|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/07/2004 02:37:16 AM · #251 |
I watched a show on String Theory last year and found it fascinating. It basically describes the universe as consisting of slices of dimensions, as in a loaf of bread. These rippling dimensional planes float around in another dimension and eventually bump into one another, equalising mass and energy between the two planes. It's another theory for Big Bang events. It solves the expand/collapse problem as no collapse is necessary. It also helps to explain the difference in gravitational predictions between quantum physics and relativity, in that gravity (gravitrons) are shared between these various planes. I'm sure I'm not explaining it very clearly, and there's a lot more to it, so go read up (if you're interested) at
The Official String Theory Website
Message edited by author 2004-11-07 02:39:41.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2004 02:37:46 AM · #252 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RobB:
OK. So present some evidencethat shows that the Bible is wrong. |
As I recall someone figured out that according to the Bible, the Earth (Universe) was created some six thousand years ago, in something like 4004 B.C. |
Umm, is it fair to say that someone's misinterpretation of the Bible resulting in the absurd premise that the Earth is 6000 years old is evidence that the Bible is wrong? Most credible Biblical scholars believe in the Big Bang Theory, as well as evolution. God's existence is proved by evolution. Particularly "Accelerated Evolution"... The probability that random chance alone could possibly have resulted in the evolution observable in fossil records is so small that if the existence of God is not a certainty, it is assuredly an astronomical probability. |
Have you ever investigated the (since repeated and elaborated)experiments of Stanley Lloyd Miller?
The problem your reasoning is, that due to the shapes and electrical characteristics of atoms and molecules, and with an influx of energy from solar and earthly radiation, lightning, and volcanic heat, those combinations leading to life are bound to happen with greater than random probablility, without the need for Divine intervention; much as we accept water flowing downhill without God personally pushing every drop. |
|
|
|
11/07/2004 03:54:51 AM · #253 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Have you ever investigated the (since repeated and elaborated)experiments of Stanley Lloyd Miller?
The problem your reasoning is, that due to the shapes and electrical characteristics of atoms and molecules, and with an influx of energy from solar and earthly radiation, lightning, and volcanic heat, those combinations leading to life are bound to happen with greater than random probability, without the need for Divine intervention; much as we accept water flowing downhill without God personally pushing every drop. |
I have, and Dr. Miller has never been able to produce life. His stuff is fascinating, but I think they support the probability that life needed a guiding hand to get started. Take in to consideration the leaps that mammals made in becoming humans and it's clear that evolution was a well planned project that received direct intervention at several stages...
Message edited by author 2004-11-07 03:55:11.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2004 12:08:20 PM · #254 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
...society doesn't "say" any one thing. Society has a pluralistic ethos and moral codes. It comes down to the individual to take responsibility for leading a moral and ethical life.
The question is if you make your decisions rationally, or simply give your brain over to a "higher authority".
Given that these decisions are among the most important in our lives, I think they deserve attention and discrimination, not a blind adherence based on faith - basically the willful suspension of reason....
IMO, the self-examined life free of the mystic superstitions, contradictions..., is the best way to lead an intelligently ethical and spiritual life. |
A life free of 'contradictions' is, I believe, asking for too much. Really, contradictions affirm the phenomonoligical. A life free of them, I'm afraid, would be strangely dull and unchallenging.
I meant the mystic contradictions present in the Bible.. :)
The remainder of your post though strikes me as very lucid and sound. If it were a just a little infectious too, there would be, I'm sure, less strife and suffering in the world. |
|
|
|
|
11/07/2004 12:35:22 PM · #255 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Have you ever investigated the (since repeated and elaborated)experiments of Stanley Lloyd Miller?
The problem your reasoning is, that due to the shapes and electrical characteristics of atoms and molecules, and with an influx of energy from solar and earthly radiation, lightning, and volcanic heat, those combinations leading to life are bound to happen with greater than random probability, without the need for Divine intervention; much as we accept water flowing downhill without God personally pushing every drop. |
I have, and Dr. Miller has never been able to produce life. His stuff is fascinating, but I think they support the probability that life needed a guiding hand to get started. Take in to consideration the leaps that mammals made in becoming humans and it's clear that evolution was a well planned project that received direct intervention at several stages... |
Dr. Miller has been unable to produce "life" in a few months/years ... he produced the materials of life (such as amino acids) in merely a few DAYS. It seems the only "proof" which would convince creationists of a non-divine origin would be to continue Dr. Miller's experiment for a couple of billion years, and give it a fair chance at evaluation under equal circumstances.
Or perhaps we can devise a workaround, such as that postulated by Theodore Sturgeon in his story Macrocosmic God.
Sorry to keep refering you to classics of speculative fiction, but I find they often present a more accurate and dispassionate analysis of these important social issues than our current media. While you're browsing the stacks, you might also check out Waldo by Robert A. Heinlein.
Message edited by author 2004-11-07 12:36:05. |
|
|
|
11/07/2004 12:41:31 PM · #256 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Originally posted by RonB:
And that, my friend, is the big problem. No uniform standards. No moral compass. No foundation. If some group can convince enough people, they can get their pet perversion put on the "accepted" list. |
Are you making the argument that without being religious, a person cannot be moral or ethical? |
Well, first of all, no one can BE moral or ethical. They can, and do, exhibit moral and ethical behaviour some of the time, perhaps even most of the time, but never all of the time. That being said, just as someone can be driving under the speed limit without knowing what the limit actually is, someone can exhibit moral or ethical behaviour without knowing what the limits of "moral" or "ethical" are, whether they are religious or not.
However, my point was that if you base your own personal morals and ethics on what society says, then you leave yourself vulnerable to confusion in how you ought to behave. |
But society doesn't "say" any one thing. Society has a pluralistic ethos and moral codes. It comes down to the individual to take responsibility for leading a moral and ethical life. |
How can an individual take responsibility for leading a moral life if "moral" is based on the codes defined in a pluralistic ethos? Is it moral to not wear the burka? Is it moral to go bare-breasted on the beach? Is it moral to eat beef? One society says yes, another no.
That is pluralism! In fact, in our society, you will get a hundred answers from a hundred people on a single question of "Is this "moral ".
But having options does NOT mean making intelligent choices, and having a value system, is impossible. Far from it! It means that, YOU as an individual, not as a religious automaton, make your own decisions after thinking deeply about them, an active proceess for your entire life. And one which can mean changing your mind occasionally.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
The question is if you make your decisions rationally, or simply give your brain over to a "higher authority". |
Though He could very easily have "forced" us to give our brain over to His authority, God intended that we exercise free will. If I do what I believe is plesing to God, it is not because I am "forced" to, it is because I choose to.
And if God doesn't exist, where are you? Besides, how do you really know what God intends? Do you speak to him? Or do you just take the word of ancient ( and now, some modern) zealots who claim to have spoken to him? (Remember, religious scholars of the bible recognize it is not the word of god, but a contrived Roman-edited historical text). If God can control your mind, how do you know you can "choose" anything?
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Given that these decisions are among the most important in our lives, I think they deserve attention and discrimination, not a blind adherence based on faith - basically the willful suspension of reason. |
I agree, and so does God. The Bible, in fact, tells us that we should examine all teachings to see whether they conflict with scripture and to reject them if they do.
You just contradicted yourself, I think. A blind rejection of any alternate ideas is the *opposite* of discrimnination, and is a *definition* of a blind adherence of faith.
It is obviouse that this is not "blind adherence" but careful examination, or as you put it "attention and discrimination". Absolutely no suspension of reason.
Again, that makes no sense to me whatsoever. Sorry.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
You spoke of the word of god being expressed in the Christian Bible, yet IMO, any honest scholar of the history of religion would tell you that the more you learn about the origins of the words of that book, the more incredible is the idea that they are the word of god, much less those of Jesus Christ himself. |
No more incredible than believing that something as complex as a strand of DNA occurred by chance in a primordial soup. And that that DNA could evolve in just few years to something so complex that it could exhibit independent thought and action - action so complex that it, itself, could design and build a 747 aircraft.
It seems you just tore down your own argument again. You just admitted that the Bible is as absurd as an idea you hold absurd.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
No, IMO, the self-examined life free of the mystic superstitions, contradictions, and downright brutality of a 1700-year old book, is the best way to lead an intelligently ethical and spiritual life. |
The self-examined life needs to have something upon which to base the examination.
That IS the key. Mankind has actually been working in answering the question of "What is the good" for thousands of years. You can get advanced degrees in these subjects, without attending theological school. They are called, courses in Ethics and Philosophy.
For the Christian, the teachings of the Bible form that base.
Perhaps for you, your examination ends there, but for many religious people, they make use of philosophy and ethics to supplement, or, God forbid, ( pun intended) :D, go beyond what a 1700 year old highly- edited and censored single text can offer.
Other religions have other teachings, but all of them base the examination on other than self or society.
On the other hand, what forms the basis of examination for the atheist? What defines that which is or is not moral or ethical? And how can an atheist lead an intelligently spiritual life, anyway?
Just answered as above. BTW, while I have just made arguments which you no doubt find offensive to your religious sensibilites, please try to understand how your statement could be very offensive to people who do not share your particular flavor of religious fundamentalism - which is the majority of people on the planet, BTW.
Oh, one last point. Leading a spiritual life is something which can indeed be accomplished without the constraints/blessings of any religious affiliation whatsoever. Please, don't mistake spirituality with religiosity.
No, IMO, the life examined in light of scripture is the best way to lead a moral and ethical and spiritual life. |
As you can obviously see, I disagree. But i want you to know why I bother to write about this to you.
It is because I see in modern fundamentalist groups, the interpretation of scripture - and i feel a blind, unexamined adherence to scripture - which is used much too often for hatred, for exclusion - for the *opposite* of Jesus' love for fellow man.
Whether it be to foster hatred and social injustice for gay people, or to justify killing of innocents in Iraq, I find the self-righteous religiosity of modern American Christian fundamntalism to often be mind-boggling antithetical to the teachings of Jesus, and to be unethically inhumane.
Message edited by author 2004-11-07 12:55:41. |
|
|
|
11/07/2004 12:46:12 PM · #257 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
...society doesn't "say" any one thing. Society has a pluralistic ethos and moral codes. It comes down to the individual to take responsibility for leading a moral and ethical life.
The question is if you make your decisions rationally, or simply give your brain over to a "higher authority".
Given that these decisions are among the most important in our lives, I think they deserve attention and discrimination, not a blind adherence based on faith - basically the willful suspension of reason....
IMO, the self-examined life free of the mystic superstitions, contradictions..., is the best way to lead an intelligently ethical and spiritual life. |
A life free of 'contradictions' is, I believe, asking for too much. Really, contradictions affirm the phenomonoligical. A life free of them, I'm afraid, would be strangely dull and unchallenging.
...I meant the mystic contradictions present in the Bible.. :) |
|
Ah, d'accord. This makes sense now. :-)
|
|
|
|
11/07/2004 01:09:15 PM · #258 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Have you ever investigated the (since repeated and elaborated)experiments of Stanley Lloyd Miller?
The problem your reasoning is, that due to the shapes and electrical characteristics of atoms and molecules, and with an influx of energy from solar and earthly radiation, lightning, and volcanic heat, those combinations leading to life are bound to happen with greater than random probability, without the need for Divine intervention; much as we accept water flowing downhill without God personally pushing every drop. |
I have, and Dr. Miller has never been able to produce life. His stuff is fascinating, but I think they support the probability that life needed a guiding hand to get started. Take in to consideration the leaps that mammals made in becoming humans and it's clear that evolution was a well planned project that received direct intervention at several stages... |
Dr. Miller has been unable to produce "life" in a few months/years ... he produced the materials of life (such as amino acids) in merely a few DAYS. It seems the only "proof" which would convince creationists of a non-divine origin would be to continue Dr. Miller's experiment for a couple of billion years, and give it a fair chance at evaluation under equal circumstances.
Or perhaps we can devise a workaround, such as that postulated by Theodore Sturgeon in his story Macrocosmic God.
Sorry to keep refering you to classics of speculative fiction, but I find they often present a more accurate and dispassionate analysis of these important social issues than our current media. While you're browsing the stacks, you might also check out Waldo by Robert A. Heinlein. |
Actually, I believe Dr. Miller may someday succeed in creating "life" if he continues his current research. But I believe this is far from being proof that "life" didn't get a helping hand 3.6 to 3.8 billion years ago...
If you look at the time-line of evolution (One of my favorites is here ) you'll see many spots in the evolutionary process where the conditions required could only be described as Miraculous... But since we are talking about the origin of life right now, and not it's miraculous evolution, I would urge anyone interested to look here to see the overwhelming obstacles that our one celled ancestors had to overcome. To think these little guys could possibly overcome these problems without the Hand of God, would seem to be a stretch beyond reason and common sense. It's one thing to create a single celled life form... It's another to keep it alive for a billion years or so, allowing it to miraculously learn to become multicelled.
Please note: The links in this post are NOT to sites run by creationist, most of whom I consider crackpots. These are to scientific sites, though some contain debate forums on the origin of life.
Side note : I enjoyed The Last Question quite a bit :) I've read a lot of sci-fi and have been a fan since I learned to read :) I don't remember if I read Waldo yet, but I'll look through the stacks... I'm currently moving (from So-cal to Seattle) so all my books are in storage right now...
Message edited by author 2004-11-07 13:12:28.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2004 01:37:07 PM · #259 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
As you can obviously see, I disagree. But i want you to know why I bother to write about this to you.
It is because I see in modern fundamentalist groups, the interpretation of scripture - and i feel a blind, unexamined adherence to scripture - which is used much too often for hatred, for exclusion - for the *opposite* of Jesus' love for fellow man. |
I'm sorry, I need a clarification... You believe that fundamentalists have "a blind, unexamined adherence to scripture"? I see a contrived and intentional misinterpretation of the Scriptures to support their own veiws... God created humans in God's own image... Fundamentalist recreated God in their own image... To paint all Christians with the Fundamentalist brush is the same as when people say all gays are promiscuous coke fiends... It just ain't so...
|
|
|
|
11/07/2004 02:15:26 PM · #260 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
As General said, the universe has been around for billions of years. Itâs logical to assume other solar systems have life that was started before our own, possibly billions of years before.
|
The first few billion years the stars were forming and the planets were gas rings surrounding those suns. Next couple of billion years the rings were forming into planets... Why do you suppose the star and planet of the advanced star-travelers you believe in formed so much faster than Sol and Earth did? Insta-Solar-system? Quick Drying Hydrogen? Maybe they had a deal with Polaroid? |
Not any faster only older. They believe the universe is around 12, 13 billion years old. Some stars in older Globular clusters are about 12 billion years old, maybe older. The scientists keep extending the age of the universe to account for the findings, such as the older Globular clusters, to fit somehow into their Big Bang theories.
The Solar System was created from the debris of a Super Nova. Giant stars burn their elements more quickly turning hydrogen ultimately to iron. They have a violent explosion that throws the resulting elements into space for millions of miles. The Orion Nebular is such an example. There are proto solar systems being created there that the Hubble Telescope has pictures of. Also the pillars in the Lagoon Neb show newly formed suns at the end of fingers. These fingers are millions of miles long and are the debris of ex Super Novas. We are a relatively young system at only 5 Billion years or so.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2004 02:32:33 PM · #261 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
If you look at the time-line of evolution you'll see many spots in the evolutionary process where the conditions required could only be described as Miraculous... But since we are talking about the origin of life right now, and not it's miraculous evolution, I would urge anyone interested to look here to see the overwhelming obstacles that our one celled ancestors had to overcome. To think these little guys could possibly overcome these problems without the Hand of God, would seem to be a stretch beyond reason and common sense. |
Umm... well actually,
to think that an unknown, and unprovable "entity" called "god" (who is obviously a male) could have "Miraculously" created the entire universe and every single living thing in it would "seem to be a stretch beyond reason and common sense."
Message edited by author 2004-11-07 14:33:09.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2004 02:38:08 PM · #262 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
myqyl: If you've never read it, check out the story The Last Question by Isaac Asimov; it is perhaps most easily found in his anthology Opus 100. I think you would like it. |
Thanks :) I'm on the last chapter of what I'm reading and was looking for a good next book :) I'm curious where the "generation"s of stars comes from? It wasn't around when I was in college, so it's obviously a theory conceived since Hubble etc... Any good links to papers on this? I haven't been keeping up like I should :)
Opps :) Not a book, huh? Is this it? |
Pertinent to DPC, here's a review of a book on the History of Space Exploration in Photographs. The site -- universetoday.com -- seems to have a lot of info, current news, links, and discussion forums (including Alternative Theories). Maybe that (and the various NASA sites) are a good place to start your review. |
|
|
|
11/07/2004 03:19:01 PM · #263 |
Originally posted by ericlimon:
Originally posted by myqyl:
If you look at the time-line of evolution you'll see many spots in the evolutionary process where the conditions required could only be described as Miraculous... But since we are talking about the origin of life right now, and not it's miraculous evolution, I would urge anyone interested to look here to see the overwhelming obstacles that our one celled ancestors had to overcome. To think these little guys could possibly overcome these problems without the Hand of God, would seem to be a stretch beyond reason and common sense. |
Umm... well actually,
to think that an unknown, and unprovable "entity" called "god" (who is obviously a male) could have "Miraculously" created the entire universe and every single living thing in it would "seem to be a stretch beyond reason and common sense." |
I'm curious why you say God is obviously a male? You don't believe God exists and yet you know God's gender?
I stand by my assumption that random chance creating life as we know it on this planet is such a minuscule possibility as to be virtually impossible. I say this because when I was an Atheist, I calculated the probability of the necessary conditions to create, maintain and advance lifeforms to their current state... Before I reached algae's migration to land (some 430 million years ago), the probability was so minute that I could no longer calculate it on the computers of the day... (1980ish mainframe) It would be similar to rolling 5 dice and having all 5 come up as 6s for nearly 10 million times in a row... I'm not sure if I still have my calculations written down, but if i did they are packed (I'm moving)... But don't take my math for it... Do the math yourself...
Of course none of this proves God's nature, intent, or gender... It merely proves God's existance... I'm very interested in how you came to determine God's gender...
Message edited by author 2004-11-07 15:21:10.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2004 03:30:19 PM · #264 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Pertinent to DPC, here's a review of a book on the History of Space Exploration in Photographs. The site -- universetoday.com -- seems to have a lot of info, current news, links, and discussion forums (including Alternative Theories). Maybe that (and the various NASA sites) are a good place to start your review. |
Thanks :) That puppies gonna be on my coffee table soon as I find a house to put a coffee table in :) Looks great!
|
|
|
|
11/07/2004 04:27:00 PM · #265 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
I stand by my assumption that random chance creating life as we know it on this planet is such a minuscule possibility as to be virtually impossible. I say this because when I was an Atheist, I calculated the probability of the necessary conditions to create, maintain and advance lifeforms to their current state... Before I reached algae's migration to land (some 430 million years ago), the probability was so minute that I could no longer calculate it on the computers of the day... (1980ish mainframe) It would be similar to rolling 5 dice and having all 5 come up as 6s for nearly 10 million times in a row... I'm not sure if I still have my calculations written down, but if i did they are packed (I'm moving)... But don't take my math for it... Do the math yourself...
Of course none of this proves God's nature, intent, or gender... It merely proves God's existance... I'm very interested in how you came to determine God's gender... |
It hardly proves the existence of God. The plausible improbability of an event does not mean it has not already happened. Were it simply impossible and not improbable, one cannot then conclude the existence of God either. Note that I do presume your use of God means the Judeo-Christian God, but there is no reason why one could not simply say Allah, Gods, The Great Gig in the Sky, or whatever else strikes your fancy.
On the meeting of law and religion, I cannot help but think that sacred religious texts (e.g. the Bible) should be regarded as books of individual guidance, not judgement.
"The fable of one fabling of one with you in the dark." - Samuel Beckett |
|
|
|
11/07/2004 04:27:37 PM · #266 |
Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. (Genesis 1:26-27)
If you believe the bible, which you obviously do, then god is a man. And I never said I don't believe god exists, I just don't believe your theory, and I don't buy into the religious BS that abounds in the world today. I'm a very spiritual person, but I don't pray to a christian/muslim/jewish god. I believe the bible is a collection of good stories that was written by man to help himself understand things he couldn't comprehend. If your religion suits you, then I am happy for you. If science is your religion, I am happy for you. What I don't like, is someone trying to push their god onto someone else, and telling everyone who believes differently that they are wrong. The christian god teaches love. That is the overall most important lesson.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2004 04:59:14 PM · #267 |
The male pronouns generally used are strictly (mis-)translations made by European males. I believe in the original Aramaic texts (the "Dead Sea Scrolls") and in the current Jewish liturgy the Divine entity is referred-to as Lord.
This newly discovered scroll may also help shed light on the peculiar results in the recent election. |
|
|
|
11/07/2004 05:38:39 PM · #268 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Originally posted by RonB:
How can an individual take responsibility for leading a moral life if "moral" is based on the codes defined in a pluralistic ethos? Is it moral to not wear the burka? Is it moral to go bare-breasted on the beach? Is it moral to eat beef? One society says yes, another no. |
That is pluralism! In fact, in our society, you will get a hundred answers from a hundred people on a single question of "Is this "moral ".
But having options does NOT mean making intelligent choices, and having a value system, is impossible. Far from it! It means that, YOU as an individual, not as a religious automaton, make your own decisions after thinking deeply about them, an active proceess for your entire life. And one which can mean changing your mind occasionally. |
So-called "religious automatons" are not ( automatons, that is ). I, too, make my own decisions after thinking deeply about them, and I also change my mind occasionally. However, I do not automatically discount the teachings of scripture when making my decisions. And, since my understanding of scripture changes over time, I take that new understanding into account when making decisions.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
The question is if you make your decisions rationally, or simply give your brain over to a "higher authority". |
Though He could very easily have "forced" us to give our brain over to His authority, God intended that we exercise free will. If I do what I believe is plesing to God, it is not because I am "forced" to, it is because I choose to.[quote] |
And if God doesn't exist, where are you? Besides, how do you really know what God intends? Do you speak to him? Or do you just take the word of ancient ( and now, some modern) zealots who claim to have spoken to him? (Remember, religious scholars of the bible recognize it is not the word of god, but a contrived Roman-edited historical text). If God can control your mind, how do you know you can "choose" anything? |
1) If God doesn't exist, I am, at worst, in the same predicament as an atheist - Neither Life nor Death have any meaning in the long run. But, at best, I will have led a more peaceful life, without the fear that Death is the end of it all.
2) I know what God intends because of three things: a) His Word, as recorded in the Bible: "For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future." ( Jeremiah 29:11 ); b) His actions - He has literally saved me from death ( multiple times ); and c) He gives me peace of mind when I do what is pleasing to Him and does not let me rest when I do that which is displeasing to Him.
3) Do I speak to Him. Yes - all the time - it's called Prayer.
3a) You didn't ask "Does He speak to you?", but if you did, the answer would be Yes - not very often, but when I least expect it, He does. He's like that.
4) In the beginning, I didn't just "take the word" of ancient zealots. I investigated, examined, cross checked, scrutinized credentials, you name it. I found that the writings of the Bible are very difficult to dispute, especially when taken in-toto.
5) Religious scholars are men - they can be, and are, in many cases, wrong. This does not refute my previous statement, however, since the writers of the Bible were inspired, but the Religious scholars are not. And no, I cannot "prove" either case. But the rub is that while the Religious Scholars can argue that the Bible is contrived, they cannot disprove any of it. On the other hand, archaeological finds are constantly disproving the findings of Religious Scholars.
6) I can't prove that God let's me "choose" anything. Or that He doesn't. I cannot even prove that He exists. That's why it's called "faith". But, since I cannot disprove anything else in the Bible, but CAN substantiate more and more of what it says, I have learned to trust what it says - and it says that God has given us free will.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Given that these decisions are among the most important in our lives, I think they deserve attention and discrimination, not a blind adherence based on faith - basically the willful suspension of reason. |
I agree, and so does God. The Bible, in fact, tells us that we should examine all teachings to see whether they conflict with scripture and to reject them if they do. |
You just contradicted yourself, I think. A blind rejection of any alternate ideas is the *opposite* of discrimnination, and is a *definition* of a blind adherence of faith. |
Where do you get that the rejection is "blind"? Does not science require that "new" evidence be evaluated to see if it was derived and is repeatable using the "scientific method" and if it doesn't, to reject it? Under your premise, wouldn't that also qualify as "blind rejection"?
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Originally posted by RonB:
It is obviouse that this is not "blind adherence" but careful examination, or as you put it "attention and discrimination". Absolutely no suspension of reason. |
Again, that makes no sense to me whatsoever. Sorry. |
I'm sorry that you don't get it.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
You spoke of the word of god being expressed in the Christian Bible, yet IMO, any honest scholar of the history of religion would tell you that the more you learn about the origins of the words of that book, the more incredible is the idea that they are the word of god, much less those of Jesus Christ himself. |
No more incredible than believing that something as complex as a strand of DNA occurred by chance in a primordial soup. And that that DNA could evolve in just few years to something so complex that it could exhibit independent thought and action - action so complex that it, itself, could design and build a 747 aircraft. |
It seems you just tore down your own argument again. You just admitted that the Bible is as absurd as an idea you hold absurd. |
No, I said that the idea that the Bible is the Word of God is no more incredible than believing that DNA occurred by chance. It was a NEGATIVE comparison, not a positive one.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
No, IMO, the self-examined life free of the mystic superstitions, contradictions, and downright brutality of a 1700-year old book, is the best way to lead an intelligently ethical and spiritual life. |
The self-examined life needs to have something upon which to base the examination. |
That IS the key. Mankind has actually been working in answering the question of "What is the good" for thousands of years. You can get advanced degrees in these subjects, without attending theological school. They are called, courses in Ethics and Philosophy. |
And if you take a course in Ethics, what are the ethics beign taught based upon? One definition of ethics is: "Behavior that is morally accepted as âgoodâ and ârightâ as opposed to âbadâ or âwrongâ in a particular setting". In a particular setting - meaning that what is not ethical in one setting could be ethical in another. In fact, it is called "situational ethics". Sorry, but that is not a very good definition for a Christian.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Originally posted by RonB:
For the Christian, the teachings of the Bible form that base. |
Perhaps for you, your examination ends there, but for many religious people, they make use of philosophy and ethics to supplement, or, God forbid, ( pun intended) :D, go beyond what a 1700 year old highly- edited and censored single text can offer. |
There's that circular use of the word ethics again. You say that ethics are determined by self-examination and philosophy and ethics ( which came from where? oh, yeah from self-examination and philosophy and ethics ( which came from where? Oh yeah,. . . ))
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Originally posted by RonB:
Other religions have other teachings, but all of them base the examination on other than self or society.
On the other hand, what forms the basis of examination for the atheist? What defines that which is or is not moral or ethical? And how can an atheist lead an intelligently spiritual life, anyway? |
Just answered as above. BTW, while I have just made arguments which you no doubt find offensive to your religious sensibilites, please try to understand how your statement could be very offensive to people who do not share your particular flavor of religious fundamentalism - which is the majority of people on the planet, BTW.
Oh, one last point. Leading a spiritual life is something which can indeed be accomplished without the constraints/blessings of any religious affiliation whatsoever. Please, don't mistake spirituality with religiosity. |
That was a serious question and not meant to be offensive. Really, how can an atheist lead a spriritual life. What "spirit", if not God, or a god?
I do not disagree in the least that a spiritual life can be led without religious affiliation. But I don't think that it can be led without faith. The question is, faith in what?
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Originally posted by RonB:
No, IMO, the life examined in light of scripture is the best way to lead a moral and ethical and spiritual life. |
As you can obviously see, I disagree. But i want you to know why I bother to write about this to you.
It is because I see in modern fundamentalist groups, the interpretation of scripture - and i feel a blind, unexamined adherence to scripture - which is used much too often for hatred, for exclusion - for the *opposite* of Jesus' love for fellow man.
Whether it be to foster hatred and social injustice for gay people, or to justify killing of innocents in Iraq, I find the self-righteous religiosity of modern American Christian fundamntalism to often be mind-boggling antithetical to the teachings of Jesus, and to be unethically inhumane. |
As I have tried to explain, it is not a "blind, unexamined adherence to scripture", but a rational approach for evaluating new information and ideas in light of what has already been accepted. If it doesn't fit, it must be examined all the more closely to see if prior understanding remains acceptable and the new idea discarded, or whether prior understanding must be modified to include the new information.
The "exclusion" you speak of is one of rejecting ideas, behaviours, conventions, etc. because they are unacceptable in someone's worldview. It's no worse than a liberal having the strong desire to reject Bush's plan to add privatization to the Social Security System.
Some fundamentalists hate gay people. Some athiests do, too. It is not strictly a Christian Fundamentalist attribute - although I would be quick to agree that the latter are doing Christ a great disservice if that is how they act ( note: I did not say "feel", for that cannot be helped, apart from psychological intervention ).
I don't know of a single fundamentalist who has, or would justify killing innocents in Iraq ( or anywhere else, for that matter ), though many accept it as an unfortunate side-effect of waging war and of having war waged against us.
Jesus taught that we should "love thy neighbor" but he took up a whip and scourged the temple, and drove out the moneylenders. If we believe ( and I do ) that Jesus was sinless at the time of his death, then we ( i ) must accept that the scourging of the temple was not a sin, and that therefore, there are circumstances where "lashing out" is justified. I'm afraid, though, that man, myself included, overstep our authority in deciding when to exercise such "righteous" anger.
Message edited by author 2004-11-07 17:42:17. |
|
|
|
11/07/2004 05:58:26 PM · #269 |
Originally posted by ericlimon:
Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. (Genesis 1:26-27)
If you believe the bible, which you obviously do, then god is a man. |
And if you believe what you just stated, then you must believe that a mirror is also a man, since you can see your image in it. :)
Seriously, though - the "image" was spiritual, not physical. Adam and Eve were both corporal and spiritual. When they sinned, they were essentially stripped of the spiritual nature of God - that is why God said "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (Gen 2:17). God was referring to spritual death, not physical. Christ was referred to as the second ADAM, the son of man and the son of God ( restored spiritual ). Since He ( Christ ) did NOT sin, as the first Adam did, His death atoned for the curse of sin brought upon mankind by the first Adam.
Originally posted by ericlimon:
And I never said I don't believe god exists, I just don't believe your theory, and I don't buy into the religious BS that abounds in the world today. I'm a very spiritual person, but I don't pray to a christian/muslim/jewish god. I believe the bible is a collection of good stories that was written by man to help himself understand things he couldn't comprehend. If your religion suits you, then I am happy for you. If science is your religion, I am happy for you. What I don't like, is someone trying to push their god onto someone else, and telling everyone who believes differently that they are wrong. The christian god teaches love. That is the overall most important lesson. |
Yes and no. Love, yes - but love of God. See Mark 12:28-31 where it says:
One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"
"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'
The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." |
|
|
|
11/07/2004 06:22:18 PM · #270 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
OK. So present some evidencethat shows that the Bible is wrong. |
As I recall someone figured out that according to the Bible, the Earth (Universe) was created some six thousand years ago, in something like 4004 B.C. |
That sounds about right - around 6000 years ago give or take few hundred. That figured out based on the geneology of Christ as described in the Bible.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
A technique known at Carbon-14 dating can and has accurately dated within a few hundred years organic artifacts which are at least 14,000 years old. Fossils have been found in strata dating to millions of years in age. |
Well, that is just flat out wrong. The tecnique of Carbon-14 dating is practically worthless. For just ONE example, read THIS article from Science Frontiers, published in 1995 (excerpt follows):
"For example, M. Grachev et al carbon-dated flatworms and a sponge collected from a bacterial mat near a thermal vent 420-meters deep in Lake Baikal. The apparent ages of these living organisms ranged from 6860 to 10,200 years.
(Grachev, M., et al; "Extant Fauna of Ancient Carbon," Nature, 374:123, 1995)
Even animals eating these apparently ancient life forms may take up their carbon-13 and, in effect, be drained of carbon-14. They would appear to age rapidly. Such false aging has actually been induced in the laboratory with mice fed on brewer's yeast grown in natural gas. These mice, living in cages at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California, were carbon-dated as being 13,000 years old, and were expected to attain a ripe old age of 35,000 in a few months. (All this was part of a cancer-research project.)"
So you see, Carbon dating is an unreliable aging technique.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
While God could have created all those things some 6000 years ago, in essentially their current "pre-aged" condition, the application of the principle of Occam's Razor would seem to require the an interpretation that the Bible is allegorical rather than a literal recitation of fact, and that the Earth is instead some millions or billions of years old, in contradiction to what is otherwise described as the infallible Word of God. Any other conclusion is based on faith rather than reason. |
The principle of Occam's Razor would seem rather to lean toward intelligent design - it's a much simpler explanation for advanced life forms than that they 'evolved' from the chance formation of primitive DNA in the primordial mud followed by extensive mutation to what we are today.
An example: If you flew over a beach and saw "JOHN LOVES MARY" scratched out in the sand, would you conclude that it was formed by the random actions of wind and wave upon the sand? Or that it was created by an intelligent designer? I think the latter. |
|
|
|
11/07/2004 06:31:28 PM · #271 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by ericlimon:
If you believe the bible, which you obviously do, then god is a man. |
And if you believe what you just stated, then you must believe that a mirror is also a man, since you can see your image in it. :) |
RonB, that is about the silliest thing you have ever writen. When was the last time you refered to the mirror as "Him"?
BTW - "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'
The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."
So you should love everyone as you love yourself right? Does that include gay people?
Message edited by author 2004-11-07 18:43:10.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2004 07:00:57 PM · #272 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
We know that everything we are made of (Oxygen, Sulfur, Iron, etc.) was formed inside a previous star which then went nova, and the detritus of which combined with the remains of other dead stars to form our Solar system and ourselves. Seems like that's enough time for a starfaring race to have evolved somewhere ... |
Just how do we "know" this? I don't think "we" do - "know" it, that is.
I am not one of the "we" you refer to as "knowing" that which you state. I think that some people just "accept" what you stated on "faith" because the "scientists" said so. And the scientist can't "prove" it.
What is so different in you having "faith" in science, and me having "faith" in God? Neither one of us can "prove" their theories to the other. |
The most important difference, as far as I'm concerned, is that no scientist has ever threatened me with being tortured forever after I die if I don't agree with their theory. Also, I don't recall reading in any history books or newspapers such things as people being stretched on racks or burned at the stake for refusing to believe the theory of relativity. I have not seen any documented cases of such things as long bloody wars between the 'big-bangers' and the 'steady-staters'. |
|
|
|
11/07/2004 07:01:40 PM · #273 |
I believe that God created the Universe 15 billion years ago. And the Earth is about 5 billion years old.
It's ridiculous to think that God created the Earth only 6000 years ago. Science can trace the evolution of all the galaxies, solar systems, stars, plants, moons, and also trace the evolution of the Earth itself back to when it was nothing but a piece of hot magma created from an exploding star.
As for the topic here, the guy that got investiaged by the FBI probably said something threatening or was encouraging violence or anarchy, etc. I doubt the FBI would would come hassle you for speaking out against the President unless it was violent in some way.
Message edited by author 2004-11-07 19:02:48.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2004 07:02:59 PM · #274 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
If we came from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys? |
I came from my parents, and we still had my parents for several years afterwards. |
|
|
|
11/07/2004 07:13:36 PM · #275 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Well, let me ask you this. With all this popping up of new creatures, why have we not seen some new ones come around every few years. After all, there are gazillions of old ones whats been around for some time now. Thats not to say creatures don't change and adapt, but, how many millions of years would it take for a wind to blow through a forest to evolve a house? |
We do see 'new creatures', a good example being insects which develop immunity to pesticides over several generations. Since insect generations are very short, we can see this within our lifetime. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 02:38:17 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 02:38:17 PM EDT.
|
