dogma wrote: He was a committed Atheist who was absolutely certain that religion was responsible for all of man's ills, so certain that he exhibited religious behavior in his desire to prove it. The very behavior that he deplored.
That's actually a pretty profound statement.
And it's one that I have believed for a long time. Athiests have faith. They just don't have faith in God. Their faith is that there is no God, and they frequently use "faith based doctrines" like evolution and secular humanism to reinforce their faith.
I have run into many people like this, and in fact I used to be one of them. ;-)
Also to any athiests that read my post, please don't take my post as a personal attack. :-)
Their faith isn't necessarily that there is no God. Conceivably an Atheist could have faith in spirits, extraterrestrials, or flying spaghetti monsters. So long as he doesn't equate those thing to God he would still be an Atheist.
At least that's true according to the definition which is currently in vogue: a lack of belief in God, or gods. Its the pure negation of Theism which is 'the belief in God, or gods'. Personally, I find this metric of classification entirely useless as it seems to ignore the possibility of prolonged uncertainty with respect to any statement of belief.
And it's one that I have believed for a long time. Athiests have faith. They just don't have faith in God. Their faith is that there is no God, and they frequently use "faith based doctrines" like evolution and secular humanism to reinforce their faith.
I have run into many people like this, and in fact I used to be one of them. ;-)
Also to any athiests that read my post, please don't take my post as a personal attack. :-)
GG
I don't want to derail this, but you have to understand that calling evolution a faith based doctrine is only going to be viewed as, if not inflammatory, certainly a statement that requires rebuttal and objection. If nothing else the term "evolution" is so broad as to include many things that even ID scientists concede. So, the statement is a non-sequitor, but you have to know the response it's going to bring. I would also argue that calling evolution a "faith based doctrine" is quite insulting to those that respect the scientific method.
Agreed. Not to mention that evolution isn't something that's just prescribed to by Atheists. The Catholic Church recently said it was not in conflict with the creation of the universe by God.
dogma wrote:Their faith isn't necessarily that there is no God. Conceivably an Atheist could have faith in spirits, extraterrestrials, or flying spaghetti monsters. So long as he doesn't equate those thing to God he would still be an Atheist.
At least that's true according to the definition which is currently in vogue: a lack of belief in God, or gods. Its the pure negation of Theism which is 'the belief in God, or gods'. Personally, I find this metric of classification entirely useless as it seems to ignore the possibility of prolonged uncertainty with respect to any statement of belief.
Isn't that the semantic war that's always going among atheists, in defining agnosticism, strong atheism and weak atheism? Each group trying to claim more members by fiddling with the definitions of each term. Personally I think it's reasonable to say there are people who don't claim any belief about the existance of God, people who think its very unlikely that there is a God, and people who are adamant there is no God, and just wish we could all move on.
And yeah, GeneralGrog, I doubt anyone would be offended by your evolution as faith line, but it was begging for rebuttal. I'd be really surprised if you weren't hoping for just such a reaction. Personally I think that pretending evolutionary theory has developed along faith based lines manages the double act of diminishing science and diminishing faith.
And it's one that I have believed for a long time. Athiests have faith. They just don't have faith in God. Their faith is that there is no God, and they frequently use "faith based doctrines" like evolution and secular humanism to reinforce their faith.
I have run into many people like this, and in fact I used to be one of them. ;-)
Also to any athiests that read my post, please don't take my post as a personal attack. :-)
GG
Funny how if someone insults science around here it goes unpunished, but say anything untoward about 2 of the three major religions and it is a grievous transgression. Last I checked, at least there is physical evidence to back most of science up that isn't on a theoretical level... Wish I could say the same about anthropomorphic personifications of creation myths.
And finally... here is some food for thought... part of my work is passing along paperwork to a judge to sign to do emergency detention of mentally disturbed people. Two to three a night involve god or the devil telling people to do things. Funny how our last president also said he heard messages from god. Seems like if you are poor than hearing things from god is a sign of mental illness, but if you are rich and the most powerful man in the world then it is perfectly acceptable.
Ozymandias wrote:Agreed. Not to mention that evolution isn't something that's just prescribed to by Atheists. The Catholic Church recently said it was not in conflict with the creation of the universe by God.
Also agreed, evolution only disagrees with certain readings of elements of the Old Testament. Several Christians (Theists) in this very thread have explained how different denominations determine that some elements in that book can be interpreted differently or ignored outright.
Evolution does not deny the existence of god or his creation of the universe and everything in it.
Fallen668 wrote:
And finally... here is some food for thought... part of my work is passing along paperwork to a judge to sign to do emergency detention of mentally disturbed people. Two to three a night involve god or the devil telling people to do things. Funny how our last president also said he heard messages from god. Seems like if you are poor than hearing things from god is a sign of mental illness, but if you are rich and the most powerful man in the world then it is perfectly acceptable.
There have always been a great divide between the rich and poor, so I don't really find it that surprising.
Just out of curiosity, since I have not seen or missed this definition, how do people define faith?
And finally... here is some food for thought... part of my work is passing along paperwork to a judge to sign to do emergency detention of mentally disturbed people. Two to three a night involve god or the devil telling people to do things. Funny how our last president also said he heard messages from god. Seems like if you are poor than hearing things from god is a sign of mental illness, but if you are rich and the most powerful man in the world then it is perfectly acceptable.
Ozymandias wrote:Agreed. Not to mention that evolution isn't something that's just prescribed to by Atheists. The Catholic Church recently said it was not in conflict with the creation of the universe by God.
Also agreed, evolution only disagrees with certain readings of elements of the Old Testament. Several Christians (Theists) in this very thread have explained how different denominations determine that some elements in that book can be interpreted differently or ignored outright.
Evolution does not deny the existence of god or his creation of the universe and everything in it.
on
Indeed, evolution can be viewed as part of that power. Until someone shows me God's Idiot guide to Making People, there's no reason to exclude evolution as part of that process. The mystery of God is not how we got here, but the Everything of Life.
off
I mean, if the statement made was "believing that science alone can explore and understand all knowledge is an act of faith," I'd be more likely to agree with it. I mean, I think I understood what Generalgrog was saying, it's just that as written I think it said more than he meant.
And it's one that I have believed for a long time. Athiests have faith. They just don't have faith in God. Their faith is that there is no God, and they frequently use "faith based doctrines" like evolution and secular humanism to reinforce their faith.
I have run into many people like this, and in fact I used to be one of them. ;-)
Also to any athiests that read my post, please don't take my post as a personal attack. :-)
GG
I don't want to derail this, but you have to understand that calling evolution a faith based doctrine is only going to be viewed as, if not inflammatory, certainly a statement that requires rebuttal and objection. If nothing else the term "evolution" is so broad as to include many things that even ID scientists concede. So, the statement is a non-sequitor, but you have to know the response it's going to bring. I would also argue that calling evolution a "faith based doctrine" is quite insulting to those that respect the scientific method.
You are right, and I thought about it after posting whether I should have been more clearer as to mention "Macro" Evolution. Which is to say evolution from one species to another. Whereas "micro" evolution, which is to say evolution within species, apears to be real science and provable.
A good friend of mine at work is a member of the Knights of Columbus, and he enlightened me as to a current teaching in the Catholic Church that they except a form of theistic "macro" evolution. It totally blew me away when he showed me some of the writings of John Paul on the subject and also of the current Pope. Not being Roman Catholic I had just assumed that they thought as I did on the issue. It's their right to believe that, but I can't agree with them. (before people get all bent out of shape, I'm just saying I disagree with this teaching and I'm not condeming Catholics)
We have allready had a "mini" discussion on evolution on one of the other locked threads, and you are correct, it definately seems to be an inflammatorry subject to some people. Which is why I found Dogmas statement so profound, and I was relating that, to how some people seem to hold certain theories like the theory of "Macro" evolution to be so true as though it were some holy doctrine, and how dare you even question it. Like when I question the assumptions (insert faith) used in the modern theory of "macro" evolution.
One of the main assumptions they make is that 1/2 life decay rates for the different dating methods have always been the same. We don't really know that that is true. So it takes faith to believe that the 1/2 life decay rates have always been the same. Not to mention that some people don't even question the science and just believe their professors and science books, on faith, as though it were true.
Maybe we should start another thread on this subject, because I realize this issue could go off topic quickly and end up focusing on just the evolution vs creation debate. Kind of like the gay rights issue did. :-(
sebster wrote:
Isn't that the semantic war that's always going among atheists, in defining agnosticism, strong atheism and weak atheism? Each group trying to claim more members by fiddling with the definitions of each term.
Yeah. Its pretty amusing how pedantic its gotten. For example, I've been accused of 'flagrant theism' for simply accepting the word god as a valid articulation of the way I choose to approach the universe. It seems the artistry of translation is lost these days.
sebster wrote:
Personally I think it's reasonable to say there are people who don't claim any belief about the existance of God, people who think its very unlikely that there is a God, and people who are adamant there is no God, and just wish we could all move on.
I agree. Especially given that the historical usage of the word 'Atheist' has not been consistent with a simple lack of belief, but an outright rejection of it.
generalgrog wrote:
We have allready had a "mini" discussion on evolution on one of the other locked threads, and you are correct, it definately seems to be an inflammatorry subject to some people. Which is why I found Dogmas statement so profound, and I was relating that, to how some people seem to hold certain theories like the theory of "Macro" evolution to be so true as though it were some holy doctrine, and how dare you even question it. Like when I question the assumptions (insert faith) used in the modern theory of "macro" evolution.
I think you'll get more mileage out of your critique if you approach from the angle of consistency. One of the main issues between Atheists, and the more fundamentalist Theists, is that science and religion are inherently inconsistent. This simply isn't so. At levels of extreme abstraction the difference between, to use your example, evolution and intelligent design is zero. To ape Arthur C. Clarke's famous statement about technology: any sufficiently powerful being would be fundamentally indistinguishable from nature. Whether it was some cosmic intelligence guiding the progression of events, or simple chance, is largely irrelevant. Well, until you start presuming that such a cosmic being intercedes perceptibly in daily life. Then things get dicey.
generalgrog wrote:
One of the main assumptions they make is that 1/2 life decay rates for the different dating methods have always been the same. We don't really know that that is true. So it takes faith to believe that the 1/2 life decay rates have always been the same. Not to mention that some people don't even question the science and just believe their professors and science books, on faith, as though it were true.
No, it takes belief. There is no evidence to countermand our observations of consistent 1/2 life decay, and the denial of countermanding evidence is the defining characteristic of faith.
I agree with your second statement, though. However, I suspect that has as much to do with the devaluation of education as anything else. Much like faith, science is a process, not just a series of discreet facts.
And it's one that I have believed for a long time. Athiests have faith. They just don't have faith in God. Their faith is that there is no God, and they frequently use "faith based doctrines" like evolution and secular humanism to reinforce their faith.
I have run into many people like this, and in fact I used to be one of them. ;-)
Also to any athiests that read my post, please don't take my post as a personal attack. :-)
GG
I don't want to derail this, but you have to understand that calling evolution a faith based doctrine is only going to be viewed as, if not inflammatory, certainly a statement that requires rebuttal and objection. If nothing else the term "evolution" is so broad as to include many things that even ID scientists concede. So, the statement is a non-sequitor, but you have to know the response it's going to bring. I would also argue that calling evolution a "faith based doctrine" is quite insulting to those that respect the scientific method.
You are right, and I thought about it after posting whether I should have been more clearer as to mention "Macro" Evolution. Which is to say evolution from one species to another. Whereas "micro" evolution, which is to say evolution within species, apears to be real science and provable.
A good friend of mine at work is a member of the Knights of Columbus, and he enlightened me as to a current teaching in the Catholic Church that they except a form of theistic "macro" evolution. It totally blew me away when he showed me some of the writings of John Paul on the subject and also of the current Pope. Not being Roman Catholic I had just assumed that they thought as I did on the issue. It's their right to believe that, but I can't agree with them. (before people get all bent out of shape, I'm just saying I disagree with this teaching and I'm not condeming Catholics)
We have allready had a "mini" discussion on evolution on one of the other locked threads, and you are correct, it definately seems to be an inflammatorry subject to some people. Which is why I found Dogmas statement so profound, and I was relating that, to how some people seem to hold certain theories like the theory of "Macro" evolution to be so true as though it were some holy doctrine, and how dare you even question it. Like when I question the assumptions (insert faith) used in the modern theory of "macro" evolution.
One of the main assumptions they make is that 1/2 life decay rates for the different dating methods have always been the same. We don't really know that that is true. So it takes faith to believe that the 1/2 life decay rates have always been the same. Not to mention that some people don't even question the science and just believe their professors and science books, on faith, as though it were true.
Maybe we should start another thread on this subject, because I realize this issue could go off topic quickly and end up focusing on just the evolution vs creation debate. Kind of like the gay rights issue did. :-(
GG
I believe I already countered this viewpoint in the other thread, but I'll try to articulate myself better here.
We assume half-life rates are the same as they have always been because there is absolutely not one jot of evidence to the contrary. If you could provide a reason for your skepticism beyond faith I'd be very interested to hear it, as would the larger scientific community I'd wager.
And to the point about 'daring to question' macro evolution, respectfully, I disagree. The scientific method is based on questioning theories. You start with a hypothesis, and then try to disprove it, you don't begin with an idea and try to find evidence that fits in with it. If the evidence does fit though, that hypothesis appears to be correct. If you can find some evidence to disprove macro-evolution, not only would I, and any other proponent of macro evolution, love to see it, you would no doubt win a nobel prize. To date though, there is no sound argument against it, beyond 'Yeah, but what if?'.
not be horribly parochial, but there are two different kinds of faith. You can have faith in a person, or a theory, or an institution, and that just means that you have trust in them.
Faith also means belief in the absence of evidence, or even in the face of opposing evidence.
So, while we have faith in evolution, it's not quite the same faith as I have in God. While I certainly have trust in both, I don't believe in evolution in the fact of opposing evidence, while I do that for God.
As was stated in the other thread, there really isn't any good evidence against evolution, there are just gaps. History has shown that the gaps are being filled, and so until then, I think trusting it as good science beats the alternative, which is essentially to throw up hands and admit total failure.
You have a point that often belief in evolution is taken as a manner of faith: simply learning and parroting a teachers instructions, for example, but that doesn't mean the same thing. I've studied evolutionary theory on a pretty advanced level, including a course in mammalian cladistics where we literally examined skulls of related animals. I don't consider my belief in evolution to be an act of faith any more than my belief in electromagnetic theory or the atomic model of chemistry.
So, while we have faith in evolution, it's not quite the same faith as I have in God. While I certainly have trust in both, I don't believe in evolution in the fact of opposing evidence, while I do that for God.
You have a point that often belief in evolution is taken as a manner of faith: simply learning and parroting a teachers instructions, for example, but that doesn't mean the same thing. I've studied evolutionary theory on a pretty advanced level, including a course in mammalian cladistics where we literally examined skulls of related animals. I don't consider my belief in evolution to be an act of faith any more than my belief in electromagnetic theory or the atomic model of chemistry.
But in the eyes of a believer, wouldn't their existence and the existence of the world around them be just the same as your experiences, making faith in god to be the same as faith in electromagnetic theory?
generalgrog wrote:Not to mention that some people don't even question the theology and just believe their pastors and bible translation of choice, on faith, as though it were true.
You can flip your statement around and it is still just as true as the original.
Polonius wrote:not be horribly parochial
Don't lie, you live to be parochial.
Ran across this the other day and it seems like it might be useful in this thread.
And becuase people like to take things the wrong way whenever possible I want to add that the superstitious side of the video is not meant to represent religion. I'm posting it more because I am seeing to many instances of where someone disagrees and the other side takes it as a denial of what they believe, which is not the same thing. Also it has pretty colors and noise.
generalgrog wrote:Not to mention that some people don't even question the theology and just believe their pastors and bible translation of choice, on faith, as though it were true.
You can flip your statement around and it is still just as true as the original.
Polonius wrote:not be horribly parochial
Don't lie, you live to be parochial.
I agree with Frazzled that your method was wrong (you could have made your point without being so rude, or smarmy).
The problem with what you did was you took a quote of mine and added your own words to fit your agenda and now it's out of context. So no.. it's not as true as the original.
If your point was to say that there are Church members who do not "study to show themselves approved" then I would agree with you.
There's difference between using faith in the manner where anything not supported by absolute, unquestionable certainty must have faith to supplement it, and faith being something held in conviction despite it being less likely than the alternative.
(The first being what sebster would define this as being "belief" in order to make the distinction.)
For instance, I have faith in Australia. I believe that it exists. Now, maybe all the pictures of the world that have Australia on them have been doctored up. Maybe everyone claiming to be Australian is a British person doing it for laughs. Maybe kangaroos actually live in Jamaica.
This is an unlikely scenario; nevertheless, it does require a small measure of faith on my part. Faith that there isn't a massive conspiracy to make up Australia.
The difference is, this faith is supported by evidence and probability. It is very unlikely that Australia does not exist, and that all media is lying to me, so even though I've never been there I assume it is real.
It is different, therefore, from me having faith in my "magick" spells from a Wicca website actually cursing the people who made fun of me in school.
generalgrog wrote:I agree with Frazzled that your method was wrong (you could have made your point without being so rude, or smarmy).
No I couldn't have, but I can actually have be either of those things if you want to see the difference.
generalgrog wrote:The problem with what you did was you took a quote of mine and added your own words to fit your agenda and now it's out of context. So no.. it's not as true as the original.
No, you just saying it isn't as true doesn't make it not true. It is exactly as true as what you said. People are just as prone to blindly believe science just the same as people are prone to blindly believe religion. You can criticize both for the exact same thing.
Please tell me what my agenda is other than debating the point, as I would like to know. While you are at it why don't you tell us what Frazz's is, or Polonius's is, since you are the man that thinks they know what everyone is doing and why they are doing it without really knowing them. The way you use the word makes me think that you only conceive of it in terms of "liberal agenda" or "the gay agenda" like it means conspiracy or to undermine someone or something.
Main Entry:
faith
Pronunciation:
\ˈfāth\
Function:
noun
2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust
Based off this definition, I would say that both those who believe in God and don't believe in God have a belief structure based on faith. If you don't want to believe in God, then you have to accept that your belief is based in faith just as much as a believer. Neither has any proof. If you want to be really scientific about it, then you just have to say that there is no evidence either way.
Ozymandias wrote:That video was like a slower talking Yahtzee from Zero Punctuation. Same accent and same fun use of cartoons.
Why does everything sound more authoritative when spoken in that accent? That's transatlantic, right? The sort of made up replacement for recieved that the BBC uses?
That's my second favorite accent, after the aristocratic tidewater Virginia accent Martin Sheen used in Gettysburg, and just ahead of own good old Northern Cities accent. Everybody can understand me just fine!
ixlar wrote:Based off this definition, I would say that both those who believe in God and don't believe in God have a belief structure based on faith. If you don't want to believe in God, then you have to accept that your belief is based in faith just as much as a believer. Neither has any proof. If you want to be really scientific about it, then you just have to say that there is no evidence either way.
The problem is where the burden of proof lies; in general it's considered illogical to believe in the existence of something which has no proof - or even significant evidence - for it. Whether or not you can prove a negative doesn't matter here; the default is something does not exist without a reason to believe that it does.
For example, there's an invisible elf in your room, and if you try to find him you'll fail because he's too magical.
Also, if you don't believe that he exists, he'll read your mind and get mad, and maybe eat your skin.
You have no reason to believe in my invisible elf, thus you most likely do not. You may accept it's existence as a possibility, but that's not the same as believing that he, in fact, is real.
But both require belief. Its an interesting argument. Its also one of those arguments that if you think about to long, might create a paradigm shift. Not all paradigm shifts are good thing.
Oh God nothing's real its all belief!
I think therefore I am? (I beleive therefore I exist?)
First - Genuinely sorry I wasn't on for those last two pages, because I can't possibly go back and reply to every point, I'd really like to, but I have to sleep at some point, it would take hours. If you want my opinion on anything in particular, feel free to ask again, although I will be working tomorrow night, and may not be on all day as a result.
Now,
ixlar wrote:From Websters:
Main Entry:
faith
Pronunciation:
\ˈfāth\
Function:
noun
2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust
Based off this definition, I would say that both those who believe in God and don't believe in God have a belief structure based on faith. If you don't want to believe in God, then you have to accept that your belief is based in faith just as much as a believer. Neither has any proof. If you want to be really scientific about it, then you just have to say that there is no evidence either way.
I will use an analogy to explain this following point. Vegetarians do not eat meat. Meat is ANY dead animal. Therefore, vegetarians do not eat fish, pooultry etc. Some people who claim to be Vegetarians eat fish. They are wrong, but are called Vegetarians by those who are ignorant of the distinction (they are pescatarians.)[sp?]
The same applies to Atheists. I am an atheist, as I'm sure you figured out. I do not believe in a god or gods. I cannot PROVE there is no god, but I believe it is less likely than the non-existence of a god. By god with a small g, I mean also the supernatural as a whole, 'magic', unicorns, leprechauns, ghosts, flying spaghetti monsters, Nurgle, whatever. I AM an atheist because I deny the existence of god through challenging the hypothesis (if you contest that it is a fact or even theory, please look up the scientific definitions of these words, as I am using scientific terminology) of 'his' existence. In addition, I believe that the Christian God, as a relatively recent one compared to many Ancient Eygyptian, South/Central American, Far Eastern etc religions, is even less likely than the existence of god at all. I know I cannot prove 'his' non-existence, but I only believe things I have reason to believe, and I have no reason to believe this. Popularity does not make it true, especially when some of the methods through which much of this popularity was garnered are despicable to any humanitarian.
Those who claim there CANNOT be a god, and also BELIEVE it, are not Atheists by the definition that fits me. Atheist is really the wrong term for me, rather than them, but no term exists for my demographic that suffices. In its original definition, atheism was literally anti-theism -- and anti-theists are dogmatic by definition, they believe, with no evidence, that there is no god. If you choose to call that faith I cannot argue, although it is slightly different from belief in a particular God.
Orkeosaurus - excellent point with the invisible elf, perfect example.
As I cannot scroll through the whole thread in my little box below (should have used Quick Reply ) I cannot check who made the point about the definition of Atheism throughout history. Hopefully I have answered it. Also, we need to make a distinction between Theism, and Deism, something Websters is seemingly unaware of. Theism is the belief in a PERSONAL God, one who cares about your everyday life, and you as an individual. Deism is the belief in a supernatural force or forces that either control things behind the scenes, or just started the whole thing running and sat back to see what happens. The stereotypical Far-Right American Deep South Christian falls firmly under the former category, for an example. I think the majority of well educated religious people would subscribe to the latter, although they may not realise or admit it. I accept that I could be wrong of course, it's merely a hypothesis.
EDIT: Dogma, a true Atheist could not actually believe in any element of the supernatural, regardless of definition. They eat fish.
Generalgrog: Sorry, but secular humanism is a set of beliefs about what's right - a moral code. It is not a faith system, as it has no supernatural elements. Evolution is different again. To use Micro evolution as the example ( I believe you said you accept this, but that might have been someone else, sorry if so ) it is a scientific theory, with evidence, like gravity. If we have the knowledge to understand the exactitudes of the experiments/research carried out (and I don't myself, although I get the gist) then we can replicate them, and get similar or identical results. It's not like Darwin thought it up, and everyone just thought, 'oh, okay then, must be true', it has been demonstrated many times. Whilst Macro is slightly different, I'm not a biologist and cannot explain any better, or more, I trust the scientific method, as it has been demonstrated to work more times than enough, including by me, so if other people used it to determine Macro, I believe that is reasonable evidence to believe in their findings. I hope that's clear.
Also - earlier I asked (was it you dogma?) if you meant it was easier to defend metaphysical concepts, and you said yes as they cannot be proven wrong - but the lack of evidence gives us no reason to believe either. With no reason to either believe or disbelieve, I think disbelief has to be the only option. I think this is the fundamental difference in our worldviews, only, if I may, mine is more consistent. You have no reason to believe leprechauns, ghosts, unicorns, aliens etc don't exist, so you should believe they do, but I doubt it. Although if you do believe in them, I apologise, and you prove me wrong. Aliens are perhaps a bad example - they are a statistical likelihood.
ixlar wrote:Based off this definition, I would say that both those who believe in God and don't believe in God have a belief structure based on faith. If you don't want to believe in God, then you have to accept that your belief is based in faith just as much as a believer. Neither has any proof. If you want to be really scientific about it, then you just have to say that there is no evidence either way.
The problem is where the burden of proof lies; in general it's considered illogical to believe in the existence of something which has no proof - or even significant evidence - for it. Whether or not you can prove a negative doesn't matter here; the default is something does not exist without a reason to believe that it does.
For example, there's an invisible elf in your room, and if you try to find him you'll fail because he's too magical.
Also, if you don't believe that he exists, he'll read your mind and get mad, and maybe eat your skin.
You have no reason to believe in my invisible elf, thus you most likely do not. You may accept it's existence as a possibility, but that's not the same as believing that he, in fact, is real.
Here is the fly in the ointment. There is proof. I am proof. I've been born again. I have a relationship with God through Jesus Christ. God isn't some philosophical system to me. God is alive, Jesus has arisen (Resurection Day(a.k.a Easter) is approaching!)
The other proof is that I'm not the only one that claims to have a relationship with God. So this is where I and others are different from athiests, etc. I know without a doubt that I am saved and am going to heaven, to be with God when I die. Jesus made this possible for me and others. So this is where there is a big disconnect between unbelievers and believers in that the unbeliever has no idea what it means to be a believer so it all seems like myths and legends, invisible friends, little elfs, etc,etc.
Main Entry:
faith
Pronunciation:
\ˈfāth\
Function:
noun
2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust
Based off this definition, I would say that both those who believe in God and don't believe in God have a belief structure based on faith. If you don't want to believe in God, then you have to accept that your belief is based in faith just as much as a believer. Neither has any proof. If you want to be really scientific about it, then you just have to say that there is no evidence either way.
But this is only relevant to the conversation and GeneralGrog’s point if you consider atheism and evolution as one in the same. They are not the same, because you can believe in both evolution and God, or believe in one and not the other, or you can believe in neither.
And no, one doesn’t have to have ‘faith’ in evolution. One can just see it as the best fitting model for all observed empirical events. One can note that the theory is constantly tested and refined as more is discovered, and leave it at that.
But then there are very big differences in most forms of atheism and conventional spiritual faith. Sure, there are atheists who are adamant in their belief in the absence of God and use that belief to inform their other beliefs in values (whether it be nihilism, humanism or whatever). But there are a lot of atheists who view God as very unlikely, think no more of it and when pushed just make jokes about the flying spaghetti monster. Their belief doesn’t really inform any other part of their value set, and isn’t a core of their identity. You can use whatever dictionary terms you like, but comparing the faith in the second type of atheist to the faith of a Christian is doing both a disservice.
But I think the big, big thing everyone in this conversation needs to be aware of is why this idea of ‘atheism and/or evolution require faith just like God does’ exists. It isn’t because anyone really cares whether atheism is a faith. It isn’t because anyone really believes that following the scientific process is an act of faith. It’s because the bible stopped being taught in schools. From there a movement formed to try and get the bible back into schools, and it has taken the form of intelligent design, which pretends that creationism is as legitimate a theory as evolution in discussing the complexity of life. One of the odd assumptions made in that movement is that evolution is somehow a complete explanation for everything and that it somehow needs or assumes a very strong form of atheism. From there it follows that atheism and evolution are also faith based movements.
Now, I don’t think anyone here is part of that movement, but that is the origin of these claims that atheism or evolution is faith based. Simple truth is that only a small number of atheists (albeit highly vocal) have anything like the faith of Christians or other religious groups. And the even simpler truth is that the study of evolution, like any scientific process, has nothing to do with faith at all, and is just a process by which we observe the world, make predictive models and then test those predictive models.
generalgrog wrote:Here is the fly in the ointment. There is proof. I am proof. I've been born again. I have a relationship with God through Jesus Christ. God isn't some philosophical system to me. God is alive, Jesus has arisen (Resurection Day(a.k.a Easter) is approaching!)
The other proof is that I'm not the only one that claims to have a relationship with God. So this is where I and others are different from athiests, etc. I know without a doubt that I am saved and am going to heaven, to be with God when I die. Jesus made this possible for me and others. So this is where there is a big disconnect between unbelievers and believers in that the unbeliever has no idea what it means to be a believer so it all seems like myths and legends, invisible friends, little elfs, etc,etc.
GG
See, that thing there? Where you're talking about your personal relationship with God and how it is beyond any philosophical system? Yeah, that's massively to the 'faith' that evolutionary scientists or atheists have. And that's been my point all along, that you're not doing your own faith any favours when you claim atheism or evolution has a faith that's anything like it.
generalgrog - I understand your point of view - and I do respect that you made that choice of your own free will. But you have to understand (I think you do, but I'm stating it for clarity anyway) that that is not what those of us who respect the Scientific Method as the only reliable known method of evidence gathering call proof.
No disrespect, but if someone is mentally ill, and kills someone because they think Santa told them to do it, there is no discernable difference between the strength of their belief and yours, but that doesn't mean Santa really speaks to them, or exists at all.
I'm afraid you also ignore the fact that there are some who call themselves Athiest who once were religious, sometimes even deeply so. I respect your opinions, and you are an intelligent and astute debator, (at least, compared to most people on the internet) so I really am not trying to insult you personally.
"Nothing can ever be proven! Our entire thought process is based on limited perceptions and assumptions made about the world around us!"
You don't really get anything from that, other than "that's not an apple... I perceive it to be one! Based on my assumptions!"
It's like simulationism. No real point, beyond maybe trying to impress people. Everything just comes full circle, and your life hasn't really changed.
Wait, actually it is.
IN some manner the philosphy is found in Existentialism, certain forms of Buddhism, even science.
Only I am real. Only God is real, everything must be proven to be real.
The concept that things have to be proven to be accepted DOES exist in science as discussed above, however, science tells us things are true according to what we currently know, not that they are absolutes. The belief there is a god is an absolute, and this philosophy should rule that an illogical conclusion.
Okay. Interesting thing I'd like to say, following on from watching Darwins Garden late last night on the BBC.
So, Evolution directly contradicts much of the Bible. It challenges the assumption that God made the earth. It has reasonable disproved the claim the Earth is a mere 6,000 years old (it is in fact Billions, according to Science).
But so what? Does disproving the Bible disprove God? We are only told by Religion that the Bible is the infallible word of God. That to me requires more faith to believe than the possible existence of a higher power. Note the inordinate amount of influence many organised Religions have. IS it surprising that they would claim to literally be Holier Than Thou in their role, claiming they were chosen by God to spread His word?
I ask this as an Agnostic bordering on Atheist. I am trying to refrain from stacking the question, hence my lack of explanation. Rather than my opinion, I want people to look at this as a purely philosophical question. Ignore all else in this post other than the crux of the question.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Okay. Interesting thing I'd like to say, following on from watching Darwins Garden late last night on the BBC.
So, Evolution directly contradicts much of the Bible. It challenges the assumption that God made the earth. It has reasonable disproved the claim the Earth is a mere 6,000 years old (it is in fact Billions, according to Science).
But so what? Does disproving the Bible disprove God? We are only told by Religion that the Bible is the infallible word of God. That to me requires more faith to believe than the possible existence of a higher power. Note the inordinate amount of influence many organised Religions have. IS it surprising that they would claim to literally be Holier Than Thou in their role, claiming they were chosen by God to spread His word?
I ask this as an Agnostic bordering on Atheist. I am trying to refrain from stacking the question, hence my lack of explanation. Rather than my opinion, I want people to look at this as a purely philosophical question. Ignore all else in this post other than the crux of the question.
Does disproving the Bible, disprove God?
Disproving the bible does not disprove God, except in the case of people whose faith is built upon the belief that the Bible is absolutely correct.
The problem with a belief that the Bible is absolutely right about the age of the Earth is that at one point there appears to have been a shift in the word(s) used to describe the units of time (possibly from 1/2 years to full years.
I think disproving the Bible disproves the Christian God as believed in by many people, yes. Not the existence of a higher power per se, but as people who believe in literal truth from the Bible see their God, yes. This is a highly emotive issue though, and one that Christians will contest. Perhaps a better example would have been to invent a religion as an example - to see if they would apply this reasoning when they had no stake in the conclusion.
You should be right, but many Christians get inordinately defensive when presented with this argument. Just trying to soften the blow if they can't resist a'flamin'
generalgrog - I understand your point of view - and I do respect that you made that choice of your own free will. But you have to understand (I think you do, but I'm stating it for clarity anyway) that that is not what those of us who respect the Scientific Method as the only reliable known method of evidence gathering call proof.
No disrespect, but if someone is mentally ill, and kills someone because they think Santa told them to do it, there is no discernable difference between the strength of their belief and yours, but that doesn't mean Santa really speaks to them, or exists at all.
I'm afraid you also ignore the fact that there are some who call themselves Athiest who once were religious, sometimes even deeply so. I respect your opinions, and you are an intelligent and astute debator, (at least, compared to most people on the internet) so I really am not trying to insult you personally.
Elessar, thank you for the compliment, but there are much more knowledgable Christian scholars than I that could give clearer and more consice answers than I. All I'm really trying to do is give my perspective, which sadly is most often portrayed in the media (Bill Mahrer for example) as fanatical, ignorant, stupid, etc. I do acknowledge that since we are human beings, and thus fallible, you will always be able to find examples of those traits. The problem I see is that many people see those traits and think all Christians are that way.
I agree that you can be a Christian and still believe in Theistic macro evolution. I just happen to think that you would be wrong if you believed that, and we can agree to disagree. After all salvation is not based on what you believe about creation but on whether or not you have entered into a relationship with God.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Okay. Interesting thing I'd like to say, following on from watching Darwins Garden late last night on the BBC.
So, Evolution directly contradicts much of the Bible. It challenges the assumption that God made the earth. It has reasonable disproved the claim the Earth is a mere 6,000 years old (it is in fact Billions, according to Science).
But so what? Does disproving the Bible disprove God? We are only told by Religion that the Bible is the infallible word of God. That to me requires more faith to believe than the possible existence of a higher power. Note the inordinate amount of influence many organised Religions have. IS it surprising that they would claim to literally be Holier Than Thou in their role, claiming they were chosen by God to spread His word?
I ask this as an Agnostic bordering on Atheist. I am trying to refrain from stacking the question, hence my lack of explanation. Rather than my opinion, I want people to look at this as a purely philosophical question. Ignore all else in this post other than the crux of the question.
Does disproving the Bible, disprove God?
Respectfully your first statement is wrong, and thus everything else following is a bit off. So if I said Sod Off Mate! is that insult English or British? Whats a Scottish equivialent. Sorry-its already been that kind of morning.
Part of the problem is that there are a lot of people who do fit that stereotype, and nothing is done about it as the ignorance generates money for their local church. This leads to generation after generation of people who become less and less tolerant of outside views.
Children should never be told they are a member of a religion. Teach them what your religion believes, sure. When they're mature enough to make their own choice, tell them you would be happier if they believed the same as you, but that its okay if they don't, you're still thier parent. It's the same with strangers in a way. If you think I'll go to Hell, and want to pray for me, fine (you probably hadn't thought of doing so, but whatever ) just don't tell me about it because I don't believe it will achieve anything. Since we're having a good discussion here, I suppose I'd be flattered, but when people I know less than I know you do it, it either comes across as patronising, or as an attempt to make me feel guilty - many people use it as a way of disregarding anything else you said, even if they had no answers to your arguments, and this inflames the situation. If done to your own child, it would likely either make them resent you, are guilt them into a religion they don't truly believe, making them overcompensate with religious displays - furthering the stereotype.
I probably could have said that a lot more concisely...
Frazzled wrote:
Respectfully your first statement is wrong, and thus everything else following is a bit off. So if I said Sod Off Mate! is that insult English or British? Whats a Scottish equivialent. Sorry-its already been that kind of morning.
The Scottish equivalent is "Stick it up yer arse!" It's an English insult, few non-English Brits ever say sod off...few English people would use language that wasn't more...colourful...either.
The first statement he made was opinion. Claims made from the exact words of the Bible, such as the lineages of Joseph, Adam, Moses, Noah etc, created the claim that the Earth is only 6k old. It doesn't SAY this in the Bible exactly, but it does say it lists all the generations up until Jesus, and gives the ages of Adam etc when their children were born.
A more accurate statement would have been "The fossil record contradicts much of the Bible."
Elessar wrote:
A more accurate statement would have been "The fossil record contradicts much of the Bible."
EDIT: Sorry for double-post
Actually, the fossil evidence only impacts a strictly literally reading of a few chapters of the bible, meaning that at worst the fossil record contradicts a tiny amount of the bible, or at best the fossil record requires a tiny portion of the bible to be read less literally, perhaps keeping in mind the idea that God is beyond time and concepts like "Days" don't really restrain Him.
Elessar wrote:
A more accurate statement would have been "The fossil record contradicts much of the Bible."
EDIT: Sorry for double-post
Actually, the fossil evidence only impacts a strictly literally reading of a few chapters of the bible, meaning that at worst the fossil record contradicts a tiny amount of the bible, or at best the fossil record requires a tiny portion of the bible to be read less literally, perhaps keeping in mind the idea that God is beyond time and concepts like "Days" don't really restrain Him.
Yes, but, if you take all the Bible literally, then there should be a house of cards effect when one thing is disproven. If every word is literally, exactly true then one word bein g shown to be false calls into question the entire thing. The genealogy of Jesus that made him a descendant of David, thus fuelling claims he was the Messiah, is not a little thing.
Of course, the word 'day' in relation to Genesis is an unknown time-frame, it doesn't mean a revolution of the Earth before gravity, at least. But if you think its literally a day, then it does contradict you. This is why I said it contradicts the Bible as many people read it.
Elessar wrote:
Yes, but, if you take all the Bible literally, then there should be a house of cards effect when one thing is disproven. If every word is literally, exactly true then one word bein g shown to be false calls into question the entire thing. The genealogy of Jesus that made him a descendant of David, thus fuelling claims he was the Messiah, is not a little thing.
Of course, the word 'day' in relation to Genesis is an unknown time-frame, it doesn't mean a revolution of the Earth before gravity, at least. But if you think its literally a day, then it does contradict you. This is why I said it contradicts the Bible as many people read it.
EDIT: Emphasis.
Well, fewer people believe in the literal interpretation of the bible, if only because it's already contradictory. There are two storeis of the creation of Adam and multiple stories of Judas's death, and that's just for starters. All the fossil record does is indicate that the creation story of genesis might be slightly more complicated than originally told, which is consistent with the rest of the Bible.
As for the house of cards theory, I don't think that's how most people's faith in God or the Bible actually works. If you were to show my undeniable proof that, say, The Israelites were never in egypt at all, that's not going to change the way I view God. I would just know that Exodus is a bit more metaphorical than I originally thought.
Finally, people that believe in the Bible tend to also believe in an Omnipotent god. So there are fossils, who cares? God simply put them there. Maybe to test our faith (not my favorite theory) or maybe it's to hide all evidence of divine creation so that human reason can operate free from any evidence of God (my personal theory). If person says that God created the world 6000 years ago, why couldn't they also say that he created it to appear 6 billion years old?
Don't make the mistake of thinking that the Bible is evidence, trying to prove that god exists. It's not. It's a well respected collection of stories that involve god and his peoples, and there is enormous value in them, but even if nothing in the Bible were true, I would still have faith in God as I know him.
Now, if the goal is to show that biblical truths are not really physical empirical truths, and that both are good avenues of exploration, then I'm all about it.
Elessar wrote:
The same applies to Atheists. I am an atheist, as I'm sure you figured out. I do not believe in a god or gods. I cannot PROVE there is no god, but I believe it is less likely than the non-existence of a god. By god with a small g, I mean also the supernatural as a whole, 'magic', unicorns, leprechauns, ghosts, flying spaghetti monsters, Nurgle, whatever. I AM an atheist because I deny the existence of god through challenging the hypothesis (if you contest that it is a fact or even theory, please look up the scientific definitions of these words, as I am using scientific terminology) of 'his' existence.
You're going to run into three problems:
1) Very few definitions of Atheism deal in the total rejection of the supernatural. What you're really describing here is a form of Atheistic naturalism, which is a bit different from simple Atheism.
2) The lower case form of god should actually be taken (in my view anyway) to hold a meaning much closer to its Greek origins. Essentially a being that is good. Not perfect, maybe not even admirable, but good. The difference between god and something like a spirit is simply that the goodness of the spirit is not implied by the term.
3) There are more than a few divisions of the major faiths which would not accept the notion that the existence of God is a hypothesis because they would not presume to grant him any real agency in the world. He is the ultimate cause, but not anything recognizable as a thing. The obvious conclusion being that it is better to refer to him as 'nothing' than 'something'.
Elessar wrote:
In addition, I believe that the Christian God, as a relatively recent one compared to many Ancient Eygyptian, South/Central American, Far Eastern etc religions, is even less likely than the existence of god at all. I know I cannot prove 'his' non-existence, but I only believe things I have reason to believe, and I have no reason to believe this. Popularity does not make it true, especially when some of the methods through which much of this popularity was garnered are despicable to any humanitarian.
Mystically oriented theologians would say that the Christian God is not distinct from the gods of Egypt or Central America. Only their mode of worshiping him varies.
Elessar wrote:
Those who claim there CANNOT be a god, and also BELIEVE it, are not Atheists by the definition that fits me. Atheist is really the wrong term for me, rather than them, but no term exists for my demographic that suffices. In its original definition, atheism was literally anti-theism -- and anti-theists are dogmatic by definition, they believe, with no evidence, that there is no god. If you choose to call that faith I cannot argue, although it is slightly different from belief in a particular God.
Yeah, its a kind of negative mysticism really. A good example would be Nietzsche.
Elessar wrote:
As I cannot scroll through the whole thread in my little box below (should have used Quick Reply ) I cannot check who made the point about the definition of Atheism throughout history. Hopefully I have answered it.
That was me, but it seems we're in agreement.
Elessar wrote:
Also, we need to make a distinction between Theism, and Deism, something Websters is seemingly unaware of. Theism is the belief in a PERSONAL God, one who cares about your everyday life, and you as an individual. Deism is the belief in a supernatural force or forces that either control things behind the scenes, or just started the whole thing running and sat back to see what happens.
That doesn't seem quite right. To my understanding Theism is simply a belief in anything that could be called God, or god. While Deism is literally to worship at the station God takes in one's life. Both of these can include personal understanding of the almighty which are inclusive of interventionism. The key difference is that a Deist would probably state that God intervenes only through revelation via the station, while a Theist would see God as either universally interventionist (which is really the same as being completely non-interventionist) or as an old man in the sky (the worst possible choice).
Elessar wrote:
The stereotypical Far-Right American Deep South Christian falls firmly under the former category, for an example. I think the majority of well educated religious people would subscribe to the latter, although they may not realise or admit it. I accept that I could be wrong of course, it's merely a hypothesis.
Yeah, the American religious Right generally subscribe to fundamentalist Theism. Which is unfortunate for them, because once you start referring to God as a tangible thing he becomes falsifiable and the whole project comes down around your ears.
Elessar wrote:
EDIT: Dogma, a true Atheist could not actually believe in any element of the supernatural, regardless of definition. They eat fish.
Again, Atheism only relates to the belief in God, or gods. There are plenty theories about supernatural beings that do not fit the definition of those terms.
Elessar wrote:
Generalgrog: Sorry, but secular humanism is a set of beliefs about what's right - a moral code. It is not a faith system, as it has no supernatural elements.
I would disagree. When you start dealing in 'human flourishing' you are necessarily conceiving of a metaphysical concept. I say this because emotions (as the primary barometer of human flourishing), while material in origin, do not operate in a sense which can be considered physical according to human activity. They are 'seemings' that are covered by the partially ineffable theory of qualia.
Elessar wrote:
Also - earlier I asked (was it you dogma?) if you meant it was easier to defend metaphysical concepts, and you said yes as they cannot be proven wrong - but the lack of evidence gives us no reason to believe either. With no reason to either believe or disbelieve, I think disbelief has to be the only option. I think this is the fundamental difference in our worldviews, only, if I may, mine is more consistent. You have no reason to believe leprechauns, ghosts, unicorns, aliens etc don't exist, so you should believe they do, but I doubt it. Although if you do believe in them, I apologise, and you prove me wrong. Aliens are perhaps a bad example - they are a statistical likelihood.
No need to apologize, I don't hold a belief in any particular thing. I would accept 'God' as a valid articulation of what I believe in, but I would not generally say that I believe in God. I'm what might be called a critical agnostic. I believe there are right and wrong ways to deal with the human religious instinct, but I'm not concerned with the matter beyond archetypal similarity. Its a cool position if I do say so. I get to attack fundamentalism while respecting the more positive aspects of faith and religion.
In reply to your statement about the metaphysical:
Because belief is the defining characteristic of any metaphysical position evidence exists insofar as you process it in a way which is defined by the belief. A good example of this which does not deal in leprechauns is Einstein's addition of the cosmological constant to his general theory of relativity. He believed the universe was static, so he bent his equation to make it so. Despite a lack of supporting evidence.
In any case, I think you're hung up on the notion that a belief in one thing necessarily excludes belief in another. I could very easily believe that something causes rainbows to form, and that such a thing could be described as a synthesis of leprechaun magic, light diffraction, and unicorn urine. Each of these cause would be simultaneous, mutually reinforcing, and indistinguishable. Its simply a matter of semantics, and consensus, which generates our understanding of truthful exclusion.
When i was small i was raised as a prodestant but when i was about 10, in school we did a histoy leson about world war 2 and this made me think about the suffering in the world and how god could allow this, witch eventualy lead me to not beleiveing in god
Polonius wrote:
Well, fewer people believe in the literal interpretation of the bible, if only because it's already contradictory. There are two storeis of the creation of Adam and multiple stories of Judas's death, and that's just for starters. All the fossil record does is indicate that the creation story of genesis might be slightly more complicated than originally told, which is consistent with the rest of the Bible.
Except that they don't have to be contradictory at all.
There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. Genesis 1 is a detailed explanation of the six days of creation, day by day. Genesis two is a recap and a more detailed explanation of the sixth day, the day that Adam and Eve were made. The recap is stated in Gen. 2:4, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." Then, Moses goes on to detail the creation of Adam and Eve as is seen in verses 7 thru 24 of Gen. 2. Proof that it is not a creative account is found in the fact that animals aren't even mentioned until after the creation of Adam. Why? Probably because their purpose was designated by Adam. They didn't need to be mentioned until after Adam was created.
The differing accounts of Judas' death can be attributed to different states of Judas' death. It's entirely possible that after Judas hung himself, his body fell and broke open. there has also been some discussion as to whether or not "hanged" really means to be hanged with a rope, or to have been "impaled".
Also as I mentioned before the fossil record is hardly proof enough to discount a young earth or the literal reading of a six day creation.
A good book I can recomend is "Evolution, The Fossils Still Say No" By Dr Gish.
dogma wrote:
Yeah, the American religious Right generally subscribe to fundamentalist Theism. Which is unfortunate for them, because once you start referring to God as a tangible thing he becomes falsifiable and the whole project comes down around your ears.
Use hyberbole much?
I would like to see how "the whole project comes down around your ears"
I would like to see how "the whole project comes down around your ears"
Did I misunderstand your point?
GG
No, I think you got it. I'm not much for fundamentalist religion. To me it is horribly arrogant to presume that an omnipotent being deigned to elevated only a select group of faithful into the light of righteousness. In my mind it recasts religion, something which should be about community and the pursuit of happiness, as a force of alienation.
In terms of logic:
Once you conceive of God as a material thing like any other you necessarily open him to the standards of proof to which material things are subject. These standards are universally reductive in that they strive for simplicity in the causal order. As such, when you have two explanatory theories regarding the material world the one which does not assume something beyond the immediate observation is the one which is correct. Since a physical God will always be beyond immediate observation it will never be correct to conceive of his existence. At least not in matters of science.
Once you conceive of God as a material thing like any other you necessarily open him to the standards of proof to which material things are subject. These standards are universally reductive in that they strive for simplicity in the causal order. As such, when you have two explanatory theories regarding the material world the one which does not assume something beyond the immediate observation is the one which is correct. Since a physical God will always be beyond immediate observation it will never be correct to conceive of his existence. At least not in matters of science.
The difficulty with that argument Dogma is the first point. I don't think believers are viewing God as a material thing in your concept. Further, if that being created said laws of materiality, said being is not necessarily bound by such. The programmer is not bound by the program.
I think it was either Voltaire or Descartes (sorry this is a recollection from before the dinosaurs) who put forth that God is the being thats just beyond are greatest idea of God (in essence our puny minds can comprehend the full scale fo God). Indeed there are religions who's core beleif is that we are all part of God, this is one big god machine as it were.
Frazzled wrote:
The difficulty with that argument Dogma is the first point. I don't think believers are viewing God as a material thing in your concept. Further, if that being created said laws of materiality, said being is not necessarily bound by such. The programmer is not bound by the program.
I agree. I think most believers would label God as something which is beyond the material world. However, that creates a disconnect between the immaterial God and material man. A disconnect which must be explained if we are to assume that recommendations which come from on high can be taken at face value without rational support. In essence, if God is actually informing you of something it should be within your power to support that information with other examples of God's will; including language which is not overtly religious.
That said, someone who is so entrenched in his beliefs as to be willing to state that they are the 'Word of God' is likely to be just as entrenched in them given a different set of linguistic terminology. It isn't so much the words that give rise to the beliefs, but the the beliefs (as extensions of experience) which give rise to the words. Live a simple life, and your belief system is likely to reflect that simplicity.
Note that I'm not trying to indicate that simplicity is an intrinsically bad thing.
Frazzled wrote:
I think it was either Voltaire or Descartes (sorry this is a recollection from before the dinosaurs) who put forth that God is the being thats just beyond are greatest idea of God (in essence our puny minds can comprehend the full scale fo God). Indeed there are religions who's core beleif is that we are all part of God, this is one big god machine as it were.
Yeah, most religions have some kind of mystical or pantheistic tradition. The first person to fully flesh out that idea, at least in the West, was Spinoza. Voltaire expressed some similar beliefs but probably tended more towards my position, which is a general rejection of dogma as explanatory. Clarity has never been my thing.
I think you're attempting to "channel" Descartes there. Presumably his argument towards "How do we know we are here/real?"
In othe words are we really here or just..you know..in "The Matrix" .
In all honesty his final answer, pretty much being that " I thought of God and he is tok awesome to not be true" doesn't really hold up to any serious scrutiny--at least to modern philosphical thinking.
Otherwise we would all be worshipping Santa Claus instead.
PLus it never gets past any "Satan/malevolent God idea".
Plus..well....he was a bit of a loony. From memory it was he who nailed his family dog to the table to "prove" that animals couldn't feel pain.
Except that they don't have to be contradictory at all.
There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. Genesis 1 is a detailed explanation of the six days of creation, day by day. Genesis two is a recap and a more detailed explanation of the sixth day, the day that Adam and Eve were made. The recap is stated in Gen. 2:4, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." Then, Moses goes on to detail the creation of Adam and Eve as is seen in verses 7 thru 24 of Gen. 2. Proof that it is not a creative account is found in the fact that animals aren't even mentioned until after the creation of Adam. Why? Probably because their purpose was designated by Adam. They didn't need to be mentioned until after Adam was created.
Well, I've always been taught that it was simply an earlier narrative. That's not the point, the point is that you need to do a bit of interpretation and some finagling to really make the two accounts fit together. http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis2.htm#foot2
The differing accounts of Judas' death can be attributed to different states of Judas' death. It's entirely possible that after Judas hung himself, his body fell and broke open. there has also been some discussion as to whether or not "hanged" really means to be hanged with a rope, or to have been "impaled".
It's entirely possible, but again my point is that you have to so a little smoothing out.
Also as I mentioned before the fossil record is hardly proof enough to discount a young earth or the literal reading of a six day creation.
Well, it depends what you mean by "discount" and "literal reading." I think that the fossil record is pretty good evidence that there has been life on earth for a pretty long time, and that creatures changed and evolved into more derived (not necessarily advanced) forms. I think that it is, if not overwhelming, at least positive evidence that the earth is neither 6500 years old nor was it created in 6 business days. I'm not saying you couldn't explain it away, but there is a lot of evidence that the earth is pretty old.
A good book I can recomend is "Evolution, The Fossils Still Say No" By Dr Gish.
GG
Again, I'm not interesting in reading books that show the gaps in evolution. I"m fine with gaps. If you have a better theory, or you know somebody that does, let's get it out there and start testing it. I don't need to read 380 pages to know that there are gaps in the fossil record. I already know that. I also know that IT DOESN'T MATTER.
Also as I mentioned before the fossil record is hardly proof enough to discount a young earth or the literal reading of a six day creation.
Well, it depends what you mean by "discount" and "literal reading." I think that the fossil record is pretty good evidence that there has been life on earth for a pretty long time, and that creatures changed and evolved into more derived (not necessarily advanced) forms. I think that it is, if not overwhelming, at least positive evidence that the earth is neither 6500 years old nor was it created in 6 business days. I'm not saying you couldn't explain it away, but there is a lot of evidence that the earth is pretty old.
A good book I can recomend is "Evolution, The Fossils Still Say No" By Dr Gish.
GG
Again, I'm not interesting in reading books that show the gaps in evolution. I"m fine with gaps. If you have a better theory, or you know somebody that does, let's get it out there and start testing it. I don't need to read 380 pages to know that there are gaps in the fossil record. I already know that. I also know that IT DOESN'T MATTER.
Young Earth creationism maddens me. Kinda like Biblical literalism when using the King James Version (one of the most beautiful books in the English language, with words chosen based on the poetic nature over literal translation of the preceding works).
Ok for those of you who support Young Earth Creation, how do you ignore the scientific evidence?
Also as I mentioned before the fossil record is hardly proof enough to discount a young earth or the literal reading of a six day creation.
Well, it depends what you mean by "discount" and "literal reading." I think that the fossil record is pretty good evidence that there has been life on earth for a pretty long time, and that creatures changed and evolved into more derived (not necessarily advanced) forms. I think that it is, if not overwhelming, at least positive evidence that the earth is neither 6500 years old nor was it created in 6 business days. I'm not saying you couldn't explain it away, but there is a lot of evidence that the earth is pretty old.
A good book I can recomend is "Evolution, The Fossils Still Say No" By Dr Gish.
GG
Again, I'm not interesting in reading books that show the gaps in evolution. I'm fine with gaps. If you have a better theory, or you know somebody that does, let's get it out there and start testing it. I don't need to read 380 pages to know that there are gaps in the fossil record. I already know that. I also know that IT DOESN'T MATTER.
Young Earth creationism maddens me. Kinda like Biblical literalism when using the King James Version (one of the most beautiful books in the English language, with words chosen based on the poetic nature over literal translation of the preceding works).
Ok for those of you who support Young Earth Creation, how do you ignore the scientific evidence?
This was already covered by the suggestion that God could have created the Earth to APPEAR 6 Billion years old. There's no way we can claim this is 100% not the case, and asking why he would bother would be fruitless, as the default answer is that we cannot understand his motives, we can barely comprehend his existence. God not having done so, and the Earth really being the age geology indicates is the simplest answer, and those that accept the principle of Occam's Razor accept this, but those that don't are not going to have their minds changed by the question. God doing this is possible, but unlikely. Fact.
A more pertinent question to stop this thread becoming a stale statement of our personal beliefs is:
Do any of you (primarily GG, Polonius and dogma) believe, taking the Bible as a moral text, and leaving the supernatural aside, that it expresses any moral values that don't have a sociological value from the time period they were written? As in, obviously "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is a pretty obvious thing that could equally have been conceived of by people looking to build a community. Basically, any moral values in there that REQUIRED divine intervention to conceive of?
Elessar wrote:
A more pertinent question to stop this thread becoming a stale statement of our personal beliefs is:
Do any of you (primarily GG, Polonius and dogma) believe, taking the Bible as a moral text, and leaving the supernatural aside, that it expresses any moral values that don't have a sociological value from the time period they were written? As in, obviously "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is a pretty obvious thing that could equally have been conceived of by people looking to build a community. Basically, any moral values in there that REQUIRED divine intervention to conceive of?
I think you're looking at it wrong. Divinity isn't something which can be proven objectively. It is a sensation generated by one's interaction with the world. When sane people talk about God they aren't discussing something which necessarily possesses some form of corpus, but a metaphorical condition which is best encapsulated by religious language.
The morals set forth in the Bible are fairly elementary, and have very clear sociological causes. But to people that have a history of being on the wrong end of immoral choices made by those in power the existence of a person who adamantly denies their self-professed righteousness holds the apparition of divinity.
Golden Eyed Scout wrote:Why is it a sin to be gay? I find homosexuality perfectly natural, why can't the church(es)?
We've already covered that quite extensively, and would be best if we didn't rehash it all over again. Probably 5 or 6 pages back it starts, if not further.
Golden Eyed Scout wrote:Why is it a sin to be gay? I find homosexuality perfectly natural, why can't the church(es)?
We've already covered that quite extensively, and would be best if we didn't rehash it all over again. Probably 5 or 6 pages back it starts, if not further.
Oh, sorry. Didn't see that. never mind my questions.
did you know that Pope John Paul said you should listen to scientists on the creationism vs Evolution thing? Just gonna toss this out there and see who Bites
Elessar wrote:
Do any of you (primarily GG, Polonius and dogma) believe, taking the Bible as a moral text, and leaving the supernatural aside, that it expresses any moral values that don't have a sociological value from the time period they were written? As in, obviously "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is a pretty obvious thing that could equally have been conceived of by people looking to build a community. Basically, any moral values in there that REQUIRED divine intervention to conceive of?
I'd go further and ask what those morals are that religion teaches?
Society teaches, don't kill or steal for example. Not religion.
Elessar wrote:
Do any of you (primarily GG, Polonius and dogma) believe, taking the Bible as a moral text, and leaving the supernatural aside, that it expresses any moral values that don't have a sociological value from the time period they were written? As in, obviously "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is a pretty obvious thing that could equally have been conceived of by people looking to build a community. Basically, any moral values in there that REQUIRED divine intervention to conceive of?
I'd go further and ask what those morals are that religion teaches?
Society teaches, don't kill or steal for example. Not religion.
No people teach that. I'd posit
1. depends on the society. I doubt Somalia teaches that. Where I lived in Cali while in school the moral was not thou shalt not kill but thou shalt not be disrespected.
2. Society has massive mixed messages on morals.
Elessar wrote:
Do any of you (primarily GG, Polonius and dogma) believe, taking the Bible as a moral text, and leaving the supernatural aside, that it expresses any moral values that don't have a sociological value from the time period they were written? As in, obviously "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is a pretty obvious thing that could equally have been conceived of by people looking to build a community. Basically, any moral values in there that REQUIRED divine intervention to conceive of?
I'd go further and ask what those morals are that religion teaches?
Society teaches, don't kill or steal for example. Not religion.
No people teach that. I'd posit
1. depends on the society. I doubt Somalia teaches that. Where I lived in Cali while in school the moral was not thou shalt not kill but thou shalt not be disrespected.
2. Society has massive mixed messages on morals.
Society created the Code of Hammurabi(eye for an eye), religion created the 10 Commandments.
Elessar wrote:
Do any of you (primarily GG, Polonius and dogma) believe, taking the Bible as a moral text, and leaving the supernatural aside, that it expresses any moral values that don't have a sociological value from the time period they were written? As in, obviously "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is a pretty obvious thing that could equally have been conceived of by people looking to build a community. Basically, any moral values in there that REQUIRED divine intervention to conceive of?
I'd go further and ask what those morals are that religion teaches?
Society teaches, don't kill or steal for example. Not religion.
No people teach that. I'd posit
1. depends on the society. I doubt Somalia teaches that. Where I lived in Cali while in school the moral was not thou shalt not kill but thou shalt not be disrespected.
2. Society has massive mixed messages on morals.
Society created the Code of Hammurabi(eye for an eye), religion created the 10 Commandments.
Different societies have different messages, but within societies morals are pretty solid - if there's ambiguity its because it's not something socieety has the right to deem right or wrong.
If your point is that religion prefers inequality, sure - Leviticus 20:15 "If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal" - obviously consenting is an equal crime here. Or perhaps Deuteronomy 23:23/4 "If a man happens to meet in a town a Virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death - the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help"
A dig at a Third World country hardly seems appropriate in your post now, huh?
Fair enough, an emotive issue I suppose, but it doesn't change the fact that we made them that way. It's hard to have a set of societal beliefs that respect life when everyone is poor and dying, while you are aware how much better life is for Americans and Western Europeans.
Elessar wrote:Fair enough, an emotive issue I suppose, but it doesn't change the fact that we made them that way. It's hard to have a set of societal beliefs that respect life when everyone is poor and dying, while you are aware how much better life is for Americans and Western Europeans.
We made them that way? Oh yes, I remember! Congress enacted the "Screw Them Act of 1983". How could I forget!
I think when you accept lawlessness you become beyond help. If they came together and formed a political movement that stopped corruption and crime, the US would practically throw money at them. We did not make them this way, they spat on order and now live in the chaos.
Somalia is one more instance of a poor effort to draw post-colonial borders. There would have been tribal skirmishes regardless of our choices. However, our mode of interceding in those skirmishes (pretending there was/is a Somali state) only made the problem much, much worse.
dogma wrote:Somalia is one more instance of a poor effort to draw post-colonial borders. There would have been tribal skirmishes regardless of our choices. However, our mode of interceding in those skirmishes (pretending there was/is a Somali state) only made the problem much, much worse.
Sadly, not all Americans are as willing to accept the failings of their country's foreign policies as you dogma, although the clue is in your name Gen. Lee losing, your comment strikes me as very ignorant. Since when has the US thrown money at the enemies of oppression in Africa? Did it support Nelson Mandela before he came out of prison? Did the Bush administration help force Zanu-PF out total control of Zimbabwe? Is Nigeria a peaceful nation? Has a humanitarian crisis in Darfur been avoided? The UK is as complicit as anyone else in these failing, perhaps even more so in some cases, but we don't pretend none of it is our fault.
dogma wrote:Somalia is one more instance of a poor effort to draw post-colonial borders. There would have been tribal skirmishes regardless of our choices. However, our mode of interceding in those skirmishes (pretending there was/is a Somali state) only made the problem much, much worse.
Sadly, not all Americans are as willing to accept the failings of their country's foreign policies as you dogma, although the clue is in your name Gen. Lee losing, your comment strikes me as very ignorant. Since when has the US thrown money at the enemies of oppression in Africa? Did it support Nelson Mandela before he came out of prison? Did the Bush administration help force Zanu-PF out total control of Zimbabwe? Is Nigeria a peaceful nation? Has a humanitarian crisis in Darfur been avoided? The UK is as complicit as anyone else in these failing, perhaps even more so in some cases, but we don't pretend none of it is our fault.
I am not a history buff, I admit.
But how many successful and peaceful political movements have there been in Africa? Mandela crushed the leaders of rival tribes before he became the figurehead of peace (and anti-white policies). We don’t get involved in intertribal war. But if a country acted like a unified country, we would help it. We helped Ethiopia. We would help Egypt if it needed us. We help a lot of countries. But we won’t help in tribal wars.
I couldn't resist the off-topic discussion. America (and any country for that matter) will intervene when it is percieved to be in their best interest, good or bad. Different administrations make up their own policies in this regard. Sometimes this intervention can lead to bad things(Somalia) and sometimes it can lead to good things(Desert Storm). That's the way of things.
Frazzled wrote: Frankly, Africa is Europe's albatross, not ours. Fix your mess Europe.
Because you "grew" all your slaves at home on your prairie farms right ? You didn't deport them thousands of miles to the other side of the world in vast quantities at all. Ever.
People are actually going to try and argue that the rape and plunder of Africa of both its people and other natural resources hasn't had long term repercussions on the countries there ? Or given "western" countries immense head starts in terms of economics due to the incredible source of cheap labour we had ? Seriously ? How well do you think our countries would be doing if several generations of our best and brightest were forcibily deported to go and work for free in another country.
We made them that way? Oh yes, I remember! Congress enacted the "Screw Them Act of 1983". How could I forget!
I know it's astonishing but sometimes the causes or affects of things might not be due to things that have happened in your own lifetime but your country ( mine too) is still responsible for.
I am not a history buff, I admit.
Clearly. Glad to see that "Black History Month" has been so effective, still more "PC" bollocks no doubt eh ?
Frazzled wrote: Frankly, Africa is Europe's albatross, not ours. Fix your mess Europe.
Because you "grew" all your slaves at home on your prairie farms right ? You didn't deport them thousands of miles to the other side of the world in vast quantities at all. Ever.
People are actually going to try and argue that the rape and plunder of Africa of both its people and other natural resources hasn't had long term repercussions on the countries there ? Or given "western" countries immense head starts in terms of economics due to the incredible source of cheap labour we had ? Seriously ? How well do you think our countries would be doing if several generations of our best and brightest were forcibily deported to go and work for free in another country.
Actually after the intital part of the 1800's yep. Before that they were sold BY YOU EUROPEANS. It wasn't until the 20th century that YOU EUROPEANS lost your colonies and couldn't split the entire continent into little chunks. Further, the trade in and out fo the region predominantly benefits YOU EUROPEANS. So YOU EUROPEANS should handle it. Seriously, grow a pair and do something for once. Britain has a fine navy and fine tradition of properly dealing with pirates. France has a good military. heck they still have the Foreign Legion-major buttkickers. Germany has beer. Whats the problem?
Hey, slavery was a problem in africa way before europeans even got there. Who do you think brought the slaves to the europeans? No european was crazy enough to go into the jungles so other tribes enslaved other tribes and brought them to the coast. The dutch then shipped them overseas, America never shipped them, europeans did.
Talking about history, during the civil war, one side had a lot of support from europe(especially england). That side was the CSA(Confederate States of America) you know the guys who wanted slavery.
England gave warships to the CSA and France sent cash so, you're at fault there.
America has been in africa a couple of times, ever hear of the barbary wars? Liberia and ethiopia were founded by america. We went to somalia and they killed our soldiers, took their bodies and cut them into little bits to play baseball with. We tried to help, but they obviously didn't want us there.
Gen Lee Losing wrote:I am not a history buff, I admit.
Clearly. Glad to see that "Black History Month" has been so effective, still more "PC" bollocks no doubt eh ?
Whew! For a moment there I was worried that you might throw out some facts! Luckily for me you just made a snide remark! That was close!
And I would hardly say that the "loss of the best and the brightest" condemns all of Africa for centuries later. We lost a lot of our "best and brightest" in the 2 world wars helping other countries. We seem to survive with the next generation. Odd, huh?
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:We lost a lot of our "best and brightest" in the 2 world wars helping other countries. We seem to survive with the next generation. Odd, huh?
We didn't even come close to losing all our best and brightest in WWII. We lost a lot of brave young men to be sure, but nothing close to what some of our allies lost. We also didn't just jump in to save the day out of altruism either.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:We lost a lot of our "best and brightest" in the 2 world wars helping other countries. We seem to survive with the next generation. Odd, huh?
We didn't even come close to losing all our best and brightest in WWII. We lost a lot of brave young men to be sure, but nothing close to what some of our allies lost. We also didn't just jump in to save the day out of altruism either.
I agree with you. But this argument is about Africa being the hole it is because of our "wicked past" of stealing their best and brightest. Of course, I think the best and brightest were the ones that avoided capture to have children. So that argument is crap (the best and brightest, not your statement).
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Whew! For a moment there I was worried that you might throw out some facts! Luckily for me you just made a snide remark!
That was close!
Like the myriad of facts you listed to support your "argument". Oh...wait....
And I would hardly say that the "loss of the best and the brightest" condemns all of Africa for centuries later. We lost a lot of our "best and brightest" in the 2 world wars helping other countries. We seem to survive with the next generation. Odd, huh?
You really don't think that losing your best and brightest has an economic affect ? hmm..maybe, now let's also factor in the huge economic advantage that headstart that the slave trade gave us ( you know, like I mentioned) and then explain how nations are supposed to compete on the same level as us. You do know that in Africa this trade is referred to their "holocaust" and they lost millions of people. The USA and the UK lost.. what maybe 1 million between us in WW II. There's no comparison.
But seeing as bills passed in 1983 wouldn't be relevant I guess WW II wouldn't be either ?
If you really need me to talk explain every single little detail and repercussion of a sentence I can but this will take a while, and given your general eloquence and past conversations I thought you were sharp enough to twig this. My apologies.
Slavery was indeed a problem in Africa, but you'll note that any wealth produced by said practise--things like crops etc-- would also benefit ...Africans. far more so than us taking the "workforce" away to the other side of the world for our benefit. It was also a damn sight more possible to get home as well if you escaped or were freed.
Britain can't really do anything in Africa precisely because of our gakky past there and the horrible things we do, even a lot of the charity stuff we send over is apparently still viewed with suspicion and an attempt to "reclaim" a place e never had a right to in the first place. Puts us in a really awkward situation especially over $%^&* like Mugabe who are killing and ruining their own country and we.. well, we just sit there saying how bad it is.
Plus... given out commitments elsewhere in the world militarily I'm genuinely not sure we'd be capable of doing much outside of a full on war footing.
To pull the original topic and the Africa bit together, I offer this.
Bad things happen. When my granddad was in WWII in Africa (British Army) he picked up body parts of people he called friends. He came home to England and everything was in smoldering ruins. All of Europe was robbed of a generation. It was very sad. But Europe applied itself and got out of the hole. They did not sit and wallow in self pity. They worked.
I believe that mankind is here to grow into better beings. Bad things happen. God is not at fault, but he allows man to be evil to other men to allow circumstances for heroism. If everything was lukewarm, it would result in a bunch of zombies. We need adversity to grow spiritually. If we succumb to selfishness we remain as children.
Bad things happen. We need to get ourselves out of it honestly. We should not just shoot others and hold them hostage for easy big bucks.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:To pull the original topic and the Africa bit together, I offer this.
Bad things happen. When my granddad was in WWII in Africa (British Army) he picked up body parts of people he called friends. He came home to England and everything was in smoldering ruins. All of Europe was robbed of a generation. It was very sad. But Europe applied itself and got out of the hole. They did not sit and wallow in self pity. They worked.
I believe that mankind is here to grow into better beings. Bad things happen. God is not at fault, but he allows man to be evil to other men to allow circumstances for heroism. If everything was lukewarm, it would result in a bunch of zombies. We need adversity to grow spiritually. If we succumb to selfishness we remain as children.
Bad things happen. We need to get ourselves out of it honestly. We should not just shoot others and hold them hostage for easy big bucks.
Thanks for putting Religion back in the frame, but nonetheless, Europe didn't 'apply themselves' - the US funded our rebuilding, because we were your shield against the USSR. Given the choice between helping democratic governments back up in Western Europe, or watching us turn to Stalin's aid, you chose the former. Because there's no threat of that in Africa, you let it go.
Frazzled - wtf? What are the puppies about? And that $10 Billion would go down a lot easier if you didn't price African farmers out of growing food for their people, rather than coffee or heroin. Or if your administration criticised the Pope's comments about condoms not preventing AIDS.
As for the US not entering tribal disputes - WHAT?!? Try Israel. Holocaust guilt is no reason to get involved.
As for "more people need to be like you" living their religion, please see earlier Bible quotes by me. Ignoring my points doesn't nullify them. As a moral text, the Bible is at best patchy.
d
EDIT: Oh, and as for why we gave the CSA cash? If they'd won, what would've happened? No more USA, that's what. Three North American states, Canada (British colony), CSA (British ally), and the Northern States...a bit outnumbered, and needing friends, Britain would've been there for them.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Bad things happen. When my granddad was in WWII in Africa (British Army) he picked up body parts of people he called friends. He came home to England and everything was in smoldering ruins. All of Europe was robbed of a generation. It was very sad. But Europe applied itself and got out of the hole. They did not sit and wallow in self pity. They worked.
What happens when your labor is not likely to produce any tangible benefit? For example, I know people that are 100k in debt due to student loans. They can't get the jobs they were trained for due to the current economic climate, and the jobs they can get will not even permit them to make any form of minimum payment. Bankruptcy isn't even an option because student loans are exempt from bankruptcy. So why should they bother with a job they will certainly detest if all they can be assured of doing is more of what they detest?
Elessar wrote:Ozy, care to comment on my Bible quotes from earlier today? Please?
Not really. Sorry, I didn't find it fascinating or interesting.
I'm having a better time ridiculing this dick-measuri... I mean discussion of whether the US or Europe is bigger at fault for fething up Africa.
Fair enough.
Just so we're clear, I'm in no way suggesting the US is more to blame, just that its not all Europe's fault, and that some individual circumstances are more the fault of the US than of Europe. /
Puts us in a really awkward situation especially over $%^&* like Mugabe who are killing and ruining their own country and we.. well, we just sit there saying how bad it is.
And I hate to say this, but the Brits should feel awkward as they (as well as we in the US too) are largely responsible for Mugabe...but not in the way I'll bet you think they are. Had we in the West not backed the wrong side in the Bush War of 1965-80 Rhodesia would not be in the horrible state it is in now and that piece of human garbage Mugabe would not be in power.
Look, as a staunch Conservative, I hate it when leftist like to hang all the world's troubles around the neck of the US. But in this case it is literally true. While we didn't directly send arms and aid to the terrorists who eventually won the war (the Soviets, the Warpact, and the Chinese did that for us) we certainly did help in finantially and morally isolating the Rhodesian goverment which directly led to the fall of the country. Our condemnation, and economic sanctions led to Mugabe just as much if not more than did the thousands of AK-47s the Communists sent the terrorists.
Elessar wrote:EDIT: Oh, and as for why we gave the CSA cash? If they'd won, what would've happened? No more USA, that's what. Three North American states, Canada (British colony), CSA (British ally), and the Northern States...a bit outnumbered, and needing friends, Britain would've been there for them.
Elessar wrote:EDIT: Oh, and as for why we gave the CSA cash? If they'd won, what would've happened? No more USA, that's what. Three North American states, Canada (British colony), CSA (British ally), and the Northern States...a bit outnumbered, and needing friends, Britain would've been there for them.
You know what though, the whole slavery thing is water under the bridge now. I doubt that there is a person who was a slave is still alive in america. Some countries still have slavery, but we don't anymore.
Never owned a slave neither, in fact my ancestors came to america during the civil war. They fought for the union.
halonachos wrote:Well, I don't know any 150 year olds. There is slavery in other countries though.
There are 16 countries on the US State Department's slavery 'tier 3' (the worst offenders). Maybe you can Google a full list (I couldn't).
frgsinwntr wrote:
Looks like they (Isreal) are on the African plate to me... but What do I know : )?
I suppose that Turkey isn't in Asia (or Europe) then. If you want to count that strip across the top of Turkey as meaning Turkey is in 'Eurasia' then Syria Jordan and Turkey, are Africa too.
halonachos wrote:England gave warships to the CSA and France sent cash so, you're at fault there....
...Liberia and ethiopia were founded by america.
Britain supplied arms to both sides during the ACW. Ethipoia was (until 1974) the oldest continual monarchy in Africa (the world?), it is 2,000+ years old. which American goverment was it that founded Ethiopia, the one with the TARDIS?
Personal no, get over it. You have too thin of a skin, the world is rough and I personally think that America is blamed for slavery while some african countries still commit the crime. Its called irony and I absolutely love it.
You know, that's how threads are locked. It would be funny if I got hit by a car only if I was trying to run into it on purpose while wearing a football helmet, wool mittens, bright yellow pants, and a bearskin shirt.
I'm thinking it'd probably be funny if you were dressed in a clown suit, and got hit by a clown car full of clowns, and then a clown ambulance came and a bunch of clown nurses and clown doctors jumped out and took you to the clown hospital.
That'd be pretty hilarious.
And Elessar, are you talking about your Deuteronomy quotes a couple pages back? What were you trying to get at with those, again?
I don't know, sounds a little predictable. I want something random, like a car falling from space and hitting me while I was singing in the rain. Then the kool-aid man kicks the car over a field goal and yells "oh-yeah" only to have a bird poop in his head and contaminate the delicious kool-aid within.
How come we are using the tectonic plates to determine if a place is African? We seem to be putting the cart before the horse here. The land mass was called Africa before there was even a coherent tectonic plate theory. The plates don't determine this sort of thing in the slightest.
halonachos wrote:. Its called irony and I absolutely love it.
Another stereotype proven true.
Sorry, please explain.
I agree with Ahtman, just because they are on the same plate doesn't mean that they are the same thing. If I have a steak and some broccoli on a plate, that doesn't make the steak a vegetable or the broccoli a meat.
The Middle East is not a geographic region, but a political one. For example, Egypt is almost always considered to be part of the ME. Libya is also rolled in at times.
The middle east has been called the middle east before a lot of politics. Its like a broad area that contains the countries. They also have the near east and far east. Its a broad geographical term.
halonachos wrote:The middle east has been called the middle east before a lot of politics. Its like a broad area that contains the countries. They also have the near east and far east. Its a broad geographical term.
Technically the Middle East was the Middle East before there even were countries. The concept of a nation-state is only about 70 years old with respect to the region.
If you want to get really technical in a historical sense neither Israel, or Turkey, would be considered parts of the Middle East. Until the fall of the Ottoman Empire the entirety of the Eastern Mediterranean was considered to be the Near East, while the Middle East essentially began with the modern border of Iraq and ran out to the Himalayas.
Mesopotamia is just the anthropological name for Iraq. It served as the western border of the Middle East. Everything west of that was considered the Near East due to the legacy of Byzantine cultural trends. It was almost European, even under the Ottomans, but not quite.
The fertile crescent is distinct from Mesopotamia. The literal translation of the term meaning: between two rivers. In practice this cuts the region off around Ebla on that map, or very near the edge of what we define as the Sumerian Empire.
Edit: The fertile crescent is also often classified as a region of the Near East due to the fact that it incorporates a large chunk of the Levant (Israel, Lebanon, etc.), and is sometimes said to include the Nile River Valley.
Even though the literal translation of mesopotamia is "land between two rivers" it can be extended to include the surrounding areas. Also, Israel is directly above the Saudi Peninsula which is also part of the middle east.
I never thought that turkey was part of the middle east, I always thought is was part of the mediterranean like greece.
EDIT: Woot, made someone mad enough to ignore me. Now I can insult him all I want.
Pluto is not only a planet, but a way to reach enlightenment.
Once one accepts Pluto as a planet, they are instantly bathed in a glorious light and gain knowledge of everything for a millisecond. That millisecond is the most orgasmic event ever to happen to a person.
I think the modern term middle east is used as a sort of loose catch all for "the Arab states (except north Africa west of Egypt) but including Israel, Turkey, and Iran."
Greebynog wrote:The stereotype is that Americans don't understand what irony is and frequently use the word incorrectly.
The funny thing about this is, I've been hearing about this stereotype more and more, and the more I do, the more I get the feeling that maybe it's actually some British people who are using the word incorrectly, and attributing things to "irony" that aren't really ironic at all. Maybe the reason some Americans have trouble understanding British "irony" is because it's not actually ironic?
Also, Israel might be on the African plate, but it hasn't been on any map of Africa that I've ever seen, and I've seen my fair share of African maps in my time.
Hordini, I was trying to say the Bible is inadequate as a moral text, and that society is prefectly capable of creating a series of ethical values without the aid of religion, as religion only makes things worse. In a nutshell.
Also - Israel IS in the Middle East, NOT in Africa, but you're missing the point. Frazzled said Israel wasn't in Africa in response to me saying it was a tribal conflict, ignoring that 'tribal' doesn't mean 'African'
Also - If anyone thinks Sinead O'Connor's song 'Ironic' contains more than one example of irony...they're wrong, and don't know what irony is. Which, while humorous, is not ironic. Unless they're doing the ironing.
Also - If anyone thinks Sinead O'Connor's song 'Ironic' contains more than one example of irony...they're wrong, and don't know what irony is. Which, while humorous, is not ironic. Unless they're doing the ironing.
Woah! Leave Sinead out of this. The offending song you're refering to was by Alanis Morissette, not the wonderful Miss O'Connor. Her version of Nothing Compares 2 U has to be one of the best covers of all time.
I know. It was a shameless attempt to draw attention to the jokes in my sig. Sorry Sinead, and Alanis, I hope you're sorry for insulting the world with such a stupid song! Sorry, fellow Dakka-goers, for the deception.
Elessar wrote:Hordini, I was trying to say the Bible is inadequate as a moral text, and that society is prefectly capable of creating a series of ethical values without the aid of religion, as religion only makes things worse. In a nutshell.
Which would be an interesting point if religion did not happen to be an excellent example of social construction.
Greebynog wrote:It's quite hard to find new examples in a 2,000 year old book!
You do know they didn't write it and publish it the second after Jesus died right? It's not quite 2000 years old.
Well that's just lazy really isn't it.
Much of it is of course much older, all the bits kind of prior to Jesus. All the wacky bits with talking animals and bushes.
... or I am I thinking of Madagascar 2 ?
Hordini wrote:It would also be more interesting if you (Elessar) didn't just quote tired examples like the old laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
While I accept your point, Jesus did say that he wasn't here to rewrite the Old Testament, just clarify a little, and add some new stuff. In the intersts of not appearing to be a one-trick pony (or any quadraped in fact) I'm not going to quote any passage here.
In my experience, the compilation of books that you are mostly talking about is just what THEY want you to believe(THEY being the people who want to have power over you). Someone has chosen which ancient writings to include, and not include. Someone has chosen how to interpret and translate them into our language.I believe that a man, who'm we have been taught to know as Jesus, along with many others throughout time, did go about teaching people about a ONENESS, and that we were created by the ONENESS, are part of the ONENESS, and that ONENESS is part of us. There is no seperation, It's called "entanglement" in modern day quantum physics. NO SEPERATION! Whatever I do to my brother, I do to myself etc. So Jesus may have come to SET US FREE, but a bloody religion was created after his death, to make sure we didn't really get the point. We are the same as He! We are the Trinity, Father Son and Spirit= Purpose, Matter and Energy. The church don't want you to know the Empowerment of this TRUTH, that is why people were burned at the stake for seeing thing different to how THEY taught it. THEY teach obedience, I believe He taught FREEDOM and LOVE and EMPOWERMENT. He was a revolutionary. Then the ba*@$%ds twisted everything to keep us in the dark. WE ARE THE LIGHT! everything is light, for light is electromagnetic disturbances, which is what matter is, EM disturbances in SPACE TIME.
BE FREE, BE LIGHT, BE ONE WITH INFINITY, it is your BIRTH-RIGHT!!!!!!!
Ghetto_Fight wrote:It's ridiculous when Zionists tries to demonise Islam while praising Judaism's "holiness".
I agree, It's ridiculous when humans demonize anything! "judgment" is what people do to each other and each others beliefs.
I thinks that whatever direction a person looks at " THE IS", he then interprets it in his/her own way, and that person attches their own labels onto it. To say that how someoneelse interprets what they experience is"wrong ", or that the "labels"(names they give things) are incorrect is ridiculous, for everyone sees things from their own perspective, while still observing the same thing- "the IS".
An Archbishop came to my friend's school to give a speech, this was just after the victoria Bushfire which killed almost 200 people. He said
"God did not start the fires, but he was IN the fires"
So, god has another 173 deaths on his hands.
I do not care if there is a god or not. He may be responsible for creation, but even if he appeared in the skies and proved his existence, I would raise two fingers and keep walking.
Anyway, something I have never gotten. If god rewards the good in heaven, and Satan punishes the wicked in hell, is Satan not just doing his job. Why is he regarded as evil? He is more or less a God of the underworld like Hades, not a god of evil like Set.
And yet another interesting philosophical question, well more theological I suppose, for all to comment upon.
As ever, I shall finish my post having asked the question, and tried to explain it, rather than jump straight in with my opinion on it, as then the question will not get answered!
Ready gentlemen (and ladies of course)?
Assuming God did indeed create the Cosmos, what role do you feel the other planets Galaxies etc serve in relation to humanity?
Actually, this needs no real explaining as to do so would be to give my opinion. So question posed, and I am looking forward to your answers!
Anyway, something I have never gotten. If god rewards the good in heaven, and Satan punishes the wicked in hell, is Satan not just doing his job. Why is he regarded as evil? He is more or less a God of the underworld like Hades, not a god of evil like Set.
They're all just labels, more precisley someonle elses labels! You can't have someone elses "truth", without being a SHEEP! If you be a SHEEP, it is neccesarry to understand that the shepheard will always have his own agenda.
In my opinion, it is much more wise to learn from experience, rather than what other people tell you. For all we know, THEY know as much as us, yet THEIR greatest ploy is to make people believe THEY know more than the rest of us(which is impossible even if THEY believe it themselves), Yet this will have a dramatic effect, for SHEEP will FOLLOW.
Find your own TAO, your own WAY. That is the only TRUTH !
If a satanist wants to go to hell, then their concept of heaven is what we know as hell. So, by going to hell they should go to our concept of heaven. That then means that they went to their hell(our heaven) but they were devout satanists so they should go to heaven(our hell). Paradox achieved.
The irony:Countries that are blamed for slavery don't use it, legally, anymore. Africa for the most part is not blamed for the past slavery but some african countries continues to have it.
I declare that an irony. Irony is also funding a terrorist group to fight an enemy, that later uses the funding you gave to attack you a la 9/11 and the Osama Bin Laden.
i believe in karma, if thats a religion althou i doubt it, however i am in the same situation as anung,
born, and raised a catholic, however as i grew up i kinda thought that there was always something wrong with the bible, that being god and his almighty 10 commandments
were not allowed to (for example) kill people, however god kills how many freaking people in the bible?!
not to say '' oh no your all wrong'' i respect people that believe in what they believe in, whatever it is, just that way isnt my way
and a somewhat funny side note, because i didnt go to church and believe in the bible and all that, which lead to many arguments because my mother is a radical catholic as i like to call her, she likes to do things the bible way and i like to do things the logical way,
my parents kicked me out of their house and now im living on my own, go figure
Saints_Knife&Brush wrote:i believe in karma, if thats a religion althou i doubt it
Karma is not a religion, it is a concept in eastern religion/philosophy. It is not a cosmic revenge fantasy ("oh, karma is going to get them!" ect ect). Instant karma on the other hand, is going to get you, and it is going to knock you right on the head.
Saints_Knife&Brush wrote:were not allowed to (for example) kill people, however god kills how many freaking people in the bible?!
The commandment though isn't against killing, it is against murder. A distinction is made between killing and murder. Now what that always is can be troublesome but nonetheless they aren't considered the same thing.
Jesus H. Christ....why do these topics always have to be brought up? The argument/debate ALWAYS goes the same way, ALWAYS has the same misinformed opinions, ALWAYS comes around to the same moot points, and ALWAYS boils down to "Well after so many pages of discussion I guess it all comes down to no body knows and nobody ever will." Waste of freaking time.
thesuperiorninja wrote:Jesus H. Christ....why do these topics always have to be brought up? The argument/debate ALWAYS goes the same way, ALWAYS has the same misinformed opinions, ALWAYS comes around to the same moot points, and ALWAYS boils down to "Well after so many pages of discussion I guess it all comes down to no body knows and nobody ever will." Waste of freaking time.
Becuase we need something to do between the time we take the first breath until we get buried. Otherwise it gets boring.
It's interesting how some of the same arguments that were brought up weeks ago are being rebraught up again by the new "participants" who haven't taken the time to read all 27+ pages, let alone the thread that was locked.
Here's what I think; I Possess Harmonic Cubic Wisdom that transcends and contradicts the Bibical 1st Day - Genesis 1.5 - when the greatest math & scientific scam of all human existence was deified.
Claim of single 1st Day composed of Day, Night, Morning & Evening was a Lie, as they were Static points as 4 corners and did not rotate as Time motion. Instead each of the 4 quadrant Times represented a single and separate 24 hour Day rotation within a common 24 hour rotation of Earth.
You would be wiser if unschooled then be taught ONEness stupidity to worship Evil of ONEism, contradicted by Opposite Creation. Religion is Organize Crime to collect $Tithes. Dr. Gene Ray, Cubic and Wisest Human.
Definitely didn't want to read 27 pages on this subject, so I'll just post my view on religion as instructed by the OP (i don't know if anyone got off-topic or whatnot). Anyway, I wasn't raised religiously at all even though my mom was raised Catholic and my dad Lutheran. They basically told me when I was 8 that I could choose whatever religion I wanted. I actually researched a bunch of religions/philosophies (Christianity, Daoism, Buddhism, etc. even Zoroastrianism) and came to a conclusion: as long as you are good and don't kill people and such, you'll be fine. I mean, some people need some kind of "guiding force" like God to organize their life and teach them values and such, but IMO, all religions teach similar principles of goodness. Since no religion/philosophy can be proven wrong and they all preach similar idealistic qualities, why choose one to the exclusion of all others? Just practice whichever one is most convenient (i'll explain). I've gone to places of worship for religions around the world and don't focus on a single one, and whenever I feel emotionally drained I go and talk with our communities' local Christian priest, or my Buddhist neighbor who lives down the hall. Anyway, that's my opinion.
Actually, that's highly improbable. Especially given that much of human knowledge has no relevance to any one person, but incredible significance when considered with regard to many.
Uri Lee wrote:
this will have a dramatic effect, for SHEEP will FOLLOW.
Find your own TAU, your own WAY. That is the only TRUTH !
Find my own Tau? Is this guy a loon or what?
Mad Doc Grotsnik - In answer to your question, I think the only possible reason could be for us to explore,l when we got bored of Earth. Sadly, I don't understand where this would come into Christian philosophy, since Earth is apparently so important to God that he spent more time on it than the rest...
Elessar wrote:Mad Doc Grotsnik - In answer to your question, I think the only possible reason could be for us to explore,l when we got bored of Earth. Sadly, I don't understand where this would come into Christian philosophy, since Earth is apparently so important to God that he spent more time on it than the rest...
Or humans aren't the centre of god's plans and the bible (and all other texts) are just books.
Uri Lee wrote:
this will have a dramatic effect, for SHEEP will FOLLOW.
Find your own TAU, your own WAY. That is the only TRUTH !
Find my own Tau? Is this guy a loon or what? :
My bad, spelling error, meant TAO.
But in answer to your question, YES, I am a loon,Welcome to my world! Everyone's insane, there is no such thing as sanity....is there?
Unless you think sanity is thinking the same as everyone else, then I would personally call that insanity. But I don't think the same as everyone else, so am I sane? Who's gonna be the judge? Are'n't you taught not to judge, lest you be judged yourself?
Don't you like being called a sheep? Doesn't the bible tell you to be a sheep? Do you find it empowering to attribute all power to something outside of yourself?
BAA!
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Lets have a game of spot the Student Radical!
*points at Uri Lee*
I WIN!
m8, I'm 32, got 4 kids, have been involved in alot of religions, and recently have become a physics student in my spare time, si I beieve ( and you may disagree) that my veiws have a balanced perspective, Its all a load of tosh! No one knows, find out for yourself! its that simple, there are enough people out there who are more than happy to lead you up the garden path arn't there?
Uri Lee wrote:
this will have a dramatic effect, for SHEEP will FOLLOW.
Find your own TAU, your own WAY. That is the only TRUTH !
Find my own Tau? Is this guy a loon or what? :
My bad, spelling error, meant TAO.
But in answer to your question, YES, I am a loon,Welcome to my world! Everyone's insane, there is no such thing as sanity....is there?
Unless you think sanity is thinking the same as everyone else, then I would personally call that insanity. But I don't think the same as everyone else, so am I sane? Who's gonna be the judge? Are'n't you taught not to judge, lest you be judged yourself?
Don't you like being called a sheep? Doesn't the bible tell you to be a sheep? Do you find it empowering to attribute all power to something outside of yourself?
BAA!
Yeah...I was just yanking your chain, as I thought was obvious, when I changed your spelling...I'm amazed you thought you actually said that, maybe you're not as clever as you purport after all...
Also, quoting films doesn't make you as original as you'd like to think I'm afraid, even if reasonably well concealed. Finally...if you'd perhaps read ANY of my earlier posts you'd realise my views on religion, organised religion, and the Bible in particular are pretty clearly laid out. To sum up - I'm not a fan. Following the Lamb of God however, does create an interesting flock mentality among those who do.
yeah I did think i made a typing error, I do it all the time,
I never said I was clever, did I? what film did I quote? where is that quote? coz I mentioned entanglement? What the bleep? its good isn't it?
I did read some of your later post, and got the impression, despite your views, that you were quite indoctrinated. but I admit I havn't gone back 27 pages.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Lets have a game of spot the Student Radical!
*points at Uri Lee*
I WIN!
m8, I'm 32, got 4 kids, have been involved in alot of religions, and recently have become a physics student in my spare time, si I beieve ( and you may disagree) that my veiws have a balanced perspective, Its all a load of tosh! No one knows, find out for yourself! its that simple, there are enough people out there who are more than happy to lead you up the garden path arn't there?
Not being rude, but I don't believe you. Your choice of prose and poor spelling very much suggests you are a teenager who has discovered philosophy.
And using text speak in the opening of the last section quoted really does nothing for your case.
And rather than following the herd, to have true Religious conviction takes a lot of inner strength. Me, my faith is solidly with science, and I find this combined with my generally philosophical nature allows me to approach most subjects with a studious dispassion. See my general question to the board above, about where the rest of the Universe fits into Gods plan according to the Bible. I didn't give my point of view, as to do so would become the focus of my post, and not the question which, much like the recipe for Black Bean sauce I found where one of the ingredients was a spoonful of Black Bean sauce, would utterly defy the point.
Now I'm laughing, by the way, there's a pic of my 7 year old son first model in my gallery, Have a peek.
My kids get took to sunday school at a evangelical church sometimes by their gransparents, and I really hate it. My daughter, 10, came home telling me that she's a sheep, and I was really pi@@&d, so I guess I have strong views on it, having broken away from a christian background many years ago, to dabble in drugs, raves, and later eastern religions(hare krishna, and later zen philosophy at my dojo). After getting my life straight, then losing my site work (subcontracting chippy), i've started an OU course in physics, this week i've been doing quantum electodynamics( do you want me to explain the time energy uncertainty principle and theorised by Heisenburg?)
frankly whether you believe me or not, is irrelevant.
Obviously this subject is a volatile one when someone like me says something you disagree with. probably shouldn't have even got started on it.
Trouble is, you came into this discussion with sweeping statements and didn't back them up.
I've never heard of any Church, regardless of denomination, telling it's flock it's literally that. What might have happened is your alleged Daughter heard the Pastor/Father/Vicar etc describing the assembled peoples as their flock, and knowing flock to be the collective noun for Sheep, filled in the gap the best she could.
And again, your spelling and general structure suggests you aren't necessarily doing the course you claim. Just going on evidence. And is that not what you are preaching? To assess and investigate all written claims? Or should I be your Sheep, and just take everything you say at face value? Again, your claim that there is a pic of your 7 year old son's first model. I just see some models. No child, but then I didn't expect to see that. Why should I put any stock in your statements, when that is very thing you would have people not do?
You're right about one thing, I can't back up my views with anything solid. As we are talking about the "unseen", and the "unprovable" that's hardly surprising. Not many of us could verify anything on this subject without just quoting what they have been told by some one else, or what they have read somewhere. You can believe what ever you choose to believe. We all have choice, and will usually choose what serves us well.
As for my identity(and my honesty!) which you cast aspersions on, now that I could verify, however not in this forum. If you are ever in Nottingham I would be happy to meet you at Warhammer World for a beer.(maybe you'll still believe that I have a fake beard, a fake id, fake kids, and possibly arrive driving a fake van!)
This type of discussion usually ends with discrediting the messenger, since the actual message is neither provable or disprovable(they're just beliefs), If they were more solid than beliefs they would be called "facts". So from now on , I'm staying On Topic!
It's biblical. Jesus used the term sheep as an allegory to describe believers. In John: 21 he asked Peter to "feed his sheep". Jesus also said in John 10:11 "I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep."
The bible is full of references refering to believers as sheep.
The problem I see is that this reference has beeen twisted by certain people to imply that believers are stupid, ignorant, blind, etc. I know that I have seen the term sheep used as a derogatory term, by unbelievers aimed towards believers. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of what the term sheep means in a biblical context.
Uri Lee wrote:
this will have a dramatic effect, for SHEEP will FOLLOW.
Find your own TAU, your own WAY. That is the only TRUTH !
Find my own Tau? Is this guy a loon or what? :
My bad, spelling error, meant TAO.
But in answer to your question, YES, I am a loon,Welcome to my world! Everyone's insane, there is no such thing as sanity....is there?
Unless you think sanity is thinking the same as everyone else, then I would personally call that insanity. But I don't think the same as everyone else, so am I sane? Who's gonna be the judge? Are'n't you taught not to judge, lest you be judged yourself?
Don't you like being called a sheep? Doesn't the bible tell you to be a sheep? Do you find it empowering to attribute all power to something outside of yourself?
BAA!
Actually the ability to question one's own sanity is a sign that they are indeed sane.
I declare that an irony. Irony is also funding a terrorist group to fight an enemy, that later uses the funding you gave to attack you a la 9/11 and the Osama Bin Laden.
generalgrog wrote:I'll comment on the sheep thing.
It's biblical. Jesus used the term sheep as an allegory to describe believers. In John: 21 he asked Peter to "feed his sheep". Jesus also said in John 10:11 "I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep."
The bible is full of references refering to believers as sheep.
The problem I see is that this reference has beeen twisted by certain people to imply that believers are stupid, ignorant, blind, etc. I know that I have seen the term sheep used as a derogatory term, by unbelievers aimed towards believers. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of what the term sheep means in a biblical context.
GG
And let's be fair, people are like sheep. The more of them you have, the dumber they get. Like a real herd of sheep.
I declare that an irony. Irony is also funding a terrorist group to fight an enemy, that later uses the funding you gave to attack you a la 9/11 and the Osama Bin Laden.
That's more a karma matter.
That's not how karma works! Again, it isn't a cosmic revenge fantasy. It isn't "you did something bad now something bad will happen to you in return". That is far to small a scale and it also is to personal more often than not. Karma deals with more whether or not one is able to break free from the cycle of life and death and effects ones next attempt (reincarnation). The irony is that hoping that something bad happens to someone through karma creates bad karma for the person thinking it. See how I was able to work both irony and karma into that? Pretty neat huh? Well now I am off to get my reward of Coka-cola and some form of snack. Probably cigarettes or heroin, I don't know.
I declare that an irony. Irony is also funding a terrorist group to fight an enemy, that later uses the funding you gave to attack you a la 9/11 and the Osama Bin Laden.
That's more a karma matter.
That's not how karma works! Again, it isn't a cosmic revenge fantasy. It isn't "you did something bad now something bad will happen to you in return". That is far to small a scale and it also is to personal more often than not. Karma deals with more whether or not one is able to break free from the cycle of life and death and effects ones next attempt (reincarnation). The irony is that hoping that something bad happens to someone through karma creates bad karma for the person thinking it. See how I was able to work both irony and karma into that? Pretty neat huh? Well now I am off to get my reward of Coka-cola and some form of snack. Probably cigarettes or heroin, I don't know.
Of course it's not.
Kharma is not a revenge fantasy so much as it is a cosmic justification for a stratified society.
You are born closer to the top because you were good in the cycle, where the people below are there because of their misdeeds. kinda justifies mistreating those below you.
Sounds a great deal worse then a cosmic revenge fantasy worse when properly applied, doesn't it?
I declare that an irony. Irony is also funding a terrorist group to fight an enemy, that later uses the funding you gave to attack you a la 9/11 and the Osama Bin Laden.
That's more a karma matter.
That's not how karma works! Again, it isn't a cosmic revenge fantasy. It isn't "you did something bad now something bad will happen to you in return". That is far to small a scale and it also is to personal more often than not. Karma deals with more whether or not one is able to break free from the cycle of life and death and effects ones next attempt (reincarnation). The irony is that hoping that something bad happens to someone through karma creates bad karma for the person thinking it. See how I was able to work both irony and karma into that? Pretty neat huh? Well now I am off to get my reward of Coka-cola and some form of snack. Probably cigarettes or heroin, I don't know.
Of course it's not.
Kharma is not a revenge fantasy so much as it is a cosmic justification for a stratified society.
You are born closer to the top because you were good in the cycle, where the people below are there because of their misdeeds. kinda justifies mistreating those below you.
Sounds a great deal worse then a cosmic revenge fantasy worse when properly applied, doesn't it?
None of what you said is close to correct.
It has nothing to do with stratified society.
Doing well cosmically (ie enlightenment, ect ect) has nothing to do with ones social status, such as in Christianity being rich or poor has nothing to do with whether one can get into Heaven. Have you seen a Hindu or Yoga mystic? Did they look like they were on the top of society? Did you see them treating other people badly for that matter? Mistreating those "below" oneself would only add bad karma to the person doing it thus making there ability to break free from the cycle of life and death that much more difficult/extended.
generalgrog wrote:I'll comment on the sheep thing.
It's biblical. Jesus used the term sheep as an allegory to describe believers. In John: 21 he asked Peter to "feed his sheep". Jesus also said in John 10:11 "I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep."
The bible is full of references refering to believers as sheep.
The problem I see is that this reference has beeen twisted by certain people to imply that believers are stupid, ignorant, blind, etc. I know that I have seen the term sheep used as a derogatory term, by unbelievers aimed towards believers. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of what the term sheep means in a biblical context.
GG
And let's be fair, people are like sheep. The more of them you have, the dumber they get. Like a real herd of sheep.
Kharma is not a revenge fantasy so much as it is a cosmic justification for a stratified society.
You are born closer to the top because you were good in the cycle, where the people below are there because of their misdeeds. kinda justifies mistreating those below you.
Sounds a great deal worse then a cosmic revenge fantasy worse when properly applied, doesn't it?
None of what you said is close to correct.
It has nothing to do with stratified society.
Doing well cosmically (ie enlightenment, ect ect) has nothing to do with ones social status, such as in Christianity being rich or poor has nothing to do with whether one can get into Heaven. Have you seen a Hindu or Yoga mystic? Did they look like they were on the top of society? Did you see them treating other people badly for that matter? Mistreating those "below" oneself would only add bad karma to the person doing it thus making there ability to break free from the cycle of life and death that much more difficult/extended.
Firstly, you are aware there are multiple interpretations of kharma, correct?
Secondly, you are aware, regardless of any divine truths, religion is a human institution and can be manipulated.
Finally, regardless of what you may wish to believe of kharma the truth of the matter is that it is and wasthe religious tool used to help enforce the caste system of the Hindu society. You ask have I seen a mystic. I ask you have you seen an untouchable?
I never stated people wouldn't screw things up. Christianity was used to justify Slavery at a time, that doesn't mean it was correct. Just as using Karma as an excuse for a caste system isn't correct. The Upanishads and Vedas as well as multiple Sutras say nothing about this.
Of course you can have multiple interpretations of something, that doesn't mean they are all correct, and yours is not correct.
Misinterpretation and misrepresentation don't change the truth of a thing. Almost every religion has been used as an excuse to cause harm at one point or another, that doesn't mean the entirety of the religion should be dismissed and it doesn't mean that what the twisted or misunderstood application was neither twisted or misunderstood. It still doesn't change that Karma (using whichever translation method you choose to use) is not what you said.
Ahtman wrote:I never stated people wouldn't screw things up. Christianity was used to justify Slavery at a time, that doesn't mean it was correct. Just as using Karma as an excuse for a caste system isn't correct. The Upanishads and Vedas as well as multiple Sutras say nothing about this.
Of course you can have multiple interpretations of something, that doesn't mean they are all correct, and yours is not correct.
Misinterpretation and misrepresentation don't change the truth of a thing. Almost every religion has been used as an excuse to cause harm at one point or another, that doesn't mean the entirety of the religion should be dismissed and it doesn't mean that what the twisted or misunderstood application was neither twisted or misunderstood. It still doesn't change that Karma (using whichever translation method you choose to use) is not what you said.
This is not misrepresentation. This is a practical application of karma as seen for hundreds of years in the Indian subcontinent. furthermore since your birth into a caste is part of the overall structure of the religion it cannot be said that doing well cosmically has nothing to do with socail status. In rural India to this day it is part an parcel a feature of the "Doing well cosmically".
Karma is a part of the overall societal construction that was used to enforce the rigid caste system that evolved. A wide variety of Hindu religious texts as well as the societal traditions of the region, support this viewpoint. Further to this point, the lower castes, in particular the large caste of untouchables could not as a general rule even participate in the religion. Do you realize that a lower caste person could not even aspire to the priesthood? Do you not recognize the inherent wrongness of this?
What a caste member did in the past life binds them to the caste they are in in this life. The only way to ever escape the sucky parts of this life is to be as good an example of your caste in this life so you might get a better life next time. If you screw up badly enough at obeying the caste requirements, you might become an animal. Now that's social and religious control taken to brand new levels. the christian in the middle ages could aspire to better in the current life. A hindu lower caste member's only hope was that if he was good in this life he might get a better life next time.
That Hindu mystic may not be at the top of the social chain but maybe check up on his family before you say that the caste and religion aren't connected. As a further aside a mystic does not represent the average beliefs of any religion. The priest hood of the regular people do.
Now that said...
Karma can be said to be the natural results of an action as viewed over an extended periods (looted without shame from Wikipedia because I really don't have time to get books out of the library, and I think I have a fine there anyways) . Where karma braks down for me is that it is then used by the Hindu religion to justify the caste system. Other faiths which use karma do not offend my sensibilities so. Good actions can lead to good things, bad actions to bad things. This can be seen either in a lifetime or over the course of several lifetimes. The Buddhists take this a step further by allowing that ignorance can make an action intended to be good into a bad action.
Broadly, karma can be considered a version cause and effect in the big picture. This is an obvious simplification[u][i] . However, when viewed in regards to my original statement which was more of a random jab at a comment by halonachos while trying to keep in the theme of religion, it was more or less appropriate, if technically incorrect.
I'll concede that maybe the problem is we are talking past each other, thinking the other is saying one thing while meaning another.
Even so, there have been caste systems in many places, much of which had no concept of karma, so i don't think blaming the misuse of an ideal should be placed on the ideal that wasn't originally meant to be used in that way. It is like blaming Nietzsche for Nazism even though he had nothing to do with it. His ideas were perverted to their use but that doesn't mean it was what he was trying to say, much like using the most basic concept karma to impose a caste system is the fault of the concept of karma.
So what you are saying(I think) is that karma was used by the Indian people to justify their caste-system and that it could've just functioned well enough on its own without the belief of karma.
Uri Lee wrote:
But in answer to your question, YES, I am a loon,Welcome to my world! Everyone's insane, there is no such thing as sanity....is there?
Yes, there is. Its really quite nice.
Uri Lee wrote:
Unless you think sanity is thinking the same as everyone else, then I would personally call that insanity.
There was a movie about this a while ago. It was called Fight Club. So, by your own definition, you're quite insane.
Uri Lee wrote:
But I don't think the same as everyone else, so am I sane? Who's gonna be the judge? Are'n't you taught not to judge, lest you be judged yourself?
Nope. I was taught to judge per my best experience while giving the benefit of the doubt.
lol i did say I was going to stay on topic, however this is quite funny.
Since, sanity/insanity are just labels for whether an observer judges someones thought processes to fall into the accepted norm/or not, neither can truly exist, except in ones mind as a judgment.
halonachos wrote:So what you are saying(I think) is that karma was used by the Indian people to justify their caste-system and that it could've just functioned well enough on its own without the belief of karma.
Not at all. What I am saying is that even if they didn't have a concept karma there still would have been a caste system, which has nothing to do with karma. If it hadn't have been Karma it would have been something else, like say Divine Right. Placing the blame on Karma is placing the blame in the wrong place, assuming one is a against the caste system.
On the subject of Karma, I was under the impression that it caught up with you when it was reincarnation time, and not during your lifetime. Good Karma meant a step up the ladder, bad a step down (or possibly reset?).
There is an underlying implication with karma that those who have a poor lot in life somehow deserve it that I've always found distasteful. It does help reinforce caste/class sytems as well, as do concepts like 'the meek shall inherit the Earth'/'Quiet down poor people, you'll get what you deserve in the next life.'
Ahtman wrote:Christianity was used to justify Slavery at a time, that doesn't mean it was correct.
This is a slightly different situation however, as the Bible specifically condones slavery on more than one instance.
That is a bit of an oversimplification. The old testament is where it comes up and it neither really condemns nor condones it, it just is. Jesus's words are pretty much the opposite of everything slavery is, which is also why the abolition movement was very strongly motivated by Christian ideology in England and the US. As with the karma question it is more in how a religious idea is bent to make it say what pleases you. In science it is determing the outcome then trying to make the evidence fit. In India it was used to make the caste system last, in Europe it made human trafficking ok. Still, blaming Christianity for slavery or Hinduism for allowing the caste system miss's the mark and ignores the greater social and cultural drives to sustain these ideas, such as political power and greed.
Greebynog wrote:There is an underlying implication with karma that those who have a poor lot in life somehow deserve it that I've always found distasteful. It does help reinforce caste/class sytems as well, as do concepts like 'the meek shall inherit the Earth'/'Quiet down poor people, you'll get what you deserve in the next life.'
that's a bit of a cynical way to look at it. Based on his teachings, Jesus was a realist. There will always be a group that's less advantaged than the median. The point of that beatitude is that divine judgment occurs regardless of earthly status.
If you look at it, jesus formed christianity much like the way cults form. Target the poor and the rich, promise them good things, and get them to believe in you. Whether or not christianity in whole and the other orld religions are just some cult remains to be seen.
Did anyone else see that history channel special talking about the books and psalms that weren't used in the bible? They said that there are writings about lil' jesus and how much he was a prick. He blinded a guy who said that Joseph's craftmanship was horrible.
Greebynog wrote:There is an underlying implication with karma that those who have a poor lot in life somehow deserve it that I've always found distasteful. It does help reinforce caste/class sytems as well, as do concepts like 'the meek shall inherit the Earth'/'Quiet down poor people, you'll get what you deserve in the next life.'
that's a bit of a cynical way to look at it. Based on his teachings, Jesus was a realist. There will always be a group that's less advantaged than the median. The point of that beatitude is that divine judgment occurs regardless of earthly status.
The beattidudes are a description of the "normal" Christian life. It's another allegory, that Jesus used to illustrate Christian living.
For example, being poor in spirit has nothing to do with monetary status. It has to do with humility, relating to spirituality.
Being meek is also about humility, and the inheriting the earth is refering to the afterlife.
The bottom line is, that if your life isn't living up to what the beattitudes are describing, you need to check yourself spiritually to see why you aren't living up to the "normal" Christian life.
halonachos wrote:If you look at it, jesus formed christianity much like the way cults form. Target the poor and the rich, promise them good things, and get them to believe in you. Whether or not christianity in whole and the other orld religions are just some cult remains to be seen.
Unless it is tribal, all religions start as cults. While it can be used as a pejorative, cult also refers to a religion in its seed form. Jesus didn't really form Christianity either. He went around and talked but it was his followers after his death that really formed it. Saying just talked to the poor and the rich in that time is a bit disingenuous as really those were almost the only two classifications. Not much of a middle class. There was the elite and the mob for the most part.
Ahtman wrote: Jesus didn't really form Christianity either. He went around and talked but it was his followers after his death that really formed it.
I guess it really depends on how you look at it. If you view Jesus as just some guy that went around pushing his views, and you deny his divinity and resurrection. Maybe you would see it as his followers that formed Christianity.
I however believe Jesus, when he explained to Peter that "upon this rock will I build My Church".
Matt16:16-18
16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Ahtman wrote: Jesus didn't really form Christianity either. He went around and talked but it was his followers after his death that really formed it.
I guess it really depends on how you look at it. If you view Jesus as just some guy that went around pushing his views, and you deny his divinity and resurrection. Maybe you would see it as his followers that formed Christianity.
I however believe Jesus, when he explained to Peter that "upon this rock will I build My Church".
Matt16:16-18
16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
GG
Jesus certainly laid the foundation for Christianity, and is the raison d'etre to boot, but it was very unfinished by the time of the Ascension. It was, to crib from Dogma, an idea, a promise, and a mechanism for salvation. As a religion, it grew over time.
halonachos wrote:I was rather hoping for a debate between the validity of cults today as opposed to the established religions of the world, but this is good too.
From dictionary.com
CULT
1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3. the object of such devotion.
4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
7. the members of such a religion or sect.
8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.
I agree that the early Church fits the technical definition, particularly #'s 1,2,4. I would agree that as the years went by, for some sects, you could add #5 to that list.
I'm not sure what you mean by "validity of cults today", but if you are talking about modern cults like Mormons, Jehovas Witnesses, Christian Science, and others they have some serious problems when the magnifying glass is turned on. I would consider them to be #6. Those 3 cults all have roots involving questionable "charasmatic" leaders. Mormons had Joe Smith, and Brigham Young. Jehovas witnesses had Charles Taze Russel. Christian Science had Mary Baker Eddy.
Wasn't christianity seen as unorthodox when it first started, as was buddhism, judaism, and many others? So what makes them more acceptable than any of the newer cults?
halonachos wrote:Wasn't christianity seen as unorthodox when it first started, as was buddhism, judaism, and many others? So what makes them more acceptable than any of the newer cults?
Well first off I guess you could call Christianity a "cult" of Judaism, in that Christianity was birthed from the old testement/Judaism. I'm not sure how different modern Judaism is now from the time of Jesus, I know they no longer sacrifice animals since the temple was destroyed in the 1st century. But what made Christianity acceptable was that it was a fullfillment of Judaism, I.E. the Messiah had come, and the teachings of Christ were harmonious with Judaism.
The modern Christian cults (most of them are less than 200 years old) are at odds with orthodox Christianity, and I explained a lot of this pages ago. A good book I keep mentioning to read is called "Kingdom of the Cults" by Dr. Walter Martin. He goes into all of the mainstream cults that were around at the time he wrote the book, in addition to the three I mentioned, there is also transendental meditation, The Family, Moonies, Scientology, and many others.
Okay, but what I meant was this: Judaism started as a cult and has lasted this long and is called mainstream religion. If a modern day cult lasts the same amount of time, would it be a valid religion like judaism or christianity.
halonachos wrote:Okay, but what I meant was this: Judaism started as a cult and has lasted this long and is called mainstream religion. If a modern day cult lasts the same amount of time, would it be a valid religion like judaism or christianity.
Help me out here, how did Judaism start as a cult?
It started as a small group of people, it came after many polytheistic religions and zoroasterism. The romans thought that the jews were crazy for believing in a guy named god.
Except that you can trace it back to Noah right? Thats 6,000 yrs old. Maybe I'm confusing the Hebrews with Judaism, I'm not very up to date on Judaism, I admit.
EDIT: I guess to be more precise the Hebrews started with Jacob who became Isreal right?
GG
Uri Lee wrote:
Since, sanity/insanity are just labels for whether an observer judges someones thought processes to fall into the accepted norm/or not, neither can truly exist, except in ones mind as a judgment.
A postmodernism, how I loathe thee. Yes, sanity is a social construct. However, social construction is essential to the human condition. The fact that something exists only in such a fashion does not change the fact that it might be compulsive, or useful, only the precision with which any given person can hope to judge someone according to that thijng.
generalgrog wrote:Except that you can trace it back to Noah right? Thats 6,000 yrs old. Maybe I'm confusing the Hebrews with Judaism, I'm not very up to date on Judaism, I admit.
EDIT: I guess to be more precise the Hebrews started with Jacob who became Isreal right?
GG
I thought it was Isaac and Ismael. One would go on to found the Hebrew tribes and the other the Arab tribes. Off the top of my head I can't real which was which. It's all connected of course.
There is a difference between what, for a lack of a better term, I'll call tribal religion and transfer religions. Tribal religion is an integral part of a groups identity and in essence has always been with them, like the Hebrews and Judiasm or the Navajo and their beliefs. A transfer religion isn't bound to ethnic identity (nearly as often, this is a big world after all). While there was some debate early in Christianity about whether a believer needed to convert to Judiasm before becoming a Christian (Jesus was Jewish after all) that eventually was a no and now it is spread all over the world. Judiasm on the other hand doesn't really seek converts and whether they can take converts at all is debated, depending on the level of orthodoxy. Tribal religions don't start out as we tend to think of the term cult but transfer religions do. Christianity started out as the Cult of Jesus. It wasn't really all the loved early on and had to endure persecution. Now it is one of a handful of dominant idealogies/faiths and tends to marginalize the newer ones. This isn't meant to lend credence to the Moonies or Scientology or to equate them with Christianity, either. I'm just pointing out that not all religions start in the same way, ie a cult in the normative use.
Uri Lee wrote:
Since, sanity/insanity are just labels for whether an observer judges someones thought processes to fall into the accepted norm/or not, neither can truly exist, except in ones mind as a judgment.
A postmodernism, how I loathe thee. Yes, sanity is a social construct. However, social construction is essential to the human condition. The fact that something exists only in such a fashion does not change the fact that it might be compulsive, or useful, only the precision with which any given person can hope to judge someone according to that thijng.
You loathe me?......nice! You're the one who pidgeon-holed me, but I wouldn't expect anything better, since such behaviour is drilled into many societies from a very early age. So I will thank you, for you have just reinforced my final point:
When you say that social construction is 'essential' to the human condition, I will use a hypothetical example, that if a human being spends most, or even all of his life isolated from any social constructions, that he may be less of a human being in your judgement, than one who is conditioned by a surrounding society? Or is it just that social construction is essential to human contitioning, in order to establish a pyramidic distribution of power and wealth, and a so called 'order' that ensures the stability and acceptance of such a structure?
Any one who fails to meet the accepted standards of norm, is pidgeon-holed, as if the nominalization descrbes their identity, then what they actualy say needs no more discrediting! thus the status quo is preserved.
I do agree, however, that my stated views,could be interpreted as'postmodernistic', and I am happy to have them labelled as such, but such labels do not adequatley describe my identity, just one of my behaviours(thought being fundamentaly the behaviour of my synapses).
This person who lives all alone and is "unconditioned", how did they raise themselves from infancy alone? Even if it is a baby alone in the woods the only way it is surviving is if at least one person picks it up and raises and trains it. It will still be learning acceptable modes of behavior and how to cope with a group dynamic, even if that group is just two. No man is an island. Even if he leaves and goes off alone in the middle of no where everything he does will be based on what was learned, in some fashion, by the other. How useful would it be to let people who are dangerously mentally ill run around and hurt themselves and others? If one of them hurt killed or killed a loved one of yours are you just going to shrug and say "well he only seems dangerous and insane to me, no need to be concerned"? For that matter why put anyone in jail. I don't care if some guy robs a store 10 states over. Doesn't effect me from perspective. They might have really needed it so it was actually the right thing, so it should be allowed. Who are we to decide what is ok and what isn't?
Uri Lee wrote:
You loathe me?......nice! You're the one who pidgeon-holed me, but I wouldn't expect anything better, since such behaviour is drilled into many societies from a very early age. So I will thank you, for you have just reinforced my final point:
Ahtman wrote:
No, he loathes postmodernism.
True statement.
Also, I haven't peidgeon-holed anything. You are clearly arguing from the perspective of a postmodernist. This doesn't mean you are a postmodernist, but for the purposes of argument I can only address you as such. You could potentially float an entirely separate line of argumentation tomorrow, and I would address that one in an entirely different fashion.
Uri Lee wrote:
When you say that social construction is 'essential' to the human condition, I will use a hypothetical example, that if a human being spends most, or even all of his life isolated from any social constructions, that he may be less of a human being in your judgement, than one who is conditioned by a surrounding society?
Such a human being is nearly impossible. In fact, I might argue that without the benefits provided by society (technology, language, etc.) it is fully impossible. In order for a human being to be completely isolated from social construction his parents would have to be killed within a few years of his birth. Then the now orphaned and helpless child would have to survive alone in the wild without any knowledge or technical advantages.
Uri Lee wrote:
Or is it just that social construction is essential to human contitioning, in order to establish a pyramidic distribution of power and wealth, and a so called 'order' that ensures the stability and acceptance of such a structure?
Even animals are conditioned by their environment. This includes members of their own species. This conditioning is required for survival to be anything beyond an exercise in chance. We might be able to do away with social construction, but the mortality rate would be so high that its doubtful our species would survive.
Keep in mind what you're actually discussing when you say social constructions are unimportant. I noted this above, but it bear spelling out. Language, technology, science, logic, and religion are all social constructions. It is the human ability to utilize social force in order to shape the larger environment which makes us such amazingly adaptive creatures.
Uri Lee wrote:
Any one who fails to meet the accepted standards of norm, is pidgeon-holed, as if the nominalization descrbes their identity, then what they actualy say needs no more discrediting! thus the status quo is preserved.
Yes, they are labeled. And yes, the label does describe their identity given its apparent presentation. However, it does no implicitly limit their identity as appearances can be deceiving, and alternate contexts can allow for new insight into any given person's position.
Uri Lee wrote:
I do agree, however, that my stated views,could be interpreted as'postmodernistic', and I am happy to have them labelled as such, but such labels do not adequatley describe my identity, just one of my behaviours(thought being fundamentaly the behaviour of my synapses).
Of course I didn't actually reference your identity, only your argument. Though I would never actually incorporate the espoused philosophy of anyone still living into their identity, as such positions can change markedly in a short period of time.
In any case, I imagine you've taken a few too many gender theory classes as that is the only discipline where postmodernism is still in vogue. In that arena it has quite a few valid points, given the significance a person's gender has on their psychological evolution.
Two very different meanings, to me anyway! But I thank you for your insight into the "American" language, since I've only ever been taught to understand English!
Two very different meanings, to me anyway! But I thank you for your insight into the "American" language, since I've only ever been taught to understand English!
dogma wrote:
In any case, I imagine you've taken a few too many gender theory classes as that is the only discipline where postmodernism is still in vogue. In that arena it has quite a few valid points, given the significance a person's gender has on their psychological evolution.
Gender theory classes are a concept I am unfamiliar with, but mathematics however is.
Why don't you rearrange the following simple equation to make 'u' the subject:
(at)squared=(u/Tw)(u/Tw)
dogma wrote:
In any case, I imagine you've taken a few too many gender theory classes as that is the only discipline where postmodernism is still in vogue. In that arena it has quite a few valid points, given the significance a person's gender has on their psychological evolution.
Gender theory classes are a concept I am unfamiliar with, but mathematics however is.
Why don't you rearrange the following simple equation to make 'u' the subject:
(at)squared=(u/Tw)(u/Tw)
lol, bye
(at)squared=(u/Tw)(u/Tw) =s whatever you want it to be (lawyer math).
Two very different meanings, to me anyway! But I thank you for your insight into the "American" language, since I've only ever been taught to understand English!
Interesting. You seem to lack reading comprehension. Here is the exact quote:
dogma wrote:
A postmodernism, how I loathe thee.
The typo is present in the first word. The 'A' was intended to be 'Ah'.
The rest is quite clear given the presence of a comma, and not a period. 'Thee' refers to the subject of the sentence which is 'postmodernism'.
Is it strictly precise English? No, because 'thee' is generally used to denote a person. However, it is both grammatically correct and aesthetically useful.
Uri Lee wrote:
Gender theory classes are a concept I am unfamiliar with, but mathematics however is.
Why don't you rearrange the following simple equation to make 'u' the subject:
(at)squared=(u/Tw)(u/Tw)
lol, bye
Was that equation the result of conditioning, or did you come up with it all by yourself?
I'm a fundamentalist Christian. And contrary to what most people (or at least, most internet goers) seem to think, I am not a hateful bigot who bashes people over the heads with my Bible.
In fact, I'm almost the complete opposite. I will have a conversation with someone about my faith, but only in person. It's simply too easy to misconstrue the meaning of words over the Interwebs, and phone conversations are little better.
Anyway. I gave up arguing about religion over the web a long time ago. It's just a subject that people get ridiculously passionate about, and one that I think ought to be avoided.
Welcome Brother Andrecus, I agree that most of the time it's a bad idea to talk about religion on the internet, because it usually devolves into petty arguments. However this thread has been remarkably well behaved, with the occasional flareup, but then it dies down to people actually talking respectfully again. (Frazz gets a lot of credit for that)
I have been kind of staying out of most of the discussion lately, because I don't really have much interest in philosophical ideas, but when I see something that I feel needs to be addressed I will chime in. Afterall internet people need to hear truth as well as non internet people.
Hahaha, you sure showed him. Man, I haven't laughed so hard in a long time. It's a great thing you came to this thread to share your particular brand of wisdom and argument style.
And you are a 30-something adult too? Amazing, I haven't seen humor so great since my early teen years.
As much as you might like to believe basic algebra escapes the majority of people in the world, it doesn't. You aren't privy to some great, esoteric truth. Hell, you aren't even exceptionally witty. Not even in the delightfully pithy English sense.
If you could come up with a mathematical equation which expressed the hilarity that is Benny Hill, then you might have something.
Speaking of me
Modquisition on:
A reminder polite conversation is required on this thread. If you cannot post without insulting another member, a religion or nonbelief therein, then simply observe the thread and do not post.
In this instance-UriLee and Dogma, lets cool it down and remember, even comments not intended to be insulted can be seen so. I will send friendly PM's to this effect as well.
As much as you might like to believe basic algebra escapes the majority of people in the world, it doesn't. You aren't privy to some great, esoteric truth. Hell, you aren't even exceptionally witty. Not even in the delightfully pithy English sense.
If you could come up with a mathematical equation which expressed the hilarity that is Benny Hill, then you might have something.
Sorry, even the revered Einstein couldn't have possibly done that imho, Benny Hill has never been funny!
'philosophy:From the Greek philo, meaning "love of," and sophia, meaning "wisdom," philosophy is literally a love of wisdom. In practice, it is the pursuit of understanding the human condition-how, why, and what it means to exist or to be.'
I find it interesting to hear that some fundamental believers of religion have no interest in philosophy, so by very definition, have no interest in the pursuit of wisdom, at least by any logical means.
I wonder, and am open to hear, what may be the explaination for this?
Because philosophy is not necesarily the pursuit of truth. From what I understand of it, it is more about expanding knowledge and intellectualism. Nothing wrong with that at all and I admit that I may have a misunderstanding of what philospohy is.
But I think I am correct when I say that philosophy may bring you to some truth/enlightenment, it doesn't automatically mean that you will. That's why I prefer to focus on the the Word of God.
Uri Lee wrote:'philosophy:From the Greek philo, meaning "love of," and sophia, meaning "wisdom," philosophy is literally a love of wisdom.
Sophia can also be translated as knowledge, so the literal translation is 'love of wisdom and knowledge'. the last few hundred years have seen the knowledge element emphasized, so most people will define the word as 'the love of knowledge', or 'the love of knowledge, and its application'.
Uri Lee wrote:
In practice, it is the pursuit of understanding the human condition-how, why, and what it means to exist or to be.'
The why question is generally regarded as theological territory.
Uri Lee wrote:
I find it interesting to hear that some fundamental believers of religion have no interest in philosophy, so by very definition, have no interest in the pursuit of wisdom, at least by any logical means.
I wonder, and am open to hear, what may be the explaination for this?
Its worth pointing out that what one person regards as philosophy is not necessarily representative of the discipline. For example, Thomas Aquinas was both a philosopher and a theologian, and much of his work incorporates elements of both traditions. So it would be possible to have an interest in Aquinas, and still regard yourself as being uninterested in philosophy.
That little technicality aside: I think the real reason for your observation is the popular assumption that philosophy is tacit to Atheism. This is not the case, but given the popularity of men like Dennet, Dawkins, and Harris (the last two are abysmal philosophers btw) one can be forgiven for reaching such a conclusion in the absence of study.
Also, there tends to be a sense in which the devout avoid anything which isn't 'holy' in the course of guiding their decision making. You end up with people that live by the Bible, the word of their clergy, and their own experience; dismissing everything else as useless, or academic.
generalgrog wrote:Because philosophy is not necesarily the pursuit of truth. From what I understand of it, it is more about expanding knowledge and intellectualism. Nothing wrong with that at all and I admit that I may have a misunderstanding of what philospohy is.
But I think I am correct when I say that philosophy may bring you to some truth/enlightenment, it doesn't automatically mean that you will. That's why I prefer to focus on the the Word of God.
GG
Philosophy will tell you what truth is. However, it will not tell you how you fit into that truth, or whether or not such a truth can be useful to you. For example, say you're taking a test which only 5% of people will ever pass. The truth is that you probably won't pass, and that your effort is likely going to be wasted. This truth is not useful as it is likely to further constrict you overall chance of success due to the phenomena of self-fulfilling prophecy. As such, you turn to irrational statements in order to delude yourself into belief. For some people these statements involve God, for others they involve unproven, personal prowess. The specific nature of the statement doesn't really matter. All that matters is that the delusion modifies the truth in order to make it aesthetically palatable.
The funny thing is that this is an entirely rational process. Given your objective of passing the test you have every reason to be irrational. This fact escapes the majority of contemporary philosophers in their consideration of God.
generalgrog wrote:Because philosophy is not necesarily the pursuit of truth. From what I understand of it, it is more about expanding knowledge and intellectualism. Nothing wrong with that at all and I admit that I may have a misunderstanding of what philospohy is.
But I think I am correct when I say that philosophy may bring you to some truth/enlightenment, it doesn't automatically mean that you will. That's why I prefer to focus on the the Word of God.
GG
Philosophy will tell you what truth is. However, it will not tell you how you fit into that truth, or whether or not such a truth can be useful to you. For example, say you're taking a test which only 5% of people will ever pass. The truth is that you probably won't pass, and that your effort is likely going to be wasted. This truth is not useful as it is likely to further constrict you overall chance of success due to the phenomena of self-fulfilling prophecy. As such, you turn to irrational statements in order to delude yourself into belief. For some people these statements involve God, for others they involve unproven, personal prowess. The specific nature of the statement doesn't really matter. All that matters is that the delusion modifies the truth in order to make it aesthetically palatable.
The funny thing is that this is an entirely rational process. Given your objective of passing the test you have every reason to be irrational. This fact escapes the majority of contemporary philosophers in their consideration of God.
But couldn't you also delude yourself into thinking it's a delusion? I.E. you create your own version of truth and live by those principals, disregarding what the real truth is?
Uh-Oh..I've entered into philosophy.
This is another reason why I don't really like engaging in philosophical arguments because there are too many what if scenarios. LOL
But couldn't you also delude yourself into thinking it's a delusion? I.E. you create your own version of truth and live by those principals, disregarding what the real truth is?
You could, but that would mean presuming the entirety of the material world is an illusion, which isn't particularly useful given that it is more than capable of causing you pain, pleasure, happiness, and any number of other sensations.
But those could all be illusory senses as well. Indeed, if you are steeped in the mantra that everything is an illusion or dream if you will then those sensations have less meaning.
Dogma I don't think I did a good job of making myself clear.
Let me give an example of what I was getting at.
Richard Dawkins wrote a book called "The God Delusion". While I haven't read the book personnaly, I have seen many clips of him and seen him interviewed. He contends that people that believe in God are deluded. So I was trying to point out that it appears that from a philosophical perspective,he could very well be the one that is deluded. And from a philosophical perspective he would believe that I am deluded.
Of course from a theological perspective I believe he is deluded.
So either Richard Dawkins is deluded or I'm deluded. Neither one of us can prove that each other are deluded, so aren't we really just wasting our time with philosophy?
So either Richard Dawkins is deluded or I'm deluded. Neither one of us can prove that each other are deluded, so aren't we really just wasting our time with philosophy?
I had the (mis)fortune of going to the same school as my dad for the first year. Dad was a hard A$$ed former Marine who grew up in an orphanage and joined the Corps so he could eat.
Many years later, he had to take a philosophy class from a "long haired book pusher," who made the statement "nothing is real, not this room, not you, not me." So Dad replies "Cool so I can come dressed as a giant Rabbit, hit you with this chair and take your wallet, because I'm just a figment of your imagination. Everyone its Professor's buying the next round. " Professor loved that...
Hope you're hittin those 500 yd driver shots up there like you always wanted Dadman.
Richard Dawkins wrote a book called "The God Delusion". While I haven't read the book personnaly, I have seen many clips of him and seen him interviewed. He contends that people that believe in God are deluded. So I was trying to point out that it appears that from a philosophical perspective,he could very well be the one that is deluded. And from a philosophical perspective he would believe that I am deluded.
Of course from a theological perspective I believe he is deluded.
Or, weirdly enough,.... both sides are right.
Religious people are because God can make the logically impossible possible ( ie miracles) so something could therefore be both true and false at the same time. Horrifically reality might b much more democratic than we'd like to think.
And of course, IF we accept that God is benevolent/loving/wishes us the best.... then he also doesn't exist, but only for the non believers. Whilst simultaneously existing for those who do believe.
Quoting frazzled:'I had the (mis)fortune of going to the same school as my dad for the first year. Dad was a hard A$$ed former Marine who grew up in an orphanage and joined the Corps so he could eat.
Many years later, he had to take a philosophy class from a "long haired book pusher," who made the statement "nothing is real, not this room, not you, not me." So Dad replies "Cool so I can come dressed as a giant Rabbit, hit you with this chair and take your wallet, because I'm just a figment of your imagination. Everyone its Professor's buying the next round. " Professor loved that...'
Interesting story, is it true?
The very question of whether or not it is true is not so to as cast aspersions on your honesty, but rather to wonder just how much one can trust second/third hand information.
Like many doctrines, they may contain interesting stories, even 'parables', but just how much can one verify their reliablility, when the author, even if a first hand witness, will inevitably have had his own unique interpretation of said events?
Or possibly the authors of any texts, will have a particular message they want to express, for a particular reason, which can easily get lost in our own interpretation of the text itself?
Uri Lee wrote:Quoting frazzled:'I had the (mis)fortune of going to the same school as my dad for the first year. Dad was a hard A$$ed former Marine who grew up in an orphanage and joined the Corps so he could eat.
Many years later, he had to take a philosophy class from a "long haired book pusher," who made the statement "nothing is real, not this room, not you, not me." So Dad replies "Cool so I can come dressed as a giant Rabbit, hit you with this chair and take your wallet, because I'm just a figment of your imagination. Everyone its Professor's buying the next round. " Professor loved that...'
Interesting story, is it true?
The very question of whether or not it is true is not so to as cast aspersions on your honesty, but rather to wonder just how much one can trust second/third hand information.
Like many doctrines, they may contain interesting stories, even 'parables', but just how much can one verify their reliablility, when the author, even if a first hand witness, will inevitably have had his own unique interpretation of said events?
Or possibly the authors of any texts, will have a particular message they want to express, for a particular reason, which can easily get lost in our own interpretation of the text itself?
Is anything true...ah...question reality....
In this circumstance (if we believe the world is real) yes. Dad told me the story as did the professor who pulled my leg about it. It was a small school and we had the same guy. Dadman was trying to get a degree in his early sixties while still working. He was weird like that.
generalgrog wrote:
Richard Dawkins wrote a book called "The God Delusion". While I haven't read the book personnaly, I have seen many clips of him and seen him interviewed. He contends that people that believe in God are deluded. So I was trying to point out that it appears that from a philosophical perspective,he could very well be the one that is deluded. And from a philosophical perspective he would believe that I am deluded.
You're confusing theology, and philosophy. Philosophy turns on logic, and verifiability. Theology turns on feeling, and belief.
generalgrog wrote:
Of course from a theological perspective I believe he is deluded.
You can't really be theologically deluded as theology is about sensation, not logic.
generalgrog wrote:
So either Richard Dawkins is deluded or I'm deluded. Neither one of us can prove that each other are deluded, so aren't we really just wasting our time with philosophy?
GG
The thing is that the question of God's existence is not really philosophical because it cannot be resolved through logic due to a lack of available evidence. What philosophy can do is decide whether or not God is a useful illusion in the same vein as something like free will, or choice.
dogma wrote:
The thing is that the question of God's existence is not really philosophical because it cannot be resolved through logic due to a lack of available evidence. What philosophy can do is decide whether or not God is a useful illusion in the same vein as something like free will, or choice.
Actually, now correct me if I am wrong, philosophy can't decide anything, it is ourselves that make decisions, using whatever tools of the mind that we may choose to use.
Speaking possibly from a perspective of psychosis, which I am begining to see isn't that peculiar to the 'few', reality/truth is whatever a person percieves it to be. The truth is there is no truth, a perfect paradox.
(although I think this means that this statement may also be false, to someone else, if they percieve it so). LOL (edited for more typos)
There is nothing wrong with religion... only the people who run it like a business. The ONLY reason that we (as a race) have problems is because of the Church / [insert your version] and their self serving propaganda.
My dad still says "If I want to worship God, then I'll do it in my house - not what someone says is His house, and I'll do it on any day - not His day (Sunday).
Humanity (moralistic overtones) is the prevalent guide... EVERY religion says (more or less) that there is only one God... every member of the Human race (and prob other races as well, except Dark Eldar) want peace and tranquility, to be treated fair and just, and to be cared about.
That’s got nothing to do with religion... it's called life... step away from the books and truly treat your fellow man in a manner that you would like to be treated (this doesn't apply to persons active in S&M).
I have found it disconcerting when a 'Youth Leader'(with whom I have been friends with for many years) from a local church, said to me, and I quote:
'Isn't it ridiculous, how scientists believe the Universe started with a Big Bang, as if two planets colliding together could cause all of this!'(unquote)
After explaining to her that according to this theory, there would have been no planets formed to collide with each other, as the fundamental particles of matter/anti matter would have only just been formed from 'Pair Creation' out of the electromagnetic radiation(actualy,imho, the best explanation of a "let there be light" beginning), let alone cohered to make simple nuclei, and in turn, atoms, molecules or planets.
I walked away worried about how a unquestioning belief in DOGMA can cause such rejection, even ridicule of knowledge.
(edited several times! feth, my typing is abismal)
Uri Lee wrote:I have found it disconcerting when a 'Youth Leader'(with whom I have been friends with for many years) from a local church, said to me, and I quote:
'Isn't it ridiculous, how scientists believe the Universe started with a Big Bang, as if two planets colliding together could cause all of this!'(unquote)
After explaining to her that according to this theory, there would have been no planets formed to collide with each other, as the fundamental particles of matter/anti matter would have only just been formed from 'Pair Creation' out of the electromagnetic radiation(actualy,imho, the best explanation of a "let there be light" beginning), let alone cohered to make simple nuclei, and in turn, atoms, molecules or planets.
I walked away worried about how a unquestioning belief in DOGMA can cause such rejection, even ridicule of knowledge.
(edited several times! feth, my typing is abismal)
Here is the problem with what you just said Uri. You are critisizing/ridiculing a person because they don't believe in the big bang theory as put out by the general scientific community. Yet you seem perfectly willing to accept the scientific explanation, as DOGMA. Why is it so hard for you to realize that you may be the one that is acting off of the conditioning and DOGMA of modern academia, and maybe you are the one acting off of a rejection principle?
This is pecisely what I have been getting at, if you look at the previous posts and other threads on this issue.(we covered it a few times allready)
The bottom line is that science doesn't really know, and cannot adequatley explain how the universe started, so they use assumptions(there is that word again) and guesses to create a theory.
Dogma# A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
# An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.
I myself am a believer, in Jesus. However, it is the 'Word of God' I have reservations in. I have learned about some sciences, and have absorbed some of the knowledge therein, yet I am totaly open to the fact that I have only the author of the science text book believe or not, and since I haven't done any high energy particle experiments my self, I am totaly open to the fact that the results and subsequent postulations about the origins of the universe may not be infact true. So why may may I not ask the same questions about the Bible?
You may ask why would I choose to learn about something, whilst being uncertain if it's validity? The answer my friend is simply one of qualifications, and doors that they may open to find out more, and possibly to link the scientific with the spiritual(in theory at least).
My point is to adress whether or not it is helpful to simply take a religious teaching as pure, untainted and unquestionable. When clearly the authors of such teachings were not privy to the imformation we have abvout the physical world in which we live(wasn't the world considered to be flat at one point, and the bible refer to taking the message to all 'four corners of the earth'),surely then we can assume that some modernisation is required in its interpretation.
Uri Lee wrote:
Actually, now correct me if I am wrong, philosophy can't decide anything, it is ourselves that make decisions, using whatever tools of the mind that we may choose to use.
We don't make decisions at all. Unless you believe that the electrons that make up your cognitive 'essence' also make decisions. Intelligence is an illusion of scale. Either way, when we discuss decisions of philosophy we discuss people making decisions in accordance with philosophical method as bounded by the constraints of apparent reality.
Uri Lee wrote:
Speaking possibly from a perspective of psychosis, which I am begining to see isn't that peculiar to the 'few', reality/truth is whatever a person percieves it to be. The truth is there is no truth, a perfect paradox.
The truth is that there is a truth, which can be interpreted multiple ways. For example, you wouldn't try to claim that the computer you're typing on is not a thing. You might claim that it isn't a computer, but you would never claim it didn't actually exist relative to those other objects which make up existence.
Uri Lee wrote:
(although I think this means that this statement may also be false, to someone else, if they percieve it so). LOL (edited for more typos)
Yeah, that's the purpose of paradox; uncovering mental biases.
Here is the problem with what you just said Uri. You are critisizing/ridiculing a person because they don't believe in the big bang theory as put out by the general scientific community. Yet you seem perfectly willing to accept the scientific explanation, as DOGMA. Why is it so hard for you to realize that you may be the one that is acting off of the conditioning and DOGMA of modern academia, and maybe you are the one acting off of a rejection principle?
No, he accepts it as a scientific theory that is well supported by mathematical and observational evidence. The Biblical creation story is not supported by mathematical or observational evidence, and so is not to be treated as sound. At least not from a strictly informational perspective, as an allegory it works well in concert with scientific knowledge.
generalgrog wrote:
The bottom line is that science doesn't really know, and cannot adequatley explain how the universe started, so they use assumptions(there is that word again) and guesses to create a theory.
Assumptions which are corroborated by observation, and under a continual process of revision.
The real bottom line is that no one knows how the universe started in the sense that he was there at the beginning. Everyone who make such a claim is merely theorizing. The question is over how consistent such theories are with the present body of empirical evidence.
please explain how a paradox has any purpose, I admit ignorance, for I don't understand how it can do so.
You make a statement like: God is powerful, but also not powerful. Then you ask the person to whom the statement is posed to make sense of it. The action they take in doing so reveals (supposedly) their character. For example, a person driven by logic would simply say it was nonsense. A person driven by spirituality would say its revelatory. A person driven by science would ask for more detail. The list goes on.
oh, I just thought they made no sense in our finite minds, and have always tried to analize the paradox itself, rather than to analize a person to which it is adressed.
I wonder what that says about me?(rhetorical question)
Uri Lee wrote:Dogma# A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
# An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.
I myself am a believer, in Jesus. However, it is the 'Word of God' I have reservations in. I have learned about some sciences, and have absorbed some of the knowledge therein, yet I am totaly open to the fact that I have only the author of the science text book believe or not, and since I haven't done any high energy particle experiments my self, I am totaly open to the fact that the results and subsequent postulations about the origins of the universe may not be infact true. So why may may I not ask the same questions about the Bible?
You may ask why would I choose to learn about something, whilst being uncertain if it's validity? The answer my friend is simply one of qualifications, and doors that they may open to find out more, and possibly to link the scientific with the spiritual(in theory at least).
My point is to adress whether or not it is helpful to simply take a religious teaching as pure, untainted and unquestionable. When clearly the authors of such teachings were not privy to the imformation we have abvout the physical world in which we live(wasn't the world considered to be flat at one point, and the bible refer to taking the message to all 'four corners of the earth'),surely then we can assume that some modernisation is required in its interpretation.
Uri I agree with most everything you said there. And I find it refreshing that you acknowedge that science doesn't have all the answers, which unfortunately a lot of people don't seem to get.
I see where you are coming from when refering to religious teaching as untainted and unquestinable. And I encourage anyone to question the teachings they are receiving. Questioning is a good thing, and in fact the Bible tells us to test everything that we hear. The issue relates to how you test. And when it comes to doctrine, I believe that you must use the scriptures to test scripture, otherwise you end up with scripture being taken out of context, and people worshiping with poisonous snakes and drinking poison and such.
When you say "Word of God" are you refering to the Bible(I.E. the doctrine of infallibility of scripture)? or what someone may arbitrarily call the "Word of God"
If your talking about the reliablity of the books of the Bible and whether or not they have been redacted/edited/changed, etc. That is another debate and can get rather detailed.
I was refering to the Bible, for some of the most interesting, and in my opinion, enlightening texts have not been included in the old testament, the new testament or even the apocrypha, they have been merely labeled 'pseudoepigraphica'. It seems to me that the church decide what to tell people, not 'THE SOURCE' (as I call God, the reason being that I find it limiting to anthropomorphicaly personify a metaphysical concept).
generalgrog wrote:
Here is the problem with what you just said Uri. You are critisizing/ridiculing a person because they don't believe in the big bang theory as put out by the general scientific community. Yet you seem perfectly willing to accept the scientific explanation, as DOGMA. Why is it so hard for you to realize that you may be the one that is acting off of the conditioning and DOGMA of modern academia, and maybe you are the one acting off of a rejection principle?
This is pecisely what I have been getting at, if you look at the previous posts and other threads on this issue.(we covered it a few times allready)
The bottom line is that science doesn't really know, and cannot adequatley explain how the universe started, so they use assumptions(there is that word again) and guesses to create a theory.
GG
Look, I"m getting annoyed. Your repeated, and by now almost assuredly intentional, misunderstanding and misstatements about the role of science in determining truth are simply insulting. You know, by now, that Science isn't saying with 100% certainly that the big bang is how the universe was formed. They looked at the evidence and tested a few theories and are pretty sure, until a better idea comes along, that they've got a decent working theory. Yes, there are elements of group think in science, but the roots of the theory lay in evidence, logic, and the scientific method. You know this, because you're clearly a relatively intelligent and educated man.
Your insistence on bashing science, and trying to compare it recklessly with matters of faith, bothers me personally as both a man of science and a man of faith, because frankly watching somebody completely miss the point on two things I care about for no gain is a mystery.
So, this leads me to wonder why you keep posting this stuff on science. I can think of four reasons:
1) You genuinely don't understand the role of the scientific method. In this case, your ignorance is excusable, but you should probably refrain from posting on things you know so little about.
2) You're simply a very zealous advocate for bible based Christianity, and things that conflict in any way with the world view ensconced in your faith must be minimized or ignored. That is less excusable, but understandable. However, it does shift you pretty completely into the category of people who aren't debating, simply preaching. Tread carefully on that one.
3) You are aware and understand the reality of science, but you see it as threatening to a religious advocacy, and are willing to engage in intellectual dishonesty to win the bigger prize, which is bringing people to Christ.
4) You just like winning arguments on the internet, and are willing to do what it takes.
I'm sure you think you have a valid point, but you really don't. People believe in big Band theory because while there's maybe a 30% chance that's it's accurate, it's the best working theory we have, and it allows scientists to explore interesting ideas. To compare that process to the process of faith, a whole hearted belief in something for which there is no evidence at all, really misses the point on both things.
on
) I cannot check who made the point about the definition of Atheism throughout history. Hopefully I have answered it. Also, we need to make a distinction between Theism, and Deism, something Websters is seemingly unaware of. Theism is the belief in a PERSONAL God, one who cares about your everyday life, and you as an individual. Deism is the belief in a supernatural force or forces that either control things behind the scenes, or just started the whole thing running and sat back to see what happens. The stereotypical Far-Right American Deep South Christian falls firmly under the former category, for an example. I think the majority of well educated religious people would subscribe to the latter, although they may not realise or admit it. I accept that I could be wrong of course, it's merely a hypothesis.
) it is a scientific theory, with evidence, like gravity. If we have the knowledge to understand the exactitudes of the experiments/research carried out (and I don't myself, although I get the gist) then we can replicate them, and get similar or identical results. It's not like Darwin thought it up, and everyone just thought, 'oh, okay then, must be true', it has been demonstrated many times. Whilst Macro is slightly different, I'm not a biologist and cannot explain any better, or more, I trust the scientific method, as it has been demonstrated to work more times than enough, including by me, so if other people used it to determine Macro, I believe that is reasonable evidence to believe in their findings. I hope that's clear.
about the suffering in the world and how god could allow this, witch eventualy lead me to not beleiveing in god
