Recent public opinion polls indicate that challenges to Darwinian evolution have substantial support among the American people. According to an August 2006 survey by the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, 63 percent of Americans believe that humans and other animals have either always existed in their present form or have evolved over time under the guidance of a supreme being. Only 26 percent say that life evolved solely through processes such as natural selection. A similar Pew Research Center poll, released in August 2005, found that 64 percent of Americans support teaching creationism alongside evolution in the classroom.


http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1105/darwin-debate-religion-evolution

Amazing! I thought the biggest idiots in the country were on here...but obviously that's not the case.

Vince-

The qualifier is the "or have evolved over time under the guidance of a supreme being." Darwin himself believed this to be the case. It doesn't mean only 26 percent of people believe in Evolution. You have plenty of agnostics out there that would fall in that first category who still don't believe in Creationism or ID.

I would be shocked if that number would apply today. I think Creationist are in a panic mode right now, because of the internet. Every hypothesis they come up with has been thoroughly and factually examined and found to be unacceptable.

The next few days may be very telling as the stimulus package proposed by Obama has provisioned the no religious events can take place at any school renovated with public funds provided by the stimulus. Needless to say, this has Creationist's and right wing republicans in a tizzy and desperately trying to stop it.

Naturally, Fox news is all over it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkNuqeAZDdk

Polls taken in 2006 and 2005 do not count as recent.

WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince-
>
> The qualifier is the "or have evolved over time
> under the guidance of a supreme being." Darwin
> himself believed this to be the case. It doesn't
> mean only 26 percent of people believe in
> Evolution. You have plenty of agnostics out there
> that would fall in that first category who still
> don't believe in Creationism or ID.


Well..I guess it depends on your interpretation of the word "guidance". Guidance to me means intervention when the person who is providing guidance believes it is necessary. Guidance over time would mean intervention after the initial spark of life...intelligent design....which is absolute hog wash.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Amazing! I thought the biggest idiots in the
> country were on here...but obviously that's not
> the case.

Says the poster of a thread on the forum where all the dumb people are?

conVince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Amazing! I thought the biggest idiots in the
> > country were on here...but obviously that's not
> > the case.
>
> Says the poster of a thread on the forum where all
> the dumb people are?


Believe me..I include myself in that group...I have to be pretty stupid to keep banging my head up against the likes of you!

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Well..I guess it depends on your interpretation of
> the word "guidance". Guidance to me means
> intervention when the person who is providing
> guidance believes it is necessary. Guidance over
> time would mean intervention after the initial
> spark of life...intelligent design....which is
> absolute hog wash.


The argument against ID, and I believe it is the correct one, is that it tries to challenge science without using the scientific method itself. It uses unexplained gaps in the evolutionary chain to try to justify the presence of divine intervention. The fact is just because data are absent doesn't mean that it is because God suddenly decided to intervene. If anything, the idea that God uses physics one minute and magic the next makes a greater case for there not being a God at all.

But, many cosmologists such as Thomas Jefferson and Charles Darwin himself did not dismiss the possibility of a supreme guiding force in the universe. They just didn't believe there was any definitive evidence of this supreme being.

Are you still arguing over that God stuff? Europe got over these elementary philosophical discussions years ago. You all are so behind. Listen up...there is no God. Get over it. Your draconian belief in invisible men living in the sky influencing world events and bending physics arbitrarily is just utter fiction. Stop living with your head in the clouds think for youself, sheep.

Here are some easy trumps for any Intelligent Design theory.

The human body has far too many design flaws to have been designed by any entity claiming to be omnipotent.

- We eat and breathe through the same hole. This allows for easy choking. There are examples in nature that do not have this flaw (ex. whales)

- We reproduce using organs that are also used for waste disposal.

- We see only a tiny fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum. At a minimum, this allows us to not be aware of high energy radiation (ex. x-rays, ultraviolet rays, etc.)

- We walk upright which causes a host of problems as we age.

- We age rapidly.

The list goes on...

boredom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here are some easy trumps for any Intelligent
> Design theory.
>
> The human body has far too many design flaws to
> have been designed by any entity claiming to be
> omnipotent.
>
> - We eat and breathe through the same hole. This
> allows for easy choking. There are examples in
> nature that do not have this flaw (ex. whales)
>
> - We reproduce using organs that are also used for
> waste disposal.
>
> - We see only a tiny fraction of the
> electromagnetic spectrum. At a minimum, this
> allows us to not be aware of high energy radiation
> (ex. x-rays, ultraviolet rays, etc.)
>
> - We walk upright which causes a host of problems
> as we age.
>
> - We age rapidly.
>
> The list goes on...

Good points. "Intelligent design", if it existed, wasn't very intelligent.

why live if existence/consciousness is temporary?


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> why live if existence/consciousness is temporary?


Why not?

Do you really spend every day of your life doing what you do with the idea that you are going to Heaven when you die?

Just because you want to live forever doesn't make it reality.

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> why live if existence/consciousness is temporary?

Because you want to. I hate the idea that everything I've done with my life and all the work and effort I put into things is over the second I take my last breath, but it's not like I have anything better to do while I'm here.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

boredom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here are some easy trumps for any Intelligent
> Design theory.
>
> The human body has far too many design flaws to
> have been designed by any entity claiming to be
> omnipotent.
>
> - We eat and breathe through the same hole. This
> allows for easy choking. There are examples in
> nature that do not have this flaw (ex. whales)
>
> - We reproduce using organs that are also used for
> waste disposal.
>
> - We see only a tiny fraction of the
> electromagnetic spectrum. At a minimum, this
> allows us to not be aware of high energy radiation
> (ex. x-rays, ultraviolet rays, etc.)
>
> - We walk upright which causes a host of problems
> as we age.
>
> - We age rapidly.
>
> The list goes on...

Humans trump other species on Earth in so many ways. This list is grabbing at straws. Very weak points.

Lurker. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Humans trump other species on Earth in so many
> ways. This list is grabbing at straws. Very weak
> points.


Humans trump other animals for one reason and one reason only...rational thought.

If it weren't for "rational thought" and "the scientific methods," humans would still be dying at 30 from stubbed toes and child birth.

The reason humans aren't living in caves is because we did eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge. However, some folks want to chastise rational thought and science while benefiting from its rewards.

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> why live if existence/consciousness is temporary?


I don't understand the logic - if existence is valuable then it's valuable whether or not it's eternal. In fact, since there is *less* of it, it would stand to reason that it's more valuable since it's temporary.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gravis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > why live if existence/consciousness is
> temporary?
>
>
> I don't understand the logic - if existence is
> valuable then it's valuable whether or not it's
> eternal. In fact, since there is *less* of it, it
> would stand to reason that it's more valuable
> since it's temporary.

What I want to know is why do so many "true believers" ask God "why?" when they find out they are dying from a terminal disease. It should be a celebration, shouldn't it? If you really believe in Heaven, isn't God calling you home?

There are more painful ways to get to Heaven than others. One may be asking why they couldn't go quickly in their sleep, get hit by a bus, or go down in a flaming helicopter or something.

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are more painful ways to get to Heaven than
> others. One may be asking why they couldn't go
> quickly in their sleep, get hit by a bus, or go
> down in a flaming helicopter or something.

I remember watching a documentary on Charles Schulz. In his last interview, when he knew he was dying, he said, "How can this be happening to me? I've been a good Christian."

That was a man who was terrified of dying. I believe that's how virtually everyone feels, because in the back of virtually everyone's mind I believe we think, "What if there isn't anything after death?"

I personally think a lot of Christians sit in church every Sunday thinking, "I haven't felt or seen God, but he must be here because everyone else seems to see or feel Him." At the same time, everyone else is thinking the same exact thing.

WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I personally think a lot of Christians sit in
> church every Sunday thinking, "I haven't felt or
> seen God, but he must be here because everyone
> else seems to see or feel Him." At the same time,
> everyone else is thinking the same exact thing.

If only one person believed in God, they would be crazy. We might not live in caves anymore, but we still believe in safety in numbers.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I personally think a lot of Christians sit in
> > church every Sunday thinking, "I haven't felt
> or
> > seen God, but he must be here because everyone
> > else seems to see or feel Him." At the same
> time,
> > everyone else is thinking the same exact thing.
>
> If only one person believed in God, they would be
> crazy. We might not live in caves anymore, but we
> still believe in safety in numbers.


I used to believe wholeheartedly in God. I used to think if I prayed to him and did what he wanted, good things would happen in my life. And, for the most part, good things did happen.

Then I saw what happened during Katrina. I saw all these old ladies in Bernard Parish who spent their lives praying to God, going to church every Sunday, doing everything I didn't do. And what happened? Not only did they die. They died in the most horrific and undignified way possible by drowning to death in their beds.

At that point I came to a conclusion...either God (as defined in the bible) doesn't exist, or he is an asshole. I simply could not reconcile the idea that I, a flawed human, would have more compassion for people than God would.

WashingTone Locian Wrote:
>> Then I saw what happened during Katrina


God was punishing them for not being Republicans.

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> why live if existence/consciousness is temporary?


To see what happens next. It's human nature to want to know what's around the next corner and beyond. I, for one, want to know more about life and the universe and what's out there. I never really get bored with that and I would rather there be no Heaven or Hell constantly hanging over our heads. What kind of sick fucking experiment is that anyway?

Life is too short to worry about what happens after we die. If I'm wrong and there actually is a God that resembles the Old Testament one, then we're all doomed. None of us can possibly live up to the impossible, contradictable and nonsensical standard put forth in Genesis or Exodus.

I'm wondering what folks on this forum think Heaven and/or Hell is like. There are no descriptions of it really. Every time I picture Heaven, I'm committing sin after sin with beautiful women, riding dirt bikes, playing rock n roll, looking down and haunting people just to fuck with them, flying around like superman, hanging out with George Washington, John Bonham, Churchill, Beethoven, etc....

Will I need to get my hair cut? Will I ever get bored? If a soldier gets his legs blown off, will he regain them in Heaven? Will I just be some round ball of pure energy with omnipotent and know all the answers of the universe?

Or will there be nothing? Most likely.

WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> At that point I came to a conclusion...either God
> (as defined in the bible) doesn't exist, or he is
> an asshole. I simply could not reconcile the idea
> that I, a flawed human, would have more compassion
> for people than God would.

That was always my stumbling point. It's not that I know God exists and hate him; I can't reconcile the fact that good Christians suffer while the wicked go unpunished, and there's no rhyme or reason to it.

Ted Haggard lies, cheats, steals, and does all the things that he tells millions of faithful to not do, and he's rich as shit. My brother decided to be a minister when he was a teenager, and has led his life according to his beliefs without compromise, trusting God for everything.

If you're good and God screws you, he's "just testing you" or "it's because the world is wicked," and you can't question it. If you're bad and God screws you, it's because he punishes sinners.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/12/2010 08:57AM by MrMephisto.

6 days to create the Earth is so much BS. Maybe eigth or nine...

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > Well..I guess it depends on your interpretation
> of
> > the word "guidance". Guidance to me means
> > intervention when the person who is providing
> > guidance believes it is necessary. Guidance
> over
> > time would mean intervention after the initial
> > spark of life...intelligent design....which is
> > absolute hog wash.
>
>
> The argument against ID, and I believe it is the
> correct one, is that it tries to challenge science
> without using the scientific method itself. It
> uses unexplained gaps in the evolutionary chain to
> try to justify the presence of divine
> intervention.

True, but what the ID people fail to tell you is that every new discovery - and there are discoveries made everyday, is exactly where it should be in the evolutionary chart.

History has proven when science battles religion, science wins and nutcases get pissed off.

You can watch this online or on PBS tomorrow night

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Recent public opinion polls indicate that
> challenges to Darwinian evolution have substantial
> support among the American people. According to an
> August 2006 survey by the Pew Research Center's
> Forum on Religion & Public Life and the Pew
> Research Center for the People & the Press, 63
> percent of Americans believe that humans and other
> animals have either always existed in their
> present form or have evolved over time under the
> guidance of a supreme being. Only 26 percent say
> that life evolved solely through processes such as
> natural selection. A similar Pew Research Center
> poll, released in August 2005, found that 64
> percent of Americans support teaching creationism
> alongside evolution in the classroom.
>
>
> http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1105/darwin-debate-rel
> igion-evolution
>
> Amazing! I thought the biggest idiots in the
> country were on here...but obviously that's not
> the case.


Dose anyone read books here? Well the fact is there are a lot of books, profound books that poke holes in evolution. Darwinism particularly, Icons of Evolution By Jonathan Wells pokes a lot of holes in Darwin, using modern evolutionists. Jonathan dosen't propose any creationism just pokes holes in Darwin.

Rod Wrote:
>
> Dose anyone read books here? Well the fact is
> there are a lot of books, profound books that poke
> holes in evolution. Darwinism particularly, Icons
> of Evolution By Jonathan Wells pokes a lot of
> holes in Darwin, using modern evolutionists.
> Jonathan dosen't propose any creationism just
> pokes holes in Darwin.

Here's the thing Rod...no one is defending every hypothesis that Darwin himself proposed. The knowledge learned as a result of scientific exploration could shoot holes in Darwins theories and still support the concept of evolution.

The gap between what science can explain and what it cannot has historically been the fruit of religious dogma....that is the case between the state of scientific knowledge and the books you refer to.

Rod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Recent public opinion polls indicate that
> > challenges to Darwinian evolution have
> substantial
> > support among the American people. According to
> an
> > August 2006 survey by the Pew Research Center's
> > Forum on Religion & Public Life and the Pew
> > Research Center for the People & the Press, 63
> > percent of Americans believe that humans and
> other
> > animals have either always existed in their
> > present form or have evolved over time under
> the
> > guidance of a supreme being. Only 26 percent
> say
> > that life evolved solely through processes such
> as
> > natural selection. A similar Pew Research
> Center
> > poll, released in August 2005, found that 64
> > percent of Americans support teaching
> creationism
> > alongside evolution in the classroom.
> >
> >
> >
> http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1105/darwin-debate-rel
>
> > igion-evolution
> >
> > Amazing! I thought the biggest idiots in the
> > country were on here...but obviously that's not
> > the case.
>
>
> Dose anyone read books here? Well the fact is
> there are a lot of books, profound books that poke
> holes in evolution. Darwinism particularly, Icons
> of Evolution By Jonathan Wells pokes a lot of
> holes in Darwin, using modern evolutionists.
> Jonathan dosen't propose any creationism just
> pokes holes in Darwin.


Jonathan's arguments have been refuted many times over, many years ago. Please read this and learn about real science:
http://www.nmsr.org/iconanti.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/
http://ncseweb.org/creationism/analysis/icons-evolution
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/icons_of_evolution.html

He's a moonie, by the way, one who specifically went to college to try to refute evolution.

He didn't succeed.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rod Wrote:
> >
> > Dose anyone read books here? Well the fact is
> > there are a lot of books, profound books that
> poke
> > holes in evolution. Darwinism particularly,
> Icons
> > of Evolution By Jonathan Wells pokes a lot of
> > holes in Darwin, using modern evolutionists.
> > Jonathan dosen't propose any creationism just
> > pokes holes in Darwin.
>
> Here's the thing Rod...no one is defending every
> hypothesis that Darwin himself proposed. The
> knowledge learned as a result of scientific
> exploration could shoot holes in Darwins theories
> and still support the concept of evolution.
>
> The gap between what science can explain and what
> it cannot has historically been the fruit of
> religious dogma....that is the case between the
> state of scientific knowledge and the books you
> refer to.


No it's not.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rod Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Vince(1) Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Recent public opinion polls indicate that
> > > challenges to Darwinian evolution have
> > substantial
> > > support among the American people. According
> to
> > an
> > > August 2006 survey by the Pew Research
> Center's
> > > Forum on Religion & Public Life and the Pew
> > > Research Center for the People & the Press,
> 63
> > > percent of Americans believe that humans and
> > other
> > > animals have either always existed in their
> > > present form or have evolved over time under
> > the
> > > guidance of a supreme being. Only 26 percent
> > say
> > > that life evolved solely through processes
> such
> > as
> > > natural selection. A similar Pew Research
> > Center
> > > poll, released in August 2005, found that 64
> > > percent of Americans support teaching
> > creationism
> > > alongside evolution in the classroom.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1105/darwin-debate-rel
>
> >
> > > igion-evolution
> > >
> > > Amazing! I thought the biggest idiots in the
> > > country were on here...but obviously that's
> not
> > > the case.
> >
> >
> > Dose anyone read books here? Well the fact is
> > there are a lot of books, profound books that
> poke
> > holes in evolution. Darwinism particularly,
> Icons
> > of Evolution By Jonathan Wells pokes a lot of
> > holes in Darwin, using modern evolutionists.
> > Jonathan dosen't propose any creationism just
> > pokes holes in Darwin.
>
>
> Jonathan's arguments have been refuted many times
> over, many years ago. Please read this and learn
> about real science:
> http://www.nmsr.org/iconanti.htm
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/
> http://ncseweb.org/creationism/analysis/icons-evol
> ution
> http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/icons_
> of_evolution.html
>
> He's a moonie, by the way, one who specifically
> went to college to try to refute evolution.
>
> He didn't succeed.

It is at least a inteligent debate, I'll look at it later.-Rod

Rod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is at least a inteligent debate, I'll look at
> it later.-Rod


It's no more an intelligent debate then afrocentricism, phlogiston, or perpetual motion machines. It *seems* like an intelligent debate because the creationists are better at rhetoric and the media. This is why the discovery institute hired a PR firm instead of buying any equipment to do any empirical tests.

They aren't interested in doing science, they are interested in manipulating public opinion.

Check out Philip Johnson's wedge strategy. Don't buy into the lie.
Attachments:

ID'ers like Johnson don't want to raise "reasonable doubt" about evolution. They want to raise "unreasonable doubt," doubt not based on reason or rational thought at all but a blind faith in a book written 1,700 years ago.

To all you "true believers," next time you have a heart attack or a stroke or some other medical emergency, I suggest you go to someone who practices the same medical practices from 1,700 years ago.

.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
Attachments:

m



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2012 01:41AM by Alias.

Gravis proposed the question:
-------------------------------------------------------
> why live if existence/consciousness is temporary?

the point i was trying to make (and only MrMephisto seemed to get close to) was that if death nullifies everything a person does then it's pointless to live. eventually, humans will become extinct and there will be no evidence of your existence at all. everything would be an exercise in futility. nothing would have value, knowledge, relationships or anything that has or will ever be would do not matter if everything simply becomes non-existent.

so if nothing matters because nothing has consequence...

1. why do you care about anyone, anything or yourself?
2. if you say it's because you are human which is to acknowledge you are a chemical machine then how can you hold anyone accountable for their actions?

i do await your answers.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

\



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2012 01:36AM by Alias.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Washington wrote:
> "I used to believe wholeheartedly in God. I used
> to think if I prayed to him and did what he
> wanted, good things would happen in my life. And,
> for the most part, good things did happen.
>
> Then I saw what happened during Katrina. I saw all
> these old ladies in Bernard Parish who spent their
> lives praying to God, going to church every
> Sunday, doing everything I didn't do. And what
> happened? Not only did they die. They died in the
> most horrific and undignified way possible by
> drowning to death in their beds."
> ______________________
>
> What fucking bullshit, Washington man.
>
> You were a good God loving man, praying every
> night, bless me father for I have sinned, I will
> do what you want, I am Washington, your devoted
> servant, here to serve you, Oh, God, help me to be
> a good man, dear Lord, have mercy on my soul,
> etc.
>
> UNTIL....... Here's where the music begins its
> rapid crescendo.
>
> K A T R I N A !!!!!!!!!!
>
> Katrina killed between 1,000 and 1,300 people.
>
> Why didn't you dump God when the big wave killed
> over 200, 000 people in Asia, only 8 months
> before?

What can I say. I went to church every Sunday and I prayed. I had been wrestling with my belief for quite a while and Katrina was the clincher. You can call bullshit all you want, but that is exactly what happened.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> gravis,
>
> Yes, it would be pointless. That is why I believe
> in God.


Supposedly only humans have an immortal soul. Does that make every other life forms existance meaningless? I dont think so.

"Meaning" of ones life isnt dependent on immortality. Immortality isnt a prize for leading a particular life style. Life is what it is...here and now...and if you only see meaning in that life as a precursor to immortality....well, you lead a very meaningless life...and I suggest you take action to resolve that. The quest for immortality is merely a reaction to our fears...our ego...and fear and ego never result in anything good.

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gravis proposed the question:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > why live if existence/consciousness is
> temporary?
>
> the point i was trying to make (and only
> MrMephisto seemed to get close to) was that if
> death nullifies everything a person does then it's
> pointless to live. eventually, humans will become
> extinct and there will be no evidence of your
> existence at all. everything would be an exercise
> in futility. nothing would have value, knowledge,
> relationships or anything that has or will ever be
> would do not matter if everything simply becomes
> non-existent.
>
> so if nothing matters because nothing has
> consequence...why do you care about anyone,
> anything or yourself?if you say it's because you
> are human which is to acknowledge you are a
> chemical machine then how can you hold anyone
> accountable for their actions?i do await your
> answers.


I think you have a misconception of what it means to value something. Value is the product of sentient minds. *We* make value.

You might argue that this isn't the case - that god makes value - but this isn't really true because in order for god's value to mean something you first have to value god's opinion. IN short, value is very subjective.

So the only value that one can achieve is by the virtue of living. Value will be meaningless after you die, just as it was before you were born. The only value there can ever be is the value you have while you are alive. Whether you live two days or for an eternity, doesn't change that value is subjective. I would argue that living an eternity actually devalues life as it makes it less precious.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2009 07:42AM by Professor Pangloss.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What can I say. I went to church every Sunday and
> I prayed. I had been wrestling with my belief for
> quite a while and Katrina was the clincher. You
> can call bullshit all you want, but that is
> exactly what happened.

I am sorry you came away with that. I saw brighter things, such as the advancement we have achieved through God-given gifts to do things impossible only a hundred years ago. Back then there could be no courageous Coast Guard members in helicopters, bravely saving people from a natural disaster that would have simply killed everyone with little warning.

God made a universe that runs on physics, and physics sometimes meets flesh in harsh ways. Natural disasters suck, that's why we call them "disasters." As the Onion article is titled, "Jesus Answers Half the Prayers at Area Roulette Table."

But I do understand how an event can change one's perspective. I used to support the death penalty. But watching the video of Sadam Hussein's execution opened my eyes to the barbarity and pointlessness of it. I don't care anymore that incarceration is expensive, humans should not end the lives of other humans unless it is in self defense.

It is a sad time in this country for the religious. Just saying you believe in Jesus Christ has you labeled a cook or a "wingnut" these days by people flying out from all directions. If I posted a thread here simply stating I believed in God and not proposing anything else (such as stating anyone else should) I would be mocked and told to fuck off, and it's a good bet no one would come to my defense. I'm not sure why it has to be that way, other than everyone understandably got sick of the preacher figures from the 80's and 90's.

And no, I do not cry at funerals for the dead because I do believe they have moved on to wherever they are going. If I cry at a funeral it is because I am sad for the family left behind in that they are parted from their loved ones (hopefully) temporarily.

normal guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am sorry you came away with that. I saw
> brighter things, such as the advancement we have
> achieved through God-given gifts to do things
> impossible only a hundred years ago. Back then
> there could be no courageous Coast Guard members
> in helicopters, bravely saving people from a
> natural disaster that would have simply killed
> everyone with little warning.

Why must you strip away the incredible achievement that men make by giving all the credit to god? This is one of the saddest things I think that religion instills.

These men did good things because they are good people - not because of some 'god given gift' (whatever that would be).

> It is a sad time in this country for the
> religious. Just saying you believe in Jesus
> Christ has you labeled a cook or a "wingnut" these
> days by people flying out from all directions. If
> I posted a thread here simply stating I believed
> in God and not proposing anything else (such as
> stating anyone else should) I would be mocked and
> told to fuck off, and it's a good bet no one would
> come to my defense. I'm not sure why it has to be
> that way, other than everyone understandably got
> sick of the preacher figures from the 80's and
> 90's.

I feel bad that you might be mistreated, but 'by their fruits ye shall know them' - religion and it's adherants have wrought a lot of wrong onto themselves and if a little verbal harassment is the worse that you'll receive, then really, it's not all that bad.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why must you strip away the incredible achievement
> that men make by giving all the credit to god?
> This is one of the saddest things I think that
> religion instills.

I re-read what I wrote and don't see where I said I gave zero credit to people. If I give you a PC and you code a cool application, I will credit you for doing it. But you should also credit me for giving you the cool PC to enable your success.


> I feel bad that you might be mistreated, but 'by
> their fruits ye shall know them' - religion and
> it's adherants have wrought a lot of wrong onto
> themselves and if a little verbal harassment is
> the worse that you'll receive, then really, it's
> not all that bad.

Not seeing all the good that religious groups do is normal and I understand that. You don't see the volunteers as we drive seven hours to places where mobile phones don't work to deliver food and clothing into Appalachia. The media doesn't thanks us for things like that, and you don't thank us for things like that. But the people we help thank us. You are right, verbal abuse isn't that bad. I obviously don't think so or I wouldn't be posting here :) But you only see the "bad fruits" as they are reported in the media... works of charity usually don't sell commercials. I really don't think it is your fault, as one may have to go looking somewhere besides CNN to see the good being done.

normal guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I re-read what I wrote and don't see where I said
> I gave zero credit to people. If I give you a PC
> and you code a cool application, I will credit you
> for doing it. But you should also credit me for
> giving you the cool PC to enable your success.

Fair enough, I seem to have mischaracterized your position, my mistake. I suppose my 'jumping the gun' is a result of being in hospital rooms with religious folk who give all praise to god and none to the doctors. Not your fault though.


> Not seeing all the good that religious groups do
> is normal and I understand that. You don't see
> the volunteers as we drive seven hours to places
> where mobile phones don't work to deliver food and
> clothing into Appalachia. The media doesn't
> thanks us for things like that, and you don't
> thank us for things like that. But the people we
> help thank us. You are right, verbal abuse isn't
> that bad. I obviously don't think so or I
> wouldn't be posting here :) But you only see the
> "bad fruits" as they are reported in the media...
> works of charity usually don't sell commercials.
> I really don't think it is your fault, as one may
> have to go looking somewhere besides CNN to see
> the good being done.

Now it appears that you are off target. I do acknowledge that religious people have done good things. That wasn't my point, I was generalizing. My point is that they've done bad things and this is what is being responded to. I would go so far as to say that the truly bad things are beside the point, that most of what's being responded to negatively is the interference with life that several groups of religious people actively engage in. For example, telling non christians whom they should and should not marry.

For the record, I *have* been one of those volunteers who have helped feed the homeless (in DC, not the mountians).

Most religious groups add a dose of aposalatigising during the conduct of their good deeds. For me that makes their acts nothing but self serving.

normal guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> I am sorry you came away with that. I saw
> brighter things, such as the advancement we have
> achieved through God-given gifts to do things
> impossible only a hundred years ago. Back then
> there could be no courageous Coast Guard members
> in helicopters, bravely saving people from a
> natural disaster that would have simply killed
> everyone with little warning.
>
> God made a universe that runs on physics, and
> physics sometimes meets flesh in harsh ways.
> Natural disasters suck, that's why we call them
> "disasters." As the Onion article is titled,
> "Jesus Answers Half the Prayers at Area Roulette
> Table."
>
> But I do understand how an event can change one's
> perspective. I used to support the death penalty.
> But watching the video of Sadam Hussein's
> execution opened my eyes to the barbarity and
> pointlessness of it. I don't care anymore that
> incarceration is expensive, humans should not end
> the lives of other humans unless it is in self
> defense.
>
> It is a sad time in this country for the
> religious. Just saying you believe in Jesus
> Christ has you labeled a cook or a "wingnut" these
> days by people flying out from all directions. If
> I posted a thread here simply stating I believed
> in God and not proposing anything else (such as
> stating anyone else should) I would be mocked and
> told to fuck off, and it's a good bet no one would
> come to my defense. I'm not sure why it has to be
> that way, other than everyone understandably got
> sick of the preacher figures from the 80's and
> 90's.
>
> And no, I do not cry at funerals for the dead
> because I do believe they have moved on to
> wherever they are going. If I cry at a funeral it
> is because I am sad for the family left behind in
> that they are parted from their loved ones
> (hopefully) temporarily.

I appreciate your sentiment. There are many Christians who feel the way you do and I have many friends who see things the way you do.

I do, however, take exception to folks like "Eliot Ness" who have this belief that theology should trump the scientific advances that you wrote about. That is a frightening proposition and one reason why good Christians can be unfairly slandered as "Jesus freaks."

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> gravis,
>
> Yes, it would be pointless. That is why I believe
> in God.


That is actually a terrible reason to believe in God. You believe in God because otherwise you feel your life would be pointless? That is an incredibly myopic and sad way to see life.

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gravis proposed the question:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > why live if existence/consciousness is
> temporary?
>
> the point i was trying to make (and only
> MrMephisto seemed to get close to) was that if
> death nullifies everything a person does then it's
> pointless to live. eventually, humans will become
> extinct and there will be no evidence of your
> existence at all. everything would be an exercise
> in futility. nothing would have value, knowledge,
> relationships or anything that has or will ever be
> would do not matter if everything simply becomes
> non-existent.
>
> so if nothing matters because nothing has
> consequence...why do you care about anyone,
> anything or yourself?if you say it's because you
> are human which is to acknowledge you are a
> chemical machine then how can you hold anyone
> accountable for their actions?i do await your
> answers.

Life is an end unto itself. Why would you place more value on an "after life" that you have never seen, experienced and have no proof of than the reality of life that is right in front of you? If you are doing that, you need to get out from behind your computer and make more of the life you have.

My mom was a devout catholic that did everything the way a diehard catholic should, then suddenly died of cancer when I was 12. That's when I began to question all authority, including God, the ultimate authority. I've been a true atheist for about 20 years now and not once have I ever thought there was no point to life. In fact, I can throw that back at christians and say that they have no point in life, which is why they can't wait to die and go to the great hereafter.

I realize life is short and therefore I appreciate it and try to do as much as I can in the brief time I have. I love science and history and unfortunately both fly in the face of religion.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Most religious groups add a dose of
> aposalatigising during the conduct of their good
> deeds.

alex, i'll take What The Fuck Is That Word for 1000.


Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Supposedly only humans have an immortal soul.
> Does that make every other life forms existance
> meaningless? I dont think so.

damn vince, you didnt even hit the dartboard.

---

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think you have a misconception of what it means
> to value something. Value is the product of
> sentient minds. *We* make value.
[...]
> Value will be meaningless after
> you die, just as it was before you were born. The
> only value there can ever be is the value you have
> while you are alive.

this is exactly my point, if our minds are the ones who give value and eventually they wont exist then there is no value to ANYTHING.

if you are to be nothing then how can anything have any value?

---

WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Life is an end unto itself.

explain.


> Why would you place
> more value on an "after life" that you have never
> seen, experienced and have no proof of than the
> reality of life that is right in front of you?

a) who said i did?
b) who said i am? :)


... make more of the life you have.

that's what im talking about, you cant make more of something that will cease to be.

---

---

the best way to explain my point is mathematically:
life * 0 = 0
why define life if the answer is 0?
life is irrelevant.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> this is exactly my point, if our minds are the
> ones who give value and eventually they wont exist
> then there is no value to ANYTHING.

Erm, are you suggesting that our minds don't exist at all? Otherwise your position makes no sense, as our minds exist for a finite time. It is during that time that it has value to us.

Let's suppose that you die and there is a god. You cease to exist. Does god valuing your brief existence mean a hill of beans to you? No, by definition it cannot as *you* don't exist.

> if you are to be nothing then how can anything
> have any value?

Because value is determined subjectively while we are *being*.

I'm not sure I understand your position at all anymore. What do you think 'value' is?

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gravis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > this is exactly my point, if our minds are the
> > ones who give value and eventually they wont
> exist
> > then there is no value to ANYTHING.
>
> Erm, are you suggesting that our minds don't exist
> at all?

no, im saying that if we cease to be, what we do now has no importance and it will be as if it never was and you never were.


> Otherwise your position makes no sense, as
> our minds exist for a finite time. It is during
> that time that it has value to us.
[...]
> value is determined subjectively while we
> are *being*.

i understand this point of view. it's a linear perspective without consideration of existence. your "subjective value" is irrelevant. you cannot consider that which is of value if you do not exist. the english language is ill equipped to explain such matters.


> I'm not sure I understand your position at all
> anymore. What do you think 'value' is?

value is anything and everything. if you dont exist then nothing is of value, not even to yourself as you have no self. this inevitability nullifies anything you may value now. memories, knowledge, love and loss, none of it matters. when someone is about to kill you, does it really matter if you are the "good guy" or the "bad guy"? the answer is no because you simply cease to be either once you are killed. you may think "here and now" matter, have value but they dont. if you die now or in 100 years, does it matter what happens between now and then? not at all.

if you really think a temporary existence has any bearing on anything, you are just fooling yourself. when you cease to be, you never were because it doesnt matter and never will. the past, the present and future are worthless if you dont exist.

you dont worry because you never understand because you wont be.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
Attachments:

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> no, im saying that if we cease to be, what we do
> now has no importance and it will be as if it
> never was and you never were.

Even the least of us makes an impact on history. We were here, there is no erasing that.

> i understand this point of view. it's a linear
> perspective without consideration of existence.
> your "subjective value" is irrelevant. you cannot
> consider that which is of value if you do not
> exist. the english language is ill equipped to
> explain such matters.

Technically I subscribe to the "B" theory of time, so it's erroneous to say it's linear. It's also erroneous to say that we 'cease' to exist, but that's a different discussion I think.

I do not feel that subjective value is irrelevant, primarily because that's the only type of value there is.

> value is anything and everything. if you dont
> exist then nothing is of value, not even to
> yourself as you have no self. this inevitability
> nullifies anything you may value now. memories,
> knowledge, love and loss, none of it matters.

I don't see how that logically follows, actually. The value exists for the time it exists (this presupposes the "A" Theory of time).

> when someone is about to kill you, does it really
> matter if you are the "good guy" or the "bad guy"?

No, but that's a different question.

> the answer is no because you simply cease to be
> either once you are killed. you may think "here
> and now" matter, have value but they dont. if you
> die now or in 100 years, does it matter what
> happens between now and then? not at all.

But that doesn't negate the time we spend *existing*. It seems as though, to you, (if I'm interpreting it correctly) the temporality of existence some how negates or does away with the value of that existence in some fashion. I'm not clear as to how it destroys the value that existed during that period for that individual.

> if you really think a temporary existence has any
> bearing on anything, you are just fooling
> yourself. when you cease to be, you never were
> because it doesnt matter and never will. the
> past, the present and future are worthless if you
> dont exist.

Personally the only thing that gives my life value is the fact that there is a limit to it. I do not see an eternal existence as imbuing any value to my life - it makes it cheap.

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> WashingTone Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Life is an end unto itself.
>
> explain.
>

You are alive to live. It is a gift of nature. You are a sentient being. Your whole concept of reality is based on the functioning of your mind. Once you are gone, your brain will no longer work and your mind will cease to exist so your perspective of reality will no longer exist. If you are concerned about other people remembering you, have kids, build things, help others.

That's not a bad reason to live.



>
> > Why would you place
> > more value on an "after life" that you have
> never
> > seen, experienced and have no proof of than the
> > reality of life that is right in front of you?
>
> a) who said i did?
> b) who said i am? :)
>
>
> ... make more of the life you have.
>
> that's what im talking about, you cant make more
> of something that will cease to be.
>
>
>

The time you have alive is what is relevant. You need to make the most of it.

> the best way to explain my point is
> mathematically:
> life * 0 = 0
> why define life if the answer is 0?
> life is irrelevant.

No. This is the proper formula


Life 1 > 0 Death

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> no, im saying that if we cease to be, what we do
> now has no importance and it will be as if it
> never was and you never were.
>

Prior to your conception, you didn't exist.

>

>
> i understand this point of view. it's a linear
> perspective without consideration of existence.
> your "subjective value" is irrelevant. you cannot
> consider that which is of value if you do not
> exist. the english language is ill equipped to
> explain such matters.
>
>

The world exists with or without you. It is your perception of reality that stops.


>
> value is anything and everything. if you dont
> exist then nothing is of value, not even to
> yourself as you have no self. this inevitability
> nullifies anything you may value now. memories,
> knowledge, love and loss, none of it matters.
> when someone is about to kill you, does it really
> matter if you are the "good guy" or the "bad guy"?
> the answer is no because you simply cease to be
> either once you are killed. you may think "here
> and now" matter, have value but they dont. if you
> die now or in 100 years, does it matter what
> happens between now and then? not at all.
>
> if you really think a temporary existence has any
> bearing on anything, you are just fooling
> yourself. when you cease to be, you never were
> because it doesnt matter and never will. the
> past, the present and future are worthless if you
> dont exist.
>
> you dont worry because you never understand
> because you wont be.

Does it matter to you if you are barefoot, standing in a drift of snow with no food?

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Most religious groups add a dose of
> > aposalatigising during the conduct of their
> good
> > deeds.
>
> alex, i'll take What The Fuck Is That Word for
> 1000.
>
>
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Supposedly only humans have an immortal soul.
> > Does that make every other life forms existance
> > meaningless? I dont think so.
>
> damn vince, you didnt even hit the dartboard.
>
>
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I think you have a misconception of what it
> means
> > to value something. Value is the product of
> > sentient minds. *We* make value.
> [...]
> > Value will be meaningless after
> > you die, just as it was before you were born.
> The
> > only value there can ever be is the value you
> have
> > while you are alive.
>
> this is exactly my point, if our minds are the
> ones who give value and eventually they wont exist
> then there is no value to ANYTHING.
>
> if you are to be nothing then how can anything
> have any value?
>
>
> WashingTone Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Life is an end unto itself.
>
> explain.
>
>
> > Why would you place
> > more value on an "after life" that you have
> never
> > seen, experienced and have no proof of than the
> > reality of life that is right in front of you?
>
> a) who said i did?
> b) who said i am? :)
>
>
> ... make more of the life you have.
>
> that's what im talking about, you cant make more
> of something that will cease to be.
>
>
>
> the best way to explain my point is
> mathematically:
> life * 0 = 0
> why define life if the answer is 0?
> life is irrelevant.


I agree..your life is irrelevant.

The longer I live, the more I realize that there is no point to life. Alexander the Great conquered the fucking world, but it all went to shit when he died. Anything you or I do will pale in comparison to that.

So why try? How can I know this and decide to not to end it now before I work hard my entire life only to sit around forgetting that I just shit myself before I die and none of it matters?

Because I choose to. No other reason. I don't know what happens in the hereafter, I don't know what effect my actions will have on the world, if any. I look around at our society and world and all the wondrous works of man, and think it's all incredibly fucking boring.

"One minute was enough... a person had to work hard for it, but a minute of perfection was worth the effort. A moment was the most you could ever expect from perfection." Those little moments of perfection are enough to keep me going.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gravis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > > Most religious groups add a dose of
> > > aposalatigising during the conduct of their
> > good
> > > deeds.
> >
> > alex, i'll take What The Fuck Is That Word for
> > 1000.
> >

seriously, wtf is "aposalatigising" supposed to be? i mean, it even stumped google and google has a result for everything!


> > the best way to explain my point is
> > mathematically:
> > life * 0 = 0
> > why define life if the answer is 0?
> > life is irrelevant.
>
> I agree..your life is irrelevant.

therefore by the transitive property, your life is irrelevant. i wish to terminate your life, will you end it for me or shall we duel?


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> > >
>
> seriously, wtf is "aposalatigising" supposed to
> be? i mean, it even stumped google and google has
> a result for everything!
>
>
>

Given the context of its usage, I think Vince meant...

proselytize

WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gravis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------

> > seriously, wtf is "aposalatigising" supposed to
> > be? i mean, it even stumped google and google
> > has a result for everything!
>
> Given the context of its usage, I think Vince
> meant...
>
> proselytize

if that's the case, "aposalatigising" will be in the running for worst misspelling ever.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

;



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2012 01:36AM by Alias.

I have no idea what made the universe explode into existence...but there are very intelligent physicists who are working on that question. I trust them more then your voodooo religion and it's witch doctor priests...rabbis...mulahs...pastors.


In the future please refer to me as god...little "g".

response with the "word" "republikan" in 3... 2... 1...


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gravis Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>
> > > seriously, wtf is "aposalatigising" supposed
> to
> > > be? i mean, it even stumped google and
> google
> > > has a result for everything!
> >
> > Given the context of its usage, I think Vince
> > meant...
> >
> > proselytize
>
> if that's the case, "aposalatigising" will be in
> the running for worst misspelling ever.



BINGO...worse ever!

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BINGO...worse ever!


damn... you cant even get three words in a row correct.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/11/2009 01:32AM by Gravis.

I dont even try..I have so many like you to correct me.

PS..and the fact that it bothers you so much....pleases me to no end.

]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2012 01:35AM by Alias.

You can all take a fatalistic view of your lives..I understand it is an appealing concept of the 20 something crowd....but neither this fatalistic view or a more optimistic one proves or even suggests there is a god.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2009 08:54PM by Vince(1).

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss wrote:
> "Even the least of us makes an impact on
> history."
> ___________________
>
> Each of us is here for what amounts to less than
> the blink of an eye. If, after that blink, we are
> nothing, with no awareness or memory of
> existence, why be concerned with impacting
> history? This history is being viewed by whom?
> Others who exist for a moment before disappearing?


Someday we will all be crude oil for some other civilization's petroleum-using vehicles.

\



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2012 01:33AM by Alias.

you would think that God is the most powerful and intelligent being in the universe. So He/she/it would be bored with just snapping fingers and creating a life form. So being highly evolved God would set forth from the primordial Ooze a process, we'll call it evolution and see what happened. Evolution being all complex and whatnot and more amusing for a supreme being to watch what weird shit unfolded. ie Humans would come up with and one day evolve enough to create intelligent design and the platypus would emerge from australia. Am I right Ladiez?

ferfux Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> you would think that God is the most powerful and
> intelligent being in the universe. So He/she/it
> would be bored with just snapping fingers and
> creating a life form. So being highly evolved
> God would set forth from the primordial Ooze a
> process, we'll call it evolution and see what
> happened. Evolution being all complex and whatnot
> and more amusing for a supreme being to watch what
> weird shit unfolded. ie Humans would come up with
> and one day evolve enough to create intelligent
> design and the platypus would emerge from
> australia. Am I right Ladiez?


Either God is subject to the laws of physics, which would mean he's not omnipotent, or he created the laws of physics because he doesn't know how to snap his fingers to create things, which means he's not omniscient.

WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Either God is subject to the laws of physics,
> which would mean he's not omnipotent, or he
> created the laws of physics because he doesn't
> know how to snap his fingers to create things,
> which means he's not omniscient.


you are assuming God didnt snap his fingers.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Either God is subject to the laws of physics,
> > which would mean he's not omnipotent, or he
> > created the laws of physics because he doesn't
> > know how to snap his fingers to create things,
> > which means he's not omniscient.
>
>
> you are assuming God didnt snap his fingers.

If he did, he wouldn't need Evolution.

WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gravis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > you are assuming God didnt snap his fingers.
>
> If he did, he wouldn't need Evolution.


i do have a response but im refraining because this is part of the discussion is just retarded.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

assuming God made us in his image he isnt omnicient or omnipotent. He is just highly evolved far beyond us and perhaps he created the universe in his own image. the universe being finite and thus he himself is finite. the creation can long outlast the creator. God is probably dead by now and we and the universe are just catching up slowly.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/11/2009 06:47PM by ferfux.

Think about it for a second.

You're God. You existed before time, when nothing existed. Not even the vast emptiness of space; just nothing at all.

By your will, you bring the entirety of existence as we know it today into... existence. You make the stars, the galaxies, the black holes, the dark matter, gravity, physics, light, supernovas, quarks, and the planets. You go to one single planet, and create viruses, jellyfish, sharks (bitchin'!), cats, dogs, the duck-billed platypus, bears (also bitchin'), monkeys, and humans. In order to make all of that, though, you first had to design mitochondria, cell walls, circulatory systems, immune systems, bones, marrow, the pancreas, and genitalia.

You can do all of this, and you can do it all in six fucking days, that's how goddamn big and powerful you are.

Do you really care if someone's looking at porn?

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss wrote:
> "Even the least of us makes an impact on
> history."
> ___________________
>
> Each of us is here for what amounts to less than
> the blink of an eye. If, after that blink, we are
> nothing, with no awareness or memory of
> existence, why be concerned with impacting
> history? This history is being viewed by whom?
> Others who exist for a moment before disappearing?


My point is that we *do* something, not that anyone cares.

I'm curious:

Let's suppose god exists and created all of this. He did so for his own reasons and is utterly uninterested in the state of affairs in the universe. People die, they stay dead - consciousness wiped out for eternity. At the end of 20 billion years (or what have you), the universe will experience heat death and be functionally over.

If that's the case, would god believers still think that their life had meaning?

My guess would be no. God's existence is not enough to justify a meaning of life in these people's eyes. He has to be interested in this universe. That's just my guess. If my guess is correct, then does it matter whether or not your existence is eternal?

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gravis Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > > you are assuming God didnt snap his fingers.
> >
> > If he did, he wouldn't need Evolution.
>
>
> i do have a response but im refraining because
> this is part of the discussion is just retarded.


How? In Genesis God said, "Let there be light." Why the hell would he need Evolution?

This is my issue with concept of the inerrant Bible. When you have to start dismissing the literal interpretation of the Bible, then you have to question the whole thing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/12/2009 09:06AM by WashingTone Locian.

WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How? In Genesis God said, "Let there be light."
> Why the hell would he need Evolution?

if you look at the Genesis creation story you will notice the chain of events happens in the same order that our current scientific theories do. i really dont think he needs Evolution but that he used evolution. did he need to, no. however, the entire universe was created in a logical fashion, so why not use evolution? i cant answer why or even if he did use evolution but based on the evidence, it's my current working theory.


> This is my issue with concept of the inerrant
> Bible.

my take on it is that it's an "inspired work of God" which is to say the words as the best as the people could interpret them. another issue is the nature of the languages it's written in and by whom. everything has context.


> When you have to start dismissing the
> literal interpretation of the Bible, then you have
> to question the whole thing.

the creation story wasnt just some guy going "hmm... how should the universe have existed?" but rather how he could describe a vision/dream/something like that. the Bible is less complete in it's descriptions than i would like but it's written so that anyone can understand it. if you look at your average highschool history textbook, it has the story right but you dont get down to the nitty-gritty of everything like what george washington liked to eat for breakfast.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > How? In Genesis God said, "Let there be light."
> > Why the hell would he need Evolution?
>
> if you look at the Genesis creation story you will
> notice the chain of events happens in the same
> order that our current scientific theories do.

I wouldn't go that far. According to Genesis earth, plants, etc, were created prior to the Sun. That is most certainly not in accord with what current scientific theories suggest.

IMO, Genesis wasn't so much written as a literal history, it was written (believed) as more of a metaphor as to god's power and why certain things are the way they are (ie, evil, death, etc).

I can't remember what Augustine's view was, but I know it wasn't a literal history. The literalness is a rather new feature IMO.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> According to Genesis earth, plants, etc, were created
> prior to the Sun.

as i previously stated,

Quote

my take on it is that it's an "inspired work of God" which is to say the words as the best as the people could interpret them.

and

Quote

the creation story wasnt just some guy going "hmm... how should the universe have existed?" but rather how he could describe a vision/dream/something like that.

from the description, it sounds like the creation story was from the perspective of a person on earth. additionally, the writer's perspective of the universe would interfere with their understanding of what they saw.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/12/2009 10:30AM by Gravis.

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > How? In Genesis God said, "Let there be light."
> > Why the hell would he need Evolution?
>
> if you look at the Genesis creation story you will
> notice the chain of events happens in the same
> order that our current scientific theories do.

No it doesn't! The first thing Genesis says is that God "Created the Heaven and the Earth" before the damn SUN! And then he is "moving across the water" before the damn SUN!!! It also says water formed on the Earth before the land...which is WRONG!

What a fucking retarded argument!

>

>
> my take on it is that it's an "inspired work of
> God" which is to say the words as the best as the
> people could interpret them. another issue is the
> nature of the languages it's written in and by
> whom. everything has context.
>

No it doesn't. Inerrant means it is not wrong. If it is open to interpretation, than the word "inerrant" should not be used.
>

>
> the creation story wasnt just some guy going
> "hmm... how should the universe have existed?" but
> rather how he could describe a
> vision/dream/something like that. the Bible is
> less complete in it's descriptions than i would
> like but it's written so that anyone can
> understand it. if you look at your average
> highschool history textbook, it has the story
> right but you dont get down to the nitty-gritty of
> everything like what george washington liked to
> eat for breakfast.

The Creation story in the Bible is derivative of many Creation stories from other cultures that were around prior to the Jews. Check these out...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myths

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > How? In Genesis God said, "Let there be light."
> > Why the hell would he need Evolution?
>
> if you look at the Genesis creation story you will
> notice the chain of events happens in the same
> order that our current scientific theories do. i
> really dont think he needs Evolution but that he
> used evolution. did he need to, no. however, the
> entire universe was created in a logical fashion,
> so why not use evolution? i cant answer why or
> even if he did use evolution but based on the
> evidence, it's my current working theory.
>
>
> > This is my issue with concept of the inerrant
> > Bible.
>
> my take on it is that it's an "inspired work of
> God" which is to say the words as the best as the
> people could interpret them. another issue is the
> nature of the languages it's written in and by
> whom. everything has context.
>
>
> > When you have to start dismissing the
> > literal interpretation of the Bible, then you
> have
> > to question the whole thing.
>
> the creation story wasnt just some guy going
> "hmm... how should the universe have existed?" but
> rather how he could describe a
> vision/dream/something like that. the Bible is
> less complete in it's descriptions than i would
> like but it's written so that anyone can
> understand it. if you look at your average
> highschool history textbook, it has the story
> right but you dont get down to the nitty-gritty of
> everything like what george washington liked to
> eat for breakfast.


This is hysteriacl..Gravis is a holy roller..stupider then I ever thought he was!

\



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2012 02:34AM by Alias.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Prof. Pangloss wrote:
> “Let's suppose god exists and created all of this.
> He did so for his own reasons and is utterly
> uninterested in the state of affairs in the
> universe. People die, they stay dead -
> consciousness wiped out for eternity. At the end
> of 20 billion years (or what have you), the
> universe will experience heat death and be
> functionally over.”
>
> If that's the case, would god believers still
> think that their life had meaning? “
> _________________
>
> Your God sounds like one mean son of a bitch.
>
> How do atheists explain reality?


It's a thought problem, this isn't 'my god'.

As for reality, it exists. That's how I explain it. Utlimately when you boil down everyone's worldview there are fundamental axioms, such as A=A A=~B A or B.

Are you looking for a cosmological answer?

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Prof. Pangloss wrote:
> “Let's suppose god exists and created all of this.
> He did so for his own reasons and is utterly
> uninterested in the state of affairs in the
> universe. People die, they stay dead -
> consciousness wiped out for eternity. At the end
> of 20 billion years (or what have you), the
> universe will experience heat death and be
> functionally over.”
>
> If that's the case, would god believers still
> think that their life had meaning? “
> _________________
>
> Your God sounds like one mean son of a bitch.
>
> How do atheists explain reality?


Physics

Richard Dawkins put it best when he said, "We're all atheist's, I just go one God further".

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> How do atheists explain reality?


How do religious people explain reality? A big human-looking guy floating in the sky with nothing better to do than to demand people not eat meat for Lent?

.
Attachments:

\



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2012 02:32AM by Alias.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Prof. wrote:
> "As for reality, it exists. That's how I explain
> it. Utlimately when you boil down everyone's
> worldview there are fundamental axioms, such as
> A=A A=~B A or B.
>
> Are you looking for a cosmological answer?"
> ___________
>
> No.
>
> It's just that usually A = bullshit and B = A.



If you want proof that man is descended from apes, look no further than Alias.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
>>> If you want proof that man is descended from apes, look no further than Alias.


If they only looked as far as Alias, scientists would conclude that humankind evolved from a gigantic douchebag.

ferfux Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> .


I actually like the idea of religious action figures. We need to turn all religious icons into the status of a super hero/santa claus. We have come close to that with the birth of jesus and santa claus... virtually every society has heard of santa...and the transferance from the religious to the secular association is working.

Now we need to the same for some non christian/european icons. We have pretty much secularized the budda icon...now we need some muslim secularization. Perhaps we can turn one of their holy pilgramages into a spring break/travel experience. Id also love to see an action figure of mohammed..though it might be too soon for such blasphemy. Are there secondary muslim icons we can secularize?

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Prof. wrote:
> "As for reality, it exists. That's how I explain
> it. Utlimately when you boil down everyone's
> worldview there are fundamental axioms, such as
> A=A A=~B A or B.
>
> Are you looking for a cosmological answer?"
> ___________
>
> No.
>
> It's just that usually A = bullshit and B = A.

I am puzzled by your answer. Please explain.

Out of the 12 billion years the Universe has existed and the 4.5 billion years the Earth has been around, humans have been "civilized" for about 7,000 years.

Odds are there are civilizations out there that have existed for hundreds of thousands if not millions of years. If we took everything we have and understand...Einstein's theories, Archimedes' machines, Da Vinci's art, Mozart's music, the Gutenberg Bible, Shakespeare's plays...the cream of the crop of our culture and understanding...and fired examples of it into space on a Saturn V, and if that material and information traveled for millions of years and ended up in the possession of one of these higher civilizations, odds are they would hold it in as much regard as we do an ant hill right before we step on it.

Is life meaningless? No. But its meaning is subjective.

\



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2012 02:27AM by Alias.

Lurker. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> boredom Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Humans trump other species on Earth in so many
> ways. This list is grabbing at straws. Very weak
> points.
To my knowledge we trump other species in 2 ways, we have oposable thumbs, and we are intelligent, other than that, i fail to see anything we excel at

/.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2012 02:26AM by Alias.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> gravis,
>
> Yes, it would be pointless. That is why I believe
> in God.


dont you think its pointless to waste this life to "live" in the next? And furthermore, isnt it also pointless to live your life with a punishment and reward system? do good and you will go to heaven, do bad and you will be punished!!! I choose to live THIS life. To people that say if you dont believe in god, then life would be pointless and empty. Well, im scared shitless that there is NOTHING after this life, so I want to LIVE. I want to make all i can of this life

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2012 02:26AM by Alias.

The very last thing that I worry about is if there is a life after death. Millions of people have gone before us into death.....it cant be all that bad no matter what lies ahead.

Alias Wrote:
>>> Meeper is the typical atheist.


I am not an atheist, in any sense of the word. Claiming that you know there is no God is the same as claiming that you know there is a God.

I am a proud atheist...disavowing a concept based on voodoo...threats of eternal damnation...the disavowing of scientific evidence...atheism is the only conclusion a rationale person can come to. When science can prove there is a god..I will believe in god...until then I go with the preponderence of evidence.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2009 05:05PM by Vince(1).

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Professor wrote:
> “As for reality, it exists. That's how I explain
> it.”
> __________
> That is not an explanation.

I thought I explained it with the appeal to fundamental axioms. For every worldview there are brute facts. Existence is one of these facts, as are the laws of logic.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Alias Wrote:
> >>> Meeper is the typical atheist.
>
>
> I am not an atheist, in any sense of the word.
> Claiming that you know there is no God is the same
> as claiming that you know there is a God.


Atheism, in it's weak form, is the lack of belief in god. It is not a statement of positive knowledge. Most atheists are agnostic atheists, which means that they don't know whether or not god exists (the agnostic part), but have no belief in god/gods. This is as opposed to fideists, who don't know whether or not god exists (they have no positive knowledge), yet belief in god anyway (ie, they have 'faith').