[META-THREAD] The Religion Thread: Discuss Here Please!

[chuckgp]

Haven't made it past the old poet, yet....

Bishop Hislop, The 2 Babylons, that link I posted, you were checking it out, be back after lunch.....


ground control to major Dalek....

[draelyc]

Bishop Hislop, The 2 Babylons, that link I posted, you were checking it out, be back after lunch..... ground control to major Dalek....

I haven't made it past the old poet yet... Meaning, I've only got so much room in my poor lil' head for, well, meaning!

After all, the arrogance and insults take up so many grey cells, y'know?

Okay, okay, ya don't gotta yell. I'll check it out over lunch & get back to ya...

:poke:

[chuckgp]

I haven't made it past the old poet yet... Meaning, I've only got so much room in my poor lil' head for, well, meaning! After all, the arrogance and insults take up so many grey cells, y'know? Okay, okay, ya don't gotta yell. I'll check it out over lunch & get back to ya... :poke:

after lunch, then...

[draelyc]

after lunch, then...

Btw, what'd you think of my new non-bruutz tune? :poke:

[edthecat]

You can see his bias clearly when he criticizes Genesis ~ he's OBVIOUSLY presuming that the poetic metaphors and intricate allegories of Genesis are somehow supposed to be taken as literal, scientific claims, when anyone who has studied Scripture for more than twenty minutes knows better than that.

 

 

Keep in mind... it has not been until very recently that the creation story has been thought of as a poetic metaphor... not until scientific realities have shown the "errors" or "hiccups" in the creation story that don't jive with what is natural. The creation story was a very literal thing until said discoveries were made. 7 days... god chillin on the last of them. You know the inconsistancies... I don't need to spell them out... that is why the Genesis story is referred to as poetic metaphor now...... but as Science/Knowledge of our Universe expands... how many more items that are taken as LITERAL will be turned into Poetic Metaphor?.... again taking us back to which person has the right interpretation of whichever scriptures they subscribe to?

 

 

ughh... I wanted to keep going but this post is getting to the TLDR point. Sorry....

 

and as always.....*waits for meditation and destruction*

[edthecat]

DANG IT!!!! I thought I'd be spending my day off playing disc golf, guitar, and XBox.... but now I'm stuck here... well..... at least I have no complaints about the company...

 

Why?

 

This one is easy. We are made imperfect/fallible... correct? We do not really have the ability to understand or comprehend something as powerful and amazing as a deity.... HOWEVER... the deity does have the ability to be able to communicate with us lower life forms. IMHO, The very fact that it has not done so clearly shows the faults in this line of reasoning.... especially considering the DIRE consequences of not being on point to the deities instructions...

 

Holy Texts don't ask us to reason, or discern. Holy Texts don't ask us work for the answers. They only require we follow what is written in them. They don't say we should have the knowledge of the deity, only that we follow the knowledge of what the deity has divinely written in them. Holy texts don't dictate that we find spiritual value in them... only that we submit to the wishes of them (or rather the interpretation we are taught of them) and only then will we find their "divine" wisdom. They don't ask us to understand or wrestle with what is in them... only that we submit to what is written in them.

 

The concepts and ideas you talk of are man made ideas... or better... interpretations of ideas. The ambiguity of it all leads me to the conclusion that it is all man made... as are the concepts you spoke of.

 

No, if it is truly Divinely inspired... it should not require ANY interpretation. That phrase "Divinely inspired" should make it pretty clear.

 

AND... I would argue that many are using the "knowledge" of their "god" to destructive ends even today...

 

*waits for meditation and destruction* (jumpin jebus on a pogo stick I love typin that in)

inb4 TLDR

& on that note... off to the studio! See ya'll in a bit

[draelyc]

Dang it... I said to start watching at 5:30! You MISSED the good part.

My bad ... didn't catch your emphasis. Going back & listening now...

Okay, I think he loses some credibility when he says that the causes of strife/calamity were "well understood" five hundred years ago and the well-understood cause was witchcraft.

Let me break that down like this: I'm sure many people at the time of the witchburnings really thought that witchcraft was causing terrible problems and that they were not only being pious, but practical as well, when they participated in witch hunts and witch burnings. HOWEVER, witch hunts (and the Inquisitions which were their forerunners) were originally established by the Church as a means of destroying competing sects (which were competing in terms of adherents, land, and wealth). Thus, the higher-ups who ordered such things did understand the causes of their "problems" quite well, but the *cause* wasn't witchcraft. For them, witchcraft was the "solution," which they sold to the masses to keep them frightened ... and we know from our own recent history that a frightened populace is the key to maintaining a domineering central authority.

Still listening...

He's also off-point when he characterizes the belief in magic as a "malignant fantasy." That is not an objective point of view; it is rooted in Western empirical materialism, and thus is strongly biased.

Still listening...

So, he imposes his own lens Western materialism upon a cultural context which differs significantly from his own, and then he blames the material strife and conflict of the time on his own distorted interpretation of that culture's belief system. That's double-fail. If he's going to be a materialist (which his disdain towards the "malignant fantasy" of magic indicates him to be), he must be consistent and look at the *materialistic* cause of those problems five hundred years ago. He's failing to look at the phenomenon of witchburnings through his own materialistic lens, just as he fails to look at the phenomenon of terrorism through his own materialistic lens, instead opting for the "easy way out" of blaming both on "malignant" belief systems.

He can't have it both ways: either he's a materialist (in which case he can't blame the belief systems, since they are only outgrowths of underlying material realities), or he's not, in which case he cannot dismiss the *ideas* of magic or spirituality as silly (or "malignant") just because they are not materially-based.

So far, not impressed... Still listening...

His analogy of a "defense of witchcraft" as a parallel of distinguishing the distortions of fundamentalist literalism from the actual teachings of various religions is utter fail. It's a false analogy ~ the two simply do not line up.

Sorry, but he's just way off point.

And... though I do agree with your "politico-economic" assertion, the situation IS STILL fueled by religious ferver, AND the fact that heads of these religious groups take advantage of the masses (coming around to which interpretation of the holy scripture is the right one) to fuel their own political/economic/social ideals/gains. I wonder if one took the religious ferver away if their actions would still be the same?

In my opinion? Yes, the actions would be the same. Religion is not required for fervor. Witness the Communist "purges" in the former Soviet bloc. In the case of the modern Middle East, religion has been used as a means of fanning people's fervor, controlling and directing it. But it didn't *create* it. And I GUARANTEE you that if the economic realities were changed ~ if the U.S. got completely out of the business of propping up the most brutal and totalitarian/repressive regimes on the planet for the sole purpose of securing our access to oil, for instance ~ you would see the Islamic support for such acts of desperation and violence disappear altogether.

But when people have NOTHING ~ not even weapons ~ they will do *desperate* things.

When we see 17-year-old honor-students strapping on bombs and blowing themselves up, we should not say "my, how horrible Islam is that it results in that!" ... No, we should ask ourselves "how hellish does the situation have to be, for such bright young people to feel it necessary to destroy themselves and others in such fashion?"

The culture is FOUNDED in the faith... granted the political/economic situation was the spark... but the fuel is the faith. This begs the question of "Was Religion Created to Control the Masses?"

And the question is answered simply and resoundingly NO. It was not created for that purpose.

It has CLEARLY been (mis)used for precisely that purpose, many times throughout human history.

But you know, cars were not invented for the purpose of killing people, but they have been used to commit murder many times over the years (and I'm not talking about accidents).

You see what I'm sayin'? That's what I'm sayin'.

We again agree. I think though, he is more referring to the LOUD minority of folks who, say for instance, are trying to get Inteligent Design (creationism) into schools.... or stop stem cell research.... the fundie literalists. I can really see no conflict with the christian faith and evolution at all... But reflect back to the Republican Presidential Debates when asked in reference to who believes in Evolution... kinda scary at the responses! They are catering to the LOUD minority. The fact that evolution vs young earth creationism being taught in SCIENCE class is STILL being hashed out in the court system is evidence to why Dawkins must take his position (though he should be a bit more vocal about the difference between the majority vs the vocal minority....)

That's it exactly ~ complete agreement.

I just wish my fellow believers would do a better (more aggressive) job responding to that LOUD minority of idjuts within the ranks of the faithful. We need to police ourselves better. We need to reclaim our religious institutions from the hands of those who have nothing but mindless literalism in their heads and xenophobic fear & hate in their hearts!

Keep in mind... it has not been until very recently that the creation story has been thought of as a poetic metaphor... not until scientific realities have shown the "errors" or "hiccups" in the creation story that don't jive with what is natural. The creation story was a very literal thing until said discoveries were made. 7 days... god chillin on the last of them.

Actually, that's NOT TRUE. That's what I've been pointing out all along.

The reality is that it is not until relatively recently that Christian sects began to spring up insisting that Scripture can "only" be interpreted literally. That "theology" (which doesn't even deserve to be called theology!) has its roots in 18-19th century extreme Protestantism, blossoming in the early 20th century in America.

The early Church Fathers were WELL AWARE and QUITE CLEAR about the mixture of history, symbol, philosophy, and allegory in Scripture. Origen, for example wrote about how even when Scripture describes an historical event, it does so NOT in order to capture history as it actually happened, but to *use* history to shed light on spiritual teachings. That means that even the literal history WAS NOT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY. And the church was clear on this in the 2nd & 3rd centuries.

Jesus Himself teaches in PARABLES, which He makes clear are NOT to be taken literally, since he INTERPRETS them for his inner circle.

Literalism is, again, a relatively recent phenomenon in the overall history of the Christian religion.

You know the inconsistancies... I don't need to spell them out... that is why the Genesis story is referred to as poetic metaphor now...... but as Science/Knowledge of our Universe expands... how many more items that are taken as LITERAL will be turned into Poetic Metaphor?.... again taking us back to which person has the right interpretation of whichever scriptures they subscribe to?

It's not a question of "which person," as I tried to explain. There are STANDARDS by which the validity of ANYBODY'S interpretation is easily measured.

ughh... I wanted to keep going but this post is getting to the TLDR point.

Man, I'm getting tired of this TLDR crap..

Sorry.... and as always.....*waits for meditation and destruction*

You don't really like Dhalsim, do you? :poke:

[draelyc]

DANG IT!!!! I thought I'd be spending my day off playing disc golf, guitar, and XBox.... but now I'm stuck here... well..... at least I have no complaints about the company...

I know, right? I'm supposed to be grading papers (and reading some website for Chuck ... ), but between the discourse and the company, here I am...

problem here is that there is debate on the consistency of said divine inspiration and the interpretation thereof... and obvious inconsistancies in all of the holy texts (of course that is also subjective depending on ones perspective... making this EXTREMELY subjective)

You're right about there *always* being a degree of subjectivity involved. In fact, it is that bit of room that is allowed (demanded) by differences in subjective viewpoints that makes the discernment/interpretation of sacred texts so valuable ~ it's what creates the possibility of GROWTH... More on that in a minute...

like when he decided to kill all of the first born children or sent plagues?

Don't become a literalist on me!

which requires an ever changing flux from what is literal to what is allegory.

Yes, YES! That's it exactly.

It makes the interpretation (or rather the one who claims to have the right interpretation) seem a bit in question.

We should *always* question those who claim to have the "right" interpretations ... At the least, we should always question their interpretations. That's where those handy standards come in...

As Science progresses, so must the interpretation, as in the Genesis story.

That's only part of the picture. Science is ultimate the search to understand how; religion is ultimately the search to understand why! The former definitely affects the latter, but it will not (CANNOT) ever supplant or displace the latter. The most detailed and specific answers to "how" will NEVER answer the question "why"...

... problem is... every sect will claim to be using these standards to justify their position... as differing as they all are/will be. It does not change the situation to explain what the standards are to validate the opinion.

Yes, actually ~ it does! It allows us to see which of those claims we ought to listen to & take seriously, and which we ought to dismiss as silly & stupid ... and which we ought to rise up against because of the dangers they pose to others!

I see no fault in this logic. I do have a problem with the difference of opinion within the religious communities over what is literal and what is allegory. The poetry of the scriptures provide beautiful insights on the world around us no matter how one interprets them... but the wild claims they make should be in question when there is such disagreement within their followers as to what the "true" is...

I'd say that's *precisely* the right attitude to take, fwiw.

This one is easy. We are made imperfect/fallible... correct? We do not really have the ability to understand or comprehend something as powerful and amazing as a deity.... HOWEVER... the deity does have the ability to be able to communicate with us lower life forms. IMHO, The very fact that it has not done so clearly shows the faults in this line of reasoning.... especially considering the DIRE consequences of not being on point to the deities instructions...

That statement is only true IF one subscribes to a very particular (and particularly untenable, imo) assumption: that is, the assumption that this universe (and we, as a part of this universe) was created to be static and unchanging.

As soon as you admit into your philosophy the notion of growth, development, evolution (spiritual, as well as physical, that is), then it becomes crystal clear why the truly *wise* deity would NEVER hand us easy answers on a silver platter ~ because to do so would be to preclude the possibility of our growth and development, which can only come from striving and struggle.

(Those "dire consequences" you mention are another example of an allegorical teaching that was twisted into a literal interpretation by unscrupulous leaders in order to frighten the masses into obedience, btw.)

No one grows from being handed the answers without putting forth any effort oneself. Growth comes from wrestling with the difficult issues and discovering insights for oneself. Religions as organized systems first came about as a means to facilitate that arduous process. Unfortunately, it wasn't long before certain folks figured out that religion could be twisted and made to serve less noble ends...

Holy Texts don't ask us to reason, or discern. Holy Texts don't ask us work for the answers. They only require we follow what is written in them.

That is simply not true. Sorry. Spend some time really studying the great sacred texts of the world ~ not from the point of view of the skeptic (which condemns before experiencing and then says "prove me wrong"), but rather from the point of view of the seeker-after-truth, and you'll see that all the great sacred texts of this world, deep down, are an *invitation* to do exactly that: to reason, discern, and work for the answers.

They don't say we should have the knowledge of the deity, only that we follow the knowledge of what the deity has divinely written in them.

The classic Judeo-Christian Scripture says we already have the knowledge of the deity, thanks to that fateful "snack" in the Garden of Eden....

Holy texts don't dictate that we find spiritual value in them... only that we submit to the wishes of them (or rather the interpretation we are taught of them) and only then will we find their "divine" wisdom.

"Submission" here means something different than "subjugation" & "oppression." Seriously ~ there's a spiritual concept that deals with the burning away of the individual "self" in order that one may experience oneness with the Divine Self, the One Self of which all individual selves are mere fragments.

That is NOT the same thing as abdicating one's intelligence, reason, and perspective and blindly accepting/following what someone else (or some book) tells you...

They don't ask us to understand or wrestle with what is in them... only that we submit to what is written in them.

See above.

The concepts and ideas you talk of are man made ideas... or better... interpretations of ideas. The ambiguity of it all leads me to the conclusion that it is all man made... as are the concepts you spoke of.

That's a perfectly reasonable conclusion. I look at the same things and come to a different conclusion, one that, imo, is just as reasonable as yours. Indeed, the ambiguity we've been talking about, to me, speaks to the guidance of divine hands in crafting and arranging a Path for us to follow as we seek after Truth Itself...

No, if it is truly Divinely inspired... it should not require ANY interpretation.

Quite the opposite, in fact. I'm sorry, but you're just flat wrong on that one. If it requires no interpretation, then it CANNOT be divinely inspired.

Think about it. You're God ~ are you going to waste your Divine Resources putting forth an Inspired message that will only be of benefit to a tiny handful of people?

Or, in your Divine Wisdom, will you seek to maximize the use of your Divine Resources by Inspiring the creation of something which can and will speak to ANY human being, regardless of that person's level of intellect and/or spiritual development?

Obviously, only a foolish deity would choose the former.

Thus, if there is room for interpretation, if there is ambiguity (along with consistency), then that is a sure sign of Divine Inspiration. A SURE sign.

That phrase "Divinely inspired" should make it pretty clear.

Indeed.

AND... I would argue that many are using the "knowledge" of their "god" to destructive ends even today...

There's no argument there ~ that's EXACTLY what's happening!

*waits for meditation and destruction* (jumpin jebus on a pogo stick I love typin that in) inb4 TLDR & on that note... off to the studio! See ya'll in a bit

Peace, brutha~ thanks for the great discussion!

C

[edthecat]

hey... thx for the reply... I tend to indulge liberally in intoxicating substances during studio explorations of music... so now would not be the best time to reply to your reply but for me to get back to the "record" button and up the delay and the reverb.... however... I digress...I like what I have read.... when my brain is not looking through "other" windows of perception I shall return to the conversation as to keep it on point....

 

*does not wait for meditation and destruction till proper sober replies have been rendered*

[draelyc]

hey... thx for the reply... I tend to indulge liberally in intoxicating substances during studio explorations of music... so now would not be the best time to reply to your reply but for me to get back to the "record" button and up the delay and the reverb.... however... I digress...I like what I have read.... when my brain is not looking through "other" windows of perception I shall return to the conversation as to keep it on point.... *does not wait for meditation and destruction till proper sober replies have been rendered*

LMAO~ Enjoy the ride, my brutha!

Just stay away from those Guatemalan Insanity Peppers...








And try to avoid any Coyotes that sound eerily like Johnny Cash, too...

[Foulacy]

First, that's not a quote ~ that's *your paraphrase* of what I may or may not have said, taken out of context. A quote is what's in the blue text-box immediately above what I'm typing right here. I quoted you; it's got your name in it, and it contains a link back to the original post, so folks can see the context in which the part quoted was first posted. Here's another example: Which brings me to my second point: if clear, articulate, and detailed responses are "so long winded and boring" that you "can hardly read them," then I had perfectly good reason for asking how old you are! You may not be a kid, but when you say things like that, you sure SOUND like a kid. Likewise, when you claim to "love logic," but then you utterly fail to understand how logic works (or even what it *is*), I MUST wonder if you've ever taken a logic or philosophy class. Listen, that's NOT AN INSULT, it's a perfectly justified question based on your own posts. That ^^^ statement right there PROVES that you have not understood a single point I've made. If that's what you *think* my objections to your statements are based on, then you have NO CLUE what I've been saying. The point is this: you utterly -- and fallaciously -- refuse to admit that any good has ever come from religion in any form whatever! I have called you out on that EGREGIOUS error, and I have plainly demonstrated that your claim is not only false but, by your own admission, based on your own illogical, irrational, and prejudiced emotional reactions and NOT on any objective observation of facts. Yet, you STILL refuse to acknowledge your glaring error in any way. That's another thing that makes you SEEM to be a child. (Again, not an insult ~ an observation.) First, my students catch on a lot faster than you. :poke: Second, I never claimed to be "open" (whatever you may mean by that). Third, I think it's clear from your and my posts which of us has any sort of understanding of the subject of religion. I know. It sux when someone INSISTS on facts and accuracy, innit? You didn't really think you were the ONLY person whose opinions are rooted in prejudice and knee-jerk emotional reactions, did you? Of course, more than one person finds it difficult to discuss topics like this with me! Did you see any of the recent presidential campaign? Do you have ANY idea how many stupid, ignorant, uninformed, and unthinking people there are out there? Well, you obviously care, or you wouldn't feel compelled to keep coming back, only to repeat the same crap I've already debunked and corrected a dozen times. It's easy to understand what you want to do. That doesn't make what you want to do right, or logical, or intellectually valid. BIG difference. Yeah, just like the Crusades are rooted in the Bible. You really, really didn't pay ANY attention when I explained Scriptural interpretation (and MISinterpretation) to you, did you? Nope, you sure didn't. Anybody who knows ANYTHING about Islam knows that the concept of Jihad is a concept about INTERNAL, SPIRITUAL STRUGGLE AGAINST ONESELF. OF course, since you don't understand the need for CONTEXT in quoting things, I can't expect you to be accurate about that, can I? Wow. Just wow. See, in the ancient world, this is why the ignorant, uneducated masses were not allowed to read & write. Because those who don't know how to interpret Scripture PROPERLY can do such violent damage to the underlying spiritual meanings. Like you just did. So, despite all your PRETENSE to intellecualism, it turns out that you're nothing but a LITERALIST. Wow. Now, you're outright lying again. Nowhere ~ NOWHERE ~ did I claim that "it's 'all good' in these religions." NOWHERE. Go back and try READING! My whole point all along has been that we MUST acknowledge the FACT that both GOOD AND BAD has been done in the name of religion. If you could read beyond a 2nd grade level, you'd have seen that. (Again, not an insult ~ a fact.) Ah, now THAT fits with what we've seen in your other posts! Listen, MACK ~ nothing is "implied" here. Speak plainly or don't speak at all. So, you must've gone back and found my earlier post, in which I pointed out that if you'd only said that FROM THE BEGINNING, you'd have been all right. 'Bout time, Junior. And there it is ~ right on the heels of talking about "logic," you ask a question that is so illogical as to destroy any brain cells that actually try to think about it. Yeah, I go around "looking for no god." Wow.

 

dude you just contradict yourself over and over again. i'm not going to go fish the quote out. you asked if i passed the 2nd grade, and if i had ever passed a philosophy class that is insulting. please don't pretend you didnt do that, just move on and stop addressing it.

 

where did I say that religion was only evil? i know the good religion has done, and no where did i say it hadn't done any good in the world. you put words in my mouth, just as you claim I have put them in yours.

 

Deuteronomy 22:21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

 

seriously, you really just ignore the bad? where's the underlying spiritual meanings in stoning a woman to death. this isn't a perfect world, we can't just INTERPRET things that are evil in these texts and PERFECTLY FOLLOW the good. i see the two sides, and it bothers me. no where did i say religion is only bad and has done no good.

 

i noticed in a more recent post you can't even follow something sam harris is saying. god have mercy on your students. sam harris is a brilliant, brilliant man who would absolutely murder you in an argument.

 

you simply can't admit to religion having any flaws. do you really think something written by tribal people who think that their god tried to kill everyone in egypt for them didn't have any flaws in their book? they friggin VOTED BY A SHOW OF HANDS what books to include in the bible. it's all a bunch of human creation. i'm a literalist when i look at peoples actions who are also literalists. if no one ran into a building with a bomb strapped to their chest I wouldn't have to look at the LITERAL text of their religion.

 

the only facts and accuracy you insist on are your own. which are clearly that, YOURS ONLY. now i want to move away from this argument with you because it is just a back and forth of never-ending proportion. you clearly dont agree with me, and i clearly dont agree with you.

[JetCityMatt]

draelyc, I realize you are criticising Dawkins, but this is a good post for me to respond to, since it is Dawkins related.

Nowhere does the Bible say that the earth is only 10,000 years old. It is not addressed, so, according to the Bible the earth could be 999 billion years old.
Is this thing on?!!! People like Dawkins just don't get that- but why should he when there are a bunch of Christians who don't read their Bible, but instead parrot what the talking heads on christian TV tell them as they lie through their teeth in an attempt to fleece the flock of their retirement.

I believe that the geneology records in the Bible go back 7 or 8,000 years or something in that range- but that has nothing to do with how old the earth is.

I have no interest in continuing to enslave myself to thread (especially because of my carpul tunnel) just to argue with people who wont change their mind anyway, so as my final statement I want to make clear that I am not a "creationist" who blindly accepts everything literally in the Bible, while blindly shunning and ignoring SOUND SCIENCE!.

I was an athiest before I was a Christian. The only reason I became a Christian is because God revealed himself in a miraculous way to me by answering some impossible prayers in a very depressing and hopeless time in my life (I knew to ask in Jesus' name because my parents had taken me to church and I owned a bible and had started reading it out of curiosity/desperation).

My faith is based on God choosing to convince me, with PROOF. My criticism of Darwinian theory has absolutely NOTHING TO DO with the Bible or creationism. It is a daydream and fantasy from a biased and uneducated man who took a one month trip to the Galapagos islands, came back home and daydreamed and theorized for 25 years- HEAVILY influenced by his knowledge of bird and lamb breeding and how people can breed certain traits in and out of animals.

Based on his observation of the different beak sizes of the finches on the Galapagos that occured due to their food source becoming harder to break open in times of drought (MICRO evolution) he jumped to his conclusion. Also, after the droughts the finch's beaks returned to their original size anyway- the mutation did not remain. But even if it had remained it would be micro evolution, a scientific fact which I do not dispute.
There is no evidence for MACRO evolution and that is evolution's big problem.
It was also Darwin's problems because he worried about the fossil records disproving his theory. All of Darwin's promises are based on these fossils that show macroevolution being discovered SOMEDAY. Well, a lot of fossils have been discovered since 1859... and we are still waiting.
His daydreams are unproven fantasy. It is bad science- no- that's not correct- it is NOT science because it does not adhere to any tenet of science in an way.

150 years ago nobody knew anything about anything, medically speaking, compared to today.

As an intelligent and cynical person I just cannot get over people's blind faith in this man's daydreams. It just absolutely baffles me.

What are your poeple's IQs anyway? (I'm not being rude or prideful, I just Don't get it!)

Just because it is written in your school book doesn't mean it's fact.
Just because the entire world thinks anyone of any faith is a blind moron with BLIND faith... just because the world thinks that science is in opposition to God- IT IS NOT- does not mean that is true.
For 2500 years before Darwin all scientists were setting out to use science to discover how God made creation.

BUT, if UNBIASED science leads to a different conclusion that is fine.

I have proof of God in my life so I don't give a damn if science proves him or Genesis or creation or what. I don't care, I am not afriad of science if it is an unbiased search for truth.

The problem with science and evolution is that it has been hijacked by people who are NOT interested in using science to discover truth, but instead set out on the agenda to prove their blind faith in Darwin to confrim their religion of there being no God.

Daydreams from a 150 years ago.
Come on?!!

Anything you read about evolution - like the wikipedia exerpts posted here- say " we believe" "it is suspected" " probably" "it is thought" etc.....
It is all SPECULATION on Darwin's speculation!!!

LET the science lead to the truth and quit raping science, PLEASE!!!
Your faith is a lie.


Skip ahead to 1:00:
[YOUTUBE]IPhEeBq0a8Y[/YOUTUBE]


Also, I do not dispute some of the videos I just watched on youtube criticising "Expelled" (the movie the clip of Dawkins above is from)- they did add some spin to that movie.
But the movie is not actually about disproving evolution, it is simply a documentary about scientists who believe in intelligent design getting fired.

And I really don't have anything else to say about Darwin or evolution. So it's been fun!
Good luck to everyone on their quest for truth- mine isn't over either because I like to learn new things. But if you don't take action to seek out any new information it is not a quest!


http://www.amazon.com/Billions-Missing-Links-Mysteries-Evolution/dp/0736917462/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1237845608&sr=8-1#
click on "look inside" and search for "Darwin". The first result is page 17, which is actually the first page of the book after the introduction/preface. Read several pages starting at 17 and see what you think.

The last two paragraphs of that book:
" The scientific arguments against the theory of evolution are steadily mounting and, contrary to common perception, they do not conflict with survival of the fittest or natural selection among or within species. There are too many missing links, discovery disconnects, anatomical and functional complexities, and unexplained genetic changes, and too overwhelming a number of inexplicable and improbably coincidences, for evolution to be placed among proven scientific theories.

An enormous, rapidly growing, tidal wave of missing links is closing in on Charles Darwin's beach, yet some of the shoreline residents cannot hear the roar. Some may always be deaf.

Charles Darwin admitted he had no idea why a child resembled his biological parents, yet he proposed that humans descended from primates. In 1872 he famously wrote,
DARWIN: " If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would ultimately break down."

This demonstration is complete."

I highly recommend this book if you are interested enough in the truth to consider both sides of the argument instead of just one. This book never says anything about the Bible or God.

Rant: OFF

Have fun- I'm going to go play guitar and head out to the shop that carries G&Ls!

[draelyc]

. i want to argue about buddhism, christianity, islam, judaism, you name it. please don't claim that i am misusing the word religion because YOU have a different interpretation of it, one that almost no one uses.

In searching back through the recent pages of this thread, I personally did not see any post in which you expound on the virtues of religion and/or the good that religion does in this world.

In fact, if you ever mentioned that side of it, you just as quickly dismissed it as being in consequential next to the bad...

So, again, I have to ask you to be a bit more honest.

Deuteronomy 22:21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you. seriously, you really just ignore the bad? where's the underlying spiritual meanings in stoning a woman to death.

Are you asking that question seriously, or are you just fuming and ranting?

If you're capable of calming down and having a RATIONAL discussion, we can talk about the spiritual concepts which await beneath the literal surface-level of that passage.

I suspect, however, that you're just on a tear and are not really interested in seeking an actual answer to your question.

Convince me otherwise, and I'll be glad to discuss it with you.

(Side note: why is it that unthinking literalists always ~ I mean ALWAYS ~ grab a line or two COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTEXT from Deuteronomy as "proof" that "religion is evil"? FACE-FREAKIN'-PALM! )

this isn't a perfect world, we can't just INTERPRET things that are evil in these texts and PERFECTLY FOLLOW the good. i see the two sides, and it bothers me. no where did i say religion is only bad and has done no good.

Actually, I posted a DIRECT QUOTE above in which YOU DID JUST THAT.

i noticed in a more recent post you can't even follow something sam harris is saying.

FAIL.

I notice here, once again, that you are completely incapable of reading and understanding even the SIMPLEST written statements. (HINT: that is NOT AT ALL what I said.)

So, I guess it's no wonder that Scripture is baffling to you.

god have mercy on your students.

God's mercy isn't what they need.

sam harris is a brilliant, brilliant man who would absolutely murder you in an argument.

Then take a look at what I wrote IN REFUTATION OF HIS CRAPOLA. He's got nothing. His premises were STUPID, and he did a piss-poor job of "reasoning" from his flawed premises.

But, if YOU think he's "brilliant," then he must be!


(continued...)

[draelyc]

Continued:

you simply can't admit to religion having any flaws.

HOLY CRAP, ARE YOU ***REALLY*** THAT COMPLETELY ILLITERATE?!?!?!?


Please note the direct quotes:

BUT SO HAVE PLENTY OF GOOD THINGS, AND TO DENY THAT IS NOT ONLY INACCURATE, BUT STUPID ON ITS FACE. Get it now? :poke: Sorry, it's hard to have patience when you just keep spouting the same stuff, without even bothering to read the earlier replies/corrections.

That should thoroughly demolish your bizarre claim that I "can't admit to religion having any flaws." Nigga, please! Lol!

do you really think something written by tribal people who think that their god tried to kill everyone in egypt for them didn't have any flaws in their book?

Man, you are just completely unafraid to let your ign'ernce flag fly, aren't you? You just proved that you have NO CLUE how the texts of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures came to be. Fail, fail, and more fail.

Oh, and extra, ethnocentrism-fail for PRESUMING that YOUR culture is oh-so-much smarter & wiser than those tribal savages. FAIL, fail, fail, and the fail rolls on....

they friggin VOTED BY A SHOW OF HANDS what books to include in the bible. it's all a bunch of human creation.

That second sentence does NOT follow logically (much less, inevitably) from the first. Logic-fail.

i'm a literalist when i look at peoples actions who are also literalists.

Interpretaion-fail.

if no one ran into a building with a bomb strapped to their chest I wouldn't have to look at the LITERAL text of their religion.

Short-sightedness-fail.

the only facts and accuracy you insist on are your own.

Accuracy-fail.

I insist on YOUR facts being accurate, too (for a freakin' change!), if you're going to take part in this discussion!

which are clearly that, YOURS ONLY.

That's right ~ mine, and any other person's who understands logic and respects such concepts as factual accuracy and intellectual integrity.

now i want to move away from this argument with you because it is just a back and forth of never-ending proportion.

The only reason for that is just that YOU UTTERLY REFUSE TO ***LISTEN*** .... much less to THINK.

you clearly dont agree with me, and i clearly dont agree with you.

Ah, but don't FALSELY make it out as if we're two "equal-but-opposing" sides here. We are most patently NOT equal.

I have adhered to strict rules of logic, factual accuracy, and sound reasoning. You have UTTERLY FAILED on ALL THOSE COUNTS.

So, yeah, we "disagree," but that's only because ONE of us is willing to look at things OBJECTIVELY, and that AIN'T YOU.

[Foulacy]

 

 

we can begin new arguments here. dawkins is explicitly criticizing genesis and creationists because most creationists DO take scripture literally. you would be ignorant to believe that they DONT believe genesis is a literal transcription of the creation of the earth. we both know that their beliefs are absurd, but the fact is there are MILLIONS of them. that's what this video is about.

[draelyc]

we can begin new arguments here. dawkins is explicitly criticizing genesis and creationists because most creationists DO take scripture literally. you would be ignorant to believe that they DONT believe genesis is a literal transcription of the creation of the earth. we both know that their beliefs are absurd, but the fact is there are MILLIONS of them. that's what this video is about.

I am praying to God right now that, one day, you will finally learn NOT TO TAKE THINGS COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTEXT!



Please try reading the ENTIRE CONVERSATION before you PRESUME that I'm ignoring the fact that there are lots and lots of Biblical-literalists out there.

[Foulacy]

I am praying to God right now that, one day, you will finally learn NOT TO TAKE THINGS COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTEXT! Please try reading the ENTIRE CONVERSATION before you PRESUME that I'm ignoring the fact that there are lots and lots of Biblical-literalists out there.

that's still beside the point. he's not after the millions of christians who adjust their beliefs with modern science.

[Foulacy]

Please note the direct quotes: And last, but not least: That should thoroughly demolish your bizarre claim that I "can't admit to religion having any flaws." Nigga, please! Lol! Man, you are just completely unafraid to let your ign'ernce flag fly, aren't you? You just proved that you have NO CLUE how the texts of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures came to be. Fail, fail, and more fail. Oh, and extra, ethnocentrism-fail for PRESUMING that YOUR culture is oh-so-much smarter & wiser than those tribal savages. FAIL, fail, fail, and the fail rolls on.... That second sentence does NOT follow logically (much less, inevitably) from the first. Logic-fail. Interpretaion-fail. Short-sightedness-fail. Accuracy-fail. I insist on YOUR facts being accurate, too (for a freakin' change!), if you're going to take part in this discussion! That's right ~ mine, and any other person's who understands logic and respects such concepts as factual accuracy and intellectual integrity. The only reason for that is just that YOU UTTERLY REFUSE TO ***LISTEN*** .... much less to THINK. Ah, but don't FALSELY make it out as if we're two "equal-but-opposing" sides here. We are most patently NOT equal. I have adhered to strict rules of logic, factual accuracy, and sound reasoning. You have UTTERLY FAILED on ALL THOSE COUNTS. So, yeah, we "disagree," but that's only because ONE of us is willing to look at things OBJECTIVELY, and that AIN'T YOU.

 

what are you arguing about then? i admit religion has done good. when i stated that it hasn't helped diseased and starving people, i will admit fully, in this one instance, i did not clarify why i stated that. i was wrong. yet you admit religion has done wrong and you STILL try to argue with me about religion doing good? we're in the same boat. i say it has done good, you say it has done bad, but you keep bringing up the point that i said it hasn't done good. you are arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

i look at everything objectively. i have nothing to DEFEND, i am open to anything. i have no religion i must come back to and try to fit all my days thoughts into its ideas. the mere fact that you subscribe to a religion means you must interpret things according to that religion. if something contradicted it you would have to reject it. or you would have to twist the contradiction so it fits, like most religious people.

 

also, i don't see how i took deuteronomy out of context. instead of saying I DID. please tell me, and show me why i did. this is something ive asked of you all along. instead of saying FAIL :poke:, SHOW ME why i failed. really i want to learn, and if you have a different view, EXPLAIN IT. in all of these arguments, im the only one whos used any sources to demonstrate why i feel one way or the other.

[riffy]

I cry Foul at the Foulness turn this thread has taken.

[shotgunsjustice]

I believe in God as I was a minister for several years, but I just don't understand anything He's done or why it was played out that way. I also don't get why the bible says he never changes, but he did with the nation of Israel in ancient times with the whole polygamy thing and concubines and such and now it's marry 1 person?? I don't understand and I don't think I can.

[THeLoveGun]

coffee break. how's everyone doing? crap. I've been bad. Hope everyone's doing fine. Oh Riffy, I'll send you the bookd I promise to give as a gift.
been away. still have your address.
[YOUTUBE]

[/YOUTUBE]

[edthecat]

Hey! I'm back from my "journey" and can properly, thoughtfully engage.

I think, rather than post a *too* lengthy detailed response say this:

We both are looking at "x". Where you see "y" I see "z". I don't believe that we could convince the one another of the other....

That is simply not true. Sorry. Spend some time really studying the great sacred texts of the world ~ not from the point of view of the skeptic (which condemns before experiencing and then says "prove me wrong"), but rather from the point of view of the seeker-after-truth, and you'll see that all the great sacred texts of this world, deep down, are an *invitation* to do exactly that: to reason, discern, and work for the answers.

As a skeptic, I would certainly define myself as a seeker-after-truth... as I would assume others are (though I don't pretend to speak for them). The only difference is you read and see "y" were I (we) read and see "z". Again, on both sides it comes down to interpretation.... we have read the texts... reasoned, discerned, and worked for answers and come to "z" conclusion where you did the same and came to "y".

It just so happens my "z" or my "reasoned discerned, worked for answers" or rather "truth that has been seeked" comes down to it is all the holy texts are hogwash and there is no truth to be found there.... and we have read and rejected the wild claims of these texts...

now, if that makes us "literalists".... then it seem it makes us no more or less a literalist than those who have determined "y"... even if one on the "y" camp claims that some stories are literal, some stories of their texts are allegory... it is how they read and interpreted this text... in the same way others have done to find "a,b,c,d,e,f,etc." The Literalist, in this fashion... is all of them.. the whole alphabet.

Now... which letter is the correct interpretation... well... according to every subscribed letter... all 26 of the letters. All "literalists" to their letter.

say for example... "d" interpretation allows for allegory... AND shifting perspectives depending on scientific discovery... then the literal definition of "d" allows for shifts in interpretation... but does not change that it is still the literal definition/description of its position... in this they are no more or less a literalist.

Now, if by "literalist" we refer to it as defining and interpreting exactly what is written in the texts as exactly what they say... no allegory or interpretation or "finding a meaning"... then I would label THAT as one of the Alphabet Letters... AND there are people who would find that "literal" interpretation as the correct way to read the texts... and accept exactly what is read.. and those that would reject said texts for the very same reason... but they are in the "Literal Alphabet". To brush one off as being a literalist is easy... but in this context understand that all of the letters are the same...

I think that here "Literalist" needs to be better defined. Is the literalist one who allows for no "finding of meaning" or one who subscribes to one of these said "letters"... or is the prior part of the latter group? I argue that the what you call the Literalist is no different than one arguing from your perspective.. or from mine for that matter.

I hope that makes sense... ugg.. that hurt my head to re-read.

*waits for meditation and destruction*
in b4 wtf was that, tldr

[edthecat]

There is no evidence for MACRO evolution and that is evolution's big problem.

um... no.

Macro evolution is a widely accepted concept in the scientific community... and there is mountains of evidence for it.

Macro Evolution is (generically and very simply) described as the result of millions/billions of years of micro evolution.

I am not a scientist/biologist... so please refer to these links for better answers:

http://www.macroevolution.net/
http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/micro_macro.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

a quick google search came up with these. they were on the 1st page... I am sure there are even better ones available.

[draelyc]

Hey! I'm back from my "journey" and can properly, thoughtfully engage. I think, rather than post a *too* lengthy detailed response say this: We both are looking at "x". Where you see "y" I see "z". I don't believe that we could convince the one another of the other.... As a skeptic, I would certainly define myself as a seeker-after-truth... as I would assume others are (though I don't pretend to speak for them). The only difference is you read and see "y" were I (we) read and see "z". Again, on both sides it comes down to interpretation.... we have read the texts... reasoned, discerned, and worked for answers and come to "z" conclusion where you did the same and came to "y". It just so happens my "z" or my "reasoned discerned, worked for answers" or rather "truth that has been seeked" comes down to it is all the holy texts are hogwash and there is no truth to be found there.... and we have read and rejected the wild claims of these texts... now, if that makes us "literalists".... then it seem it makes us no more or less a literalist than those who have determined "y"... even if one on the "y" camp claims that some stories are literal, some stories of their texts are allegory... it is how they read and interpreted this text... in the same way others have done to find "a,b,c,d,e,f,etc." The Literalist, in this fashion... is all of them.. the whole alphabet. Now... which letter is the correct interpretation... well... according to every subscribed letter... all 26 of the letters. All "literalists" to their letter. say for example... "d" interpretation allows for allegory... AND shifting perspectives depending on scientific discovery... then the literal definition of "d" allows for shifts in interpretation... but does not change that it is still the literal definition/description of its position... in this they are no more or less a literalist. Now, if by "literalist" we refer to it as defining and interpreting exactly what is written in the texts as exactly what they say... no allegory or interpretation or "finding a meaning"... then I would label THAT as one of the Alphabet Letters... AND there are people who would find that "literal" interpretation as the correct way to read the texts... and accept exactly what is read.. and those that would reject said texts for the very same reason... but they are in the "Literal Alphabet". To brush one off as being a literalist is easy... but in this context understand that all of the letters are the same... I think that here "Literalist" needs to be better defined. Is the literalist one who allows for no "finding of meaning" or one who subscribes to one of these said "letters"... or is the prior part of the latter group? I argue that the what you call the Literalist is no different than one arguing from your perspective.. or from mine for that matter. I hope that makes sense... ugg.. that hurt my head to re-read. *waits for meditation and destruction* in b4 wtf was that, tldr

Wow ~ noice clarity of expression, Ed! Worked through that whole intoxication thing quite well, I see.

Some great points you bring up. Let me see if I can follow your example and be direct (and *gasp* brief) & to the point.

Personally, I've been using the term "literalist" to denote those who interpret Scripture (though many of them would deny that they are in fact "interpreting" Scripture at all!) primarily "at face value." In other words, when Genesis describes the process of Creation over a stretch of six days, "literalists" (as I understand the term) take that to mean exactly what it *literally* says: that the process of our world's coming into being took about 144 hours, and that each feature and/or creature mentioned as being "created" on each "day" (i.e., 24-hour cycle) appeared fully-formed at that moment, exactly as we recognize it today.

On the other hand, those of us who are *not* "literalists" (in this sense of the term) look at Genesis and see a poetic/allegorical/mythological depiction of Cosmic processes the literal natures of which are likely quite beyond our human ability to conceive directly ... Thus, we see the Genesis Creation account as ~ at best ~ an *approximation* in metaphorical images of the Cosmic processes through which our world came into being. Therefore, we non-literalists are capable of interpreting "days" to denote "cycles of time" or "periods of activity," the *literal* lengths of which we may not be able to conceive of.

Does that distinction make sense? (Not asking you to agree with it; just wondering if my explanation is clear...)

As for having read and rejected the claims of such texts as Genesis ... here's where it gets sticky and there's great potention for offending someone, either intentionally or unintentionally. With NO deliberate intention to be offensive, I will take the risk of being completely honest here, since you are obviously coming into this conversation with respect and with sincerely good intentions ... so please do not take what I'm about to say as an attack ~ I'm just trying to respect you by being straightforward with you...

When I hear someone say that he or she has examined the claims of Genesis (again, for example) and rejected them as hogwash, my knee-jerk, emotional reaction is to think "well, you probably took it literally and thus didn't really understand the claims that Genesis is making, to begin with."

To put that in a less combative, less offensive way, let me say this: I, too, utterly reject the LITERAL claims of Genesis... Our Earth *clearly* did not come into being through a 144-hour-long process, and the life forms described in Genesis did NOT appear suddenly, out of nowhere, as we know them today, in a single day within that 144-hour period. Such claims ARE hogwash. .... *However*, when I read Genesis, those are NOT the claims that I see being made in the text.

Does *that* distinction make any sense? (Again, not asking you to agree ... just checking my clarity.)

As for skepticism & truth-seeking, I agree that skeptics are indeed truth seekers. I apologize for my inaccurate choice of terms, before.

It would be better, I think, to divide the category of truth seekers as a whole into skeptics on one hand, and ( ) "mystics" on the other.

The skeptic says "I will not believe until/unless I see." Thus, this is the initial mind-frame of empirical science.

The mystic says "I will never see until/unless I believe." Thus, the emphasis on "faith" in religious/spiritual traditions. (Note that I did NOT say anything about *blind* faith! )

There are certain states of consciousness and kinds of internal experience which *cannot* be accessed from a position of skepticism. Likewise, one cannot build a reliable empirical science without skepticism. So, each mindset has advantages and disadvantages ~ and I believe each mindset also explains what you noted to start with, that we both look at "x" and one of us sees "y" & the other sees "z."

I hold that absolute and perfect understanding is beyond the scope of a single human mind (regardless of mindset); thus, we (coming from different viewpoints) need each other in order to grasp at reality.

Let me stop there, as I'm already rambling.... It's been a weird day here, so I just hope that this post in some way actually contributes to the discussion...

C

[edthecat]

I hold that absolute and perfect understanding is beyond the scope of a single human mind (regardless of mindset); thus, we (coming from different viewpoints) need each other in order to grasp at reality. C

 

 

Indeed.