Scientists Create a Form of Pre-Life

[Stealth Hunter]

Source:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/06/tpna/

A self-assembling molecule synthesized in a laboratory may resemble the earliest form of information-carrying biological material, a transitional stage between lifeless chemicals and the complex genetic architectures of life.

Called tPNA, short for thioester peptide nucleic acids, the molecules spontaneously mimic the shape of DNA and RNA when mixed together. Left on their own, they gather in shape-shifting strands that morph into stable configurations.

The molecules haven’t yet achieved self-replication, the ultimate benchmark of life, but they hint at it. Best of all, their activities require no enzymes — molecules that facilitate chemical reactions, but didn’t yet exist in the primordial world modeled by scientists seeking insight into life’s murky origins.

“There have been many test tube experiments of evolving chemical sequences, but there hasn’t been a system that on its own can form under enzyme-free conditions,” said Reza Ghadiri, a Scripps Research Institute biochemist. “We satisfy some of the requirements of the long-term goal of having a purely chemical system that is capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution.”

Among the co-authors of the paper describing tPNA, published Thursday in Science, is the late Leslie Orgel, a pioneering biochemist who hypothesized that DNA evolved from RNA, a simple information-carrying molecule that today forms the genomes of viruses and facilitates protein manufacture in organismal cells.

The so-called RNA world hypothesis is widely accepted among scientists, but requires several critical steps that have been satisfactorily explained in a laboratory only recently, if at all. One such step is the formation of RNA’s chemical precursors. Another step involves their accumulation into RNA, which despite its relative simplicity, has resisted the attempts of scientists to synthesize it in primordial conditions.

A experiment published several weeks ago in Nature, in which a cycle of evaporation and condensation distilled a mix of primordial chemicals into several key RNA ingredients, has provided a plausible early answer to the problem of precursor formation. And the tPNA molecule in the current study may illuminate, at least in principle, how RNA might have emerged from these ingredients: in multiple stages, through a process of evolution.

“It’s the pre-RNA world. There’s a hypothesis that says RNA is so complicated, it couldn’t have arisen de novo” — from scratch — “on early Earth,” said study co-author Luke Leman, also a Scripps Research Institute biochemist. “So you need some more primitive genetic system that nature fiddled around with and finally decided to evolve into RNA.”

Other researchers have tried to manufacture a similarly proto-genetic material, but their efforts have proved inefficient and relied on the chemical reaction-enhancing presence of enzymes which probably did not exist in Earth’s early conditions. But according to the researchers, these experiments assumed that RNA — which resembles one-half the spiraling ladder form made famous by DNA — would assemble block by block, with each segment containing a fully-formed rung-and-backbone piece.

Instead, the researchers searched for a complete chemical spine to which the rungs, or nucleobases — A, T, C and G in the genetic code — could then attach. Rather than using the sugar-and-phosphate backbone found in RNA and DNA, they identified a peptide, or a small molecule composed of primordially present amino acids, that also functioned as a backbone.

“In terms of prebiotic chemistry, this is a conceptually different way of forming that genetic polymer,” said Leman.

The nucleobases automatically adhered to the peptide in a loose fashion, detaching and attaching themselves until stable. When mixed with single strands of DNA or RNA in water at room temperature, the tPNA molecules arranged themselves in complementary strands, perhaps echoing the eventual ability of those genetic materials to duplicate themselves.

Ghadiri cautioned that tPNA shouldn’t be seen as a direct analog of early life, but as demonstrating the plausibility of a similar system. “If you’re thinking that at some point these types of molecules are going to hand off to the RNA world, they should have cross-pairing interactions, and be capable of interacting with RNA,” he said. “We show both.”

Antonio Lazcano, a National Autonomous University of Mexico biologist and expert in early Earth chemistry who was not involved in the study, called the work a synthetic biology breakthrough, but repeated Ghadiri’s caveat that chemical bridges between the pre-RNA and RNA worlds are “completely unknown and can only be surmised.”

According to University of Manchester organic chemist John Sutherland, who co-authored the Nature study showing how RNA’s ingredients could have formed, the new research is less important in providing primordial insight than in furthering the eventual creation of life in a laboratory.

“Ghadiri’s important and highly innovative new work potentially relates to the origin of life as we don’t yet know it,” said Sutherland. Life’s emergence took billions of years, a process now being compressed into the passage of a few human generations. “The possibility that humans could come up with an alternative biology that outdoes that which produced us is a mind-freeing and mind-bending concept,” he said.

The researchers are now searching for different types of peptide backbones that could support more complex and stable genetic structures.

“The next phase is to see whether these molecules are capable of self-replication,” said Ghadiri. “That’s another two or three years of work.”

Asked how long it would take before fully synthetic life could be coaxed from an inert chemical mixture, Ghadiri said, “Soon. If not in our lifetime, then the next. In my opinion, it shouldn’t be longer than that.”

Splendid news, indeed! The Celera Corporation is currently working on a completely synthetic bacteria as well. This research might be able to help them in future related endeavours.

[antikristuseke]

Now to get some popcorn and to wait for the godunit crowd.

[Steel_Tomb]

Now to get some popcorn and to wait for the godunit crowd.

:rotfl:Is that seat next to you free? I bought some beer... :up:

[SUBMAN1]

Now to get some popcorn and to wait for the godunit crowd.

Sounds like baiting.

-S

[antikristuseke]

:rotfl:Is that seat next to you free? I bought some beer... :up:

When beer is involved, the seat is never taken. Though I doubt there will be much action, but hey, beer and popcorn is better than nothing.

[Hitman]

Excellent, now we just need to wait some millions years until it evolves in a predator, intelligent and careless species that will destroy everything....oh wait, we have that already...it's us :D

[Morts]

Sounds like baiting.

-S
ya dont say

[UnderseaLcpl]

I'll start it off for the bible-thumpers by saying that God has truly made us in His own image, as creators and bringers of life.
Let us pray the He grants us the wisdom to use this new breakthrough to further His will.

[Rockstar]

Just sounds like these sceintists were able to use their intelligence to design something from known substances that already exisited in their laboratory. Again my question would be where did the compounds (molecules, DNA, distilled a mix of primordial chemicals, etc etc) they used come from?

How did something come to life from nothing?

To the Greek it is foolishness others they look for a sign.

[Skybird]

I'll start it off for the bible-thumpers by saying that God has truly made us in His own image,
If that is true it is no wonder that I have a problem with him. :haha:

[antikristuseke]

Just sounds like these sceintists were able to use their intelligence to design something from known substances that already exisited in their laboratory. Again my question would be where did the compounds (molecules, DNA, distilled a mix of primordial chemicals, etc etc) they used come from?

How did something come to life from nothing?

To the Greek it is foolishness others they look for a sign.

Well if you were genuinely being honest in your curiosity, I could link you to a video explaining the basics of abiogenesis the rest you can look up for yourself from a source like talkorigins which has several refrences to peer reviewed papers.

While our understanding of the process is partial at best, life from non life is not as extraordinary as some creationists would have you belive, Remember reading a recent peer reviewed paper sugesting that long carbon chain molecules are thermodynamicaly prefered in certain systems similar tp what primordial earth is thought to have been like. As for this life from nothing question, thats simple life does not come from nothing, this is a misrepresentation of your oponents platform and that is a logical fallacy known as the strawman argument.

[SUBMAN1]

If that is true it is no wonder that I have a problem with him. :haha:

I really wonder what life must be like for you people? In a short time, you will die and the world will never even know you existed. You will then meet you creator and since you already rejected him, he will in turn reject you. It must be kind of weird for you people to know that your existence means nothing. Has no meaning. Is a lost soul. You are nothing more than a parasite of the planet. I wonder how you guys sleep at night? Why do you continue to live on with no reason to? Too chicken to end it? I can see no reason why you should want to exist.

On another subject - You should be celebrating god even if you didn't believe in him. Even if god didn't exist, the principles that he is based upon keeps your countries and your peoples strong. Now you see the economies caused by greed and self centeredness as of late. You know and see society falling apart, and to look at our children, you know there is little or no hope since they all expect to have a house, expect to have a car, expect to get a huge paycheck, because they deserve it damn it! And they will piss on anyone that stands in their way, regardless that they have good reason to stand in their way! There is no fabric to keep any of this together. It can be said that it was the turning away from god that did this, and they would be right, but ultimately, it is the turning away from that which gave you strength.

Now the sad part - none of you are wise enough to see. You may be in so deep, that you can never see, or are truely blinded by your faults. Truely lost on society and everything else that should be yours for the taking.

I pity you.

-S

[Kapitan_Phillips]

I really wonder what life must be like for you people? In a short time, you will die and the world will never even know you existed. You will then meet you creator and since you already rejected him, he will in turn reject you.

Raptor Jesus will never reject me.

It must be kind of weird for you people to know that your existence means nothing. Has no meaning. Is a lost soul. You are nothing more than a parasite of the planet.

And I suppose you have the Lord on speed-dial, and people will forever herald you as a legend of our time?

I wonder how you guys sleep at night? Why do you continue to live on with no reason to? Too chicken to end it? I can see no reason why you should want to exist.

My reason to exist is to be happy in myself, and make others happy. I sleep easily at night knowing that I dont have to pander to the whims of an unproven deity, who, despite the praise he/she/it is given, still allows what has happened and will happen on the earth to go on.

On another subject - You should be celebrating god even if you didn't believe in him. Even if god didn't exist, the principles that he is based upon keeps your countries and your peoples strong.

Yes, religion in itself has brought us many thousands of years of peace, hasnt it.

It can be said that it was the turning away from god that did this, and they would be right, but ultimately, it is the turning away from that which gave you strength.

LOL!

Now the sad part - none of you are wise enough to see. You may be in so deep, that you can never see, or are truely blinded by your faults. Truely lost on society and everything else that should be yours for the taking.

I pity you.

-S

I dont need your pity. You go about your life, I'll go about mine. If you're done shoving your beliefs down our throats, I have things to do.

[CastleBravo]

Just because one can do something doesn't always mean one should do something.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Why so harsh, SUB?

If someone like you can truly pity someone like Skybird, then why would an infinitely benevolent, wise, and merciful God not do so?

I draw a line when it comes to condemning or shaming someone who is not religious or who is not Christian. Talking to them about faith is acceptable, but punishing them is not. For those who do not or will not see the beauty of God's creation, we pray. If they do not wish to acknowledge their Lord or refuse to do His will, it is up to us to do it for them. Is that not what Jesus' sacrifice taught us?

No one, not even the faithful, has a right to salvation, as I understand it. Before God's magnificence, we are all equally worthless and consumed by petty desires. Even the disciples were rife with foolishness and sin.
We are supposed to have faith, beg for his beneficience, and pray for the salvation of others. Our faith is not a badge of honor, but a cross to be carried.

[Steel_Tomb]

Here we go, the parties begun... mind if I throw something into the mix?

I understand, religion is a great hope for a lot of people. My late Gran, bless her soul was lonely in her final years and religion gave her something that kept her going. For that, its a good thing... but its also something that can be found from just talking to other people and being part of society.

I also hate relgion, because of the hurt it causes, the divisions between men and women and the death it causes. Two friends I knew at 6 form a couple years back were a perfect match for each other... they would be together now I'm sure, if it weren't for religion. Her parents were Jehovah's Witnesses, and wouldn't let her go out with him because he wasn't of their faith... this caused arguments and a lot of pain where instead there should have been love. I think is appalling that the future generations should be forced into believing something because their parents demand it... surely He would want his little creations to have free will and make their own futures instead of being indoctrinated and forced into a life of worship and service.

In Ireland and around the world people live in divided communities and families because they believe in different accounts of His will. I suppose the violence and division between humanity makes Him feel somewhat special? The wars and killing that have gone on for thousands of years make his ego bigger to see people think so much of him?

If he exists, I wonder how HE can sleep at night, knowing that because of Him there is so much suffering and turmoil in the world.

Humanity is imperfect, but that's because we're part of nature, and nature is imperfect. Time and the pursuit of knowledge and understanding will make us a better race... not by limiting ourselves to worshiping some mythological being. We should be looking at each other and making progress, not looking at our neighbors and despising them, because they are Protestant/Catholic or Muslim... but grouping together and moving forward past thousands of years of faith which was born out of a craving to understand that which we didn't know. We live in a modern age now, science will show us the way.

I apologize for jumping so OT, but I thought I'd add my opinion to the mix...................


Back on topic, I think its amazing that Science has come this far. Maybe in a generation or two we will have the knowledge to create life????? I only hope that mankind has developed the wisdom to use it correctly by then.

[Skybird]

Funny to imagine that a god would judge over me and sentence me to eternal doom because I mirror his own face, if I really have been made according to his image - because that implies that this god has a surprisingly low ammount of self-esteem. :haha: Or did he just pork up his job? That may explain the nervous breakdown on day seven.

But since God is not more and not less a god than I am and you are and everything else is, you all can rest assured that you have nothing to fear. I hereby officially promise you all that I have no intention to judge you in your afterlife. :O:

"Live and let live", they say, or was it "sin and let sin"... So I leave it here and do what I can do best - and enjoy sinning. And if hellfire is waiting for me, well, Subman often claims the new ice age is coming, so a little bit warmth may come handy around the time when I need to go down there. :yeah:

[mookiemookie]

On another subject - You should be celebrating god even if you didn't believe in him. Even if god didn't exist, the principles that he is based upon keeps your countries and your peoples strong. Now you see the economies caused by greed and self centeredness as of late. You know and see society falling apart, and to look at our children, you know there is little or no hope since they all expect to have a house, expect to have a car, expect to get a huge paycheck, because they deserve it damn it! And they will piss on anyone that stands in their way, regardless that they have good reason to stand in their way! There is no fabric to keep any of this together. It can be said that it was the turning away from god that did this, and they would be right, but ultimately, it is the turning away from that which gave you strength.


Ah the old "you have to be religious to have morality" canard. :yawn:

[Stealth Hunter]

Just sounds like these sceintists were able to use their intelligence to design something from known substances that already exisited in their laboratory.

Yeah... and? Miller and Urey's experiment which assembled 22 amino acid compounds used laboratory compounds that were naturally found here on Earth billions of years ago and postulated in the primordial soup theory.

Again my question would be where did the compounds (molecules, DNA, distilled a mix of primordial chemicals, etc etc) they used come from?

Well since amino acids, which serve as the building blocks for life, can come from natural compounds given the right conditions (that were present on Earth at one time), that's your answer for them; that also answers your question about DNA. Molecules are just a simple unit of structure; you didn't know that did you?

And I'm not really sure what you mean by that last part. Are you asking how they formed (in which case I'd be discussing the Big Bang and formation of our sun with you) or how they came together to exist on planets and moons in the solar system and in the dust floating around in it (and then I'd be talking about gravity and mass with you).

Just note I am being brief when discussing these things, however. I want to read SUBMAN's post, lol.

How did something come to life from nothing?

Well really the universe has always existed in some form or another. Actually, when the Big Rip happens in about 50 billion years (due to the universe accelerating), all the atoms that make up objects in the universe will be condensed back down into a singularity and another Big Bang will occur all over again. This theory relies on phantom energy, however, and while not much is known about it other than it is a form of dark energy and can mathematically exist, it certainly seems just as likely as the Big Crunch or Big Freeze.

[Stealth Hunter]

I really wonder what life must be like for you people?

It's nice, thank you. I live quietly and enjoy time with my neighbors, pets, and family.

In a short time, you will die and the world will never even know you existed.

I have no problem with that. Death is just a natural part of life.

You will then meet you creator and since you already rejected him, he will in turn reject you.

Is this supposed to intimidate me, the faith-based claim that if I don't believe in the same god that you do, I'll be punished forever? It's not. I've heard it a thousand times before.

But even so, which god do you propose we follow? Christian Jesus? Polytheistic Greek Zeus? Zoroastrian Mithra? Polytheistic Egyptian Ra?

It must be kind of weird for you people to know that your existence means nothing. Has no meaning. Is a lost soul. You are nothing more than a parasite of the planet.

No, not really. The thought doesn't bother me in the least.

I wonder how you guys sleep at night?

Fine, thank you.

Why do you continue to live on with no reason to? Too chicken to end it?

Who said we have no reason to keep living? Living in its own right is reason enough. If you've only got one life to live, why waste it? There are plenty of things in it that make it good and enjoyable.

I can see no reason why you should want to exist.

See above.

On another subject - You should be celebrating god even if you didn't believe in him.

But I do celebrate them... Apollo, Heracles, Loki, Odin, and Hotu-Ma'tua make for a fine bunch.

Even if god didn't exist, the principles that he is based upon keeps your countries and your peoples strong.

You're right. Laws and regulations do keep us strong (and united).

Now you see the economies caused by greed and self centeredness as of late. You know and see society falling apart, and to look at our children, you know there is little or no hope since they all expect to have a house, expect to have a car, expect to get a huge paycheck, because they deserve it damn it! And they will piss on anyone that stands in their way, regardless that they have good reason to stand in their way! There is no fabric to keep any of this together. It can be said that it was the turning away from god that did this, and they would be right, but ultimately, it is the turning away from that which gave you strength.

:har:

Now the sad part - none of you are wise enough to see. You may be in so deep, that you can never see, or are truely blinded by your faults. Truely lost on society and everything else that should be yours for the taking.

And you can see them while we can't?

Why is that, Sub? I'm curious as to what your response will be like, but I have an idea.

I pity you.

Save yourself the trouble.

[Stealth Hunter]

I think its amazing that Science has come this far.

Indeed it is. Very good news to us all.

[antikristuseke]

I really wonder what life must be like for you people? In a short time, you will die and the world will never even know you existed. You will then meet you creator and since you already rejected him, he will in turn reject you. It must be kind of weird for you people to know that your existence means nothing. Has no meaning. Is a lost soul. You are nothing more than a parasite of the planet. I wonder how you guys sleep at night? Why do you continue to live on with no reason to? Too chicken to end it? I can see no reason why you should want to exist. I sleep quite well, thank you for asking. As for the meaning of life, any life has only the meaning you give it, be it the accumulation of wealth, fornicating like a crazed baboon or what have you, to each their own. I continue on living to support those I hold dear to me and to keep them out of harms way, allso life is quite enjoyable and since it is the only one I am going to get, why in the world would I end it? I can see a believer end their life to meet their maker sooner, but for someone who does not have faith in an afterlife to do so without good reason would be foolish as it would cut short this short time of fun we have.

On another subject - You should be celebrating god even if you didn't believe in him.Wy would I waste time and energy to celebrate some being for whome there is no evidence and as such no reason to assume its existance? Even if god didn't exist, the principles that he is based upon keeps your countries and your peoples strong.According to a recent poll, 85% of estonians are atheists, we are doing quite well without any sky daddy to look after us. But while on the subject, treaty of Tripoli... Now you see the economies caused by greed and self centeredness as of late. You know and see society falling apart, and to look at our children, you know there is little or no hope since they all expect to have a house, expect to have a car, expect to get a huge paycheck, because they deserve it damn it!We like to call that reality. Get used to it since you are stuck with it. This is not some magical fairytale land where everyone has the best in the world, while it would kick ass if that were so, it simply is not the case. And they will piss on anyone that stands in their way, regardless that they have good reason to stand in their way! There is no fabric to keep any of this together. It can be said that it was the turning away from god that did this, and they would be right, but ultimately, it is the turning away from that which gave you strength.Complete bull****! There is no other way to put this, pure make believe bull****. Take a look back in history when religion had more power than it has today and thake a hard look, then try to claim again that it was all better when society was not as secular.

Now the sad part - none of you are wise enough to see. You may be in so deep, that you can never see, or are truely blinded by your faults. Truely lost on society and everything else that should be yours for the taking.

I pity you.

-S

I dont pitty you, to be honest, I despise you. You wear your ignorance as a badge of courage, you hail arrogance as a virtue and when there is something that you do not like or that does not fit in to your perfect little world you do everything you can to makebelive it go away and to hell with the facts.

But on the other hand I have to be thankful to you and those like you because guys like you are who are opening the eyes of the oncoming generations to what damage blind faith can do and turning them away from religion.

[Aramike]

I dont pitty you, to be honest, I despise you. You wear your ignorance as a badge of courage, you hail arrogance as a virtue and when there is something that you do not like or that does not fit in to your perfect little world you do everything you can to makebelive it go away and to hell with the facts.

But on the other hand I have to be thankful to you and those like you because guys like you are who are opening the eyes of the oncoming generations to what damage blind faith can do and turning them away from religion. Frankly, I find Subman's post in this thread to be bigotted, and quite honestly, nuts. The idea that existance needs a reason rather than simply being a state of being is silly to me.

However, I find this end comment of yours to be equally bigotted, and nuts. I rest somewhere between agnoticism and atheism, and I believe in science. Why? Because its real to me - its something I can quantify and confirm through observation.

My parents, on the other hand, are people of faith. I recently asked them why, just out of curiousity. Somewhat surprisingly, in a nutshell, they said that it is something they can quantify and confirm through observation.

In the end, we're just all seeing things from a different perspective.

If someone's religion provides them with a moral compass acceptable to society, that should be ENCOURAGED. "Thou shalt not kill" isn't wrong because it can be found in a religious text. Whereas, the same principle applies to an atheist.

What happens is that people like you and Subman are busy finding reasons for conflict rather than accepting that your views are not universally shared.

Religion, belief in God, faith, etc. (or the lack thereof) does not cause any problems for the human race, as far as I'm concerned. It's the people such as yourselves who use it as an excuse to engage in a bigotted hatred of a different point of view.

I don't despise either one of you, however. But I do feel pity for both of you, like it or not.

[Wolfehunter]

I really wonder what life must be like for you people? In a short time, you will die and the world will never even know you existed. You will then meet you creator and since you already rejected him, he will in turn reject you. So some humans believe but have not proof? Just hear say.

It must be kind of weird for you people to know that your existence means nothing. Has no meaning. Is a lost soul. You are nothing more than a parasite of the planet. I wonder how you guys sleep at night? Why do you continue to live on with no reason to? Too chicken to end it? I can see no reason why you should want to exist.

Because I don't need others to tell me how to enjoy this beautiful world we live in. I don't buy all that fictitious religious nonsense man created. I choose to live my life to the fullest with those I love and care for. I don't let aliens, monsters, undeads, hoaxes and deities run my life.

When I die. My children will carry on what we have learned and hopefully pass on that knowledge to there children. That how we continue to live through our children. What happens to my body? Its worm bait... I'll give back to the earth as fertilizer. :yeah:

On another subject - You should be celebrating god even if you didn't believe in him. Even if god didn't exist, the principles that he is based upon keeps your countries and your peoples strong. Now you see the economies caused by greed and self centeredness as of late.
Naw I leave that job for you guys... You pray to your god. Maybe your deity is forgiving and may grant your wishes....?
I don't believe in greed. I choose to help those I can within my means. No super being told me to do this. I'm just a little mortal who has a heart... But these elites are running the show.. Why isn't your god smiting these villains? People make choices and have to live with the consequences. They choose to allow others dictate there lives. So some abuse this and here we are. There is a bigger goal by these select elitist, but that issue has been posted plenty of times on many forums or blogs no need to rewrite it again.

You know and see society falling apart, and to look at our children, you know there is little or no hope since they all expect to have a house, expect to have a car, expect to get a huge paycheck, because they deserve it damn it! And they will piss on anyone that stands in their way, regardless that they have good reason to stand in their way!Why doesn't governments give the rights back to the parents to do there job and let parents care for there kids? Maybe a good whack on the a$$ will discipline them time to time? But that is child abuse right? Give teachers the ability to teach the children equally with proper equipment and freedom to do there jobs within reason? Children today have no consequence for there actions, I wonder why?

There is no fabric to keep any of this together. It can be said that it was the turning away from god that did this, and they would be right, but ultimately, it is the turning away from that which gave you strength.Nonsense. People did this. Only people will pay for there choices in the real world. Few will rule and the rest will follow. People will punish people... Its the human way... We're still savages. We use technology more efficiently to do the job. But our social skills are lacking. Funny thing is we can choose a better way? I don't understand why people let themselves be abused?

Now the sad part - none of you are wise enough to see. You may be in so deep, that you can never see, or are truely blinded by your faults. Truely lost on society and everything else that should be yours for the taking.

I pity you.

-SProblem is many are wise and do see it. People choose not to damage there comfort zone as long as they get there house, car, tv and food, life is good. Why rock the cradle? :03:

If you want changes? Make it happen. Praying won't do nothing. Hoping does nothing. Doing something anything will bring good or bad results.

Too bad subman I feel bad for you too. You always assume non christian's are the fault of the world... :nope:

I agree with you on this we are all parasites... :yep: We consume all.

[TarJak]

Meh, So what some scientists, who ain't getting any, made some life in a petri dish? I've created 3 lives (with a little cooperation from Mrs TarJak:D). Creating life ain't no big thing, we've been doing it for eons. :shucks:

[Aramike]

Meh, So what some scientists, who ain't getting any, made some life in a petri dish? I've created 3 lives (with a little cooperation from Mrs TarJak:D). Creating life ain't no big thing, we've been doing it for eons. :shucks:Best post in thread winner, right here.

[antikristuseke]

Frankly, I find Subman's post in this thread to be bigotted, and quite honestly, nuts. The idea that existance needs a reason rather than simply being a state of being is silly to me.

However, I find this end comment of yours to be equally bigotted, and nuts. I rest somewhere between agnoticism and atheism, and I believe in science. Why? Because its real to me - its something I can quantify and confirm through observation.

My parents, on the other hand, are people of faith. I recently asked them why, just out of curiousity. Somewhat surprisingly, in a nutshell, they said that it is something they can quantify and confirm through observation.

In the end, we're just all seeing things from a different perspective.

If someone's religion provides them with a moral compass acceptable to society, that should be ENCOURAGED. "Thou shalt not kill" isn't wrong because it can be found in a religious text. Whereas, the same principle applies to an atheist.

What happens is that people like you and Subman are busy finding reasons for conflict rather than accepting that your views are not universally shared.

Religion, belief in God, faith, etc. (or the lack thereof) does not cause any problems for the human race, as far as I'm concerned. It's the people such as yourselves who use it as an excuse to engage in a bigotted hatred of a different point of view.

I don't despise either one of you, however. But I do feel pity for both of you, like it or not.

My position towards gods is atheism, as in i do not belive in any of them, but I do not claim that thay can not exists, just that there is no evidence for their existance. That being said, would like ot thank you for your onest, since i did paint with too wide of a brush there, schould have specified a bit better what I actualy ment. The group of people the last part of my post was aimed at are the religious fundamentalists who ignore science and try to destroy it.

As for the morality thing, if a persons only reason for acting morally is fear of eternal punishment, they are not really being all that moral. Morals do not come from religion, they come from society and change as the social dynamics change, the morals found in religious holy books are the morals at the writing (or editing) of those texts. While, I agree, that most religious texts do have some great ideas in them, they are allso chok full of complete insanity, which leads to an interesting position where one has to chreey pick which parts of te book to follow and which of it to take as fiction.

On to the point of religion causing not harm. In and of it self, that might be true, but religion is just another issue that politicians use to gain power and then twist it to be a pretext for war and other actions to furhter their own goals and increase their own power. Allso, religion stops some people from thinking since it gives them an easy answer to everything, regardless if it is true or not, they do not even bother to find out because they have faith. Personaly, I see that as quite damaging.

That being said, there are completely sane religious people out there who actualy follow the spirit of what their religious texts teach (as I understand it, anyway, I'm no thologian) as opposed to following the letter of it. While I do disagree with them on the existance of God, I do not any animosity towards them because they are not actively trying to destroy science they disagree with while plunging us back to the bronze age.

[Wolfehunter]

Meh, So what some scientists, who ain't getting any, made some life in a petri dish? I've created 3 lives (with a little cooperation from Mrs TarJak:D). Creating life ain't no big thing, we've been doing it for eons. :shucks:
Yup truly a winner for sure. :yeah:

[Aramike]

My position towards gods is atheism, as in i do not belive in any of them, but I do not claim that thay can not exists, just that there is no evidence for their existance. That being said, would like ot thank you for your onest, since i did paint with too wide of a brush there, schould have specified a bit better what I actualy ment. The group of people the last part of my post was aimed at are the religious fundamentalists who ignore science and try to destroy it.

As for the morality thing, if a persons only reason for acting morally is fear of eternal punishment, they are not really being all that moral. Morals do not come from religion, they come from society and change as the social dynamics change, the morals found in religious holy books are the morals at the writing (or editing) of those texts. While, I agree, that most religious texts do have some great ideas in them, they are allso chok full of complete insanity, which leads to an interesting position where one has to chreey pick which parts of te book to follow and which of it to take as fiction.

On to the point of religion causing not harm. In and of it self, that might be true, but religion is just another issue that politicians use to gain power and then twist it to be a pretext for war and other actions to furhter their own goals and increase their own power. Allso, religion stops some people from thinking since it gives them an easy answer to everything, regardless if it is true or not, they do not even bother to find out because they have faith. Personaly, I see that as quite damaging.

That being said, there are completely sane religious people out there who actualy follow the spirit of what their religious texts teach (as I understand it, anyway, I'm no thologian) as opposed to following the letter of it. While I do disagree with them on the existance of God, I do not any animosity towards them because they are not actively trying to destroy science they disagree with while plunging us back to the bronze age.Cool stuff, and I don't really disagree, except for the idea that religion can cause any more harm than any other human social construct. Bad people are going to be bad despite the presence of religion, not are not necessarily empowered by it.

In any case, glad you clarified this, and as such, I apologize for the pointed tone of my previous post. Nothing really gets me so riled up as this seemingly continuous and pointless (in my opinion) conflict between religion and science. I was going to comment on the fallacy of Subman's post originally, but everyone beat me to it. :ping:

[Rockstar]

The natural chemicals, primordial ooze, amino acids, molecules, whatever substances these scientists used to intelegently design/synthesize this so-called pre-life where did it all come from?

The day a scientist can 'create' something from nothing THEN you will have my attention.

Interesting too, the title of this post is "scientists CREATE pre-life'. Yet in the same breath you deny a Creator.

[FIREWALL]

When that NEW bacteria gets away from them. :o

Watch everyone run for the hills. :har:

[Aramike]

The natural chemicals, primordial ooze, amino acids, molecules, whatever substances these scientists used to intelegently design/synthesize this so-called pre-life where did it all come from?

The day a scientist can 'create' something from nothing THEN you will have my attention.

It is written in the title of this post "scientists CREATE pre-life' Yet in the same breath you deny a Creator.Depends on how far back you want to go.

(Warning: HIGHLY simplified explanation of the first moments of the universe incoming)

Originally, it was nothing more than a singularity of infinite mass and density. Then it blew up. Light elements formed as the expanding, superheated homogenous universe expanded and cooled. Stars form under the gravitation attraction of those elements. In the cores of stars, heavier elements are produced.

Like I said, that is a gross oversimplification of modern cosmology. But, we do have a lot of evidence for the Big Bang theory (the cosmic microwave background, WMAP, galactic redshift, accelerated expansion, etc).

Or, you can just believe that God created it all. I have no problem with that whatsoever. It's just as real to you as science is to me.

But I do have a burning question for theists that I've personally struggled with for years: if God created the universe, everything in it, and of course people who possess the ability to observe, reason, and deduce, why did he leave SO much evidence showing the Biblical events and time frames to be inaccurate? One of the arguments I seem to hear constantly is, "if the Big Bang actually happened, where did it come from?" I find this no more valid than asking, "If God created us, who created God?".

I'm truly not trying to be contentious but I'd really like to hear some answers as to why God would have left so much proof AGAINST Himself, and so little for Himself.

I honestly wish I still believed in God. I used to. But I never "felt" the faith as so many others seem to, and I've always held a strong interest in real science. So, I got away from my faith and after time it just seemed to evaporate into what I am today.

I'm not opposed to God, and if confronted with something - anything - that can reasonably argue for his existance, I won't fight it.

[Stealth Hunter]

The natural chemicals, primordial ooze, amino acids, molecules, whatever substances these scientists used to intelegently design/synthesize this so-called pre-life where did it all come from?

Natural chemicals and elements: formation of the sun. Putting it briefly, nuclear fusion fused together hydrogen atoms into helium, which came from a nebula that essentially was responsible for the sun to begin with and planets, then eventually when there was enough helium, those started to fuse together with other hydrogen and helium atoms to make lithium and beryllium, and the process went on and on to form all the elements we have today. Hydrogen basically fused together everything found here in our solar system at one time. Eventually the sun will blow up (go supernova) and the elements will be spread out all over the universe and galaxy. Note that compounds are combinations of basic elements and hydrogen is the main source of fuel for the sun. Also, it's mathematically and henceforth theoretically possible for other unknown elements to exist in the universe. Ultimately, you get the formation of sun (as well as everything basically, lol) from the Big Bang.

Primordial soup: made up of natural chemicals and elements/compounds and conditions present on Earth billions of years ago.

Amino acids: sparked by natural chemicals and elements/compounds fusing together as well as conditions on Earth billions of years ago. Miller and Urey's 1952 experiment confirmed it was quite possible.

Molecules: these are just structural units of elements; their origin would be the same case as in natural chemicals and elements/compounds.

The day a scientist can 'create' something from nothing THEN you will have my attention.

You can't create something from nothing. Nobody can; nothing can. It's as simple as that. So really, if someone was able to do it, they'd have my attention too, lol.

And if you're trying to point something out about the Big Bang Theory, then you're pretty uneducated in science and lack a basic understanding of Atheism as well. The Big Bang Theory does not state as fact that our universe came from nothing to begin with, and to branch off from this on my idea on the universe, Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief in disbelief.

Additionally, if something did spark the Big Bang, then what? You jumped to conclusions, as many folks do, that it would have to be a creator with a consciousness (and hence we get religion). Did you ever consider that it could have stemmed from another universe dying (as the string theory partially postulates)? Or perhaps the universe has always existed in some form or another (as I and many others think)?

Just because we don't understand or know the answer to something in nature does not mean some god is necessary for it to take place. This has been shown time and time again, hence the creation of the term "God of the Gaps".

For example, we thought at one time we remained fixed on the ground because of our sin and god. Then we learned that it was gravity, not sin or god, that was responsible. We thought at one time that eclipses were signs from god. Then we learned that it was the moon passing behind Earth such that the Earth blocked the sun's cosmic rays from striking the moon that was responsible for the spectacle.

And this will continue to be the case, so long as we exist.

It is written in the title of this post "scientists CREATE pre-life' Yet in the same breath you deny a Creator.

I simply stated the facts: scientists created pre-life in a laboratory. I did not state the latter, however.:roll:

[Rockstar]

Again the same question applies to the big bang theory. In order for something to go bang there has to be a substance or substances used to cause the reaction. Where did those substances come from?

God HAS revealed Himself. We are without excuse for the heavens and earth proclaim the glory of YHVH. Aramike, when I look I can only marvel at the complexity and beauty of these two things. I am humbled, it leads me to believe there is a Creator Adonai Elohei Yisrael.

Even Darwin knew his theory could be punched full of of holes as beheld the eye of a peacock's feathers.

[antikristuseke]

Eventually the sun will blow up (go supernova) and the elements will be spread out all over the universe and galaxy.

Well, not really. The sun does not have ennough mass to go supernova, it will instead go into the red giant phase, then shed its outer layer after helium fusion is done and die off as a wide dwarf.

[antikristuseke]

Again the same question applies to the big bang theory. In order for something to go bang there has to be a substance or substances used to cause the reaction. Where did those substances come from? Just because modern science does not hav all the answers yet does not mean tat dod did it.

God HAS revealed Himself. We are without excuse for the heavens and earth proclaim the glory of YHVH. Aramike, when I look I can only marvel at the complexity and beauty of these two things. I am humbled, it leads me to believe there is a Creator Adonai Elohei Yisrael. Please, present evidence for this.

Even Darwin knew his theory could be punched full of of holes as beheld the eye of a peacock's feathers.

What Darwin thought is quite irrelevant, his theory of evolution through natural selection has tons and tons of suporting evidence, one of the most profound being endogenous retroviruses, which are a relatively new discovery and completely support evolution and common decent. That being said, the theory of evolution has no bearing on this subject, this subject has everything to do with the heory of abiogenesis, a completely different field of biology and one that we understand a lot worse than evolution.

[Rockstar]

You can't create something from nothing. Nobody can; nothing can. It's as simple as that. So really, if someone was able to do it, they'd have my attention too, lol.
Are you saying the substances these scientists used have been in existence forever, that they have always been? It would seem to me then decay is not possible yet it decays. That life would continue there would be no death.

If it decays it must have then had a start.


As I said the evidence is in His creation we are without excuse. Not to sound mean or sarcastic but the argument is with Him not me.

[Stealth Hunter]

Again the same question applies to the big bang theory. In order for something to go bang there has to be a substance or substances used to cause the reaction. Where did those substances come from?

You wouldn't need substances. Why? Because of its extremely small size and extremely dense state. This would cause inflation to occur and thus expansion.

God HAS revealed Himself.

Yes, Thor HAS revealed himself...

We are without excuse for the heavens and earth proclaim the glory of YHVH.

Yadda, yadda, yadda. That preaching will not get you anywhere with people who have the capacity to think, because unlike religious folks, we actually ask for evidence before we agree to something.

Aramike, when I look I can only marvel at the complexity and beauty of these two things.

Then you cannot think for yourself and question them? That's a shame.

I am humbled, it leads me to believe there is a Creator Adonai Elohei Yisrael.

And how did you arrive at that, lol, "brilliant" deduction? What makes the god of the Bible anymore plausible than Gilgamesh, Mithra, Odin, Zeus, Hotu-Mat'ua, or the tens of thousands of other gods? You owe the Mesopotamians for starting the first known religion in the first place. And Jesus was original? Thank Mithra for the origins of his story (came 600 years before Jesus supposedly did).

Even Darwin knew his theory could be punched full of of holes as beheld the eye of a peacock's feathers.

:har:

You believe in a 6,000-year-old planet then?

I am GLAD you are not a member of the scientific community.

[Stealth Hunter]

Are you saying the substanced these scientists used have been in existence forever, that they have always been?

It's quite possible they've always existed in some form or another.

It would seem to me then decay is not possible yet it decays. That life would continue there would be no death.

http://www.mcnblogs.com/filmfatale/Frylock.jpg

[face_wtf?]

If it decays it must have then had a start.

Yeah, the sun did have a beginning. So did the Big Bang- an extremely hot, dense, and small singularity containing what we call the fundamental interactions. But what is possible is that this singularity has always existed in some form or another.

As I said the evidence is in His creation we are without excuse.

One could also argue what we see around us is evidence for evolution, plate tectonics, cosmic inflation, etc. The difference is that there is no definitive evidence for a god, like a photograph or him actually coming down to meet us. Also, the existence of a god relies upon faith; science sticks to evidence.

[FIREWALL]

Why is it when there's a scientific debate and one side starts loseing.

They DRAG GOD into it. :haha:

[Stealth Hunter]

Why is it when there's a scientific debate and one side starts loseing.

They DRAG GOD into it. :haha:

It's always the last resort. They think it's difficult to prove there is no god when there's no need. Just point out the lack of evidence and go from there.

[Morts]

God HAS revealed Himself. We are without excuse for the heavens and earth proclaim the glory of YHVH.
pics or it didnt happend...anyways
id like to see proof of god having revealed himself. whenever i look around i dont see evidence of a god

[Sea Demon]

Yadda, yadda, yadda. That preaching will not get you anywhere with people who have the capacity to think, because unlike religious folks, we actually ask for evidence before we agree to something.


Stealth Hunter, you are one of the biggest fools on the Internet that THINKS he's some sort of science guru of sorts. On so many threads I see you misapplying scientific thought and analysis. Like your global warming screeds for example, which do not resemble scientific analysis at all due to the "theories" glaring inconsistincies. The funny thing is, your BELIEFS in the origins of the universe are merely theory from scientific evidence.

Yet, there is a distinct difference between theory and established fact. If you truly follow it all, minor revisions to these theories continually take place. It is not an absolute despite your arrogance to the contrary. Different evidence sometimes revises it to the point that what was believed initially, is now thrown out the window. Expect that to be the case in the future.

I truly do not understand your point above however. The fact that you think "religious folk" have no capacity of thought shows a clear disconnect from reality, and your own lack of thought to boot. I myself am an unashamed Christian. Yet, I am very much connected to science. I learned in a Catholic school the theories expounded from Big Bang principles. "Big Bang theory" does not mean God didn't have a hand in it. If you actually understood "religious folk", it should be understood that religious faith is based on faith.

Why you have such hostility to people of faith can only be some short coming of yours. Simply put, you are an idiot. In fact, I'd love to put my science and engineering credentials against yours anyday of the week. I have both Bachelors and Masters degrees in these areas. And work in the space high tech sector of the economy. Some of your posts show nothing but belief based on Internet article. You don't impress anybody who actually understands science and engineering. Anybody can pick up a copy of science digest and think they're hot sh**. I can see from your posts...that's all you are.

[Sea Demon]

pics or it didnt happend...anyways
id like to see proof of god having revealed himself. whenever i look around i dont see evidence of a god

Unless you can expound theory from fact, much of what you BELIEVE or don't believe doesn't exist....atheist.

Personally, for me, the mathematical order in the universe I observe in so many ways, from the evident chaos is evidence that what I believe as a Christian is valid. You are free not to see the same. But why the hostility? Idiots like SH believe science and "religious people" are seperate from one another and cannot interact. I'm hoping you're not as short sighted as that goofball.

[Aramike]

Are you saying the substances these scientists used have been in existence forever, that they have always been? It would seem to me then decay is not possible yet it decays. That life would continue there would be no death.

If it decays it must have then had a start.You're unfamiliar with the law of conservation, I suppose. Indeed, thermodynamics indicates that a SYSTEM will always decay (entropy), but the law of conservation dictates that the total value of that system will always remain the same. That means that no start in necessary.

Stealth Hunter - Sea Demon is right. Also, I find it somewhat ironic that someone speaking about the authority of science would make a broad generalization about ANYTHING, really.

[Morts]

Unless you can expound theory from fact, much of what you BELIEVE or don't believe doesn't exist....atheist.

Personally, for me, the mathematical order in the universe I observe in so many ways, from the evident chaos is evidence that what I believe as a Christian is valid. You are free not to see the same.
and thats fair enough, we all see things differently.
i usually dont mind religious people unless they act like subman, trying to push his religion on others and mocking people for seeing things differently

[Stealth Hunter]

On so many threads I see you misapplying scientific thought and analysis.

Such as?

Like your global warming screeds for example, which do not resemble scientific analysis at all due to the "theories" glaring inconsistincies.

Uh- what? I agree with researchers that the planet is warming. It's a well-known fact that it is, and anyone who can count can see very plainly from data compiled by NASA's Goddard Institute that it is. I also agree that humans are having some impact on "fueling the fire". I disagree with people like Al Gore however on its rate and current severity as well as blaming it entirely on humans...

The funny thing is, your BELIEFS in the origins of the universe are merely theory from scientific evidence.

The keyword here being "evidence".

Yet, there is a distinct difference between theory and established fact.

Indeed there is.

If you truly follow it all, minor revisions to these theories continually take place.

Yeah, I'm quite aware of that. With something like Newtonian gravity, for instance, it's been superceeded completely by general relativity.

It is not an absolute despite your arrogance to the contrary.

When did I ever say that these theories and hypotheses stopped having information added to them and thus reached their peak level of attaining information?

I haven't, because I know that's never the case, just as I also know that a theory always remains a theory and a hypothesis always remains a hypothesis.

The fact that you think "religious folk" have no capacity of thought shows a clear disconnect from reality, and your own lack of thought to boot.

Not a lack of capacity, a flawed process. Too many of them ignore evidence contradictory to their beliefs and feel that doing that will make them right, when it doesn't. Look at websites like Answers in Genesis or the Discovery Institute for prime examples of what I'm talking about.

The problem with religion and science, quite simply, is that the two cannot coexist reasonably. Science does not even bother with the supernatural; religion is based around it. Science bases its principles off evidence; religion on faith. They're just too different to work.

I myself am an unashamed Christian. Yet, I am very much connected to science.

But don't you see the problem with that?

"Big Bang theory" does not mean Divine Providence didn't have a hand in it.

Provide evidence it did. Do that, and both sides of this argument will love you FOREVER.

If you actually understood "religious folk", it should be understood that religious faith is based on faith.

And I do. Faith is faith, no matter what kind. It's as simple as that.

Why you have such hostility to people of faith can only be some short coming of yours.

It's not hostility so much as it is annoyance from listening to it day in and day out. Religion is not all bad. I don't think that for a second. It's people like Sub, however, that make it bad. And unfortunately, those people too often make up the majority.

Simply put, you are an idiot. In fact, I'd love to put my science and engineering credentials against yours anyday of the week. I have both Bachelors and Masters degrees in these areas. And work in the space high tech sector of the economy.

Well I'm a space-cowboy/astronaut who makes a million dollars a year and owns five mansions in the Bahamas and lives next to Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.:haha:

You may very well be what you say you are, and you may very well have what you say you have. But you may also be full of s***. Of course, the same can be said for any of us on the Internet; the point being, I don't believe you for a second; but I don't expect you to believe me either.

Anybody can pick up a copy of science digest and think they're hot sh**.

And how do you know I am? How do you know I didn't actually bother to study these things and learn about them? You don't. The same I can say for you. So lets leave it at that and stop bitching at each other because it's not going to go anywhere.

[FIREWALL]

Stealth Hunter, you are one of the biggest fools on the Internet that THINKS he's some sort of science guru of sorts. On so many threads I see you misapplying scientific thought and analysis. Like your global warming screeds for example, which do not resemble scientific analysis at all due to the "theories" glaring inconsistincies. The funny thing is, your BELIEFS in the origins of the universe are merely theory from scientific evidence.

Yet, there is a distinct difference between theory and established fact. If you truly follow it all, minor revisions to these theories continually take place. It is not an absolute despite your arrogance to the contrary. Different evidence sometimes revises it to the point that what was believed initially, is now thrown out the window. Expect that to be the case in the future.

I truly do not understand your point above however. The fact that you think "religious folk" have no capacity of thought shows a clear disconnect from reality, and your own lack of thought to boot. I myself am an unashamed Christian. Yet, I am very much connected to science. I learned in a Catholic school the theories expounded from Big Bang principles. "Big Bang theory" does not mean God didn't have a hand in it. If you actually understood "religious folk", it should be understood that religious faith is based on faith.

Why you have such hostility to people of faith can only be some short coming of yours. Simply put, you are an idiot. In fact, I'd love to put my science and engineering credentials against yours anyday of the week. I have both Bachelors and Masters degrees in these areas. And work in the space high tech sector of the economy. Some of your posts show nothing but belief based on Internet article. You don't impress anybody who actually understands science and engineering. Anybody can pick up a copy of science digest and think they're hot sh**. I can see from your posts...that's all you are.

Unless you can expound theory from fact, much of what you BELIEVE or don't believe doesn't exist....atheist.

Personally, for me, the mathematical order in the universe I observe in so many ways, from the evident chaos is evidence that what I believe as a Christian is valid. You are free not to see the same. But why the hostility? Idiots like SH believe science and "religious people" are seperate from one another and cannot interact. I'm hoping you're not as short sighted as that goofball.


Resorting to name calling doesnt help your position on this debate. :nope:

[Rilder]

Why do these threads always degenerate into flame fests?

I'm just gonna order my men forward to hit everyone with Staffs

[Stealth Hunter]

Resorting to name calling doesnt help your position on this debate. :nope:

I was being a bit of an ass, though.

[antikristuseke]

Yet, there is a distinct difference between theory and established fact. If you truly follow it all, minor revisions to these theories continually take place. It is not an absolute despite your arrogance to the contrary. Different evidence sometimes revises it to the point that what was believed initially, is now thrown out the window. Expect that to be the case in the future.


While on this subject (sort of) here is an interesting essay for everyone to read. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

[CaptainHaplo]

As a ordained minister - I have no issue with science at some point being able to "create" life. It actually does no such thing. It externally brings together different things and observes what happens. Sometimes with stimuli.

Big deal. Does this somehow threaten my spirituality? Nope. Because until science can take nothing, make it something with mere thought, scan every possible permutation, kick off the process and know exactly how zillions of different and variable things are all going to work out - ie - preordination - it can't compare to a Creator.

Science and theology are not mutually exclusive. To think that they are is to go against one of the first commands recorded biblically - to have Dominion (understanding, knowledge and control) over every part of the earth.

For those who worry about "created life" - there is a difference between a life - and an eternal soul. A plant is alive - but I don't know many serious theologians that postulate that a plant has a soul. Barring some druidic types (and other pagans) being an exception - to a point. Still - they would not term it a soul in the classic JudeaoXtian view.

Science ultimately does more to prove the infinite wisdom of a creator than it does to disprove it. As for the question of a Supreme Being and how "HE" sleeps at night with all the bad stuff in the world - if you meant that question seriously, pm me and we can discuss it.

[Aramike]

Big deal. Does this somehow threaten my spirituality? Nope. Because until science can take nothing, make it something with mere thought, scan every possible permutation, kick off the process and know exactly how zillions of different and variable things are all going to work out - ie - preordination - it can't compare to a Creator.Haplo, I have an honest question for you, that I hope you won't take as though I'm attempting to challenge your faith in any way. Rather, this is something that really bugs me regarding the concept of creation, either through a Big Bang or God saying "let there be light".

If everything in existance is predicated upon a creator, what is God predicated upon? Furthermore, if God "just is", than why can existance not be "just is"?

I'll probably be the only agnostic/atheist on this forum to admit that I can no more easily wrap my noodle around an infinite singularity exploding than God just saying, "make it so", but I'm not ashamed to admit that. Frankly I think that, too often in the argument of theological creation versus science we skimp over very important options: could a god that we are unaware of have created everything? Could there be "creators" with no sentience?

However, my question is an honest one and is without malice.

[antikristuseke]

You are not the only one to admit that.

A god we are unaware of could have created everything, but there is no reason to assume that it is so (I understand you are not saying there is, just saying). When there is no evidence to show what there was, a simple "I dont know, but scientists are trying to figure it out." would be the best and most hones answer IMO.

[Aramike]

You are not the only one to admit that.

A god we are unaware of could have created everything, but there is no reason to assume that it is so (I understand you are not saying there is, just saying). When there is no evidence to show what there was, a simple "I dont know, but scientists are trying to figure it out." would be the best and most hones answer IMO.I suppose you're right. But for the same reason I ask the question of Haplo, I must ask myself, although I believe that the universe (as we know it) was created through a Big Bang from an infinate singularity, how can I discount a god, even the Christian God?

You're right, though - there is no reason to assume so.

[AngusJS]

Now the sad part - none of you are wise enough to see. Yeah- when I think of wisdom, I think of Subman. :DL


I myself am an unashamed Christian. Yet, I am very much connected to science.People excel at compartmentalizing. They do it when they go to church and shut off the rational worldview that works so well six days of the week because their beliefs on the seventh day can't stand up to it. And I don't mean just the lack of evidence for god, but also all of the false claims, contradictions, incoherencies and plain silliness which are part and parcel of Christian theology. The stuff that sets off their BS detectors when it comes to any other set of claims is ignored in their own. The question is, why do that? Do they care about the truth or not?

[Letum]

Of course, life really started like this:
YOUTUBE LINK (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69EHLSnWKNQ)

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Of course, life really started like this:
YOUTUBE LINK (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69EHLSnWKNQ)


Probably, but miracles were indeed performed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik0yz5Jo4Os)

[Stealth Hunter]

Probably, but miracles were indeed performed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik0yz5Jo4Os)

:haha:

The Ghostbusters got him.

http://www.filmdetail.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/copy-2-of-ghostbusters-v-jesus.jpg

[Skybird]

For those who worry about "created life" - there is a difference between a life - and an eternal soul. A plant is alive - but I don't know many serious theologians that postulate that a plant has a soul. Barring some druidic types (and other pagans) being an exception - to a point. Still - they would not term it a soul in the classic JudeaoXtian view.


"Theology" is just an intellectual dispute between people reading man-written books. Whether or not there is an individual soul, is not known for sure. Jesus talked his way around it, but did not exactly answer it, and made it even more difficult by talking in plenty of metaphors to reach his audience. Buddha strictly denied the existence of an individual soul. However, both men were pointing at a higher quality in life that trascendends all being there is, without making differences. Seen that way, man has a soul, animals have a soul, every leaf and every stone has a soul. Or Buddha-nature, if you prefer. Or: everything carries one and the same divine spark inside. Or best: all is part of one and the same soul that expresses itself in all form there is.

Theistic religions, no matter whether mono- or mutli-theistic, tend to assume there is one individual soul per man, and often it is property of one or several gods. But I think that is a quite ego-fixiated theory especially in case of the monotheistic religions, taking oneself incredibly important, and in a way making the universe revolving around oneself. In Buddhism it would be seen as part of the ego in a western psychologist's undestanding of the term, or athman. However, Buddhism argues that the athman must die when your body dies. When your brain stops working, your image of God quits functioning. When you physically desintagrate, a god that is believed in by this body, must seize to exist, because it is a thought god. Nevertheless it is said that there is an eternal essence or quality indeed, an unlimited void from which all forms emerge and to which they return (although these terms of coming and going are totally misleading), for they are only illusive, and the term anathman ("non-ego) points to this. What is eternal and lasting in man beyond his body's death, is this anathman, that is not individually and unique but is the same "thing" like in all being there is, from man over a tree over a piece of fine arts to that piece of dog**** on the street. It did not come, and does not go, stays unchanged, and compares to the inner and outer side of a cloud of soapy bubbles hanging in nowhere: outside the bubbles is the same void like inside the bubbles, bubbles do not contain different, individual forms of various voids, but just one and the same. Bubbles come, bubbles float, bubbles go - and what changes in all that? Nothing. It is always one and the same void, like in a movie it is one and the same screen aon which the various films get projected. the action movie, the psychodrama, the romantic scene, the splatter horror - its always the same screen, while the films are just illusions. You realise it when they end. And maybe like in that metaphor, man must die before he really can see the truth behind things. not being hindred anymore, not being bound by illusions anymore, all knowledge is his and he is again what he always was and always will be. That is what Jesus calls Heaven, the return to the father (or original state of mind, I would prefer).

To me, only in this perspective the teachings of Jesus make sense. but when taking this perspective, all of a sudden they shift from telling fairy tales and stories of superstition and wonders of heaven, to a damn lot of sense indeed.

This is not to start a personal fighting with you, CaptainHaplo, or force my views upon you, really. Just to focus a bit more on one thing you said, and to show that there are alternatives to your claim, that for my taste was taking a bit too much for truth that must not be questioned - but that in the end is just this: thoughts of intellectual men. Spirituality is not about intellectual arguments and believing in them, nor is it believing something so systemtically and with so much devotion that the illusion emerges that believing the unproven is knowing for sure an assumed proven truth, beyond doubt. Spirituality is about direct experience and an insight from that that must no longer just be believed. Part of that spirituality is that one does not differ between profane and sacral, "me" (inside) and "you" (outside) anymore - giving up that comes all natural then. And listening to theologists time and again raises my doubts that they have any such direct experience. They mistake their - often voluminous - education with it. But they are preachers of a thought god only.

[CaptainHaplo]

Gentleman,

You will not offend or upset me when you question. Questioning instead of blind faith is something I firmly believe in - and I hope that my own answers can somehow start you on a path that may lead you to your own. It would be the height of egoism and stupidity on my part if I simply expected an answer or thought process that works for me to automatically be all the answers you have searched for. I have learned it simply doesn't work like that. Questions lead to answers - blind faith leads to you walking over cliffs. Regardless of if I disagree or not, you always should question and I encourage you to do so.

Now brace yourselves for a lengthy dissertation! :rotfl:

Aramike - the biggest problem with the creationism vs alternate start (and there are lots of theories on it) is that everyone wants to go to the issue of "what was before that". The question itself is, in my own view - moot. Its premise is existence as we know it had to have a starting point - at least the way we understand it. I simply accept that what we call a starting point for this existence - the "creation" or big bang or whatever - was not a true starting point at all. What it was defies our limited understanding, because as humans we struggle to truly comprehend infinity.

Its a fine question - but one that we have no ability to understand within our human limitations. For creation - you need an Intelligent Creator - for the big bang - you need various stellar ingredients. Either way you need "something" before existance as we know it. So everyone asks "where did that something come from?". I accept that since that "something before" is outside the realms of our current existence, its also highly likely to be beyond our current ability to understand. Logic dictates that SOMETHING had to be there - but what it was I can't begin to scientifically define - since it is external to our existence, there is no way to scientifically prove it.

The question really is a trap. I could do the same by saying "when will this existence end?". As we understand our reality - there will be no true "end" to this physical plane - the laws that govern it means that it will continue it is expand/contract cycle indefinitely. Scientist talk about the universe expanding - later to contract. Ok - whats it expanding INTO? Some empty nothingness? Ok - does that nothingness ever end? How did the nothingness get there? For that matter - "where" is that nothingness?". Doesn't the law of entropy demand that even the nothingness breaks down? What's less than nothing?

You see, the way the human mind works, it tries to put things into rational little boxes it can understand. Some things are simply beyond the human intellect. None of us were there at the "start" of this existence. We don't KNOW what happened. And some try to figure it out. A reasonable thing. But its like seeing someone who put a 5000 piece puzzle together. You may see two or three pieces fit together - but thats all you can see. How can you tell what the whole thing is going to look like? You can't - your perspective - your understanding - is simply to limited. As hard as it is for the human EGO to accept it, the questions will be asked but are highly unlikely to ever be answered in a way that can be truly considered accurate.

If I accept that certain things are beyond me - then I am forced to make my own decisions based on my own thoughts about what I BELIEVE.
This is what people don't get. The "BIG BANG" is just as much a BELIEF as is a Supreme Being. Nobody can PROVE either one. Both are simply theories. Both have scientific flaws and support. So you get to choose which one fits your views better.

Either way - our mind says SOMETHING had to exist before - so what was it? I choose to see it as a Creator that is "bigger" than the creation. Or - to make the scientifically minded among us really grind their teeth - its something "more infinite" than this existence. I don't claim to be able to define it - because I have always said - you cant put the infinite into a finite box. Just as you can't put an infinite God into a man created structure called religion. If you try, your already doomed to fail. For those that hold to the big bang, some say it was a rip in the fabric of another dimension that started this. Ok where did that dimension come from? Etc Etc. To me you can either accept an answer of "I don't know" - or come up with answers that lead to more questions that we lack the knowledge to ever answer with any certainty.

"Spirituality" and science have one common goal that no one ever points out. That is to deal with the human mortality. Science strives to know what is - and what will be - by tracking what has been. Religion tries to assuage the fear of human fraility through trying to define the undefinable.

I don't say the big bang couldnt have happened. I don't say that the biblical "7 days of creation" happened the way it is interpreted. I honestly don't worry about it - because I have made my choice on which "faith" I stand and am comfortable with it. I'm comfortable saying "I don't know where "God" came from - and I never will in this life.". That doesn't make me lose a wink of sleep. To me - its not even a question to ask - because I can understand and accept my own limitations - and part of those is I wouldn't understand the answer.

[CaptainHaplo]

Skybird..... please stop. Your scaring me. Your thinking way to much like I do on the whole "spiritual" issue.

Actually - I encourage everyone here to read a series of books called "Conversations with God". It should, at the least, make you think about a lesser known train of thought in spirituality. I have my own view of the soul - and your "divine spark" comment is in line in some ways with my own views. However, I do not personally believe that every object has a "soul". But, my views are my own, and again I cannot begin to claim that my views answer all the questions.

However, the theory that there is a "unifying" or "shared" portion of is highly logical and can be seen in everyday life.

[Aramike]

Haplo, your science is quite a bit dated, but I know what you're trying to say, which is pretty much what I was saying, just from a different angle.Actually - I encourage everyone here to read a series of books called "Conversations with God". I think I read the first of that series years ago. Is that the ony where the guy claimed that he was just sitting there and his pen just started to move as a way for God to talk to him?

I found WAY too many logical inconsistancies from "God" in that book to take it seriously.

[CaptainHaplo]

Aramike - my science is dated because I am too! :rotfl:
As for the book - I think your on the right track. If memory serves, the pen didn't start writing on its own - but he didn't provide the thoughts or something like that. I don't take it as gospel by any means, just another piece of the puzzle. It does make for an entertaining read that can make you take stock of yourself if you want to.

[Aramike]

Aramike - my science is dated because I am too! :rotfl:
As for the book - I think your on the right track. If memory serves, the pen didn't start writing on its own - but he didn't provide the thoughts or something like that. I don't take it as gospel by any means, just another piece of the puzzle. It does make for an entertaining read that can make you take stock of yourself if you want to.Heh, it was pretty entertaining, that's for sure, and somewhat thought-provoking, but it got seriously discombobulated towards the end. :doh:

[Sea Demon]

People excel at compartmentalizing. They do it when they go to church and shut off the rational worldview that works so well six days of the week because their beliefs on the seventh day can't stand up to it. And I don't mean just the lack of evidence for god, but also all of the false claims, contradictions, incoherencies and plain silliness which are part and parcel of Christian theology. The stuff that sets off their BS detectors when it comes to any other set of claims is ignored in their own. The question is, why do that? Do they care about the truth or not?

Some of you guys crack me up. Actually, I'm more involved than just the "seventh day" as you call it. And my faith stands up just fine to the world I live in when not there. It in fact enhances my life. Sorry if you can't handle that. I ignore nothing in the Bible and can apply it and relate the contents within to the world in which I live in with no problems at all. The fact that you can't, is your deal.

Look, I realize most people who flock to internet forums like these seem to be "godless" atheists. Trying very hard to justify having no faith with the use of childish mockery against those who practice faith. Although most in the USA are indeed Christian. Including most people I work with at my job. It is an engineering applied field. Why aren't they here? Working a job maybe? Too busy with kids and friends? I can't play here as often as I used to myself. Anyway, I wonder how many here have actually studied Christian theology in any comprehensive and real way. Instead of just reading parables and passages without any understanding or appropriate context.

My guess, next to none. And no, I'm not going to try here. It's obviously a wasted effort. Many theologians are still trying to figure it all out. Not sure why some internet forum atheists think they have it all figured out. Truth is they don't. Many of them hide behind science (which many here don't even understand those principles themselves) by claiming that scientific observation as a whole disproves God outright. I make my living off of science/engineering and yet I have a true faith in God. I know it makes some of you mad, but you'll just have to live with it. There are many other like minded educated people working and living life in the USA (Not talking about the Euro's here- they're spiritually lost and are rapidly being replaced by the Muslim religion.). I'm in the clear majority in this country.

[Skybird]

Resorting to name calling doesnt help your position on this debate. :nope:

But by that he helps to get sorted out qickly. ;)

[Skybird]

However, I do not personally believe that every object has a "soul".
Nor do I. The argument is that there is only one "soul", and that there is nothing else beside it. Like in the metaphor with the bubbles floating in a void that is just one and the same inside and outside every bubble, there cannot be different kinds of "spirit"/"soul"/"Buddha-nature"/"eternal moment"/"divine spark".

But all these terms are metaphors in themselves. We cannot say what "it" is, since every human language and conception is limited and thus cannot describe what is unlimited. Intellectual thinking always is self-referring, it cannot be avoided, with the only possible exception of mathematics, maybe, for mathematics seemms to be able to describe in limited terms what is infinite in essence. but in principle, for us only a world makes sense that gets described by the language's terms and labels we happen to know. We cannot imagine a reality that we cannot describe in our thoughts and languages. That's one argument to refuse theologic theory in general, and religions in special.

But while we cannot say what "it" is, we nevertehless can say what "it" is not. Or we play around the theme that we cannot express directly, but can approach indirectly a bit - in form of expressions by fine arts, especially poetry and music (but that is maybe because I am more sensitive to these than to other forms of art).

Holy books, theological systems, religious rituals - it's all ballast only, giving your mortal ego the feeling to be important and everlasting, and making you to stay attached to transitory things and conceptions, and seeking for a lasting quality in the world which will not last at all. that way, that search is guaranteed to fail from the very beginning. I say give up the search, let it all go, free yourself from everything. Or in the words of somebody else: "Give up your mother and your father, follow me and let the dead bury their dead."

[CaptainHaplo]

Sea Demon - 14 years of structured Xtian theology (specifically in the Baptist flavor), and since independant (and critical) study of many additional faiths in relation apparently is "next to none"?

Kindly realize that just because someone differs with your view does NOT mean they are not educated in the subject.

[Skybird]

Xtian? I heared of of a lot of Chinese philosophy, but this is new for me. :D

[Takeda Shingen]

Xtian? I heared of of a lot of Chinese philosophy, but this is new for me. :D

Dang. I was going to say that.

[Safe-Keeper]

Lots of stuff to catch up on here...

Like your global warming screeds for example, which do not resemble scientific analysis at all due to the "theories" glaring inconsistencies. The funny thing is, your BELIEFS in the origins of the universe are merely theory from scientific evidence.Pardon me, but I love how people first state that their position is based on faith in something totally unproven, while the opposition is 'only' a theory based on lots of research. Surely if you want to convince someone, or choose a side yourself, you go to the guy with the evidence?

If I get sick and need medicine, who do I buy it from? Let's say there are two providers:

Provider a: you should buy my product because it's been clinically tested on 5000 subjects using double blinding methods by accredited and objective medical researchers. The researchers' report has been peer reviewed by an independent panel and has been approved by the FDA.

Provider b: you should buy my product because I say you should. It's my personal belief. All person a has is a theory (like atomic theory or the theory that the Earth goes around the Sun) that he himself has admitted he's not 100% sure of and which could change at any moment. I, on the other hand, have 100% blind faith in my product because I do, and thus you should come to me!

Seriously, I know I come across as offended, but I'm repeatedly struck by how some (thankfully far from all) believers tout their lack of evidence and their blind faith as a good thing, to be preferred over mountains of evidence produced by decades, in some cases even centuries, of research by people whose very job it is to disprove existing theories and laws.

Yet, there is a distinct difference between theory and established fact.No. There is a common misconception that the scientific word 'theory' means the same thing as the everyday term, ie. speculation or something unproven, whereas a 'law' is an advanced stage a theory reaches when it's finally proven. If this was true, we'd have 'promoted' atomic theory to law a long time ago.

A theory in scientific jargon is something that explains a natural phenomenon. For example, we know that things fall - the theory of gravity explains why. We know that things have evolved, the theory of evolution explains the details. We know that humans and everything have to consist of smaller parts, and that if we keep breaking these smaller parts into smaller parts still, eventually we get to something that can't be broken into something smaller. Atomic theory explains this knowledge.

So yes, a theory can very well represent established fact.

If you truly follow it all, minor revisions to these theories continually take place.Minor revisions to history constantly take place, too, do they not, not to mention minor and major revisions of religion. This doesn't necessarily matter any to the theory itself - for instance, it was initially believed atoms couldn't be split. This was 'thrown out the window'. However, does this mean atomic theory is moot? Certainly not. Or what about scientists refining the measured distance from the Earth to the Sun - does this invalidate heliocentric theory? Certainly not. To think that minor revisions to a premise invalidates the premise is totally illogical. If I first say that 8x8 equals "60-something" and later say it equals "64", does my refining mean I'm completely wrong? Nope, not at all.

Unless you can expound theory from fact, much of what you BELIEVE or don't believe doesn't exist....atheist.
Why the ellipsis before 'atheist'? It's almost as if you think it's a bad word.

Personally, for me, the mathematical order in the universe I observe in so many ways, from the evident chaos is evidence that what I believe as a Christian is valid. You are free not to see the same.OK, so you believe that the universe is too ordered to not have been created by a god. Why the Christian god? The Bible makes a whole range of statements about nature, including the number of legs on insects, the value of Pi, the order in which things were created (light before the stars, for instance), the shape of the earth, the diet of rabbits, and so on, that we simply know today to be false. If I was to put my faith in a religion to explain the universe as we know it, I'd seek out one with less flaws.

As a ordained minister - I have no issue with science at some point being able to "create" life. It actually does no such thing. It externally brings together different things and observes what happens. Sometimes with stimuli.

Big deal. Does this somehow threaten my spirituality? Nope. Because until science can take nothing, make it something with mere thought, scan every possible permutation, kick off the process and know exactly how zillions of different and variable things are all going to work out - ie - preordination - it can't compare to a Creator.You are moving the goal posts. No one has said science is trying to become a creator, designing something out of nothing. The reason why this is such a breakthrough is that it demonstrates that primitive life forms can arise by natural processes. Many Creationists argue that evolution and abiogenesis is flat out impossible - recreating the conditions of the early Earth and watching life form is another nail in the coffin for that statement.

For those who worry about "created life" - there is a difference between a life - and an eternal soul. A plant is alive - but I don't know many serious theologians that postulate that a plant has a soul. Barring some druidic types (and other pagans) being an exception - to a point. Still - they would not term it a soul in the classic JudeaoXtian view.You say this as if Christianity and Judaism have some sort of authority over soul hunting that every religion on earth doesn't have. Why?

Science ultimately does more to prove the infinite wisdom of a creator than it does to disprove it.If making a mockery of the Biblical worldview proves it somehow in your eyes, well, that's your opinion and you're free to have it.

Two points I agree with completely:If everything in existance is predicated upon a creator, what is God predicated upon? Furthermore, if God "just is", than why can existance not be "just is"?
Agreed.

Aramike - the biggest problem with the creationism vs alternate start (and there are lots of theories on it) is that everyone wants to go to the issue of "what was before that". The question itself is, in my own view - moot. Its premise is existence as we know it had to have a starting point - at least the way we understand it. I simply accept that what we call a starting point for this existence - the "creation" or big bang or whatever - was not a true starting point at all. What it was defies our limited understanding, because as humans we struggle to truly comprehend infinity.Also agreed.

[AngusJS]

I ignore nothing in the Bible and can apply it and relate the contents within to the world in which I live in with no problems at all.You ignore nothing in the Bible? How do you get around all the nasty bits, the contradictions, etc.?

Trying very hard to justify having no faith with the use of childish mockery against those who practice faith. Uh, we aren't the ones positing the deity. We don't have to justify anything.

Although most in the USA are indeed Christian. Including most people I work with at my job. It is an engineering applied field. Why aren't they here? Working a job maybe? Too busy with kids and friends?Yeah, that's us atheists, jobless misanthropes to a man. :roll:

Anyway, I wonder how many here have actually studied Christian theology in any comprehensive and real way. Instead of just reading parables and passages without any understanding or appropriate context.Actually, what often turns people into atheists is reading the Bible without the assumption that it's the word of god, and just letting it stand or fall on its own merits. Many of those who previously believed lose their faith kicking and screaming in the process.

Sometimes some atheists aren't fair with the Bible. But most of the time, they remain truer to the text, letting it speak for itself rather than rationalizing or ignoring all the stuff that is abhorrent or that doesn't fit, which in my experience is what theists usually do.

And a thing about context. Take Jesus preaching against divorce. So women in abusive marriages are just supposed to grin and bear it? A believer would explain that in patriarchal 1st century Palestine, for women divorce meant destitution, as they had no way to support themselves. Thus, it's good that Jesus preached against it.

That might make sense if Jesus is just some guy form the Iron Age, a man of his times. But he isn't just some guy, he's supposed to be the son of god. So being omniscient, why in hell would he say something like that, knowing what the consequences would be? Christians try to defend the Bible by appealing to context, not seeing the hole they're digging for their omniscient, omnipresent and eternal deity whose mindset is strangely stuck in the infancy of human civilization.

My guess, next to none. And no, I'm not going to try here. It's obviously a wasted effort. Many theologians are still trying to figure it all out. Not sure why some internet forum atheists think they have it all figured out.What are we supposed to figure out? Christianity does not jive with reality. The chasm between the two has to be bridged by faith. The question is, why bother? What's wrong with just plain old reality?

Truth is they don't. Many of them hide behind science (which many here don't even understand those principles themselves) by claiming that scientific observation as a whole disproves God outright.Who says that? What I hear most atheists say is that there is no evidence for god, and that Christian theology and apologetics fail to pick up the slack.

There are many other like minded educated people working and living life in the USA (Not talking about the Euro's here- they're spiritually lost and are rapidly being replaced by the Muslim religion.). I'm in the clear majority in this country.So anyone who doesn't see the need for religion is spiritually lost?

And don't forget your majority is decreasing according to the latest polls. :)

[Safe-Keeper]

You ignore nothing in the Bible? How do you get around all the nasty bits, the contradictions, etc.?
I wondered about this, too. Does your wife wear a hijab (http://www.thebricktestament.com/epistles_of_paul/instructions_for_women/1co11_04.html), Sea Demon? Has she accepted her place as your subordinate? Does she give you everything you want, as the Bible commands her to?

Anyway, I wonder how many here have actually studied Christian theology in any comprehensive and real way. Instead of just reading parables and passages without any understanding or appropriate context.:raises hand:

I know it sounds nerdy, but studying the Bible has grown to become one of my favourite interests - looking at the stories' origins, cultural contexts and transformations throughout the various cultures they've gone through is hugely interesting.

[Sea Demon]

You ignore nothing in the Bible? How do you get around all the nasty bits, the contradictions, etc.?

I wondered about this, too. Does your wife wear a hijab (http://www.thebricktestament.com/epistles_of_paul/instructions_for_women/1co11_04.html), Sea Demon? Has she accepted her place as your subordinate? Does she give you everything you want, as the Bible commands her to?

My Goodness. Where to begin to turn this stupidity on it's head. How does anybody get all around the nasty contradictions and turnabouts in any of the holy books of the different religions? How do you get around all the nasty contradictions, and rewrites of theory that all too frequently occur in science circles? Looks to me like you just simply fear religion AngusJS. And more importantly, you irrationally fear Christianity. Perhaps I can borrow the labelling convention from Liberals and just "label" you a religophobe of sorts? The truth is, there is contradiction or inconsistincies in everything that man gets his hands on. That's why you see so many differing schools of thought regarding biblical interpretation in the various denominations. It's similar with Jews and Muslims with the different sects of each. I have read the Bible through more than once, studied it in a Catholic school, and it's always been understood that man's interpretations or understandings are not always perfect. That's why there have always been theologians. The Bible does just fine for my faith in God. Please get mad and blow another diatribe trying to convince me how I interact with my faith isn't real. My eyes haven't rolled in hours. I find your sense of "purpose" here amusing.

And Safe-Keeper, my wife nor myself live by the Muslim code. She wears no hijab. Nice try at humor, but your accuracy is way off. But yes, we have a great relationship. She's given me two great children. I can't complain....thanks for asking. And yes, Global Warming is approached by many people without faith as a substitute. That's why the glaring inconsistincies there exist. Interestingly enough, I'm sure you're a grand believer in that nonsense despite not only the lack of evidence.....but the constant trends that reflect the exact opposite of actual predictions. Funny stuff here.

Captain Haplo....these two types of people are the type I was referring to as the short sighted individuals that haven't actually studied theology and think they know everything. I wasn't referring to you.

Uh, we aren't the ones positing the deity. We don't have to justify anything. Yeah, but you wrap yourself up when you approach the subject like you have the absolute answers to everything. And reality is....you have no clue. Actually, if you have something to justify, it's why you are so adamant against it. I don't think you're changing any minds.

Actually, what often turns people into atheists is reading the Bible without the assumption that it's the word of god, and just letting it stand or fall on its own merits. Many of those who previously believed lose their faith kicking and screaming in the process.Perhaps that is what happened to you. There are people who read and study the Bible and have no problem with the teachings of life within them. I can't say I've met anybody who is as you describe. And I do actually leave the house.

Sometimes some atheists aren't fair with the Bible. But most of the time, they remain truer to the text, letting it speak for itself rather than rationalizing or ignoring all the stuff that is abhorrent or that doesn't fit, which in my experience is what theists usually do.Most atheists don't read the Bible, haven't actually studied it in depth, and certainly do not try to live by it's principles as an objective.

And a thing about context. Take Jesus preaching against divorce. So women in abusive marriages are just supposed to grin and bear it?I speak against divorce.....and no....I don't wish for people to remain in abusive relationships. It's quite odd that some people who are so against religion cannot see how that functions. Seriously, how old are you, and how far did you go in education?

Christians try to defend the Bible by appealing to context, not seeing the hole they're digging for their omniscient, omnipresent and eternal deity whose mindset is strangely stuck in the infancy of human civilization. When you have a centuries old, yet timeless in application text, context must be explored. Especially since people have been trying to figure out the substance behind it for ages. Actually, it is human beings themselves that wish to think of themselves greater than they are, yet cannot understand the true nature of the universe and everything within it. It is arrogant to think otherwise. Science is ours to explore and discover, but at this time it is insufficient for you or anybody else to know the origins of life, consciousness, death, and universal concepts in total.

What are we supposed to figure out? Christianity does not jive with reality. The chasm between the two has to be bridged by faith. The question is, why bother? What's wrong with just plain old reality?Actually Christianity does just fine with reality. As I've said, most people in my country feel the same way. I find the pews in my church lined with doctors, business owners, engineers, and other people from all walks of life. Actually, perhaps your reality(whatever that is) doesn't jive with it. And that's your call.

Who says that? What I hear most atheists say is that there is no evidence for god, and that Christian theology and apologetics fail to pick up the slack. Then why get so angry if it's all so clear to you. :up: Why the ferocious sense of purpose to feebly deride religious faith. I don't think your actually getting anywhere doing it. People will practice their religious faith whether you want them to or not. I've already explained why I view things the way I do. I'm just still trying to figure out why you can't seem to live with it.

So anyone who doesn't see the need for religion is spiritually lost?If you're not someone who acknowledges the soul, the human condition as being connected to a spiritual God,then yes.......spiritually lost or spiritually deficient is correct. No need to be insulted by it. Most atheists who aren't on a personal crusade (no Pun intended) against people of faith don't seem to equate that into an insult. That's how I can tell the nuts from the regular atheists that can just respect the fact that most people have faith in a divine power.

And don't forget your majority is decreasing according to the latest polls. :)Ain't going to be the minority in your lifetime. And it ain't really decreasing much here. And it's still the clear majority. :)

The USA is not Europe. Islam is exploding there. I actually hope the Europeans regain their faith, and sense of purpose before becoming completely overrun. I know there are a number of Europeans that think the same way.

[Skybird]

http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/7519/jesus277925o.jpg (http://img44.imageshack.us/i/jesus277925o.jpg/)

[Sea Demon]

....

Are you still pretending like you have me on ignore???;)

[porphy]

My view of the whole science - religion thing might be a bit crude, but here it goes. I still think that some of the ideas from the Vienna circle from early 1900 is a good good instrument when dealing with this stuff, doesn't matter if it be statements of science or religion.

Their (in)famous motto was something like: "the meaning of a statement is the method of its verification". :rock:
This is a powerful critical tool and when applied properly it weeds out a lot of nonsense, or at least it puts real pressure on a lot of propositions exactly where such pressure is needed. This idea also got a lot of criticism later on, and I agree it can't be a universal tool or definition of meaning, but I still think it certainly makes you work hard to make good meaningful sense of some statements that are flung around when science and religion is discussed, and for a good reason.

For example atheism "there is no god" and religious belief in god "there is a god" ends up as equally meaningless statements. They might convey some of your attitude to the world, but they say nothing about the world. There is no principal way to verify any of these two statements, by empirical measuring and quantifying. If you should find a method of their verification, then it is a scientific question open for research along well documented routes. And then science will reach a judgement if the statement is likely to be true or not.
As long as the meaning remains unclear, due to lack of a established or in principle accepted way for the statements verification, the statement can't be decided as true or false, so it is labelled meaningless or nonsense. Or it turns out that a statement is a truism, where it is simply logically and literary correct, as the famous "all bachelors are unmarried". But this is not true or false because of how the empirical world is.

A bit crude some would say, but as I said, I still think it is a good instrument to start the dissection. :yep: Edit: I like the radical move away from the older way of saying that there is a lot of things humans can't know, and therefore it's the domain of faith or religion. This is a cutting blade in the spirit of Occam's razor. For example that there is, or is no god; this is two meaningless statements, if by stating them you have the ambition to establish anything factual about the real world.

cheers prophy

[Safe-Keeper]

My Goodness. Where to begin to turn this stupidity on it's head.Do try to be polite.

How does anybody get all around the nasty contradictions and turnabouts in any of the holy books of the different religions? How do you get around all the nasty contradictions, and rewrites of theory that all too frequently occur in science circles? Looks to me like you just simply fear religion AngusJS. And more importantly, you irrationally fear Christianity. Perhaps I can borrow the labelling convention from Liberals and just "label" you a religophobe of sorts? The truth is, there is contradiction or inconsistincies in everything that man gets his hands on. Can you answer the question now that you're done trying to change the subject?

If you ignore nothing in the Bible, how do you get around the horrific evils, glaring contradictions, and flat out wrong statements it contains? Why does your wife not wear a hijab in church, as commanded by the New Testament (http://www.thebricktestament.com/epistles_of_paul/instructions_for_women/1co11_04.html)?

EDIT: Here's a Biblegateway (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2011%20;&version=49;) link if LEGOs aren't your thing.

Please get mad and blow another diatribe trying to convince me how I interact with my faith isn't real.So when we argue our side, we're trying to convert you, but when you argue that God is real, you're just defending your faith. OK.

And Safe-Keeper, my wife nor myself live by the Muslim code. She wears no hijab. Nice try at humor, but your accuracy is way off. But yes, we have a great relationship. She's given me two great children. I can't complain....thanks for asking. I... wasn't joking - you said you ignored nothing in the Bible, and so I quoted a Corinthians passage from the New Testament, which basically states that women need to cover their hair when praying and worshiping, obey all of her husband's demands, not speak in church, and in general submit to her husband's higher standing in the Christian hierarchy (child, wife, husband, Christ, God). Perhaps you should've clicked the link I provided?

And yes, Global Warming is approached by many people without faith as a substitute. That's why the glaring inconsistincies there exist. Interestingly enough, I'm sure you're a grand believer in that nonsense despite not only the lack of evidence.....but the constant trends that reflect the exact opposite of actual predictions. Funny stuff here.I utterly and completely fail to understand people who label evolution, not to mention global warming, as 'religions'.

I'm not going to address your claim that there is no evidence for AGW. I'm busy enough trying to educate you on your own Bible.

Captain Haplo....these two types of people are the type I was referring to as the short sighted individuals that haven't actually studied theology and think they know everything.Read Corinthians yet? There's a nice epistle on slavery (http://www.thebricktestament.com/epistles_of_paul/instructions_for_slaves/1tm06_01.html), too, that you'll want to read.

Most atheists don't read the Bible(1), haven't actually studied it in depth(2), and certainly do not try to live by it's principles as an objective(3).
1. Of course not. Most people don't read the Bible. Christians are a tad bit ahead, reading or reading about the few portions of it they like, but face it, it's huge. It's like trying to get through the phone directory - when Christians don't read it even though they think it's the most important book ever and could mean the difference between salvation and eternal torture... atheists aren't gonna have the patience either.
2. Most people haven't studied it in depth. Lots of people, however, have stated Bible-reading as the reason they turned away from God.
3. Thankfully, most people ignore most of the stuff in the Bible. Look... I hate to say this, as I know it sounds incredibly arrogant, but... you believers of Abrahamic faiths would be so much easier to discuss your own religion with if you actually read your Bibles.

I speak against divorce.....and no....I don't wish for people to remain in abusive relationships.Define 'abusive'. Remember, Paul's letter to the Corinthians states the wife must be submissive to her husband in everything. How, in this context, can a husband abuse his wife?

Science is ours to explore and discover, but at this time it is insufficient for you or anybody else to know the origins of life, consciousness, death, and universal concepts in total.Again, I'm astounded by your preference of an ancient collection of myths with no proof over science with tons of peer-reviewed, redundantly scrutinized research.

Hmm, the Bible doesn't seem to go into much detail about Norwegian history, guess I'll diss it in favour of Snorre's king sagas. Which logically means Odin exists.

Actually Christianity does just fine with reality.Of course most of today's Christianity does. It's so far removed from the Bible that it's tempting to call them different religions.

As I've said, most people in my country feel the same way. I find the pews in my church lined with doctors, business owners, engineers, and other people from all walks of life. Actually, perhaps your reality(whatever that is) doesn't jive with it. And that's your call.What's your point? A significant portion of Scandinavians are atheists and our countries tops the HDI (as a matter of fact, most countries topping the HDI have high numbers of atheists, the US and Ireland being two notable exceptions). The South Koreans and Taiwanese subscribe to Eastern religions and do just fine.

I don't really see why the people in your country have more inherent authority than the people in my country. Having said that, though, it is interesting that the US, with its Christianity-dominated populace, undertakes 1/2 of the world's research. If Christianity is so superior to science, everyone in the country should be reading Bibles to learn how to get rockets into space.

If you're not someone who acknowledges the soul, the human condition as being connected to a spiritual God,then yes.......spiritually lost or spiritually deficient is correct.Probably. The same way you are probably karma-deficient for not following Buddhism. Doesn't matter one ounce unless such deficiencies have consequences. Which I doubt they do.

Ain't going to be the minority in your lifetime. And it ain't really decreasing much here. The USA is not Europe.Aaactually, a recent poll pegged the number of atheists in the US at 15%, which is almost twice the 8% answering that they're atheists in the previous poll. This constitutes an increase of almost 100%. So yes, it seems more and more of us are coming out of the closet, and that we may be far more numerous than you think. Given the welfare and scientific aptitude of the great USA, I'd be surprised otherwise, given how wealth, education and happiness is proportional to people abandoning God just about absolutely everywhere else in the world.

Islam is exploding there and that religion will soon be everywhere there.Then, by your logic, atheism will soon be everywhere in the USA.

Look, I realize most people who flock to internet forums like these seem to be "godless" atheists. Trying very hard to justify having no faith with the use of childish mockery against those who practice faith.If such a small number of atheists annoys you this much, surely you should reconsider Christianity's missionary tradition?

Look, bottom line is, if you can convert billions of people, we can post on message boards. Quit yer whining.

[CaptainHaplo]

OK people - you can each believe what you want without trying to convince the other. Just accept that each sees it their own way.

Now - to answer the "Xtian" question. While most christians get upset at the use of it - X is commonly referenced as Xριστός - the Greek word for Christ. Ever seen Christmas written X-mas? It also is reminiscent of the tail of the fish as drawn in Christian theology - which is often the symbol associated with Christ.

Its simply an easier way of saying the same thing without having to type it all out repeatedly.

[Sea Demon]

Do try to be polite.

You do the same. And perhaps you can try to convince some of your other cohorts here to do the same. Thanks.

If you ignore nothing in the Bible, how do you get around the horrific evils, glaring contradictions, and flat out wrong statements it contains?

I thought I already answered this quite sufficiently. The fact that the answer doesn't suit your lack of understanding of how this functions does not concern me in the slightest. I don't expect you to understand how I can read the Bible, interpret it's meanings, view the context, and conclusions into my own life structure. And do this with meaning and focus. Seriously, I don't expect anything out of you.

So when we argue our side, we're trying to convert you, but when you argue that God is real, you're just defending your faith. OK.

I don't believe I have been arguing anything. I simply joined the conversation to say what I believe and why. Then the hostile atheist peanut gallery showed up who can't stand the fact that someone has the audactity to have faith in God, and practices the Christian faith.

I utterly and completely fail to understand people who label evolution, not to mention global warming, as 'religions'.

Because those are often practiced as a matter of faith as well. The difference is, their promoted as fact when the whole story is either not being told in the case of evolutinary theory, or is absolute junk science when it comes to Global Warming. It's clear that my religious faith is presented as faith, is guided from scripture, is inspired by the universe around me, and is something I concede I will never fully understand all it's intracacies or mysteries. Although I will continue to try.

I'm not going to address your claim that there is no evidence for AGW. I'm busy enough trying to educate you on your own Bible.

No offense, but you're obviously not equipped to educate anybody about anything.

Read Corinthians yet?

Yes. Many times over the years. And you still don't get it. and the rest of your diatribe is just blah, blah, blah. You obviously have more time to waste than me. But I would like to address the next couple of points:

If Christianity is so superior to science, everyone in the country should be reading Bibles to learn how to get rockets into space.

This shows you have no idea what religious faith is and what science is. Superior? Inferior? Geez. I don't believe that they are at war against one another. I think this is narrow thinking against faith. The Bible does not tell you how to build rockets. It doesn't tell you about human DNA. It's not the intent of the book. The Bible is about the soul and the human condition. The fact that humans make new scientific discoveries does not disprove God. Science is merely the means to understand our physical environment. Spirituality deals with the soul and the consciousness of spirit. Science and religious faith are seperate structures. As such, religious faith and science can and do absolutely coexist.


Then, by your logic, atheism will soon be everywhere in the USA.

Not likely. The clue is...who's making the babies. Mostly families of faith. That's what they're not telling you in that poll. And that goes for the Muslims of Europe who are defining the destiny of Europe through births. Personally I don't care what the number is. As long as Freedom of religion and speech is upheld what do I care. But I don't see a surge in atheism in America like I see the explosion of Islam in your neck of the woods.

If such a small number of atheists annoys you this much,

Atheists do not....I repeat do not annoy me. It's the atheists who seem to think their life's mission is to denigrate and spit on people who practice a religious faith...then hide behind science as a cover who I find ridiculous.

Look, bottom line is, if you can convert billions of people, we can post on message boards. Quit yer whining.

Post on message boards all you want. I just wonder why so many of you militant atheists have no respect for people of religious faith to the point it makes you mad. It seems totally unhinged IMO.

[Skybird]

The passion for being a theist burns hot like hellfire in some people, it seems. :D

Whenever my toothpaste sees such people, it always wants to squirm back into the tube.

http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/4548/atheistcartoon.gif (http://img44.imageshack.us/i/atheistcartoon.gif/)

[Stealth Hunter]

The passion for being a theist burns hot like hellfire in some people, it seems. :D

Whenever my toothpaste sees such people, it always wants to squirm back into the tube.

http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/4548/atheistcartoon.gif (http://img44.imageshack.us/i/atheistcartoon.gif/)

There's a fly in that last one in the corner...

It's Beelzebub!:o

[CaptainHaplo]

While I see the humor in the cartoon - I agree 100% with Sea Demon. Read the beginning posts. The second one was this:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1117314&postcount=2

It denigrated those of faith as if science and theology must be at odds. Other posts in the same vein followed. It was simply an ATTACK on those who believe in a Diety. Yet when those of faith DEFEND their view in LIGHT of science - showing that they can exist coherently together - people claim they are somehow trying to convert. Of course - the "athiest/science" crowd can demean and question and point out "flaws" in theology to "prove their point" - but they are not trying to "convert". Its a game many like to play - its rigged so that those who have a religious belief can't "win" - since to voice their view is prosetylizing, while others can attack, demean and misrepresent their faith as they wish. So who is out to bash who over the head?

Ultimately - why choose to slam those that see things differently than you do? The only answer must be that what they believe so threatens your view of reality that it must be suppressed. Of course - many athiests feel that way - because "religion" says there is something "bigger" than they are - and that they have to answer for their actions one day - and that DOES TERRIFY some of them. Not saying it applies to them all - but if the shoe fits....

[Skybird]

I did not slam anybody here, and Sea Demon is due to repeated personal attacks and offences in the past on my ignore list - I just fly over the posts of others quoting him, and already have enough again.

As with all other people on my ignore list, my problem with him is not so much what he says, but with the way he does it, his offending style, and generalisations about others. Compared to that, antikristuseke's single sentence was - simply the truth, already proven by repeated past displays of what followed once again in this thread.

In other words it is not about content, but behaviour. That's why I refuse to engage with SD's words in any different way than by throwing in a handful of cartoons. More his attacks and generalisations are not worth to me. And if others would not quote him so that it becomes to my awareness sporadically, I would ignore him completely.

Compare to that you and me had a short reasonable meeting while we agreed on some things, and disagreed, in your words, about the argument over individual souls. With some people, communication is possible, you and me as an example, or me and James who could not see economy things any more different than I do. With other people, the like of Subman and Sea Demon, it simply is not possible.

[porphy]

I prefer to slam both sides if they claim any kind of knowledge on the existence or non-existence of God!

- Absence of evidence is not evidence for absence - there goes atheism.

- Show me one believer that can state what would make him reconsider belief or faith in the existence of God and I'm willing to start listening, other wise - there goes theism.

Both routes, atheism and theism, are dead ends and easily end up talking nonsense. Of course science and religion can coexist, they do, but if you want them both you need to do some juggling to get it done, and might end up in funny positions in the process. History is full of this. Science is not a kind of religion because they share faith or beliefs. Religion is on the other hand not bad science.

Science and religion do not have to confront each other but, they do shut each other out, that is for sure. Scientific theories are not a closed door to religion, they are wide open, and that is part of the nature of science. That is why they tend to get involved with each other when you start to think about the world as a whole. But anyone who wants them to be in actual contact with each other, as in an individual life or in society, will in my view have to step up and explain exactly how. So far I haven't read anyone doing that in a convincing and clear way. I don't know why, but my guess is that it damn difficult. I'm not even sure it is possible. :salute:

[Kapitan_Phillips]

http://i44.tinypic.com/2qstf2s.jpg

^^^ I like this quote.

I got no problem with religious folks whatsoever, but I hate the ones who say what *I* think is flat wrong and how I'm going to burn for eternity.

[Safe-Keeper]

I did not slam anybody here, and Sea Demon is due to repeated personal attacks and offences in the past on my ignore list
And after repeated attacks on me, not to mention an unwillingness to contribute constructively to the discussion, or to be truthful about his experience with the Bible (pretending to have read 1 Corinthians after making it very clear he had no idea it tells women to cover their heads, for example) now on mine, too.

As for my alleged rudeness, I've reread my posts and don't see where I came across as impolite. What I do see is replies to the opponent's post, and qualifiers like "I know I come across as offensive, but...". I did what I could to be polite, and was certainly far more so than others on both sides in this thread, including Sea Demon, who was just blatantly rude and arrogant("My Goodness. Where to begin to turn this stupidity on it's head"), but apparently the fact that the discussion is on faith and I'm a non-believer makes my posts rude by definition.

Seriously, there is something to the complaints of certain outspoken atheists that you can't criticise religion the least bit without coming across as exceptionally rude. If I posted something about Bush or Obama with twice the aggression, no one would lift an eyebrow.

- Absence of evidence is not evidence for absence - there goes atheism. You do have a point that we don't know for certain if God exists. Just the same way we can't know if reincarnation, trolls, dragon spirits in rivers or talking trees exist. However, the default position is disbelief, which is the reason why people don't go about with an undecided position on the above listed phenomenon. No one cares when someone says they don't believe in trolls, but when the subject switches to God, all of a sudden I have to prove He doesn't exist.

I want to cover this one point before I lay SD to rest, though:

Because those are often practiced as a matter of faith as well. The difference is, their promoted as fact when the whole story is either not being told in the case of evolutinary theory, or is absolute junk science when it comes to Global Warming. It's clear that my religious faith is presented as faith, is guided from scripture, is inspired by the universe around me, and is something I concede I will never fully understand all it's intracacies or mysteries. Although I will continue to try.By this definition, everything is a religion. I have 'faith' my friends love me - wow, friendship is a religion. I have 'faith' the Sun will rise tomorrow... wow, guess I'm a religious sunshinetomorrowist! I have faith that if I add two and two together I will get four... isn't twoplustwoequalsfourdom just awesome?

Feel free to brand things you don't like competing religions, to be disbelieved as part of your Christian creed (and while I, unlike you, don't throw unproven strawmen around, let me say I strongly suspect this is what you're doing). However, realize that in doing so,

a) you completely scewer the definition of 'religion', and
b) you make everything in the whole world a religion. Not to mention that
c) you make it clear you know nothing about ToE and AGW.

[Skybird]

I prefer to slam both sides if they claim any kind of knowledge on the existence or non-existence of God!

- Absence of evidence is not evidence for absence - there goes atheism.

- Show me one believer that can state what would make him reconsider belief or faith in the existence of God and I'm willing to start listening, other wise - there goes theism.

Both routes, atheism and theism, are dead ends and easily end up talking nonsense. Of course science and religion can coexist, they do, but if you want them both you need to do some juggling to get it done, and might end up in funny positions in the process. History is full of this. Science is not a kind of religion because they share faith or beliefs. Religion is on the other hand not bad science.

Science and religion do not have to confront each other but, they do shut each other out, that is for sure. Scientific theories are not a closed door to religion, they are wide open, and that is part of the nature of science. That is why they tend to get involved with each other when you start to think about the world as a whole. But anyone who wants them to be in actual contact with each other, as in an individual life or in society, will in my view have to step up and explain exactly how. So far I haven't read anyone doing that in a convincing and clear way. I don't know why, but my guess is that it damn difficult. I'm not even sure it is possible. :salute:

Dawkins makes a difference between atheism and anti-theism.

Atheism is the guy sayin he does not know whether or not one or several deities exist, and that he does not care for the questions and prefers to act as if there is no god at all. He simply does not care.

Anti-theism is the guy saying that he is certain and sure that no theistic deities exist.

I am certainly one of the latter, however, as long as it is not being forced down my throat what a miserable rotten fool I am for not believing into deities, I do not actively engage others in the first to make them convinced of my position as long as i am not asked for it or find myself in a talking about such things and must not accept that relgious people try to enforce their religion in the social-cultural-political environment where I happen to live.

Keep thy religions to thyself, guys. Nobody should need to care for your religious views and beliefs, whatever they are, they are your pirvate thing only, and nobody else's. These are secular countries we live in, at least here in the West, and that means neither state nor society have an obligation to serve the interests of any of the various religious or areligious camps. Even more, the state has to stay out of religion - and religions have to stay out of politics.

Paint the walls inside your flats with the colours you want, no problem. Just when you start demanding that schools and politics should help advocating that these colours should be used to paint the walls in other people's flats, too - then your views become a problem and a threat for others. And no matter how much you like your colour and how much good you think you have to say about it - that does not give you any rights to demand special status for yourself, and you are rightfully opposed over any such claims - because not the others are persecuting you, but they are acting in kind of self-defence to your non-legitimate demands that violate the principle of secularism.

Because both secularism and my and anybody's freedom - are multiple times as important than both your flat's wall colour, and your religious beliefs.

[Safe-Keeper]

It denigrated those of faith as if science and theology must be at odds. Other posts in the same vein followed. It was simply an ATTACK on those who believe in a Diety. Yet when those of faith DEFEND their view in LIGHT of science - showing that they can exist coherently together - people claim they are somehow trying to convert. Of course - the "athiest/science" crowd can demean and question and point out "flaws" in theology to "prove their point" - but they are not trying to "convert".Simply wrong. Firstly, predicting that "the gudonit crowd" was enroute can't be called an attack on anything, merely a prediction that Creationsts posts would follow. Nowhere in the sentence did anyone attack "people of faith". Even if you think all people of faith believe God created the Earth, the statement wasn't an attack but a prediction of posts to come.

Of course - the "athiest/science" crowd can demean and question and point out "flaws" in theology to "prove their point" - but they are not trying to "convert". Its a game many like to play - its rigged so that those who have a religious belief can't "win" - since to voice their view is prosetylizing, while others can attack, demean and misrepresent their faith as they wish. So who is out to bash who over the head?Reread the thread. It's largelly been the other way around.

[Aramike]

Reread the thread. It's largelly been the other way around. Really?

You should reread the thread, dude - including the posts from atheists.

[Safe-Keeper]

It went downhill when Subman1 appeared and basically told us all we have no reason to not kill ourselves.

Then again, troll posts don't really count.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

It went downhill when Subman1 appeared and basically told us all we have no reason to not kill ourselves.

Then again, troll posts don't really count.

http://i40.tinypic.com/14v1a2b.jpg


:har:

[Fish]

Personally, for me, the mathematical order in the universe I observe in so many ways, from the evident chaos is evidence that what I believe as a Christian is valid.
Sea Demon, you should read Victor Stenger's (http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/) book: God: The Failed Hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God:_The_Failed_Hypothesis) , or maybe: Quantum Gods: Creation, Chaos and the Search for Cosmic Consciousness

He is a real scientist.;)

[Aramike]

It went downhill when Subman1 appeared and basically told us all we have no reason to not kill ourselves.

Then again, troll posts don't really count.Heh, no one's doubting that, but that's not what you said.

Besides, as an agnostic/atheist, I see no reason to bring myself down to the level of Subman. Similarly, I see no reason to believe that Subman represents the majority of theists in this matter.

[Fish]

Actually - I encourage everyone here to read a series of books called "Conversations with God".
When we are reading 'Conversations with God' perhaps you should read:

The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of and cultural dimensions of archeology, present for the first time to a general audience the results of recent research, which reveals more clearly that while the Bible may be the most important piece of Western literature--serving concrete political, cultural and religious purposes--many of the events recorded in the Old Testament are not historically accurate. Finkelstein and Silberman do not aim to undermine the Bible's import, but to demonstrate why it became the basic document for a distinct religious community under particular political circumstances. For example, they maintain that the Exodus was not a single dramatic event, as described in the second book of the Bible, but rather a series of occurrences over a long period of time. The Old Testament account is, according to the authors, neither historical truth nor literary fiction, but a powerful expression of memory and hope constructed to serve particular political purposes at the time it was composed. The authors claim quite convincingly that the kingdoms of Israel and Judah became radically different regions even before the time of King David; the northern lands were densely populated, with a booming agriculture-based economy, while the southern region was sparsely populated by migratory pastoral groups. Furthermore, they contend, "we still have no hard archaeological evidence--despite the unparalleled biblical description of its grandeur--that Jerusalem was anything more than a modest highland village in the time of David, Solomon, and Rehoboam." Fresh, stimulating and highly engaging, this book will hold greatest appeal for readers familiar with the Bible, in particular the Old Testament--unfortunately, a shrinking percentage of the population. [/quote]
http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Unearthed-Archaeologys-Vision-Ancient/dp/0684869128

I am at the moment, and it's very compelling.:yep:

[Fish]

There are people who read and study the Bible and have no problem with the teachings of life within them. I can't say I've met anybody who is as you describe. And I do actually leave the house.



I have one for you:
Bart D. Ehrman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman)

Misquoting Jesus (http://www.bartdehrman.com/flv_heyns_lecture/heyns_lecture.htm)

Ohh, and Sea Demon, Islam is exploding there. do you have some figures for me, I live in europe and see young muslims become secular at the same speed christian youngsters do

[Safe-Keeper]

While we're recommending books, Society without God by Zuckermann (for the longest time I thought that was pronounced Suckerman) is supposed to be really good, too. It's about an American anthropologist who moves to Scandinavia and starts studying our culture, interviewing atheists, analyzing our degree of welfare, etc. Supposed to be a real eye-opener, pity I can't seem to find it in local stores.
Heh, no one's doubting that, but that's not what you said.Actually, I've been rereadign the thread again, and you're not entirely wrong. There was plenty flak coming from our side, too. Mea culpa.

[AngusJS]

Yeah, but you wrap yourself up when you approach the subject like you have the absolute answers to everything. And reality is....you have no clue. Actually, if you have something to justify, it's why you are so adamant against it. I don't think you're changing any minds.Criticizing someone else's ideas does not mean that the critic knows everything, or thinks he knows everything. It just means he thinks he sees problems with that idea. Maybe there are, maybe there aren't - further discussion may decide that. If it's done in a civil manner, what's the big deal?

I speak against divorce.....and no....I don't wish for people to remain in abusive relationships. It's quite odd that some people who are so against religion cannot see how that functions. Seriously, how old are you, and how far did you go in education?I was using that as an example of the problem with context when it comes to what you would think would be a "supercontextual" deity. I wasn't saying those were your beliefs. I certainly wasn't saying you are "pro-abuse." I could have used slavery as an example, and I'm fairly sure you don't support slavery. :)

Then why get so angry if it's all so clear to you. Why the ferocious sense of purpose to feebly deride religious faith.What derision? What anger? What are you talking about? Did I call you stupid? Did I call your beliefs stupid? I said there was some silliness in Christian theology... if that's what ticked you off, then... wow.

When did criticizing an idea become verboten?

I don't think your actually getting anywhere doing it. People will practice their religious faith whether you want them to or not. I've already explained why I view things the way I do. I'm just still trying to figure out why you can't seem to live with it.Yes, I just can't get your faith off my mind. It's holding up my crusade, dammit. :roll: I ask how you deal with contradictions and such, and suddenly you're being persecuted?

Ain't going to be the minority in your lifetime. And it ain't really decreasing much here. And it's still the clear majority.
Yes, and I don't think it will ever be the majority in the US. But still, 15% of those polled responding that they're either atheist or not religious, that's something.

How does anybody get all around the nasty contradictions and turnabouts in any of the holy books of the different religions? How do you get around all the nasty contradictions, and rewrites of theory that all too frequently occur in science circles? Looks to me like you just simply fear religion AngusJS. And more importantly, you irrationally fear Christianity. Perhaps I can borrow the labelling convention from Liberals and just "label" you a religophobe of sorts? The truth is, there is contradiction or inconsistincies in everything that man gets his hands on. I think the problem is this: the only reason any Christian knows about the Christian god is because he has read the Bible, or been told something about god by someone who has, further up the line. The Bible is the foundation of your religion. No matter how liberal you want to get, your most basic belief still stems directly from it.

If it can be shown that the Holy Bible is made holier than swiss cheese by all its contradictions and falsehoods, then where does that leave the belief based on it? You'll say that's a genetic fallacy, and that's true. The claims of Christianity could still be true even if everything they're based on is untrustworthy. But is that likely, in light of the extravagence of the claims, and the lack of any other evidence to support them?

And of course man's falibility shows through in science. The difference is, those theories aren't making extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence. They're the best we could do at the time.

Anyway, I think this discussion has run its course. I didn't intend to offend, and I'm sorry if I did so inadvertently; I just think all ideas should be open to debate.

[CaptainHaplo]

Angus - 15% said athiest OR non-religious - that or is pretty big. If I was questions I would have to say non-religious. I do not practice an organized religion, nor is my own, personal spiritual views a "religion". Ordained or not, I am not "religious". As I said before, religion by its very being is nothing more than an attempt to explain the unexplainable when views from our own highly limited perspective.

Skybird - my issue of people bashing religion was not aimed at you. I actually found the cartoon rather funny, but also realistic. In many cases - in TOO many cases in fact - it holds to much truth, and that itself is a sad commentary. I have no issues with you, your views or the way you have put forth your views here.

Safe - I appreciate your recognition that there has been some attacks from the "non-deity" side. I hope that my own comments have not been taken as an attack on anyone's belief - simply because I think an Infinite God has thus an infinite number of paths to Him - and if someone wants to call theirs "science" - thats their right. People believe what they want, and I am fine with that. No one will shake my views, and I accept theirs as their own, regardless of my agreement or disagreement.

[CaptainHaplo]

Angus - your point on modern Xtian theology is well taken. Its one reason I walked away from religion in an organized fashion. While there may be many here who differ, my personal view of the Bible is that it does indeed have numerous contradictions that cannot be resolved via simply ignoring what is unpleasant. However, having studied numerous other "holy" texts as well, the same applies to each. The key is seperating the folly from the wisdom. Even the Bible teaches that Jesus instructed his followers to question. Unfortunately, questions have always been a threat to the powers that be.

This is proven historically (reformation anyone) in religion - as well as today in science (global warming anyone). Dare to question the mainstream thought that is being shoved down your throat, and your outcast. Still, questions often lead to answers - in both realms.

Science and theology both have more in common than people realize.

Also - to those who posted book suggestions - thank you - I will look into them!

[AngusJS]

Angus - 15% said athiest OR non-religious - that or is pretty big. If I was questions I would have to say non-religious. I do not practice an organized religion, nor is my own, personal spiritual views a "religion". Ordained or not, I am not "religious". As I said before, religion by its very being is nothing more than an attempt to explain the unexplainable when views from our own highly limited perspective.


I think this is the survey in question.

http://b27.cc.trincoll.edu/weblogs/AmericanReligionSurvey-ARIS/reports/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf


The 2001 and 2008 surveys are replicas of the 1990 survey, and are led by the same academic research team using an identical methodology of random-digit-dialed telephone interviews (RDD) and the same unprompted, open-ended key question “What is your religion, if any?” Interviewers did not prompt or offer a suggested list of potential answers. Moreover, the self-description of respondents was not based on whether established religious bodies or institutions considered them to be members. To the contrary, the surveys sought to determine whether the respondents regarded themselves as adherents of a religious community.
The “Nones” are an amalgamation of all the respondents who provided answers to our key question which identified them as having no religious identity or connection. The most common response was “None” or “No Religion.” This bloc can be described as the non-religious, irreligious and anti-religious bloc. It includes anti-clerical theists, but the majority are non-theists. For reasons of scientific integrity we have also included data on the “Unknown” category, composed of those who said they did not know the answer to our key religion question and those who refused to reply to our key question. We have no religious identification data on this population but we do have demographic and attitude data.

[owner20071963]

Very simple Man created the Bible,Also other Religions,
No Super Being did so,
Take a look at all those so called Preachers in the US?
Here in Europe we Laugh at them,
All they seem to want is Power & Money,
No matter what You do or Say,
We all will end up as Ashes,
Dust to Dust,
Simple,
Are We the Beginning of a New Race?
Is our path perfection?
As A Human?
Human Intel Grows Faster each day,
Preservation is the Key,
We need to Preserve Our Earth,
As we know it.Go green,Recycle,Save,
This is real life,
Do it for Your Familys future,
Go to Dust with a cause,
Die with dignity,
Your Home & Family
Secure them First :salute:

[Skybird]

Very simple Man created the Bible,Also other Religions,
No Super Being did so,
Take a look at all those so called Preachers in the US?
Here in Europe we Laugh at them,
All they seem to want is Power & Money,
No matter what You do or Say,
We all will end up as Ashes,
Dust to Dust,
Simple,
Are We the Beginning of a New Race?
Is our path perfection?
As A Human?
Human Intel Grows Faster each day,
Preservation is the Key,
We need to Preserve Our Earth,
As we know it.Go green,Recycle,Save,
This is real life,
Do it for Your Familys future,
Go to Dust with a cause,
Die with dignity,
Your Home & Family
Secure them First :salute:

http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/600/zoomk.jpg (http://img26.imageshack.us/i/zoomk.jpg/)
Wowh, this really is one hell of a zoom-function...!


http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/4143/lpcurrent.gif (http://img26.imageshack.us/i/lpcurrent.gif/)

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Gentlemen, if I may interject:

http://subwaychatter.com/blog/images/katebeckinsale1.jpg


That is all.

[Safe-Keeper]

do you have some figures for me, I live in Europe and see young muslims become secular at the same speed Christian youngsters doExactly. If, say, 500 new people from an Islamic nation move into a city, this doesn't equal 500 die-hard, 'burkha Muslims' with an agenda to make their new host country an Islamic colony. Some will be atheists, or close to nonbelief. Some will be weak Muslims. Some will be members of other religions. Some will be serious believers, but assimilated or integrated.

I don't deny that religious immigrants will affect, and are affecting, the climate of Scandinavia and the rest of Europe. But the paranoid image of the Jihadist Muslims will take over our society and make us speak Arabic... is hysteria.

http://subwaychatter.com/blog/images/katebeckinsale1.jpg...what were we talking about again? Oh, yes, bosoms!

[Rilder]

Gentlemen, if I may interject:

http://subwaychatter.com/blog/images/katebeckinsale1.jpg


That is all.

Yet more evidence of the need for a babe thread. :cool:

[Skybird]

It'S not as if the past three years no studies had been published that were showing that in England and Germany fundamentalism and alienation from Western culture is growing, and growing fastly, especially amongst young, third generation Muslims, and that I linked to these reports repeatedly. And that left-oriented Islam-biased interest groups and parties immediately ordered and payed studies showing the exact opposite to these findings. It cannot be, and thus must be rejected. It also cannot be that the offsprings of first generation immigrants from Muslim nations often have a tendency to become even more embedded in their relgion, than their parents, and that immigration of most foreigners in europe worked well - with muslims time and again beign the one and great exception from the rule. It also cannot be that this has somethign to do with Islamic education. It also cannot be that the police in several countries said that they find muslim communities actively refusing to cooperate with the police in finding and persecuting Msulim criminal offenders, all this never was said in the media and the newspaper, for it cannot be that way. And it cannot be that more and more radicalisation is reported from European major mosques, and that more and more "extremist" (as if Quranic islam is anythign different thahn that) preachers and nationalists especially from Turkey get invited and harboured there, sometimke spreaching openly against the cojmstiotitonal order of the hosting eurppean state that considers them to be untouchable, for they are oh so "religious" where in fact they are political and hostile to the western consitutions and values..

All this is not kind a finding, and it is not matching politically and sociologically wanted dogmas - that's why it cannot be, and never has been found, and never has been reported and written and filmed about. And it cannot be that we have read comparable findings from Scandinavia and Holland as well. IT CANNOT BE, believe it, will you.

I only had a bad dream, obviously, for I remember things that cannot have been at all.

[Stealth Hunter]

I've posted this video many times before on these issues, but it is a must see if you are curious towards how most Creationists are raised:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xKDKq_PPbk

Scary stuff right there...:nope: