TheRPGSite

Here are the two really big questions, and I hope everyone stays friendly about this and the anwers ....

1) Do People have Souls or Spirits?
To say yes - you don't even have to believe in religion. Just your opinion or what you believe (no cuss words please)

2) Is there a Meaning of Life -or- A Meaning To Life? Again whatever you believe or opinion.


- Ed C.

1) I've never seen one and it has no effect on my everyday life, and (unlike say news stuff in other countries) it's so far removed and incommensurable to anything in my everyday experience (never had to deal with wars but I have seen people dehumanize other people and fight over stupid bulls... stuff) that I might as well go about my everyday business ilke such things didn't exist.

Same would go for black holes and quasars, I suppose, but at least people so much as bother to assert that I'd have a reasonable chance of being able to make such inferences through reasoning out the math and the data (which admittedly I would have to travel far from town to get), rather than to have "faith".

2) Meaning is what happens when people take stuff and put it together with other stuff in their minds to come up with some kind of narrative structure they can relate to. I think "Is there meaning?" is misleading since it implies that meaning exists in itself, but then people say "Is there a word that means...?" too, so either they've got a weird Platonic conception of words or it's just my own grammar pet peeve (http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004163.html).

Quote1) Do People have Souls or Spirits?

There is a not evidence that the soul exists in any traditional sense.  Certainly not in the sense of a mind that exists beyond brain death.  The mind appears to be entirely embodied, meaning that it is a product of a living organ (the brain) and that it ends when the brain ceases functioning.

The strongest evidence for the embodied mind is the incredible effect that brain damage has on personality - causing formerly honest people to become pathological liars, etc.  If personality were a function of a disembodied mind, then brain damage shouldn't have this effect.

Quote2) Is there a Meaning of Life -or- A Meaning To Life?

No, the universe is an accident.  It was not created, it does not have purpose.  It simply is.  There is no meaning to life but the meaning we create in our lives.

Quote from: Jackalope;248433The strongest evidence for the embodied mind is the incredible effect that brain damage has on personality - causing formerly honest people to become pathological liars, etc.  If personality were a function of a disembodied mind, then brain damage shouldn't have this effect.

Perhaps the brain is just a conduit? And brain damage causes the conduit to be all fucked up and unable to route the EXTRA DIMENSIONAL QUANTUM COSMIC MIND SIGNALS or whatever anymore.

That having been said.

1. Nice thought, but doubtful.
2. There is no meaning beyond that which humanity forces into existence.

1. Yes

2. Yes

No to both, and to all mysticism, superstition and religion. I recognize the possibility of the supernatural, but reject it until there is evidence to support it.

Quote from: wulfgar;2484481. Yes

2. Yes

Short and to the point.

 Gary Cooper would be proud.


{{{:-)


- Ed

Quote from: jswa;248447Perhaps the brain is just a conduit? And brain damage causes the conduit to be all fucked up and unable to route the EXTRA DIMENSIONAL QUANTUM COSMIC MIND SIGNALS or whatever anymore.

Interesting theory, but I would want some evidence that the brain is a transceiver.

1. Probably not.

2. What ever you make it for yourself.

1. No.

2. We give our lives the meaning we want.

Has someone been drinking?

But seriously, no to both. Like the  machine masquerading as a man I'm not too strong in my belief of the supernatural.

Interesting , so far a lot of 'NO' answers to the soul question.

To clarify a little: it doesn't have to be the Judeo-Christian view of the 'soul' concept (or spirit). If you think there is some kind of spirit, essence , or 'ghost' that is part of being human - that still counts.

- Ed C.

1. I have no idea.

2. 42

My answer remains unchanged no matter what sort of trappings you add to it.

Same answer here too.

1. Yes but not even remotely like what people would consider.

2. Meaning is what you bring to life not what you take from it. No one or thing will give you the meaning of your life and their is no "grand plan".

Bill

Quote from: Koltar;248409Here are the two really big questions, and I hope everyone stays friendly about this and the anwers ....

1) Do People have Souls or Spirits?
To say yes - you don't even have to believe in religion. Just your opinion or what you believe (no cuss words please)

No, I don't believe in any soul of spirit, but as a figure of language. I believe in human consciousness as a result of the merging activity of the areas of the brain.

Quote2) Is there a Meaning of Life -or- A Meaning To Life? Again whatever you believe or opinion.

The only meaning of life set by default is to reproduce and make sure our genes pass to next generation. There's no other universal meaning of life for me. Said that, I think that we should give life our own sense and goal, to each its own.

1. Yes, but not separate from their body.

2. No.

Ned

Quote from: Ned the Lonely Donkey;2485821. Yes, but not separate from their body.

(http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/img/v3/12-26-2006.N1A_26Brown.GP72234LR.1.jpg)

1. I hope so, because I don't like the idea of "me" ending when I die, and I want to know how all this ends and will be pissed if I don't get to find out.

2. Not that I'm aware of.

Droog gets kudos just for posting the James Brown picture.

 That was cool.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;2484091) Do People have Souls or Spirits?
To say yes - you don't even have to believe in religion. Just your opinion or what you believe (no cuss words please)

Yes, although I believe the spiritual dimension of a person (which is about as fuzzily close as I can come to a definition of "soul") is self-constructed, built over a period of time from a series of personally significant symbols and markers that define the potency and scope of their experience. An attitudinal atheist - ie. one who rejects or refuses to define their internal symbology - cannot experience it. Contrarily a religious person inherits the symbolic markers of their spiritual interior from traditions laid down by others.
 

Quote2) Is there a Meaning of Life -or- A Meaning To Life? Again whatever you believe or opinion.

As above. Meaning, such that it is, is constructed from a set of private and symbolic tools that may or may not be shared with others human beings.

1)Milhouse, there is no such thing as a soul. It's just something parents made up to scare children, like the boogeyman or Michael Jackson. - Bart Simpson

2) "The meaning of life is that it's the only game in town. As onerous as it becomes, it is, as Maurice Chevalier said, 'Better than the alternative,'" - Harlan Ellison.

Regards,
David R

David R wins the thread.

Quote from: Spike;248759David R wins the thread.

Yeah, it was a good post ...but the thread's not over yet.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Spike;248759David R wins the thread.

Was 42 too obvious?

Our love grows distant, spike...

Quote from: James J Skach;248950Was 42 too obvious?

Our love grows distant, spike...

No, it was too easy, and yet to esoteric. I mean, yeah, everyone KNOWS 42 is the answer, but what, really, was the question?

Besides, its best not to grow too fond of the food.... it only leads to heartache later.

...and actually its '47' if you spend too much time around STAR TREK fans. Thank goodness I don't do that as I used to.


oops, in danger of de-railing my own thread.

To answer one of the two questions: Yes I, Ed C____, believe people have souls or spirits....even atheists and agnostics.

However, these souls can be damaged, lessened, weakened, or stengthjened and nourished - all depending on the cirecumstances of a person's life and what choices they make over time.



- Ed C.

Every single person who answers "Yes" to the soul question is an irrational person prone to sloppy thinking.  Not a single one of you can provide even the merest shred of empirical evidence.  Your answer is based on pure supposition and wishful thinking, or on a sophist argument that essentially reduces to "By soul I don't mean anything resembling the common meaning of soul."

You believe in concrete things that you have no evidence for, and that is irrational.  I just wanted to point that out.

1. No
2. The only meaning to life is the meaning that you give it.

1.) Can you see it? Can you count it from things you can see? Is there any chance of ever proving it's existence? I would say that answer ot all these questions is: no. because it's how soul is deffined in most cultures (it's deffined as something that transcend physical world) So while we can never say for sure, that it doesn't exist, we can never figure out how does such thing work and because it obviously doesn't interact with percievable world, we don't need it to count our formulas.So while soul might somehow exist, there's no need for concept of soul.

2.) Basicaly the same, it is perfectly possible for life to have some greater meaning but it's unknowable for us, therefore it's meaningless concept to us.

1) Could be.  No reason to think yes or no.  My personal inclination is yes, but I have no evidence for it and am going by appeal of the idea alone.

2) I strongly doubt life has any meaning but the one we ascribe to it.

QuoteEvery single person who answers "Yes" to the soul question is an irrational person prone to sloppy thinking. Not a single one of you can provide even the merest shred of empirical evidence. Your answer is based on pure supposition and wishful thinking, or on a sophist argument that essentially reduces to "By soul I don't mean anything resembling the common meaning of soul."

You believe in concrete things that you have no evidence for, and that is irrational. I just wanted to point that out.

Men (and by men I mean mankind, so men and women) are fallible.  Get 10 eyewitnesses to the same event and they will each give you a different story, perhaps none of them completely accurate.  Our emotions cloud our reason.  Our thought process is limited, as are our senses.  I most definitely include myself in all of this.

Just saying, I don't see how setting up a man, whether it's yourself or anyone else, as the final arbiter of what is true and what is false, what exists and what does not is any more reliable then choosing to follow an external standard such as God.

QuoteNot a single one of you can provide even the merest shred of empirical evidence.

Actually, there is quite a bit of empirical evidence for the supernatural.  

70,000 people saw the sun dance over Fatima, Portugal in 1917.

People experience miraculous cures of disease all the time.

There are lots of others.  I don't expect any of those will persuade you.  Faith is a gift, however reason is a gift as well, and if you let them the work together not at odds with one another.

Quote from: Jackalope;249183Every single person who answers "Yes" to the soul question is an irrational person prone to sloppy thinking.  Not a single one of you can provide even the merest shred of empirical evidence.  Your answer is based on pure supposition and wishful thinking, or on a sophist argument that essentially reduces to "By soul I don't mean anything resembling the common meaning of soul."

You believe in concrete things that you have no evidence for, and that is irrational.  I just wanted to point that out.

What's the common meaning of the word soul?

EDIT: Hey, I'll help you out:

From the COD:

soul n 1. the spritual or immaterial part of a human regarded as immortal -> one's moral or emotional nature, one's sense of identity -> emotional or intellectual energy or intensity 2. [defines soul music, and - good God - there's no doubt that exists - huh!] 3. a person regarded as the embodiment of some quality, eg he was the soul of discretion.

I'd say my answer satisfies 2/3 of the first definition there, and deliberately excludes 1/3, with no sloppy thinking. If you don't think those things don't exist in people - in varying degrees - then you have a pretty strange view of people. Maybe all your friends are replicants?

Ned

wulfgar: Dancing sun could be described as some optical effect. Miraclous cures do ahppen, but there is no need for actuall supernatural miracles, sometimes you just get really lucky, even if the chance is something like 1:10000000.

Ned,
 Two thirds ain't half-bad, actually that was a pretty good answer.

- Ed C.

QuoteDancing sun could be described as some optical effect. Miraclous cures do ahppen, but there is no need for actuall supernatural miracles, sometimes you just get really lucky, even if the chance is something like 1:10000000.

That is possible.  Which is a different thing than saying, as Jackalope did, that there is zero evidence for anything supernatural.  Rather, you're saying that there is evidence to support the supernatural, but which could also support a natural explanation.  Which puts the focus on the evaluation the individual has made of the evidence.

Quote from: wulfgar;249285Just saying, I don't see how setting up a man, whether it's yourself or anyone else, as the final arbiter of what is true and what is false, what exists and what does not is any more reliable then choosing to follow an external standard such as God.

Wow.  That's sad.  I feel sorry for you.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but it seems like you're saying that you can't see the value in thinking for yourself, instead of following standards set down by near-barbarians living 2000-3000 years ago in a repressive, patriarchal society.

QuoteMaybe I'm misunderstanding you, but it seems like you're saying that you can't see the value in thinking for yourself, instead of following standards set down by near-barbarians living 2000-3000 years ago in a repressive, patriarchal society.

No, I see great value in thinking for myself.  What I don't see value in, is setting myself up as the final standard for what is right and what is wrong or what is possible and what is impossible.

Quote from: Jackalope;249183Every single person who answers "Yes" to the soul question is an irrational person prone to sloppy thinking.  Not a single one of you can provide even the merest shred of empirical evidence.  Your answer is based on pure supposition and wishful thinking, or on a sophist argument that essentially reduces to "By soul I don't mean anything resembling the common meaning of soul."

You believe in concrete things that you have no evidence for, and that is irrational.  I just wanted to point that out.

Is it not "irrational" to make an argument from ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I just wanted to point that out.

Quote from: CavScout;249423Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I just wanted to point that out.

And even overwhelming absence of evidence must be tempered by this knowledge. I've been an atheist, oh, my entire adult life, but I still must allow for the possibility - however small I may perceive it to be - that some supernatural aspect may exist in the universe; to do otherwise would indeed be irrational, and opposed to the scientific principles by which I attempt to rule my thinking.

Quote from: Jackalope;249183Not a single one of you can provide even the merest shred of empirical evidence.  Your answer is based on pure supposition and wishful thinking, or on a sophist argument that essentially reduces to "By soul I don't mean anything resembling the common meaning of soul."

What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof - Christopher Hitchens.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: CavScout;249423Is it not "irrational" to make an argument from ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)?

Yes, I'm glad to see we agree on something.  To assert that there is a soul is indeed an argument from ignorance, and thus irrational.

QuoteAbsence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I just wanted to point that out.

You are correct.  That does not mean that there is a plausible reason to believe in a thing for which there is a complete absence of evidence.

Consider jackalopes.  This is a jackalope:
(http://scienceblogs.com/scientificactivist/upload/2006/07/jackalope.jpg)

Jackalopes are not real.  They are a creature invented by American folklorists and untrained naturalists and perpetuated by amateur taxidermy hoaxes.  There is a disease that affects jackrabbits (http://ww2.lafayette.edu/~hollidac/jacksforreal.html) that causes them to grow horn-like tumors on their face, but these diseased rabbits are not jackalopes, they are diseased rabbits.

Discounting evidence that can be explained by folklore, hoax or by science,  there is a total absence of evidence for jackalopes.  But as you point out, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

However, we do not consider it reasonable or rational to assert that one believes in Jackalopes, unless one runs a roadside attraction in Wyoming where pretending jackalopes are real is a cottage industry.

From Jesus to jackalopes and roadside attractions to megachurches, it's all pretty much the same thing.  Except Jackalopes are way cooler than Jesus.

Oh how the irrational mind rationalizes it's own positions.

Quote from: CavScout;249508Oh how the irrational mind rationalizes it's own positions.

You may find this link interesting CavScout...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html

Quote from: David R;249494What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof - Christopher Hitchens.

"The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory, but is a practical question. In practice man must prove the truth, i.e., the reality and power, the ‘this-sidedness’ of his thinking. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking which is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question."

Karl Marx

Quote from: gleichman;249512You may find this link interesting CavScout...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html

Certainly an interesting read. The problem with hyper-atheists is that they have become a pseudo-religion unto themselves.

Quote from: CavScout;249516Certainly an interesting read.

I question the premise.  The author makes no causative correlation between the lack of belief in god and the belief in superstitions.  There were also some noticeable absences in the superstitions listed.  People who believe in the Christian god are more likely to believe in angels, demons, and Satan -- yet none of these are listed as examples.

'A person who does not believe in God therefore they believe in superstitious nonsense.' is a pretty shady argument.  It assumes that belief in God is not superstition, and assume a correlation between two disparate beliefs.

Finally, making the argument "You're irrational too!" is a weak argument at best, as it cedes the charge made against one.  For example, one of the items the author cites as evidence of the irrational beliefs of atheists is the number of atheists who believe in a personal god and a belief in heaven.  Thus ceding the point that these are irrational beliefs on their face.

QuoteThe problem with hyper-atheists is that they have become a pseudo-religion unto themselves.

I love it when people make this argument against atheism.   Atheism has become a religion.
This is a problem.Why is it a problem?  Because it's implicit: Religions are bad.

Quote from: Jackalope;249530I love it when people make this argument against atheism.   Atheism has become a religion.
This is a problem.Why is it a problem?  Because it's implicit: Religions are bad.

Religions themselves are not bad, the hyper-fanatic who is intent on pushing that religion unto others is.

Quote from: CavScout;249531Religions themselves are not bad, the hyper-fanatic who is intent on pushing that religion unto others is.

Missed the boat there CavScout.

The proper response was to note that the whole point of Atheism was to not be a religion, and not to act like one. The fact that it does is the noted problem.

It's called being a hypocrite, and it's also called abandoning all the 'reason' that it was stated to be founded on.

Something Jackalope does with wild abandon, which is why you're wasting your time talking with him. Why do you waste the time?

Quote from: Jackalope;249183Every single person who answers "Yes" to the soul question is an irrational person prone to sloppy thinking.  Not a single one of you can provide even the merest shred of empirical evidence.  Your answer is based on pure supposition and wishful thinking, or on a sophist argument that essentially reduces to "By soul I don't mean anything resembling the common meaning of soul."

You believe in concrete things that you have no evidence for, and that is irrational.  I just wanted to point that out.

Well said, I second this train of thought. I am a soulless air sucker  who'll eventually become food for the maggots. This is the meaning of death, to feed the earth.

Quote from: gleichman;249532The proper response was to note that the whole point of Atheism was to not be a religion, and not to act like one.

Faulty premise.  There is no point to atheism.  Atheism is a lack of a belief.  Atheism has no agenda.

But my questions were not about religion and did not have to be answered from a religious point of view.

Heck - even Ayn Rand a self-admitted atheist beleved in a version of the soul or man's spirit.  Its evident in her books, both fiction and non-fiction.

Even if you define it as that extra something! or other  that makes you , 'you!' - then thats a soul or spirit.


- Ed C.

Quote from: gleichman;249532Missed the boat there CavScout.

The proper response was to note that the whole point of Atheism was to not be a religion, and not to act like one. The fact that it does is the noted problem.

It's called being a hypocrite, and it's also called abandoning all the 'reason' that it was stated to be founded on.

Something Jackalope does with wild abandon, which is why you're wasting your time talking with him. Why do you waste the time?

Maybe. It still looked like a backhanded attempt to say religion=bad.

As far as time, got nothing much else to do. ;p

Quote from: Jackalope;249534Faulty premise.  There is no point to atheism.  Atheism is a lack of a belief.  Atheism has no agenda.

Atheism certainly has an agenda, it is truly an ideology.

Quote from: Koltar;249540Even if you define it as that extra something! or other  that makes you , 'you!' - then thats a soul or spirit.

If you water down the concept that far it's a bit meaningless. In that sense even I could be said to 'believe' in a soul.

Of course, what makes me me might just be a highly specific cocktail of chemicals.

Quote from: CavScout;249544As far as time, got nothing much else to do. ;p

The guy's a nutcase. If you didn't talk to him basically no one would.

Let him die from lack of attention. There are other lefties here to debate if you must.

Quote from: Koltar;249540But my questions were not about religion and did not have to be answered from a religious point of view.

Hey Ed, Gene wants to have a word with you

We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes. - Gene Roddenberry

Regards,
David R

Quote from: gleichman;249550The guy's a nutcase. If you didn't talk to him basically no one would.

Let him die from lack of attention. There are other lefties here to debate if you must.

True.

Many of the left wingers on here are fun to talk to and would be fun to game with. The 3 or 4 candidates for an IL - not so much.

......Of course many of the right-wingers are fun too, and the middle-of-the-planers are fun too - those are the guys eating popcorn and watching the in-flight movie.

Quote from: shalvayez;249533Well said, I second this train of thought. I am a soulless air sucker  who'll eventually become food for the maggots. This is the meaning of death, to feed the earth.

Is it immoral, then, to have a lavish burial with trappings that help preserve the body?


EDIT:

Quote from: Koltar;249552Many of the left wingers on here are fun to talk to and would be fun to game with. The 3 or 4 candidates for an IL - not so much. [/SIZE]

Assuming "many" means 3+... we have that many left-wing types here!? :eek:

Quote from: Koltar;249552Many of the left wingers on here are fun to talk to and would be fun to game with. The 3 or 4 candidates for an IL - not so much. [/SIZE]

Assuming "many" means 3+... we have that many left-wing types here!? :eek:

Quote from: Vaecrius;249553EDIT:Assuming "many" means 3+... we have that many left-wing types here!? :eek:

No - that means we have 3 who are so annoyingly extreme that its just better to put them on an ignore list.

 The other Left-wingers on here you could actually have a beer with or a cup of coffee.

Three out of maybe dozens plus people on here - thats not so bad. The trouble is  -those 3 are some of the most frequent posters.

To re-state my answer to Question 1 : Yeah, I think we got souls or spirits.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Vaecrius;249553Is it immoral, then, to have a lavish burial with trappings that help preserve the body?

In the final analysis, yes. Give back to the earth, freeloader!

Quote from: Koltar;249556No - that means we have 3 who are so annoyingly extreme that its just better to put them on an ignore list.

Ooh, ooh! Am I one? Am I one?

1. I would like to believe in the concept of a soul, but scientific evidence kind of pushing me to the other end of the spectrum.
 
2. Meaning of life...like many before, come from what you make of it.  My meaning of life is the happiness and agony my loved ones have provided me.

Quote from: droog;249564Ooh, ooh! Am I one? Am I one?

No, Sorry - I was able to read you comment.

{{{:-)

Quote from: droog;249564Ooh, ooh! Am I one? Am I one?

It's me. I crossed the line with the Roddenberry quote.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: KoltarTo answer one of the two questions: Yes I ,Ed Charlton, believe people have souls or spirits....even atheists and agnostics.

However, these souls can be damaged, lessened, weakened, or stengthjened and nourished - all depending on the cirecumstances of a person's life and what choices they make over time.

So, what nourishes soul and what damages it. is it like if you do good deeds your soul grows, and if you do bad your soul shrinks...?

Also, if I remember correctly there was discussion about self aware robots having, or not having one. So is soul necessary part for being self aware and able to make decissions, or is it something, that humans were given by something in order for them to become immortal.

Fritz,
 Your last question is more of a religion question.
 Thats pretty cool question. I wasn't going there....yet. To go that route it probably helps to think that there are souls.


- Ed C.

Best to hold a seance and converse with James Brown, the godfather of soul, he'll let you know what nourishes the "soul".

1. Yes.  I believe that we have a soul that can live beyond the death of the body.  As in: "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Mat 10:28  

2. Yes.  Our ultimate purpose is to bring glory to God. Ephesians 1:4-6

Prove to me that logic exists, and that we ought to think rationally, and I'll prove to you that God exists, and we ought to be righteous.

I'm not trying to prove anything to you. Personally, I don't feel that I need to hypothesize an actual soul. But you go right ahead.

As to logic:

1. God may exist--stipulated (this raises many other questions, however).
2. How do we know what God intends, or if indeed he intends anything for us?
3. The answer is that it is written in a book.
4. How do we know the book is true?
5. Because those who believe it is true tell us it is true.

Conclusion: While God may or may not exist, I have no clearer understanding from the arguments of Patriarch917.

Quote from: Fritzs;249600So, what nourishes soul

Easy...


Bacon....

Quote from: James J Skach;249910Easy...


Bacon....

What if you're Jewish?

Quote from: droog;249912What if you're Jewish?

Well then you go to the other favorite food of rpgsite - bagels.


- Ed C.



- Sorry, we've already had that as a running joke on here. It had to be said.

Quote from: droog;249908Conclusion: While God may or may not exist, I have no clearer understanding from the arguments of Patriarch917.

It's an old trick which I haven't seen in some time.

Being in a cheeky mood, I'll just say that logic is needed in our rational endeavours - religious types are aware of this - see Intelligent Design - whereas we don't need God to be righteous.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: droog;249912What if you're Jewish?

droog, that's a trick question. Everyone knows the Jewish don't have souls.

Quote from: David R;249922It's an old trick which I haven't seen in some time.

Being in a cheeky mood, I'll just say that logic is needed in our rational endeavours - religious types are aware of this - see Intelligent Design - whereas we don't need God to be righteous.

Regards,
David R

The Jesuits up at Marquette seemed to be saying to me that logic was great - wonderful for knowing things; but faith was for believing. The two were considered very different things...

It was at this point they lost me...

or rather, other interests have clouded my memories beyond that point.

Quote from: James J Skach;249925droog, that's a trick question. Everyone knows the Jewish don't have souls.

Good point!

Quote from: James J Skach;249929or rather, other interests have clouded my memories beyond that point.

The other interests were girls, right? I mean it was for me. I mean when you're a teen you have faith in the logic that everyone has a chance of getting laid.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: James J Skach;249925droog, that's a trick question. Everyone knows the Jewish don't have souls.

I know thats meant as a joke - but as for the questions the way I meant them, religion doesn't have to enter into the answering of them.


- Ed C.

I'll preface this by stating I'm an agnostic. I do not know and do not think I'll ever know the answer to these questions. I do have some theories though, and they flex going both ways.

1. The soul, if anything, is the complete essence of your being, not just a ghost or even your personality immortalized. Personality, communication and even sex are bridges between souls and if two souls could inhabit the same space together, then they would know each other completely.

If the idea of a person can become immortal (ex. Ceasar, Jesus, Mohammed, Frank Sinatra, Princess Diana) and even the meekest of lives past continue to influence our lives today...then what is to say that there couldn't be some unobserved embodyment of that essence or idea.

2. The result of life is death and scientists still have trouble answering THAT question (Why do we die?), which seems much simpler a subject. That being said, it seems most probable that every life has it's own meaning. Whether that's a state of a natural chaotic convergence (a cow dies to make hamburgers so a biologist can not starve, live a little longer and discover a cure for cancer) or some divinely instituted plan (fate) does not matter.

I don't really like to tumble this question around, as it seems like there way too many questions to answer before "What is the meaning of life?" should even be asked. For example: Is there a meaning to life? I have a theory on that, and it goes along the lines of:

"I am convinced that [God] does not play dice".
-Albert Einstein

Quote from: David R;249935The other interests were girls, right? I mean it was for me. I mean when you're a teen you have faith in the logic that everyone has a chance of getting laid.

Regards,
David R

What are girls, again?

Among other things, yes...

[QUOTE="KrakaJak](Why do we die?)[/QUOTE]

Because being able to live forever isn't evolutionary advantage. Having body, that destroy itself in order to produce more offsprings is. Remember, from "biological" point of view, we are nothing more that carriers for our genes.

Quote from: Fritzs;249945Because being able to live forever isn't evolutionary advantage. Having body, that destroy itself in order to produce more offsprings is. Remember, from "biological" point of view, we are nothing more that carriers for our genes.

That's a pretty good theory you've got there.

QuoteBeing in a cheeky mood, I'll just say that logic is needed in our rational endeavours - religious types are aware of this - see Intelligent Design - whereas we don't need God to be righteous

It's an interesting comment, but one I'll disagree with.

I'd go a step beyond needing God to be righteous and say:

We need God to be.

As in, we would not exist if not for God creating us.

Quote from: wulfgar;250013As in, we would not exist if not for God creating us.

God would not exist if not for us.

Edit: God as envisioned by Man.

Regards,
David R

God as envisioned by Man would not exist without man. That's true.  However, I'd throw in that man's evisioning of God is a limited one.  God will still exist whether man existed or not.

People used to think the world was flat?  Did that make it flat?  Did their change in belief make it become round?

By the same token, man's belief (either a single man or all of mankind) in God is completely irrelevant as to whether or not God exists or not.

The lesson learnt from the flat earth comparison is not that the world was round regardless of belief but rather that Man would discover the truth in spite of his belief.

Regards,
David R

So how do we know if the religious man will discover God does not exist in spite of his belief, or if the atheist will discover that he does, in spite of his belief?

I think the round earth analogy holds.  God either exists or he doesn't.  How many people believe in Him does not impact the answer.

Quote from: wulfgar;250034God as envisioned by Man would not exist without man. That's true.  However, I'd throw in that man's evisioning of God is a limited one.  God will still exist whether man existed or not.

People used to think the world was flat?  Did that make it flat?  Did their change in belief make it become round?

By the same token, man's belief (either a single man or all of mankind) in God is completely irrelevant as to whether or not God exists or not.

It depends on your point of view I would suppose. If God is a fact, then it is your interpretation that he exists regardless of our interpretation. This has many inherent problems with it including a base supposition that we do not understand God in its current form and thus you are practicing (Christianity) a figment of man's collective imagination of what God might want you to act like.

Alternatively, God is a figment of man's collective imagination in the same form as gods have been created throughout history. A tool to make men obey a set of laws, a means for people to feel good about bad things, and a means to comfort mortal creatures aware of their own end.

In th end, it is a choice. To believe a fantastical explanation or not. Did we spring into existence 10000 years ago at the whim of a supreme being who lacked a lot of foresight or are we a natural organism evolved over millions of years to fill a niche? Questions like these are what defines some people, not good or bad, but how they wish to view the world. Good and evil can be perpetrated by either type. One believes that, in doing an bad thing, they "do the will of God or at least they can be forgiven for it" and that makes it o.k. The other believes they are "being smart, getting ahead because this is the only game in town". On the flip side, the answer changes little for the believer in God but for the other, it comes down to "I do good because I choose to, because I believe in helping my fellow man and am not commanded by an external super being". To be honest, both are a bit scary to me.

And to be clear, I am not trying to say there are only two types, just the two we seem to be discussing here.

Bill

Quote from: wulfgar;250034God as envisioned by Man would not exist without man. That's true.  However, I'd throw in that man's evisioning of God is a limited one.  God will still exist whether man existed or not.

People used to think the world was flat?  Did that make it flat?  Did their change in belief make it become round?

By the same token, man's belief (either a single man or all of mankind) in God is completely irrelevant as to whether or not God exists or not.

You might as well just spout gibberish and nonsense.

There is really no meaningful difference between this statement:   God will still exist whether man existed or not....By the same token, man's belief (either a single man or all of mankind) in God is completely irrelevant as to whether or not God exists or not.and this statement:   Floop will still exist whether man existed or not....By the same token, man's belief (either a single man or all of mankind) in Floop is completely irrelevant as to whether or not Floop exists or not.What is floop?  Who fucking cares?  It's clearly unknowable to us, so it's existence or lack of existence is irrelevant.  Arguing the qualities and nature of floop is the intellectual equivalent of masturbation: you can do it all day, but nothing will come of it.

If you can't know God, then God might as well not exist.  You're just jerking off if you think otherwise.  There literally cannot be any point to a belief in an entity that you can't define in any meaningful way without resorting to making shit up.

Quote from: Jackalope;250083There literally cannot be any point to a belief in an entity that you can't define in any meaningful way without resorting to making shit up.

Constructing belief in a personal god of my own understanding quite literally saved my life. Find some material on twelve step programmes and addiction recovery to get an idea of how it works.

Quote from: Drew;250085Constructing belief in a personal god of my own understanding quite literally saved my life. Find some material on twelve step programmes and addiction recovery to get an idea of how it works.

But you really didn't need that construct, you kicked whatever addiction you had with your own willpower and attributed it to a god.

Quote from: Drew;250085Constructing belief in a personal god of my own understanding quite literally saved my life. Find some material on twelve step programmes and addiction recovery to get an idea of how it works.

See, this is the perfect validation of my point.  What is a personal god?  Is that the same thing as God?  Is it something else entirely?

It's impossible to know what you're talking about.  You could have said "Constructing belief in a personal floop of my own understanding quite literally saved my life."  and it would have conveyed the exact same amount of information to me.

I do actually know what you're talking about.  What you call a "personal god" I myself relate to Aleister Crowley's ideas about the Holy Guardian Angel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Guardian_Angel), but I've long thought that the 12 step process was rooted in the European occult tradition.

Quote from: wulfgar;250080So how do we know if the religious man will discover God does not exist in spite of his belief, or if the atheist will discover that he does, in spite of his belief?

I think the round earth analogy holds.  God either exists or he doesn't.  How many people believe in Him does not impact the answer.

Well here's the problem with the round earth analogy IMO. What you're saying is, "God exist with or without evidence or belief" which is meaningless. Personally I have always prefered the concept of faith to the rationalizing of religion.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: RockViper;250099But you really didn't need that construct, you kicked whatever addiction you had with your own willpower and attributed it to a god.

It's probably best not to tell someone how they achieved what they did. That is theirs, not yours.

Edit: and for fuck sake (and Drew can correct me if i'm wrong), it ain't that difficult. Non organised religion = personal God. My mother is deeply religious and rejects organised religion. It's a very personal thing to her.

Quote from: David R;250102Personally I have always prefered the concept of faith to the rationalizing of religion.

Amen, Brother.

Quote from: RockViper;250099But you really didn't need that construct, you kicked whatever addiction you had with your own willpower and attributed it to a god.

Actually it was the opposite. I spent over a decade trying to overcome my alcoholism with willpower and almost died as a result. It was only when I extracted my self-will from the equation, admitted that I was utterly powerless over my addiction, and became ready to accept the possibility of an external, spiritual power that could restore me to sanity that things started to turn around for me.

Quote from: Jackalope;250100See, this is the perfect validation of my point.  What is a personal god?  Is that the same thing as God?  Is it something else entirely?

I think this where you might be stumbling. You seem to be looking for a god that has an objective and verifiable existence that can proven to others through scientific means. For me, it's more about symbolic reality and how prepared the individual is to invest themselves into a spiritual life. What do I mean by spiritual? The way it was first put to me in rehab, back when I was an argumentative atheist who simply refused to accept the idea of anything superntaural, was the totality of the quality of my relationship with people, places and things, including myself. I could just about swallow that, and a result I became open to the processes that eventually saved me from the agony of self-annihilation.

QuoteIt's impossible to know what you're talking about.  You could have said "Constructing belief in a personal floop of my own understanding quite literally saved my life."  and it would have conveyed the exact same amount of information to me.

See above. My spiritual life is not about convincing you or anyone else of it's worth. It's about me living in the soloution of my life problem, which is a progressive and fatal illness from which I receive a daily reprieve by following a few simple steps. Ultimately it's nothing more than that. I'm certainly not trying to sell anybody on the idea of the soul or spirit. I didn't believe I had one myself until I came within a hair of losing it.

QuoteI do actually know what you're talking about.  What you call a "personal god" I myself relate to Aleister Crowley's ideas about the Holy Guardian Angel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Guardian_Angel), but I've long thought that the 12 step process was rooted in the European occult tradition.

It could well be. All I can really say is that the source is fundamentally irrelevant to my need for the soloution it supplies. Crowley, Floop, however else you want to label it, all that matters to me is that it works.

Quote from: Drew;250114Actually it was the opposite.

I definitely understand that you believe so, but from my perspective, your "personal god" was simply the placebo which allowed you to leverage your existing willpower. Obviously, you don't agree, because of your personal experiences, but you can certainly understand how, to a rationalist, your behavior doesn't require a god to work.

That said, I think your original point - that religion can do good - is quite true. I believe it does more harm than it does good, overall, but that's just my impression based on my own experiences and the information I've gained over the years; I certainly don't have any sort of statistics available! Anyway, my best wishes on staying clean and sober; you have chosen the more difficult but more healthy of the paths available to you, much to your credit.

Quote from: One Horse Town;250106It's probably best not to tell someone how they achieved what they did. That is theirs, not yours.

Edit: and for fuck sake (and Drew can correct me if i'm wrong), it ain't that difficult. Non organised religion = personal God. My mother is deeply religious and rejects organised religion. It's a very personal thing to her.

Pretty much, although I prefer to use the word 'spiritual' when describing my own journey, simply because that's what feels most applicable to me.

Quote from: Drew;250118What do I mean by spiritual? The way it was first put to me in rehab, back when I was an argumentative atheist who simply refused to accept the idea of anything superntaural, was the totality of the quality of my relationship with people, places and things, including myself.

That sort of spirituality need not include anything supernatural, then, correct? It seems like "spirituality" would be a misleading term for this, but then again, I don't have another!

1) Do People have Souls or Spirits?
Yes. There's no physical evidence and I don't think there ever will be, as I think what the ancients called spirit is really just a reconstruction God does after someone dies, not some sort of measurable entity before that time.

2) Is there a Meaning of Life -or- A Meaning To Life? Again whatever you believe or opinion.
Yes. To glorify God and enjoy Him forever. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Shorter_Catechism) For people that reject that premise, then no, life doesn't have any final meaning, it's just something you get to play with.

Quote from: Engine;250122I definitely understand that you believe so, but from my perspective, your "personal god" was simply the placebo which allowed you to leverage your existing willpower. Obviously, you don't agree, because of your personal experiences, but you can certainly understand how, to a rationalist, your behavior doesn't require a god to work.

I'm totally cool with people thinking I'm a self-deluding titan of willpower who needs to make idol masks of his personal assets in order to utilise them. I can never let myself fall into that belief again though, it damned nearly killed me a few years ago.

QuoteThat said, I think your original point - that religion can do good - is quite true. I believe it does more harm than it does good, overall, but that's just my impression based on my own experiences and the information I've gained over the years; I certainly don't have any sort of statistics available! Anyway, my best wishes on staying clean and sober; you have chosen the more difficult but more healthy of the paths available to you, much to your credit.

Cheers mate. :)

Quote from: Drew;250118I think this where you might be stumbling. You seem to be looking for a god that has an objective and verifiable existence that can proven to others through scientific means.

I'm not "stumbling," and I'm not looking for anything.  I am discussing God, a mythical entity, and his complete lack of an objective and verifiable existence.

I'm not interested in responding to the rest of your post, since you are talking about internal processes.  You refer to these processes with terminology borrowed from theistic jargon, others use occult jargon, others use psychological jargon, I myself tend to use Taoist or Buddhist jargon. These internal processes, while valuable in of themselves, really have nothing to do with discussion of God in the traditional sense of that word.  It's just a coincidence of jargon.  You seem to acknowledge this point yourself.

It's great that you found some concept of God and that helped you with your addiction, but I'm not really comfortable discussing this with you.  I don't want to attack the crutches you are using to prop yourself up just to prove a point, and you're putting me in a position of either agreeing with what I consider a very simplistic and naive viewpoint or attacking your crutches.  I'd appreciate it if you didn't put me in that position.

Quote from: Drew;250126Pretty much, although I prefer to use the word 'spiritual' when describing my own journey, simply because that's what feels most applicable to me.

I would use the same word for my mother's beliefs, too. :) Doesn't matter. The fact that it works and makes her happy means that labels and mere words (which often can't be related very well becuase it is so personal) cannot properly relate how it affects her. Which is why it annoys me so much when folk try to tell you what you feel/how you feel, about these things. Fuck that shit - you do, therefore it is good. All else is worthless noise.

Quote from: Engine;250127That sort of spirituality need not include anything supernatural, then, correct? It seems like "spirituality" would be a misleading term for this, but then again, I don't have another!

I've always referred to the concept as "enlightened self-interest" or "holistic thinking," and I certainly don't think there's anything supernatural about.

Mythopoetic maybe, but not supernatural.

Quote from: Engine;250127That sort of spirituality need not include anything supernatural, then, correct? It seems like "spirituality" would be a misleading term for this, but then again, I don't have another!

It became spiritual for me when I started being able to perceive it as a totality, rather than comprised of component parts.

And yes, spirituality (as I understand it) can absoloutely preclude belief in the supernatural. I think it's a fundamentally human phenomenon, and doesn't require gods (in the traditional sense) to work. I know someone in AA who uses Elvis as his Higher Power. Not the ghost of Elvis you understand, just the inspiring effect of the man's life and music. At first I thought the bloke was peddling some variety of flippant bullshit, but it really seems to work for him.

Quote from: Jackalope;250135don't want to attack the crutches you are using to prop yourself up just to prove a point, and you're putting me in a position of either agreeing with what I consider a very simplistic and naive viewpoint or attacking your crutches. I'd appreciate it if you didn't put me in that position.

Attacking while saying you don't want to attack is a rather odd methodology.

Quote from: Jackalope;250135It's great that you found some concept of God and that helped you with your addiction, but I'm not really comfortable discussing this with you.  I don't want to attack the crutches you are using to prop yourself up just to prove a point, and you're putting me in a position of either agreeing with what I consider a very simplistic and naive viewpoint or attacking your crutches.  I'd appreciate it if you didn't put me in that position.

On this subject I can only discuss the reality of my situation. I'm sorry you find that uncomfortable, but I can categorically state that I am not trying to position you in any way.

Quote from: CavScout;250146Attacking while saying you don't want to attack is a rather odd methodology.

I particularly like how Jack blames Drew for putting him in this uncomfortable situation.

Jackalope: six months of making even the people who agree with you cringe.

Quote from: HinterWelt;250082In th end, it is a choice. To believe a fantastical explanation or not. Did we spring into existence 10000 years ago at the whim of a supreme being who lacked a lot of foresight or are we a natural organism evolved over millions of years to fill a niche?

Why do you think God lacked a lot of foresight?

I'd argue that taking either one of your options (belief or unbelief in God) requires believing in a fantastical explanation.

-You were personally created in the image and likeness of an all-powerful, all-knowing God who has existed since before time began....pretty fantastical.

-You are the product of billions of years of random chance.  Through chance, the universe was created.  Through chance, this planet was formed with such conditions that through chance, life would arise where there was no life before.  And through chance, that first life, a microscopic cell, evolved over the ages into a human being sitting there typing on a computer....pretty fantastical.

So unless someone simply never thinks about such things, I'd say the choice is which fantastical explanation you believe in, not whether to believe one or not.

Quote from: Jackalope;250083What is floop?  Who fucking cares?  It's clearly unknowable to us, so it's existence or lack of existence is irrelevant.  Arguing the qualities and nature of floop is the intellectual equivalent of masturbation: you can do it all day, but nothing will come of it.

If you can't know God, then God might as well not exist.  You're just jerking off if you think otherwise.  There literally cannot be any point to a belief in an entity that you can't define in any meaningful way without resorting to making shit up.

Why is God clearly unknowable to us?  I'm sure that comes as quite a suprise to the billions of people who have a relationship with Him.  To be clear I'm not talking about Chrisitians, although they would certainly be included.  I'm talking about everyone who has gained some level of understanding of God through the living of their lives.

Quote from: Jackalope;250083If you can't know God, then God might as well not exist.  You're just jerking off if you think otherwise.  There literally cannot be any point to a belief in an entity that you can't define in any meaningful way without resorting to making shit up.

I haven't read through here and I don't know what claims other folk have made here, but this single statement reflects some confusion about what Christians, at least, mean when they say that know God, and don't know God.

The roots of the discussion about "knowing" go back to (at least) Paul's writing in Corinthians (in a glass, darkly, and all that), but a really good discussion of it is in Lewis's "Mere Christianity". Since I expect that no one here who hasn't read it is going to, I'll summarize-

1) God's not directly observable to us, and if He were, we'd probably be unable to make sense of what we perceived. So the usual way of knowing something, measurement and perception in general, don't work.

2) But God can perceive us and can choose to communicate to us, and in a variety of ways. Lewis focuses on three: 1) what we can see of creation, the external reality that we CAN see and measure, which gives us hints about a creator. Hints at best. 2) What we can determine about our own nature, such as the built-in desire for justice, fairness, and all the other positive human attributes that make no sense in a random universe without meaning. 3) The possibly of revelation, in which God presents himself in simplified forms that we can comprehend, at least somewhat. (Which is the idea behind "in a glass, darkly", etc.)

Bottom line, we can't know God on our own, but we can make guesses on some things based on what we can observe, and we can be told some things which we can't work out for ourselves. None of these would amount to a complete picture, in this life and maybe in any. But they amount to something.

Of course, if you deny the existence of revelation, don't see any pattern or order in the external world, and decide that human morality is an illusion or fantasy arising out of a meaningless universe and based on meaningless pleasure and meaningless pain, then none of those sources of information are the least bit convincing. It all comes down to your choices and perceptions, in the end. Lewis had some interesting analogies for that point as well, over in Narnia - they involved some dwarves in a stable.

Quote from: Engine;250150I particularly like how Jack blames Drew for putting him in this uncomfortable situation.

Dude, his argument boils down to "I believe in God because it's the only thing keeping me alive."

How am I supposed to respond to that?  It's not a very persuasive argument, but I don't want Drew to go kill himself because I pointed out he's being kind of irrational.

Quote from: wulfgar;250153-You are the product of billions of years of random chance.  Through chance, the universe was created.  Through chance, this planet was formed with such conditions that through chance, life would arise where there was no life before.  And through chance, that first life, a microscopic cell, evolved over the ages into a human being sitting there typing on a computer....pretty fantastical.

I think perhaps you and I have wildly differing notions as to what qualifies as "fantastical." Could you perhaps use another word, chosen more advisedly?

Also, what is it you mean by, "through chance?" I'm having a difficult time thinking of anything that happens through chance - I believe our universe is one of strict causality - but that may be an artifact of my understanding of the term.

Quote from: Jackalope;250160Dude, his argument boils down to "I believe in God because it's the only thing keeping me alive."

How am I supposed to respond to that?  It's not a very persuasive argument, but I don't want Drew to go kill himself because I pointed out he's being kind of irrational.

So all pretenses aside, you are attacking him but want to weasel out of actually owning the attack.

Quote from: Jackalope;250160Dude, his argument boils down to "I believe in God because it's the only thing keeping me alive." How am I supposed to respond to that?

Don't.

QuoteI think perhaps you and I have wildly differing notions as to what qualifies as "fantastical." Could you perhaps use another word, chosen more advisedly?

How about "amazing"?  Does that work any better?  

QuoteAlso, what is it you mean by, "through chance?" I'm having a difficult time thinking of anything that happens through chance - I believe our universe is one of strict causality - but that may be an artifact of my understanding of the term.

By chance I mean randomness.  The big bang happens.  Not just happens, but happens when and how it did.  A comet hurtling through the galaxy happens to impact with the earth and annihilate the dinosaurs, allowing mammals who were minor players on the planet to evolve into the dominant form of life, and ultimately mankind.  That kind of thing.  While I share your belief in cause and effect, I'd argue that randomness can be a cause, or one of multiple causes.

God didn't have to come into the discussion...but oops! too late.

There's a woman I met more than 10 years ago at a convention (another person that dresses up as Klingon)  - she doesn't believe in the Christian version of God. When she went through her 12-step program that was one of things she had a problem - the whole help/surrendering to a  "higher power" thing. Her sponsor asked her: whats the closest that she could get to that concept? She answered The Klingon Warrior Ethic.  So THAT became her higher power for her 12 step program.

She is now a grandmother out in California, still rides her Harley-Davidson and is in a good marriage. Does she believe in souls ? Heck yeah - just not the Christian version. Last time I talked to her, one of her friends had got her seriously into the pagan culture & faith.


- Ed C.

There's a name for creating your own god: idolatry.

Quote from: Ikrast;250158I haven't read through here and I don't know what claims other folk have made here, but this single statement reflects some confusion about what Christians, at least, mean when they say that know God, and don't know God.

Yeah, no, not really.

QuoteThe roots of the discussion about "knowing" go back to (at least) Paul's writing in Corinthians (in a glass, darkly, and all that), but a really good discussion of it is in Lewis's "Mere Christianity". Since I expect that no one here who hasn't read it is going to, I'll summarize-

Yeah, I've read Mere Christianity.  I've read most of Lewis's published works.

QuoteBut God can perceive us and can choose to communicate to us, and in a variety of ways. Lewis focuses on three: 1) what we can see of creation, the external reality that we CAN see and measure, which gives us hints about a creator. Hints at best. 2) What we can determine about our own nature, such as the built-in desire for justice, fairness, and all the other positive human attributes that make no sense in a random universe without meaning. 3) The possibly of revelation, in which God presents himself in simplified forms that we can comprehend, at least somewhat. (Which is the idea behind "in a glass, darkly", etc.)

The problem with all of Lewis arguments is that the start with the assumption that God exists, and then work their way back to proving it.  Taoism sees the exact same elements in 1 & 2, but sees that as evidence of the impersonal Tao, the way of the things.  To the Taoist the way of things serves no purpose, it simply is.  There need be no reason for things to be, things can simply exist to exist.

Ultimately, Lewis only knows to look for God in those first two areas because he's been told to through revelation.  But we have no reason to believe any source of revelation over any other.  Lewis is ultimately a victim of his own biases.  He only suggests we search for the Christian god in nature and ourselves because he is already a Christian.

QuoteOf course, if you deny the existence of revelation, don't see any pattern or order in the external world, and decide that human morality is an illusion or fantasy arising out of a meaningless universe and based on meaningless pleasure and meaningless pain, then none of those sources of information are the least bit convincing. It all comes down to your choices and perceptions, in the end.

Those are false dilemmas.  Taoists see patterns and order in the external world, but they do not attribute them to a God, to a motivated entity.  Taoists see morality as that which is in harmony with the natural way of things.  Taoists go with the flow, which requires one to see the world as being in a state of flow, and being able to sense "the currents" as they were.

Why are theists more convincing than Taoists?  Taoism requires on to embrace less complex explanations.  Applying Occam's razor, I find Taoism to be far more rational and reasonable a proposition than theism in general, and the Abrahamic religions in particular.

Quote from: Jackalope;250160Dude, his argument boils down to "I believe in God because it's the only thing keeping me alive."

How am I supposed to respond to that?  It's not a very persuasive argument, but I don't want Drew to go kill himself because I pointed out he's being kind of irrational.

If my sobriety were such a fragile thing then I would have lost it a long time ago. You pointing out that my chosen path is irrational really isn't going to dent my enthusiasm for it.

Quote from: Patriarch917;250170There's a name for creating your own god: idolatry.

Fuck off, you sanctimonious cunt.

Quote from: wulfgar;250167How about "amazing"?  Does that work any better?

Not to me. I don't know, there's a sense of the inexplicable about both words, when in fact the general causes of these things are reasonably well-understood, in terms of mechanisms if not specifics - thankfully, or science would be rather boring!

Quote from: wulfgar;250167By chance I mean randomness.  The big bang happens.  Not just happens, but happens when and how it did.  A comet hurtling through the galaxy happens to impact with the earth and annihilate the dinosaurs, allowing mammals who were minor players on the planet to evolve into the dominant form of life, and ultimately mankind.

None of those things are random. Well, the Big Bang may have been; we know too little of the conditions of what lies beyond or before or outside our universe to speak to causality in those conditions, but comet impacts aren't random at all! That's all basic Newtonian physics and the inevitable result of solar system formation as we understand it.

Too often, "random" is the word we use when the causes are not yet known, as so very many causes are not, and may in fact continue to not be, but randomness means something else entirely. To be random is to be without causality, and nothing we've experienced so far in the universe gives an indication that causality has been violated...although some implications of quantum mechanics bid close to it.

Quote from: Koltar;250168God didn't have to come into the discussion...but oops! too late.

Honestly, I'm pleased we got some 29 posts in before things got derailed by debate. Good on us.

Quote from: Koltar;250168Her sponsor asked her: whats the closest that she could get to that concept? She answered The Klingon Warrior Ethic.  So THAT became her higher power for her 12 step program.

I know when I die she'll be waiting with her ship of the Black Fleet, to kill me a thousand times, laughing, but I still think that's pretty lame. :)

Quote from: Patriarch917;250170There's a name for creating your own god: idolatry.

There's also a book : Deities and Demigods .

Edit: Also what One Horse Town said.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Drew;250174If my sobriety were such a fragile thing then I would have lost it a long time ago. You pointing out that my chosen path is irrational really isn't going to dent my enthusiasm for it.

Then I would just point out that what you are calling God is a psychological tool that allows you to engage with internal creative processes.  That you experience personal growth by believing in a personal God is no more proof of God than Koltar's friend's experiences of personal growth through belief in a Klingon Warrior Ethic is proof of Klingons.

That's hardly a defense of religion or religious belief.  You may have found relief from your addictions by embracing a belief in god, but you are trading addiction for delusion.  If you were really over your addictions, if you were actually healed, you wouldn't need to believe in a supernatural entity.

You said: "I'm totally cool with people thinking I'm a self-deluding titan of willpower who needs to make idol masks of his personal assets in order to utilise them. I can never let myself fall into that belief again though, it damned nearly killed me a few years ago." which implies to me that if you were to allow yourself to believe that you disassociated your personal assets in order to utilize them, you would be in danger of killing yourself.

That sounds like a very troubling position to be in, where your life hangs on the acceptance of something you seem to understand is a made-up belief.  It would seem to me that a sign of further growth would be the ability to reclaim your intellectual facilities and put aside childish notions of make-believe.

QuoteNone of those things are random. Well, the Big Bang may have been; we know too little of the conditions of what lies beyond or before or outside our universe to speak to causality in those conditions, but comet impacts aren't random at all! That's all basic Newtonian physics and the inevitable result of solar system formation as we understand it.

Too often, "random" is the word we use when the causes are not yet known, as so very many causes are not, and may in fact continue to not be, but randomness means something else entirely. To be random is to be without causality, and nothing we've experienced so far in the universe gives an indication that causality has been violated...although some implications of quantum mechanics bid close to it.

hmmm.  I think we're on different wavelengths in regards to a definition for randomness.  You seem to be saying that randomness exists only in theory, yet from my experience randomness is a basic element of many areas of mathematics.

Since rpgs are the topic of the site, lets use them as an example.  You roll a d20.  What makes it come up the way it does?  Friction, rotation, all that sort of stuff right.  But, but unless you've weighted your dice, you can't repeat the result.  For all pratical purposes it is random.  

I have the sudden urge to drop some water on your hand.  Just before the dinosaurs attack!!!!! :)

Quote from: David R;250184There's also a book : Deities and Demigods .

Edit: Also what One Horse Town said.

Regards,
David R

Apologies. This is getting under my skin. I think you put it better. :o

Quote from: wulfgar;250188hmmm.  I think we're on different wavelengths in regards to a definition for randomness.

Yes, I believe you're correct.

Quote from: wulfgar;250188Since rpgs are the topic of the site, lets use them as an example.  You roll a d20.  What makes it come up the way it does?  Friction, rotation, all that sort of stuff right.  But, but unless you've weighted your dice, you can't repeat the result.  For all pratical purposes it is random.

Interesting. By saying, "For all practical purposes," you're implying that random does have a meaning in which causality is disregarded, but you're simultaneously speaking truth: that the result of the die has a cause, it is simply one which we are not aware of.

Quote from: wulfgar;250188I have the sudden urge to drop some water on your hand.  Just before the dinosaurs attack!!!!! :)

One of my most passionate lectures comes from that moment. Unfortunately, book and film were written while we still called it "Chaos Theory," which at various times we thought actually described what we were seeing: an underlying noncausal agent in the universe, a randomness underlying everything. Various people were very pleased: this left them room for pseudoscientific explanations of "free will" and such things. Unfortunately, it was some time before we realized it was not chaos, at all, but merely an artifact of ignorance: the phrase we use now is the Theory of Complex Systems, and it leads to some mathematics I find truly bewildering. [edit: Many researchers still use the older moniker, for consistency if nothing else, which leads to some wonderful phrases in the literature, including my personal favorite, "deterministic chaos."]

Anyway, my position is that while sometimes the universe can appear non-causal, it never is; its appearance as such is a result of the limitations of information. If we had perfect information - which we currently believe to be impossible, though I have my doubts - there would be nothing chaotic in the universe; all would have cause, and all causes could be known and understood. Within quantum circles, my beliefs are widely held to be in ignorance of current research; in truth, it is not ignorance, but rejection. Still, I have some ways to go before I can prove Uncertainty doesn't mean Randomness. It's just like the die: there is a reason you rolled the 20, we simply don't possess enough information to elucidate that reason.

QuoteIt's just like the die: there is a reason you rolled the 20, we simply don't possess enough information to elucidate that reason.

That sounds an awful lot like faith.  I mean, how do you know it has a reason?

As for the die being random "for all practical purposes", I thought over those words, and used them because for all practical purposes is what we can measure.  You and I can agree that practically speaking the roll of the die is random.  For "non-practical purposes" the roll of the die may or may not be random.  You and I don't really know.

That you leave the Big Bang open as a potential exception to your non-randomness belief would also seem to be a pretty significant item.  If the entire creation of the universe was a random act, so too would be everything that stemmed from it.

The point of my post was basically: If that works for Drew and keeps him sane , healthy and away from the things he was addicted to - then his belief in God and Souls is a good thing and shouldn't be mocked.

 My friend does not believe in the same version of God - but what she did worked for her and her 12 step program. She also believes in souls. I wouldn't mock her either for her beliefs.

I don't think that there has to be a conflict there.

- Ed C.

Quote from: Jackalope;250173Ultimately, Lewis only knows to look for God in those first two areas because he's been told to through revelation.

Well, no. We search those things because, in the absence of revelation, they are all we have. The exterior world and the interior world of self (and some would argue even that dichotomy is false), are the only places to look for anything. What you find depends, I think, on how carefully you look. There is no Christian revelation I'm aware of that says "search the world for evidence of Me". There doesn't need to be. There's nowhere else to look, for anything.

Quote from: Jackalope;250173Those are false dilemmas.  Taoists see patterns and order in the external world, but they do not attribute them to a God, to a motivated entity.  Taoists see morality as that which is in harmony with the natural way of things.  Taoists go with the flow, which requires one to see the world as being in a state of flow, and being able to sense "the currents" as they were.

Why are theists more convincing than Taoists?  Taoism requires on to embrace less complex explanations.  Applying Occam's razor, I find Taoism to be far more rational and reasonable a proposition than theism in general, and the Abrahamic religions in particular.

Yes, I find Taoism to be nicely simple. "Go with the flow" makes no demands. All you have to do is act in harmony with whatever you perceive the flow to be. And since that turns out to be a matter of personal interpretation - there's nothing in the Tao to define it by any other standard... well, at that point being moral (bad word, since there is no good or evil in the Tao - we'll call it "in tune") is exactly as difficult as you wish it to be. If you perceive nature as "red in tooth and claw", then that's the natural order, and you act accordingly. Some do. If you perceive nature as a finally balanced machine promoting peace (how people perceive this I am not certain, but some manage), then you act accordingly. It's all the Tao. It's not difficult to satisfy a system that makes no direct claims beyond "be".

A friend of mine, long ago, once asked me what the difference was between the Tao and a mirror. Being flip, I said "the mirror". After a short lecture on how being flip never helps anyone really understand anything, he gave me what he thought the answer was: the clarity of the reflection. In the mirror, you see yourself. In the Tao, you see yourself - without clarity, and you call it by other names.

It's worth noting that he was Buddhist, not precisely a Taoist. Still, I though he had something, there.

If you have read a lot of Lewis, you know he wasn't always a Christian. People aren't generally born as Christians; some, like Lewis, got there by working it through. You might say, really, that he found God through the Tao: observing the natural order (occasionally as embodied by Tolkien) and coming to certain conclusions. What makes that any worse than your interpretation of things?

Quote from: Koltar;250198I don't think that there has to be a conflict there.

- Ed C.

Precisely. Even though i am agnostic, i find it amazing that folks feel threatened enough by others' beliefs that they insist on rubishing them at every turn. It's bollocks.

You never now anything (especially spiritual experiences) until you have experienced them for yourself.

Quote from: One Horse Town;250206Precisely. Even though i am agnostic, i find it amazing that folks feel threatened enough by others' beliefs that they insist on rubishing them at every turn. It's bollocks.

You never now anything (especially spiritual experiences) until you have experienced them for yourself.

This.

Quote from: wulfgar;250197That sounds an awful lot like faith.  I mean, how do you know it has a reason?

Oh, I don't know it has a reason. Like my beliefs on soul and gods and mysticism, it is based on my experiences and learning, but the lack of evidence [again] isn't evidence of lack: when we see something really random-looking come down the pipe, we always have to look at it and say, "This really could be random, and not deterministic chaos. Let's try to figure it out." Science means never being able to say you're certain.

Quote from: wulfgar;250197If the entire creation of the universe was a random act, so too would be everything that stemmed from it.

Not necessarily: the space outside our universe could be non-causal, while still allowing to be created within it a space which has a causal system. Same with things like gravity, and entropy: whatever our universe is embedded in - if that's how it works at all! - could be anentropic, and still allow to be created an entropic universe such as ours. The "bubble" that is our universe could behave according to laws without relation to the space outside; we [currently] have no way of knowing, although we're working on it!

Quote from: One Horse Town;250206You never now anything (especially spiritual experiences) until you have experienced them for yourself.

I would argue that having experienced something yourself still doesn't mean you know anything, experience being as flawed as it often is.

Quote from: wulfgar;250197l exception to your non-randomness belief would also seem to be a pretty significant item.  If the entire creation of the universe was a random act, so too would be everything that stemmed from it.

I'm going to raise an eyebrow here and claim people are messing with words they do not understand. "Random" has a number of definitions. One is "unpredictable". Another is "meaningless". An event can be (we believe) either, neither, or both. Arguing from one to the other is a very, very common mistake; if you don't pay close attention, you're about guaranteed to make it.

Physicists and statisticians mean (and should stick to) "unpredictable".

For a philosopher (I'm not one, but I play one on the 'net), the meanings are nearly contradictory. If nothing is truly unpredictable, then everything is preordained by the previous state. Tell me the state of the big bang and I can precompute everything that has and will happen, in theory. In that view, there are no choices, and hence, no meaning in anything.

We don't seem to live in such a universe, though for a few centuries, people thought maybe we did. Some things seem to be inherently unpredictable, largely because it turns out to be impossible to really measure the state of anything with the necessary degree of accuracy, and possibly for other reasons as well. That puts us in a universe where things might be (but don't have to be) meaningful, from some absolute viewpoint, or even our own.

Arguments about meaning rapidly become depressing. Just about everyone wants to demand that they and their choices are meaningful, and not just to them - at least, once they understand what "meaningless" actually means, pun intended. But most people generally can't put together an explanation of WHY choices are or should be meaningful, to save their lives.

Quote from: Ikrast;250212For a philosopher (I'm not one, but I play one on the 'net), the meanings are nearly contradictory. If nothing is truly unpredictable, then everything is preordained by the previous state. Tell me the state of the big bang and I can precompute everything that has and will happen, in theory.

I agree with this view.

Quote from: Ikrast;250212We don't seem to live in such a universe, though for a few centuries, people thought maybe we did. Some things seem to be inherently unpredictable, largely because it turns out to be impossible to really measure the state of anything with the necessary degree of accuracy...

There's a difference - and here's a pain-in-the-ass of the English language - between "unable to be predicted at the present time by humans" and "absolutely unpredictable under any circumstances." I would hesitate to look at things like the EPR paradox and the Uncertainty Principle and use them as examples of inherent unable-to-be-predicted-at-all-ness; there's really nothing that's been observed that suggests the universe is nondeterministic, only that we humans at this time can't make predictions or even observations beyond a certain level; but our inability shouldn't be mistaken for some quality of the universe.

Somewhere in the quantum movement, "we cannot detect the position and velocity of a particle" become "particles have no position or velocity," and while it's a useful transformation for the mathematics involved - when you can't directly observe something, statistics are useful - but somehow, the mathematical approximation became accepted as the actual reality; people believe the cat is half-alive and half-dead, when in reality, it is either one of those things or the other, but mathematically we have to treat both things as being half-possible, because of the limitations of information.

Quote from: Engine;250211I would argue that having experienced something yourself still doesn't mean you know anything, experience being as flawed as it often is.

:idunno: That's your thing to work out, as it is, everyones. How you interpret it is down to your own experience, mindset, and personality.

Quote from: Ikrast;250212Arguments about meaning rapidly become depressing. Just about everyone wants to demand that they and their choices are meaningful, and not just to them - at least, once they understand what "meaningless" actually means, pun intended. But most people generally can't put together an explanation of WHY choices are or should be meaningful, to save their lives.

I don't think that choice or freedom is necessary for our lives to be meaningful.  If I swing an intelligent sword at an orc, the sword may rightly conclude that it has a purpose and the the motion is meaningful, even if the sword had no say in the decision to swing it.

The sword need merely ask whether it was swung with a purpose, or without one.  It can probably deduce this by looking at who is holding it, and where it is headed.

Quote from: Engine- which we currently believe to be impossible, though I have my doubts

We can't, uncentrainty principe prevents it, and even if we could gather perfect information, where would we store all that data.

Quote from: EngineWithin quantum circles, my beliefs are widely held to be in ignorance of current research; in truth, it is not ignorance, but rejection.

Don't worry about it, quantum effects don't leak too much into macrocosm... there's some theory called quantum decoherency that explains why...

Quote from: Fritzs;250220We can't, uncentrainty principe prevents it...

No, it means it's impossible today. It's impossible for some very simple, easily explicable reasons, although I prefer to explain why in a dark room with a pool table. Anyway, I'm not yet ready to surrender to Heisenberg.

Quote from: Fritzs;250220...and even if we could gather perfect information, where would we store all that data.

Why, outside, of course. The universe, I mean. ;)

Quote from: Fritzs;250220Don't worry about it, quantum effects don't leak too much into macrocosm... there's some theory called quantum decoherency that explains why...

Quantum decoherence, and while I don't claim to be an expert in the field, it should be noted that while all the words in your sentence have meaning, they're not particularly meaningful in combination with each other, at least to me.

Nothing to say, Engine?

Quote from: wulfgar;250153Why do you think God lacked a lot of foresight?

I'd argue that taking either one of your options (belief or unbelief in God) requires believing in a fantastical explanation.

-You were personally created in the image and likeness of an all-powerful, all-knowing God who has existed since before time began....pretty fantastical.

-You are the product of billions of years of random chance.  Through chance, the universe was created.  Through chance, this planet was formed with such conditions that through chance, life would arise where there was no life before.  And through chance, that first life, a microscopic cell, evolved over the ages into a human being sitting there typing on a computer....pretty fantastical.

So unless someone simply never thinks about such things, I'd say the choice is which fantastical explanation you believe in, not whether to believe one or not.

Really. I would argue more this way.

- Belief in a magical creature that never shows itself, has infinite power, infinite good, and yet still does nothing for the suffering of his creations. A fantastical 10000 years ago, it whipped up the universe in 7 days. Fantastical and weak sauce at that.

- Belief in provable, reproducible, experiments and archaeological evidence. A verifiable age that goes beyond 10000 years. Evolutionary principles that go far beyond reproducible to actually being used in industry and real life. Random chance is not such a daunting thing if you understand how it works. It means nothing to stand at the end of incredible odds and look back if your pool of probability is large enough.

Now, it may sound like I am saying "You must believe what I believe" but that is not my goal.

Bill

Quote from: One Horse Town;250235Nothing to say, Engine?

I'm sorry; nothing to say to what?

QuoteNow, it may sound like I am saying "You must believe what I believe" but that is not my goal.

Not at all Bill.  No offence taken in the slightest.

QuoteBelief in a magical creature that never shows itself, has infinite power, infinite good, and yet still does nothing for the suffering of his creations. A fantastical 10000 years ago, it whipped up the universe in 7 days. Fantastical and weak sauce at that.

Speaking at least from a Catholic Christian perspective, pretty much all of what you decribe is different then what I believe:

-I belive God has shown Himself to us in a multitude of ways and continues to do so.
-I believe God does a great deal for those who are suffering
-I think the world is older than 10,000 years and nothing in my religion's teachings tells me I have to think otherwise.  Could I be wrong, and the world reall is 10,000 years old? Sure.  I think the evidence supports a much, much older earth, but it wouldn't blow my mind or destroy my faith if new evidence showed the earth younger or older then what I think it is.

QuoteBelief in provable, reproducible, experiments and archaeological evidence. A verifiable age that goes beyond 10000 years. Evolutionary principles that go far beyond reproducible to actually being used in industry and real life. Random chance is not such a daunting thing if you understand how it works. It means nothing to stand at the end of incredible odds and look back if your pool of probability is large enough.

I too think science is an important tool for understanding the universe.  However, I would counter that there have been no proveable or reproducable experiments conducted for things like creating the earth or creating life where there was no life before, so arguing things in those terms in regards to creation sounds a bit like...weak sauce :)

And still, there's nothing in my faith that says evolution doesn't or can't happen.  Personally, I think that it's quite likely evolution is a tool used by God in His creation.

You're critique of belief in a God who created the universe and then sits back and watches it go to hell in a handbasket, does sound a good deal like the "watchmaker" view of God or generally what Deist believe.  This view is, again generally speaking, rejected by pretty much all Christian denominations, who believe God is active and involved in the Universe.

I hope I don't come across as "you must believe as I believe" either.

Quote from: HinterWelt;250248Really. I would argue more this way.

- Belief in a magical creature that never shows itself, has infinite power, infinite good, and yet still does nothing for the suffering of his creations. A fantastical 10000 years ago, it whipped up the universe in 7 days. Fantastical and weak sauce at that.

- Belief in provable, reproducible, experiments and archaeological evidence. A verifiable age that goes beyond 10000 years. Evolutionary principles that go far beyond reproducible to actually being used in industry and real life. Random chance is not such a daunting thing if you understand how it works. It means nothing to stand at the end of incredible odds and look back if your pool of probability is large enough.

Now, it may sound like I am saying "You must believe what I believe" but that is not my goal.

Bill

I would argue more this way:

- Belief in a supernatural deity that frequently has revealed Himself, has infinite power, infinite good, and is willing to relieve the suffering of his creations by taking their sufferings upon himself. About 6,000 years ago, he whipped up the universe in 6 days (and rested on the seventh).

- Belief in unprovable speculation that cannot be reproduced by experiments and has no basis in archaeological evidence. No verifiable method to date things beyond 10000 years. Evolutionary principles that either are bland enough to fit within a creationist model (some people have red hair), or absurdly inexplicable (bat wings evolved from webbed fingers), and that make almost no contribution to industry and progress (which are driven by intelligent designs). An explanation that is empty at it's core (origin of universe, origin of life), and must ask it's adherents to accept as happening by chance events that are either apparently impossible (an environment suitable to create the components of a cell is unsuitable to sustain a living cell) or, under the best of circumstance, so improbable as to militate against their happening by chance (the universe is, by the most popular theories, neither big enough nor old enough to give a pool of probability large enough to expect life to occur by chance, and to survive).

Fantastical and weak sauce at that.

Oh, my.

Quote from: wulfgar;250262Not at all Bill.  No offence taken in the slightest.

Good. It is difficult to discuss this sort of thing without sounding like one is trying to demand acknowledgment from the other. I will endeavor to keep my language and approach reasonable.

Quote from: wulfgar;250262Speaking at least from a Catholic Christian perspective, pretty much all of what you decribe is different then what I believe:

This is not my experience. I will expand below.

Quote from: wulfgar;250262-I belive God has shown Himself to us in a multitude of ways and continues to do so.

In what ways? Please be as specific as possible. I mean this not as a "gotcha" kind of thing but more in understanding. I can look at a tree and understand it developed from smaller plants during the coniferous period. Are you saying yo look at a tree and see the hand of God? Or is it a case that you believe in miracles? The former is purely a rationale (and I mean that in the dictionary sense not the insult sense) for God in everything. In this sense, there can be no "right" or "wrong" since it is your chosen means of seeing an object. In the later, I merely question the validity of any report.

Quote from: wulfgar;250262-I believe God does a great deal for those who are suffering

Again, in what way do you mean? I have heard it expressed that:
a) God helps those that help themselves
b) God helps the suffering through others (other people)
c) God grants solace through your faith

In the case of "a" I would say this is merely a mode of motivating yourself. Not to be dismissed as bad in itself but not to be granted merit to a deity. You did it after all. It is like when i hold my son's hand when he is going to jump off a rock. He can do it but he needs that assurance even though I do not help him.

In "b" I would just say that is the goodwill of human beings. Where it comes from does not concern me beyond saying that it is in the person to start with. Noe deity need be involved, IMO.

Finally, "c" is a variation of "a". That is to say, mind over matter, surrogate confidence, whatever you wish to call it.

A side note, please understand, I have no issue with faith. Faith can be powerful tool, it can ease a persons life, help deal with hard and good times. I have issue with most external morality, organized religions and abdication of personal responsibility in the face of a "greater" power.

Quote from: wulfgar;250262-I think the world is older than 10,000 years and nothing in my religion's teachings tells me I have to think otherwise.  Could I be wrong, and the world reall is 10,000 years old? Sure.  I think the evidence supports a much, much older earth, but it wouldn't blow my mind or destroy my faith if new evidence showed the earth younger or older then what I think it is.

So, your religion should tell you it only took 7 days right? That in fact it was the universe that took 7 days to create? There are many versions of the bible but I think that is in most of them. If this is the case, the point stands. There are many theories on planet formation but I do not think any of them say 1 day for the earth and 5 for the universe.

Now, I have heard the argument that this is "God Days" or the scale is not important or variations on Intelligent Design. I find this to again be a case of fitting your views to what you see. The same could be argued for anything and by definition, God made everything. Therefore, the argument is one of your perception, you chosen perception and no more. Again, this is not wrong, it is just not empirically correct. That is to say, it is not a fact, it is your opinion (and the opinion of many Christians).

Quote from: wulfgar;250262I hope I don't come across as "you must believe as I believe" either.

Likewise.

Bill

Quote from: Patriarch917;250268I would argue more this way:

- Belief in a supernatural deity that frequently has revealed Himself, has infinite power, infinite good, and is willing to relieve the suffering of his creations by taking their sufferings upon himself. About 6,000 years ago, he whipped up the universe in 6 days (and rested on the seventh).

Really? Cause I see a heck of a lot of diehard, dedicated Christians suffering a lot. I don't mean, can't pay the mortgage, but being raped by Priests, the guardians of the flock, the representatives of their God. There are many more versions but that is a good start.

So, where did the Dinosaurs go? What are the Neanderthal and Cromagnon skeletons? Tests of our faith by God or is it the Devil?

Quote from: Patriarch917;250268- Belief in unprovable speculation that cannot be reproduced by experiments and has no basis in archaeological evidence.

You mean like the fossil record?

Quote from: Patriarch917;250268No verifiable method to date things beyond 10000 years. Evolutionary principles that either are bland enough to fit within a creationist model (some people have red hair), or absurdly inexplicable (bat wings evolved from webbed fingers), and that make almost no contribution to industry and progress (which are driven by intelligent designs).

Dude, you went so far off the reservation I cannot even see you. Take a stupid simple example of evolution, selective breeding. Dogs are specialized to tasks because we picked traits and bred for them. That is the weakest version of evolution in industry.

Quote from: Patriarch917;250268An explanation that is empty at it's core (origin of universe, origin of life), and must ask it's adherents to accept as happening by chance events that are either apparently impossible (an environment suitable to create the components of a cell is unsuitable to sustain a living cell) or, under the best of circumstance, so improbable as to militate against their happening by chance (the universe is, by the most popular theories, neither big enough nor old enough to give a pool of probability large enough to expect life to occur by chance, and to survive).

Fantastical and weak sauce at that.

Yes, your argument is fantastical and weak sauce. Maybe a troll.

Bill

Quote from: Engine;250252I'm sorry; nothing to say to what?

If i have to tell you, then we have nothing left to talk about.

Quote from: HinterWelt;250283Really? Cause I see a heck of a lot of diehard, dedicated Christians suffering a lot. I don't mean, can't pay the mortgage, but being raped by Priests, the guardians of the flock, the representatives of their God. There are many more versions but that is a good start.

You said He "does nothing for the suffering of his creations."  I said that He has done something.  I didn't say that suffering doesn't exist.  As long as sin exists, suffering will follow.  However, God has provided the means for doing away with sin, and thus with suffering.

Quote from: HinterWelt;250283So, where did the Dinosaurs go? What are the Neanderthal and Cromagnon skeletons? Tests of our faith by God or is it the Devil?

Dinosaurs went extinct.  Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon skeletons are the skeletons of dead humans.  Neither.

Quote from: HinterWelt;250283You mean like the fossil record?

The theory of evolution was not based on the fossil record, but on speculation extrapolating from observation of variations within living animals. It was proposed that the fossil record might show links, but has never yielded anything seriously supporting the proposition that all forms of life came from common ancestors.

Quote from: HinterWelt;250283Dude, you went so far off the reservation I cannot even see you. Take a stupid simple example of evolution, selective breeding. Dogs are specialized to tasks because we picked traits and bred for them. That is the weakest version of evolution in industry.

You've got it backwards on all counts.  First, the theory of Evolution didn't give rise to the idea of breeding dogs, it was the other way around. Second, that's a clear example of intelligent design contributing to industry and process.

Quote from: Patriarch917;250288You said He "does nothing for the suffering of his creations."  I said that He has done something.  I didn't say that suffering doesn't exist.  As long as sin exists, suffering will follow.  However, God has provided the means for doing away with sin, and thus with suffering.

But didn't Christ die for our sins?

Beyond that, this all powerful god then allows his creations to suffer when he could prevent it. Damn, cruel if you ask me.

Quote from: Patriarch917;250288Dinosaurs went extinct.  Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon skeletons are the skeletons of dead humans.  Neither.

What, last week? It kind of screws with the 6K marker a bit.

Quote from: Patriarch917;250288The theory of evolution was not based on the fossil record, but on speculation extrapolating from observation of variations within living animals. It was proposed that the fossil record might show links, but has never yielded anything seriously supporting the proposition that all forms of life came from common ancestors.

No, it wasn't and I did not say it was. However, it is a record that kind of screws with your time line again.

Quote from: Patriarch917;250288You've got it backwards on all counts.  First, the theory of Evolution didn't give rise to the idea of breeding dogs, it was the other way around. Second, that's a clear example of intelligent design contributing to industry and process.

I did not say originally that it was how the theory of evolution was developed. I said it was an example of it in industry and in use by man.

You know, I really think you are a troll.

Bill

I think I need brain bleach after reading Pat917's posts.
 
Hmmmm, who do I believe, multiple geniuses trying to piece together the puzle of existence, or do I believe some bible thumping lunatic that relies on the ignorance of the past to convey their "reality"?
 
Alex, I'll take Science for 500.

Quote from: Patriarch917;250288The theory of evolution was not based on the fossil record, but on speculation extrapolating from observation of variations within living animals. It was proposed that the fossil record might show links, but has never yielded anything seriously supporting the proposition that all forms of life came from common ancestors.

Someone really needs to make a website slide show that shows all of the different links that idiots like this claim don't exist.

Oh wait, someone did. (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=UIijwkaqKzY&feature=related)

Well, wulfgar, Ikrast and Patriarch917, I've had a good night's sleep and I'm still unconvinced by any of your arguments. They seem to rely heavily on petitio principii.

double post

Alllright, whose sockpuppet is 917? CavScout? Jackalope doing something really, really elaborate?

Maybe TonyLB got drunk... but the typing's too consistent, even down to the deliberately misused it's. Does anyone know if he's experimenting with crack cocaine?

Welp. Whoever it is, thanks for ruining it... the thread was good while it lasted. I hope you're happy whoever you are.

QuoteSo, your religion should tell you it only took 7 days right? That in fact it was the universe that took 7 days to create? There are many versions of the bible but I think that is in most of them. If this is the case, the point stands. There are many theories on planet formation but I do not think any of them say 1 day for the earth and 5 for the universe.

Now, I have heard the argument that this is "God Days" or the scale is not important or variations on Intelligent Design. I find this to again be a case of fitting your views to what you see. The same could be argued for anything and by definition, God made everything. Therefore, the argument is one of your perception, you chosen perception and no more. Again, this is not wrong, it is just not empirically correct. That is to say, it is not a fact, it is your opinion (and the opinion of many Christians).

Again, I can offer what I think, not what I know, because I really don't know for sure how the universe was created.  That being said:

1. I believe the Earth was not made in 6, 24 hour days.
2. There is no article in my faith (Catholicism) that tells me I must believe otherwise.
3. The Bible was not created as a single book.  It's a collection of a bunch of books.  Of these books some are historical records, some are poems, some are allegorical, etc.  While they all contained Truth, they are not all to be read as historical records.  As an example of what I mean, let's look at the book Animal Farm.  It contains some powerful truths- power corrupts being the big one.  Yet, it wasn't written to tell the reader about a real farm with walking, talking animals who set up a political process, wage war, and do all sorts of other stuff.  This issue is often a bone of contention between Catholics and Protestant Christians.  The Catholic believes divine revelation is contained in two sources: Sacred Scripture (the Bible) and Sacred Tradition (the teaching authority of the Church- that's the short short explanation for Tradition with a capital T).  Tradition guides the interpretation of scripture.  For the Protestant, they see Sacred Scripture as the sole source of Divine Revelation.  This leads to a widely divergent range of views.  Some Protestants believe everything in the Bible is to be taken literally.  Some understand that various literary forms are used, but the determination of what is literal and what is allegorical falls onto the individual.  This is part of why Protestantism continues to fracture into more and more denominations.

In any case, if you'd like to dig more deeply into this I'd be happy to, but to get back on point, I don't think the earth was made in 6 24 hour days and this is not a case of me bucking the precepts of my faith.

QuoteIn what ways? Please be as specific as possible. I mean this not as a "gotcha" kind of thing but more in understanding. I can look at a tree and understand it developed from smaller plants during the coniferous period. Are you saying yo look at a tree and see the hand of God? Or is it a case that you believe in miracles? The former is purely a rationale (and I mean that in the dictionary sense not the insult sense) for God in everything. In this sense, there can be no "right" or "wrong" since it is your chosen means of seeing an object. In the later, I merely question the validity of any report.

God has maintained a close relationship with humanity since the beginning of time.  A few highlights along the way:
-Establishing his covenant with Abraham
-leading the Israelites out of Egypt and into the Promised Land.
-The life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ

Like I said, that's the short-short version.  The way that God is active in the world today that most immediately jumps to mind is through the Sacraments.  These would be:
-Baptism
-Confirmation
-Holy Communion (aka the Eucharist)
-Confession (aka Reconcilliation)
-Annointing of the Sick (the Sacrament formerly known as Last Rites :) )
-Marriage
-Holy Orders

The most central of these to God's relationship with Man is Holy Communion/Eucharist.  I don't expect a discussion thread on an rpg site to persuade you of the truth of this.  When I sit back and think about what is going on in the Eucharist, it blows my mind.  So I can very easily see how it sounds completely crazy to someone who is not too familiar (don't mean to speak out of turn, perhaps you are familiar).  So what happens in the Eucharist?  Basically, I consume the body and blood of Jesus Christ.  Not a reanactment or symbolic representation of his body and blood.  Not even his blood spilled again.  I participate in the same flesh and blood that he sacrificed on the cross about 2000 years ago.  So you'd be kinda sorta correct to say that I participate in a time travelling, cannibalistic ritual every Sunday, and some weekdays when I can make it to daily mass.  Like I said, sounds crazy.

QuoteAgain, in what way do you mean? I have heard it expressed that:
a) God helps those that help themselves
b) God helps the suffering through others (other people)
c) God grants solace through your faith

All of the above and more.  God answers prayers (not always the way we would have liked, but always in the best way possible).  God provides a plan for our lives.  God offers healing and forgiveness through the sacraments I listed above.  God offers an eternity of paradise in heaven to those who love and follow Him.  That last bit is very key.  The atheist looks at life and sees man born, lives, dies.  The Christian, getting back to the original question of this thread, sees that every man is an eternal being- with that soul thingamabob.  Everyone will exist forever.  Ultimately either in heaven or hell.  So yes, while there is suffering in this world, and as a Christian one should expect and welcome suffering it's all rather worth it if you can put up with suffering for say 80 years or so, for an eternity of paradise don't you think?  Eternity is a pretty long time :)

QuoteTake a stupid simple example of evolution, selective breeding. Dogs are specialized to tasks because we picked traits and bred for them. That is the weakest version of evolution in industry.

I see a number of issues with this:

1. The dogs didn't selectively breed themselves.  Man did it.  So there was a guiding intelligence or a designer.  While I'm quite open to the idea that evolution can operate in this way, as a tool used by a designer (God), that does not seem to be the stance you are advocating.  So how is this an example of unguided evolution rather than "intelligent design" assuming you had an intelligent dog breeder of course?

2. Every breed of dog is still a dog.  They can still mate with one another.  Non of them became a cat or a bird or a fish or a man.  None of them even became a space-age uber dog of the future.  So this does little to support the idea that evolution allows one species to evolve into another species.  

To be fair, you categorized this as a weak example yourself.  Do you have a "stronger" from industry, one that addresses either of these points- evolution acting in an unguided manner and evolution creating new species?

QuoteSo, your religion should tell you it only took 7 days right? That in fact it was the universe that took 7 days to create? There are many versions of the bible but I think that is in most of them. If this is the case, the point stands. There are many theories on planet formation but I do not think any of them say 1 day for the earth and 5 for the universe.

Now, I have heard the argument that this is "God Days" or the scale is not important or variations on Intelligent Design. I find this to again be a case of fitting your views to what you see. The same could be argued for anything and by definition, God made everything. Therefore, the argument is one of your perception, you chosen perception and no more. Again, this is not wrong, it is just not empirically correct. That is to say, it is not a fact, it is your opinion (and the opinion of many Christians).

Again, I can offer what I think, not what I know, because I really don't know for sure how the universe was created.  That being said:

1. I believe the Earth was not made in 6, 24 hour days.
2. There is no article in my faith (Catholicism) that tells me I must believe otherwise.
3. The Bible was not created as a single book.  It's a collection of a bunch of books.  Of these books some are historical records, some are poems, some are allegorical, etc.  While they all contained Truth, they are not all to be read as historical records.  As an example of what I mean, let's look at the book Animal Farm.  It contains some powerful truths- power corrupts being the big one.  Yet, it wasn't written to tell the reader about a real farm with walking, talking animals who set up a political process, wage war, and do all sorts of other stuff.  This issue is often a bone of contention between Catholics and Protestant Christians.  The Catholic believes divine revelation is contained in two sources: Sacred Scripture (the Bible) and Sacred Tradition (the teaching authority of the Church- that's the short short explanation for Tradition with a capital T).  Tradition guides the interpretation of scripture.  For the Protestant, they see Sacred Scripture as the sole source of Divine Revelation.  This leads to a widely divergent range of views.  Some Protestants believe everything in the Bible is to be taken literally.  Some understand that various literary forms are used, but the determination of what is literal and what is allegorical falls onto the individual.  This is part of why Protestantism continues to fracture into more and more denominations.

In any case, if you'd like to dig more deeply into this I'd be happy to, but to get back on point, I don't think the earth was made in 6 24 hour days and this is not a case of me bucking the precepts of my faith.

QuoteIn what ways? Please be as specific as possible. I mean this not as a "gotcha" kind of thing but more in understanding. I can look at a tree and understand it developed from smaller plants during the coniferous period. Are you saying yo look at a tree and see the hand of God? Or is it a case that you believe in miracles? The former is purely a rationale (and I mean that in the dictionary sense not the insult sense) for God in everything. In this sense, there can be no "right" or "wrong" since it is your chosen means of seeing an object. In the later, I merely question the validity of any report.

God has maintained a close relationship with humanity since the beginning of time.  A few highlights along the way:
-Establishing his covenant with Abraham
-leading the Israelites out of Egypt and into the Promised Land.
-The life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ

Like I said, that's the short-short version.  The way that God is active in the world today that most immediately jumps to mind is through the Sacraments.  These would be:
-Baptism
-Confirmation
-Holy Communion (aka the Eucharist)
-Confession (aka Reconcilliation)
-Annointing of the Sick (the Sacrament formerly known as Last Rites :) )
-Marriage
-Holy Orders

The most central of these to God's relationship with Man is Holy Communion/Eucharist.  I don't expect a discussion thread on an rpg site to persuade you of the truth of this.  When I sit back and think about what is going on in the Eucharist, it blows my mind.  So I can very easily see how it sounds completely crazy to someone who is not too familiar (don't mean to speak out of turn, perhaps you are familiar).  So what happens in the Eucharist?  Basically, I consume the body and blood of Jesus Christ.  Not a reanactment or symbolic representation of his body and blood.  Not even his blood spilled again.  I participate in the same flesh and blood that he sacrificed on the cross about 2000 years ago.  So you'd be kinda sorta correct to say that I participate in a time travelling, cannibalistic ritual every Sunday, and some weekdays when I can make it to daily mass.  Like I said, sounds crazy.

QuoteAgain, in what way do you mean? I have heard it expressed that:
a) God helps those that help themselves
b) God helps the suffering through others (other people)
c) God grants solace through your faith

All of the above and more.  God answers prayers (not always the way we would have liked, but always in the best way possible).  God provides a plan for our lives.  God offers healing and forgiveness through the sacraments I listed above.  God offers an eternity of paradise in heaven to those who love and follow Him.  That last bit is very key.  The atheist looks at life and sees man born, lives, dies.  The Christian, getting back to the original question of this thread, sees that every man is an eternal being- with that soul thingamabob.  Everyone will exist forever.  Ultimately either in heaven or hell.  So yes, while there is suffering in this world, and as a Christian one should expect and welcome suffering it's all rather worth it if you can put up with suffering for say 80 years or so, for an eternity of paradise don't you think?  Eternity is a pretty long time :)

QuoteTake a stupid simple example of evolution, selective breeding. Dogs are specialized to tasks because we picked traits and bred for them. That is the weakest version of evolution in industry.

I see a number of issues with this:

1. The dogs didn't selectively breed themselves.  Man did it.  So there was a guiding intelligence or a designer.  While I'm quite open to the idea that evolution can operate in this way, as a tool used by a designer (God), that does not seem to be the stance you are advocating.  So how is this an example of unguided evolution rather than "intelligent design" assuming you had an intelligent dog breeder of course?

2. Every breed of dog is still a dog.  They can still mate with one another.  Non of them became a cat or a bird or a fish or a man.  None of them even became a space-age uber dog of the future.  So this does little to support the idea that evolution allows one species to evolve into another species.  

To be fair, you categorized this as a weak example yourself.  Do you have a "stronger" from industry, one that addresses either of these points- evolution acting in an unguided manner and evolution creating new species?

As an aside, it's interesting that the basic science used in your example of breeding dogs for specific traits, while understood at various practical levels by very primitive man, was first explored in a more analytical way by Gregor Mendel, "the father of genetics" and a Catholic Priest.

QuoteNon of them became a cat or a bird or a fish or a man. None of them even became a space-age uber dog of the future.

We wouldn't expect this - if this did happen, it would probably refute evolution because going from dog to cat within human history would require steps so huge that your chances of getting the entire succession of intermediate forms in such quantum leaps each generation would be effectively zero.

I don't have the time to summarize, so I'll just link to the TalkOrigins (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html) thingy that talks about speciation. Now keep in mind these are all observations made in a span of less than 200 years, so yes the cichlid species are still cichlids - as it should be, for the same reason we don't expect a 20-foot stalagmite to grow from flat cave floor within a year, however much water you added to the system, or children this September to be learning a form of the English language at school that would be completely unintelligible to the people who taught us English.

Patriarch917: I think both bible theory (if you accept existence of omnipotent god) and so called scientific views are actually compatible. God is omnipotent, so there is no reason why god could not create universe, that looks and technicaly is 18 billions years old in six days about 6000 years ago. The next question is, if god can look into closed box without looking into it, create square circles and create rock so big, even omnipotent being cannot lift it.

Quote from: wulfgar;250404Again, I can offer what I think, not what I know, because I really don't know for sure how the universe was created.  That being said:

1. I believe the Earth was not made in 6, 24 hour days.

This violates the Dogma of your primary manual.

Quote from: wulfgar;2504042. There is no article in my faith (Catholicism) that tells me I must believe otherwise.

Your primary manual.

Quote from: wulfgar;2504043. The Bible was not created as a single book.  It's a collection of a bunch of books.  Of these books some are historical records, some are poems, some are allegorical, etc.  While they all contained Truth, they are not all to be read as historical records.  As an example of what I mean, let's look at the book Animal Farm.  It contains some powerful truths- power corrupts being the big one.  Yet, it wasn't written to tell the reader about a real farm with walking, talking animals who set up a political process, wage war, and do all sorts of other stuff.  This issue is often a bone of contention between Catholics and Protestant Christians.  The Catholic believes divine revelation is contained in two sources: Sacred Scripture (the Bible) and Sacred Tradition (the teaching authority of the Church- that's the short short explanation for Tradition with a capital T).  Tradition guides the interpretation of scripture.  For the Protestant, they see Sacred Scripture as the sole source of Divine Revelation.  This leads to a widely divergent range of views.  Some Protestants believe everything in the Bible is to be taken literally.  Some understand that various literary forms are used, but the determination of what is literal and what is allegorical falls onto the individual.  This is part of why Protestantism continues to fracture into more and more denominations.

Hmm. See, this is why it is not science. My primary point here, Wulfgar, and maybe it has been lost as we have gone along, is not to say your religion is wrong, but to take exception at your direct comparison of religion to science. I am a scientist and far more important, an engineer by training, profession and preference. Science, in the practical, is precise. Even in what it outlines as questionable (fact->theory->hypothesis). Not you, but most people who take the stance that science takes faith are usually not educated in science or engineering and really does not understand how it works. Scientists are just as happy to be proven wrong as right, reverse old stances on new evidence. Religion, not so much. If God was found to be a figment of the collective imagination of man, religion would be finished.

To the point above, it is even worse. The Bible is an assembled work for the purpose of fitting the political and theological agenda of a small subset of Christians in the third century AD. It is little more than propaganda in my opinion but it is your Holy Book. This seems to be the reason many Christians say "Meh, it is not SUPPOSED to be read literally." Simply, it can't be without warping the values they come to have int he modern world.

Quote from: wulfgar;250404God has maintained a close relationship with humanity since the beginning of time.  A few highlights along the way:
-Establishing his covenant with Abraham
-leading the Israelites out of Egypt and into the Promised Land.
-The life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ

How do you know these things? From the aforementioned "book of poetry, allegories and stories"? Seriously, you are saying you need to read through this book and just know which ones are history and which are parable. Abraham may have been waxing poetic about his imagined contacts. He may have been a killer of children looking to rationalize killing his own son but chickened out. Or worse yet, had to give himself a reason not to kill his own son. As to Jesus, his "miracles" were regularly performed by con men of the time. He had  message of peace that he himself did not follow. In general, he was one of many "messiahs" of the time.

Quote from: wulfgar;250404Like I said, that's the short-short version.  The way that God is active in the world today that most immediately jumps to mind is through the Sacraments.  These would be:
-Baptism
-Confirmation
-Holy Communion (aka the Eucharist)
-Confession (aka Reconcilliation)
-Annointing of the Sick (the Sacrament formerly known as Last Rites :) )
-Marriage
-Holy Orders

All earthly man-made ceremonies. This is not the hand of god, it does not heal people, it does not keep priests from raping innocents, it did not keep the Catholic Church from killing jews and moors to take their wealth. If you are going to say God is in those ceremonies then you must say God is in the vile side of the equation as well. He moves the priest to bugger a child. He moves a Pope to declare the Inquisition. Inspires war along with peace, hate along with love. This would make a neutral God, not a benevolent one.

Quote from: wulfgar;250404The most central of these to God's relationship with Man is Holy Communion/Eucharist.  I don't expect a discussion thread on an rpg site to persuade you of the truth of this.  When I sit back and think about what is going on in the Eucharist, it blows my mind.  So I can very easily see how it sounds completely crazy to someone who is not too familiar (don't mean to speak out of turn, perhaps you are familiar).  So what happens in the Eucharist?  Basically, I consume the body and blood of Jesus Christ.  Not a reanactment or symbolic representation of his body and blood.  Not even his blood spilled again.  I participate in the same flesh and blood that he sacrificed on the cross about 2000 years ago.  So you'd be kinda sorta correct to say that I participate in a time travelling, cannibalistic ritual every Sunday, and some weekdays when I can make it to daily mass.  Like I said, sounds crazy.

No, it sounds very familiar. It sounds like when people talk about "the space ship is coming" and "are moved" to mutilate themselves and eventually kill themselves. It sounds like the desire to believe, belong to something larger than yourself. You wish to believe that is a Holy Sacrament. That a special person who stands up before you can wash away the sins (bad things) you have done. It makes a person feel, they can deal with bad things they have done. I prefer taking responsibility for my actions. If I go to Hell, it would be because I did bad things, more bad things than good, and not because I "believe Jesus was the Son of God".

So, no, it does not sound crazy. It sounds all too common today. It is the root of my issue with religion. On the opposite side, it is also an expression of what I praise in a spiritual person, faith. Strong faith can do amazing things. However, Faith is not Religion.

Quote from: wulfgar;250404All of the above and more.  God answers prayers (not always the way we would have liked, but always in the best way possible).  God provides a plan for our lives.  God offers healing and forgiveness through the sacraments I listed above.  God offers an eternity of paradise in heaven to those who love and follow Him.  That last bit is very key.  The atheist looks at life and sees man born, lives, dies.  The Christian, getting back to the original question of this thread, sees that every man is an eternal being- with that soul thingamabob.  Everyone will exist forever.  Ultimately either in heaven or hell.  So yes, while there is suffering in this world, and as a Christian one should expect and welcome suffering it's all rather worth it if you can put up with suffering for say 80 years or so, for an eternity of paradise don't you think?  Eternity is a pretty long time :)

See, a big thing I also have a problem with is the general intolerance built into your religion. I am going to hell. This cannot be argued. Many Christians have told me so. Funny story:
"You know Bill, there are no Bhuddists in Hell!"
"Good. I don't want to go to Hell."
"No, you don't understand...there are no Bhuddists in hell!"
"Good. I don't want to go to hell and I do not want Bhuddists to go to hell either."
"But..."

I participated in that discussion in college. My point is, if I do not believe in your faith, why is it necessary that you:
a) attempt to convert me
b) tell me I will be punished under your rules
If you "do not know the will of god"?

Quote from: wulfgar;250404I see a number of issues with this:

1. The dogs didn't selectively breed themselves.  Man did it.  So there was a guiding intelligence or a designer.  While I'm quite open to the idea that evolution can operate in this way, as a tool used by a designer (God), that does not seem to be the stance you are advocating.  So how is this an example of unguided evolution rather than "intelligent design" assuming you had an intelligent dog breeder of course?

hmm, you take that in your own bias. It is an example of evolution on a fast track. That is to say, perhaps you could use it as an example of intelligent design if you do not know anything about dog breeding. Perhaps I used a poor example.

In the general sense of evolution, natural selection would be the deciding factor. If this was "intelligent" you would always have viables. Nothing would die off. Remember, we are talking "All-knowing" intelligent designer. In dog breeding, you either euthanize or sterilize animals with undesirable traits, thus taking them out of the pool. This simulates evolutionary dead ends.

Quote from: wulfgar;2504042. Every breed of dog is still a dog.  They can still mate with one another.  Non of them became a cat or a bird or a fish or a man.  None of them even became a space-age uber dog of the future.  So this does little to support the idea that evolution allows one species to evolve into another species.  

Do you know what evolution is? Seriously, I am not being snarky but you seem to be using a definition that I am not aware of.

Quoteev·o·lu·tion –noun
1.   any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.
2.   a product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.
3.   Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
4.   a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions.
5.   a motion incomplete in itself, but combining with coordinated motions to produce a single action, as in a machine.
6.   a pattern formed by or as if by a series of movements: the evolutions of a figure skater.
7.   an evolving or giving off of gas, heat, etc.
8.   Mathematics. the extraction of a root from a quantity. Compare involution (def. 8).
9.   a movement or one of a series of movements of troops, ships, etc., as for disposition in order of battle or in line on parade.
10.   any similar movement, esp. in close order drill.

Quote from: wulfgar;250404To be fair, you categorized this as a weak example yourself.  Do you have a "stronger" from industry, one that addresses either of these points- evolution acting in an unguided manner and evolution creating new species?

Neither of those are prerequisites for evolution. Unguided: Anti-biotic resistant bacteria, plastics eating bacteria are two that come to mind. Used by industry is of course going to be "guided" since they are bred. As to "into a new species", you are joking right? That is a requirement of evolution to you. I do not see it. I have given three examples here of observable evolution and/or natural selection. Evolution exists. Given enough time, a breed could develop traits of other speicies, see definition above. I am not a geneticist so I may not be able to do a great job explaining genetic drift or mutation but that is where you would get reptiles->avians. I assume that is what you were trying for with the new species?

Quote from: wulfgar;250404As an aside, it's interesting that the basic science used in your example of breeding dogs for specific traits, while understood at various practical levels by very primitive man, was first explored in a more analytical way by Gregor Mendel, "the father of genetics" and a Catholic Priest.

I am not saying you cannot be religious and scientific. I reject your premise that religion and science take equal amounts of faith.

Bill

Quote from: wulfgar;2504041. I believe the Earth was not made in 6, 24 hour days.
2. There is no article in my faith (Catholicism) that tells me I must believe otherwise.
3. The Bible was not created as a single book.  It's a collection of a bunch of books.  Of these books some are historical records, some are poems, some are allegorical, etc.  While they all contained Truth, they are not all to be read as historical records.  As an example of what I mean, let's look at the book Animal Farm.  It contains some powerful truths- power corrupts being the big one.  Yet, it wasn't written to tell the reader about a real farm with walking, talking animals who set up a political process, wage war, and do all sorts of other stuff.  This issue is often a bone of contention between Catholics and Protestant Christians.  The Catholic believes divine revelation is contained in two sources: Sacred Scripture (the Bible) and Sacred Tradition (the teaching authority of the Church- that's the short short explanation for Tradition with a capital T).  Tradition guides the interpretation of scripture.  For the Protestant, they see Sacred Scripture as the sole source of Divine Revelation.  This leads to a widely divergent range of views.  Some Protestants believe everything in the Bible is to be taken literally.  Some understand that various literary forms are used, but the determination of what is literal and what is allegorical falls onto the individual.  This is part of why Protestantism continues to fracture into more and more denominations.

Wulfgar, laying the Catholicism down!  Catholicism has always been my favorite brand of Christianity, as it's the only one that comes close to making a lick of sense.  At least it follows logically from it's premises.

You might appreciate this:  I blame Otherkin on the Protestant Revolution.

In the Catholic tradition, when a new idea is proposed -- a new way of reading a passage, a change in doctrine -- the idea is thoroughly debated and an official sanctioned position is created.  Thus while one can't say what any particular Catholic believes, one can always definitively say what the Church teaches as the faith.

In the Protestant tradition, the articles of faith vary from individual to individual.  There is no larger debate.  If two Protestants disagree, they have no way of resolving the dispute except to split.  (Splitters!)  So over time, you have the Catholic Church remaining a single whole, while the Protestant church becomes more and more and more fractured.

But at the same time, with no constraints on Protestant Christianity, you begin getting freak variants of Christianity.  There's the big ones: Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Amish.  Then theres all the little cults and stuff.  Basically Protestant Christianity becomes "whatever you want to believe + mention of Jesus."

The next step from there, once you've ditched logic, coherence, tradition, and passing respect for reality, is to start ditching the elements of Christianity that don't appeal. Like Jesus.  Why does Christianity have to be about Jesus?  So you get "pagans" who are basically Christians except they worship Jesusina aka The Goddess, who is basically Jesus in a dress.

From the 'personal spirituality' of Protestantism it's only a few short steps to the 'personal spirituality' of Paganism, and from there only a few more steps to Otherkin.

This is what happens when you take an idea like faith, make it unquestionable and unassailable, and then remove all religious authority over faith.  Eventually you end up with people who have religious faith in the existence of ElfQuest, and believing as a part of their 'personal spirituality' that they are elves and shit.

SO.......,

 Short version: Patriarch dude does believe in Souls and thinks there IS a meaning of life.


 All that other religion/Christianity/God stuff may have been more interesting in another thread.

I was hoping for friendlier & mellower discussion of the 2 main questions - yeah, I know too late now.


- Ed C.

That was actually pretty well said Jackalope.  Seriously.

Hi Bill,

I think you missed the point of my explanation about the dual sources of revelation in the Catholic Faith, either because I didn't explain it clearly enough, or because you chose to reject it.  Either way, I'll try clarifying.

The Bible is not my "primary manual".  It is one of two.  The other is the teaching authority of the Church.  Chronologically speaking, the Church's authority came first.  The Early Christians had no Bible.  It wasn't finished till about 100 AD.  So obviously one does not need the Bible to be a Christian, because Christians existed before the Bible.

That I do not believe the earth was made in 6 24 hour days does not violate, the Bible or the Church's teaching.  Let's say the creation account in Genesis was to be taken literally.  God does not create the sun until the 4th day.  So if we're taking things literally, it would logically follow that there's a very good chance the "days" involved would not match up with our 24 hour days, because that unit of measurement is dependent upon the sun.  

But like I said, I don't think that passage is to be taken literally.  I'm sure you have read many books that were allegorical- why is it a cop out for that to be the case with some of the books of the Bible?

QuoteHmm. See, this is why it is not science. My primary point here, Wulfgar, and maybe it has been lost as we have gone along, is not to say your religion is wrong, but to take exception at your direct comparison of religion to science. I am a scientist and far more important, an engineer by training, profession and preference. Science, in the practical, is precise. Even in what it outlines as questionable (fact->theory->hypothesis). Not you, but most people who take the stance that science takes faith are usually not educated in science or engineering and really does not understand how it works. Scientists are just as happy to be proven wrong as right, reverse old stances on new evidence. Religion, not so much. If God was found to be a figment of the collective imagination of man, religion would be finished.

I am an engineer as well, so we have some common elements in our background to work from.  I don't think I've ever said science=religion.  I have said that believing there is no God requires as much faith as belief in a God.  Belief in no God is not science, as you and I have both agreed, someone can be religious and scientific, one or the other, or neither.  I would disagree with the precision you ascribe to science.  Every physics problem you ever do will start with "assumptions" or "givens".  As one example the dating of the fossil record you have mentioned is based upon several assumptions that materials have always behaved like they do now in the past.

QuoteAs to Jesus, his "miracles" were regularly performed by con men of the time. He had message of peace that he himself did not follow

1. Con men may have given the appearance of raising others or themselves from the dead, but none of them actually did it.  So if you believe Jesus is who he says he is, then no, nobody else ever did what he did.

2. How did Jesus not live by his message of peace?  Does throwing over a few tables in the temple, make you an unpeaceful person? (Actually, I'd argue that pacifism is not an orthodox Christian position, but I would say Jesus led a peaceful life.  He came into contact with many soldiers throughout his life, and he never told one of them to stop being a soldier.  I'm curious how you see otherwise.)

Quote. If you are going to say God is in those ceremonies then you must say God is in the vile side of the equation as well. He moves the priest to bugger a child. He moves a Pope to declare the Inquisition. Inspires war along with peace, hate along with love. This would make a neutral God, not a benevolent one.

Do you have children?  Do you love them?  If the answers are yes and yes, do you force them to do what is best for them all of the time, or do you allow them to make mistakes?  If you forced someone to love you, then they aren't really loving you..they are your unwilling slave.  My belief is that God loves mankind so much that He gives us the freedom to reject Him if we so chose.  

QuoteSee, a big thing I also have a problem with is the general intolerance built into your religion. I am going to hell. This cannot be argued. Many Christians have told me so.

I have not told you, that you are going to Hell.  I wouldn't know.  I don't know if I am either.  This is another key area of distinction between Catholics and most protestants, the whole concept of being "saved" as in "I was saved when I was 12 at my grandma's church".  Someone could live a godly life for most of their life and then murder a bunch of people and go to Hell.  Someone could live a horrible life and then repent and go to heaven (see the thief on the cross).  So why not party hardy and just go to church when we're old?  Well we never know how much time we have.

QuoteMy point is, if I do not believe in your faith, why is it necessary that you:
a) attempt to convert me
b) tell me I will be punished under your rules

I don't believe I've done either of those.  I'm just having a friendly discussion.  Cool?

QuoteDo you know what evolution is? Seriously, I am not being snarky but you seem to be using a definition that I am not aware of.

Quote3. Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

I think evolution happens.  I'm merely challenging some of the statements you've said about it.  You've said it is reproducable and repeatable.  While such "micro-evolutionary" results like creating a new breed of dog, might be reproducable, where is the reproducable and repeatable experiments for "macro-evolution", or the creation of new species?  

QuoteGiven enough time, a breed could develop traits of other speicies, see definition above.

That is an assumption you have made based on the evidence you have available to you.  That sounds perfectly reasonable, but it's still an assumption, or have you seen a new species develop from an old one?

QuoteAs to "into a new species", you are joking right? That is a requirement of evolution to you. I do not see it

Well, unless you believe all current lifeforms have always existed, then I think it would be a requirement for you.  Most biologists think that life began with single celled organisms.  These would have had to evolve into multicelled organism, and into the vast array of different plant, animal, and other species that have existed in the past or exist now.  Whether or not one believes in God, you'd have to explain how all these different species came to exist.  So how do you explain it?  

If my tone comes off as snarky or antagonistic (in a personal sense) that is not my intent at all.

Quote from: HinterWelt;250476This violates the Dogma of your primary manual.

Your primary manual.

Bill

If I may interject, as biblical history and linguistics are favorite hobbies of mine...

The original words used for 'day' in the Torah literally meant 'a span of time'... and were colloqually used to mean 'a day' by native speakers, but were not limited to that use.   Thus, when translations were made to promulgate 'The Book', one needed to pick a word to use, and the term 'Day' was an obvious choice.

At the end of the day, Genesis, in its original form, was far less clear on just how long it took God to make the world than in its current form.

Also, and this is purely a source of personal amusement, a very literal reading of the opening passages of Genesis suggests to me that God did not create the oceans... they were already there.  I don't have a bible handy, but bet I could dig one up in a few minutes to quote the relevant passage.

I am aware that some religious studies classes point out that there are actually two accounts of creation in Genesis that are only haphazardly slapped together (The six day thing and the Adam/Eve story... two authorial styles, etc...) to make it seem like they belong together.

Quote from: Spike;250534Also, and this is purely a source of personal amusement, a very literal reading of the opening passages of Genesis suggests to me that God did not create the oceans... they were already there.  I don't have a bible handy, but bet I could dig one up in a few minutes to quote the relevant passage.

A literal reading of the Genesis story has some very interesting oddities.  Did you know that outer space is made of water?  Says so in Genesis.

That's why the sky is blue.

That's a really wonky way to read the same passage I think.   Contextually, the writers would have no conception of 'outer space', nor the original readers, so it requires a leap of... not faith, but... self-insertion? to make that claim.

You inject, essentially, out of character knowledge into the writer's intent.

The parts I snipped here I will let go. I believe one way and you another. I think the picking and choosing what will be applied from the bible will make this discussion a bit more difficult since I will need to ask you what applies and does not. That said.

Quote from: wulfgar;250522I am an engineer as well, so we have some common elements in our background to work from.  I don't think I've ever said science=religion.  I have said that believing there is no God requires as much faith as belief in a God.  Belief in no God is not science, as you and I have both agreed, someone can be religious and scientific, one or the other, or neither.  I would disagree with the precision you ascribe to science.  Every physics problem you ever do will start with "assumptions" or "givens".  As one example the dating of the fossil record you have mentioned is based upon several assumptions that materials have always behaved like they do now in the past.

Assumptions that can be reproduced or varified. 2+2=4 does not require faith. It is reproducible. Believing in a super being living in the sky that could end suffering but does not takes a boatload. This is the root of my point. If you agree, and I am not sure you do, then we agree and no further discussion is needed.

Quote from: wulfgar;2505221. Con men may have given the appearance of raising others or themselves from the dead, but none of them actually did it.  So if you believe Jesus is who he says he is, then no, nobody else ever did what he did.

Reported by biased sources. The point is, these were not "miracles" beyond being reproduced by con men and other "messiahs".

Quote from: wulfgar;2505222. How did Jesus not live by his message of peace?  Does throwing over a few tables in the temple, make you an unpeaceful person? (Actually, I'd argue that pacifism is not an orthodox Christian position, but I would say Jesus led a peaceful life.  He came into contact with many soldiers throughout his life, and he never told one of them to stop being a soldier.  I'm curious how you see otherwise.)

Yes. He was violent. He attacked money changers in the Temple.

Quote from: wulfgar;250522Do you have children?  Do you love them?  If the answers are yes and yes, do you force them to do what is best for them all of the time, or do you allow them to make mistakes?  If you forced someone to love you, then they aren't really loving you..they are your unwilling slave.  My belief is that God loves mankind so much that He gives us the freedom to reject Him if we so chose.  

Hmm, yes, I ave children. Yes, I make him clean up when he makes a mess. No, I do not let him be raped by a priest. No, I would not let him die slowly from leukemia over several years in a great die of pain if I had the power to change it. Can you see my point?

Quote from: wulfgar;250522I have not told you, that you are going to Hell.  I wouldn't know.  I don't know if I am either.  This is another key area of distinction between Catholics and most protestants, the whole concept of being "saved" as in "I was saved when I was 12 at my grandma's church".  Someone could live a godly life for most of their life and then murder a bunch of people and go to Hell.  Someone could live a horrible life and then repent and go to heaven (see the thief on the cross).  So why not party hardy and just go to church when we're old?  Well we never know how much time we have.

Ah, but the operative is belief in Christ. If you do not believe in Christ you are going to Hell. If you believe in Christ, you could kill thousands and still go to heaven. That abdicates an important role in responsibility for one's own actions. This is unacceptable to me.

Quote from: wulfgar;250522I don't believe I've done either of those.  I'm just having a friendly discussion.  Cool?

I am just trying to give you a reference to my experiences. Again, I regret the medium since it sounds much worse than intended.

Quote from: wulfgar;250522I think evolution happens.  I'm merely challenging some of the statements you've said about it.  You've said it is reproducable and repeatable.  While such "micro-evolutionary" results like creating a new breed of dog, might be reproducable, where is the reproducable and repeatable experiments for "macro-evolution", or the creation of new species?  

This is called experimentation or perhaps for an engineer as a prototype. That is to say, effects can be produced on the small scale then it is possible to apply what is learned to the large scale. It is reasonable to say, and provable by experiment, that evolution exists and has been at work on a planetary scale. It is not rational to say "It works on a small scale and none of the proven concepts work on a large scale". Details may vary, capabilities might be an issue, but you will be able to scale just about anything.

Quote from: wulfgar;250522That is an assumption you have made based on the evidence you have available to you.  That sounds perfectly reasonable, but it's still an assumption, or have you seen a new species develop from an old one?

You should watch Jackalope's link.

Quote from: wulfgar;250522Well, unless you believe all current lifeforms have always existed, then I think it would be a requirement for you.  Most biologists think that life began with single celled organisms.  These would have had to evolve into multicelled organism, and into the vast array of different plant, animal, and other species that have existed in the past or exist now.  Whether or not one believes in God, you'd have to explain how all these different species came to exist.  So how do you explain it?  

Quote from: wulfgar;250522Ah, so you are confusing terms. Yes, I believe that species developed from other species to use your terms. I also believe (as in a theory) that species can evolve into other species in the future. However, it takes a great deal of time to happen. This is evidenced in fossils. Now, before you say I need faith to believe this, no, I do not. I need the ability to reason and I need to understand the definition of theory. 2+2=4 is a fact. Evolution is a theory. Neat thing about science is new facts can change a theory. Creationism is a faith based bedtime story. You can try and twist it to fit science and since it uses elements of magic you can get a somewhat believable scenario, but it is not based on observed results.

If my tone comes off as snarky or antagonistic (in a personal sense) that is not my intent at all.

Likewise. Sorry for the confusion above. I was using the generic "you".

Bill

QuoteIf you believe in Christ, you could kill thousands and still go to heaven.

Yes, possibly.  If you repent.  Belief in Christ in and off itself is not enough.  This is yet another distinction between Catholics and most Protestants.  Martin Luther preached a doctrine of salvation by faith alone, which was supported by the Bible...once he added the word "alone" to Romans 3:28.  

It's pretty clear Satan knows who Christ is and believes in him.  He fought a war against God in heaven.  He tempted Christ in the desert.  Yet, Satan chooses to reject God even though he knows who he is.  So, there's an example faith not being enough.

Quote from: wulfgar;250582It's pretty clear Satan knows who Christ is and believes in him.  He fought a war against God in heaven.  He tempted Christ in the desert.  Yet, Satan chooses to reject God even though he knows who he is.  So, there's an example faith not being enough.

First, Satan doesn't have faith- Satan has certain knowledge.

Second, in Protestant terms faith is a bit more than just belief in. It also includes acceptance, etc.

1) Do People have Souls or Spirits?

No.

2) Is there a Meaning of Life -or- A Meaning To Life?

No.

All concepts of "spirituality" are human constructs to deal with our fear of death and all religions are human constructs to control other humans via this fear.  

When we die, we rot.   All the rapists, murderers and goody two shoe virgins simply rot.

Quote from: wulfgar;250522(Actually, I'd argue that pacifism is not an orthodox Christian position, but I would say Jesus led a peaceful life.  He came into contact with many soldiers throughout his life, and he never told one of them to stop being a soldier.  I'm curious how you see otherwise.)

You should read Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God is Within You.  it's available free online (http://books.google.com/books?id=-yMMAAAAIAAJ&dq=the+kingdom+of+god+is+within+you&pg=PP1&ots=Gb4BWUxLG5&sig=MiN6pPDtslIy2MtqcvABYvMWmGA&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result).

The strongest example of Jesus advocating for pacifism occurs in the Garden of Gethsemane, when the soldiers arrive to take Christ and Peter draws his sword and attacks Malchus (Matthew 26:52, John 18:10), Jesus rebukes Peter and tells him "Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."

The whole tradition of martyrdom is rooted in the refusal to use violence towards any end.  When Christians refuse to die for their faith, and instead kill to preserve themselves, they are in fact turning their back on Christ's teachings and the traditions of his most direct followers, who all surrendered themselves to violent death rather than resist.

A real Christian has no fear of death, and goes willingly into it, and has no need to dominate in this world.  For the true Christian, this world is only preparation for the next.

Quote from: wulfgar;250582Yes, possibly.  If you repent.  Belief in Christ in and off itself is not enough.  This is yet another distinction between Catholics and most Protestants.  Martin Luther preached a doctrine of salvation by faith alone, which was supported by the Bible...once he added the word "alone" to Romans 3:28.  

It's pretty clear Satan knows who Christ is and believes in him.  He fought a war against God in heaven.  He tempted Christ in the desert.  Yet, Satan chooses to reject God even though he knows who he is.  So, there's an example faith not being enough.

Actually, that would be different. Satan KNOWS God and Christ exist. He rejects them. This is not believing in Christ in the sense intended. Perhaps a better phrasing would be accepting Christ. This still is a religion of intolerance readily condemning others for not believing their flavor of God.

Bill

QuoteThis still is a religion of intolerance readily condemning others for not believing their flavor of God.

Hmmm, while people Christian and otherwise certainly do condemning of each other, I'd say the church's position is more one of evangelization then condemnation.  And actually, if you look at the Catholic Catechism, it's pretty interesting what it has to say about folks who grew up in darkest Africa for example and never heard the gospel.

I'll have to see if I can track down a hardcopy of that book Jackalope.  I get a headache trying to read anything that long off the computer screen.  

If you want to talk about the merits of pacifism, either in a religious context, or otherwise, perhaps we should start a different thread.

To briefly make my point though, I'll just say that Jesus, although born at Christmas, is just as much a "part" (part really isn't the right word, but the Trinity makes analogies difficult) of God in the Old Testament as well. To read the Bible in it's entirety, Old and New Testament and arrive at pacifism as the supported world view is quite a stretch.  And like I've said, I don't rely on the Bible alone, and Church teaching is quite clear that there are instances when the use of force, up to and including deadly force is appropriate, just war doctrine and all that.

Quote from: wulfgar;250602Hmmm, while people Christian and otherwise certainly do condemning of each other, I'd say the church's position is more one of evangelization then condemnation.  And actually, if you look at the Catholic Catechism, it's pretty interesting what it has to say about folks who grew up in darkest Africa for example and never heard the gospel.

What? That they must be converted (from what they believe in) in order to be "saved". Leading a good life is not enough? Leading a life where they respect their families, honor their elders and provide for their tribes are not enough? They must worship the same God as you do?

Again, not seeing much tolerance in Christianity. I have heard this variation, they are just confused/primitive and really worship Christ, they just do not know it.

Seriously, what does the catechism say?

Bill

Quote from: wulfgar;250606I'll have to see if I can track down a hardcopy of that book Jackalope.  I get a headache trying to read anything that long off the computer screen.

I hear that.

Quote from: One Horse Town;250285If i have to tell you, then we have nothing left to talk about.

Really? It seems more likely to me that I missed post of yours, or of someone else's, in the mass of replies that have been made. My having missed something - common event - seems much more likely than us having nothing else of which to speak! Please don't ascribe intent to my actions where inability is as likely or moreso.

Quote from: HinterWelt;250615What? That they must be converted (from what they believe in) in order to be "saved". Leading a good life is not enough? Leading a life where they respect their families, honor their elders and provide for their tribes are not enough? They must worship the same God as you do?

Again, not seeing much tolerance in Christianity. I have heard this variation, they are just confused/primitive and really worship Christ, they just do not know it.

Seriously, what does the catechism say?

Bill

That they are neither saved nor tormented. They are in one of the many intermediary states between absolute separation and absolute reconciliation of the soul and God. Limbo and Purgatory are two of the better known such states. Salvation is only possible through the church, but eternal torment is not the necessary outcome of not being "saved".

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;250980That they are neither saved nor tormented. They are in one of the many intermediary states between absolute separation and absolute reconciliation of the soul and God. Limbo and Purgatory are two of the better known such states. Salvation is only possible through the church, but eternal torment is not the necessary outcome of not being "saved".

I do not believe that is a universal Christian concept.

Bill

Quote from: Spike;250534If I may interject, as biblical history and linguistics are favorite hobbies of mine...

The original words used for 'day' in the Torah literally meant 'a span of time'... and were colloqually used to mean 'a day' by native speakers, but were not limited to that use.   Thus, when translations were made to promulgate 'The Book', one needed to pick a word to use, and the term 'Day' was an obvious choice.

What he said. Writing in Hebrew allows for as much precision as most other languages does, which is to say, final accuracy is generally not a goal. The ancient Hebrews were content to define pi as 3 in their writings - there's evidence from their architecture that they knew perfectly well it was a bit larger, but "3" did fine for their day-to-day purposes, so that's what they recorded. Day is used as an undefined period of time in more places than just Genesis (Daniel comes to mind). First born doesn't mean literally the first child born to a mother, either. There are a handful of these idiomatic terms that are well and clearly understood to have specific cultural meanings. Every language has idiomatic usage; Ancient Hebrew seems to have less than some, but that doesn't mean it has none.

It's only people who insist on applying the assumptions of modern English to a translation, that get into problems like 6x24 for creation, and so on. Biblical historians and scholars generally don't have these issues, because they know better.

Quote from: HinterWelt;250983I do not believe that is a universal Christian concept.

Bill

If you want universal Christian concepts, you're more or less stick with the Nicene creed, and I can find you Christians who have some issue even with that. The afterlife is NOT well defined in Christian writing or Christian theology; there is a lot we simply don't know. Catholic theologians have been, ah, inventive in some areas, where the primary text was silent.

Quote from: Ikrast;250992If you want universal Christian concepts, you're more or less stick with the Nicene creed, and I can find you Christians who have some issue even with that. The afterlife is NOT well defined in Christian writing or Christian theology; there is a lot we simply don't know. Catholic theologians have been, ah, inventive in some areas, where the primary text was silent.

Agreed. It is another aspect I have issue with for Christianity. However, if we start looking at individual sects of Christianity for the answers then we really have a mess and it makes discussions difficult.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWelt;250983I do not believe that is a universal Christian concept.

Bill

It's not. It's the Catholic conception, which is what you asked Wulfgar about.

Quote from: HinterWelt;251016Agreed. It is another aspect I have issue with for Christianity. However, if we start looking at individual sects of Christianity for the answers then we really have a mess and it makes discussions difficult.

Bill

Just the opposite, actually. Talking about what "Christianity" is like is fraught with problems of over-generalisation. The correct scope for theology is usually the sect since it's the basic doctrinal division (with large, enduring sects like Catholicism it's sometimes useful to look at specific thinkers or movements within the sect).

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;251032Just the opposite, actually. Talking about what "Christianity" is like is fraught with problems of over-generalisation. The correct scope for theology is usually the sect since it's the basic doctrinal division (with large, enduring sects like Catholicism it's sometimes useful to look at specific thinkers or movements within the sect).

No, that is exactly what I meant. If we start taking exceptions based on an individual sect, we can each site exceptions. Accepting Christ is a prerequisite. This cuts across any sect. Having a specific exception in an individual sect can be sited by anyone. I find that confusing to a discussion.

As to Catholicism, the last couple of posts I had thought had been more general. Perhaps I was mistaken. Certainly it started with Catholicism but I have since been referring to Christianity. My apologies to Wulfgar if I have misunderstood the drift of the thread.

Bill

Quote from: Jackalope;250186Then I would just point out that what you are calling God is a psychological tool that allows you to engage with internal creative processes.  That you experience personal growth by believing in a personal God is no more proof of God than Koltar's friend's experiences of personal growth through belief in a Klingon Warrior Ethic is proof of Klingons.

That's hardly a defense of religion or religious belief.  You may have found relief from your addictions by embracing a belief in god, but you are trading addiction for delusion.  If you were really over your addictions, if you were actually healed, you wouldn't need to believe in a supernatural entity.

You said: "I'm totally cool with people thinking I'm a self-deluding titan of willpower who needs to make idol masks of his personal assets in order to utilise them. I can never let myself fall into that belief again though, it damned nearly killed me a few years ago." which implies to me that if you were to allow yourself to believe that you disassociated your personal assets in order to utilize them, you would be in danger of killing yourself.

That sounds like a very troubling position to be in, where your life hangs on the acceptance of something you seem to understand is a made-up belief.  It would seem to me that a sign of further growth would be the ability to reclaim your intellectual facilities and put aside childish notions of make-believe.

I have no idea where you got the impression that I was defending religion or religious belief. That you insist on seeing my experience as "naive", "childish" and "troubling" is ok, I'm not looking to convince you or anyone else. My orginal point was in response to how you expressed yourself in post #92:

QuoteOriginally Posted by Jackalope  
There literally cannot be any point to a belief in an entity that you can't define in any meaningful way without resorting to making shit up.

It's my contention that the self-construction of belief can be a powerful, life saving exercise. It was in my case.

QuoteThat they are neither saved nor tormented. They are in one of the many intermediary states between absolute separation and absolute reconciliation of the soul and God. Limbo and Purgatory are two of the better known such states. Salvation is only possible through the church, but eternal torment is not the necessary outcome of not being "saved".

Limbo isn't really taught anymore.  Purgatory is a stage of purification for some (If I'd guess I'd say the vast majority) of people going to heaven go through before getting to Heaven.  It's not a permanent destination.

I looked through my Catechism some last night but had trouble finding the exact passage I was looking for about this.  From memory, the Church teaches that we can trust in the mercifulness of God.  So it's quite likely that someone who has never been exposed to Christianity, will have the needed information revealed to them at the time of their death, which they may chose to accept or reject.  So people who have never been exposed to the faith are not all condemned to hell, but it's still important to go out an evangelize (for a number of reasons).  That's not the most articulate explanation, so my apologies if it's not clear enough, or I misrepresented the Church's position through my own ignorance.

Quote from: Drew;251075It's my contention that the self-construction of belief can be a powerful, life saving exercise. It was in my case.

For what it is worth Drew, your experiences are the kind of thing I respect and admire about faith. To me, faith and religion are two different but related things. In the end, if either aids you in getting through a hard time then it has served a good purpose.

Bill

Quote from: Drew;251075I have no idea where you got the impression that I was defending religion or religious belief. That you insist on seeing my experience as "naive", "childish" and "troubling" is ok, I'm not looking to convince you or anyone else. My orginal point was in response to how you expressed yourself in post #92:   There literally cannot be any point to a belief in an entity that you can't define in any meaningful way without resorting to making shit up.

Wulfgar was talking about an impersonal, objective God that is unknowable.  I was arguing that there is no point in believing in an objective, and unknowable God.  You objected, claiming that the belief in a "personal god" saved your life.  Thus, I naturally assumed you were defending religious beliefs, such as the belief in god.

I'm starting to gather that you took my comment out of context, and I did not realize you had done this.

QuoteIt's my contention that the self-construction of belief can be a powerful, life saving exercise.

Granted.  However, that is not a rebuttal of my point, which is that there is no reason to believe in an objective entity that can't be defined in any meaningful way.

Quote from: Jackalope;251315Granted.  However, that is not a rebuttal of my point, which is that there is no reason to believe in an objective entity that can't be defined in any meaningful way.

I would argue "Because you choose to" as the reason. There are many things that may lead you to that choice ranging from hard reasoning (you will most likely have a very weak view of the God character in this set of beliefs) to the real need to find strength outside oneself (the ability to say "God gives me the strength" regardless of whether he truly does or the strength merely is a trick of your belief). Those are not the only two, there are many others. In this way, whether God or gods exist is meaningless to the action. You choose to believe, in something, and that something happens to be a an external God, provable or not. It is an exercise then, to see what you do with the belief and in fact, again, the very existence of the external does not matter as much as the belief itself.

Or, anyone who does not believe like you do is deluding themselves. ;)

Bill

Can I just say that there are 4 or 5 of you that I'm ejoying reading your posts?
Hinterwelt, Wulfgar, and Drew are 3 of 'em, the other 2 or 3 kind of vary.

Also - I think its possible to believe that people have souls, even if you don't believe in a God or gods existing.

One version of that might be a belief in re-incarnation.


 Another version is what one professor or friend of mine called the "Omni-Soul". That would be all the souls of humankind (and intelligent aliens if there are any) make up the great big one SOUL! or "Omni-Soul". While we are on Earth we are detached from the Omni Soul, and when we die we go back to it a bit different. Sometimes we go back to it better sometimes worse.


There are variations on that idea. A friend of mine had the thought that EVERYONE goes to a "Heaven" when they die - but that we all go to our iundividual version of what we think the afterlife is. Christians go to their version, atheists go to either blankness /sleep - or they reincarnate with no knowledge that they had a previous life. His idea was also that the Vikings got their "Valhalla" - because thats what they believed. Also, that people who believed that they had been real scummy bastards go to a version of "Hell" - because thats what they believe they deserve.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;251327Can I just say that there are 4 or 5 of you that I'm ejoying reading your posts?
Hinterwelt, Wulfgar, and Drew are 3 of 'em, the other 2 or 3 kind of vary.

Dude, I made a joke about the Black Fleet; how obscure is that? What's a brother got to do to earn some love from you? ;)

Quote from: Engine;251330Dude, I made a joke about the Black Fleet; how obscure is that? What's a brother got to do to earn some love from you? ;)

You're in there - you're in "My Five" dude.

Its been a weird morning and not enough coffee.


- Ed C.

Quote from: HinterWelt;251321I would argue "Because you choose to" as the reason.

"Because you choose to." isn't a reason.  It explains exactly nothing.

This is really getting beyond the topic of thread -- and despite what Koltar says, I think it's bit ridiculous to start a conversation about the meaning of life and the existence of the soul and then acted disappointed when the topic of God comes up -- but now we're moving into a discussion of faith.

Faith certainly does seem to have some degree of merit, but it is also fraught with danger.  The uncritical acceptance of faith as self-justifying has many troubling consequences, from the terrifying (Eric Rudolph) to the embarrassing (Otherkin).

I'd highly recommend Robert Anton Wilson's Cosmic Trigger: Final Secrets of the Illuminati (read the preface here (http://www.rawilson.com/trigger1.shtml)) to anyone really interested in examining faith and belief.

Its NOT ridiculous.

There are people who have had moral codes or righteous ways of behaving - without believing in a religion, God or being religious.

 It is possible to believe in a Soul and even believe that Life might have a meaning...while also not believing in a God.

Such a thing is possible and plausible.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;251343Its NOT ridiculous.

There are people who have had moral codes or righteous ways of behaving - without believing in a religion, God or being religious.

 It is possible to believe in a Soul and even believe that Life might have a meaning...while also not believing in a God.

Such a thing is possible and plausible.

And again, Ed demonstrates his absolute inability to read with comprehension and follow an argument.  Everything you just said is correct Ed.  Sadly, it has absolutely nothing to do with the point I made -- that it is ridiculous to think that God won't come up in a conversation about the soul and the meaning of life.

Because while it is entirely true that some people believe in the soul, and believe life has meaning, and do not reference God in these beliefs, it is also true that some people believe in the soul, and believe life has meaning, and do reference God in these beliefs.

And yes, it is ridiculous of you to think that because some people believe in the soul, and believe life has meaning, and do not reference God in these beliefs, that everyone involved in the conversation will not reference God in their beliefs.

Again, I estimate your IQ to be about 80.  And I'd seriously like to administer a reading test to you, since I'm pretty sure you read at a less than 6th grade level.

Quote from: Jackalope;251338"Because you choose to." isn't a reason.  It explains exactly nothing.

Precisely, it explains nothing. I will try to explain my point but I do not think you will get it. No, that is not a dig but a reference to what you have explained as your views in past posts.

When a person chooses to believe, they do so for many reasons but the choice is based on self interest. That is to say, it brings them a form of pleasure. It may be the type of thing that it unlocks the inner reserves of will power they had before but they cannot admit that, not to them selves and are probably uncapable of admitting it to others. If they did, then the outer defined source of strength would disappear.

Now, on top of that, it is not necessary int he least to explain it to anyone. It does not matter if it is a belief in a flying unicorn that lives on the moon. It is the belief that give the benefit. The benefit can come in many forms including but not limited to willpower, strength, courage, the ability to love in spite of hatred, compassion, and many others.

So, to turn the issue around. Why is it important they explain it to you? or anyone? So that you will believe? Unlikely. So that you can understand their God? Not likely or necessary (since they admit to not understanding thier God). If their belief brings benefits to them, then what does it matter if they can explain their God to you, give you reasons for worshipping?

Quote from: Jackalope;251338This is really getting beyond the topic of thread -- and despite what Koltar says, I think it's bit ridiculous to start a conversation about the meaning of life and the existence of the soul and then acted disappointed when the topic of God comes up -- but now we're moving into a discussion of faith.

No argument but I understand his sentiment. I think it is difficult for many to discuss such matter without God as a framework.

Quote from: Jackalope;251338Faith certainly does seem to have some degree of merit, but it is also fraught with danger.  The uncritical acceptance of faith as self-justifying has many troubling consequences, from the terrifying (Eric Rudolph) to the embarrassing (Otherkin).

Most definitely. However, faith alone without the framework of Religion, seldom is as dire as Eric Rudolph makes it. So, if a Religion tells you to hate and kill a group of people, Faith then can supply the passion. The lesson we should take here is to review your interpretations of Religions and the articles of your religion critically. "Because the Church told me so" is never an acceptable answer to me. I am never in favor of abdication of moral responsibility to an external source.

Quote from: Jackalope;251338I'd highly recommend Robert Anton Wilson's Cosmic Trigger: Final Secrets of the Illuminati (read the preface here (http://www.rawilson.com/trigger1.shtml)) to anyone really interested in examining faith and belief.

I will endeavor to do so but I already have a formidable reding list with research for Britannia.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWelt;251047No, that is exactly what I meant. If we start taking exceptions based on an individual sect, we can each site exceptions. Accepting Christ is a prerequisite. This cuts across any sect. Having a specific exception in an individual sect can be sited by anyone. I find that confusing to a discussion.

Bill

There is no possible theological discussion at a scope above the sect. A dogma like "Accepting Christ" is so vague as to be useless in practice. Accept him as what? Saviour? Many of the early gnostic Christians didn't, nor do many later day Christians (they take him as a wise teacher).

You're trying to have an overly general discussion here. There's simply nothing worth saying at the level of abstraction you wish to hold it at.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;251519There's simply nothing worth saying at the level of abstraction you wish to hold it at.

Then problem solved.

Thanks!
Bill

Quote from: Jackalope;251315Wulfgar was talking about an impersonal, objective God that is unknowable.  I was arguing that there is no point in believing in an objective, and unknowable God.  You objected, claiming that the belief in a "personal god" saved your life.  Thus, I naturally assumed you were defending religious beliefs, such as the belief in god.

I'm starting to gather that you took my comment out of context, and I did not realize you had done this.

Fair enough. My response was to what I perceived to be an aspect of your position that isn't there. I won't pursue it further.

Quote from: HinterWelt;251177For what it is worth Drew, your experiences are the kind of thing I respect and admire about faith. To me, faith and religion are two different but related things. In the end, if either aids you in getting through a hard time then it has served a good purpose.

Cheers mate.

Quote from: Drew;251933Cheers mate.

...along similar lines. A good friend of mine that lives out west. She is technically a wiccan. She is in a 12 step program and has been sober for 7 plus years now.
Her faith or belief has helped her in this similir way.

She confuses me at times , but I still love her and I want her to succeed.
If there is a God - I want him to watch out for her.


- Ed C.

People have souls.
There is meaning to life.

Please check your private messages, Blackthorne.