Creation >> DNA Code

[Nicolas]

I was reading this topic. When i try to analyse a thing being objective i try hard to not rely on my personal thoughts or from others that i'm not sure of, and this makes sense to me. Only that.
----------



DNA Code - What is DNA?



The known life forms on planet Earth show a large degree of variation amongst each other. Yet all these varieties of life forms share one common basic construction material. All life forms are either made of cells or are a cell themselves, and all these cells have a nucleus. In this nucleus we find chromosomes, which in turn are made of DNA.

Viruses, by the way, are outside this definition. Viruses consist of genetic material with a shell of protein, but they are not made of one or more cells. It is not even clear yet whether viruses should be considered living creatures.

DNA or Deoxyribonucleic Acid is the carrier of the genetic instructions and of the instructions needed to guide the processes within the cells. DNA is composed of two very long chains of proteins, connected in pairs in a double spiral. Such a spiral can be compared to a zipper: each protein part has its own partner in the opposite chain. The zipper is used during the reproduction process: both the male and the female reproduction cells contain only one half of the DNA chains. At the moment of conception, the male and the female materials are "zipped" together to form a new chain, thus combining the genetic material of both parents. At this point, a new cell is created (a zygote) which now begins to replicate. A new life is developing.

For many years scientists have been working to map the human genome. The quest is focusing on the meaning of the code within the DNA. Every now and then cheers rise up from within the scientific community because a new milestone has been reached. Still there is much more mystery than clarity, and for good reason. We are researching a "language" we do not know and cannot learn this way. All we might achieve is the deciphering of parts of the code in a primitive way.


DNA Code - Computer Language and Memory
In computer languages, certain commands exist with which values in an existing or running computer system can be changed. In older computer systems, for example, the commands Peek and Poke were used: Peek would allow the programmer to "look at" a certain location, while Poke allowed him or her to change something in that location (the word "Poke" here is similar to the use of the word when the embers in a fireplace are poked; the contents are stirred). The syntax for these commands was: Peek “somewhere” and Poke “somewhere; value.”

Even in the early days of the home computer (in the early 80s), the thought of having 65,000 of such locations (or "addresses") available for manipulation was exciting and fascinating. Some addresses defined the color of the screen, while others produced a beep. Assigning a "bad value" to some locations would cause the computer to freeze. Pretty soon it became clear that it was not easy to be productive without a good "directory" of the available addresses: the user guide for the computer. The manufacturer of the computer created the address list and knew where each function resided.

In a general sense, a comparison can be drawn between DNA and the computer memory. Functions are stored in DNA similar to the way functions are stored in computer memory. Both DNA and computer memory have “home addresses” for each function. In many respects such an analogy is deficient, for example because DNA plays a role in the production of cells and because DNA, for "real-time" processing, first has to create copies of certain parts of a chain (RNA) which then are used for the real-time processing itself. Another example is the limited number of addresses (65.000) of the computer in the example, compared to the 220.000.000 gene pairs in the first chromosome of the human DNA alone! That means 3300 times as many addresses! And of course those gene pairs are far more complex and diverse than a memory address in a computer; altogether the base pairs in the human genome contain more than 23 billion DNA base pairs!


DNA Code - Evolution and gradual changes
The theory of evolution states that life forms have changed and improved gradually. These changes must take place in the genetic code, for an improvement of the species must be passed on to the descendants, and must be reproducible to be kept in future generations. In fact, changes in the DNA can only occur through so-called “mutations.” It is definitely not true that physical changes in a “realized body” could flow back into the genetic instruction set. If an animal would accidentally have its tail chopped off, and if this proved to be an advantageous change, this wouldn't mean that some generations later this change would somehow pop up in the genetic material.

What is a mutation? Occasionally errors occur in the DNA chain during the process of copying and reproducing. Suppose somewhere in the chain there is a sequence “DAABE” but after a reproduction, due to such an error, the copy reads “BEEBE.” Such a change could cause a change in the genetic properties of the genetic material.

Properties changed by mutations could theoretically be the basis of an improvement. But how could such an improvement of the design take place? For the sake of clarification, let's return to the example of the computer language. When a programmer writes a piece of software, the written code is made suitable for the computer memory through some processing of this code. Looking at the contents of such a program, it is clear it wouldn't be easy to make "blind" adjustments to the program and actually improve its function. Programmers know that it might be possible to make simple cosmetic changes by using extreme caution, but they are also well aware that it would be impossible to actually add functionality to the program in this manner.

Imagine a computer program is written to perform simple calculations: additions and subtractions. How likely would it be that such a program could be modified, by applying blind or random changes, to enhance its functionality to include divisions or even square roots? Or would it be possible for random mutations to create new functionalities?


DNA Code - Mutations and new functionality
Let's assume a mutation is applied to this calculation program, and let's assume this mutation would be the first of some 120 changes needed to transform our “addition program” into a “find the square root program.” How would the decision be made whether any of the steps taken is a beneficial step? How would it be determined whether any of the steps would lead to a desirable result?

Evolution assumes that improvements lead to improved functionality. A mutation without an immediate useful effect is at least momentarily a useless mutation, that is to be ignored. As mutations occur without a plan or insight, a series of many mutations has to complete before any result can be evaluated in terms of its usefulness. At some point in time, it has to be determined whether or not an attempt to evolve was successful or not and whether or not the situation has to be reverted back to the unchanged original. The process of evolution might take place in this manner, but the odds would be very small. In this extremely simplified example a required sequence of only 120 successful and beneficial steps was assumed. How unlikely would this scenario be if we were to consider the unfathomably complex functional systems in the human body, like the eye (http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/human-eye.htm) or even a single cell (http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/cell-structure.htm)? In comparison, a lottery ticket would be a highly secure investment. No programmer following such methodology would ever be able to make a living.

But there's more. If finding a square root would be a completely new function in our calculation program, then mutations could take place without limitations, because the changes would not affect the functioning of the original addition function. If on the other hand we start with the idea of gradual changes to existing functionality, as is done in the theory of evolution, then the risk of damage done by these mutations to the existing functionality increases enormously. The chance that a change would destroy the “addition functionality” is much larger than the change of a mutation that would leave the “addition functionality” intact and at the same time increase its functionality to include a new "find the square root" function.

According to neo-Darwinist views, there is another force at work in the evolution besides mutations. This force is called "natural selection." But these two forces, mutations and natural selection, are colliding forces. A calculation function that returns an incorrect answer is most certainly no weight in the balance for natural selection. Still it is impossible to think of a single mutation that in one step would make a "finding the square root function" available. Therefore the gradual adaptations would have to circumvent natural selection until some useful functionality has evolved, which is almost a contradiction in terms.
DNA Code - Gods Machine Language
"Machine language" is a language optimized for computational performance, not for readability. Computer programmers don’t write their instructions using such machine language. They use a more readable programming language, which is then translated to the machine language by a so-called compiler. The language used by the programmer bears a closer resemblance to normal language, and with the advances in computer technology, these computer languages have become more and more readable. So a compiler is a translation program, which transforms the code designed by the programmer (code that a person can read) into machine code (code that a machine can run).

With this in mind, the analogy between computer programs and DNA can lead to a completely new conclusion: if DNA is the "machine code" for life on earth, then what is the programming language in which that code was originally written?

The analogy is depicted in the following images, from code to result.Let's have a look at computer language first:


http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh84/Nicolas1979/e0.png


And this is the analogy in the case of DNA:

http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh84/Nicolas1979/e1.png


Is it possible that the genetic material in all living creatures could be the machine code of Gods language? According to the Genesis text, God said “Let there be light" and there was light. Genesis 1:24 reads “And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and the beast of the earth after his kind': and it was so.”

Through His Word, Gods intention came to its full expression. Like a programmer uses words to create something in a computer, God also used words to bring His creation into being. DNA is the result of Gods Words. It is the way in which His words have been given shape and form. The power of His words is beyond comprehension. To allow the creatures to benefit from the light, He gave them eyes. The addition “after his kind” makes clear that He created variation. The eagle has extreme sharp vision in a very narrow field of sight; the chameleon with its bulb-like eyes is able to move them independently and has a field of sight of 360 degrees. Dogs and cats cannot see colors. Flies receive only a vague image from their compound eyes, but still... it is not easy to catch a fly.

It is obvious that an evolution (http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evidence-for-evolution.htm) of all the living systems on earth is out of the question. If evolution had taken place, we would see traces of the millions and millions of "failed paths" of evolution in the fossil record. But God left room for variation within strict boundaries, defined by "the zipper" mentioned earlier. No reproduction is possible between the different species: the zipper will not close, unless brute force is used. An elephant cannot reproduce with a baboon, nor can a fly reproduce with a stork. Cats and dogs won’t reproduce. A horse and a donkey can, but their offspring cannot: the zipper is broken.

How did God materialize His word? In the light of the above analogy the question could be: what is the compiler God used? Is it possible that this was the Holy Spirit, the Power of God?

[joegrundman]

ooh we haven't had one of these in a while!

you guys are so funny:DL

[Skybird]

The drive to bring religious claims into scientific concepts as if they would compare to scientific theories, leads nowhere where heart or mind would or should follow. Let believing be believing, and let it be clear that believing is not knowing. Bringing suprantural entities into the formula only confuses things, and adds no enlightenment there.

[Blood_splat]

http://ocasapiens-dweb.blogautore.repubblica.it/files/2010/01/Crocoduck1.jpg

[Dowly]

Wall of text that could be compressed into few words:
"Creationism rules! LALALALA NOT LISTENIIING!!!"

[Penguin]

http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/8315/mmmcopypasta2.jpg

The wall of text might find a reader if it would contain original thoughts, not just some copy&paste :down:

So I am not gonna reply to this nonsense, the author has clearly no understanding of neither biology nor IT.

[Nicolas]

Ok, make joke of me if you want, i consider myself a very open minded person. Also limited because of my language being spanish, you know i never studied english. Anyway you could leave the topic alone a bit if someone want to read it.

[Tribesman]

So sources......Randall Niles "I am not a scientist but I have looked at this and studied it and the best answer is god did it as it is complicated.":doh:

i consider myself a very open minded person
Fair enough, take one example from the piece and apply an open mind
Flies eyes. what makes a fly swatter more effective at getting flies.
is it ....
(A) if it is in a discreet colour or shape.
(B)something else which is very simple.
If the answer is (B) does that mean the author is talking nonsense and making nonsensical comparisons and reaching nonsensical conclusions.

[Nicolas]

IT, I'm a programmer.

[Oberon]

In other news, NOMEX shares rose today due to excessive demand for their products...

[Sammi79]

The drive to bring religious claims into scientific concepts as if they would compare to scientific theories, leads nowhere where heart or mind would or should follow. Let believing be believing, and let it be clear that believing is not knowing. Bringing suprantural entities into the formula only confuses things, and adds no enlightenment there.

Exactly this.

The OPs questions are loaded, to answer requires acceptance of the premise, which is a rather obvious logical fallacy.

Keep studying evolution, Nicolas. The misleading simplification of its mechanisms in your post will become apparent. May I recommend to you 'The Ancestors Tale' by Richard Dawkins. A lot of your misconceptions are explained in detail there. In regard to machine language, get a Z80 based micro emulator with an assembler and start with the Zilog Z80 manual, but beware this is a very heavy book.

btw, your english is very good. :hmmm: but these are not your words I think hmmm?

Regards, Sam.

[joegrundman]

So sources......Randall Niles "I am not a scientist but I have looked at this and studied it and the best answer is god did it as it is complicated.":doh:


it's from

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/

[Dowly]

May I recommend to you 'The Ancestors Tale' by Richard Dawkins.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siitJDsaGiQ

:salute:

@Nicolas

Don't think anyone has anything against you, it's just that we've had many come
before you and have done the same thing as you: Copy & paste something completely silly
and add that they are "open minded".

Now, being open minded is good, but most (not necessarely you), when they
say they are open minded when posting something like this actually means
that they believe it, usually without really looking into the subject other than
1 article which they then copy & pasted here.

[Tribesman]

it's from

I know, where do you think I got "Randall Niles" from and a summation of his "I am not a scientist but....." arguement on the origins of the universe?

[Nicolas]

They have gone too far to be a theory IMHO, why keep adding things if they do not materalized something yet. I ask, when scientists discover specific working things i marvel myself and wow what they discovered! i open my eyes and in wonder eat all they say, where is the juicy stuff here??

[Betonov]

I got asthma, bad eyesight, moles on my back that may turn out to be skin cancer, hereditarily more proned to cancer and diabetes and a proud owner of a prostate, an organ which can only be accesed by my doctor trough my ass...

It's hard to believe in god, creationism or inteligent design without thinking of god as being retarded

[Osmium Steele]

They have gone too far to be a theory IMHO, why keep adding things if they do not materalized something yet.

It is a very common misconception to think that a scientific theory equates to a theory related to the arts or philosophy.

In science, nothing is ever proven; however, a theory is the closest level the scientific method allows to proof.

Start here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory).

[Sailor Steve]

It's hard to believe in god, creationism or inteligent design without thinking of god as being retarded
Or having a truly evil sense of humor?

Every time I look at the way things work in the animal kingdom I come to the same conclusion: If this is by design, it's a pretty bad one.

[Skybird]

If God indeed created man by his own image, than looking at ourselves leads me to conclusions about God that are not really a compliment.

[Betonov]

God created a urologist, because god needs a urologist :DL

[vienna]

Perhaps it is as Mark Twain noted:

I believe that our Heavenly Father invented man because he was disappointed in the monkey. I believe that whenever a human being, of even the highest intelligence and culture, delivers, an opinion upon a matter apart from his particular and especial line of interest, training and experience, it will always be an opinion so foolish and so valueless a sort that it can be depended upon to suggest to our Heavenly Father that the human being is another disappointment and that he is no considerable improvement upon the monkey.

- Mark Twain's Autobiography; Mark Twain in Eruption

In discarding the monkey and substituting man, our Father in Heaven did the monkey an undeserved injustice.

- Mark Twain's Autobiography; Mark Twain in Eruption

[Gargamel]

I believe in evolution, big bang, and such. But I also leave open the option for a higher power to have set these things in motion. Maybe there was a diety who created our universe, set the initial rules and let it play out. I point to a simple example that becomes extremely complex the longer and larger it goes. In the game of life each cell is given a simple set of rules, 3 or 4 total IIRC. Then game starts, from these simple rules, insanely complex machines can evolve. They have found self replicating formations, designs that even follow logic, depending on what is fed to them. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life

Why do evolution and creationism have to be mutually exclusive?

[Nicolas]

It is a very common misconception to think that a scientific theory equates to a theory related to the arts or philosophy.

In science, nothing is ever proven; however, a theory is the closest level the scientific method allows to proof.

Start here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory).

What do you mean?
A theory is not supposed to be something created to lead to a conclusion solution, or discovery, invention later?. in the meanwhile, you can turn around the theory and perfect it but it can't be used for a practical use, yes as a lead to something real.

[August]

It's very self centered and arrogant (ie typically human) to think that God, creator of the universe and all things within it, is supposed to serve man or care what back moles may lead to.

He's given us free will and a brain to realize it. To me that is a far greater gift than playing nurse maid ever could be.

[Blood_splat]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEl9kVl6KPc :up:

[Armistead]

Basically each religion believes God will save them and eternally torture all the rest, let's see, do we have any earthly examples of that behavior.....?
Is God no better than Hitler, Stalin, Bush, etc.....?

If God exist seems the suffering and evil we go through on earth would be enough, but hey if you can put man through that, why not more after death, so maybe there is a hell after all.

[Osmium Steele]

What do you mean?


Exactly what I wrote. I apologize if language is getting in the way. Find any reputable scientist in your area and ask him the difference between a scientific theory and any other meaning of the word theory.

[Betonov]

if he/she/it won't be my nurse maid, then I don't want it as a judge jury dear leader

[Tribesman]

Every time I look at the way things work in the animal kingdom I come to the same conclusion: If this is by design, it's a pretty bad one.
Isn't that a problem the churches faced long before this modern cretinism surfaced.
As naturalists did more and more work on life they showed the existance of what can only be described as a complete indifference in the nature of the world.

[Sammi79]

What do you mean?
A theory is not supposed to be something created to lead to a conclusion solution, or discovery, invention later?. in the meanwhile, you can turn around the theory and perfect it but it can't be used for a practical use, yes as a lead to something real.

To put it simply, you are talking about the english word theory in the vernacular as it pertains to philosophy, the collective statements underlying a philosophy, school of thought, or belief system. In scientific terms this means hypothesis or an idea.

A fact is an idealisation of 100% certainty which is unachievable in scientific terms.

A scientific theory has a different meaning. There are certain conditions that a theory (hypothesis/idea) must answer before it can be considered a scientific theory like evolution. This is as close to a fact as it is possible for a human mind to comprehend. A simple way of saying it would be ; idea that has been tested thoroughly and found to be true.

Regards, Sam.

[Nicolas]

Exactly what I wrote. I apologize if language is getting in the way. Find any reputable scientist in your area and ask him the difference between a scientific theory and any other meaning of the word theory.

..sorry its the same i said, can lead to something practical, i know animals evoluted but how?????. It draws my attention how complex and flawless, beatiful also, the nature is. OMG i started a God is bad trhead well :-?.

[Takeda Shingen]

http://ocasapiens-dweb.blogautore.repubblica.it/files/2010/01/Crocoduck1.jpg

http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID13237/images/Strawman(1).jpg

Isn't this fun? Just think of all the crazy, insulting things that we can post about each other when we play to the lowest common denominator.

[Sammi79]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siitJDsaGiQ

:salute:


Thanks Dowly, that is a great link, bookmarked :salute:

..sorry its the same i said, can lead to something practical, i know animals evoluted but how?????. It draws my attention how complex and flawless, beatiful also, the nature is. OMG i started a God is bad trhead well :-?.

If you are interested in the how? of evolution follow the link kindly posted by Dowly, above. You'd probably be better off reading the book in Espanol though, : http://www.agapea.com/libros/El-cuento-del-antepasado-9788495348289-i.htm

Regards, Sam.

[August]

if he/she/it won't be my nurse maid, then I don't want it as a judge jury dear leader

Well it'd be just as arrogant to think that what you want or don't want would actually matter.

[u crank]

In other news, NOMEX shares rose today due to excessive demand for their products...

:har::har::har:

Good one man.:D

If God indeed created man by his own image, than looking at ourselves leads me to conclusions about God that are not really a compliment.

Sorry to disappoint anyone but I don't think this 'image' is a biological one. If you're funny lookin' like me, blame your parents.

:88)

[Fish]

What do you mean?
A theory is not supposed to be something created to lead to a conclusion solution, or discovery, invention later?. in the meanwhile, you can turn around the theory and perfect it but it can't be used for a practical use, yes as a lead to something real.

Here is what a scientific theory is Nicolas.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teor%C3%ADa_cient%C3%ADfica


i know animals evoluted but how?????.

Use Google.

[Tribesman]

Use Google.
Animals used Google to evolve...well you learn something new every day

[Skybird]

Googling for "scientific theory" and "scientific method" will give plenty of results that I do not need to paste and copy here.

One thing only, or two, actually.

Actually, some more. :D

First. Responsibly run science does not claim to produce the final, the ultimate, the eternal answers to questions. Nor will they ever produce the one formula to explain everything, the one number to explain the world (Hawkings is terribly misled there - or existentially afraid, or arrogant. Whatever it is, there he was and is wrong). The results of science - theories and paradigms - are only marking the best explanation we can come up with currently. They give us the explanations that currently, with our current knowledge, fit best into the scheme of facts we so far have learned. They can and most often will see changes and replacements over time, when newer models explain the same problem easier and more elegantly ("Occam's razor", another term to google for), or explain more phenomenons or clear more parts of a given problem. The old theory gets replaced if the new theory has more explanatory value. This value always must be proven through the methodology of science.

Second. Science is most adequate for trying to answer HOW things function, but it looses in value when it is about the last questions about the WHY. Religion, compared to science, has no value regarding the HOW, since it is not interested in it, and it claims that the WHY must not be examined also, since religion already gave the answer - its own dogma, that is. Examining the WHY and not taking the dogma as the answer in blind belief even is seen as heresy. - However. The question WHY? ultimately results in the question for why things do excist. Why is there the universe instead of just nothing? Why has the chain of events leading to the first big bang taken place? Why was it caused? Why is the universe flcutuating from one big bang to the next? When, and where did it start? Why did it start at all? Why do we live, why do we witness this universe we experience? Why all this show and glitter if we need to die again and evertyhing we ever acchhieve will mean nothing anymore, since we do no longer exist, and the world we live din sooner or later chnages and dies as well? Why should we assume things are not in vain? Why not falling for pure nihilism?

To me, in the past two years, due to several not really welcomed developements in my life, the question "why?" has become the ultimate koan (->google!), replacing all others I ever read about or heared of. And it drives me crazy at times and has burnt itself deep into my mind.

Where do we come from, where do we go? How much time do we have?

Why all this?

That's all what life is about: "Why?"

Is there value in forming new and newer scientific approaches in understanding the universe? There probably is, I would say, but do not expect a logical explanation why I think so. I like to think that the goal, the attractor of the universe and thus: evolution is a universe that to a greater and greater degree becomes fully aware of itself. This still woul not give me an answer to "Why?". Maybe I just try to add a sense, a meaning to it all, else I would fall in despair when needing to realise that I live a life that is meaning nothing, makes no difference, and all what I see "there" is just in vain, and my life means nothign to the universe, the universxye not even takling note of the short, minor event that my existence has been. We can not bear a life when we see no meaning it it - nihilism than would eat us up.

From the perspective of "radical constructivism" however (another term to google for), I would quote this small German wordplay by Paul Watzlawick, who said "Die Wirklichkeit wird weniger von uns gefunden, als vielmehr von uns erfunden" (reality not so much gets discovered by us, but gets created (=constructed) by us).

That one koan - "Why?" - is a really tough nut, isn't it. Science cannot help. Religion only offers to lure you into the swamps, and thus does not help, too, only helps to sedate our struggling mind feeling this existential fear, this desperation. It's only you, and "Why?". Sometimes I was told by angry beoeivers that it is so easy to be atheist, and that only oputti8ng trust in their God means heavy work. They are so wrong! To struggle with these questions, insisting on own experience even whenknowing that the demand will not be met, to meet the abyss vis-a-vis without the promise of a fairy queen holding me by the hand - that is the ultimate confrontation you can face in this life. It tops everything. Zen compares it to jumping with closed eyes from the top of a high cliff. And you know there is no use in holding any expectations over what comes next after you jumped, for the mere circumstance that you can imagine them tells you that you have just constructed them by your own mind'S ideas - their reality is YOUR reality only, a fiction of your mind. Atheism - "easy", "comfortable"...? :DL To me that fits religions and their dogmas perfectly. But one needs to leave all that ballast behind. All those prayers and rituals, long-held ideas and well_meant hopes. Not for nothing they say in Buddhism: if you meet Buddha, kill Buddha. Leave ALL your conceptions behind, that means. The sixth patriarch of Zen in China - after his enlightenment he ran into the library of the monastery and burnt all books there.

But if we are the ones constructing meaning and sense in it all, if we are the ones attributing meanings and interpretations to our observations and the cognitive results of the amok-running electric impulses in our brains - maybe we are the meaning of it all, then, we are the context that link together all things we witness!? What sense does it make then anymore to differ between subject and object, observer and the phenomenon he observes? What said Heisenberg about it? ;) What shows Zen about it? ;) ;) Both are not the moon, but both point their finger at one and the same moon up there.

I do not believe in gods, no, I see no need whatever to do so, and it never gave me any satisfaction to take the possibility into account, in a weak moment of speculation. In fact, I consider the concept to be an offence to man and cosmos alike. But by far I cannot accept to assume that all this cosmic show is just an accident, or by random chance only. If there is a divine quality, a divine spark, then it is just one spark, for I think of "divine" in singular only, not in plural, and all that is - is that divine spark. Everything has Buddha-nature, they say in Buddhism. What sense would it make then to assume that the Divine and me could be any different from each other and could be two separates, what sense would it make to assume that the Divine is not me and me is not the Divine, and all I witness and name as "the universe" is not embraced in all infinite potential inside of it/me/us?

If there is a god, then it can be only one god, and then necessarily everything and all must be God - else God would not be "God". But if you realise that - what menaing then is in praying to God as if it were anyone else than yourself? Flattering yourself? Holding monologues? Meet a psychologist, man! In Buddhism they say "Everything Buddha is in yourself", and "There is nothing to acchieve, for you already have everything."

In Star Trek 9, I think, the wise woman put it nicely, too. The people in that movie had a very long life expectancy, and Piccard was admiring the deep wisdom in their philosophy, saying something like this: "I wish I had a thousand years like you to learn your level of understanding." And she replies with something like this: "And we took a thousand years just to learn that it does not need a thousand years to understand."

"Religion" comes from Latin and means something like "to reconnect with", "to return (in thoughts) to", and I think it points at reconnecting with the Divine, to realise once again that "it" and "me" is one and the same, not two. All sinning in my understanding then would come from blindness, from lacking insight into this, and maintaining a status of denying being connected, not being aware of that one is. Blindness, they call it in Buddhism. "Sin" is to assume that I could ever be separated from the universe, the divine spark, the one-ness of things. And this is a thing that we practice excessively in the West, with our differentiation between nature and economy, us and them, me and you, my ego's inside and the outside sorroundign my ego/the world, the difference between what I call myself and the other, man or animal, that I meet - and the utmost separation: separating a "creator" from his "creation", separating man from God, the one being subordinate, the other being superior.

And faith, what would that be? I have read a very poetic answer to that maybe three weeks ago, there somebody said: "Faith means the trust to believe in the fragile truth your soul silently whipsers to you." Maybe that is the reason why I become the more hostile the louder religious people and their claims become. The mere volume of their voices, their mere rightous posturing to me is evidence that they know nothing and are completely "disconnected" from the divine they dress in words and names and claim to know about. Or in the words of the abovce paragraphs: they are in a state of "sin", of "separation". And has Meister Eckhart not commented on the biblic story of the Cleansing of the Temple in a similiar way? Saying something like that the temple is our soul and if we want to hear the voice of the Divine inside of it then we must fall silent ourselves, else we cannot listen? ;)

***8220;Give us this day our daily Faith, but deliver us, dear God, from Belief.
Faith is something very different from belief. Belief is the systematic taking of unanalyzed words much too seriously. Paul's words, Mohammed's words, Marx's words, Hitler's words---people take them too seriously, and what happens? What happens is the senseless ambivalence of history---sadism versus duty, or (incomparably worse) sadism as duty; devotion counterbalanced by organized paranoia; sisters of charity selflessly tending the victims of their own church's inquisitors and crusaders. Faith, on the contrary, can never be taken too seriously. For Faith is the empirically justified confidence in our capacity to know who in fact we are, to forget the belief-intoxicated Manichee in Good Being.***8221;
Aldous Huxley

[the_tyrant]

What compiler did god use?

God damn it, once I find it, I am never going back to the inferior compilers I have now.

So long VC++!

[Schöneboom]

Nicolas' original post reminded me of Perry Marshall, a promoter of "DNA as proof of design" in the U.S. Marshall's version is a bit more elaborate with the necessary conceptual analysis. For the curious, his website is http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/

When I once entertained this "information theory" argument for the Great Programmer in the Sky, I found it was not really helpful after all -- not for the more pressing questions such as, "Why?" -- as Skybird so eloquently put it.

Even if one could make an "airtight" argument for the existence of God, I think that doubt is essential. More precisely, to admit that doubt exists. It seems to me that fanaticism comes from people's inability to accept doubt or uncertainty in general.

I suppose what got me started thinking was when my best friend died last year. I realised I had no need to believe in his continued existence, either in heaven or in reincarnation. That applies to myself, everyone I love, and everyone else. Whatever begins, also ends. In a way it's a relief.

For me the notion of a personal God is too limited; to be truly unlimited and transcendent would require an impersonal God. One that cannot be asked for help or explanations. One that asks for nothing, offers no deals or promises, no rewards or punishments.

Perhaps at the ultimate level (the universe beginning), causality might not even apply. But what do I know? I just showed up billions of years later. :06:

[AngusJS]

..sorry its the same i said, can lead to something practical, i know animals evoluted but how?????. It draws my attention how complex and flawless, beatiful also, the nature is. OMG i started a God is bad trhead well :-?.Since when is nature flawless? What does beauty have to do with anything?

If you know animals evolved, but don't know how, I suggest reading what biologists say about it. That's a much better approach than simply assuming that god did it because you don't understand it, and then looking for disreputable information to try and support the conclusion you've already decided on.

Why Evolution is True (http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/B002ZNJWJU/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1332298492&sr=1-1) might be a good start.

[Sammi79]

Nicolas' original post reminded me of Perry Marshall, a promoter of "DNA as proof of design" in the U.S. Marshall's version is a bit more elaborate with the necessary conceptual analysis. For the curious, his website is http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/

When I once entertained this "information theory" argument for the Great Programmer in the Sky, I found it was not really helpful after all -- not for the more pressing questions such as, "Why?" -- as Skybird so eloquently put it.

Even if one could make an "airtight" argument for the existence of God, I think that doubt is essential. More precisely, to admit that doubt exists. It seems to me that fanaticism comes from people's inability to accept doubt or uncertainty in general.

I suppose what got me started thinking was when my best friend died last year. I realised I had no need to believe in his continued existence, either in heaven or in reincarnation. That applies to myself, everyone I love, and everyone else. Whatever begins, also ends. In a way it's a relief.

For me the notion of a personal God is too limited; to be truly unlimited and transcendent would require an impersonal God. One that cannot be asked for help or explanations. One that asks for nothing, offers no deals or promises, no rewards or punishments.

Perhaps at the ultimate level (the universe beginning), causality might not even apply. But what do I know? I just showed up billions of years later. :06:

The greatest trick the religioso ever pulled, was convincing the world that doubt should not exist. That faith is the fundamental power of human experience. Doubt is what we need, what has driven our understanding forward. Faith only holds us where we are blindly and unquestionably, which is in the sole interest of those who would hold dominion over others.

When I look at the bible and the character Jesus, about whom there is no empirical evidence, he may well be an imaginary character, or not, to me it seems the story or allegory was twisted away from the truth of the original tale it is based upon. I have thought for a long time now, Jesus embraces Thomas because he exclusively has learned what Jesus is really teaching, which is doubt, not faith. The stories have been twisted so many times to the benefit of the twister and the detriment of characters like Thomas that it is impossible to be even vaguely sure of course (unless you have faith) and I do not claim to be. Surely this is at least as rational an interpretation as any, no?

Only in doubt can the truth be approached and yet will always remain just out of reach. Absolute truth is not ours to hold. Doubt everything. Doubt authority. Doubt Governments and holy men alike. Be doubly sure to doubt my words and the words of others, because only then have you the impetus to look for yourself.

Regards, Sam.

[antikristuseke]

A nice series of videos touching briefly on the mater at hand with citations and corrections of errors.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDB23537556D7AADB&feature=plcp

[Skybird]

Even if one could make an "airtight" argument for the existence of God, I think that doubt is essential. More precisely, to admit that doubt exists. It seems to me that fanaticism comes from people's inability to accept doubt or uncertainty in general.
Superb observation! :yeah: I absolutely agree. I have taught meditation for several years in the past, and saw the same link in people. The stronger the exitential fear, the greater the need to counter this insecurity by becoming more rigid in claimed convictions". It gives people the feeling of being "in control" of their fate and their life. Do right, and get saved in heaven. Do wrong, and get doomed in hell.

But as they say in Zen: "Small doubt - small awakening. Big doubt - big awakening. No doubt - no awakening."


For me the notion of a personal God is too limited; to be truly unlimited and transcendent would require an impersonal God. One that cannot be asked for help or explanations. One that asks for nothing, offers no deals or promises, no rewards or punishments.

Right again, I think. A thought God only is a God that dies when the believer dies.

But what have the old mystics of Judaism and Christianity, what have Buddhists and Lao Tse, radical constructivism and scientific method in common!? The warning to ever think that one can find, grab and express the final, the last, the one reality in names conceptions. The name of God cannot be spoken out. The tao that can get described is not the real tao. The observation I describe in terms and labels is not the real way me, the witness, is included in the whole situation. The state of knowledge always only is temporary.

It'S like trying to grab sand. The tighter your grip, the more sand trickles between your fingers. Disappointment and anger is the result. Et voila - negative emotion, "sin", is there again - brought into the world all by yourself! :DL

People must not try so hard to get anywhere. Nobody needs to get anywhere. We're all already there. It often seems to me that much of the hate and anger in the world comes from people not understanding this, flexing their religious muscles until they get cramps.

[Dowly]

A nice series of videos touching briefly on the mater at hand with citations and corrections of errors.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDB23537556D7AADB&feature=plcp

Oh yes, potholer's videos are a good watch. :yep:

[Nicolas]

I saw the videos 2 times, are too vague. Why put jokes about religion or persons to backup a scientific work. If i cut the video only to the sections that explain: They say maybe, could, can explain the fact than animals evolved. [frustated].
The section that capted my attention was the part of the brain of the ameba.


What does beauty have to do with anything?


Nothing that do not contribute to the survival of species. :timeout:

[Skybird]

On beauty, they say beauty lies in the eye of the beholder.

Which is a statement that is right in line with radical constructivism. :smug:

The nature of things, their essence I mean, seems to be a delicate thing, both simple and complex at the same time. It may be true that all that has evolved into the form it now has, has done so due to adaptation needs and physical processes that have little to do with human conceptions of beauty. But still, I cannot escape to be human, that much hum,an that I actually am - when I watch at nature, and the sky in the middle of a starry night, at pictures from deepspace telescopes, from animals in movement, the grass in the wind, the water in flow, the smile of a face, the play of muscles under a skin, the calm expression on the face of a big cat that just bite its prey to death at it'S throat, the sun rising or setting over a scene of hyenas eating a cadaver - then I often fall silent by inner need, for the beauty that is laid before my eyes simply stuns me.

To us humans, only a universe makes sense and is accessible for our senses, that we can describe in our terms and languages. To refuse to see the beauty of the universe thus would mean to deny our own human nature.

Conclusion: the universe is beautiful for sure. It also is many other things, but it certainly is beautiful as well.

One man looks at a dying bird, and thinks
there is nothing but unanswered pain. But
death's got the final word. It's laughing at
him. Another man sees that same bird, feels
the glory. Feels something smiling through him.
(...)
Oh my soul, let me
be in you now. Look out through my eyes!
Look out at all the things you made! All
things shining!

Terrence Malick: A Thin Red Line

[Oberon]

The beautiful thing about nature to me is the cycle of life, that even in death the ground gains nutrients to provide sustinance for another life-form.
That's why it saddens me whenever Man tries to interrupt the cycle by artificially controlling the predator/prey balance which just upsets the whole applecart and makes a mess of a system that wasn't broken in the first place. However nature adapts, it always does, and it prevails. One only has to look at Chernobyl to see how nature has taken back what was once hers. :yep:

[Sailor Steve]

I waited until more posts were in before raising my objections. I also waited until I had a little more time to compose my thoughts. It didn't help, but here I go anyway.

Nicolas, you claim to be open minded, but it's obvious you both believe and agree with this article and its concept. That's not being open minded, and claiming to be so is dishonest.

I used to be a devout Christian, so one might think I would hate them now. I don't. I tried being an atheist for awhile, but I ran into the same problem I've always had: I don't know the answers, and I feel foolish trying to insist on one when I know I'm likely to be wrong.

I don't hate Christians. For all I know they may be right. That said, for all I know the Radical Muslims might be right. In both cases I consider the possibility remote, but I can't insist that it's impossible.

On the other hand the ultra-fundimental evagelicals give me a headache. They seem to have the mindset that in any given argument only two sides are possible. When arguing with atheists they limit the possibilities to Christianity and Atheism. They don't consider the Jews, the Bhuddists or the Muslims. When arguing about Evolution the only other answer is Biblical Creation, and either one or the other is correct, which leads them to think that if they can only blow find one flaw in The Theory Of Evolution then Biblical Creation must de facto be the answer.

Evolution is a theory. Every scientist knows that today's theory might suddenly become tomorrow's laughingstock. But that's among scientists. If evidence turns up tomorrow to show that any scientific theory is wrong the general result will be to say "Oops, we got that one wrong" and start looking at the evidence some more.

Creationism is not a theory. It is a belief based on very ancient documents, none of which offers any evidence for its claims. Believers try to use a little of the science to support their beliefs...no, that's not correct. The use a little of the science to "prove" that their belief is true, and dismiss anything that might prove them wrong. If evidence turns up tomorrow to show that the 6-Days Creation is wrong, they will figure out some way to make it look bad, because the only possible alternative is to lose their faith. They then accuse those on the other side of doing the exact same thing, which is made easier by the fact that some on the other side really do act that same way. Very few, but enough to make them easy targets.

There may be a God. He may be the God of the Bible as Christians today see Him. He may be the God of the Enlightenment Deists, who created the world to operate by the physical laws we observe and left it to us to figure it all out. This fits the requirement for "Intelligent Design" as well as Biblical Creationism does. I don't know. If I've learned anything, it's that guessing doesn't give any answers and assuming always gets you into trouble.

I have nothing against people who believe in the Bible, in God or in anything. For all I know they may be right. I do, however, have very much against the idea that people who believe need to "prove" their belief. They end up making ridiculous arguments and ignoring all sorts of evidence and facts, and become defensive when someone challenges their arguments and start claiming they are being attacked personally.

I have yet to see a Biblical argument that can be remotely considered evidence, let alone fact. There is much evidence in support of Evolution, attack it all you like.

[Penguin]

I believe in evolution, big bang, and such. But I also leave open the option for a higher power to have set these things in motion. Maybe there was a diety who created our universe, set the initial rules and let it play out. I point to a simple example that becomes extremely complex the longer and larger it goes. In the game of life each cell is given a simple set of rules, 3 or 4 total IIRC. Then game starts, from these simple rules, insanely complex machines can evolve. They have found self replicating formations, designs that even follow logic, depending on what is fed to them. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway***39;s_Game_of_Life)

Why do evolution and creationism have to be mutually exclusive?

Because evolution is a scientific theory and creationism is nothing but a political propaganda tool to bring back religion into school and erode the separation of church and state.
I don't see any problem to combine the personal believes you have, Gargamel. Billions of people can do so: to have faith while not denying evolution on the other hand. Evolution, just like biology in general, doesn't even touch the subject if god exists or not. It is simply not their field, as this goes into philosophy or theology.
The whole screaming about how evolution is against god comes only from one side, and this side is not the non-believers or biologists - who may or may not believe.

Here is a little interview clip from the very good mockumentary "Religulous", where Bill Mahler interviews a scientist who is also a Christian: a guy from the Vatican's observatory: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReV0nCuObcs
The guy who put up the video on YT, also linked to a very remarkable essay, written by the same guy from the interview, George V. Coyne: http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18504&page=1 - a very interesting text.

a little extract of this thoughts:

How are we to interpret the scientific picture of life***8217;s origins in terms of religious belief. Do we need God to explain this? Very succinctly my answer is no. In fact, to need God would be a very denial of God. God is not the response to a need. One gets the impression from certain religious believers that they fondly hope for the durability of certain gaps in our scientific knowledge of evolution, so that they can fill them with God. This is the exact opposite of what human intelligence is all about. We should be seeking for the fullness of God in creation. We should not need God; we should accept her/him when he comes to us.

But the personal God I have described is also God, creator of the universe. It is unfortunate that, especially here in America, creationism has come to mean some fundamentalistic, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis. Judaic-Christian faith is radically creationist, but in a totally different sense. It is rooted in a belief that everything depends upon God, or better, all is a gift from God. The universe is not God and it cannot exist independently of God. Neither pantheism nor naturalism is true.

[Rockstar]

Creationism is not a theory. It is a belief based on very ancient documents, none of which offers any evidence for its claims.

Umm I tend to disagree. I would say belief in YHVH and believing He created us is based on ancient documents such as the Tanakh.


Science however has come alone way since the days of Darwin and has I think discovered complexities in our make up which have made some think we did not come into being by a freak of nature or a primordial ooz. Can science prove it? Like evolution one must I say no, but looking at it does make some scientists reconsider how we came to be. That intelligent design may have been a factor.


Believers try to use a little of the science to support their beliefs...no, that's not correct. The use a little of the science to "prove" that their belief is true, and dismiss anything that might prove them wrong. If evidence turns up tomorrow to show that the 6-Days Creation is wrong, they will figure out some way to make it look bad, because the only possible alternative is to lose their faith.Actually Einsteins theory of relativity does make the six days of creation a possibility. What we always hear from science is the universe is 15 billion years old. To which I think I can agree. This time is based on our looking back in time from (earths) current position in the space time continuum. However what is seldom told is the other side of that theory which says the time passed looking forward from the point of origin (where ever that may have been) could have been a literal six days. Something to do with the continued expansion of space and time. Einsteins Theory of Relativity, good read.

Even more fascinating is, if this is true a Hebrew dude called Moshe knew it and wrote it down some four thousand years ago.

I have nothing against people who believe in the Bible, in God or in anything.I like you too Sailor Steve. ;)

.

[Tribesman]

Umm I tend to disagree. I would say belief in YHVH and believing He created us is based on ancient documents such as the Tanakh.

Yet those documents are not evidence and offer no evidence.

[Rockstar]

Yet those documents are not evidence and offer no evidence.

I didnt mean to imply the creation theory was based on the Tanakh. What I tried to say was the complexity of nature as observed by science may lead one to theorize intelligent design may have been a factor.

Personally I believe it was Yehovah who created us. Some may think like Richard Dawkins and say we were planted here by aliens. Others might say we came from monkeys.

Whatever you believe! well, that's between you and your creator :D

[Skybird]

Umm I tend to disagree. I would say belief in YHVH and believing He created us is based on ancient documents such as the Tanakh.
That is neither an observation made in nature, nor an evidence. Thus it'S scientific value is nil. At court it would also not rate as a witnesses' testimony, but only as hear-say. It would not be allowed.

Mind you, in the scientific process, theory-testing and evidence must stand the test of scientific method. Just some written fiction by somebody who has lived long ago, is not enough. You must >prove< that (and why) he was right. The mentioned scientific criteria apply.


Science however has come alone way since the days of Darwin and has I think discovered complexities in our make up which have made some think we did not come into being by a freak of nature or a primordial ooz. Can science prove it? Like evolution one must I say no, but looking at it does make some scientists reconsider how we came to be. That intelligent design MAY have been a factor.
There still is no material presented thats stands the test of scientific evaluation. Evolution theory has many findings speaking in its favour, and like almost all theories it has white spots that are not explained so far, or other parts has been revised - that is part of the scientific process. Whenever I read about "scientific" claims made by pro-creationist "scientists", I see people trying very hard to work around the lack of scientific fundaments of their works, trying to dress their mere claims into scientific respectability nevertheless to win acceptance for them. But sorry, scientific criterions will not and shall not be compromised just to do them a favour. It would do us no good - only corrupt science (which probably is part of these people's intentions).


Actually Einsteins theory of relativity does make the six days of creation a possibility. What we always hear from science is the universe 15 billion years old. To which I can agree. What is seldom said is this time is noted from our (earths) position in the space time continuum. However the time that passed from the point of origin (where ever that may have been) was a literal six days. Something to do with the expansion of space and time. Einsteins Theory of Relativity, good read.

Sure, the world was made in six days - six thousand years ago. Bollocks. The seven-days-per-week layout of Earthly timetables predetermined already at the very beginning - 15 billion years ago when Earth did not even exist - Bollocks. Ah, wait, 15 billion years mean only six thousand years, right, due to that expanmind universe and relativity?! Bollocks. And what year callibration do we talk about? An earth year? An Uranus year? A year based on the time it takes for Phi Cappa Tauri´ second planet to move around its sun? Oh, and not to forget: the moon and the sun get mentioned in Genesis to have been formed not before the 4th day - so what days are the first three days, since without a sun there is no day on earth? And Earth having forme dup BEFORE there was a sun? Bollocks Also, God created light TWICE. On the first day, and again on the fourth day. Where is that second sun, where did it go?

Must we go on?

Your claim is raised very often - and almost exclusively on creationist websites. The scientific relevance of the argument, the seriosity of the "evidence" given, the reasoning behind it - are non-existent. It is an attempt to hijack science's reputation and perverting it, to make advance under its protective umbrella of reputation without being qualified by its criteria. The same claim is to be found in Islamic creationism which is booming since a couple of years, spreading from Turkey, and Judaic creationism, which also is booming since some time.

The way you "summarise" Einstein's relativity above, and your hinting at how relativity and non-regional localisation of a position should make it possible to understand those six days of creation literally, honestly said are terribly misled and confused and tell me that you have a profound lack of understanding of Einstein and relativity theory - what you say is NOT what Einstein said or his theory is saying. However, I see your claim being duplicated at very many creationist websites, it seems to be a very popular story there currently. But i know how it will end. It will end like the 6000 years claim. The dinosaur civilisation. The rewriting of age-finding procedures in archeologic findings and bone findings, and explanations why the radio-carbon method produces false results when going back more than 6000 years. - It will end in laughter.

Maybe I would will to tolerate the 6 days Genesis if it is understood as a metaphor for something (it then still would suffer from hierarchical problems in the sequence of events that make it almost unusable for anything), a poetic allegory, something like that. A prose, a fictional tale that should teach a moral lesson. But taking this and other biblical stories and miracle stuff and magic and wonder literally? No chance. Not without evidence that stands the test of scientific methodology.

[Rockstar]

That is neither an observation made in nature, nor an evidence. Thus it'S scientific value is nil. At court it would also not rate as a witnesses' testimony, but only as hear-say. It would not be allowed.

Mind you, in the scientific process, theory-testing and evidence must stand the test of scientific method. Just some written fiction by somebody who has lived long ago, is not enough. You must >prove< that (and why) he was right. The mentioned scientific criteria apply.


There still is no material presented thats stands the test of scientific evaluation. Evolution theory has many findings speaking in its favour, and like almost all theories it has white spots that are not explained so far, or other parts has been revised - that is part of the scientific process. Whenever I read about "scientific" claims made by pro-creationist "scientists", I see people trying very hard to work around the lack of scientific fundaments of their works, trying to dress their mere claims into scientific respectability nevertheless to win acceptance for them. But sorry, scientific criterions will not and shall not be compromised just to do them a favour. It would do us no good - only corrupt science (which probably is part of these people's intentions).



Sure, the world was made in six days - six thousand years ago. Bollocks. The seven-days-per-week layout of Earthly timetables predetermined already at the very beginning - 15 billion years ago when Earth did not even exist - Bollocks. Ah, wait, 15 billion years mean only six thousand years, right, due to that expanmind universe and relativity?! Bollocks. And what year callibration do we talk about? An earth year? An Uranus year? A year based on the time it takes for Phi Cappa Tauri´ second planet to move around its sun? Oh, and not to forget: the moon and the sun get mentioned in Genesis to have been formed not before the 4th day - so what days are the first three days, since without a sun there is no day on earth? And Earth having forme dup BEFORE there was a sun? Bollocks Also, God created light TWICE. On the first day, and again on the fourth day. Where is that second sun, where did it go?

Must we go on?

Your claim is raised very often - and almost exclusively on creationist websites. The scientific relevance of the argument, the seriosity of the "evidence" given, the reasoning behind it - are non-existent. It is an attempt to hijack science's reputation and perverting it, to make advance under its protective umbrella of reputation without being qualified by its criteria. The same claim is to be found in Islamic creationism which is booming since a couple of years, spreading from Turkey, and Judaic creationism, which also is booming since some time.

The way you "summarise" Einstein's relativity above, and your hinting at how relativity and non-regional localisation of a position should make it possible to understand those six days of creation literally, honestly said are terribly misled and confused and tell me that you have a profound lack of understanding of Einstein and relativity theory - what you say is NOT what Einstein said or his theory is saying. However, I see your claim being duplicated at very many creationist websites, it seems to be a very popular story there currently. But i know how it will end. It will end like the 6000 years claim. The dinosaur civilisation. The rewriting of age-finding procedures in archeologic findings and bone findings, and explanations why the radio-carbon method produces false results when going back more than 6000 years. - It will end in laughter.

Maybe I would will to tolerate the 6 days Genesis if it is understood as a metaphor for something (it then still would suffer from hierarchical problems in the sequence of events that make it almost unusable for anything), a poetic allegory, something like that. A prose, a fictional tale that should teach a moral lesson. But taking this and other biblical stories and miracle stuff and magic and wonder literally? No chance. Not without evidence that stands the test of scientific methodology.



Meh, could be.





.

[TLAM Strike]

Some may think like Richard Dawkins and say we were planted here by aliens. Others might say we came from monkeys. Aren't those one in the same?

All hail the big black monolith and its emissary: Dave.
http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/6233/monolithsection.png

[heartc]

Since I think these are quite relevant to the topic (and funny, too!), here goes nothing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVusPTM0P9o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6AdEDm2mLQ&feature=plcp&context=C40ef5baVDvjVQa1PpcFO65X-wF3vofGEnqfT8IJSZMezt3WRoPP0%3D

Or for a more in depth session, Neil deGrasse Tyson:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti3mtDC2fQo

Or how about that:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

Now, before you're gonna lambast me for merely doing some cheap
copy & paste job here, without any original thought and then running -
I posted a wall of text right here, which I subsequently deleted, because in the end I was just repeating myself with regards to that older thread, where my question of Why God created Satan (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=188309&highlight=God+Job+Satan) I feel is still unanswered, btw. ;)

[Sailor Steve]

Umm I tend to disagree. I would say belief in YHVH and believing He created us is based on ancient documents such as the Tanakh.
Which offers what evidence for its claims?

Can science prove it? Like evolution one must I say no, but looking at it does make some scientists reconsider how we came to be. That intelligent design may have been a factor.
No, science is not about proving things, but about coming up with workable ideas about how things work. Did you miss the part where I said God might have a hand in it. My point was that I don't know, and neither do you. My argument is with people who claim they do know, and then try to prove that they are right, while having no real proof at all.

Actually Einsteins theory of relativity does make the six days of creation a possibility. What we always hear from science is the universe is 15 billion years old. To which I think I can agree.
I don't have the training to argue one way or the other, but you agreeing that the universe may be that old puts you squarely against the people who insist that it is only seven thousand years old. Or ten thousand.

Even more fascinating is, if this is true a Hebrew dude called Moshe knew it and wrote it down some four thousand years ago.
Now we're back in to the problem of evidence. There is none that the Books of Moses were written by Moses himself. In fact much the opposite. They don't read like eyewitness accounts, but rather like a continuous story that even includes the death of the so-called author. Speculation is always fun, but I've reached the stage where I need evidence. Any evidence.

[Nicolas]

Nicolas, you claim to be open minded, but it's obvious you both believe and agree with this article and its concept. That's not being open minded, and claiming to be so is dishonest.


Mr. Steve. It was a read only.

[Tribesman]

I didnt mean to imply the creation theory was based on the Tanakh. What I tried to say was the complexity of nature as observed by science may lead one to theorize intelligent design may have been a factor.

But you said it about evidence. ancient scripture is not evidence.

Others might say we came from monkeys.

Don't be cruel to the cretinists, they always use that arguement and always get it wrong:03:

[Rockstar]

Which offers what evidence for its claims?


No, science is not about proving things, but about coming up with workable ideas about how things work. Did you miss the part where I said God might have a hand in it. My point was that I don't know, and neither do you. My argument is with people who claim they do know, and then try to prove that they are right, while having no real proof at all.

There is not much difference between theory and law. Each are simply explanations of observations generally accepted as true. Some science is looking at how life works and are beginning to think intelligent design may have been a factor. Yet they are shut down as religious lunatics. Heck even Richard Dawkins got backed into a corner and said he thinks intelligent design may have had a role. Why is that different than artist renditions of monkeys turning into man taught in schools? If that's what you believe go right ahead.


I don't have the training to argue one way or the other, but you agreeing that the universe may be that old puts you squarely against the people who insist that it is only seven thousand years old. Or ten thousand.Maybe it does set me at odds with them, but I'm not offended by it or them for thinking it. My understanding of six thousand year timeline is that it began when God breathed life into Adam. Not day one of creation.
How do you think science can theorize what the age of the universe is? They can take the world population and work it backwards too. Bet it comes out to around six or ten thousand years ago.


Now we're back in to the problem of evidence. There is none that the Books of Moses were written by Moses himself. In fact much the opposite. They don't read like eyewitness accounts, but rather like a continuous story that even includes the death of the so-called author. Speculation is always fun, but I've reached the stage where I need evidence. Any evidence.

Well take a harder look at ALL possibilities. Me I believe God created the universe. How I don't have a clue.

[joegrundman]

Maybe it does set me at odds with them, but I'm not offended by it or them for thinking it. My understanding of six thousand year timeline is that it began when God breathed life into Adam. Not day one of creation.
How do you think science can theorize what the age of the universe is? They can take the world population and work it backwards too. Bet it comes out to around six or ten thousand years ago.



:hmmm: you might lose this bet...

btw i found the excellent (bbc?) series

walking with monsters
walking with beasts
walking with cavemen

at the dailymotion.com. i assume it's legit. it has lots of advertisers...

anyway they are very good series

[Skybird]

Theories on the genetic heritage of mankind vary. The time ranges are from 45,000 to 200,000, with sme theories pointing out that "Eve" has shown up 200 years ago, "Adam" just 60,000 years ago - so Adam and Eve never met.

The matter is under very active debate. We have radiometrically proven time scalings for bone findings, and also projects analysing the transfer of DNA throuigh the generations, allowing to calculate how much diversity happened to get implemented into the human genome over time (if you can't guess it, it has something to do with mixing up the gen-pool by sex :) ). This led to present conclusions that there was a time when mankind was extremely close to extinction, with far less than only 10,000 individuals having lived on the whole planet.

One should also note that in the concpets of evolution it makes little sense to assume there was one day when all of a sudden a completely new creature called man popped up from the dirt ont he ground, and there he was. Even mutations lead to characteristics of a species beiong formed out over several generations - which is quite short a timeframe, from an evolutionary point of view. Darwin did not wish to indicate that there were two chimps having sex, and 9 months later lady chimp gave birth to a human. The spliting of a genetic lineage, the unfolding of diofferences between species, is a slowly unfolding process, and it does not cover the whole new species all at once, but since it starts as a regional, local thing it needs additional time to "infest" the genome of the species in other places of the planet, too - and while that happens, there is plenty of time and opportunity to additionally implement even more, region-specific changes and variations.

No matter how you see those 6000 years, Rockstar, whether creation of the universe or creation of first man - you take the biblic tale literally - and that is where you already get lost. No matter the reasoning, if the beginning of a chain of reasonings is corrupted, any later conclusions necessarily got corrupted, too.

I pesonally like the tale of creation in Tolkien's Silmarillion. There the world gets formed up by chants and music. It's is a very poetic description, and a high standard of literaric expression. Taken as that, I can appreciate the beauty in the narration and prose. But if I would ever start to take it literally and serious, I would get lost, no matter how systematically I try to "analyse" it for its truth content and try to construct parallels to wave physics and the fluctuating of all material structure and how that compares to the fluctuations of accustic waves in sound and singing. Modern physics will not prove that Tolkiens description is correct. End of story.

Religious dogmas - are no theories.

[Sailor Steve]

My understanding of six thousand year timeline is that it began when God breathed life into Adam. Not day one of creation.
Your understanding, my understanding, anybody's understanding. As I've said my problem isn't with anyone's understanding of the text, it's with people who insist on "proving" that their version is the correct one by twisting a little of the science and then trying to dismiss the most accepted theories using word tricks.

How do you think science can theorize what the age of the universe is? They can take the world population and work it backwards too. Bet it comes out to around six or ten thousand years ago.
The problem there is that you can't "work it backwards", at least not to a single set of parents. As you go back the family tree gets larger as well as smaller, so much so that by the time you reach ancient times it can be argued that you and I are descended from practically everybody alive at that time. The can trace civilizations into the depths of time with archeology, but not individuals.

Well take a harder look at ALL possibilities. Me I believe God created the universe. How I don't have a clue.
It could be true. I can't prove otherwise, nor am I trying to. As I've said repeatedly, my argument is with those who insist that they can prove it's true, when they can't.

[Rockstar]

Ah the religious dogma of Christianity the ol' you must believe this or you're going to hell doctrine. Funny thing about that is if you read biblical Hebrew you find everyone goes to Sheol when they die.

Look, the whole creation story in Genesis is only 32 verses long. I agree, how some can be so dogmatic based on those few verses as to how it happened or how long it took is beyond me. Theories abound its anyone's guess. However for me I do believe those 32 verse and who created it. But that's faith.

Also I might add there are subtle indications in Genesis which leads some me included to think the world could have been populated the same time or before Adam was given life. It just the focus and attention of the writings are on Adam and his wife and their offspring. Of course that's if you believe what's wrtten :) But then again not believing it isn't going to send you to christian hell either.

[Tribesman]

Look, the whole creation story in Genesis is only 32 verses long. I agree, how some can be so dogmatic based on those few verses as to how it happened or how long it took is beyond me. Theories abound its anyone's guess. However for me I do believe those 32 verse and who created it. But that's faith.

I think the more vocal dogmatic cretinists especially the young earthers problems with science and scripture stem from their own faith being very weak(plus they are often very weak on the scripture itself).

[Nicolas]

Nicolas' original post reminded me of Perry Marshall, a promoter of "DNA as proof of design" in the U.S. Marshall's version is a bit more elaborate with the necessary conceptual analysis. For the curious, his website is http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/

When I once entertained this "information theory" argument for the Great Programmer in the Sky, I found it was not really helpful after all -- not for the more pressing questions such as, "Why?" -- as Skybird so eloquently put it.

Even if one could make an "airtight" argument for the existence of God, I think that doubt is essential. More precisely, to admit that doubt exists. It seems to me that fanaticism comes from people's inability to accept doubt or uncertainty in general.

I suppose what got me started thinking was when my best friend died last year. I realised I had no need to believe in his continued existence, either in heaven or in reincarnation. That applies to myself, everyone I love, and everyone else. Whatever begins, also ends. In a way it's a relief.

For me the notion of a personal God is too limited; to be truly unlimited and transcendent would require an impersonal God. One that cannot be asked for help or explanations. One that asks for nothing, offers no deals or promises, no rewards or punishments.

Perhaps at the ultimate level (the universe beginning), causality might not even apply. But what do I know? I just showed up billions of years later. :06:

I just fell of the bed and i have lot of sleep. But personal God in christianity is because he is Omniscient, knows everything. Omnipresent, he can be at any place, and Omnipotent, allmighty.

God suggestion is that you cannot know him trough wisdom, maybe because for example a person in a bed with a health problem cannot think much, also in some places people have different cultures and way of thinking and all that changed a lot with time. But if God touches a heart because someone preach the gospel to she/him the person may believe and save the most valuable posession the person have.

[Tribesman]

But personal God in christianity is because he is Omniscient, knows everything. Omnipresent, he can be at any place, and Omnipotent, allmighty
Thats good, so since he knows and is present he will be bringing me an almighty cup of tea right now.

[Nicolas]

Or a headache.

[Sailor Steve]

I just fell of the bed and i have lot of sleep. But personal God in christianity is because he is Omniscient, knows everything. Omnipresent, he can be at any place, and Omnipotent, allmighty.
As does the God of Israel, and the God of Islam. Are they also real? Of course you will say they are the same, but their followers believe totally different things about Him. How do you know, and I mean know, not believe, that yours is the correct one?

God suggestion is that you cannot know him trough wisdom, maybe because for example a person in a bed with a health problem cannot think much, also in some places people have different cultures and way of thinking and all that changed a lot with time. But if God touches a heart because someone preach the gospel to she/him the person may believe and save the most valuable posession the person have.
Those are valid beliefs, and I won't try to argue against them, but you started a thread about disproving evolution, and now you, and we, are far away from that topic. That's fair enough, because it happens, but do you have any more real arguments, or just statements of faith?

[August]

he is Omniscient, knows everything. Omnipresent, he can be at any place, and Omnipotent, allmightyAs does the God of Israel, and the God of Islam. Are they also real? Of course you will say they are the same, but their followers believe totally different things about Him. How do you know, and I mean know, not believe, that yours is the correct one?

Just curious Steve, AFAICT those other religions also believe in the Omnipotence of God. What's so different about their beliefs?

[Sailor Steve]

Just curious Steve, AFAICT those other religions also believe in the Omnipotence of God. What's so different about their beliefs?
What's different is not the "what" of God but the why. They differ in God's goals and what He wants and expects from us. If you go back far enough even those are the same, but the Christian God, at least today, expects devotion, peace and love even for ones enemies, while the God of Islam, at least according to some of His followers, expects extermination of all enemies. What the God of Israel expects today I don't know, but it certainly looks peaceful enough.

Without proper evidence, how do you tell which is right, if any?

[antikristuseke]

Given the amount of possibilities it is far more likely that we are all wrong when it comes to the origins of the universe.

[Dowly]

Without proper evidence, how do you tell which is right, if any?

That's a very good question.

As for the peaceful nature of western christianity, wouldn't that be something
man has defined it to be over the years? As in, changed the bible to suit the
morals and standards of the time? That's imho something that's kinda twisted
with christianity. If there really is christian God, then I do wonder what he has
to say about changing the bible. :hmmm:

[August]

What's different is not the "what" of God but the why. They differ in God's goals and what He wants and expects from us. If you go back far enough even those are the same, but the Christian God, at least today, expects devotion, peace and love even for ones enemies, while the God of Islam, at least according to some of His followers, expects extermination of all enemies. What the God of Israel expects today I don't know, but it certainly looks peaceful enough.

Without proper evidence, how do you tell which is right, if any?

It's a matter of faith... :D

Besides you can find both Christians and Jews who are every bit as bloodthirsty as the most radical of Islamists. All of them will quite happily twist even the most innocuous passages in their holy books to justify their bloody deeds.

[Sailor Steve]

It's a matter of faith... :D

Besides you can find both Christians and Jews who are every bit as bloodthirsty as the most radical of Islamists. All of them will quite happily twist even the most innocuous passages in their holy books to justify their bloody deeds.
Also true. As I've said before, my only real beef is with those who feel the need to "prove" their faith using science. It just doesn't work.

[August]

Also true. As I've said before, my only real beef is with those who feel the need to "prove" their faith using science. It just doesn't work.

Yeah I agree. Trying to prove faith through science is like trying to prove love through mathematics.

[u crank]

Yeah I agree. Trying to prove faith through science is like trying to prove love through mathematics.

Not that hard. 1+1=2.:D

[Betonov]

Not that hard. 1+1=2.:D

or 1+1 > 3, depends on the time of the month :DL

[u crank]

or 1+1 > 3, depends on the time of the month :DL

You should always practice safe math! :O:

[August]

Not that hard. 1+1=2.:D

I thought someone would bring that up! :DL

[u crank]

I thought someone would bring that up! :DL

Sorry, couldn't resist. :88)

[heartc]

It's a matter of faith...

Besides you can find both Christians and Jews who are every bit as bloodthirsty as the most radical of Islamists. All of them will quite happily twist even the most innocuous passages in their holy books to justify their bloody deeds.

Problem is, the bloodhirsty and radical ones in both religions are actually the most authentic ones when it comes to the demands and character of their ancient Gods. Our moral values that we base our laws on in the Western World did not come because of religion, but DESPITE of religion. I grant you that there ARE some moral concepts in religious texts which deserve recognition, and philosphical concepts which ARE quite noteworthy, but at the same time there is a ton of utter rubbish and bull**** contained in those same books.

What YOU / the modern Christians / the "non-radical" religious do is, you pick and choose. You do not kill people who work on Sundays (or Saturdays? Next problem right there), you do not kill gays, you do not sell / give away EVERYTHING you own and follow Jesus, as he demanded of his followers. You only pick the values and concepts from your book that seem decent to YOU. You make a pre-emptive evaluation of the concepts in your ancient book, maybe without even realizing, and only concentrate on the decent ones.

And why do you do that, why do they seem decent? Because mankind has figured out some of those decent concepts long before there was any kind of religion, and certainly long before there ever was a Christian God. It's called living in a social environment. Religion might have been one of the methods in that, but really it was the brain who made it up. The wolfes have rules, the cow herd has rules, the apes have rules, and so do the human apes. There are social concepts which were developed over time, totally independent of any superstitious nonsense. The "good" values you CHOOSE to pick from your holy book in your daily life are not "Christian" or "Islamic" values and concepts. They are values and concepts the ancient Greek had as well, as did many other cultures. The "Golden Rule" of "Treat your neighbour as you would like to be treated yourself" for example is not just a Christian value. It has been there LONG before. Jesus - if he even existed as a man even - just copy & pasted that one, so to say. Actually, it is a rule that must NATURALLY come up in some way, shape or form, if your kind is a social animal - dependent on the group - and is to survive.

You pick the good things that are written in your holy book, and dismiss and ignore or try to explain away all the utterly appalling things that are to be found in that same book. Why? Because you are a social animal living in a social environment, where certain norms have been establised through the ages, through different mediators like religions, philosophers and experience and which proved themselves to work best for a society to function. You do NOT live by the rules your Desert God set up for the Israelites, and you do NOT live by the rules that Jesus set up for his followers, either. Treating other people decently is NOT enough in the context of what Jesus demanded, but instead is a concept that is INHERENT to any functional society. It comes from some sort of "sociological evolution", if you like.

A society - or a tribe - that would live on murder, theft, rape, corruption, lies etc. will CEASE to exist rather sooner than later. And weak animals, like a man, are dependent on a functioning society for their survival. One man is weaker than a crocodile, a lion, a orang-utan, or a tsunami. But a society, a group, and all those brains put together, can pull each other through. You will learn to use fire etc, and in the end, your kind will conquer the animal kingdom.
So if you are anti-social, and your folks are, you guys disappear. And the group with a functioning "moral" system prevails over the anti-social bunch more often than not. And so moral concepts were born. It's as simple as that.

So "mother nature" favors the "decent" sociological concepts rather than the opposite. It is NOT originating from your Desert God Jahwe, or the Islamic variant thereof, or Zeus, or any other invisible man in the sky or on a mountain. That is why you have a problem nowadays with those ancient texts where your God is promoting genocide, and you have to try to explain that away. Because your God from the ancient texts is not compatible with our modern concepts of morality anymore. He is outdated. That's why you have all the explaining to do on how this or that appalling excerpt from the text may have been meant in this way, or in that way; on how God might have changed his mind; or how he is so "mysterious" that you have to find another meaning to the texts even though they clearly show him ordering genocide on other human beings.

Your God is a genocidal maniac thought up / percieved by rather primitive societies (in relation to the "modern" world) who were interested in establishing some ulterior basis for their claims of land, women and wealth, and who did understand only a fraction of what we know about the world today, and things like science and critical investigation were unheard of. But you people keep reinterpreting this ancient Desert God in the pointless effort to make him compatible to whatever society and time you happen to live in.

Ask yourself, what evidence, what argument, do you have to claim that YOUR version is the right one as opposed to ALL the other versions and religions out there? Can you really be so arrogant to claim that you got the right version because of your faith, which means you are somehow connected to "The Truth", to the "Right God", who was kind enough to open a special channel to you - all those other BILLION fools in Arabia and Asia be damned - as opposed to you just having been BORN into the place where this God you believe in happens to be the one that is being worshipped by the local majority, so you just take the flag and run with it, just as you would have done with Allah had you been born in Saudi Arabia, or with Buddha / Vishnu, had you been born in India, or with Zeus, had you been born in Ancient Greece?? And you KNOW that none of those are in any way compatible.

You call that "faith". That is totally meaningless. It is a totally meaningless phrase. Because the guys who were born in an Islamic country have just AS MUCH faith as you do, and our forerunners in Ancient Greece had just AS MUCH faith in Zeus. You have to accept the very real possiblity - simply by the law of probability, if nothing else - that you are just as delusional and wrong as you would consider those other people to be who had the same faith in Zeus.

And don't ever laugh about guys worshipping cows or believing that Mohammed rode into the heavens on horseback.
Because YOU believe that your SINGULAR God somehow splitted himself up into three parts (or the singular God has been three parts since the beginning, which makes even less sense), sending one of them down in human form, and sacrificing himself...UNTO HIMSELF (though it was not really a sacrifice, since Jesus would stand up 3 days later, and he even knew that beforehand) because - even though he is ALL loving and made ALL things - was unable to forigive ANY of the people otherwise, after TWO people in the beginning of the world ate from the forbidden fruit of the tree that HE put in the MIDDLE OF THE GARDEN and then let THE SERPENT- that he created, too - into the garden, which subsequently mislead the naive humans.
I swear to you, from experience, Muslims will laugh their asses of about the concept of the Allmighty God being somehow unable to forgive other than by splitting himself up and then sacrificing himself unto himself. And - just by simple logic - they indeed have a very good point there (albeit they are just as delusional), and what will you say to them? "But my ancient book is more right than your ancient book"? or "But I had a revelation!"? So did they.

And it doesn't even matter if you take the story (of Adam and Eve) literal or as a metaphor, because it doesn't make ANY sense EITHER WAY. The Moral of the Story is UTTER ****. It is a story of a parent that is setting up a hot oven, telling his children to "not touch it", then putting some great looking sweeties on it, looking away and letting a sadistic trickster into the house, who subsequently tells the 5 year olds that they can safely touch it. And, him being all knowing, didn't he know what would happen? Hell, a DUMBASS could have accurately predicted it. And THIS is why we got the "original sin", and AIDS, and malaria, and the plague, and pedophiles, and mass murderers, and lions eating gazelles, and wars??? That's the story??? Why the hell did he set it up in such a way in the first place??? Your God is not only genocidal, he is also a sadistic bastard. Truly, a religion who worships some fat Buddha in India, who actually had some decent philosophical ideas, seems much more sympathetic than this raving bull****. But you say, "Well, I got "faith"??

What is your faith even worth if you have to hide behind it when confronted with critical thought? If you have to overwrite and ignore certain demands your God made because you'd be a maniac if you didn't? If you find yourself acting in a more moral way than your own God did?
Isn't your God quite cruel to you, that he gave you such a large brain, made you fly to the moon with it, but then expects you to hide behind the meaningless phrase of "Faith" as soon as evidence and critical thought come flying into the face of your God?

"I have faith" - what does that MEAN? You have faith that things which make absolutely no sense are still true? What God is it that gives you a brain and logic and critical thought and then expects you to forego it? Who orders genocide on other people and then expects you, several thousand years later, to explain that away for him, or to make sense to you when you think he is a loving God? Is that intelligent design? Or is that rather a book written by ancient men, and you trying to make sense of it in the 21st century?

You cannot choose your belief. You can *pretend* to believe and try to lie to yourself against your better knowledge and judgement, but you cannot "choose" your believe. I was a staunch Christian for the most part of the time I've been around yet. But belief is not a choice. It is a result. And when you allow yourself to think, including in areas which you used to put under exempt in order to preserve your "faith", the result is that God will die. But don't be afraid of that, because you will lose NOTHING.
The universe is so much more greater, interesting and beautiful without "God did it!"; without a genocidal maniac and sadist who planted a tree of forbidden fruit in the middle of the garden and put two naive people and a supernatural snake in it, then blaiming the result on the people and sacrificing himself unto himself, for he could not otherwise forgive them or any born thereafter ("he can do all things"???), but only after he tried some other things like killing the whole ****in world ("reset button") in a flood, except for 1 family and 2 of each kind of animal, including the kangaroo which probably swam to the Middle East from Australia, or came there by magic carpet.

Really. You will lose NOTHING.

And if you say that the idea of God makes sense because "all of this couldn't have come from nothing", or "what was before the big bang", you have to realize that - at most - you do formulate "a" deity with that, and you are still a million miles away from connecting that concept to any of those ridiculous ancient books. You'd be a deist, which is a million miles away from a theist.

And what does it mean to invoke a deity? It means nothing. It means "I don't know, so God must have done it". If all people had thought like that all the time, we would still be in the stone age. "I don't understand fire...God did it!" "I don't understand lightning...God did it!" etc etc.
Also, if you invoke a deity because the universe couldn't have come from nothing, then you will enter the problem of infinite regress, for you have to explain where that deity comes from and so on. So you explained nothing. And when you become semi-theological and suppose that this deity has simply been there forever, then - as Carl Sagan put it and "Occam's Razor" demands - why not save a step and say the universe / the condition which led to the big bang has been there forever? Neither of us knows, but why invoke a deity for which there is no evidence?


--------------


Sorry for the long post. Also, I did not mean to offend you, August (I always enjoy reading your comments), and my rant was not just or not specifically directed at you, but rather at the concepts of Christianity / religions. Your comment was just the proper entry point for me after I have been eyeing this thread for a while and only posted some cheap links before ;).
Though in case you did take offense, rest assured that we are then even, because this "Well, I can't quite explain it to you, but I have FAITH" to me sounds like "Well, I have no ****in idea what I'm talking about either, but I'll just ignore everything else anyway and make stuff up as I go to make it fit." That is something that I find quite offensive in an intellectual way. ;)

[August]

Sorry for the long post. Also, I did not mean to offend you, August (I always enjoy reading your comments), and my rant was not just or not specifically directed at you, but rather at the concepts of Christianity / religions. Your comment was just the proper entry point for me after I have been eyeing this thread for a while and only posted some cheap links before ;).
Though in case you did take offense, rest assured that we are then even, because this "Well, I can't quite explain it to you, but I have FAITH" to me sounds like "Well, I have no ****in idea what I'm talking about either, but I'll just ignore everything else anyway and make stuff up as I go to make it fit." That is something that I find quite offensive in an intellectual way. ;)

I'm pretty drunk right now but let me me say that I do not take offense Heartc. In spite of your use of the "you" I know personally that I'm not religious and see the bible,koran torah etc as books of parables, storys with morals, which should not be taken literally but rather for the messages they are intended to convey.

I think if those who love and hate religion would understand that concept a little better there would be little of the strife and hatred religion seems to generate amongst both believers and non belivers.

[Nicolas]

As does the God of Israel, and the God of Islam. Are they also real? Of course you will say they are the same, but their followers believe totally different things about Him. How do you know, and I mean know, not believe, that yours is the correct one?

Why i know? because when i screw something up, and feel real guilty, and i ask, God forgive me what i did, specially to you, that you always treat me well, even when i behaved like this lot of times, he answer me with relief.

I don't know why i write all of this i need to say something, maybe because what i'm passing trough in my life now.


Those are valid beliefs, and I won't try to argue against them, but you started a thread about disproving evolution, and now you, and we, are far away from that topic. That's fair enough, because it happens, but do you have any more real arguments, or just statements of faith?

Like a person i do not conceive that the world made itself. Chaos will keep like that or worse. To order something you need to know what to do!.
I don't know how its made the cup of coffee i drink yet, never studied it, how on earth natural selection came up with a brain.

[Sammi79]

Why i know? because when i screw something up, and feel real guilty, and i ask, God forgive me what i did, specially to you, that you always treat me well, even when i behaved like this lot of times, he answer me with relief.

How do you know where that relief comes from?

Like a person i do not conceive that the world made itself. Chaos will keep like that or worse. To order something you need to know what to do!.

Sorry Nicolas, but this is false. Order does indeed come from chaos, without external guidance :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization#Self-organization_vs._entropy

Check the sections on physics and chemistry.

how on earth natural selection came up with a brain.

You do not understand the theory evolution. In my previous reply, I mention the book 'The Ancestors Tale'. Here you can get it in Espanol : http://www.agapea.com/libros/El-cuen...95348289-i.htm

There is also a link from Dowly for a complete reading of this book. All your questions regarding natural selection and other mechanisms of evolution are explained in detail in that book.

Regards, Sam.

[Skybird]

Why i know? because when i screw something up, and feel real guilty, and i ask, God forgive me what i did,

:dead: That is as circular a circular logic as circular logic can go.

There are people who slip on a banana sheet and break their leg, then hail their creator for being so nice to let their broken leg heal. Oh wonder, oh miracle! That the same creator is the one who formed up and threw that banana skin there so that they slipped on it, does not seem to bother them.

[August]

That the same creator is the one who formed up and threw that banana skin there so that they slipped on it, does not seem to bother them.

Maybe because it wasn't God who tossed that banana peel down on that sidewalk to be slipped on but rather a littering human. You don't like it when people give God credit for the good things people do then don't be so quick to blame him for the bad things they do.

[Sailor Steve]

Why i know? because when i screw something up, and feel real guilty, and i ask, God forgive me what i did, specially to you, that you always treat me well, even when i behaved like this lot of times, he answer me with relief.
I go through the exact same emotions. I'm quick to judge, quick to condemn and quick to kick myself for being an idiot. It's okay to believe that remorse comes from God. My contention is that there's no way to know for sure, only to believe.

Like a person i do not conceive that the world made itself.
I don't know one way or the other, and for me concieving, or believing one or the other, is not enough.

[u crank]

I have been reading this thread and have tried to stay out of an age old argument but cannot any longer.

@ heartc. All I can say is wow. I'll say it again. Wow. The only thing you got right was the part about the kangaroo.

Almost every thing you wrote I've heard in some form before. Heck I figured out the kangaroo thing years ago.
I cannot imagine where you got your take on Christianity but I do know that it is for the most part incorrect. You should not speak for people you do not represent. I have read the bible many times but I have never been persuaded to believe any of the things you are saying I 'have' to believe. You seemed to have misinterpreted much of what you 'know'. Do you judge an entire group of people by the actions and beliefs of some of those people? Would you want that standard applied to you? I doubt it. As to the assertion that to have faith in the Christian God you have to do everything the bible says, nonsense. Where did you get that?

As to the present state of fundamentalism in Christianity, I'm as pissed about it as any free thinking person should be but politics and religion do mix. They have since day one. Here's a heads up, that isn't going to change. As to the assertion that "your version is the right one", no true believer would say such a thing. Why? Simple, it ain't my problem.

I will try to make it as simple as possible. I believe there are only two things that the Creator God is concerned about. Faith is a given. Those two things are love and morality. Love is the easy one to explain. Love God and your neighbor. Who is my neighbor? In this present age, all the other humans.

The morality one is a little tricky. This Christian morality is NOT pointing your finger at Gays, Muslims, or anybody else and saying they are wrong. This is a personal morality between you and God. It is not based on how the other humans treat you. It is based on how YOU act. How do you treat this planet and the other humans on it?

Heartc, you say you were once a Christian. Funny I was once an atheist. You said "You cannot choose your belief. You can pretend to believe and try to lie to yourself against your better knowledge and judgement." Funny again. This is exactly what I did as an atheist. I would never tell an atheist how to think. I hope you would afford me the same respect.

Peace.

[Sailor Steve]

@ u crank: I can see where heartc is coming from, though I'm of two minds on the subject. God destroyed Soddom and Gamorah. Because of homosexuality? Some modern Christians will tell you so. Whether they are right or wrong is irrelevant. What is relevant to heartc's argument is that God did indeed kill all those people. Were his reasons valid? If you're a believer, how do you question God? His reasons must have been valid. If you're not a believer, then the only thing you can say is that the Holy Bible says that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and the God of the Christians, wantonly killed several thousand people and doesn't have to defend himself because he's God, and believers praise him for it. He then ordered Joshua to exterminate an entire race, and the Israelites suffered punishment from Him when they didn't get the job done.

"The Lord moves in mysterious ways." Believers don't question God because God is perfect, and not to be questioned. Non-believers question whether the stories are even true, and if so how could any being behave so callously? Some ask those questions sarcastically, because they do believe it's not true. But some question honestly, and their questions deserve consideration. If answers are not possible, then why should they believe? If answers are possible, the what are they?

Me, I don't know, and that leaves me with lots of questions. The above are not among them. I'm not challenging anybody to prove anything unless they make direct claims of knowledge. The Bible is a book that may be true or may be full of stories. Believe whichever you like. I neither believe nor disbelieve.

Heartc seems to be full of anger over this question. I'm not defending his arguments because I don't feel that way. I am saying, however, that they do have some validity.

[u crank]

@ Sailor Steve: First Steve I would like to commend you for your honesty. It's rare in debates like this one. It's much better to say you don't know than to hold a dogmatic position on something that cannot be proven.

I have believed in God for almost thirty years and my views and beliefs have changed quite a bit in those years. I don't belong to any organization or church. I use to but I asked all the wrong questions and never got a satisfactory answer for any. What I'm most interested in is finding out the truth, whatever that may be. I will admit to you, heartc and anybody else that there is a lot of things about God I do not understand. One thing I do believe is that God wants us to question Him. He claims to be an intelligent and reasonable being. Says so in the Book. If this wasn't so I could be persuaded to give it up.

As for Sodom and Gomorrah and all that I have no answer, but that's just one of many topics I could say that about. I'm still learning and there is much more to learn.

I believe that every bodies arguments should be heard and considered. I may not agree with them but I am open to any relevant thoughts.

[Sailor Steve]

And I'll commend right back. I don't argue for or against the existence of God, other than to say I see no evidence. That doesn't convince me to be an atheist. I tried that, and had just as many questions and just as few answers. As I always say, my only real disagreement is with people who insist they know the truth. In the words of a song I wrote: "I may be right and I may be wrong, but the same is true for you. I know I don't know anything, but I think you only think you do." :D

[u crank]

"I may be right and I may be wrong, but the same is true for you. I know I don't know anything, but I think you only think you do." :D

I like it Steve. Sounds like a hit.:DL

I don't think it's my duty to convince any one that there is a God. If it were possible it would have been done already. Everyone has to find their own path. The best I can do is wish you and anyone else well on that road.

And I do . Peace and regards.

[heartc]

@u crank: You're just making up your own religion as you go, by picking and choosing the parts you like, like most "Christians" do. That's why you "don't have answers" to all the ugly and genocidal actions, either ordered or commited by the bible god. There's nothing mysterious about ordering your home team to loot a village, kill every living thing therein, to "not show mercy on the children", or taking the virgins as spoils of war, there is nothing to understand about the appalling actions and commands other than that they are appalling.
And as I already said, the idea of treating other people decently (how does that compute with those stories...?) is not originating from the desert god. If that is all you take from that book and pretend to "not understand" the ugly parts and stupid laws, then merrily going on ignoring them, you have no basis for calling yourself a "Christian". Either your god is real and has divinely inspired the authors and composers of your book so that you have no business picking and choosing and redefining your god as to what you "feel" he is, or you assembled him from the parts you like and he exists only in your head.


"One thing I do believe is that God wants us to question Him."

Wrong. You obviously haven't read the book of Job (for example) in any detail, have you? In there, towards the end of the book, over several pages your god is ranting out of a thunderstorm at Job on how he has no business whatsoever to question "Him".

Look, if you need an invisible man in the sky as a reason to act in a moral manner, then by all means go for it. Just don't pretend it has anything to do with the figure described in the bible that condoned slavery and ordered the slaughtering of children.

[Sailor Steve]

First, you might want to reduce that to one paragraph and post a link to the rest. Subsim got into trouble not long ago when someone copied and pasted an entire article. Even putting the copyright information in didn't stop the author from asking nicely, with a subtle warning implied.

As to the article itself, it's interesting how he juxtaposes Hebrew and Greek mythology, but then tries to show that 17th-century science is derived from the Torah. Mostly he leaps around a lot and doesn't say much. His quote from Ecclesiastes has more to do with philosophy than science, and he never shows a real connection, just implications with no cause or justification.

Modern science owes more to the Enlightenment than to Homer or the Bible. Neither Homer nor the Biblical authors were concerned with discovering the world around us. One, as he points out, was concerned with telling stories about gods and men. The other was concerned with teaching a lesson about man's duty to God. Both spoke as if they expected their audience to take the story at face value; neither ever claimed to be an eyewitness to the deeds done, and never offered any proof of their claims. Therefore, neither has anything to do with science, ancient or modern.

That some scientists and mathematicians attribute the laws of the universe to God is fine. It also doesn't make them right, just believers.

[heartc]

First, you might want to reduce that to one paragraph and post a link to the rest. Subsim got into trouble not long ago when someone copied and pasted an entire article. Even putting the copyright information in didn't stop the author from asking nicely, with a subtle warning implied.

Uhm, I get the feeling there is a post missing between my previous one and yours, right?

[u crank]

@ heartc:

@u crank: You're just making up your own religion as you go, by picking and choosing the parts you like, like most "Christians" do. That's why you "don't have answers" to all the ugly and genocidal actions, either ordered or commited by the bible god.

Let me see if I've got this straight. You do not believe in this 'desert god' but you are setting up the rules and criteria for others who do. What I actually think you are doing is trying to hold me and others who believe responsible for things that God has done. Sorry friend it doesn't work that way. I don't deny that these things are in the Bible but there is a huge difference between denial and not having an answer. You need to take this complaint to head office. I hear it's open 24/7.

As to your saying I'm picking and choosing you will have to be more specific. What I did say is what I think God says is now important. Most people who have studied this book would agree on this point, that in the Old Testament God was dealing with a group of people, The Hebrews, but in this present age He is dealing with each person individually. Looks like a progression to me. I like it.

As to the book of Job, yes I have read it. Job 13:3 " But I would speak to the Almighty and I desire to argue my case with God." Isaiah 1:18 "Come now and let us argue it out, says the Lord." Seems like a discussion to me.

Finally you need to be aware of the criteria for being a Christian. There is only one that I know of. That is believing that Jesus of Nazareth is the Savior. This works for young and old, rich and poor, gay or straight, moron or intellectually brilliant. It is the great leveller and only qualifier that I am aware of. If I am wrong on this one point then I respectfully concede all arguments.

Peace and regards.

[Blood_splat]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAuFJKQh83Y&list=FL6Z1dILrC2266u6QAUWE1Ag&feature=mh_lolz

I like what Matt Dillahunty has to say.

[Sailor Steve]

I like what Matt Dillahunty has to say.
So do I. I had never even heard of these guys, but after listening to them if I didn't know better I'd think I listened to them every day.

I like those guys!

[Dowly]

So do I. I had never even heard of these guys, but after listening to them if I didn't know better I'd think I listened to them every day.

I like those guys!

Aye, AE's a great show to listen to. They tend to be a bit provocative at times, but they also know their stuff. :yep:

All their shows are archived on their website:
http://www.atheist-experience.com/archive/

[heartc]

@u crank:
It's really tiresome to discuss their religion with the religious when they don't even know what their book says and start contradicting the words of their own god, as you again have done here. But their book is full of contradictions, anyway, and if they haven't noticed that yet, then it's not surprising that they don't notice their own contradiction to it either. Just as the different anonymous and very human authors of the books / scrolls in the Bible have contradicted each other, and later on some people decided to put some of those books together, and some not, and called it "The Holy Bible / The Word of God".

I might come back to your post more specifically later once I find the nerve for it. But you doing things like:

As to the book of Job, yes I have read it. Job 13:3 " But I would speak to the Almighty and I desire to argue my case with God." Isaiah 1:18 "Come now and let us argue it out, says the Lord." Seems like a discussion to me.

i.e., putting two totally unrelated verses from two different books - or "chapters" - right together, as if this was an answer that God gave to Job, even saying "Seems like a discussion to me", while in the real story your god ranted at Job for several pages about how he must not dare question him, makes me wonder if it is even worth the hassle if you are that intellectually dishonest / incoherent.

And as if this wasn't ridiculous enough already, it wasn't even a good hack job, since this "let us reason together" from Isaiah that you quoted has nothing to do with "discussing with / questioning God", instead it is god saying "listen up, I'm gonna explain something to you", which is clear from the context:

KJV, Isaiah 1
18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
19 If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land:
20 But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.
Hell, it is even quite the opposite of God being in a mood for questioning. LOL.

@Blood splat:

Good link. This one is also fun:

Why does a loving God send people to hell? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5auJ3Dg-zNs&feature=related)

[Sailor Steve]

Uhm, I get the feeling there is a post missing between my previous one and yours, right?
Yep. Rockstar deleted the post. He didn't need to do that; a paragraph and a like would have done nicely. Now I can't even find the article to relink it.

Oh well...

[Nicolas]

Aye, AE's a great show to listen to. They tend to be a bit provocative at times, but they also know their stuff. :yep:

All their shows are archived on their website:
http://www.atheist-experience.com/archive/

They know how to be enemy of God, good... why do that. Scandal increase ratings on TV, a preaching saying basic principles of moral causes people to change the channel.

[Nicolas]

Blood_slpat video link.
Look at the expression of the face 0:50 'what an opportunity to do damage...' when defenseless guy at the phone asks .

[Tribesman]

Scandal increase ratings on TV, a preaching saying basic principles of moral causes people to change the channel.
So does that mean the Trinity Broadcasting Network did their big multi million dollar ebezzlement scandal to boost ratings and stop people changing channel?

[heartc]

@ u crank: [...] What is relevant to heartc's argument is that God did indeed kill all those people. Were his reasons valid? If you're a believer, how do you question God? His reasons must have been valid.


What is interesting is that even if you look at it from the perspective of a believer, i.e. seeing the Bible as the Word of God, shutting down your own moral faculties and saying that whatever God did must be good (see "Divine Command Theory" and "Euthyphro dilemma"), you will still have a problem there. Christians say, "God is love", and one of the verses in the Bible where it says so is:

"And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him."
- 1 John 4:16Now, when faced with the statement that "God is love" on the one hand, and the atrocities that he ordered and commited in the OT* (not to mention the NT and Revelations, where the whole concept of burning people forever in a lake of fire for not believing in Jesus as the son of god / saviour is revealed, while all the lucky ones are having fun in heaven praising the Lord 24/7/eternity - I could not praise the lord nor have fun knowing that billions upon billions of people are burning at the same time for all eternity), we can try some mental acrobatics in saying that "God's concept of love is different and incomprehensible to us" or "Whatever he does is love, you just might not understand it". Well, aside from the fact that this is absurd and the word "Love" then becomes totally meaningless if it is not understandable, and any notion by Christians that what we understand as "Moral Values" comes from / is proof for God goes right out the window (because so could any - what we would percieve as whicked -
notion come from him), the same Bible who says that "God is Love" actually describes attributes of love in 1 Corinthians 13 (NIV):

3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8 Love never fails.Christians sure like to point verses like these out, right?
So, the excuse of "God's concept of love is different" doesn't really hold water when we acknowledge the fact that one of his Apostles, Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit ( = God / The "Trinity") described the attributes of love like that, and we recognize it.

So how does

God = Love = 1 Corinthians 13 = God in the OT

God = Love = 1 Corinthians 13 = slaughtering children, ordering the slaughter of children, ordering genocide, comitting genocide, condoning and promoting slavery (for example - but not exclusive to - God sometimes ordered to take the children of a tribe, that he commanded to be attacked, as slaves instead of killing them like the rest), taking the virgins after killing their tribe, death penalty for mundane things like picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week etc etc

compute?

It becomes even more absurd when you break it down into details:

God = Love = not rude = STONE THEM! / BURN THEM! / Summoning bears to tear apart several children that were laughing about the bald head of a prophet

God = Love = not self-seeking = I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD, YOU SHALT HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME.

God = Love = does not envy = FOR I AM A JEALOUS GOD.

God = Love = not easily angered = YOU ATE FROM THE TREE!! NOW ALL OF HUMANITY WILL BURN FOR ALL ETERNITY IN HELLFIRE, except for those who believe that I sent myself down to earth to sacrifice myself to myself, even when they were born in India and have heard of my word but stayed in their religion because they were raised as such. Whew, those Americans
and Europeans are lucky, I guess! God is quite geographically biased, don't you think. Oh, and screw the Jews, his "chosen people", too.

God = Love = does not delight in evil = DASHING INFANTS AGAINST THE ROCKS IS FUN!

from Psalm 137:

8 O Daughter of Babylon,
doomed to destruction,
happy is he who repays you
for what you have done to us;
9 he who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.
(That Psalm is actually what the song "(By the) Rivers of Babylon" is based on, see verse 1 of the Psalm:

"1 By the rivers of Babylon
we sat and wept
when we remembered Zion."
Funny how no one ever sings verses 8 and 9, no?)

God = Love = always protects = Playing bets with Satan over Job's soul, him losing all he has, his family dieing, and getting severely ill in the process (all - except for his original family... - is later restored. Still, didn't protect him from Satan).

God = Love = never fails / always perseveres = frying the great majority of humans in hell (again this is the "nice" NT / and not so nice Revelations here, not OT).


...and you could go on and on and on.

Now, after we've established that the concept of love is defined / described in the Bible and is actually quite familiar to what we would expect it to be, but then seeing how this God who is supposed to be love is not acting on it, we could try a second mental acrobatic here and say that well, maybe God changed his mind from the OT to the NT (although this is a rather pointless try, see above), so basicly the thing that u_crank was trying to pull on me when he said "Well, that was God just dealing with the Israelites." (if only! Ask the tribes he eradicated lol.) and "Looks like a progression to me. I like it". In other words, God was evil in the OT, but then became a loving God in the NT...

Malachi 3:6 "I the Lord do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed".Matthew 5
"17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."(That's Jesus talking, btw, u_crank. So much for your "But the OT doesn't count anymore." But I grant you the funny thing that Jesus himself goes on and breaks the law on several occasions, then tries to weasel himself out of it with word games or by taking the law ad absurdum.)

And many other verses. But on the other hand, there are indeed verses where it says that he in fact changed his mind, or which are indicative of that. For example in the Flood story:

Genesis 6:5-7 (NIV)
5 The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground ;for I regret that I have made them."; How's that for cleaning up your act after realizing you screwed up?
The Lord changes his mind not only in so far as coming to the conclusion that his creation is crap, he also changes it again in so far as that he's killing EVERYBODY

"8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD."so, except for Noah & family and several billion animals. (Too bad the second try after hitting the reset button didn't work out either with those whicked humans, so he had to send Jesus down to be "sacrificed". For 3 days, that is, then he was back again.)

So, I will grant u_crank or whomever the possibility that God might sometimes change his mind. But this then still leaves us with the fact that he was an evil, petty and genocidal maniac in the OT, and that he's going to burn the great majority of mankind in hell for all eternity, which makes him exactly *what* as opposed to the OT?? Or will he maybe change his mind again on that and send another prophet down to tell us about it? In fact, when God changes his mind on things as profound as creating, then wiping out all life on earth etc, how do you have any security about the will of God at all?
Actually, most Christians will say that while God might change his opinion sometimes, he does not change in his nature, i.e. he is perfect love, perfect justice, perfect everything. So, we are back to the first step of trying to make sense of "perfect love" and genocide.

Also, if God is perfect, this would preclude any change from happening, because any change from perfect can only lead to something less than perfect. There is no "better than perfect". Perfect is the superlative. So any change must necessarily be in a negative direction. But then he wouldn't be perfect anymore.
Also, how do the stories that show God changing his mind about something compute with an "omniscient" God? How can you feel "regret" over the fact that you created mankind when you know everything beforehand? And why does a perfect and omnipotent God create an imperfect species that does not use its free will in the way that God has intended for it?(paradox alert, btw) As a matter of fact, giving limited and gullible people free will but then confronting them with a supernatural snake (or the devil) is a recipe for disaster.

There is no sense in any of it. These are writings from ancient men, written over a looong period of time, some of them connected, some of them not really, and later compiled into a single book, the Bible. Some people have only some of the books of the Bible, like the Jews. Some people have some things in common with it, and an additional author, like the Muslims. Or the Mormons.

Believers (at least in the Christian and Muslim faith) should ask themselves how it is that an omnipotent God does not communicate more efficiently with his creation, considering that your soul is supposedly at stake, so that the message would be clear and people would actually stop killing each other over it?

There can be only three possibilities:

a) He cannot communicate more efficiently; then he is incompetent and not omnipotent.

b) He is unwilling to communicate more efficiently; then he is evil, because as a result a great number of souls will be lost / burn in eternal hellfire / whatever your religous mileage.

One of the above must be true. Oh wait, there is actually a third option here:

c) He cannot communicate more efficiently because he does not exist.

Isn't it fascinating how the Bible makes COMPLETE sense the moment you look at it as the works of men. Then there's no mystery in God ordering genocide on neighbouring tribes. There's no mystery in keeping the virgins to oneself. There's no mystery in the story of creation. There's no mystery in a talking snake. There's no mystery in God communicating inefficiently
to modern man while he talked out of the clouds to ancient men.
And this is how we go about things when we try finding out the truth: Rationally. If hypophysis x makes a hell of a lot more sense than hypophysis y, then it is rational to conclude that hypophis y is probably not true.

Simply by looking into it, it is a lot more rational to conclude the Bible is the word and works of men rather than the word and the works of an invisible man in the sky (or omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent anything).

Only because one *wishes* something was true (although I wonder who would ever want a monster like Jahwe to be true), doesn't
make it true. We do not need a daddy in the sky that tells us right from wrong. We can try figuring that out on our own. And indeed, that is what we've been doing all along, only that some of us invented an invisible man in the sky and projected themselves onto him. This might sometimes have positive effects, depending on what the invisible man says in your head or your book. But other times, people fly airplanes into skyscrapers or paint a cross on their shield and slaughter everybody because of it.

Think about it, the Middle East / Palestine / Israel ist still contested territory and a hotbed for violence to this day, and a major - if not the only - reason for that is because people down there cannot agree on what the invisible man in the sky said, and did, and wants.
Europe was in the dark ages for centuries because of the invisible man, until the power of the church was subordinated to REASON, and the separation of church and state took place. Why was this such a blessing, when the Law of God is supposedly something good? Because it isn't. Because "He" isn't. And we sure as hell do not get our moral compass from "Him". Or had better not.



"and the God of the Christians, wantonly killed several thousand people"

Try a few millions. ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEgXbGVwZ9A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IABptlAhyJw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWHzB6H718w


I love how Sam Harris puts it btw,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HthQ6a7FZeA

If you are interested in more from Sam Harris:

The Moral Landscape (long):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTKf5cCm-9g

[Diopos]

@ heartc

For all the reasons its false to "mix" religious principles in the implementation and analysis of science and logic, the reverse is also valid, meaning the logical and scientific analysis of said religion priciples. The best analogy for religion is not the comparison to science but to art. When you listen to your favorite music you are not interested in the chord progression the song is based on or even if the composer is a good person or not. You are just moved or not by the music. By the same token, in the end you just believe or not.

.

[heartc]

@ heartc

For all the reasons its false to "mix" religious principles in the implementation and analysis of science and logic, the reverse is also valid, meaning the logical and scientific analysis of said religion priciples. The best analogy for religion is not the comparison to science but to art. When you listen to your favorite music you are not interested in the chord progression the song is based on or even if the composer is a good person or not. You are just moved or not by the music. By the same token, in the end you just believe or not.

.

I didn't even bring any scientific concepts to the table when showing that this God is an impossibility. I stayed within its own book. That was the point actually, if you had bothered to read. "But you applied logic!!!" Oh yeah, you got me there. Sorry.

So it doesn't matter if my belief is in any way reasonable or justified as long as it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling in my guts. I see. Glad we talked. Bye Bye.

[August]

I didn't even bring any scientific concepts to the table when showing that this God is an impossibility. I stayed within its own book. That was the point actually, if you had bothered to read. "But you applied logic!!!" Oh yeah, you got me there. Sorry.

So it doesn't matter if my belief is in any way reasonable or justified as long as it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling in my guts. I see. Glad we talked. Bye Bye.


I think what's happening here is you're mixing up faith in God with obscure parts of a particular religions dogma. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees! :)

[heartc]

I think what's happening here is you're mixing up faith in God with obscure parts of a particular religions dogma. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees! :)

Please define God (attributes?) and then tell me where you got your information from that there is such a thing / being (and don't say "faith", because you do not have faith that God exists, you have faith in God, so God existing must be an informed prerequisite. In other words, you cannot have faith in something when you never heard of it / you never got information about it).

P.S. Here it's the other side of the globe and I'm about to hit my bunk. So take your time. ;)

[u crank]

@ heartc:

First I would like to correct a quote you credit to me."But the OT doesn't count anymore" I did not say that in letter or spirit. What I said was that in the OT God was dealing with the Hebrews. Although the Old Testament has value as history and insight The Law of Moses does not apply to me or any Christian. In the verse you quote Matt.5:17 Jesus is talking to Jews and the New Testament era has not yet begun.

Heartc, I am assuming that you are an Atheist. You haven't said so but posting a video by Sam Harris is a clue. If you are not forgive me. But you are making the same mistake that other Atheists have made. You are judging the Creator of the universe as if he were a mere man. This is a fallacy. If you don't believe He exists, fine, I can respect that. But to pass judgement on a Being that is responsible for all things is a very illogical task. Whether you believe he exists or not the best you can do is apply human standards to do it. Which is exactly what you are doing. As to all this carnage that you describe, do I believe it happened? Probably. Do I rejoice over it? No, of course not. Am I suppose to? I don't think so. And most importantly do I understand it. No I do not. Not yet.

As to the communication possibilities list I would add one more:

He communicates very well. Some understand and some refuse to understand.

As always Peace.

[MothBalls]

It's all in the presentation. Dawkins sums it up nicely at the 1:50 mark. He was responding to one of the most interesting people alive right now, Neil degrasse Tyson. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEl4QfcAK2o



Here's Neil's take on DNA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxfJfv9tirU

[August]

Please define God (attributes?)....

God cannot be defined. The thousands of religions that man has created throughout history are but flawed attempts at defining a force that we as a race barely comprehend, let alone understand.

and then tell me where you got your information from that there is such a thing / being (and don't say "faith", because you do not have faith that God exists, you have faith in God, so God existing must be a prerequisite. You cannot have faith that something exists when you never heard of it = you never got information about it).

So if I understand you right you're saying that if I have never heard of God then I wouldn't believe that he truly exists? Is that correct?

If so that's difficult to prove one way or the other but one thing is for sure, regardless of whether I may share some of their various tenets, my faith in the existence of a supreme being is not defined by the proponents, or opponents, of any religion.

I feel what I feel because I feel it and I do believe that i'd still feel it even if organized religion didn't exist. Maybe it would be more difficult to quantify but the feeling that all of this just didn't spontaneously happen by accident, that there is an architect behind it all, would still be there,.. or so I feel. :)

Now no offense intended but you seem to me to have the same problem that religious radicals have. You are both so wrapped up in the details that it causes you to miss the big picture.

Religious books should not be taken as historical encyclopedias, they should be looked upon as a collection of stories designed to illustrate various morals. Like the fable "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" is supposed to teach (amongst other things) the moral that one ought not to ask for help unnecessarily lest it not be available when it's really needed. There was no actual boy, sheep or wolf. Arguing that there was, or in your case that the story has holes in it misses the entire reason for the fable.

You need to look past all the spin and the begats and the errors in translation introduced by thousands of rewrites over several millennium and see the underlying message of the Bible, the actual divinely inspired parts, like how we should treat others as we would have them treat us, and how we should not to bear false witness against our neighbors. Those are pretty good morals to teach, don't you think?

[razark]

You need to look past all the spin and the begats and the errors in translation introduced by thousands of rewrites over several millennium and see the underlying message of the Bible, the actual divinely inspired parts...
But how do we go about determining which parts are the errors, and which parts are the real divinely inspired parts? It seems to me that the people that take this view tend to either:
A. find the parts that back up the views they already hold are the real parts, or
B. find the parts that make them feel good are the real ones.
I find neither to be particularly more reliable than just randomly drawing verses out of a hat.

Those are pretty good morals to teach, don't you think?
The book (and other books) do have some good moral lessons. But to find them, you also have to pick through a ton of bad moral lessons on slavery, genocide, conquest, etc.

Besides, you are already able to tell that there are good moral lessons in the book. Why do you need the book to tell you what the good moral lessons are, if you already know they are morally good?

[August]

Why do you need the book to tell you what the good moral lessons are, if you already know they are morally good?

I didn't say I needed a book to tell me that. That doesn't mean nobody else does either, nor does it mean that I don't find it handy to explain certain things. But just like not everyone needs a travel guide and others are lost without it, I don't think any less of people for wanting to use one nor am I adverse to taking advantage of things I may read in them.

[razark]

I didn't say I needed a book to tell me that.
Sorry, that was a general you, not directed at you specifically.

That doesn't mean nobody else does either, nor does it mean that I don't find it handy to explain certain things. But just like not everyone needs a travel guide and others are lost without it, I don't think any less of people for wanting to use one nor am I adverse to taking advantage of things I may read in them.
My question is why use a travel guide that tells you all the wonderful parts of a city to see, but also insists that you need to crawl through the sewers and garbage dumps? Get a better travel guide, one that doesn't hide the gems of goodness behind piles of crap.

[August]

Sorry, that was a general you, not directed at you specifically.


My question is why use a travel guide that tells you all the wonderful parts of a city to see, but also insists that you need to crawl through the sewers and garbage dumps? Get a better travel guide, one that doesn't hide the gems of goodness behind piles of crap.

Well no travel guide is perfect, they are all written by flawed and fallible humans but what would be considered "piles of crap" is really a matter of personal opinion.

[AngusJS]

Blood_slpat video link.
Look at the expression of the face 0:50 'what an opportunity to do damage...' when defenseless guy at the phone asks .Oh, that poor defenseless man who called their show to tell them that they are going to hell for not thinking the way he does!

They know how to be enemy of God, good... why do that. Scandal increase ratings on TV, a preaching saying basic principles of moral causes people to change the channel.They're on public access TV. There are no ratings.

[razark]

...but what would be considered "piles of crap" is really a matter of personal opinion.
Well:
...slavery, genocide, conquest, etc.
I'd call those "piles of crap", morally. And I will go so far to say that anyone that doesn't think those are morally wrong is also a "pile of crap".

Oh, that poor defenseless man who called their show to tell them that they are going to hell for not thinking the way he does!
Yeah, the AE team is quite clear that anyone is welcome to call their show. They spent an entire episode talking to Ray Comfort once.

[August]

Well:

I'd call those "piles of crap", morally. And I will go so far to say that anyone that doesn't think those are morally wrong is also a "pile of crap".

Really? Well I would go so far to say that anyone who so callously dismisses an entire collection of books that have been held dear by billions of people for thousands of years as a "pile of crap" is staggeringly arrogant. By what authority do you make these claims? Why should anyone believe you?

[AngusJS]

@ heartc:

First I would like to correct a quote you credit to me."But the OT doesn't count anymore" I did not say that in letter or spirit. What I said was that in the OT God was dealing with the Hebrews. Although the Old Testament has value as history and insight The Law of Moses does not apply to me or any Christian. In the verse you quote Matt.5:17 Jesus is talking to Jews and the New Testament era has not yet begun.

Heartc, I am assuming that you are an Atheist. You haven't said so but posting a video by Sam Harris is a clue. If you are not forgive me. But you are making the same mistake that other Atheists have made. You are judging the Creator of the universe as if he were a mere man. This is a fallacy. If you don't believe He exists, fine, I can respect that. But to pass judgement on a Being that is responsible for all things is a very illogical task. Whether you believe he exists or not the best you can do is apply human standards to do it. Which is exactly what you are doing. As to all this carnage that you describe, do I believe it happened? Probably. Do I rejoice over it? No, of course not. Am I suppose to? I don't think so. And most importantly do I understand it. No I do not. Not yet.It seems very convenient that the atrocities associated with your god are either irrelevant because they happened before an arbitrary point in time, or they are mysterious, or they can't be judged.

It also seems strange that the actions of your god can't be judged, but his characteristics and his wishes for you can be determined.

He communicates very well. Some understand and some refuse to understand.Very deep. It's good that you can judge his ability to communicate.

Was his decision to limit his message to a specific time and place, so that it will take millennia for it to spread to everyone, an example of good communication? Was his decision to allow the written record of his interaction with humanity to be subjected to editing, poor translation and flawed copying, all without the original documents, an example of good communication?

[August]

It seems very convenient that the atrocities associated with your god are either irrelevant because they happened before an arbitrary point in time, or they are mysterious, or they can't be judged.

On the other hand it also seems very convenient to profess disbelief in something yet hold others to task for the details. Either the Bible is a "pile of crap" as Razark says or it is not, your choice, but if it is not then you also have to accept the existence of the God that it is based on.

[razark]

Really? Well I would go so far to say that anyone who so callously dismisses an entire collection of books that have been held dear by billions of people for thousands of years as a "pile of crap" is staggeringly arrogant.
I did not dismiss the entire collection. I even said there were some good parts. I simply pointed out that parts of the collection are downright wrong, morally. I also asked how you tell the divinely inspired parts from everything else.

By what authority do you make these claims? Why should anyone believe you?
By my authority as a human being to make moral judgments on actions I am aware of. And no one should believe me, they should examine the evidence for themselves with an open mind, and ask what they believe is right and wrong.

So let me ask you:
Is slavery ever morally right?

[August]

So let me ask you:
Is slavery ever morally right?

Not by my standards. How about yours?

I also asked how you tell the divinely inspired parts from everything else.

Because I am not blind but i'm not going to give you a point by point review of the merits of every verse in a book that I see as only as one general guide to life out of many.

What Bible verses in particular do you object to and can you explain how you know that they haven't been added or modified in one of the many translations since the event they describe occurred?

[razark]

Not by my standards. How about yours?
Not by my standards either. I just wanted to make sure we could agree that there was something in the book that we could agree was morally wrong.


What Bible verses in particular do you object to and can you explain how you know that they haven't been added or modified in one of the many translations since the event they describe occurred?
There's the slavery, and the genocide, stories of god directing conquest, and a few other things that I'm just not interested in hunting down right now.

[August]

Not by my standards either. I just wanted to make sure we could agree that there was something in the book that we could agree was morally wrong.

By our standards. I would not presume to judge the morals and motives of people long since dead.

There's the slavery, and the genocide, stories of god directing conquest, and a few other things that I'm just not interested in hunting down right now.

So these passages you can't actually recall in any detail you assign them as much religious weight as the 10 Commandments? How about the pages and pages of "begats"? You believe that Noah for instance lived several centuries? If not then why do you believe the darker bible stories?

[Sailor Steve]

I also asked how you tell the divinely inspired parts from everything else.
Because I am not blind but i'm not going to give you a point by point review of the merits of every verse in a book that I see as only as one general guide to life out of many.
That is an intriguing question, though. If one believes the Bible to be absolutely true, how does one ignore the parts where God orders the death of thousands, or perpetrates those deaths himself.

If, on the other hand, one only claims to believe certain parts, how does one tell the true parts from the false ones.

Then again, if the Bible is just a good guide for living one's life, we're right back to ignoring the parts we don't like. Also the Ten Commandments are very specific on the worship of the one God. Not exactly just a guidepost for living, but very singular in their demands.

This complication is one of the reasons I no longer believe in the Bible. There is too much contradiction for me to ignore, and more than one person gave the same guidelines without demanding absolute servitude, and did it long before Jesus.

[Rockstar]

That is an intriguing question, though. If one believes the Bible to be absolutely true, how does one ignore the parts where God orders the death of thousands, or perpetrates those deaths himself.

If, on the other hand, one only claims to believe certain parts, how does one tell the true parts from the false ones.

Then again, if the Bible is just a good guide for living one's life, we're right back to ignoring the parts we don't like. Also the Ten Commandments are very specific on the worship of the one God. Not exactly just a guidepost for living, but very singular in their demands.

This complication is one of the reasons I no longer believe in the Bible. There is too much contradiction for me to ignore, and more than one person gave the same guidelines without demanding absolute servitude, and did it long before Jesus.

It is a good question. If God is a loving God why were other nations destroyed? Well, if you look at the biblical accounts they were pagan nations. By pagan I mean those who disregarded His Torah. For example they sacrificed human children to Molech, others participated in omophagia, others practiced sexual sacrifice. All these things God does not want for His own. Even when some of Israel fell into disobedience they met the same consequences as the pagan nations.

But everyone has a choice. One can continue to disregard what the King commands and face the consequences or they can obey the kings commandments and live. But many live in a day and age when the will of the people prevails and do not bow down to kings.

[August]

If, on the other hand, one only claims to believe certain parts, how does one tell the true parts from the false ones.

I'll tell you. Which part do you have in mind? :DL

[u crank]

My original post on this thread was not to take part in a debate about the existence of God, His nature or the OP's thoughts on DNA. Those subjects have been done to death. I have actually been on both sides of the argument in some cases. What I have learned is that both sides get their licks in, nobody wins and nobody ever changes sides based on the debate. I liken it to a one way street that never ends.
My post was intended to clear up some misconceptions posted by heartc about what qualifies a persons claim to be a Christian. I may have answered to quickly and to emotionally. That I regret. I also believe I cleared up that misconception as well as I am able.

AngusJS, if you reread my post which you quoted you will see that I in no way suggested that these events were irrelevant because of when they happened or that they are a mystery. I said that the Law of Moses does not apply to me. Quite a difference. As to judging God or His actions you are free to do so. I believe I 'suggested' that our ability to do so is limited. That of course is based on who you believe He is. If he is a fictitious figure or even just a man, have at it. Heck I'll even join you. But if He is who He says He is, that's a different matter.

Lastly the Atheist Experience. I watched more than a few shows. Very uninformed callers some times being baited by these guys who seem well informed. It's entertainment I guess.

I would suggest as a change of pace some thing a little more enlightening. This is a pre debate discussion between two men I greatly admire. The late Christopher Hitchens, journalist and Atheist and John Lennox, University of Oxford Professor of Mathmatics and a Christian. The video speaks for itself. Hitchens BTW is very well behaved. He only said the f word once and appears to be sober. I really miss him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxAjMPxOvRk&feature=related

[Sailor Steve]

It is a good question. If God is a loving God why were other nations destroyed? Well, if you look at the biblical accounts they were pagan nations. By pagan I mean those who disregarded His Torah. For example they sacrificed human children to Molech, others participated in omophagia, others practiced sexual sacrifice. All these things God does not want for His own. Even when some of Israel fell into disobedience they met the same consequences as the pagan nations.
I can understand hating the human sacrifice part, but not believing the same law? If that's the case do you believe that one side or the other of the medieval religious wars was right, and that the other deserved death? I don't see any difference between the Hebrews destroying the Philistines and the Catholics destroying the Protestants. Both committed mass murder in the name of their God. I'm not saying this is God's fault - I don't know. I'm told there is an old Hindu saying that goes "No god should be judged by the sort of people who claim to worship him." That said, I have to question whether any god who orders murder is to be trusted, or whether any book which makes those sorts of claims is to be believed.

But everyone has a choice. One can continue to disregard what the King commands and face the consequences or they can obey the kings commandments and live. But many live in a day and age when the will of the people prevails and do not bow down to kings.
Yes, we all have a choice. Some choose to believe blindly, and some choose to question everything, especially stories in which people are commanded to slaughter everything in sight in one text and love their enemies in another.

Me? I'm still looking for some evidence.

I'll tell you. Which part do you have in mind? :DL
I have no particular part in mind. My question was "How?" This is a problem I have living where I do. The major local religion insists they believe the King James Bible to be true, except for the parts where it's translated incorrectly. Interestingly the parts that are "incorrect" are the ones that disagree with their doctrine. This can be taken either way, so it can be true or it can be convenient.

So, how does one tell?

[Rockstar]

I can understand hating the human sacrifice part, but not believing the same law? If that's the case do you believe that one side or the other of the medieval religious wars was right, and that the other deserved death? I don't see any difference between the Hebrews destroying the Philistines and the Catholics destroying the Protestants. Both committed mass murder in the name of their God. I'm not saying this is God's fault - I don't know. I'm told there is an old Hindu saying that goes "No god should be judged by the sort of people who claim to worship him." That said, I have to question whether any god who orders murder is to be trusted, or whether any book which makes those sorts of claims is to be believed.

Having read most of commandments, of which I can assure you I have failed miserably to keep, I find nothing in them morally henious. As far as I can tell there is no commandment to murder either. But like I said, like any laws given by a king there is benifit when they are followed and no benefit when they are not.

Yes, we all have a choice. Some choose to believe blindly, and some choose to question everything, especially stories in which people are commanded to slaughter everything in sight in one text and love their enemies in another.

In a nutshell best I can explain the destruction of certain nations were for the purpose of giving the land to Israel, and to rid that land of pagan activity and influence. Also, too the nation of Israel included those who sojourned with them and followed Torah. Keep in mind Torah was given as a light unto the gentile nations too. It is there for everyone to see and to live by.

Me? I'm still looking for some evidence.

I have no particular part in mind. My question was "How?" This is a problem I have living where I do. The major local religion insists they believe the King James Bible to be true, except for the parts where it's translated incorrectly. Interestingly the parts that are "incorrect" are the ones that disagree with their doctrine. This can be taken either way, so it can be true or it can be convenient.

So, how does one tell?

For me I stopped sitting and listening to the christian colledge educated masters of divinity and started reading things for myself. Personally I have a 1611 ed and a Koren hebrew/english bible and I found the Nsrv pretty good for that thing called the new testement. I also found others online to study with who could help with the hebrew part. Since then one thing I learned right away was not to be so blasted dogmatic 'you must believe 'this' or burn in hell'. Especially since reading the Tanakh in bibllical Hebrew I came to the conclusion there is no constantinian hell ruled over by some dude with horns and a pitchfork. But is the bible evidence of that? Well, thats for you to decide.

[August]

So, how does one tell?

I don't pretend to be an expert in the theology of other religions but a little common sense does go a long way. The parts that the Mormons disagree with are they significant?

[Sailor Steve]

In a nutshell best I can explain the destruction of certain nations were for the purpose of giving the land to Israel, and to rid that land of pagan activity and influence. Also, too the nation of Israel included those who sojourned with them and followed Torah. Keep in mind Torah was given as a light unto the gentile nations too. It is there for everyone to see and to live by.
That sounds very much like the justification for both sides of The Crusades. The simple fact is that God ordered the Hebrews to exterminate the existing populations. The reasons, to a reasonable mind, are unreasonable. On the other hand it could just as easily be an after-the-fact justification for the campaigns they waged. People are more likely to accept orders without questioning them if they think some deity wants it. It plays both ways.

[Sailor Steve]

I don't pretend to be an expert in the theology of other religions but a little common sense does go a long way. The parts that the Mormons disagree with are they significant?
They have a completely unique theology based on writings "discovered" in the early nineteenth century. These have nothing to do with traditional Christianity except where they are made to tie in with the Bible. My point wasn't to divert this discussion to the Mormons, but to raise the question of how anyone is to tell what to accept from a "Holy Scripture" and what to dismiss.

Thomas Jefferson believed that Jesus was the greatest "human teacher" of all time, but that his followers altered and added things, introducing the supernatural to the story. Jefferson even produced his own edited version, keeping the gist of the story but cutting out anything miraculous. When I read this I had to ask the question "How does Jefferson know that any of it is true?" If the disciples added in the miracles, how does he know that the teachings are really those of Jesus, or of any one man? How does he know any of it is true, if he can pick and choose?

And that's my question to you. In answering Razark you said you weren't going to give a point-by-point review. He didn't ask for that, and neither did I. The question wasn't "which ones", but "how do you make that judgement?" By common sense? Do you only choose parts that agree with your philosophy? Some of the Ten Commandments are commands to follow the One God. Others are good sense and good law, but they are still presented as Commandments, and you can pick some that you like and dismiss others but they are presented as a whole.

So did Jesus rise from the dead? Did he perform miracles? Was he just a great teacher? Is any of it true? I don't disbelieve, I just don't know, and despite all claims and what I used to think I knew, the fact is that I don't know. And no one I've seen can show any proof that he does know, just that he believes. So how does one decide exactly?

[Skybird]

Claims mean little - what we do, how we behave, defines what we are and what our honourable quality is.

Honour: to me that is the attitude in which we meet life, and live our life.

The value of teachings lies in their content, not in the person that is claimed to be the originator. That also means that a worthless teaching remains to be worthless, no matter how respectable the author is claimed to be.

Authenticity. Well. You learn something but assimilating it in your mind. It then is no longer a separate thing emebedded in yourself, but it is part of yourself. This is true knoweldge, true competence, true expertise. No true mastery of arts without assimilation having made competence a part of you. But after assimilating knowedge and "it" having become "yourself" - what's left of authenticity, then?

It does not matter whether I truly and in full assimilated conclusions from the sermon on the mount, or reached to similiar conclusions all by myselves, or by assimilating inpiut from other sources. The person of Jesus has no value from then on anymore, can just be an object of academic, historic curiosity. Truth remains to be truth, it cannot be endlessly twisted and turned and relativised without its essence going amiss. But it can be approached and reached from different directions.

Problem in modern time is thnat we live in an era of dilettantism. The wish to be something, surpasses the need of shpowing competence to match that desired status. We claim to be judged by what we want to be, not by what we can be, in the meaning of our abilities, skill, experience. Similiarly, we claim to be already respectable for knowledge we would like to be flattered for, but do not have. And so we have a culture where painters must not have any painting skill at all. American Idol singers without voice and technical skill. Politicians without political brain. Academics without academic capacity. Bestselling writers without literaric competence and without having anything to say. And believers without a proper understanding of what they believe - and why, how they were made to believe this and not that. Religious fundamentalism to me is a form of dilletantism, too.

More appearance than substance, more illusion than reality. This is what modern culture, modern intellectuality, and fundamentalist religion are all about. Or in brief: dilletantism.

[Tribesman]

The value of teachings lies in their content, not in the person that is claimed to be the originator. That also means that a worthless teaching remains to be worthless, no matter how respectable the author is claimed to be.


More appearance than substance, more illusion than reality.

Good points, that would be like doing a moralistic rant about how society encourages young girls to get pregnant so they can be single mothers living on welfare and the problems for society that can cause....but as a bonus to the questionably worthless teaching managing to top it off by using an example of a woman who had a big pile of kids in wedlock and then went through a divorce:doh:

Not of course that anyone on their moral crusade would do that:03:

[August]

So how does one decide exactly?

By not deciding Steve, by having faith. Our species seems to want to quantify and categorize everything. The Bible is merely an example of such an attempt, the Koran another. Even those who want to complain about the relative morality of the various stories and passages are doing it as well.

But God (imo of course) being a supreme being that we barely comprehend let alone understand does not fit into the neat mental compartments we crave and that seems to drive some people crazy on both sides of the believer divide. God is mysterious and undefinable, and that includes doing things that we may not understand.

Sorry if that's not much of an answer but seriously, if you really want to know which parts of the Bible, the Mormon bible, the Koran, Torah, etc are correct and which parts are not then just use your head, but just as importantly, use your heart.

[Sailor Steve]

To me that sounds like circumlocution. You may not see it that way, but it would be for me if I did it. Most Holy Books are written in a fashion that insists on belief in the whole, and are not open to picking and choosing. Of course the moral teachings are good and we can agree with them and dispose of the rest, but they are always placed in a context. As I said before, to claim the Ten Commandments is a "good guideline" is to accept the commandments that are moral and ignore the ones that are doctrinal. I don't see that as a possibility. Are Jesus' teachings good? Absolutely. Is the ressurection real? I'd like some real evidence. The wall I come up against is still the same. If you say the ressurection is unproven, then what proof have you that the teachings were real either? Did God destroy the entire population of the world in a massive flood? If you believe it then you need to show people like me how it happened, other than "The Bible says it." If you dismiss that part of the Bible but accept other parts, then you need to explain why, If Jesus is indeed God come in the flesh, he apparently believed it, which, if it were not true, he should know better. Did he know it wasn't true, but used the story because his followers didn't, and he didn't consider it his place to disabuse them of the notion? Did he know it was true?

This is my problem. I can't pick and choose, at least where the book seems to command belief. I can accept that it's an interweaving of stories, some wholely mythical and some at least partly based in fact, but with no way of knowing for sure I can only accept that which is proveable. None of the teachings are proveable, so while I can agree with them morally, that is so subjective as to be untrustworthy.

The Golden Rule as a great way to live your life, but it was said by others long before Jesus allegedly said it. So for me pickinig and choosing which parts I will accept and which I will reject is to avoid the obvious, which is that none of it is proven, so while it is possible that it is true, it is also possible that other ancient myth is true, so I'm forced to reject it as a whole, keeping the realization that I may be wrong, and keep questioning everything.

[Skybird]

Steve, I think it makes sense to make at least these differences regartding the bible: old versus new testament, and the gos0pels fopcussing on Jesus' teachings versus the rest. What for example Paul had to say on Jesus is not the same what the gospels report about what Jesus should have said, Paul was a self-exposer. The conception of Jesuus of what God is, imo is very different to the conception of a God as depicted in the old testament.

So, the Bible imo should be seen as being divided into differnt sections that imo also are of different ethical and intelecctual value. This is what mnakes the Bible very different to for example the Quran, which is quite like you said: monolithic and not leaving you the choice to pick what you like and dismiss what you do not like: its either all, or nothing at all. While there is a separation between suras deriving from the Mekkanese and the Medinese era of Muhammad'S life, these have soime consequences in lingual and prosaic exprerssion, but by ciontent are not so much of theological-ethical interest, but more of acadmeic, historical interest only. It is also impossible for the unknowing layman to distinct betwene the two, sicne suras fro both eras are wildy mixed in the Quran, and are not separated in different sections of the Quran. As you certainly know, the suras are not sported by their age, but by their length (with the exception of the first). - The internet offers some Quran versions where the suras are sorted by their correct timeline. That makes the sequences in which they are given, much more revealing and explanatory for the way Muhammad'S life and thinking unfolded, from initial social reform-orientation to growing radicalisation and racism, conquest, and megalomania.

However, the churches of course sell to the people the whole package, of course, and do not accept the idea that with Jesus a new conception of what God is entered the stage.

[August]

So for me pickinig and choosing which parts I will accept and which I will reject is to avoid the obvious, which is that none of it is proven, so while it is possible that it is true, it is also possible that other ancient myth is true, so I'm forced to reject it as a whole, keeping the realization that I may be wrong, and keep questioning everything.

Nothing wrong with questioning everything but just curious as to why you apply such a high standard to that when you don't apply that same standard to anything else? Would you for example reject as a whole everything that is posted on Subsim just because there's a post or two that you disagree with?

The Bible, like every other religious text, was written by many people over a very long time. It has since been translated and retranslated many times over by even more people, and not always with the most noble of intentions. This is why I say reading too much into it just obscures the overall message.

Now I don't really care what any religion claims the various passages mean but nobody, especially organized religion, has the right to tell me that I must accept all of it or none of it. The Bible does not belong to them, it belongs to the world. Let each man take from it according to his beliefs and customs. If the rest of us have a problem with it we can always deal with them in a secular manner.

This may be circumlocution in your eyes but hey I never claimed to be an English professor. :DL

The Golden Rule as a great way to live your life, but it was said by others long before Jesus allegedly said it. Oh and another thing I was wondering about. What makes those others you mention believable but Jesus only gets an "allegedly"?

[Sailor Steve]

Steve, I think it makes sense to make at least these differences regartding the bible: old versus new testament, and the gos0pels fopcussing on Jesus' teachings versus the rest. What for example Paul had to say on Jesus is not the same what the gospels report about what Jesus should have said, Paul was a self-exposer. The conception of Jesuus of what God is, imo is very different to the conception of a God as depicted in the old testament.
I agree. I've read a few good books on the development of both old and new testament. My point is not to thinkers, but to believers, who insist that it must be taken as a whole.

I didn't quote the Q'uran part because I wholeheartedly agree.

However, the churches of course sell to the people the whole package, of course, and do not accept the idea that with Jesus a new conception of what God is entered the stage.
Which is my thinking as well. As I said, my comments are fairly tightly focused. When I said the Bible expects to be taken as a whole, I should have said that believers expect it to be taken as a whole.

[Sailor Steve]

Nothing wrong with questioning everything but just curious as to why you apply such a high standard to that when you don't apply that same standard to anything else? Would you for example reject as a whole everything that is posted on Subsim just because there's a post or two that you disagree with?
I don't apply any standard at all. I asked you how you tell what to accept and what to reject, and your answer left me wondering even more. As to the Subsim reference, if someone claimed that Subsim was the Holy Word and key to my salvation I would be forced to call him an idiot. Should I treat the Bible the same way? The only real difference is that I can talk to Subsim members about what they say, and ask for clarification. No one is suggesting that Subsim is anything more than a place to discuss things.

The Bible, like every other religious text, was written by many people over a very long time. It has since been translated and retranslated many times over by even more people, and not always with the most noble of intentions. This is why I say reading too much into it just obscures the overall message.
There are scholars today who examine and take to task every translation, so the "retranslated" part doesn't really hold up. We know what it says, though there are differences in what people think it means.

Now I don't really care what any religion claims the various passages mean but nobody, especially organized religion, has the right to tell me that I must accept all of it or none of it. The Bible does not belong to them, it belongs to the world. Let each man take from it according to his beliefs and customs. If the rest of us have a problem with it we can always deal with them in a secular manner.
So what do you think of Jesus? Son Of God? Great teacher? Myth? The Gospels say what they say, and don't leave much to interpretation. Any of the options are possible, but I don't see how anyone can pick and choose to believe some and not the whole. I feel the same way about the Old Testament. Picking and choosing doesn't play out well. Of course, as you say, everything is personal, and all we can do is discuss it or ignore it.

This may be circumlocution in your eyes but hey I never claimed to be an English professor. :DL
As I said, I would be guilty of that, not anyone else. But I never claimed to be sane.

Oh and another thing I was wondering about. What makes those others you mention believable but Jesus only gets an "allegedly"?
For the simple reason that Jesus is claimed to be The Son Of God, so his words carry more weight. No one ever told me that my immortal soul was hanging on the words of Thales. I can accept the claim that he said it 600 years before Christ without question because it means nothing if someone proves that he didn't say it. I lose nothing and gain nothing by accepting it as fact.

[August]

I don't apply any standard at all. I asked you how you tell what to accept and what to reject, and your answer left me wondering even more.

Sorry, I answered it as best I can.

As to the Subsim reference, if someone claimed that Subsim was the Holy Word and key to my salvation I would be forced to call him an idiot. Should I treat the Bible the same way?Treat the bible any way you want. I'm not asking you to live by it's principles. I believe in many of it's tenets and if that makes me an idiot in your eyes then I expect I can live with that.

There are scholars today who examine and take to task every translation, so the "retranslated" part doesn't really hold up. We know what it says, though there are differences in what people think it means.Hmm, you seem to place a great deal of trust in the opinions of these scholars so far be it for me to challenge their findings but as far as I know no original Bible texts survive. I don't understand how they could be so sure that the present day version of the Bible is still the exact (translated) words and meanings of the original authors.

So what do you think of Jesus? Son Of God? Great teacher? Myth? The Gospels say what they say, and don't leave much to interpretation. Any of the options are possible, but I don't see how anyone can pick and choose to believe some and not the whole. I feel the same way about the Old Testament. Picking and choosing doesn't play out well. Of course, as you say, everything is personal, and all we can do is discuss it or ignore it.Doesn't matter what I think, i'm not trying to proselytize you into anyone's church. As far as I know Jesus was all three: Son of God, Teacher AND myth. They aren't mutually exclusive things and after the fact embellishment is almost a given. George Washington didn't cut down a cherry tree, nor did he heave a dollar all the way across the Potomac river but that doesn't mean he wasn't the father of our country.

For the simple reason that Jesus is claimed to be The Son Of God, so his words carry more weight. No one ever told me that my immortal soul was hanging on the words of Thales. I can accept the claim that he said it 600 years before Christ without question because it means nothing if someone proves that he didn't say it. I lose nothing and gain nothing by accepting it as fact.You loose or gain nothing either way if you don't believe in the first place Steve. If the bible is just a collection of ravings by religious lunatics then there is no Christ and you have no immortal soul to loose. It's your choice. That's what faith is all about.

[Nicolas]

So did Jesus rise from the dead? Did he perform miracles? Was he just a great teacher? Is any of it true? I don't disbelieve, I just don't know, and despite all claims and what I used to think I knew, the fact is that I don't know. And no one I've seen can show any proof that he does know, just that he believes. So how does one decide exactly?

God can manifest to your life if you do what his word asks.
Read Romans chapter 10, versicle 8 until 11. Speaking to God, do what versicle 9 and 10 say, then it will happen what says in John 1:12 and 13.

Please later read the following words, to a better understanding:

Jhon 3:16, Jhon 6:37, Jhon 14:23, Jhon 17:3, Acts 16:31 [I particulary like this one].

It's only necessary to do exactly what the word of God says, simple as that.

Every day talk to Jesus as a personal friend and the Holy Spirit will manifest his presence to you. It's only by believing in God words.

Different versions of the Bible, online:
www.biblegateway.com/ (http://www.biblegateway.com/)

[Sailor Steve]

Hmm, you seem to place a great deal of trust in the opinions of these scholars so far be it for me to challenge their findings but as far as I know no original Bible texts survive. I don't understand how they could be so sure that the present day version of the Bible is still the exact (translated) words and meanings of the original authors.
Not their opinions, but their discoveries. As far as texts go, there are several Old Testament texts that predate the Christian era, and some of them are consistent with what we've always had. The earliest New Testament texts only date to about AD 120, so while they are almost certainly not originals, they are early enough to withstand scrutiny. Of course there are also several other gospels which were rejected by various councils because they contrevene what is accepted as canon. That's always of interest, but they too are old enough to be considered unchanged from the originals, accept them or not.

[August]

Not their opinions, but their discoveries. As far as texts go, there are several Old Testament texts that predate the Christian era, and some of them are consistent with what we've always had. The earliest New Testament texts only date to about AD 120, so while they are almost certainly not originals, they are early enough to withstand scrutiny. Of course there are also several other gospels which were rejected by various councils because they contrevene what is accepted as canon. That's always of interest, but they too are old enough to be considered unchanged from the originals, accept them or not.

Only "some of them are consistant"? Earliest known texts written over 100 years after the fact? Other gospels not included? It all sounds clear as mud to me. You couldn't apply those issues to a more modern text and reasonably expect total accuracy regardless of who considers them to be unchanged.

In any case my take on the Bible allows for both accuracy and inaccuracy so it doesn't matter to me which one it is.

[Sailor Steve]

God can manifest to your life if you do what his word asks.
And you say you have an open mind. As for your comment and your text references, Been There, Done That. I was a professed believer for about fifteen years. As I've said in the past, even as a believer I recognized that there was no evidence. You started this thread trying to correlate scripture and DNA. Now you've fallen back on direct preaching. Fine, I have nothing against that. Just don't try to prove your faith with science, because it can't be done. There is no empirical evidence for the existence of a God. This does not mean there isn't one, or even that the Christian God is not true. It does mean that you can't know one way or the other, and all your claims that you do amount to no more that belief.

As I said at the beginning, my problem isn't with people who believe. In fact sometimes I wish I still could. My problem is with people who try to equate their faith with science and scholarship, and don't see that it's not possible. I've read your passages many times, and used to teach them myself. What I now recognize is that they are words that make great claims but can't be shown to be true. Believing them is up to you.

I don't know for sure, and what I've come to realize is that for all your talk, neither do you. Oh, and if I'm wrong and you really do know beyond all doubt, please show me the evidence. I really do want to know.

[Skybird]

"A discovery in science, or a new theory, even when it appears most unitary and most all-embracing, deals with some immediate element of novelty or paradox within the framework of far vaster, unanalysed, unarticulated reserves of knowledge, experience, faith, and presupposition. Our progress is narrow; it takes a vast world unchallenged and for granted. This is one reason why, however great the novelty or scope of new discovery, we neither can, nor need, rebuild the house of the mind very rapidly. This is one reason why science, for all its revolutions, is conservative. This is why we will have to accept the fact that no one of us really will ever know very much. This is why we shall have to find comfort in the fact that, taken together, we know more and more." - J.R. Oppenheimer


Science is the great antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition. - Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations


Science does not know its debt to imagination. - Ralph Waldo Emerson

[Nicolas]

Oh, and if I'm wrong and you really do know beyond all doubt, please show me the evidence. I really do want to know.

I don't know i'm done with this trhead.
If you want search in google 'Jesus saved me from', judge yourself if all those people are liers or are telling an experience.
A person testimony do not count anymore these days??

The theory is that for now, there is no explaining of the mechanism or how it works, also contradict something that crash with my head, chaos will continue like that and not transform in a complex system so well defined, i don't know. Man sent a rocket to the moon, oh good, world transformed itself from a cloud to what it is now, oh well.

[Sailor Steve]

A great many different people give "testimony" about a great many different things, many of them contradictory. Is the Christian's testimony more valid than the Muslim's? In a trial a person's testimony is about what he saw happen, when it is confirmed something actually happened, and is invalid without concrete evidence. Ten people swearing they saw Joe murder Bob is on enough to convict Joe if there is no body, and no other evidence that Bob is even dead. Perhaps Bob went into hiding. Perhaps Bob framed Joe. Perhaps Joe is very good at it. In the end, many accused criminals have gotten off for that very reason.

So no, testimony without concrete evidence is worthless. Maybe some are lying, maybe to themselves. More likely is that people assign motives to happenings that are really random chance. Without any real evidence it's kind of hard to tell

As I've said, I used to believe strongly, then began to see that happenings I attributed to Divine intervention were just as likely to be lucky accidents. I'm not saying it's not true. I'm saying I don't know, and from what I can tell neither do you, or anyone else. Believing is fine for you, but I need some real evidence.

[August]

testimony without concrete evidence is worthless.

Worthless maybe to you Steve. People have been convicted of crimes on eye witness testimony alone many times.

Maybe some are lying, maybe to themselves. More likely is that people assign motives to happenings that are really random chance. Without any real evidence it's kind of hard to tell

and

Believing is fine for you, but I need some real evidence.

Then why bother asking believers to try and explain their beliefs to you at all? If you're really not going to accept anything but hard evidence of Gods existence anyways then you're just toying with us and wasting our time. So you go ahead and believe what you want and we'll go ahead and believe what we want and then we'll all see who was closer to being right when we die.

[Dowly]

The theory is that for now, there is no explaining of the mechanism or how it works, also contradict something that crash with my head, chaos will continue like that and not transform in a complex system so well defined, i don't know. Man sent a rocket to the moon, oh good, world transformed itself from a cloud to what it is now, oh well.

Just because man can't fully explain something (yet), doesn't mean that God
did it.

Richard Dawkins' youtube channel has many great videos about evolution,
as well as debates between evolutionists and creationists, you can check them out here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/richarddawkinsdotnet

The debates especially are great to watch because you get both sides' view
of things.

EDIT: Actually, the debates aren't on RD's channel, but you can find them on YT easily.

[Nicolas]

Just because man can't fully explain something (yet), doesn't mean that God
did it.

If i don't understand something then God did it? You say that not me.

[antikristuseke]

No, he said the exact opposite.

[Sailor Steve]

Then why bother asking believers to try and explain their beliefs to you at all? If you're really not going to accept anything but hard evidence of Gods existence anyways then you're just toying with us and wasting our time. So you go ahead and believe what you want and we'll go ahead and believe what we want and then we'll all see who was closer to being right when we die.
Toying? I only ask this of those who ask me to believe. I still have Christian friends, and I don't talk to them about it at all, unless they bring it up first. And I don't bring it up here, unless someone else brings it up first. Nicolas started this thread with a very strange claim, and anyone is welcome to answer.

Toying with us? I thought you weren't a believer. As to your last comment, it's not about seeing who is right. I've also said that I wish I could believe. That's not a challenge. All I'm asking for is a concrete reason to. You seem to believe that I want to prove someone's faith wrong. I don't. I just want some real answers, and no one seems to have them.

[Skybird]

If i don't understand something then God did it? You say that not me.


He means that just because you cannot explain a phenomenon, or your knowledge is limited, this does not allow a conclusion that a deity has done it.

It simply is something that you do not know.

[August]

I thought you weren't a believer.

Oh I am a believer in God, i'm just not religious.

All I'm asking for is a concrete reason to. You seem to believe that I want to prove someone's faith wrong. I don't. I just want some real answers, and no one seems to have them.

Answers to questions that man has pondered since the dawn of time? That's what makes me wonder about your questions. You could hardly have expected an answer here at Subsim of all places.

[Sailor Steve]

Answers to questions that man has pondered since the dawn of time? That's what makes me wonder about your questions. You could hardly have expected an answer here at Subsim of all places.
As I've said ad infinitum, I only say that to people who claim to have answers. If they truly know something is factual, then they should be able to provide the evidence requested. I don't claim to know the answers, and I don't think they do either. It's only when they claim they do that I start asking.

[Skybird]

"Variablenkontrolle" is a term repeatedly coming to my mind when reading this thread.

"Intermittierende Variable" and "Falsification of alternate explanations" were two more.

[Platapus]

Theists and non-theists will always have a hard time discussing this issue because they approach it from different viewpoints.

The theist has an apriori belief that there is a god and asks for proof that there is no god. Lacking any proof that there is no god, leads the theist to believe that their original position (there is a god) is true.

The non-theist has an apriori belief that there is no god and asks for proof that there is a god. Lacking any proof that there is a god, leads the non-theist to believe that their original position (there is no god) is true.

Each side treats the lack of contrary proof as evidence that supports their belief position. And that is simply not logical. But it does illustrate some of the difficulty that theists and non-theists have in discussing this issue.

[Skybird]

I think atheism is more precisely described not as an existing quality (believing that there are no deities), but a simple absence of something (namely the absence of the belief in theistic conceptions). This may sound like just a small and unimportant difference, but it isn't - it is paramount. Seeing atheism as just another belief like any theistic belief, always was absurd to me. The people I learned to be atheists in my life all aimed at saying something like I do: believing in deities does not compensate for lacking knowledge on the origin and essence of things, since it is just a belief, making it a "joker" that is played when one lacks the correct card and thast claims to represent knowledge that in fact is not there. Thus, theistic belief has no explanatory value. From all people I knew in my life being atheists, this describes best their - and mine - attitude. And thus we do not like to be seen as believers of atheist-something. What characterises us is that we accept to not know everything, and that we refuse to simply believe something in place. What we do hope, though, is that with time moving on we - and man - step by step learn a little bit more. What we just believe to know, is not knowledge but is still just this: belief.

Maybe even a theistic believer can see by this explanation why to us there is no need to believe in deities. It would do nothing for us, give no credible answers, does not increase our proven knowledge, gives us no peace of mind, no contented heart.

Most atheists simply do not actively care for existential questions (though I am sure this is only possible to a certain, individual degree), or they learn to accept and live with the existential uncertainty and possible discomfort that results from that we do not know everything.

It is possible, though, that there may be movements by atheists that actively campaign, pretty much the same like relgious extremists do, and that such "atheists" display their thoughts in a messiianic attitude. This seems to be more a probklem in the Us than in Germany or Europe, if I may trust the media. In Germany for example I am not even aware of any such movement. In America it may result from the fact that relgious groups press with much more furor into the public space and try to influence legislation and education curricula with their dogma. Just think of creationism versus evolution, abortion versus feminism, etc. Where there is pressure implied by the relgious groups, there forms counterpressure by those not wanting to be limited by the dogmas of the religious that they do not believe in.

It'S also worth to remind of that atheists must not be areligious. They can, but must not be uncaring for relgious questions, and also there are atheist religions as a matter of fact: Buddhism for example. Originally, Buddhism does not know of deities and gods, and it is kept like this in the essential traditions that base on the ancient Chinese schools that were called Ch'an. The Tibetans on the other hand implemented a whole Olymp of dhakas and dhakinis that should represent impersonifications of various abstract positive and negative qualities, whether that is symbolism only or not I never really figured out - what I do not like about it is that it made a whole people of simple farmers focussing on these personal realisations, comparable to Christian angels and Catholic saints, spending their time with rites and rituals then. This is not what Buddha's teaching is about, this is not the path to realise your mind. I'm very much with the ancient Ch'an patriarchs there. They were very clear about the value of such ritualised stuff, often finding extremely harsh words for it.

I think that any mind that has sufficient awareness to realise its own mortality, necessarily asks the exitential questions, in any form and way, depending on the quality and freedom it's own self-awareness and self-reflection is capable of: where do I come from, where do I go, how much time do I have, why is all this? This is what I call spirituality, where I use the term religion for petrified dogmas of institutionalised religious clubs mostly: that'S why I differ between the teaching of Jesus or Buddha (spirituality) and church/dogma (religion). Fundamentalism emerges where the dogma is being taken literally and is spread fanatically with missionary attitude. Thus, to me spirituality and religion are antagonistic concepts/terms. The more spiritual you are, the less religious you are, the less in line with the dogma you are. The more religious you are, the more you believe, the less spiritual you can be. Spirituality needs freedom. religion wants to take your freedom. Both Buddha and Jesus suffered a fate of that their followers for the most turned them into institutions, transforming a spiritual message into a religious dogma. This was to corrupt power for themselves and to reserve rights for their priviliges and their power over the masses.

Considering this all together, there is no contradiction in saying that I describe myself as a spiritual atheist. And the atheist people I knew in my life, all more or less went along this road, too. We do not actively believe in a special concept like "atheism" or "no-God". Leave it to say that we refuse to just believe theistic tales. That is what Steve means, I assume, when he says: give me evidence. And once there is evidence, you are not left to just needing to believe something anymore - if you have evidence, then you KNOW. The God you just believe in, is just an imagined God. He dies, when you die. In other words: he never was.

And when others claim to know and to be enlightened - of what value could their "success" be for you? Does it make yourself enlightened, too? More likely that it makes your purse lighter, and your will less free, and your mind less able to ask questions.

[August]

We do not actively believe in a special concept like "atheism" or "no-God". Leave it to say that we refuse to just believe theistic tales. That is what Steve means, I assume, when he says: give me evidence. And once there is evidence, you are not left to just needing to believe something anymore - if you have evidence, then you KNOW. The God you just believe in, is just an imagined God. He dies, when you die. In other words: he never was.

In one paragraph you go from not having enough evidence to make a determination to telling others that their beliefs are crap. Sounds like you've made a determination to me. Maybe is why people don't tend to like atheists very much.

[Skybird]

In one paragraph you go from not having enough evidence to make a determination to telling others that their beliefs are crap. Sounds like you've made a determination to me. Maybe is why people don't tend to like atheists very much.

Not in my little part of the world. ;)

However, my argument that you just quoted is different. And now while I need the right word and it is on my tongue, I cannot name it. What I mean is that there is a difference in knowing about for example the deity to trust in, or just assuming it is there. It is a methodological argument - wrong word, I struggle to get the right one - it is no theologicla argument in this context where you quote me. It is like with a signer. He has an individual voice, that makes him unique. He learns to sing, and use his voice. The voice is in the world, he gets recognised by it. Then he dies, and his voice along with him. His voice, his singing is no more. You could as well say: the thoughts of a person die along with that person'S death. A thought-out God (or maybe better zusing: imagined God) is just a thoiught God, and dies when the mind thinking the thought dies.

There is a reason why it probably is wise to refuse that the Divine, the Essence, the creating God as you would prefer to call "it", the Tao, can be given a name. A name is a label by which you identitfy something. It often represents a conceptions, an idea - your idea. By calling God "God" you already have unavoidably connected the object of your adress with your conceptiuon of what it is. But do you really think that this "IT" bows to the conceptions of human ideas, and that man is given the power to submit the Divine to his own thinking by giving it names? The sixth patricach of Ch'an is said to have been struck by sudden enlightening. The first thing he did, weas running into the library of the monastery where he stayed, and burn it down, together with all scriptures there were. Because all those theological disputes, wise thoughts, those many intellectual theories anc ocnpetions - just mislead you, let you go missing in the realm of ideas and images and theories about what the Divine, what God is. But you cannot name God. The Tao that can be named is not the real Tao, the name that can be given is not the image of the eternal. The only thing you can do is: saying what it is NOT. And it is noth everything you could ever say and think and imagine.

That's why said Ch'an patriarch said: "The spirit is of shining clarity, so throw away the darkness of all your terms.Free yourself from everything." Every idea. Every image. Every theory. Every conception. Every name. It is anything but a mere call to avoid responsibility! It is a call for realising that there is nothing to be realised, for "it" all is already there. There is nothing to gain. What is needed is to go beyond belief. Beyond the symbol. For as they say in Zen: the finger pointing to the moon, is not the moon.

Some quotes, since I do have them at hand, on my HD, from an essay I wrote some years ago. It'S just paste&copy for me. It'S so helpful to have plenty of stockpiled ammunition! :D :woot:

Note that they do not have any content that tells you to believe anything, or that want to convince you of something.
I give them for illustration only, they do not offer me the option to missionise you or somebody else. I just think they may be helpful to illustrate what I am after.
No claims are raised by these quotes that you should believe, so they must not give evidence for anything. The only question is whether or not they make sense to you, or not. To me, they do. (All my own translations from the German).

---

While he entered the assembly hall, master Huang-Po said: ***8220;The possession of many kinds of knowledge does not compare to giving up searching for them ***8211; that is the best of all things. There are no different kinds of mind, and there are no teachings that could be expressed in words. Since there is nothing more to say, the assembly is closed.***8220; - Huang Po

---

We read in the holy Gospel that our Lord went into the temple and began to throw out those who bought and sold there.(***8230;) He unambiguously gives to understand that he wants to see the temple pure and unsullied. He declares: ***8220;I have a right on this temple, and I alone shall rule in it!***8221;
Now, what is this temple, where God wants to have all rule and power to His own will? That is man***8217;s ***8220;soul***8221;, which he formed and created to His own image. (***8230;) Therefore, for this reason God wants to see His temple pure, so that nothing else shall be in it than He alone.(***8230;)
So there was no one else left inside of it than Jesus alone, and now he starts to speak inside this temple of the soul. But if someone else wants to speak in this temple, He falls silent, because the soul has foreign guests. If Jesus shall speak inside the soul, soul must be silent and all alone, shall it be able to listen to him. - Meister Eckhart: Intravit Jesus in templum et coepit eicere vendentes et ementes. Matthei 21,12

---

There exists only one spirit and not a single particle of something different to which one could cling to. Because this spirit is Buddha-nature. If you students that you are on the search, can not awake to this substance of spirit, then you will overlay the spirit with conceptual, abstract thinking, search for Buddha outside of yourself, and you will stay bound to external form, religious exercises and more things that are only harmful and are not the way of highest insight. [***8230;] Even the smallest thought of clinging to this or that, already creates imaginary symbols that lead you back into diverse rebirths.***8221; Huang Po

---

The law of Buddha does not need endeavours. It consists of the ordinary life and has no goal: to **** and to piss, getting dressed, eating and sleeping when one is tired. The simple-minded may laugh about me ***8211; the wise know about it. [***8230;] My friends, I tell you: there is no Buddha, no teaching, no training, and no insight. What are you chasing for so bitterly? Do you want to put a second head on top of your own, you blind idiots? Your head is exactly where it should be. What are you missing, then?***8221; (Lin-Chi)

---

If you meet Buddha, kill Buddha. - Buddhist saying

---

Do not put faith in traditions, even though they have been accepted for long generations and in many countries. Do not believe a thing because many repeat it. Do not accept a thing on the authority of one or another of the sages of old, nor on the ground of statements as found in the books. Never believe anything because probability is in its favour. Do not believe in that which you yourselves have imagined, thinking that a god has inspired it. Believe nothing merely on the authority of the teachers or the priests. After examination, believe that which you have tested for yourself and found reasonable, which is in conformity with your well being and that of others. - Kalamas Sutra

---

Master Jui-yen, while sitting at his desk, let the monks wait for a while, and then spoke: ***8220;I must admit that I do not have anything special. But if you have come here anyway just to listen to my voice and follow my explanations, then it would be so much better to go back into the great hall and warm yourself at the fire. Oh monks, good night!***8221;

---

From the TaoTeking, these two, my (scanty) translation into English from a version I once translated and reworked myself into German:

The One Essence that could be known,
Is not the Essence of the Unknowable.
The idea that could be imagined,
Is not the image of the Eternal.
Nameless is the all-One, is inner essence.
Known by names is the all-Many, is outer form.
Resting without desires means to learn the invisible inside.
Acting with desires means to stay by the limited outside.
All-the-One and all-the-Many are of the same origin,
Different only in appearance and name.
What they have in common is the wonder of being.
The secret of this wonder
Is the gate to all understanding
- verse 1

One who thinks: Beauty, by that causes: Ugliness.
One who thinks: Good, by that causes: Evil.
Being and Non-Being are contingent upon each other.
Difficult and Easy are contingent upon each other.
High and Low are contingent upon each other.
Loud and Quiet are contingent upon each other.
Now and Then are contingent upon each other.
Therefore the wise man:
He let***8217;s himself cause, without wanting to do,
And lives, without wanting to name the many things.
Innumerable forms rise from the void,
But he lets them, and does not attach himself to them.
Creating, without wanting to possess,
Living, without clinging to life,
Causing, without dwelling on it.
Because he does not attach himself to it,
He suffers no loss.***8221;
- verse 2

---

And in German, (becasue I messed up the translation into English, I fear, it sounds horrible):
Darum, ich bin die Ursache meiner selbst meinem Sein nach, das ewig ist, nicht aber meinem Werden nach, das zeitlich ist. Und darum bin ich ungeboren, und nach der Weise meiner Ungeborenheit kann ich niemals sterben. Nach der Weise meiner Ungeborenheit bin ich ewig gewe-sen und bin ich jetzt und werde ewiglich bleiben. Was ich meiner Geborenheit nach bin, das wird sterben und zunichte werden, denn es ist sterblich; darum muß es mit der Zeit verderben. - Meister Eckhart: Traktate
---

[Sailor Steve]

I think atheism is more precisely described not as an existing quality (believing that there are no deities), but a simple absence of something (namely the absence of the belief in theistic conceptions). This may sound like just a small and unimportant difference, but it isn't - it is paramount. Seeing atheism as just another belief like any theistic belief, always was absurd to me.
Just a question of semantics, how then do you define agnosticism? It has always been my understanding that the agnostic admits he doesn't know whether there is a God or not, while the atheist is convinced there is no God. Of course everyone sees himself by his own lights, and one atheist's concept may be different from another's.

I was just wondering.

[Dowly]

Agnostic = Doesn't know if God exists or not, kinda sitting on neutral ground between
believers and atheists.

Atheist = Doesn't believe in the existence of a deity or deities.

That's at least how I see the two. :hmmm:

[Sailor Steve]

That's how I see them too. My question arises because I've heard some folks speak of "Agnostic atheists" and "Confirmed atheists", and I just wondered how some of them defined the terms.

[Morts]

That's how I see them too. My question arises because I've heard some folks speak of "Agnostic atheists" and "Confirmed atheists", and I just wondered how some of them defined the terms.
I believe an agnostic atheist is someone who doesnt believe in there being a god, but open to the possibility of one.

[CCIP]

To weigh in as a linguist: the "a" in "atheist" and "agnostic" very specifically means "against". An atheist is indeed someone who is very specifically against the idea of god. An agnostic is someone who denies the possibility of knowing (gnosis). There's nothing tentative about the "a". It's sort of like the difference between "immoral" and "amoral". The latter very much indicates a conscious denial, not a passive lack.

The whole picture is pretty complicated by the way. There are definitely agnostics, and there are also theistic and non-theistic believers who would disagree with religious followers, atheists and agnostics equally. I think a lot of people use "atheist vs. believer" or "atheist vs. agnostic" binaries in a way that really only serves to further their own cause, whereas the reality is a lot more diverse.

[Dowly]

Think I'll just stick to categorizing people to believers, non-believers and those
who aren't sure. Stupid big, fancy words just confuse me. :O:

[August]

It's my belief that all these attempts at classification are what causes the problem. God cannot be defined by man and the strife that results from trying to define him is responsible for a much of the worlds misery.

And FYI by God I mean that as a generic term for a supreme being, not necessarily the God of Abraham, Zeus, Krishna, Waheguru, Buddha or any other religion specific moniker.

Religions do not own the concept of God and just in case we forget, nor do atheists, especially the atheists who are really more anti-religion than anti-supreme being.

[Sailor Steve]

Religions do not own the concept of God and just in case we forget, nor do atheists, especially the atheists who are really more anti-religion than anti-supreme being.
Well said.

[Skybird]

Just a question of semantics, how then do you define agnosticism? It has always been my understanding that the agnostic admits he doesn't know whether there is a God or not, while the atheist is convinced there is no God. Of course everyone sees himself by his own lights, and one atheist's concept may be different from another's.

I was just wondering.

There is plenty of overlapping in the ways various people define agnosticism, atheism, and anti-theism. The latter usually does not get even separately mentioned, but Richard Dawkins bropught me to it.

I explained how I differ between and define "religion" (=dogma, institution, ritual), and spirituality (=the craving for finding answers to existential questions). I know that I am not in line with textbook defintions of both terms there.

The atheist - so would Dawkins say - is somebody who does not care for believing into a theistic concept, he is not interested in the question of whether theistic deities exist or not.

The anti-theist - so Dawkins - is somebody who explicitly is certain of that a theistic deity does not exist.

The agnostic is somebody who says that the real nature of the Essence, God, existence, Tao, etc not only is not known, but even more: can never be know. That makes the Jewish idea that the name of God cannot be pronounced (can not be known, that god cannot be understood in any concpetion we build), in principle an agnostic statement. :DL

I am a little bit of all, and more. Maybe I should be more precise in saying that I am a spiritual agnostic anti-theist influenced by Chan/Zen, taoism, Christian mysticism, physics, sciences, radical constructivism, Greek philosophy (namely the stoics), a love for nature'S beauty, and wine gum with cola taste.

But all this is of academic interest only. Life still is there and needs to be experienced. In Zen's tradition I only recommend to not split hairs over these terms but to go into the basement and burn some books. A theory on how a good steak tastes does not satisfy the appetite for one.

[Skybird]

It's my belief that all these attempts at classification are what causes the problem. God cannot be defined by man and the strife that results from trying to define him is responsible for a much of the worlds misery.

And FYI by God I mean that as a generic term for a supreme being, not necessarily the God of Abraham, Zeus, Krishna, Waheguru, Buddha or any other religion specific moniker.

Religions do not own the concept of God and just in case we forget, nor do atheists, especially the atheists who are really more anti-religion than anti-supreme being.
Problem is that you live in a world in which the words you use make a sense to you: this sense and no other. For example you do not write "God" with small "g", whgich emans you do not use the word as a general classifying ctagfeory, but refer to the Jewish-Christian tradition, and you do not use a neutral or female but a male article.That's a framework coming from certain conceptions that underly all culture. From within such a context, an understanding of something that surpasses this context cannot be expressed. Thus the conclosuion of radical coinstrucvism: the reality does not get found (perceived) by us in a total, ultimate, last-reality-meaning of the word, but it gets constructed by us, on basis of the conceptions we so far have lived by in our lives. The reality we believe to perceive in an objective way: is just a reflected image that we build about it. As long as we stay attached to such conceptions, we cannot hope to ever get an idea of what the reality in reality is.

You have certainly had moments in your life, that you would see as "perfect moments". Moments in which everything was right, fell into its cordrect place. The general situation - it was so right that you fell speechless, not in awe, but because even awe had no longer to be expressed. A piece of music, maybe. The view of a scene in nature, the last sunbeams over the meadow. Just being. You were silent, your thinking seized to move on for a moment, the wheels of intellect stopped turning and fell silent for a moment. No interpretation. You was not aware of yourself, the witness, and the the scene that you witnessed, the difference between the two. It all was one. And you were it - for a very shoret moment.

And then you started to think about it. Gave it names again. A memory jumping up suddenly. And the separation between you and "it" was there again. The interpreting machinery of intellect and ego all sprung to live again, filling your mind with noise and rattle. For a moment, you were not just "you" but all God and cosmos there is and ever was, and then you fell back into the noisy illusion again. The veil of maya fell again. What a mess! :O:

I personally do not think the cosmos exoists by random chance only, but the How and Why I have no answer to. It is the absnece of random chance that I call the Divine. That is as neutral as I can get in words, but it still is a word. The Divine and me, the Divine and yourself - their is no separation, just the illusion of separation.

And that illusion is called maya in Asian traditions: the belief in a merely imagined, illusory world.

[Sailor Steve]

An agnostic is someone who denies the possibility of knowing (gnosis).
I was familiar with the term "gnosis", but for some reason I never made that connection. I usually cop to "agnostic" because it's the common term, but I guess I'm not that either. I don't claim it can't be known, just that I think it's not known now. :-?

[Platapus]

To weigh in as a linguist: the "a" in "atheist" and "agnostic" very specifically means "against". An atheist is indeed someone who is very specifically against the idea of god.

Are you sure you are not mixing "a" and "anti"?

In the context of "atheist" the "a" is a greek prefix which means "without"

Atheist comes from the greek "atheos" meaning without a god.

A person who is against god, or the existence of god would be an antitheist, a word, unfortunately not often used.

[August]

Problem is that you live in a world in which the words you use make a sense to you: this sense and no other. For example you do not write "God" with small "g", whgich emans you do not use the word as a general classifying ctagfeory, but refer to the Jewish-Christian tradition, and you do not use a neutral or female but a male article.That's a framework coming from certain conceptions that underly all culture.

We're always limited by the language we must use to communicate Skybird. Words are poor substitutes for thoughts and feelings, especially when describing such a deep subject, but if we wish to communicate we are forced to use them (well usually anyways). That doesn't mean that our beliefs have to assume the same limitations.

FWIW though the Jewish-Christian tradition does not own the word "God", capitalized or not, and I have already told you that I am not religious so such associations are entirely your own. Same thing goes with my use of the masculine "article". It would certainly be wrong to conclude from my use of it that I think God has a particular gender.

And then you started to think about it. Gave it names again. A memory jumping up suddenly. And the separation between you and "it" was there again. The interpreting machinery of intellect and ego all sprung to live again, filling your mind with noise and rattle. For a moment, you were not just "you" but all God and cosmos there is and ever was, and then you fell back into the noisy illusion again. The veil of maya fell again. What a mess! Again no. I don't need words to consider and admire a "perfect moment". I need them only if I wish to describe said moment to another person. In fact i'm thinking of such a moment right now yet I feel no need to assign words to it. Only if I were to try and describe it to you would I need words and that limits me, not only to the available words but also to the limitations and definitions you have assigned to them. Look at how much importance you attach a mere capital letter.

I personally do not think the cosmos exoists by random chance only, but the How and Why I have no answer to. It is the absnece of random chance that I call the Divine. That is as neutral as I can get in words, but it still is a word.Which once again you only use if and when you need to describe your feelings to another person. Your feelings and beliefs still exist whether you assign labels to them or not.

Perhaps another way to (try and) describe it is the difference between reading a book and watching the movie version. Reading allows your imagination to run a lot more free when constructing a scene than it can when that image is defined for you by a film but it is still limited to a degree. Non verbalized thoughts and feelings have no such limitations.

[Skybird]

Long reply, quotes - forum software once again producing erratic behaviour. All lost. Great.

:dead:

Maybe again tom orrow. Maybe. Right now my nerves are down to zero. For now just let me say that it seems you have totally misunderstood my argument, my method, and my intention.

[antikristuseke]

Agnostic = Doesn't know if God exists or not, kinda sitting on neutral ground between
believers and atheists.

Atheist = Doesn't believe in the existence of a deity or deities.

That's at least how I see the two. :hmmm:

The way I see it is this, gnostisinsm or agnostisism is a modifier to eirther being a theirs or atheist.
An agnostic atheist does not believe in any deities, but claims no knowledge, while a gnostic atheist believes in no deities but claims to know there are none. The same holds true for theists, an agnostic theist believes in a deity, but claims no certainty whine a gnostic theist believes and claims certainty.

I concider myself to be an agnostic atheist.

[August]

Long reply, quotes - forum software once again producing erratic behaviour. All lost. Great.

:dead:

Maybe again tom orrow. Maybe. Right now my nerves are down to zero. For now just let me say that it seems you have totally misunderstood my argument, my method, and my intention.

Maybe if your points were a bit more concise it'd be easier on both of us?

[Skybird]

I should know myself better... However, this is just part of what I wrote earlier before it went missing. I left out all quotes this time, typing them in again was not to my liking.


We're always limited by the language we must use to communicate Skybird. Words are poor substitutes for thoughts and feelings, especially when describing such a deep subject, but if we wish to communicate we are forced to use them (well usually anyways). That doesn't mean that our beliefs have to assume the same limitations.


Thinking is connected to language, the ones we speak. It is a fact long since known in psychology, and neurology says that brain even gets hardwired the way we think and speak. Thus we cannot even think different than the language we know allows us to. That is true for the languages we speak, but also formally more abstract languages like maths. Artists like painters, composers and poests, try to work around this limitation, by expressing what they want not directly, but approaching it indirectly and leaving it to the audience to complete the trip.

Considering the immense differences between Chinese and European languages, psychologists even say thay both people think different indeed, and this is to be taken literally. We also know from cognitive science that both even have different modes of perception, especially in social interaction, and related to human faces. It effects and get effected by the formats of resulting different culture.

Thus our beliefs - the one we imagine, I mean - are constructions formed and influenced by our language. Our intellectual conceptions. Which base on cultural tradition as well as the life-long experience and knowledge input of the individual person. We always are slaves of our older conceptions on which we base.

Thus, new conceptions of ours get contructed on the fundament of older ones. Which also is true for our ideas we relate to "beliefs". The image one may have of an imagined afterlife, is depending on input this person has had throughout his/her life. We even know from immense empirical projects that compared near-death-experiences over many thousands of cases from different cultures, that while the basic structure of phases following each other in subjective NDE may be the same, but individual details in the "vision" the NDE-witness had, vary form culture and culture, and show specific details that correlate with pictures and ideas of the culture and it'S belief systems the person so far had lived in and has been raised in. Personal religious concpoetions also get reflected in the form and image the NDE gets "dressed" in.

Thus it is probably a reasonable assumption that any idea about the unimaginable necessarily is misled from all beginning on, and already wrong for the mere fact that is has been imagined by the thinker, and can be imagined.


FWIW though the Jewish-Christian tradition does not own the word "God", capitalized or not, and I have already told you that I am not religious so such associations are entirely your own. Same thing goes with my use of the masculine "article". It would certainly be wrong to conclude from my use of it that I think God has a particular gender.

I have read in English that the word "God" with capital G always and exclusively refers to the deity in Jewish-Christian context, where as the deity of some tribe in the amazonas forest would be mentioned as being a god with small "g", for example. For the same reason I sometimes use "God" and "god", and differ between the two. I just copy that from examples set by the English language - it is neither my invention nor imagination.


Again no. I don't need words to consider and admire a "perfect moment". I need them only if I wish to describe said moment to another person. In fact i'm thinking of such a moment right now yet I feel no need to assign words to it. Only if I were to try and describe it to you would I need words and that limits me, not only to the available words but also to the limitations and definitions you have assigned to them. Look at how much importance you attach a mere capital letter.


On the capital letter, or articles (I mean you used "Him" instead of "It" or "Her"), see above.

What's more, what I wanted to acchieve in my former posting that you quote now from, was exactly this: to show that everybody occasionally has moments of being in "perfect harmony" with the universe, when everything just is okay and falls into its right place and the muttering intellect, the noise-making ego just falls silent, and for a short while is no more. These are gifted, precious moments, a blessing, if you want to call it that. It is when we realise the nature of the Eternal inside ourselves, when our inside reaches out to the outside and for a moment we feel there is no separation at all, a moment when we experience that the essence of our "self" and the Essence of the Divine are not two separates, but the same. For a moment, we are almost "dead" as individual egos.

But:

this can only be had at a price.
The price is that the ego has to die indeed. And in such moments, it indeed does, or better, the illusion of its separated existence for the duration of the event collapses. The veil of maya for a shor while comes down. This I mean when saying that we cannot experience these precious moments, because then there still would be a "me" that separates itself from the experience, the event, and makes the event impossible. Compare to my earlier quote of Meister Eckhart commenting on the silent temple of the soul - to hear God and have it filling the temple, the soul, all other voices must fall silent. Our self must transcend itself, and when it does, the Divine lights up inside of us. In fact, ti always has been there. The "self", this quality that makes us think of us as "me"/the ego - is gone. It is not aware therefore. What has been "me", has molten into what happens, has become the event itself. No more witness/subject, no more observed event/object, no interaction between the two. Just being. One-ness.

This I mean when referring to said precious moments. It is a mystical experience that we just never care to call like that. It is a blessing or a gift in that we cannot enforce it, we just can somewhat "ready" ourselves for when it will happen. While meditation has many side-effects like calming the mind, discipline, learning to not automatically react to , judge and interpret perceptions, in the end this mystical experience nevertheless is the real "goal" of meditation, or better: an attractor. Any form of meditation, no matter what it is called: if it does not somewhat "aim" at this, it is not really meditation in the original meaning of the word. But there are several tricky implications that serve as traps for the trying mind.

The Christian mystics in their tradition mention the "unio mystica". In their framework of terms and names, it means the unification >with< God by realising oneself to be >in< God and God being in us - both are one. In all mystic traditions of world'S cultures, as far as I am aware of them, this is a leading principle in their thinking, that the Divine is not separated from the individual, but is to be found by the individual inside himself. Necessary for this is what the Christian mystics called the "mystical death", a deconstruction of the ego because the ego errects the veil of maya, the world of illusion that is formed by conceptions, terms and names that make us believe of our existence as "me/inside/the created" separated from "world/outside environment/creator". It is the dilemma of our dualistic world view here in the West. Angelus Silesius, a poet of the 17th century sympathising with Christian mysticism, wrote: "Stirb, ehe du noch stirbst,/damit du nicht wirst sterben,/wenn du nun sterben sollst,/sonst möchtest du verderben." The ego has to die before our life ends, else we face the death of our physical appearance without having experienced the unio mystica, our becoming-aware of the Divine as a "One-ness", "Not-Two-ness, when our ego seizes to be and the superior reality of what really is our essence and that of all things existing lights up. By dying the mystical death of our ego, and then knowing our mystical union with the Divine, we win the eternal life, for what dies at the end of our Earthly life then is just a physical hull, a form, a temporary manifestation, but not the spirit, the Divine essence that we really are. But if we live our life in darkness and do not understand this, death holds fear for us and torments our ego because the ego is mortal and knows that one day it must end. And this, so think Buddhists, can lure the mind back into a new manifestation, a new ride on the wheel of life, with all its bitterness and suffering - reincarnation.

This is not just the Christian mystics' understanding. It is in principle the same how I understand the words of Jesus on the "kingdom inside", the way to it leading through him, his reference to "the father". Of course, I do not take his words literally, it are metaphors, for like Buddha and Lao Tse and like you already mentioned yourself, words hinder us, limit us, do not allow us to express the real quality of these things it all is about. Needless to say that Buddhist psychology and teaching also follow this track, with Ch'an being just more uncompromised in honouring that all words and attempts to teach somethign are in vein in so far as nothing can be gained in a linear effort. Zen is about sudden enlightenment, not a process of moving towards that, and the preferred way of bringing people to that was not by words and lectures, but preparing the ground so that it could happen all by itself, or leading the ego and its intellect into suicidal despair over riddles that with intellect alone cannot be solved since there is no reasonable answer possible (these riddle-poems are called "koans"). Some teachers even beat and whipped their studentsa at the right time - and they saw clear immediately. For modern Western thinking at least, this must appear to be absurd at first. Anbd it is. That's why it works.

I had plenty of quotes from Meister Eckhard, Thomas a Kempis, Lin Chi, Huang-Po, Plotin and Origines to illustrate how their traditions were indeed linked to what I just tried to explain. Forgive that I do not type it in once again, if you want them, I can do that later. These quotes also meant to show that these traditions, Buddha and Jesus alike, Zen and Christian mysticism, have very much in common. What is very different, is the modern form of mass-tailored Buddhism and the "Christian" churches, of course. But that is all just show, dogma, petrified dogma, it does a lot of damage to people and makes them running in a tread-mill without realising it, and they do not get anywhere. But I am not interested in any of these exoteric deformations.

I have taught meditation for several years, until some years ago, and like a school teacher tends to repeat courses and schemes frome arlier years in later classes, you can imagine that while I was confronted with the same quesitons over and over again I formed a little "canon" of replies and references, too. It only is natural and happens all by itself as long as the questions remain the same and the old answers must not get revised or corrected. That'S why I had and have all that still in the backyard of my head, and a small handful of books where I could easily and quickly find the quotes I know that are there. I am aware that now and here it may sound a bit like preaching, but it is not meant that way. I just want to give a consistent, illustrated line of arguments to document my way of thinking on the matter, since this is what the debate is about.

[August]

Sky, it all sounds like a bunch of mumbo jumbo to me. People are people and only when you verbalize thoughts are they limited by language.

[Skybird]

Sky, it all sounds like a bunch of mumbo jumbo to me. People are people and only when you verbalize thoughts are they limited by language.
Not making things needlessly complicated is one thing. Simplifying things until all real features are levelled out, is another. Your extremely simple idea on language and thought simply is wrong. That is no claim by me, but it is being standard knowedge in neurologic, cognitive and psychological sciences. Since at least 30 years. They have has shown it to be more complex than you want to have it. It is a philosophical problem as well, but I did not even mention that aspect. Call it mumbo jumbo or not - they have more to say on the issue, than you. To be precise - you seem to have to say nothing on it, then just calling it mumbo jumbo. That is not enough. Or to be more precise: that is nothing.

Calling something you do not understand "mumbo jumbo" and by that hoping to wipe it off the table, does nothing for you. It just demonstrates an attitude that does not want to learn when being wrong, but instead prefers to stay with the wrong. In other words: leave me alone, i don't like to be questioned. I think that is very ignorrant.

I assume Steve's very reasonable request for evidence, repeatedly asked for in your discussion with him, also is just a form of "mumbo jumbo", then, no matter how reasonable and simple it is?! Because you do not like it, since it puts your line of argument into question, and you having been unable to meet his reasonability? Mumbo jumbo, Stevie's from the jungle. Great.

However, I think mumbo jumbo then marks the end of this - and necessarily: any - conversation. Because I have neither the will anymore nor the reply to answer to your mumbo jumbo. Just making claims about how things are, but not being able to found them, is not good enough. If others who try to illustrate their reasons and arguments then get indirectly accused of making things needlessly complicated, then this is some degrees of simplifying to much for my taste. Because most things are not that simple and one-dimensional as you sometimes - and here again - try to paint them.

[Betonov]

It's my belief that all these attempts at classification are what causes the problem. God cannot be defined by man and the strife that results from trying to define him is responsible for a much of the worlds misery.

Agreed

And FYI by God I mean that as a generic term for a supreme being, not necessarily the God of Abraham, Zeus, Krishna, Waheguru, Buddha or any other religion specific moniker.

Everytime I bashed god (especialy on threads you were active) I was bashing the wiew of god of religions. Christians, muslims etc.
But it apears I was wrong, you're not indoctrinated when it comes to religion.


Religions do not own the concept of God and just in case we forget, nor do atheists, especially the atheists who are really more anti-religion than anti-supreme being.

Most of us are that way. We refuse to believe in the god that fat men in black clothes try to (tax-free) sell us. That little doubt in us there just might be something on the other side still persists. But that's not my concern, I'll find out sooner or later. I just can't stand zealots

If there is nothing, I wont know, I'll just rest till the end of time.
If there is a benevolent supreme being my actions will be judged not my faith. Small vices shoulnd't get me to hell.
If there a supreme being that will judge my faith and not my actions, then I was damned the day I was born.
Despite being an atheist I am more of a follower to what Christ taught us than most of the clergy

[August]

However, I think mumbo jumbo then marks the end of this - and necessarily: any - conversation. Because I have neither the will anymore nor the reply to answer to your mumbo jumbo.

Oh no! :o Skybird won't write me any more boring 10 thousand page essays. Sometimes your arrogance and sense of self importance is breathtaking Pal. How dare you try to tell me how I see my own maker?

No, don't answer that because we truly are done here. Say hello to your co-workers down at the warehouse for me.

[August]

If there is nothing, I wont know, I'll just rest till the end of time.
If there is a benevolent supreme being my actions will be judged not my faith. Small vices shoulnd't get me to hell.
If there a supreme being that will judge my faith and not my actions, then I was damned the day I was born.
Despite being an atheist I am more of a follower to what Christ taught us than most of the clergy

Substitute "non-religious" for "an atheist" and that pretty much sums up my feelings too. Peace Brother!

[Skybird]

Oh no! :o Skybird won't write me any more boring 10 thousand page essays. Sometimes your arrogance and sense of self importance is breathtaking Pal. How dare you try to tell me how I see my own maker?

No, don't answer that because we truly are done here. Say hello to your co-workers down at the warehouse for me.
And there you let fall your mask again. When lacking argument, sneak into the back and stab, putting things into people's mouth they never said nor meant, and practicing yourself what you accuse others of. You're a piece of work, really, hiding your personal stabs behind a jovial smile and a clap on the shoulder often and acting innocent when the other reacts angry in defence to being stabbed.

And what have long since gone jobs - that I qitted years ago- to do with it? Why are you always so obsessed with this single one job I once had until four years ago (past tense, please), and not any of the many others I also had and mentioned? Student jobs? Factory and market jobs? Security and bodyguard jobs? Academic engagements, counceling, therapy? Jobs I had overseas? What is so special about working in a warehouse that you must mock about this one time and again whenever you run out of arguments? Maybe hoping to score some image points by making some supposedly underhanded jokes that most people do not understand, when your reasonability has gone offline before? Or are you just envious that I can afford to choose, and must not necessarily work 40/5 a week, if I do not want to? Well, you would need to live with it.

Who cares anyway. Bye.

[August]

Who cares anyway. Bye.

:up:

[MH]

Second flood is needed ASAP:arrgh!:....dang ....those submariners:hmmm:

[MH]

Oh no! :o Skybird won't write me any more boring 10 thousand page essays. Sometimes your arrogance and sense of self importance is breathtaking Pal. How dare you try to tell me how I see my own maker?


I don't agree with some of Skybird's mumbo jumbo(with some i do)...not necessary because i cant follow his logic but simply because i don't agree with it.
Understanding some else's point of view not necessary means agreeing with it.
Its very clear that different people can compute same facts very differently.
Software and hardware issues lol.
(lack of data....a big problem/not needed data too)))
When it comes to religion there are no facts denying creator or proving his/her/it existence.
The only issue is the cultural/traditional expression and representation of god in our heads and in our practical actions.
As non religious person i would say that existence of creator is still somewhat necessary from philosophical point of view.
Science can explain a lot about universe but we still don't know crap...as it seems...or we simply can agree that we don't know...which is option as well.
So if we assume that Bible or Torah is a man creation.
A sort of philosophy book that is supposed to give us guidance on how to live our lives at best in those ancient times.
A book that also explains to us the creation to the best of the knowledge at it's time.
Book that deals with existence of god and what he/her/it might want from us...from human point of view.
You can still deal with it as ancient philosophy/theology about the god and how he might want us to act at those times.
Hence "god image?".

There may be a lot of outdated stuff in Torah or Bible but there still a lot of great philosophy that hold water but there is nothing that can support or deny existence of god.
I really cant agree with this vew that pointing out a flaw in writings should destroy the whole issue of god.
It can point to flaw or irrelevance of some concept due to changing times though.

Look at Torah as human take on god...i think not bad for the times but im biased lol




No, don't answer that because we truly are done here. Say hello to your co-workers down at the warehouse for me.
That was cheap a bit.

[August]

That was cheap a bit.

Yeah I suppose it was but i'm kind of fed up with people trying to tell me what relationship I can or can't have with God, especially when it's a know it all like him.

I can put up with a degree of that from anyone. This is an internet forum after all where talking crap seems to be the norm, but i'm not going to waste my time pouring over his huge. boring essays especially when I don't much trust the source in the first place.

[MH]

Yeah I suppose it was but i'm kind of fed up with people trying to tell me what relationship I can or can't have with God, especially when it's a know it all like him.

.

Some atheist will tell you that you must be a fundamentalist or be heretic infidel otherwise.:haha:
You must follow your scriptures literally to the bone.
Using your head and reviewing is forbidden because they know it all better how one should deal with religion ....and book says so.
....Bloody Khomeinism lol

[Sailor Steve]

Some atheist will tell you that you must be a fundamentalist or be heretic infidel otherwise.:haha:
You must follow your scriptures literally to the bone.
Using your head and reviewing is forbidden because they know it all better how one should deal with religion ....and book says so.
....Bloody Khomeinism lol
Funny, not so long ago it was a Christian on this forum telling someone "If you're right I'll never know, but if I'm right your risk spending eternity in hell." That's true on the face of it, but I see many believers limit their comparisons to their faith or atheism, and discount all other possibilities.

So what are you laughing at again?

[MH]

"If you're right I'll never know, but if I'm right your risk spending eternity in hell."
So what are you laughing at again?


I don't know in what context it had been said but it seems fair to me...truly win win situation for him all though scary to children.:up:
God speed....

I prefer it my way- trail,up to 12 month and bad job.
(Jews have it worked out with the god:03:)

Now you know the secret why even the inquisition did not scare us...its a bad deal lol

[Skybird]

Yeah I suppose it was but i'm kind of fed up with people trying to tell me what relationship I can or can't have with God, especially when it's a know it all like him.

Actually I would prefer to be a "know it all" than to be a "know nothing, stay ignorrant and be proud of it" like you. ;)

Actually I repeatedly said in the past that I know that I do not know many things. What I did here, and what you completely ignored, was that I just reported delivered content from science and several cultural traditions - points that you did not care to adress in any way.

What I also did was trying to explain that the very design of our thinking and mind prohibits us from gaining any insight and knowledge that our design does not allow us to form, since our design is limted in reach and format and thus cannot embrace the unlimited. We need to seize to exist as separate entities to become one with all and thus realise the "all". I showed that this is a knowedge that is being delivered in Christian and Buddhist traditions since centuries and millenia.

It is your fantasy, your twiosted mind only, that I told you what relationship you have with your deity. I nowhere did. I just explained that as a fact ALL thinking and all intellectual activity by the ego is based on the structure of the languages we speak, and that this is established scientific consensus today, since longer time. I indicate that certain branches and schools in ohilosophy see it like this, too. Putting anything else into my mouth on what I should have said about your relation to your deity you happen to belive in, is your imagination only - not my real record of what I said.

You also owe an apology to those members on this board who currently have jobs or had jobs that by their social or public respectability or reputation maybe compare to being employed in a warehouse like I was, or doing work with an even lower reputation value, as seen by the Zeitgeist. Your repeated comments on my old warehouse job - you repeat that stabbing since years, don't you - by which you hope to hurt me, implies that you look down on the primitives, the failed existences, the socially lower beings or poor dogs doing such work in a warehouse. If it were not like this, why trying to hurt me by refering to this past job of mine? You even admitted above, to M.H. I think, that you acted cheap. Since we have members also working as salesmen, cashiers, as truck drivers, in factories or doing their daily tour with the garbage disposal service, you offended all them too when you tried to offend me over this one job I once had. Because you illustrate by that that you see a reason that allows you to look down on people being in such jobs.

And that is your disgrace. Not mine, and nobody else's.

[August]

And that is your disgrace. Not mine, and nobody else's.

Disgrace? No Skybird. I have complete respect for people on all steps of societies ladder. The only exceptions are those who could be more than they are but don't.

[Mush Martin]

:arrgh!:


M theory supports the existence of parallel universe's
their number being infinite, however , soon after an infinite
number of universes were created there would soon appear
an infinite number of life bearing stable universes. shortly after
this an infinite number of successful advanced civilizations
would start simulating universes and being advanced civilizations
would create seamlessly perfect simulated universes that would
then soon outnumber vastly all the infinite numbers of real universe's
the implication of this is that the only way to tell if your universe
is real or artificial is that. If your universe has a creator its a fake,
if it doesn't then its real.


M

[Nicolas]

Where is the delete thread button?

[antikristuseke]

A man needs to stand by both his mistakes and successes and learn from both.

[Hottentot]

Where is the delete thread button?

Why? This is an interesting discussion, which has been nice to follow from the beginning. I at least feel I have gained new insight from different posts and viewpoints here, and I'm sure I'm not alone.

[Sailor Steve]

The only exceptions are those who could be more than they are but don't.
Well, there go my chances.

[Skybird]

Disgrace? No Skybird. I have complete respect for people on all steps of societies ladder. The only exceptions are those who could be more than they are but don't.
And since when are you in a position to judge others on whether they can, or not, and whether it is this or that way due to their own responsibility and fault, or not? FYI, I live the way I do (and at nobody else'S expense: not the state's, not tax payers', not the community's) by my choice, technical obstacles after studying existed, but are not the dominant motive. I have no debts and owe nothing to nobody. I may not be rich, but I can live a life in material moderateness, and this is the life I have chosen back then, and now, and I have good time available to do the things of my interest, and to read and to learn what I want. Where I worked in the past for free, for interest or for idealistic or charity motives as well, I did so not by obligation, but by choice.

Alltogether this makes for a better record of my life and a better living quality than many others have to show up with. At least too good as if I need to take cheap bites from somebody strolling by who does not lknow me, does not know my life, my goods and bads, had run out of an argument himself and needs to compensate that by turning words or putting words in the other'S mouth and turning things personal - and repeatedly so.

[Skybird]

Where is the delete thread button?
Latest distortions in this thread were not your fault. ;) I disagree with you on the original topic, but the behaviour of August is nothing you must feel responsible for.

[Hottentot]

Latest distortions in this thread were not your fault. ;) I disagree with you on the original topic, but the behaviour of August is nothing you must feel responsible for.

It takes two people to argue, you know. The question here is, which of you is going to be the better man.

[Rockstar]

It takes two people to argue, you know. The question here is, which of you is going to be the better man.

This is the internet, how to we really know either of these two are men? :)

[Hottentot]

By actions.

[August]

Well, there go my chances.

No Steve. You served our country honorably and in time of war. That alone earns you my respect.

[MH]

Disgrace? No Skybird. I have complete respect for people on all steps of societies ladder. The only exceptions are those who could be more than they are but don't.

Ok... so you got lynched by wall of text....you can try to decode it or ...nah....
Why get so touchy....and go for the crouch.:O:
Are you so sensitive in real life too?
Now... i see why they had outlawed dinosaurs.:doh:


Take it easy man:salute:

[Nicolas]

Latest distortions in this thread were not your fault. ;) I disagree with you on the original topic, but the behaviour of August is nothing you must feel responsible for.

Ehh, probably not my bussiness, August 'insult' towards you seems to be anger expression, i understand that is better to trhow that off than swallow it, but your 'insult' seems to be well thinked.