everything he can to a similar degree of infinity, and look at it the same way he would. Although the people's true brainpower may not be equal to that of god, the difference is infinitesimally negligible, making the limiting value zero.
Of course you don't believe that... so I'm done for awhile. Thanks for listening and keeping things civilized too!
Hey, anyone can continue believing what they want; this thread is really more for a discussion about which system conforms to the rules of logic better. ;) The contemporary human has been shown to be an inconsistent thing in many affairs, and so this system can go on for a millennium or two before it automatically falls apart. I thank you too for chipping in some arguments, as I am using the statements in this thread to sharpen my own ideas. ;) Now I just have to beat everyone else... :D
Oh, and I think we should take out the and smilies for this thread. Lol... j/k.
noooooooo!! :D
Er... Hotsnoj was right. The Universe, by definition, is EVERYTHING, and thus everything is contained within it- and, by deduction, nothing is NOT contained within it, and nothing is OUTSIDE of it. The number of dimensions makes no difference (many quantum physyscists, etc. postulate dozens, and there could be a billion without it changing a single bit of reality)- dimensions are a method of measuring the universe. Nothing more. And "Chaos" is not defined by some superficial measurement- if you take a stone and carve it into a square, it is MORE chaotic, not less, regardless of the form. Chaos in this sense is on an atomic scale, chiefly regarding energy- you can make a refrigerator, it will cool an area and reduce the heat energy dispersal at the expense of using and diffusing another kind of energy. The levels of energy throughout the universe are constantly equalizing, and in a few bajillion years energy levels will theoretically be the same everywhere, rendering all energy useless. Second law of thermodynamics, I believe, and it is QUITE demonstrably true. Hotsnoj knows what he's talking about.
What you said about the rock and the refrigerator is true, but it doesn't have any relevance to your point. For the second law of thermodynamics to have any effect in the way we commonly think of it, the system needs to be not only closed, but finitely closed. If the universe has a transfinite amount of mass in it but is still closed, than a transfinite amount of time will be required for the total entropy state to occur. Also, even entropy can be circumvented if there indeed are multiple time dimensions we live in and our universe moves in a circular rather than a linear path.
what happens if this topic gets to 1000 posts?
That would be great, as this is one of the best discussions I have ever seen. We will then just continue on, and possibility even rival the famous TAS... ;7
-
Originally posted by X-Files Addict
what happens if this topic gets to 1000 posts?
the Reckoning??
-
Originally posted by IceFire
Almost impeached.
No, he was impeached.
Just not fired.
Theres a difference
-
so much for presidents being role-models
-
Yeah, Clinton was a pretty messed up fellow, but he was a clever politician who knew how to convince the masses, which is why he got elected twice. :p
-
this election sucked...pick either a very stupid guy or a robot
-
Originally posted by X-Files Addict
this election sucked...pick either a very stupid guy or a robot
I was rooting for the robot (I'm Canadian).
-
The sad truth about American politics is this: We have to pick the lesser of two evils every 4 years.
The democrats all think that government has the answer for everything and we should all suck on the nipple of their socialist ideology. So in other words the Democrats are Socialists. Just like most Eurpoean governments.
The republicans on the other hand are facists. They want your privacy to be their gain. They want to defend the public to threats to its "morals".
Thats why we have other political parties.
Dumb and Dumber are not our only choices.
Thats why I vote Libertarian. :)
-
mr.roboto
-
Originally posted by killadonuts
The sad truth about American politics is this: We have to pick the lesser of two evils every 4 years.
The democrats all think that government has the answer for everything and we should all suck on the nipple of their socialist ideology. So in other words the Democrats are Socialists. Just like most Eurpoean governments.
The republicans on the other hand are facists. They want your privacy to be their gain. They want to defend the public to threats to its "morals".
Thats why we have other political parties.
Dumb and Dumber are not our only choices.
Thats why I vote Libertarian. :)
Let me assure you: the Democrats are not socialists, not by a long shot.
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
Let me assure you: the Democrats are not socialists, not by a long shot.
:nod: I agree with that a 100% :nod:
-
Vote Microsoft:
(http://www.fattonys.com/images/billysm.jpg)(http://www.fattonys.com/images/final.gif)
-
Originally posted by CP5670
That would be great, as this is one of the best discussions I have ever seen. We will then just continue on, and possibility even rival the famous TAS... ;7
:lol: :lol:
Er... This is one of the most unproductive discussions I've seen in a long time. You've been discussing a topic that has absolutely nothing to do with the boards, throwing irrelevant arguments at each other for a month, both sides know they'll never convince the other, and you keep trying anyway.
Besides, none of you know the real truth, and I won't tell you (I'm sure Shrike won't either). ;) :D
edit: at least TAS was mostly funny...
-
LOL@that image :D :D
I assume the robot is Gore? :D I was supporting him as well; he wasn't too great, but at least he had more brains than his opponent. :p
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
Let me assure you: the Democrats are not socialists, not by a long shot.
Well let's just see about that.
You spill your proof and I'll give you mine
Prove to me why all Democrats need to be executed mideval style.
They are liars, crooks, and their getting away with it.
-
Originally posted by Styxx
:lol: :lol:
Er... This is one of the most unproductive discussions I've seen in a long time. You've been discussing a topic that has absolutely nothing to do with the boards, throwing irrelevant arguments at each other for a month, both sides know they'll never convince the other, and you keep trying anyway.
Besides, none of you know the real truth, and I won't tell you (I'm sure Shrike won't either). ;) :D
edit: at least TAS was mostly funny...
Heres the truth: I'm right and everyone else is either wrong or lying. :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
Originally posted by killadonuts
Heres the truth: I'm right and everyone else is either wrong or lying. :D :D :D :D :D :D
* klaxons flare *
Hm, nope, sorry. Try again. :D
-
Er... This is one of the most unproductive discussions I've seen in a long time. You've been discussing a topic that has absolutely nothing to do with the boards, throwing irrelevant arguments at each other for a month, both sides know they'll never convince the other, and you keep trying anyway.
Well, everyone is not so much trying to convince the other as much as defending their own viewpoints, and that can indeed be done through logic-based arguments. ;) And besides, this forum is meant after all for the off-topic posts that do not fit anywhere else. ;)
Besides, none of you know the real truth, and I won't tell you (I'm sure Shrike won't either).
No! Only I know the truth! The only true truth is the Faith of the Purple Dragon®©™ Who Rules the Universe Alongside the God®©™ With Great Justice®©™ But Sometimes Gets Into Arguments With God®©™ About How to Run the Universe! Repent ye sins now and join the faith! Do not be fooled by all those other false truths! Or the Purple Dragon®©™ will beat you up!
:D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
And besides, this forum is meant after all for the off-topic posts that do not fit anywhere else. ;)
Erm... when exactly did that change? I thought this was supposed to be a spacesim/scifi discussion board, focused on mods and similars. :p
Originally posted by CP5670
No! Only I know the truth! The only true truth is the Faith of the Purple Dragon®©™ Who Rules the Universe Alongside the God®©™ With Great Justice®©™ But Sometimes Gets Into Arguments With God®©™ About How to Run the Universe! Repent ye sins now and join the faith! Do not be fooled by all those other false truths! Or the Purple Dragon®©™ will beat you up!
Ops, wrong again. Next attempt, please? Sarcasm not accepted. ;)
-
Erm... when exactly did that change? I thought this was supposed to be a spacesim/scifi discussion board, focused on mods and similars. :p
Actually I meant the Hard Light forum by itself. Besides, if this place is only for talking about space sims, why is it that the HL forum has about as many posts as all the other forums combined? :p :D (art-related postings only account for around a tenth of it maybe)
Ops, wrong again. Next attempt, please?
You are the one who is wrong! I call for an immediate holy war against these unbelievers!!
Anyway, you'll see another true attempt in time... ;)
Well let's just see about that.
You spill your proof and I'll give you mine
Prove to me why all Democrats need to be executed mideval style.
They are liars, crooks, and their getting away with it.
They are all liars and crooks to me, but that is unfortunately what is required out of a successful politician. :p I also support democrats in most ways, but mainly because they do not base all their things on some strange morals as the Republicans do. :p
-
Originally posted by CP5670
You are the one who is wrong! I call for an immediate holy war against these unbelievers!!
War?!? You want war? Look what I do to your holy book!!
* burns advanced calculus book *
Ha! :ha:
:D
-
Originally posted by killadonuts
Well let's just see about that.
You spill your proof and I'll give you mine
Prove to me why all Democrats need to be executed mideval style.
They are liars, crooks, and their getting away with it.
Sorry, but's not being socialist but being a politician.
The US has nothing like a socialist party (well, only a few out of mainstream ones, they don't count).
The democrates are not even left, they are just less (a lot) right than the Reps.
P.S. Important to know: I'm using the European way of labeling parties as the US way is only used in the US, whereas the European wya is used almost everywhere
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
The US has nothing like a socialist party (well, only a few out of mainstream ones, they don't count).
Hoo boy :rolleyes:
I can come up with so many reasons to disprove this that I dont even know where to begin. :D
Originally posted by CP5670
They are all liars and crooks to me, but that is unfortunately what is required out of a successful politician. :p I also support democrats in most ways, but mainly because they do not base all their things on some strange morals as the Republicans do. :p
Yes they are all liars and crooks. Republicans and Democrats are just two sides of the same evil.
People don't realize that there are more than two options on Election Day.
Voting for either only hurts yourself in the end
-
What constiutes a Libertarian belief to you?
And what makes Socialism bad? Don't tell me it's discredited by the USSR; that one is just plain wrong. :)
-
I'm sure that the average Russian was much better off when the USSR was still in tact than now. Not that it means that the Dictatorship that existed was right.
-
Originally posted by Top Gun
I'm sure that the average Russian was much better off when the USSR was still in tact than now. Not that it means that the Dictatorship that existed was right.
What I meant is that the system of government that existed in the USSR did not constitute Socialism. Stalinism was quite some distance removed from it.
-
how did this post get from religion to government?
Addon: Yay! 150+ posts in 1 month. I know, that blows, but who cares?
-
Originally posted by X-Files Addict
how did this post get from religion to government?
Observe:
"Sex isn't a sin that is if you only do it with you wife. If it is outside of marrige or before it is a sin." - hotsnoj
"i wonder how bill clinton was able to have sex outside of his marrige and not get millions of religous fanatics rioting" - X-Files Addict
"he was impeached" - Bobboau
"Almost impeached." - IceFire
"so much for presidents being role-models" - X-Files Addict
"Yeah, Clinton was a pretty messed up fellow, but he was a clever politician who knew how to convince the masses, which is why he got elected twice." - CP5670
"this election sucked...pick either a very stupid guy or a robot" - X-Files Addict
"The sad truth about American politics is this: We have to pick the lesser of two evils every 4 years... Democrats are Socialists... republicans, on the other hand, are fascists." - killadonuts
"Democrats are not socialists, not by a long shot." - Crazy_Ivan80
"They are liars, crooks, and their getting away with it." - killadonuts
"The US has nothing like a socialist party (well, only a few out of mainstream ones, they don't count). The democrates are not even left, they are just less (a lot) right than the Reps." - Crazy_Ivan80
"I can come up with so many reasons to disprove this that I dont even know where to begin." - killadonuts
"And what makes Socialism bad? Don't tell me it's discredited by the USSR; that one is just plain wrong." - Kellan
That's an abridged version of a wandering train of thought. Believe it or not, the small foray into Hitler discussions did not sidetrack the thread! Do not be fooled by this red herring.
The sad thing is that this thread has really worn out. I can all but guarantee that it'll be locked or die before it hits 1000. It's a shame (yes, the thread kind of sucked, but it would be nice to hit the big number).:sigh:
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
The democrates are not even left, they are just less (a lot) right than the Reps.
This is very true. In the US, you have a choice between right and slightly less right. Up here in Canada, it's a choice between left and slightly less left (although it's also less simplistic; yes, more than 2 parties actually matter).
-
OK lets set this right,
uuhmmm...
you, ****ing... idiots, and ummm
Ah, I got it
Abortion, why is it you religious zealots want to make a woman slave to an unborn, unliving fetus, so if she approaches the sexual indiscretions of men, she should give her life over and be a doding mother to a child that will have a less bright future, because it (he/she) was born while it's mother was trying to get an education or a fanatical foot hold and was pushed into ignorant poverty unable to escape because she can't afford collage any more, and is too busy trying to raise a child she didn't want,
Not to mention the situations were the mothers very life is in danger,
Then look at how you people conduct you're selves, posting pictures of women, there families, planting bombs, killing real living adult people, now I'm not saying YOU do that but people in your movement do, few if any on our side would do this unprovoked
that should fix it :nod: . I feel, like I acomplished something today :D
-
That certainly is one big spanner. Let's see if it works. :p
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
OK lets set this right,
uuhmmm...
you, ****ing... idiots, and ummm
Ah, I got it
Abortion, why is it you religious zealots want to make a woman slave to an unborn, unliving fetus, so if she approaches the sexual indiscretions of men, she should give her life over and be a doding mother to a child that will have a less bright future, because it (he/she) was born while it's mother was trying to get an education or a fanatical foot hold and was pushed into ignorant poverty unable to escape because she can't afford collage any more, and is too busy trying to raise a child she didn't want,
Not to mention the situations were the mothers very life is in danger,
Then look at how you people conduct you're selves, posting pictures of women, there families, planting bombs, killing real living adult people, now I'm not saying YOU do that but people in your movement do, few if any on our side would do this unprovoked
that should fix it :nod: . I feel, like I acomplished something today :D
If she didn't want the baby then she shouldn't have had sex in the first place!
And saying that a fetus is unliving "Shame, shame, shame!" (Gomer Pile if you are wondering). You say evolution happend and that one cell evolved and lived but fetuses don't! That is almost contridincting yourself! The fetus is living, it cell are dividing and I can't remember when it is but it's like two weeks ore something its heart starts beating. Do you call something that has a heartbeat not living? If you do then that would mean that everyone on earth isn't alive! Or lets go to brain waves. Again I can't remember when they start. But are you saying you aren't alive? If you say that a fetus isn't alive then you should start saying that about youself.
Now I going to touch the femist movement and maybe some, other "issuses".
The femist think men and women are the same in every respect. :ha:! Men are just physicly stronger then women. Now unless I an unworkout guy goes against a gal who does work out I, most likely would lose. Men also think different. We space think. Meaning we can more accuertly judge space for fighting (wars, the gal's you likes honor) and driving and whatever else that would require allot of spaceial thinking. Women think emotional. I don't really get it myself. But the difference between men and women are suppose to counter themselfs to make something of a balance. Of course this would only happen if the two were married. The guy's "go get 'um" and the women's "let's think this over first". Now a gal can drive a truck or be in the military (they really shouldn't) but they are better at mothering then those.
Now about women in the military.
As I've said before men and women think differently. This also alppies in the military. Since men have that 'let's go get 'um" attitude they are more likely to take the risk to go after an ememy and catch him. Risk is something that women don't really like to take when it involes someone's life. I was watching Good Morning American a month or so after 9/11 and they were interviewing sailers. And guess what they were interviewing a couple of women. Now these women had stuffed animal and what have you all over their room. I don't think guy's would be catch seen within a 100 ft. of them (stuffed animals). These women also said that when they joined the navy they had not planed onm going to war! What ignorance (who called me ignorant here?)! Joined the military and not planned on going to war (they had joined up in peace time). If you join the military you should plan to go to war because that is what the military is for. My dad was in the navy. He knew that he might die in a war against the USSR and that his wife (my mom) might die in a nuclear blast. Not to mention other relatives. If you get a job expect to do that job! Armies job is to protect the country, not just sit around.
Well I think thats all for now.
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
1. If she didn't want the baby then she shouldn't have had sex in the first place!
2. And saying that a fetus is unliving "Shame, shame, shame!" (Gomer Pile if you are wondering). You say evolution happend and that one cell evolved and lived but fetuses don't! That is almost contridincting yourself! The fetus is living, it cell are dividing and I can't remember when it is but it's like two weeks ore something its heart starts beating. Do you call something that has a heartbeat not living? If you do then that would mean that everyone on earth isn't alive! Or lets go to brain waves. Again I can't remember when they start. But are you saying you aren't alive? If you say that a fetus isn't alive then you should start saying that about youself.
1. tell that to rape victims and see how long you live :)
2. a fetus is indeed not alive. It's individual cells are but as a whole (even with the hart beating) it is not alive. A fetus as a whole only becomes alive somewhere around 7.5-8 months (premature) when it can survive mostly on its own when put in favourable conditions (incubator in hospital), but the earlier the fetus leaves the more deficient it will be.
You are however, welcome to try to make a fetus survive outside the womb earlier than that. If it lives you'll be stuck with an individual that'll be dificient in so many ways it would be better of dead.
Week 26 The fetus can now inhale, exhale and even cry. Eyes have completely formed, and the tongue has developed taste buds. Under intensive medical care the fetus has a over a 50% chance of surviving outside the womb.
before this the fetus is not capable of surviving on its own, even with medical attention, it only 'lives' because of the mother. Not alive thus
Week 30 The fetus is usually capable of living outside the womb and would be considered premature at birth.
premature but alive
Week 40 This marks the end of the normal gestational period. The child is now ready to live in outside of his mother's womb.
normal
-
Point 2 is a fact. There is no denying that. :nod:
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
1. tell that to rape victims and see how long you live :)
2. a fetus is indeed not alive. It's individual cells are but as a whole (even with the hart beating) it is not alive. A fetus as a whole only becomes alive somewhere around 7.5-8 months (premature) when it can survive mostly on its own when put in favourable conditions (incubator in hospital), but the earlier the fetus leaves the more deficient it will be.
You are however, welcome to try to make a fetus survive outside the womb earlier than that. If it lives you'll be stuck with an individual that'll be dificient in so many ways it would be better of dead.
Week 26 The fetus can now inhale, exhale and even cry. Eyes have completely formed, and the tongue has developed taste buds. Under intensive medical care the fetus has a over a 50% chance of surviving outside the womb.
before this the fetus is not capable of surviving on its own, even with medical attention, it only 'lives' because of the mother. Not alive thus
Week 30 The fetus is usually capable of living outside the womb and would be considered premature at birth.
premature but alive
Week 40 This marks the end of the normal gestational period. The child is now ready to live in outside of his mother's womb.
normal
So ppl that rely on machines to survive are not 'alive'? That is in effect you're saying.
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
So ppl that rely on machines to survive are not 'alive'? That is in effect you're saying.
Don't put words in my mouth... the people you refer to are usually in coma with little hope of recovery.
The babies in Incubators are not in coma. Big difference there.
-
Oh, brother... :rolleyes:
1. Rape. Ahem. :rolleyes:
2. I shouldn't expect you to understand a feminist viewpoint...now, I personally think that the feminist movement, whilst doing some good in breaking down obvious sexist barriers (like women in the military) it's essentially destructive in its anti-manism. Male and female are two sides of the same coin. By working together they can achieve more than by working apart.
3. Women in the military? Why not? Your assertion that men have a better innate ability to fight and to drive is an overgeneralization (as there are varying degrees of spatial awareness in all individuals) but also an easy get-out clause for sexism. "Women are better at mothering", you say. The implication of that statement is "women should do what they're good at, and shouldn't be allowed to interfere in things that men are 'better' at". Mixed militaries in Holland are no less operationally effective than single-sex militaries, it has been shown. In fact, the Dutch army allows men and women of both sexual persuasions to serve together (I think) because it improves camaraderie and coherency.
4. It's not just women who join the military without thinking of fighting. Given that the military will finance a University degree for you, people from deprived backgrounds (or cheapskates) do 3 years' (or whatever) service and end up as a skilled professional who is highly employable in the private sector.
Besides, if people went around fantasising about going to war all the time, you'd end up with some kind of war-fetishing army that would jump at the chance for combat. :D
-
women are smarter than men, they think more logicly, men are more emotional,
and I made my previus statment just to get this going again, intentionaly leaveing good points for atack
I am actualy not in favor of abortions (I don't think anyone is realy gung ho about them) I just don't think it's my place to dictate about a situation I would never ever find my self in.
if a woman came to me and asked for advice, I would tell her that she has three options,
1) you could carry the baby to term and raise it
2) you could carry the baby to term and give it up for adoption
3) you could abort now before it is realy alive
I would try and point her twards option 1 or 2 more than three, unless there are some unusual sercomstances
and my defonition of when a baby is alive, is when it can survive outside the womb
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
women are smarter than men, they think more logicly, men are more emotional,
and I made my previus statment just to get this going again, intentionaly leaveing good points for atack
I am actualy not in favor of abortions (I don't think anyone is realy gung ho about them) I just don't think it's my place to dictate about a situation I would never ever find my self in.
if a woman came to me and asked for advice, I would tell her that she has three options,
1) you could carry the baby to term and raise it
2) you could carry the baby to term and give it up for adoption
3) you could abort now before it is realy alive
I would try and point her twards option 1 or 2 more than three, unless there are some unusual sercomstances
and my defonition of when a baby is alive, is when it can survive outside the womb
Women arent smarter than men. Anyway at the moment of conception its human, everything it decided and programmed at that point, the build, height, eye colour, hair colour, boy or girl. At that point its human life. After the period of time he spends growing he will be born and grow up, enjoying life or the mother decides to abort and he is cut up and killed. Denied the right to live a life as we do. To be for abortion, you would also be willing to accept the termination of your life before you could defend yourself.
-
But, Zeronet, since it would be frankly bizarre to claim that a fetus can actually feel or understand that situation, even if the fetus were me I wouldn't 'mind' so to speak - only because I wouldn't have a mind to 'mind' with. :p
I do agree that if someone doesn't want a baby, they should at least use protection when they're having sex. Remember that some abortions occur during marriage, so your noraml abstinence rule wouldn't hold here. Again, a prospective mother could give a baby up for adoption but that does still mean personal and professional sacrifices, plus the emotional burden of giving away a baby you have had for nine months, touched, seen, etc. I'm not saying that there are no emotional issues with aborting, but I believe they are lessened.
You can't defend a no-abortion stance realistically without being awful to the women who carry those babies. If they are raped, should they have to carry the rapist's baby, sacrificing their happiness and job (plus the possibility of emotional damage)? What if giving birth would be dangerous to the mother, and the baby might actually kill her? What if (as is the case with a friend of mine) one baby is ill and might infect the other, healthy one?
Briefly, here's a situation I know. A family friend was expecting twins but was told that one had Down's Syndrome after medical tests. She could choose to have both, but there was a possibility that the healthy baby might end up with Down's too due to sharing in the womb. In the event, they chose to abort one and save the other.
In these cases, I feel it's a matter of personal choice, but the legal right should be there. As with drugs, actually (ooh, controversy)...
All drugs should be legal. :devilidea
-
What is the definition for something that's alive?
Definition Of Life As Determined By Science:
1. Shows evidence of growth and replication - embryos grow, and it's cells replocate...(CHECK)
2. Shows evidence of purposeful energy transfer...(CHECK)
3. Responds to stimuli...(CHECK)
4. Acts in such a way as to ensure self-preservation...(CHECK)
5. Is significantly different from the surrounding environment...(CHECK)
Therefore, since the embryo is alive, it really should have its own rights too...
-
Originally posted by Kellan
And what makes Socialism bad? Don't tell me it's discredited by the USSR; that one is just plain wrong. :)
I'm not trying to say that socialism is all that bad. In fact, in certain situations (like an economic depression) it works well.
I'm just saying that the people who started this country took careful steps in creating a small national government.
In the course of 226 years, this country has slowly but surely contradicted all that was fought for during the revolution.
For most countries socialism works well, but it's not what was intended for the United States.
Any government intervention in business is wrong.
-
How does it ensure its own self-preservation? The mother does that.
And how do you respond to my exceptional circumstances above? If the fetus has rights, it could legally be tried for attempted manslaughter (2nd degree murder?) against the mother if birth would cause damage. :p
-
Originally posted by killadonuts
Any government intervention in business is wrong.
What about when business is wrong? Paying workers starvation level wages is wrong. Pumping industrial waste into waterways is wrong. Profiting from illness is wrong.
Businesses do all of these things. Without government intervention, they'd do what they liked and destroy the planet and the people.
-
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
What is the definition for something that's alive?
Definition Of Life As Determined By Science:
1. Shows evidence of growth and replication - embryos grow, and it's cells replocate...(CHECK)
2. Shows evidence of purposeful energy transfer...(CHECK)
3. Responds to stimuli...(CHECK)
4. Acts in such a way as to ensure self-preservation...(CHECK)
5. Is significantly different from the surrounding environment...(CHECK)
Therefore, since the embryo is alive, it really should have its own rights too...
I hope you wern't being serius with this
-
Originally posted by Kellan
What about when business is wrong? Paying workers starvation level wages is wrong. Pumping industrial waste into waterways is wrong. Profiting from illness is wrong.
Businesses do all of these things. Without government intervention, they'd do what they liked and destroy the planet and the people.
This is correct - a Corporation is not capable of being nice, even if it wanted to as the director has an obligation to squeeze as much money out of everything for the shareholders.
That is it's sole purpose.
And after you actually understand this (i mean UNDERSTAND it) you can start to see why western society is coming apart at the seams.
-
Originally posted by Kellan
All drugs should be legal. :devilidea
Yeah, let'em all kill themselves, while I make huge mountains of cash from selling them, and the government is happier than ever with all the extra tax money. :D
-
Therefore, since the embryo is alive, it really should have its own rights too...
Well, many things are alive to some extent, but that does not really mean anything. Lets take ants for example: they are actually just as living as these embryos are, possibly even more so, but they are not mentioned at all in the official laws of any nation. I bet that there is a guy in the US who is claiming that ants are equally as alive as we are and should be allowed to vote in national elections or something, and of course, to complement his idea, he has his website and his institution. For the purposes of a decision though, it really boils down to a balance between the benefits of the individual and those of the society; in this case, the individual benefits and the society is unaffected, making a compromise unnecessary, and therefore I say go for it. I'm not a really big advocate of that position either though, since if people are having sex in the first place when not wanting children, they deserve to suffer anyway. :D
On the topic of drugs, I could probably start a claim where I contend that this is a form of social discrimination because people of a certain age are allowed to buy them while others are not. (although they get them anyway :p) Either make them available to everyone or ban them altogether. :p
-
Originally posted by an0n
Vote Microsoft:
(http://www.fattonys.com/images/billysm.jpg)(http://www.fattonys.com/images/final.gif)
hehe...
-
On the topic of drugs, I could probably start a claim where I contend that this is a form of social discrimination because people of a certain age are allowed to buy them while others are not. (although they get them anyway ) Either make them available to everyone or ban them altogether.
Aren't drugs illegal anyway? If you get caught with a narcotic, don't you go to jail for 25 years. (In america) If you get caught with drugs in the middle-east you get life.
-
Originally posted by wEvil
This is correct - a Corporation is not capable of being nice, even if it wanted to as the director has an obligation to squeeze as much money out of everything for the shareholders.
That is it's sole purpose.
And after you actually understand this (i mean UNDERSTAND it) you can start to see why western society is coming apart at the seams.
Bah. Don't give me a talk about how society is doomed. Guess what, it isn't! Society has been changing ever since it existed; if it didn't evolve, it would hardly be society as we know it. It may seem like the doom of society now, but there have always been those who've thought like that, and alongside them, those who have adapted to a changing world and succeeded.
Don't suggest that uncaring people in positions of power are somehow a new thing. There were plenty of tyrants before capitalism, and they generally did much worse than just pay low wages. The various changes to society over time have only lessened the ability of hostile powers to torment others.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
On the topic of drugs, I could probably start a claim where I contend that this is a form of social discrimination because people of a certain age are allowed to buy them while others are not. (although they get them anyway :p) Either make them available to everyone or ban them altogether. :p
I'll assume you're talking about recreational drugs, not medical drugs.
Firstly, most drugs are banned altogether. The few that aren't banned (alcohol, tobacco, etc.) have heavy restrictions on their use, or are on their way to being banned.
Secondly, your "argument" could also apply to driving. Either make it available to everyone, not matter how young, or ban it altogther! It's ridiculous because by driving too early you could severly injure or kill yourself or others. The same holds true with drugs.
-
There is a difference. Driving restrictions are put up because a child is not smart enough nor mature enough to drive. They cannot make clear, important judgements. Drug Restrictions are put up becasue using drugs before a certain age will increase the chance of getting addicted and dying faster by 200%.
-
That's true, but the adult cannot be said to have the ability to make decisions that are any more intelligent either. :p And yes, the ten-year old can drive just as well if he has been trained properly; heck, they have gotten monkeys to drive better than the average human.
-
its not the question if they can drive its just that they are not mature enough (and yes, this also shows in adults) ex. Say a ten yo is in a car with his friends. he is on an interstate going 75 mph. His friend says "Hey man check out the corvette", the 10 yo looks over and within that second he loses control and hits a tree.
-
Adults do that too
-
not all
-
Originally posted by Styxx
Yeah, let'em all kill themselves, while I make huge mountains of cash from selling them, and the government is happier than ever with all the extra tax money. :D
Amen brotha!
-
Originally posted by Kabal
not all
And not all kids would do that, what's your point
-
Originally posted by killadonuts
I'm not trying to say that socialism is all that bad. In fact, in certain situations (like an economic depression) it works well.
I'm just saying that the people who started this country took careful steps in creating a small national government.
In the course of 226 years, this country has slowly but surely contradicted all that was fought for during the revolution.
For most countries socialism works well, but it's not what was intended for the United States.
Any government intervention in business is wrong.
First of: the US has never had anything like socialism, so they cannot know it is bad for them. The only taste the US had with socialism is the Cold War and the McCarty witchhunt.
And the government has the duty to intervene in business when needed. The environment is one such case, wages are another, safety a third, and many many more...
-
My reasoning for implementing universal rules for drugs (ie. being 18 or 21 or whatever for everything) is:
1. It's a restriction of one's freedom of choice about whether or not to use drugs to institute a blanket ban. Even if suicide is bad for people, or alcoholism, we let people do it as long as they harm nobody else.
2. It would lead to cleaner, safer supply of drugs. Without the impurities and poor conditions in which drugs are currently taken there would be far fewer deaths.
3. It would be easier to treat addicts, because they could be prescribed clean drugs and slowly weaned off them. Also, there's more incentive to seek help because there are no legal difficulties, and society would view addicts more sympathetically eventually.
4. The criminal thrill of drugs is removed. Kids won't find it so cool if their parents can do it as well. :D
5. Drug addicts are victims as much as criminals. They're trapped in a cycle of addiction and they need support to get out - like a smoker needs support if they want to quit.
-
Originally posted by Kellan
What about when business is wrong? Paying workers starvation level wages is wrong. Pumping industrial waste into waterways is wrong. Profiting from illness is wrong.
Businesses do all of these things. Without government intervention, they'd do what they liked and destroy the planet and the people.
There is a way to regulate bisiness without government intervention. It's called the the costumer. If the costumer is informed about how the bisiness runs and they don't like it they just don't buy from them. If you don't understand what I'm saying don't call me stupid or something because I KNOW econamics (though I may not know how to spell it).
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
There is a way to regulate bisiness without government intervention. It's called the the costumer. If the costumer is informed about how the bisiness runs and they don't like it they just don't buy from them. If you don't understand what I'm saying don't call me stupid or something because I KNOW econamics (though I may not know how to spell it).
History has shown that the consumer doesn't care at all how workers are treated.
This 'caring' is a new and very recent phenomenon.
History has also shown that business without government intervention (of any kind: both positive and negative) is impossible, on the contrary: it's government that creates a good climate for businesses to operate
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
There is a way to regulate bisiness without government intervention. It's called the the costumer. If the costumer is informed about how the bisiness runs and they don't like it they just don't buy from them. If you don't understand what I'm saying don't call me stupid or something because I KNOW econamics (though I may not know how to spell it).
Of course that all relies on the fact that the consumer must make consistently intelligent purchasing decisions which doesn't always happen. What about Monopolists: Microsoft for example. The average person has no alternative but to buy their crap (unless they want w***z, but if they know how to get that they'll have heard of alternatives).
Then there's the fact that the Majority of people in the West couldn't care less about say, Nike making their shoes in sweatshops but the people in those sweatshops do, only they don't have a voice.
And then there's paid for government influence. Take a look at the draft for the CBDTPA if anyone doesn't believe that it's happening.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Women arent smarter than men. Anyway at the moment of conception its human, everything it decided and programmed at that point, the build, height, eye colour, hair colour, boy or girl. At that point its human life.
Life Must be respected and protected from the moment of conception
- roman catholic Catecism. As I said before, it's like trying to argue with the standard output of a Perl Script.
If you're going to go on about "the potential for human life" then every cell in your body has it (except red blood cells).
-
Banning suicide...now that would be so futile to the point of the rediculous I can actually imagine some idiot judge supporting it somewhere.
I mean...how the hell do you punish a person for killing themselves? :ha: they'd already be dead!
-
Originally posted by wEvil
I mean...how the hell do you punish a person for killing themselves? :ha: they'd already be dead!
Those who attempted suicide and failed used to be punished and imprisoned. In addition, dead suicides are not allowed (or were not allowed) to be buried on Church grounds because only God can "giveth and taketh away". Therefore, (you guessed it!) they went straight to hell.
Unless they had done it for some good, Christian reason, that is.
-
Originally posted by Top Gun
- roman catholic Catecism. As I said before, it's like trying to argue with the standard output of a Perl Script.
If you're going to go on about "the potential for human life" then every cell in your body has it (except red blood cells).
Im truely offended by those comments and the second paragraph of your post is just silly. Your taking my words out of context(if the baby inside the womb is left alone and is healthy it will almost certainly grow up into an intelligent being. By aborting it, you are preventing it from being born, i would rather be born blind than not born at all.)
-
Once again, if you are offended then don't read it! :p
Saying that "you would rather" in the context of a fetus is silly. Even you can agree that a baby in the womb doesn't 'think' in any way that we understand. It doesn't have a preference as an individual.
Of course, the Catholic Church wants it both ways. No abortion, but also no contraception, increasing the chances of unwanted babies being made. Don't say abstinence either - be realistic. Besides, babies can be unwanted within marriages as well.
And nobody on your side of the debate has answered my exceptional circumstances yet. [God voice] Get on with it! [/God voice] :lol:
-
Asking people to abstain from sex and love is rediculous. Your mind and body need it as much as you need air and food.
Casual abortion? Inexcusable.
Unwanted Children? Beneath Contempt.
Unfortunaly, however, I would want to give my children every chance at a good life and if (for whatever reason) i were to have one in the next year this would certainly not be the case.
I would have to insist on aborting such a child because almost certainly it would have a terrible life without myself having a decent job to support it.
You argue this is not the case?
Well it is.
Because if you're anything like me, you'd NEED to have a decent job. If you were working at say....a pub or a restaurant washing dishes day in day out to earn your keep it would have serious impacts on your emotional state which would be reflected and impressed upon your impressionable youngsters.
If i had the choice between not being born at all and being an unwanted child? No contest at all for me - i'd rather wait until I had a chance at a fulfilling life.
Obviously this isn't exactly what you're getting at but I feel its a case that needs to be explored if you're on the subject.
-
Bagsy post 1000! :D
Thunders patented g33k detection system report 10375.343:
This man has to much time on his hands.
-
Originally posted by Kellan
Bagsy post 1000! :D
No! Why didn't I do post #1000? I could've... :D
Anyway, post 1001, you can read it backwards, I don't care. And second post on the 21st page for those lucky enough to have threads sorted to 50 posts per page.
-
you would go and bring down the tone of the conversation wouldn't you?
:rolleyes:
*sigh*
-
Originally posted by wEvil
Casual abortion? Inexcusable.
Unwanted Children? Beneath Contempt.
I was never supporting casual abortion - it seems a little sick, like it's a lifestyle accessory or the baby is something that has to fit into your diary, or it won't work.
When I used the term 'unwanted children' I didn't mean it in the sense above, but the one you went on to describe - as in, you wouldn't want to give them an unhappy life. I guess since you believe in the souls and karma thing, according to your belief the essence contained within a baby will be born again anyway - just somewhere else - the body being just a vessel, etc.
EDIT: I hope this makes up for lowering the tone of the conversation, wEvil. :D
-
Correct - not that i'd be so undiplomatic as to push such a beleif on others.
The drugs idea is a good one but would be hard to enforce --
It would also be too much of a temptation for a western-type govornment to tax it so hard that the black market would prove more economical.
As a smoker, well....I don't particularly want to quit as it's almost my personal statement that I think most staunch anti-smoking campaigners are a bunch of glass-bubble-syndrome suffering whiners. Obviously a sweeping generalisation but i'm tired of practising tolerance when someone opens a tin of tuna (which I can't stand), and getting shouted at when I spark up in a pub where most people are smoking anyway.
*edit*
Yep..it does :)
BTW - I wuz up in milton keynes a couple of weeks ago. Totally random I know, but anyway...
-
Im not personally against contreception and although a baby inside the womb cant currently think, in a few years it will be able to. We can all complicate the issue but at the end of the day, abortion is killing a baby, dening something the right to live a life as we do. Anyway my current Issues for Life class is about this and im sure i'll be able to get more info.
-
Orignally posted by wEvil
The drugs idea is a good one but would be hard to enforce --
Surely it would be easy to enforce - simply because it requires no enforcement! :lol: I guess you mean in terms of stamping out the black market whilst making the legit market viable, which would be a little more difficult.
Taxation on drugs would be a good thing though - the revenue gained could meet the cost incurred by the health services.
Personally, I don't like smoking myself, or smoke very much - I personally don't understand why people do it. :) However, I'm not about to force everyone to stop smoking - I'd never be so undiplomatic as to do that (cheers, wEvil) and I'm prepared to move myself if I don't like the environment. There are plenty of non-smoking areas and then there is outdoors too... :rolleyes:
What can't you stand about tuna? I agree it smells pretty rancid... :D
EDIT: sorted the quote because some damn f00 posted whilst I was typing. :p
-
I'm not contradicting your point Zeronet but consistent with my personal beleif system there's no point in living if you have no chance of enjoying life or doing what you're meant to do.
Obviously you need time to rediscover what you're meant to do here and alot of people never do, but so many individuals just get caught up trying to survive and just become..well, i suppose tired is the most accurate word, but it's worse than that.
It does make you wonder how different it would be if maybe that nasty emotional experience when they were younger (or older?) had never happened.
Tuna?
well...looks like its' been pre-digested in the lung of a small burrowing animal and small awful.
Although I eat mussels so I suppose I can't complain...it almost makes me gag everytime i'm forced to smell it.
If someone doesn't like me smoking i'll gladly hold my rollie in the other hand and blow it away, or get up and go somewhere else...but in a group situation when you can't really go elsewhere, just one vocal person can almost ruin the whole night by going on about it.
-
Originally posted by wEvil
BTW - I wuz up in milton keynes a couple of weeks ago. Totally random I know, but anyway...
Ahh, so you have been to The Concrete Metropolis Of The Future. I quite like it - green, big, dual carriageways so I don't have to face the other evil traffic. Never mind the concrete... ;)
I guess what you mean by the current work culture, I agree with. People view working as some kind of end in itself - they take their paycheck and keep on working month after month - never aspiring to anything more, except maybe a better paid job. It's a little sad really...
EDIT: Mussels? Eurgh. :D
Almost all of my friends smoke either habitually or socially. I don't mind it as long as they don't blow it directly into my eyes, and if you're going to be accomodating like that I don't mind at all really. As for being vocal, I only ever say "no thanks" when I'm offered a cigarette (every time they spark another up, LOL).
-
Milton Keynes struck me as a kind of "Hatfield when they bothered with it", but with more skinheadz :headz:
Been stuck there (shatfield) for a year, and goddamn is it boring.
At least milton keynes has....has....stuff to do :p
-
Originally posted by wEvil
At least milton keynes has....has....stuff to do :p
Milton Keynes is great although I prefered it about twelve years ago when it wasn't so commercialized (I know it has always been like that to an extent).
Heh, they have an indoor ski slope there now (real snow), which is fun :)
-
Originally posted by wEvil
I'm not contradicting your point Zeronet but consistent with my personal beleif system there's no point in living if you have no chance of enjoying life or doing what you're meant to do.
Obviously you need time to rediscover what you're meant to do here and alot of people never do, but so many individuals just get caught up trying to survive and just become..well, i suppose tired is the most accurate word, but it's worse than that.
It does make you wonder how different it would be if maybe that nasty emotional experience when they were younger (or older?) had never happened.
Tuna?
well...looks like its' been pre-digested in the lung of a small burrowing animal and small awful.
Although I eat mussels so I suppose I can't complain...it almost makes me gag everytime i'm forced to smell it.
If someone doesn't like me smoking i'll gladly hold my rollie in the other hand and blow it away, or get up and go somewhere else...but in a group situation when you can't really go elsewhere, just one vocal person can almost ruin the whole night by going on about it.
Tuna tastes good, smoking unlike tuna does harm you, its carsengenic(sp) like oil which means it gives ppl cancer and burns the inside of your throat, causing those hairs which get rid of dead skin etc that your breathe in to die and thus your lung gets filled with dirt etc causing it to go black.
None of my friends smoke and i dont really go out of my way to stop others(ie i dont snitch on them when they do it, just hold my breath whenever im within a few metres until i pass), besides refering to cigarette as Cancer-sticks and feeling sorry for them as they spend one minute, taking 10 minutes off their life expectancy and just blowing the other way wont stop passive smoking hurting a person as it hangs in the air. 38,000 people a year in the US die from passive smoking. As the NHS commercial so rightly puts it "and if you dont want to give up smoking, my friends next door can help you". I really dont see the point in it, its not a fun thing to do, the only reason most people do it is because of peer pressure and then they get addicted to it. Still if you quit by the time your 35 you might(if you dont get lung cancer or one of the other 500 disease it causes) be able to put a extra 7 years on your life.
-
Originally posted by wEvil
Milton Keynes struck me as a kind of "Hatfield when they bothered with it", but with more skinheadz :headz:
At least milton keynes has....has....stuff to do :p
Skinheadz? :wtf: I don't really recall that many. We have an overabundance of trendies and of 12-year old greeb kids, but it's not terminal. And yeah, there's some pretty good stuff to do.
Top Gun - a non-commercialized MK? :ha: Isn't that what it was designed for? It's a city (okay, town) built around a big-ass shopping centre. :lol:
Zeronet - I'm sure that wEvil understand they're carcinogenic, but if they give him enough pleasure for him to overcome that and he's prepared to live with the consequences, I don't see the problem. As for passive smoking, all the places where we have to go are now smoke-free, and there are non-smoking areas in most other places. If you don't like passive smoking, don't go near passive smoke. :D
-
Lucky you. Our Town centre doesnt have any policies, hmm wait yes it does. If you skateboard in town they fine you £500.
-
Originally posted by Kellan
Skinheadz? :wtf: I don't really recall that many. We have an overabundance of trendies and of 12-year old greeb kids, but it's not terminal. And yeah, there's some pretty good stuff to do.
I've seen more Skin headz in Olney than Milton Keynes (no offence). Of course if you were to go to Bedford........ you'd see all sorts of wackos.
Originally posted by Kellan
Top Gun - a non-commercialized MK? :ha: Isn't that what it was designed for? It's a city (okay, town) built around a big-ass shopping centre. :lol:
True but it was just shops, It's gone very corprate in the past few years (although probably as much as anywhere else). Plus, when it was built, the shopping centre was just one aspect of it, it seems to have grown in importance.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Lucky you. Our Town centre doesnt have any policies, hmm wait yes it does. If you skateboard in town they fine you £500.
Ouch. People skate around the shopping centre and train station here...or pretty much anywhere. Nobody seems to mind too much.
Skinheadz in Olney?!? Again, :wtf: hmmm seems to be in order...
-
I'm not sure if they actually lived there or came from somewhere else but I've seen gangs of about ten of them going avound canvasing for the BNP. when I used to live there.
-
Originally posted by Ace
Amen brotha!
Thanks, thanks! Now for my next speech, "Drugs, illegal gambling and the Government: The three reasons why there is organized crime in Brazil"...
:D
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
The environment is one such case, wages are another, safety a third, and many many more...
Funny thin is... on all "developed" countries, when the government intervenes, it's always on the side of the corporations. They pressure us to impose harsher environmetal laws, bug us saying that we're not taking good care of the Amazon Forest, and when it's time for the US senate or whatever to pass a law regulating emmission of polluents they say that they cannot do it because it will slow down the progress of the nation. Bunch o' hypocrites, but that's the way it is...
Just let everything fall into place, and The Plan™ will take care of it... ;)
-
Originally posted by Kellan
Unless they had done it for some good, Christian reason, that is.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
0wnage!
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
...38,000 people a year in the US die from passive smoking...
And 150 people die a year on the US from being hit by coconuts while passing under a coconut tree (whatever you call it). Let's ban coconuts!!
:D
-
Death to coconuts! Bonka-bonka boo! Death to coconuts! Yeah yeah yeah! :lol:
Mmm, catchy.
-
Originally posted by Kellan
Death to coconuts!
But... but... coconuts are living beings! Their cells reproduce! They are distinct from the environment! And the fact that they kill people passing below them proves that they act in self defense! How can you even think about killing them poor defenseless coconuts, who in a couple bazillion years might turn into sentient beings! Shame on you!!
-
:lol:
I think that the coconuts already are sentient. They are trying to kill us. Theirs is a war of terror on unsuspecting Americans, as they go about their patriotic, God-lovin' business.
These heathen, godless coconuts are trying to destroy us. Their attacks are attacks on us all. They will not destroy our way of life - I am deploying pre-emptive strikes. The flamethrowers will destroy them. Peace and freedom will fail.
-
Originally posted by Styxx
And 150 people die a year on the US from being hit by coconuts while passing under a coconut tree (whatever you call it). Let's ban coconuts!!
:D
Thats insultive to the 38,000 people a year who die. Im sure they would share your enlightened Opinion.
-
Originally posted by Styxx
And 150 people die a year on the US from being hit by coconuts while passing under a coconut tree (whatever you call it). Let's ban coconuts!!
:D
38000 >>>> 150. If a company was putting chemicals into the air that killed 38000 people a year, I think it would get into hot water. But because it's addicts that do it, it's OK I guess.
As for wEvil, wouldn't you say that chopping a few years off your life expectancy diminishes your ability to do what you're "meant" to do? Do you really smoke because you like it, or because you're unable to stop and the nicotine makes you think you don't want to stop?
-
must... kill... topic... :snipe: :snipe:
-
This has to be the largest topic I've ever seen! Blimey!
-
Originally posted by delta_7890
This has to be the largest topic I've ever seen! Blimey!
Nope, check out some of the Nodewars stickys.
-
Originally posted by delta_7890
This has to be the largest topic I've ever seen! Blimey!
It's big. It's also pretty amazing how little it has veered from its topic. Even when it digresses, it manages to find its way back somehow.
-
it's been veering a lot lately,
I guess the god squad gave up :D
-
I think I scared them off with my long and boring posts. :D
-
That's the shortest post I have ever seen you do. :D
Oh, me and Styxx also tried to derail the topic back there...I'm deliberately veering. :p
-
Well, I'm going to post something slightly longer in the other topic. :D
-
Originally posted by Mr. Vega
Nope, check out some of the Nodewars stickys.
True, but NW has been around for a while. This thread isn't even a month old!
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Thats insultive to the 38,000 people a year who die. Im sure they would share your enlightened Opinion.
I'm sure that they'll be goddamned pissed at me in the afterlife for saying it... :rolleyes: :p
-
Originally posted by NotDefault
38000 >>>> 150. If a company was putting chemicals into the air that killed 38000 people a year, I think it would get into hot water. But because it's addicts that do it, it's OK I guess.
It comes down to numbers then? Is killing 38000 people is worse than killing 150? Is killing one person not as attrocious as killing 150?
You agree with CP's idea that people are nothing but numbers, I assume... :p
-
Equally atrocious? So destroying everyone in the world is of the same "atrocity" as killing one person? that doesn't make any sense... :p
Also, one could argue that it is insulting to the 150 people as well to talk of the cigarette people. :D
BTW I didn't even know that coconut trees exist in this country. :p
-
Originally posted by CP5670
BTW I didn't even know that coconut trees exist in this country. :p
Well they do. And they're trying to kill us! Aiieee! :shaking:
-
So I wander back into the Religion thread and find a lot of talk about smoking and murderous coconuts. I decide that that is very strange, and very OT from this OT topic, and then decide to post an on-topic post in this OT topic.
I'm going to speak to a few different people in this one, mostly regarding posts that came up shortly after my last one. Since some people complained that the last post was too long to read through, I've put names on sections that most closely deal with individual's questions/comments that I want to deal with. Really interested parties might read the whole thing, as they will likely get a fuller answer that way to the issues directed primarily towards them.
Anyway, here we go :D:
CP5670:
Well Sesq, I have read over your last post a few times, but I must say that this post was less logical and properly thought out than your previous posts, and that I expected better of you judging from your last few posts (which, in contrast, contained quite a bit of wisdom), but it is nevertheless still great to talk to you about this. You seem to be falling into the same trap as most other religious people wherein you take everything that conforms to a given religion as part of your assumptions, and not to circumvent a difficulty either, but only because you have been brought to believe a certain idea and cannot let go off it because of the idea foundation system. Even worse, you seem to be accepting the religion not because you actually thought about it carefully and reached the conclusion, but because you have been brought up to think like this. I have said this earlier: it is much, much better if you come to the conclusion that the human god, heaven/hell, resurrection, and whatever else (heck, even the purple dragon) all must exist by thinking about it based on what you perceive and coming to the solution independently, instead of looking it up from a book (Bible) or hearing it from someone and then trying to prove or disprove it, because as we have seen, the average human mind is a very vulnerable thing and it is prone to subtle influence from anything that it perceives. Just like the elementary particle cannot be observed using photons without changing its very properties, so we see that the human brain on average cannot assimilate new ideas without modifying the entire process of thinking to better suit the ideas. This especially holds true for ideas that are both logically simple and emotionally appealing.
In all honesty, if you read between the lines of my last post, you will discover that I have been noticing a similar process of logical degradation in your posts. This, I think, arises as a natural function of argumentation: as we argue, the pre-rational beliefs/assumptions/axioms/whatever you wish to call them that underlie our positions are gradually exposed. Eventually, every argumentation process will reach the level of simply making assertions and counter-assertions. When this happens, one can either abandon the argument, or move into a second stage of argument which involves evaluating these assumptions according to their consequences. Right now, we seem to have only two real arguments still ongoing, CP5670, and the rest amounts to long-winded assertion and counter-assertion.
Also, regarding the nature of my becoming a Christian, you assume more than you justifiably can. I have said that both I and my family are Christians, but I did not say that I was raised as one, nor that I became one without thought or reason. You do not know the details of my coming to accept Christianity, not why I did so. I would also point out that the process by which I personally came to accept these beliefs has no bearing on whether they are true. That is dependent upon the claims posited by the religion, and it would be specious to attempt an argument against their truth based upon the process by which an individual came to accept them.
What I am saying is that in his "human existence," he fell far, far short of the capabilities of human understanding. This would be easier to accept if he had gone down from his "normal state" to only the limit of our thoughts; good enough to allow us to "understand" him but also enough to leave us in awe. He did an utterly miserable job on the latter. Therefore, he is either incapable or unwilling, which both amount to the same thing. Lastly, if the god cannot be "put under a microscope," then we are indeed mere puppets in his universe, contrary to what you say. These religions may say that god is this great power and all when questioned explicitly, but that is deceptive; look at the way that they treat the god in all of the applications to humans.
The extents of human understanding vary greatly from person to person. What lies on the edge of the understanding of one is well within the confines of another, and entirely beyond the third. If, as Christianity explicitly posits, God values all humanity and wishes to bring as many as are willing into post-resurrection life, would not his revelation best serve this purpose by being accessible to all? You, CP5670, are able to understand quite a bit, and a revelation that lay at the extremities of your intellectual capacity would be incomprehensible to those of lesser intelligence. Should they be disregarded?
Could you outline the logic whereby you move from not being in a position to put God "under a microscope" to determinism? I assume you must have some sort of argument you could put forward for the claim, but I honestly can't imagine how you made that jump.
Well, he is quite a fool, isn't he? First he designs us this way so to make things more interesting, and then he tries to correct his mistake by using his feeble powers to steer us towards his own path? He should either make us completely the "computer programs" you are talking of, or give us this free will and have absolutely no interference in our affairs. And what exactly does it mean to be human? That is just a common conception that has developed in our minds throughout the years; the concept of a human system of thought is entirely subjective and varies between people. Many scientists today still think that we are puppets as far as this goes, whether or not there is a god, and I am inclined to agree with them...
You are only trying to shift the blame of this god in an attempt to make him appear to be an amalgamation of the popular accepted idea of "good" as a moral state. If this god made us so, and we did all this, then he is indirectly entirely responsible for everything, because he shaped our "free wills," he shaped the ideas (however subjective) of "good and evil," and everything that follows from them into reality.
Well, it is certainly true that he set up the environment and possibility for the choice between good and evil, and that good and evil themselves are derived directly from him (i.e. property-of-God vs. not-property-of-God), and even that he set our free wills into a context (i.e. as human beings living in a universe with the possibility for good and evil), but placing our free wills into a context does not negate the inherent independency of those wills. A free will is, by definition, not determined by either divine or physical compulsions. When dealing with these free wills, we come ultimately to a terminus point for causation. Think of it something like an independent random variable, except it is an independent choice variable. When these ICVs ;7 are released into the parameters that God created, they remain ICVs despite being put into a situational context. There is an important distinction to be made between putting an independent entity into a situation and forcing an entity to act in a prescribed way. The full extent of "shaping" going on in the first scenario is merely setting up the options and environment in which an ICV may exercise its inherent independence.
There is something further to be said regarding choice. If choice is to be possible at all, there must be options between which to choose. The imperative "Choose!" makes no sense until one sets it in a context of choosing between, say, 31 flavours of ice cream. Even if I were to give you that imperative without a specified context, the only way you could comply would be to invent a set of options for yourself, and then choose between them. Try it. Choice entails the presence of options. Thus, if an ICV is to be permitted to choose good, there must of necessity be an alternative option. If we do not set up this alternative, there is no possibility for the choice. Therefore, if God wants us to be able to choose good, we need to be able to choose evil as well, and if he wants us to be able to chose to love and follow him, we must be able to chose to hate and rebel against him, and it seems that he does want to put this choice before us.
So in the end I do not grant your objection. God put the choice before us, no denial; we make the choice, not him.
List the P* propositions, and I bet I can give you more Q* propositions. What you are saying is true as far as the logic alone goes, but you are discounting the practicalities of the situation. We are not talking about how simple these variables are in relation to the other variables in the system, but rather in relation to the variables of science and perception that are not included in this system. If you judge the simplicity of say, P and P* with respect to a third, independent variable (science), one can indeed say that one is simpler (more like the existing) than the other.
Well, no you couldn't give more, since for every P there is a P*, and for every Q there is a Q*. But on to the real meat of this paragraph: there is a fundamental error in your logic here (this is an extremely common error, evidenced in numerous other posts in this thread as well). Monotheism, atheism, polytheism, pantheism, animism, and any other like belief that one cares to think of posit claims regarding metaphysical reality. Scientific enquiry has as its field of investigation the physical realm of matter and energy, and as such provides no information regarding the metaphysical. The logic that runs "Science provides me with no information regarding the truth of any metaphysical claim, therefore the metaphysical claim that there is no God is true," is grossly faulty. So long as our view of knowledge is confined to the sphere of science, the only logical positions available are "hard" and "soft" agnosticism, respectively the beliefs that we cannot know what metaphysical reality is like, or that we simply do not know. Thus, like all metaphysical claims, atheism is not a viable conclusion to be reached from pure scientific enquiry. One may certainly hold to it and to scientific knowledge, but one cannot argue that one's metaphysical position is based upon science.
I say that in the event that a god exists, man's chief end is to rid the universe of the god and become the gods ourselves. Why should we have to submit to a god who is not much better than us? Also, our emotions are made more "holy" and passionate? I do not want any emotions whatsoever! (aside from ambition) I have determined that true emotions are one of the great curses of all human affairs; with the notable exception of ambition, emotions are what has kept us down for so long. And who decides what is good and what is bad? As I said earlier, Hitler was just as "good" as any of us, as he truly thought that he was serving god. Also, if he is capable of maintaing an "orderly universe" (whatever that means), why is it so disorderly? It has some mathematical order in certain places, but in other ways things make less sense. (i.e. why did he choose the C constant to be exactly what it is? why not some round integer?) Finally, how do you know that this new life is so much better? It could be much worse for all we know; we cannot take the word of a human god (Bible) for granted, because the human brain may lie based on what its motives are, and you have already said that the god has motives and is therefore a human.
First of all, all of these "arguments" are only applicable to a being such as Zeus, not the Judeo-Christian God Yahweh. Every one of these objections is based on assumptions that are denied by the very nature of the posited Judeo-Christian God, and thus you have, in fact, made no arguments against him. If I may point out one glaring error of logic in the thinking which leads you to believe that God is like Zeus, you seem to make the jump from God's revelation portraying him as having certain anthropomorphic traits to the idea that he is in every way nothing more than a powerful human. It is not valid to assume, just because in certain respects something bears a resemblance to something else, that the two things are alike in all respects. God, as revealed to us, has a will. He is also morally perfect and omniscient. In the first respect he seems to be like us, in the second he is not like us. I see no justification for believing that having a will entails being a liar and cheat and idiot. You are only asserting that this is the case, and it seems an unwarranted and logically indefensible assertion.
More importantly, however, this quote and others like it reveal the real motivation underlying your position. Since science does not provide us with justification to believe in any particular metaphysical claim, our metaphysical position is and must always be based upon other considerations. Judging from this quote and others like it, it seems that you don't believe in God because you don't want to. An impartial seeker after truth is a rare thing (I probably am not one either, though I try), but it seems to me that such a seeker of truth would hold to a "soft" agnosticism (i.e. belief that we do not, as opposed to cannot, know the truth regarding metaphysical reality) unless and until he experienced something to convince him otherwise. The experiences in my life lead me to give my provisional assent to Christianity. I say provisional because I freely admit my lack of absolute certainty regarding my beliefs, and believe in God entirely because, given the experiences of my life, I see no other reasonable explanation. Refusing to give provisional assent to the only available explanation is, if I may say so, just plain silly unless one has some other motivation for not doing so, and I have no such motivation. If it is true, I am glad. If it is not true, and it turns out that atheism is true, I am saddened for the reasons I said before, but I like to believe that my desire for truth outweighs my desire for comfort. Refusing to believe in God because one can hope that some other explanation will eventually surface to save one from having to admit that God is God seems like a rather irrational thing to do. Such an action is indicative of a desire to deny God, rather than a reason to. The fact of the matter is, when you get right down to it, I have never encountered an atheist philosopher who had any other reason to deny God's existence than that he didn't want to believe it.
There is a difference there. We do indeed have to rely on historical records to determine whether or not the Roman empire existed, but these historical records fit in with current science. This is why I am willing to accept some parts of the Bible and not others; sure, this Christ fellow existed, but he was just another person and was quite certainly not resurrected.
...Then there is the possibility of objective truth outside the confines of empirical science. Now, as we discussed previously, there seems no reason to say that a supernatural being exists who is beyond the confines of nature and her laws, is the creator of nature and her laws, and is not himself bound by nature or her laws could not do something within nature that was not in accordance with the usual processes observed in nature. As you said yourself, it is possible that natural laws be violated: they are, after all, only descriptions. Moreover, a miracle need not destroy our natural laws, as previously discussed, but may be considered to reflect "God tossing another billiard ball on the table," divinely changing the situation upon which the processes of nature act. This is as true for the resurrection of Jesus as for any other miracle, so this resurrection is neither contrary to logic nor incompatible with current science, though it is certainly unusual. For the critical mind mere unusualness is insufficient reason to dismiss something out of hand (an uncritical mind may do so, but we want to be as clear-thinking as possible), and so anyone who has followed our previous discussions will come to the conclusion that it is certainly possible that Jesus was resurrected. Whether he was so is a different matter entirely, and one that is worth investigation, but it seems that if we grant the possibility that God exists, we must also grant the possibility that Jesus is no longer dead. Given my personal experiences and my own consideration of the historical evidences, I have come to the position that it appears true, yet even if I had not, I would still have to grant the possibility.
It is true that rational thought and irrational beliefs can coincide in most minds due to the generally accepted atomistic view of things, as long as a train of logical reasoning does not lead to something that is in error with an assumption. Now, the issue comes up when you try to think rationally and reach a contradiction that does not fit in with what was accepted before. As long as we stick to things that are not directly related to religion (math, most of science, etc.), we are fine, but the effects of religion on the cognitive capability of the mind start to show when one thinks about philosophy and possibly reaches a logical conclusion that does not go with what is current accepted.
I have not yet encountered such a situation in my own experience as a Christian. As well, I would point out that the same potential exists for the religious persuasion of atheism as for any other. The equation of non-atheist religious persuasions with impaired mental functioning is still sterotyping.
If someone says "oonga-boonga" do you, and all other universal conditions are exactly the same, the probability that you will reply with "unga-bunga" is "transfinitesimally" smaller than 100%. (not quite equal to 100% but rather 100-1/À° ; but it can be assumed as equal for any finite number of occurrences) I actually found this sort of hard to accept for a while, being a calculus-oriented person, until I learned of the clear distinction between the transfinite and the infinite.
But this is all beside the point, and I fail to see how it has anything to do with my earlier statement. Why did he reveal himself as a person and not a force? And as I said earlier, as a person, he was not impressive at all. Also, you seem to be saying that his actions are determined by his own whimsical wants, and therefore he is a human as far as his thought processes go.
Ah, but if, as I maintain, we have an independent free will, then at least one of those universal conditions is that of my choice, and that is not mathematically pre-determined. So sure, if all the conditions are the same I will respond in the same way, but the question is whether the all-important condition of my choice is the same or not.
Why as a person and not a force? As I said before, probably to make the revelation more meaningful to us human persons. Beyond that, I suggest you ask him. All I know is that he did. As for his not seeming impressive to you, and the fallacy of assuming that a similarity in one respect means similarity in all respects, see above.
Are you kidding or serious about this? If this is really the case, the entire religion would instantly become total rubbish, even more so than the others. Even many Christians do not believe in this resurrection stuff.
If Christ was resurrected, why then were Hitler and bin Laden (if he's dead) not resurrected and put back into the world? They are just as much "prophets of god" as any of these other people, because so many other followed their paths, and nobody can really dispute that.
Quite serious. And yes, if Jesus is not resurrected, the religion is total rubbish. The Bible verse I quoted to you says exactly that. The question is whether he is, in fact, resurrected. As argued above, this is entirely possible, and, in the opinion of myself and any actually believing Christian, true. "Christians" who do not believe that Jesus was resurrected are left to consider the whole religion as nothing more than a very large metaphor telling us that we ought to be nice to each other. I have often wondered why such people bother to keep the semblance of Christianity at all. We certainly don't need all this stuff just to tell us to be nice and good. This is why most of the churches in the Western world that are shrivelling up and dying are doing so: people say "Well, if the whole thing is a bunch of bull, and none of this ever actually happened, what's the point?" and leave. Those that are growing are those that still actually believe that this stuff is real, because they actually have something to offer to people.
Jesus Christ was not merely a prophet of God. He was God himself become a man like us in order to redeem us from destruction through his death and resurrection (how that works is a whole other topic, and doesn't really contribute to this argument, so let's just leave it for now that this is the Christian theological position with which we have to work). Neither Moses, nor Mohammed, nor Hitler, nor Einstein, nor bin Laden, nor Mike from Kanmore were/are what Jesus is, and thus did not do what he did.
The infinite is an abstract quantity that cannot arise in reality; the transfinite is similar to the infinite, but it can be numerically manipulated and compared with other transfinite quanitites, and can also be used as a multiplier to work with finite quantities. Infinity is kind of the ultimate thing here; one cannot go beyond that, as anything added in any way to it will result in the same quantity. However, the infinite cannot interface at all with the transfinite, much less the finite, which shows that there is no way that this god could have made anything that was not equally as infinite as him.
The reason why infinity is harder to work with is that it is more an arbitrary symbol than a distinct number; there are an infinite number of quantities that all are different from each other but equal to infinity, and infinity as a mathematical concept violates the reflexive property of logic. If the god is infinite, he cannot be compared to any finite thing which goes with what you say, but then he cannot be compared to himself either, and more importantly, he cannot have any relationship whatsoever with finite or transfinite things such as ourselves. If he has no relationship to our universe (which is transfinite, if not finite), then he does not exist at all in the realm of the absolute and we can disregard him completely.
And yes, I am trying to bring god down and pull ourselves up. I do indeed not only want to "usurp the throne," but completely rid the universe of this god once and for all. He has messed things up long enough.
Well, space certainly seems to be an infinite thing. One can multiply or divide finite amounts of space, but attempts to do so with all of space as a whole yield meaningless results. And all that is contained within the natural realm certainly interacts with space, indeed in space.
But all that notwithstanding (I do not claim to know as much about mathematics as you seem to; I was a humanities major in my undergrad studies), if we grant the critique of the term infinite that you supply in relation to God, then I find that I must reevaluate my application of that term to God. Indeed, speaking of an "infinite" God is a relatively new invention, and while it has enjoyed a vogue for the past long while, it may be that the term is actually as ill-suited to describing God as are ideas of endless time to describing eternity (which is really an atemporal state, not a limitlessly extended temporal one). Perhaps this is not so surprising. After all, concepts such as finite, infinite, transfinite and the like are all really terms that relate to the natural realm, and so perhaps it is to be expected that they would not serve well as descriptions of supernature. God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent (whence the inference to infinite comes), but he is also quite able to interact with his creation. Thus I think I shall find that the term infinite, as described by you, is insufficient to properly describe God, and I shall have to refine my terms and say that God is not bound or subject to any natural limitations.
As for wanting to usurp the throne, I can only say that I find your position at once nearly incomprehensible and deeply saddening. :(
Where did that stuff come from? You seem to be contradicting youself here, because you are saying that a statement cannot be used to explain itself, but that is precisely what you are doing here. (this statement and the concluding statement are the same thing) But anyway, this is precisely what the system of logic assumptions and axioms is for.
No, the logic here is impeccable, actually. The first time I encountered this argument I had to reread it a couple times very carefully to get exactly what it was saying. 3 and 4 do not say the same thing at all. To put 3 into a slightly different form with fewer relative clauses to clog up the reader's understanding, For any existential proposition (E), (E) must either be a member of the set (LPE) or of the set (not-LPE). 4 says something quite different, namely that The truth of the members of the set (LPE) as a whole can only be explained by the truth of a member of the set (not-LPE). The two are quite different, as you can now hopefully better see.
I agree with your first few sentences and statement 1, but statement 2 is not so good. It may or may not be true, but if it is true, we need to start adding in extra axioms into our system, but these new assumptions should be chosen so that they fit in best with the axioms we current have, which in turn are based on perception. Contradictory axioms are the last thing we need here. The other option is, of course, to leave it as undecidedly indeterminate until more data has been collected, but for certain operations we require a temporary result of the question to proceed, so we may have to move to the assumption system once again.
By the argument given before, statement 2 is, in fact, true. (Just to refresh, "1) the truth of The natural realm exists is not sufficient to explain the truth of The natural realm exists, and 2) the truth of The natural realm exists can only be explained by a true existential proposition concerning something whose existence it is logically impossible to explain.") Most of the rest of what you say is true. If we are to function on the assumption that there is an explanation for the universe's existence, we do need to hold some axioms regarding a supernatural reality whose existence is itself inexplicable. And contradictory axioms are definitely not what we want. Of course, monotheism is not contradictory to anything that falls into the legitimate realm of science, so that is fine. However, what this argument is doing is demonstrating that the other option is actually to leave it as decidedly indeterminate, as a question that could very well have had an answer, but does not and cannot. If there is no supernatural, logically impossible to explain explanation, there can be no explanation at all. If one wants an out from admitting a supernature, there is one to be had, but that out costs you the natural assumption that If it is logically possible that the truth of a logically contingent existential proposition be explained, then there actually is an explanation of its truth (whether we know what it is or not).
There is one thing further to be said about this. The idea of a looped universe does not contradict this argument, because the looped conception does not actually remove the idea of cause (or more technically, of explanation); it simply pushes things back one step. In a linear, one-time-through conception of the universe, the question of why the natural realm exists is more or less synonymous with the question of why the Big Bang (or whatever) happened. A looped conception explains the Big Bang, but now leaves us asking why this looping universe exists in the first place, so we are no closer than before to answering the first question.
Well, who is to say that my existence is logically explicable? It is not explicable without external assumptions (nothing is), and if none of those are used, then I am indeed the god. Again, I point you to the systems of assumptions and mathematical simplicity. Also, remember what I said earlier about a looped series being used to forego the concept of cause. And so, your theory is false and mine is true, and I made the purple dragon and the purple dragon made god!
1) I didn't say logically explicable. I said logically possibly explicable, as in it is a logical possibility that your existence be explained. 2) Granted, I assume you are human as I am, and thus find your existence logically possibly explicable (i.e. by your parents). 3) If we eliminate all external assumptions, then this theory becomes meaningless. Without the idea of explanation, "God" is not an explanation of the existence of the world, the purple dragon is not an explanation of the existence of "God," and you are not an explanation of the existence of the purple dragon. 4) If you are in fact God, why are you arguing against your own existence? :lol:
All of those are entirely subjective concepts and have no real meaning even within human nature when multiple subjects are taken into account.
I would say that they only have meaning when multiple subjects are taken into account.
Also, I would like to point out a glaring inconsistency in your philosophy here, CP5670. As an atheist, you deny the existence of God. This of course means that all of these things which you have just declared meaningless have arisen as a sort of evolutionary hiccup, and cannot be said to have any objective or absolute grounding. This means that values are nothing, silly and illogical lies we tell ourselves. But at the same time, you insist that we should try to usurp God's throne, and that stagnation of society's pursuit of knowledge is bad, that we ought to overcome our emotional nature to obtain the better state of purely rational existence, and that independent critical thought is good, and that ambition ought to be kept because it pushes us forward to new heights of achievement, which is the most important thing for us to do. You do, in fact, hold to certain values and ideas of good and bad and of should and ought. Of course you do; you are, after all, human.
But by your own reasoning, your values are groundless. If all our values emerge only because they have usefulness in keeping the species alive, then they are nothing, for why should I want to keep the species alive? No, if we are to hold to a value system of any sort, we must have a proper foundation to set it upon, and atheism denies us this very foundation. So long as you will insist that there is no God, you will have nothing to justify your particular set of values to anyone, CP5670, and you will be functioning in inconsistency.
You may continue in this inconsistency if you wish, of course. You may continue to hide behind the idea that "I have to have my axioms to think" and pretend that that somehow settles the matter of whether the axioms are valid. You will always have to deal with that nagging doubt that persists in asking you why these axioms are any good, why you hold to these values when there is no value, and indeed why you even trust your brain to be able to find truth, but of course you can just ignore those questions if you wish. You can even try to pin your hopes on the future, as if a complete account of the functioning of the universe might somehow give value to it or prove that this knowledge of it is itself legitimate. But you'll forgive me, though, if I try to follow a system that actually gives me answers to those questions. You see, I don't mind admitting that God is God.
Anyway, CP5670, you might also want to read the other sections of my post here too. There are some more points you might find interesting.
P.S. God being beyond human understanding does not equal the universe not being rationally interpretable. (This is in response to a post to someone else.)
Kazan:
Earlier in this topic I gave a brief account of the miraculous healing of my little brother's ruptured spleen. After falling from the upper story of our barn onto a cement floor below, his abdomen swelled up about as large and hard as a basketball, and he could hardly breathe. At the hospital, a very strange thing happened. One moment Zac was in the state I just described to you, with his freshly ruptured spleen and clearly in need of surgery. The next he was simply fine, without any distension of his abdomen and a perfectly sound spleen, and he was actually laughing! This occurred in front of several medical professionals who could find absolutely no explanation for what they had seen. They kept him in overnight for observation, and would come in every hour or so to palpate his belly, all the while muttering about how this couldn't be. We believe that God intervened to heal my little brother.
Of course, one will only accept this as evidence of God acting in the world if one has an open enough mind to grant the possibility that God might exist in the first place. If you are not willing to entertain that possibility, you may either decide that I am an idiot, a liar, or deluded, or else take the route of CP5670 and pin your hopes on someday, somehow finding an explanation other than a supernatural one for the observed phenomenon. With a little bit of time and some phone calls the medical documentation of the incident can be procured, so I don't think I am an idiot or a liar or delusional (at least, not on this issue ;)). So then the choices are either to accept the only available explanation of the event (i.e. that God healed my brother) or to insist that some other explanation must be the truth, despite there being no other explanation available.
So I present my story to you, Kazan. I leave it up to you whether you will accept it as evidence of God's action or whether you will reject it, despite having no other means to explain what happened to my brother.
Kellan:
I don't believe that these two statements are one and the same as you seem to.
Oh no, they are not exactly the same. I didn't mean that they were. Sorry for the less than lucid communication. :D My point was that Christianity does posit a purpose to life, and gave two examples of how people have tried to formulate that purpose. I myself find the first to be somewhat lacking in completeness of the picture, and so formulated the second myself in an attempt to be more full in meaning (though at the cost of becoming more vague, too, but that's okay in this case, I think). By "much the same" I meant only "similar," not "virtually identical." Oh yes, and the Westminster Confession isn't all that ancient. It is Anglican (Episcopalian, if you are American), drawn up a century or two ago, I think. The bit I quoted is from one of 39 articles in the thing. I wanted to show that it wasn't just me talking when I said what I said, and that little phrase was the first that came to mind (for all its aforementioned shortcomings, it does enjoy an elegant terseness and simplicity that make it easily rememberable).
do you believe in hell? Nobody seems willing to answer my questions why Blitz_lightning and others believe in it as a (physical or metaphysical) place and why those who refuse to believe in God, or remain unsaved, have to go there.
In one word, yes, but that one word is rather insufficient to communicate my thoughts on this issue.
Regarding the nature of hell: The idea of hell as a physical or metaphysical "place" full of torturous burning fire has a bit of an interesting history (if you're interested in that sort of thing, I guess). The "lake of fire" image itself is derived from Revelation, a book extremely high in its imagery and symbolism content. If one puts out of one's mind the inherited ideas of eternal torture and considers such an image by itself, it seems more likely that it was meant to convey the idea of destruction than of anything else. Fire burns stuff up. The perpetual torture concept seems to be an import from other religious ideas (leftovers from our European non-Christian past, as it were). Tellingly, the Bible itself has this to say regarding those who reject the Gospel of Christ in 2 Thessalonians 1:9: "They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power." The idea of torture is nowhere present here, but instead of destruction. Thus it seems to me that "hell" is to be understood as destruction, at least from the biblical perspective.
The "when you die you go to heaven or hell depending whether you were a good-ish person or not" idea of Christian theology is simply inaccurate, biblically speaking. Christianity actually speaks very little regarding our immediate fate after death. The idea of "Sheol," a sort of barely existent existence, as near as I can tell, most similar to a really, really long sleep, was resident in Judaism long, long before Christ even walked the earth. Some passages would seem to indicate that there is some level of activity still to be had in this "waiting state,"but we are told very little about it all. At any rate, the point seems to be that those who have died await the day of resurrection (whether to life or to judgment and destruction) in this sort of state. I'm going to guess that time doesn't mean much in this state, but that isn't really part of your question...
Anyway, moving on from that point, Christianity is more directly concerned with resurrection at "the end of the ages" when Jesus will return to earth. At that time the judgement will occur, and people will be assigned to their fates in accordance with their choice. Those whose choice is destruction will have what they choose, and those whose choice is eternal life with God will have that.
This leads into the second part of your question, whether and why rejecters of God must go into destruction. God is the source of all things that reflect his attributes, whereas evil represents the rejection, corruption, and disintegration of that which reflects his attributes. God is alive, and thus is the source of all life. Now, as I said before, those who choose to reject God will have their choice, and they will not have to have anything to do with God or any of his attributes if they wish to reject him. The day of judgement I mentioned earlier amounts to the final reckoning when the choice we make will be absolutized. Those who choose to reject God will reject him utterly, and those who embrace him will embrace him entirely. But an utter rejection of God is an utter rejection of life itself, and so destruction seems to be the logical conclusion of the choice. To reject God utterly could amount to nothing less.
To me it seems almost incomprehensible that someone could stand before God on that day, and if he were to offer them one last chance, that they would look into his loving eyes and then spit in his face, saying "I would rather die than live under you!" And yet, it seems that this is the case; there are people right here in this forum that appear to fit that bill. I cannot understand what drives them to hate God so, but God has given them that choice, and he will let them have it, even to their own destruction.
Incidentally, the scenario I just mentioned there might very well be the case. The Bible tells us that God wants all people to be saved and enter into the eternal and incredible life of the resurrection. Yet it is obviously the case that not everyone has been given the opportunity before their physical death. Are they to be condemned without being given a chance? I doubt it. It seems to me that since physical death is no barrier to God, there is no reason why he could not present himself to those who have died, nor any reason why he would not want to give people another chance of the day of judgement. The infant who died before ever being able to understand this stuff will, when resurrected, have been perfected like all of us, and that presumably includes being brought to the stage of understanding. Then will be set before her the choice to accept or reject God, as it is set before us all.
Regarding the distinction between religion and belief in the existence of God, that is a very salient point you make. What CP5670 has to say regarding this issue is incorrect, since 1) not all religions claim to have been founded upon an act of God (Buddhism, for one example), and 2) the fact that in Semetic monotheisms (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) God is posited as having revealed himself to us does not mean that that revelation, like all forms of communication, is not subject to interpretation. Indeed, we must interpret it; interpretation is the very act of absorbing the communication into our minds. In this act of interpretation, of coming to understand, all the same possibilities for error arise that do in any other act of human knowledge.
Anyway, I do not believe it would be better to live in a world where God did not let his presence be known. It might be better to live in a world where people didn't find reasons to hate, kill or be petulant to other people, but a world where God stayed out of things entirely wouldn't be a better one in my opinion (CP would disagree, but then, he wants to usurp God's place entirely). People would still hate, kill and be petulant to each other, and we wouldn't have the positive benefits of God's interaction with us (like the good moral values of Christ's teachings, nor the viable hope for an end to evil, nor the healing of my little brother's ruptured spleen). All that having been said, many Christians think along similar lines as you have mentioned here, and try to minimise the religious claptrap that seems to sprout up over time. These Christians concentrate on their relationship with God, rather than upon any of the other baggage that might be attached to being a Christian. This might be most easily demonstrated by contrasting the attitudes regarding how to conduct oneself in the world at large: these "relationally-focussed" Christians will do their best to act as Jesus would in the world, instead of trying to act like good, church-going people. When spreading Christianity, they try to introduce you to Jesus, not get you to become a church-member. Do you get the idea, or am I still being a bit unclear yet?
Ace:
I never said equals. I said we were given free will. That does not make us equals, that only makes us beings with free will.
Aldo_14:
I am basically in agreement with you, save that for me God has made a difference in life, and I find that that difference extends far beyond mere moral precepts. Morality is but one facet of Christianity. Entering into relationship with God is and does much more. :)
On the whole, I have to say I find the agnostic position to be perhaps the most respectable one of all. An agnostic is humble enough to admit that he doesn't know for sure, and (usually) has a more open minded stance on things. In a way, I might say that I am an agnostic who believes that God is real. I don't know that God exists, nor that Jesus really was resurrected, nor any of the rest. I might certainly be wrong. I once read a quote that said "Only two kinds of people are absolutely sure of the truth of their beliefs: saints and idiots." I would add that saints aren't really all that sure either; it's just the idiots. I do not know that God is real; it simply seems to me a better explanation of my experiences. I have had little cause to bring it up, but since putting my faith in God, my little brother's healing of his ruptured spleen has been by no means the total extent of supernatural activity in my life. God has seemed very much alive in my life, and while in the purely rational sphere I claim no way of knowing whether God is real, I find that when it comes to real life, there is no other explanation for all that I have seen, heard and felt.
Anyway, guys, that wraps it up for me at this time.
Later! :D
P.S. Regarding socialism, Canada is a capitalist-socialist state. Over the past decade, we've spent more time ranked as number 1 nation to live in than not on the UN's official list. I'd say that is a pretty good indicator that tempered socialism can work
-
Originally posted by Styxx
It comes down to numbers then? Is killing 38000 people is worse than killing 150? Is killing one person not as attrocious as killing 150?
You agree with CP's idea that people are nothing but numbers, I assume... :p
By your logic, there's nothing more horrific about a serial killer as compared to a one-time murderer.
Still, you're very good. I commend you for twisting my words extremely well. :nod::yes:
-
Originally posted by NotDefault
By your logic, there's nothing more horrific about a serial killer as compared to a one-time murderer.
Still, you're very good. I commend you for twisting my words extremely well. :nod::yes:
You're saying that a serial killer is worse than a one-time murderer? Tell me then, would you rather see a thousand strangers die or only one person - the one you love most?
-
Actually i'd rather die in their place but that's beside the point.
I don't honestly beleive there's much contest -
while a thousand strangers could be a total bunch of idiots, theres a larger potential for them to do something that will make the world a better place than this one person you care about the most.
Of course it would be better if Neither were killed, but still.
Murder in any way, shape or form is inexcusable at any rate, and should be treated as such (not a poxy 20 years in prison.)
-
Originally posted by wEvil
Murder in any way, shape or form is inexcusable at any rate, and should be treated as such (not a poxy 20 years in prison.)
But are murderers not victims themselves - victims of improperly formed moralities, previous life events that turned them into murderers (in the same manner as sex offenders are sometimes those who were sexually abused as children)?
Surely the best treatment for criminals is treatment, not punishment. Whilst I agree that we live in a society where the public and the families of victims wouldn't support such a scheme, and would demand at least some form of punishment alongside treatment. However, the fact remains that the majority of clinical and psychological studies show those who are treated alongside prison sentences do not re-offend.
Treatment basically involves reducing denial, correcting falwed thinking patterns, increasing empathy and anger management training.
If you don't believe me, look up Grendon Underwood Therapeutic Prison on Google. :)
-
Some "corrective therapies" could be punishments enough in themselves, but I agree causing more suffering certainly is no cure.
In terms of my smoking - well, I haven't had a cigarette in a couple of days and I feel fine. I don't really smoke at home at all.
Course, i'll start smoking when i go back to uni or go out for the night....but If I sat at home for 6 months without a fag then when out and smoked one does that mean i'm still an addict, even if every trace of the compound was long removed from my system?
To be honest I'd still probably smoke if there wasn't any nicotine in there, I just like the taste of the smoke. simple. And before you go labelling me as odd I also like eating green olives, so there :p
-
This is going to be my last relatively long argument post on this thread, since I am also starting to become bound by time constraints these days and I would have finished my campaign by now if I had not spent so much time in this topic, so this is about it for me, at least for the time being. ;)
Also, regarding the nature of my becoming a Christian, you assume more than you justifiably can. I have said that both I and my family are Christians, but I did not say that I was raised as one, nor that I became one without thought or reason. You do not know the details of my coming to accept Christianity, not why I did so. I would also point out that the process by which I personally came to accept these beliefs has no bearing on whether they are true. That is dependent upon the claims posited by the religion, and it would be specious to attempt an argument against their truth based upon the process by which an individual came to accept them.
So you are saying that you came into contact with the ideas later in your life, which is essentially equivalent to what I was saying earlier, because humans can be convinced of just about anything with a little bit of effort. (how do you think that Hitler and bin Laden for example, gained so many followers so easily?) And you do indeed need to take into account the method in which the knowledge is assimilated if you are attempting to judge them as an individual, because as I said earlier, the taking in of ideas influences the method in which you judge them. The best way to circumvent this difficulty is to have multiple individuals who have all accepted an idea through different procedures judge it. This doesn't say anything about whether the idea is actually true or not, but that is irrelevant here, as the "truth" of an idea can only be established by direct sense perception, but we are talking about what is the best approach to discovering something on which there is little agreement within the world. Reading the Bible and being convinced of its soundness or having someone else recite the ideas into you (church worker, friend, whatever) is almost as bad as being brought up with them initially. If you came into contact with any religion with the rationality and logical reasoning that you claim to have used, you would have discovered everything independently so as to not be influenced by foreign ideas that are currently indeterminate, and the probability of you coming up with almost exactly the same stuff as what is in the Bible is vanishingly small and does not really need to be taken into account here.
The personal god of any sort who has feelings/objectives/etc. is completely out of the question here due to the glaring contractions that come up in almost every facet of reasoning while explaining our world, and the concept of morals goes along with it, because without the god, as you said earlier, morals are meaningless. Some religions claim to have a universal, impersonal god who is just a being, but anything that is considered "alive" and "conscious" must have motives, so either they come to the personal god conclusion or go to science. We are left to consider whether science has any meaning or this nihilism is the correct route, and a long set of reasoning finds some "inherent flaws" (more on this in a bit) in nihilism as well.
"Christians" who do not believe that Jesus was resurrected are left to consider the whole religion as nothing more than a very large metaphor telling us that we ought to be nice to each other.
Tell me how it, or any other religion for that matter, is anything more than that, even with this stupid "resurrection" in there.
Those that are growing are those that still actually believe that this stuff is real, because they actually have something to offer to people.
This is why people accept these religions so readily as far as the second purpose goes. If there was a religion where anyone who believed in it could become the god themselves, I bet everyone would instantly flock towards it.
There is something further to be said regarding choice. If choice is to be possible at all, there must be options between which to choose. The imperative "Choose!" makes no sense until one sets it in a context of choosing between, say, 31 flavours of ice cream. Even if I were to give you that imperative without a specified context, the only way you could comply would be to invent a set of options for yourself, and then choose between them. Try it. Choice entails the presence of options. Thus, if an ICV is to be permitted to choose good, there must of necessity be an alternative option. If we do not set up this alternative, there is no possibility for the choice. Therefore, if God wants us to be able to choose good, we need to be able to choose evil as well, and if he wants us to be able to chose to love and follow him, we must be able to chose to hate and rebel against him, and it seems that he does want to put this choice before us.
You are missing the point again. He made the whole concept of our choices and free wills. The only way that he could not be held responsible for our choices would be if our "free wills" somehow already existed in the universe and were not a product of his "creation" and he put them into us, but you are saying that he made everything, and so he alone is responsible for everything.
One thing I don't understand about most religions is why they need their supreme being to also be a "good" being; if a real supreme being was there that fit in with science, he would go by complete indifference to everything and couldn't have cared less about what happens in the universe. :rolleyes:
1) I didn't say logically explicable. I said logically possibly explicable, as in it is a logical possibility that your existence be explained. 2) Granted, I assume you are human as I am, and thus find your existence logically possibly explicable (i.e. by your parents). 3) If we eliminate all external assumptions, then this theory becomes meaningless. Without the idea of explanation, "God" is not an explanation of the existence of the world, the purple dragon is not an explanation of the existence of "God," and you are not an explanation of the existence of the purple dragon. 4) If you are in fact God, why are you arguing against your own existence?
But I made the concept of explanation as well! I am not god, but I made the purple dragon and the purple dragon made god, so I indirectly made god. It holds together even better than the Christian theory. :D
Ah, but if, as I maintain, we have an independent free will, then at least one of those universal conditions is that of my choice, and that is not mathematically pre-determined. So sure, if all the conditions are the same I will respond in the same way, but the question is whether the all-important condition of my choice is the same or not.
I said if all other conditions are the same, including those of the particles in your brain that make up your "free will."
Why as a person and not a force? As I said before, probably to make the revelation more meaningful to us human persons. Beyond that, I suggest you ask him. All I know is that he did. As for his not seeming impressive to you, and the fallacy of assuming that a similarity in one respect means similarity in all respects, see above.
You are trying to dodge the question. It would have been equally "meaningful" to us if he showed himself in the form of a force. For example, why did he not manifest himself as, let's say, a talking tornado or a ghost with psychic powers? It would have meant just as much to us as a person, and we would have been much more impressed. This point of "free will" is the critical similarity that can determine every other property because, as you yourself said, the condition of this choice is the all-important one. What differentiates "intelligent" living beings from nonliving objects is this concept of "free will," which gives life a number of benefits as well as a number of deficiencies. If he has such a "free will," which you claim he does, he will have very similar capabilities as far as his thought processes go, seeing as this will determines all our actions.
Well, no you couldn't give more, since for every P there is a P*, and for every Q there is a Q*. But on to the real meat of this paragraph: there is a fundamental error in your logic here (this is an extremely common error, evidenced in numerous other posts in this thread as well). Monotheism, atheism, polytheism, pantheism, animism, and any other like belief that one cares to think of posit claims regarding metaphysical reality. Scientific enquiry has as its field of investigation the physical realm of matter and energy, and as such provides no information regarding the metaphysical. The logic that runs "Science provides me with no information regarding the truth of any metaphysical claim, therefore the metaphysical claim that there is no God is true," is grossly faulty. So long as our view of knowledge is confined to the sphere of science, the only logical positions available are "hard" and "soft" agnosticism, respectively the beliefs that we cannot know what metaphysical reality is like, or that we simply do not know. Thus, like all metaphysical claims, atheism is not a viable conclusion to be reached from pure scientific enquiry. One may certainly hold to it and to scientific knowledge, but one cannot argue that one's metaphysical position is based upon science.
Since you are using science here, I think I should point out that one of the fundamental axioms of science is to "disbelieve everything without proof." I can see the problem in the wording of that though, so I'm not going to argue too much there. But then tell me, why does the purple dragon, a shivan, or anything else you can think of not exist? And no, you cannot have a P* for every P. Here is an example: if you can give me a logically consistent counterstatement (an opposite '*' statement) for the following statement, I will concede that you are the greatest thinker in the world. :D
This is a true sentence.
This is where the elimination procedure comes in handy. Any statement can proved to be correct if all counterstatements that exist in the same system are contradictory. We use the same principle when thinking about the god thing. If a god made everything, he would have also made the concepts of logic and mathematics (or any equivalent) that were used to make the things, but by the very definition of "making," he cannot escape the logic, especially since he thinks just like a human (as you have already said). If he did not make the logic, the logic precedes him and is thus the god itself. So much for that. We now look at what science says: it asserts that some sort of order (logic) is an inherent property of matter, because if it was an entirely human invention, humans would have needed to use logic to arrive at the result of logic (and this is when they do not have logic), which is contradictory. This property of logic was created by whatever events came before, which by the way were no "better" than anything else as this god is supposed to be, and the sequence goes back into infinity.
Also, regarding the P and P* statement, we as humans think in a certain way (rules of problem-solving) in that one of the two is closer to what we actually perceive, so we are back to the simplicity argument. Unless this god shows up and lets everyone know he is around (and he must be quite a coward if he exists and still has not done so), the statement "god does not exist" will make our equation simpler than "god exists." Your "grossly faulty" statement makes complete sense going by the problem-solving rules, because it boils down to this: nobody can perceive god, god does not fit in at all with the currently accepted science which we can and have used to predict the future, there is no great contradiction in science yet that can only be explained by god, and the original purposes of god have long since been fulfilled. For example, by your reasoning, the equations x+y=1 and x+y+z+sin(xy/z)=1 are of equal "complexity" for the purposes of solving, which is similar to what a god would do to both science and our perception.
I said before that I am an agnostic as far as my core ideas go, but I am not going to needlessly take the existence of the god into calculations unless there is more definite proof, so in theory I am a "hard agnostic," but in practical affairs I am an atheist. Also, I would advise you not to use arguments that can be used just as easily against you: if you think that atheism is not a solution, theism is no more of a solution either. :p
But if nothing matters, why don't you live your life by the outcome of a coin toss? (seriously ;))
Also, I would like to point out a glaring inconsistency in your philosophy here, CP5670. As an atheist, you deny the existence of God. This of course means that all of these things which you have just declared meaningless have arisen as a sort of evolutionary hiccup, and cannot be said to have any objective or absolute grounding. This means that values are nothing, silly and illogical lies we tell ourselves. But at the same time, you insist that we should try to usurp God's throne, and that stagnation of society's pursuit of knowledge is bad, that we ought to overcome our emotional nature to obtain the better state of purely rational existence, and that independent critical thought is good, and that ambition ought to be kept because it pushes us forward to new heights of achievement, which is the most important thing for us to do. You do, in fact, hold to certain values and ideas of good and bad and of should and ought. Of course you do; you are, after all, human.
I know, I am just a silly human, and have thus been ingrained with these human values throughout the course of my life as well. However, these "values" cannot really be said to amount to objectives as anything more than a motivation for completing them. The objectives I have given were discovered through an elimination procedure; in other words, they were found because all other systems led either to contradictions or to the eventual demise of humanity. Now whether we want the latter or not is a matter of debate (although even it can be shown to be inconsistent), but taking it as an assumption for the moment, the scientific path is the only system that at least is free of contradictions, even if it might be difficult in other ways. I fail to see how that says anything about values in the humanistic sense, which are the ones I am condemning. (I never said values are useless, only that these human ones are, and even that only holds in future eras)
Jesus Christ was not merely a prophet of God. He was God himself become a man like us in order to redeem us from destruction through his death and resurrection (how that works is a whole other topic, and doesn't really contribute to this argument, so let's just leave it for now that this is the Christian theological position with which we have to work). Neither Moses, nor Mohammed, nor Hitler, nor Einstein, nor bin Laden, nor Mike from Kanmore were/are what Jesus is, and thus did not do what he did.
Wait, so Christ was all of god concentrated into a finite thing? (human) So much for the infinite god. :p But in any case, he was god in the form of a human, which is pretty much what all the other religions claim for their prophets. In other words, at the most he is the equal to any of those other men you mentioned. Also, why did he want to redeem us when he created all the faults in us? Did he intend to correct some mistake he had made earlier when making us? And how the heck does becoming a man, dying and coming back alive "redeem" anyone or do anything constructive for that matter? That makes about as much sense as I defragging my hard drive in order to "redeem" humanity from their "sins." :rolleyes:
Well, space certainly seems to be an infinite thing. One can multiply or divide finite amounts of space, but attempts to do so with all of space as a whole yield meaningless results. And all that is contained within the natural realm certainly interacts with space, indeed in space.
You can certainly use some calculus techniques though to compare both transfinite and infinite parts of space directly, though. For example, it is easy to compare the ratio of the volumes of a sphere with an infinite radius and that of a cube with infinite edges.
After all, concepts such as finite, infinite, transfinite and the like are all really terms that relate to the natural realm, and so perhaps it is to be expected that they would not serve well as descriptions of supernature. God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent (whence the inference to infinite comes), but he is also quite able to interact with his creation. Thus I think I shall find that the term infinite, as described by you, is insufficient to properly describe God, and I shall have to refine my terms and say that God is not bound or subject to any natural limitations.
So now you are going against the mathematics. It turned out just as I said earlier; you are ready to accept the science as long as it does not contradict with the religion, but if it does, the religion takes precedence. :rolleyes: And how do you define a limitation anyway? A limitation can be a strength depending on what you are taking it with respect to.
As for wanting to usurp the throne, I can only say that I find your position at once nearly incomprehensible and deeply saddening.
Incidentally, that's precisely what the average German thought of Hitler during the early years of the Nazi regime; he was their true friend, and it was thus deeply saddening to see people plotting against him or even questioning his practices and authority.
No, the logic here is impeccable, actually. The first time I encountered this argument I had to reread it a couple times very carefully to get exactly what it was saying. 3 and 4 do not say the same thing at all. To put 3 into a slightly different form with fewer relative clauses to clog up the reader's understanding, For any existential proposition (E), (E) must either be a member of the set (LPE) or of the set (not-LPE). 4 says something quite different, namely that The truth of the members of the set (LPE) as a whole can only be explained by the truth of a member of the set (not-LPE). The two are quite different, as you can now hopefully better see.
I looked over it again more closely, and yes, I can see the difference this time. Nevertheless, your argument does indeed fall apart when one starts to move into the transfinite and infinite realms, which is what we are dealing with here. Let us suppose that we have a statement, and we find some explanation that shows it to be true. We then find another explanation that proves the validity of that explanation. A third explanation is then conceived of that proves the second explanation. We can theoretically continue this explanation process into infinity as long as we have a method of determining an explanation from the statement it explains, and this works just like an infinite series does. Now you are saying that because an infinite sum is infinite, it cannot be solved, which is true as long as we try to add up all the parts manually. But this is exactly why we have inductive reasoning and the fourth rule of problem-solving. We determine patterns in the chains of existing principles and use those to find the limiting principle at the end rather than going by a step-by-step route; this is the goal of all science.
Calling everything that we don't understand "god" is the fool's answer to things; for the fourth time, I point you to what I said earlier about planetary motion. The people are too stupid to try to break the planetary motion principles down into mathematical laws, and so it is all "god." According to you, just because we cannot explain something at the moment, not only is it impossible to explain it, but it is also the work of a magical man and no further explanation is needed or can be given.
You may continue in this inconsistency if you wish, of course. You may continue to hide behind the idea that "I have to have my axioms to think" and pretend that that somehow settles the matter of whether the axioms are valid. You will always have to deal with that nagging doubt that persists in asking you why these axioms are any good, why you hold to these values when there is no value, and indeed why you even trust your brain to be able to find truth, but of course you can just ignore those questions if you wish. You can even try to pin your hopes on the future, as if a complete account of the functioning of the universe might somehow give value to it or prove that this knowledge of it is itself legitimate. But you'll forgive me, though, if I try to follow a system that actually gives me answers to those questions. You see, I don't mind admitting that God is God.
Heh, that is what I think of the religious crowd. Of course I have to deal with these doubts, especially the last part, seeing as the human brain is quite limited in certain ways, but once again, we use the elimination procedure. If I assume the other case, that my brain is incapable of anything, I reach a dead-end; I cannot go anywhere from there at all, and therefore there is no choice but to go by the other explanation. (once again, elimination procedure) Then you bring up the case of "values" again, which in the context you are using could be interpreted to mean just about anything. I am only talking about the common "humanistic" values, as in the ones you mentioned, being useless because of their inherent contradictions and unsuitability for changing conditions. Everything has values and has no values as far as the universe as a whole is concerned here. I am talking about objectives, of which these "moral values" are simply a subset that have both good and bad effects on humans. (what matters here is not so much that they are "good" or "bad," but rather that they are inconsistent) This ties intimately into the system of ideas; they can be thought as waves, since they have the potential to change the properties of matter, but they cannot actually be said to exist alone and are merely disturbances in other matter. The only reason I like ambition is because it the main force in holding a society together. And yes, a complete account of the universe without contradictions in accordance with what we perceive will indeed prove its legitimacy; that is what science is all about.
But you are saying that your system (Christianity) gives a shortcut answer to all this. What is that answer? Why must a god exist? What would happen if a god did not exist and the Bible was a farce? If removing the "resurrection" also removes all these "answers," that says something about the credibility of the whole thing. One method here cannot be any more correct than the other as far as we know if we go by theory alone, and thus we must fall onto our perception to shift the probabilities. I said this earlier: if no information is available on a proposition, it is better to leave it indeterminate instead of reaching an answer based on insufficient data. However, this only applies to statements on which the probability is exactly equal to that of any other explanation, which is not really the case here although you seem to be claiming it, because we have our perception leaning in the other direction. (again, show me this god)
The biggest problem is not any of that though, but this: If the god exists, why does the purple dragon, the Shivan, and anything else you can think of not exist as well?
And you should mind admitting it, seeing as calling something "god" in the way you are talking of it here is to basically to not only accept your own stupidity without knowing of its truth or falsehood, but also the dominance of someone over you (assuming this person exists); if everyone had thought like this throughout history, there would be no such thing as revolution and we would still be living as monarchist societies.
So then the choices are either to accept the only available explanation of the event (i.e. that God healed my brother) or to insist that some other explanation must be the truth, despite there being no other explanation available.
Here's a better explanation: god had absolutely nothing to do with it, but page 863 in my math book was responsible for the healing of your brother. Now prove to me that it is or is not so. :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Incidentally, that's precisely what the average German thought of Hitler during the early years of the Nazi regime; he was their true friend, and it was thus deeply saddening to see people plotting against him or even questioning his practices and authority.
Aiiee! Stop talking about the Germans!! They're my Germans, and I won't have you and your generalisations implicating them in Hitler's deranged schemes! :D
There are good reasons for this, but the post looks odder if I leave them out. ;)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Well, okay then....
Hitler was not, contrary to popular belief, elected on a primarily anti-Semitic ticket. After the Wall Street Crash and the abject failure of the Weimar government to deal with it, Hitler was just a popular alternative. The Weimar system was broken, so they threw it out. :)
To some extent this ties in with the fact that the previous period of economic prosperity occurred under a dictatorship, and people were still young enough to remember it, yet old enough to remember it fondly. Hitler promised to destroy democracy, which had seemingly failed the German people (particularly the middle class who, in demographics are disproportionately represented in Nazi Party membership figures). In addition, the NSDAP's 25-point Plan was wide-ranging enough in scope to appeal to just about everyone, from full employment for the young up to big pensions for the old. Never mind that some of these things were outright lies - by 1933 the German people were, on the whole not bothered with the hocus-pocus of economics and there weren't many reliable figures to go on besides.
The final piece of evidence that Hitler wasn't elected on an anti-Semitic mandate was that he was forced to tone down that element of policy pre-election, because it was costing him votes. He also wasn't as universally popular as people make out: the highest percentage of the vote he received was 48.5% in 1932, falling in 1933. Whilst this is high, it means that 51.5% of people voted against him... :nod:
How do I know all this about German 'public opinion'? Well, we've got German friends who have elderly German parents who were alive in the era of the Third Reich, voting for him or in the youth groups or whatever. When I have spoken to them and heard of what they've said, they overwhelmingly speak not of a desire to exterminate the Jewry, but of the desire for a "change", and the belief that "Hitler was the man who could save us".
Now I am the first to admit that my sample is limited in size, and one wouldn't expect people to be talking about their desire to exterminate Jewry nowadays given the fate of the Nazis, but it is supported by a weight of official data... :D
===
Of course, once Hitler was 'elected' (more like appointed, by the scheming Conservative Party who hoped to exploit his popularity whilst reining him in with a cabinet of Conservatives rather than Nazis) it was all over. Hitler exploited the Reichstag fire, whether the Nazis or Van Der Lubbe did it, and removed the opposition quickly. In an atmosphere of fear and with Nazi guards at the provisional assembly (which the Communists were absent from, having been imprisoned, as were the majority of the Social Democrats) the Enabling Act was passed. The Enabling Act allowed Hitler to pass any decree without the assent of the Reichstag, thus bypassing them for good - because although the Act only lasted 4 years, he could unilaterally bump that up too. :p
Therefore, by this time anyone who wanted to oppose Hitler could not. The terror apparatus was in place, the courts and police favoured the Nazis, and there was no recourse to Parliament. It didn't matter what the average man thought; he couldn't do a thing.
Anyway, more on that tomorrow. It's a matter that could do with a bit more explanation, because on the whole people still supported Hitler at this time (again for largely economic reasons).
-
That was really interesting, Kellan. :nod::yes:
-
That is some interesting information there, but I already know all that. :p As for asking someone about it today, is it the "politically correct" thing to do to view Hitler's anti-Jewish ideas with indifference or even only mild disgust? :D People frankly did not care one way or another about Hitler's anti-Semitism as long as it did not affect them - the situation of the average German was precarious enough that they were ready to do anything to restore their jobs and economy, and they did not need to create extra worries for themselves - and thus were lured by all the NSDAP propaganda devices into thinking that Hitler alone could fix everything. That's what I was earlier. And yeah, the 25 points were quite a joke; Strasser took off with a sizable portion of the party and tried to create a new party that would actually follow those points, but we all know what happened to him. :D
But what does that have to do with what we were talking about earlier? Just put bin Laden in there along with all his followers and the statement holds even better. Stop trying to derail the topic and respond to Sesq's comments on your posts!! :p :D :D
-
NotDefault: thanks. I guess all this studying for my History exams must be paying off. :D
Originally posted by CP5670
That is some interesting information there, but I already know all that. :p As for asking someone about it today, is it the "politically correct" thing to do to view Hitler's anti-Jewish ideas with indifference or even only mild disgust? :D People frankly did not care one way or another about Hitler's anti-Semitism as long as it did not affect them - the situation of the average German was precarious enough that they were ready to do anything to restore their jobs and economy, and they did not need to create extra worries for themselves - and thus were lured by all the NSDAP propaganda devices into thinking that Hitler alone could fix everything. That's what I was earlier. And yeah, the 25 points were quite a joke; Strasser took off with a sizable portion of the party and tried to create a new party that would actually follow those points, but we all know what happened to him. :D
Oh, okay. As I said above, my sources do have flaws. However, I agree that rather than being disgusted by the treatment of Jews people were mostly indifferent - through fear that they would attract the attentions of the SS and Gestapo by expressing outrage, or through conditioning by propaganda, or because they were concerned with other things, like how their sons, brothers and so on were doing on the Eastern Front. To some extent they could also have been kept in the dark about it all: the exterminations having taken place in Poland, far from prying eyes; and the mass of euphemistic language used to cover it up. Even if someone knew what "resettlement in the East" meant it would be easier to rationalize and deny with a euphemistic name.
But anyway... :wink:
But what does that have to do with what we were talking about earlier? Just put bin Laden in there along with all his followers and the statement holds even better. Stop trying to derail the topic and respond to Sesq's comments on your posts!! :p :D :D [/B]
It probably has nothing to do with it, you're right. :D As for responding to Sesq I have already PM'ed him some thanks but later today I will post my full thoughts on the more on-topic issues at hand...
-
First and foremost: CP, use the friggin size tags!!!!!!!!
Secondly: Bump.
-
Look who's interested in the religion thread, then... :wink:
That, or you're trying to start another big fight. :D
-
Originally posted by an0n
First and foremost: CP, use the friggin size tags!!!!!!!!
:confused:
Originally posted by an0n
Secondly: Bump.
:eek:
I'd never had thought the time would come when this thread would need bumpage.
But, anyway, if you're going to bump, you should use the excellent provided bump smiley.
:bump:
-
Well, it's time for a Semi-Humourous Update!
I did a General Studies (note: a useless pseudo-qualification valued by no University or employer) German exam today. The German part was a bit of guesswork, but I was surprised to see another section I had to write in English - an essay about culture, morality and society.
But I was okay. Guess what one of the question choices was? :D
Then I did another. It was about genetic modification of crops and humans. ;)
So thanks to everyone for contributing ideas to this thread and allowing me to go on and on about how society won't collapse without Church services, and how religious practice is becoming individualised - if it's necessary or desirable in the first place.
Oh and CP - you were right. It's easier to argue and essay logically than emotionally, so I did that. :p
-
i guess i'll be the bad guy.