The "All New" Let's Debate Religion Thread

[uni57]

Let's get the religious debate out of RSU.

I would like to make this the official place to debate religion. No need to hijack threads to debate religion (like the atheists, myself included, have done in the past). Because this is the "official" place for that kind of discussion. Be nice.

Round One. Ding...

[borsti]

There is a Group of people, that believe a flying Spagethi monster created the universe: http://www.venganza.org/

[forrestunifreak]

There is a Group of people, that believe a flying Spagethi monster created the universe: http://www.venganza.org/


Wow. How silly of them to believe something lke that.

[Brian MacKenzie]

Can anyone else see Jesus in this image?
























http://www.unicyclist.com/forums/image.php?u=2085&dateline=1144123913

[James_Potter]

There is a Group of people, that believe a flying Spagethi monster created the universe: http://www.venganza.org/
They don't actually believe it, they just made that up to make fun of people who do believe in some sort of God.

Anyway, I finally decided that I'm Buddhist. Mostly because I do believe there is a God, but I don't think it is possible to prove it, or to know what God is, or anything about Him/Her/It...so. Buddhism it is.

[Gilby]

Anyway, I finally decided that I'm Buddhist. Mostly because I do believe there is a God, but I don't think it is possible to prove it, or to know what God is, or anything about Him/Her/It...so. Buddhism it is.

You know, now you have to do 10 laps around the temple to the thank the buddha for whatever success it is that you prayed for and came true. (hmmm, this might be an inside joke for those that visited thailand)

[James_Potter]

thats cool with me, I'm a runner! hahaha.

[Seager]

They don't actually believe it, they just made that up to make fun of people who do believe in some sort of God.

Anyway, I finally decided that I'm Buddhist. Mostly because I do believe there is a God, but I don't think it is possible to prove it, or to know what God is, or anything about Him/Her/It...so. Buddhism it is.

They didn't make that up to make fun of people who believe in God. The made that up to make a point against Intellegent Design.

I'd say that you sound "spiritual" to me. Why cling to one of the already institutionalized mainstream religions? Just make your own, it has just as much a chance as being correct and will be more true to yourself.

[James_Potter]

They didn't make that up to make fun of people who believe in God. The made that up to make a point against Intellegent Design.

I'd say that you sound "spiritual" to me. Why cling to one of the already institutionalized mainstream religions? Just make your own, it has just as much a chance as being correct and will be more true to yourself.
Well, that is kind of what Buddhism is all about...its about being uncertain, and not really knowing the Truth, but doing your best to understand it...if that makes sense. The other thing I like about it is that Buddhism doesn't say there "is" a God or that there "isn't" a God, it says it doesn't really matter while we're here on Earth.

[UNIquelyCanadian]

Well, that is kind of what Buddhism is all about...its about being uncertain, and not really knowing the Truth, but doing your best to understand it...if that makes sense. The other thing I like about it is that Buddhism doesn't say there "is" a God or that there "isn't" a God, it says it doesn't really matter while we're here on Earth.

My karma just ran over you dogma.

[BVM]

My karma just ran over you dogma.

My dogma peed on your karma.

[dudewithasock]

Well, that is kind of what Buddhism is all about...its about being uncertain, and not really knowing the Truth, but doing your best to understand it...if that makes sense. The other thing I like about it is that Buddhism doesn't say there "is" a God or that there "isn't" a God, it says it doesn't really matter while we're here on Earth.

But there is no God in buddhism...they don't worship anything. I don't get your viewpoint.

[underdog]

But there is no God in buddhism...they don't worship anything. I don't get your viewpoint.

Why should anyone have to worship anything?

[James_Potter]

But there is no God in buddhism...they don't worship anything. I don't get your viewpoint.
Buddhism has nothing to do with God...Buddhism is really more of a philosophy than a religion. I believe there is a God, but that doesn't mean I can't believe in Buddhism.

[red_rider]

Okay James, Where do Buddhists go when they die? Where do Atheists believe people go when they die?

[red_rider]

Thank you Podzol for an intelligent and Kind PM reply!:)

[GhettoSmurf]

We rot in the ground, seems harsh, and unfortunate but no amount of stories is going to change that.

[podzol]

Here is a way cool fact (of the scientific sort. I qualify to prevent any debate. It is not an absolute fact, just a scientific fact so Jesus people be quiet or you'll have trouble freemounting and your "nut guard"/handle will droop and get loose and fall off when you are trying to impress a girl.)

The (scientific) Fact established on the basis of morphology, anatomy, physiology, genetics, ontogeny and phylogeny:
Elephants evolved from water adapted sea mammals that evolved from land adapted mammals, that evolved from aquatic vertebrates.

It's just the most amazing example of the radiation of species and convergent and divergent evolution I have ever heard about!! Crazy! WOW!

Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.

[Spudman]

Elephants evolved from water adapted sea mammals that evolved from land adapted mammals, that evolved from aquatic vertebrates.



Mmm... aquatic vertebrates...

Did you actually read this from a historical book or are you making it up? ;)

[EvanWilson]

Anyway, I finally decided that I'm Buddhist. Mostly because I do believe there is a God, but I don't think it is possible to prove it, or to know what God is, or anything about Him/Her/It...so. Buddhism it is.

That doesn't really sound like sound logic to be a Buddhist, however, I am assuming there's more to it than that.

First of all, in Buddhism, arguably, there is no god.

Secondly, what you're describing is agnosticism, in the sense that you're claiming that you don't know and can't prove the answer to the religious debate.

I have no problem with you saying you're Buddhist, and if you were interested, I'd be happy to redirect you to the correct place, but I think it's possible you might be mistaken as to what Buddhism is.

[James_Potter]

That doesn't really sound like sound logic to be a Buddhist, however, I am assuming there's more to it than that.
First of all, in Buddhism, arguably, there is no god.
Secondly, what you're describing is agnosticism, in the sense that you're claiming that you don't know and can't prove the answer to the religious debate.
I have no problem with you saying you're Buddhist, and if you were interested, I'd be happy to redirect you to the correct place, but I think it's possible you might be mistaken as to what Buddhism is.
In Buddhism, God plays no part at all...there's nothing that says there is no God, and there is nothing that says there is a God.
Well, I believe there is a God, but I believe no one can prove it...so that's kinda like agnosticism, but I also believe in Buddhist practices.
I have several books on Buddhism, and have done much research, so I think I have a pretty good grasp...as far as I know, Buddhism has nothing to do with God at all.
Okay James, Where do Buddhists go when they die? Where do Atheists believe people go when they die?
Some Buddhists believe in reincarnation, because you live as many lives as you need to before you reach enlightenment. When you reach enlightenment, that is your last life on Earth, and then you reach Nirvana.
...in a nutshell.

[EvanWilson]

It makes me happy to see that you know what you're talking about, Mr. Potter. There are quite a few people at school (and everywhere I go, it seems) that cling to something that they know nothing about (whether religion, music, etc...)

I wish you good luck with everything.

Metta
-Evan

[monkeyman]

In Buddhism, God plays no part at all...there's nothing that says there is no God, and there is nothing that says there is a God.
Well, I believe there is a God, but I believe no one can prove it...so that's kinda like agnosticism, but I also believe in Buddhist practices.
I have several books on Buddhism, and have done much research, so I think I have a pretty good grasp...as far as I know, Buddhism has nothing to do with God at all.
That's kind of how I am, with Christianity...I believe in a higher power, but I don't know anything about it, and I know that I can never know...however, I think that the morals in Christianity/Islam/almost all the major religions are what everyone should live their life by.

[Spudman]

...however, I think that the morals in Christianity/Islam/almost all the major religions are what everyone should live their life by.

That is exactly what you are supposed to do in my opinion. Religion means nothing; I've met good and bad people from several different religions. What matters is doing what is right and better for society, such as helping people in need, creating a positive aura about you, and not starting religious threads in nice forums.

[red_rider]

In Buddhism, God plays no part at all...there's nothing that says there is no God, and there is nothing that says there is a God.
Well, I believe there is a God, but I believe no one can prove it...so that's kinda like agnosticism, but I also believe in Buddhist practices.
I have several books on Buddhism, and have done much research, so I think I have a pretty good grasp...as far as I know, Buddhism has nothing to do with God at all.

Some Buddhists believe in reincarnation, because you live as many lives as you need to before you reach enlightenment. When you reach enlightenment, that is your last life on Earth, and then you reach Nirvana.
...in a nutshell.
Thats pretty intriguing stuff. I do know that there are several famous buddist in the mainstream, and I have always heard that they are very "peaceful" people!:)

[phlegm]

Not to pick on you Mr. Potter, but I don't quite understand how a Westerner arrives at Buddhism. For me, Christianity is the dominant Western way to understand God. So, since I am undoubtedly a product of the Western way of thinking, trying to understand God or the metaphysical realm (or whatever you want to call It) via an Eastern religion such as Buddhism or Islam seems so foreign to the way I think that I see little point in trying (at least on a personal, practical level). In my mind, to do so would be akin to deciding to relocate to Siberia immediately in spite of my immense ignorance of the language and culture. Whether I like it or not, I am inseparable from the culture I am part of. So, without immersing myself in Eastern culture, I don't think I'd even have a chance at grasping what it really means to be Buddhist or Muslim.

[forrestunifreak]

Anyway, I finally decided that I'm Buddhist. Mostly because I do believe there is a God, but I don't think it is possible to prove it, or to know what God is, or anything about Him/Her/It...so. Buddhism it is.


One step closer to the "there are no absolutes" trap eh?

[magic lobster]

If you just want to be spiritual without defining god, then be spiritual. You don't need Buddhism to do it. Study Buddhist ideas and play along with the ones you agree with, but don't call yourself a Buddhist.

[James_Potter]

One step closer to the "there are no absolutes" trap eh?
Nah, there's certainly absolutes...however, I believe that, while on Earth, it is impossible to truly know what these absolutes are.

[forrestunifreak]

Nah, there's certainly absolutes...however, I believe that, while on Earth, it is impossible to truly know what these absolutes are.

Are you absolutely sure?

:)

[James_Potter]

Nope. Maybe some people do know "the truth." But several people have claimed this, including Jesus Christ, Moses, Muhammad, Buddha, Joseph Smith, etc.
So, which am I to believe?

[uni57]

I've noticed that a lot of atheists seem to have pent-up anti-religious feelings. Some are downright hostile. And their "button" has a hairpin trigger. I can understand and relate to that. It is at times frustrating to live in an "insane" world (a world where most people believe in something that so obviously isn't true). In a world that shoves God in your face at every turn (it's on money, it's in the Pledge of Allegience, people assume you believe, people "bless you" when you sneeze, and on and on -- without even getting into the long list of atrocities committed throughout history in the name of God).

I also feel that those feelings eventually run their course (and at least diminish, if not disappear). After a while, you get tired of feeling that way. And you become more accepting -- the world just is the way it is. Maybe discussing it on these forums is theraputic. Let it out. But don't lash out at individual people.

Do the believers ever think about what it's like to be an atheist in a predominantly theist world? Like being a lefty in a world designed for righties.

Also, what do the believers believe and think about atheists? Are we going to hell? Are we without moral compass? How do you feel about us? Is there acceptance, hostility, tolerance, understanding, pity? Friendship? Avoidance?

[phlegm]

I've noticed that a lot of atheists seem to have pent-up anti-religious feelings. Some are downright hostile. And their "button" has a hairpin trigger.

I've noticed that too. It makes me wonder if they're really just rebelling against theism in anger rather than honestly considering what it means to be an atheist. If the former, then I don't think they're any better off than the religious fundamentalists that don't think about what they believe.

Also, what do the believers believe and think about atheists?

I believe atheists are wrong, but I like them anyway. I like that they balance out the overzealous religious fanatics. I like that they force me to clarify what I believe too.

[Borges]

Where do Atheists believe people go when they die?
They go away.

[red_rider]

One thing I have discovered in my lifetime is that every Atheist I have ever personally known, or who was a "friend of a friend", were pretty highly intelligent and articulate people. That being said, doesnt mean I think we should jump on the bandwagon and become atheists because of that observation. I have done quite a bit of psychology study, and one of the first things you learn in psychology is "critical thinking". Which in a nut shell means, if you are going to be a good psycholoy student, you should never take anything on Faith. And of course we know that without faith, you will never believe in God. The intelligent factor may not be there with all atheists, it has just been my experience that this is the truth of the ones I have known.

[napalm]

Hi there everyone,

I was thinking the other night about why i was so against organised religion. Like UNI57 and Podzol i considered if it was just some sort of rebellion against my parents (both staunch catholics), or the fact that religion has been the basis of so much needless death and hatred. Or it could be that in a world full of "theists", that partake in religions that at their core profess good things,...there is still so much needless death, hunger, greed etc.

After a while i came to the conclusion that organised religion was man made, and therefore had all the flaws of man. It is a reprocussion of our highly evolved scientific mind which deals in Cause/effect binaries. Lived experience is the effect...so there must have been a cause for it- UP SPRINGS RELIGION to explain this void in our knowledge.
I am not anti religion...but i am anti-hypocricy. I am all for people that find some kind of solace in religion, or use that as a way to get the best out of themselves.

As for me i feel like a kid that has found out that santa Clause does not exist...and from this point fowards, no matter how hard i try, forgetting what i know to believe in that nice comforting fantasy is simply foolish.

mark

[Seager]

I grew out of my anti-religion anger along time ago. It does tend to pop up, however, when douchebags try to base legislation on it or are hypocrytical about it.

For instance, no Christian can be for the death penalty and not be a hypocrite. Bush won't give africa condoms, gays can't marry, people are trying to make abortions illegal, etc - it's all a Christian agenda and I hate that. People need to keep their religion out of laws that affect me. Until you can PROVE God, you should NOT be able to make laws that affect me based on him.

[Erant]

I've noticed that too. It makes me wonder if they're really just rebelling against theism in anger rather than honestly considering what it means to be an atheist. If the former, then I don't think they're any better off than the religious fundamentalists that don't think about what they believe.

Nope. It comes from a down-deep inside feeling of superiority. Most of us won't admit it, but I get the same feeling looking at people struggling with a mathematical calculation a 10 year old could do. I'm not proud of feeling that way, certainly not. It's just the way I am. I can usually hide the feelings of utmost frustration, but it gets harder on the internet. I'm just an atheist because I've worked with science for too long (even at 19) to be able to believe in God. Take one quick look at the Maxwell equations, and you'll know it too.

[mawesome]

Not to pick on you Mr. Potter, but I don't quite understand how a Westerner arrives at Buddhism. For me, Christianity is the dominant Western way to understand God. So, since I am undoubtedly a product of the Western way of thinking, trying to understand God or the metaphysical realm (or whatever you want to call It) via an Eastern religion such as Buddhism or Islam seems so foreign to the way I think that I see little point in trying (at least on a personal, practical level). In my mind, to do so would be akin to deciding to relocate to Siberia immediately in spite of my immense ignorance of the language and culture. Whether I like it or not, I am inseparable from the culture I am part of. So, without immersing myself in Eastern culture, I don't think I'd even have a chance at grasping what it really means to be Buddhist or Muslim.

Isn't that a bit like saying "I play the saxaphone and don't currently know how to play guitar or drums. This means that I can never play guitar or drums without getting rid of my saxaphone."

If God is music, my saxaphone is western religion and guitar/drums are eastern religions.

[mawesome]

Okay Where do Atheists believe people go when they die?

They don't.

[wobbling bear]

Where do Atheists believe people go when they die?
one could reverse the question: why do dead people have to go somewhere? the response for me is obvious: because the pain is too high to those who survive. So it's kind of healthy to have some psychological balance that helps overcome the pain. That's one of the point where religions have a natural advantage. For an Atheist there need be other compensation mechanisms which are not obvious and are more complicated to manage.
you need strong shoes to be an atheist: you've got hope without afterlife!

[mawesome]

Can anyone tell me why some of my christian friends gets mad when I mix up christianity and catholocism? Didn't christianity/prodestant(sp?) come about because of King Henry V or something?

[Borges]

Can anyone tell me why some of my christian friends gets mad when I mix up christianity and catholocism? Didn't christianity/prodestant(sp?) come about because of King Henry V or something?
Christianity is the whole Jesus-believing crowd.
It is split up into alot of groups, like catholics, protestants, anglicans, orthodox etc. which are all different branches of christianity.
Protestantism was started in 1521 by Martin Luther and anglicanism was started by King Henry VIII.

[James_Potter]

Not to pick on you Mr. Potter, but I don't quite understand how a Westerner arrives at Buddhism. For me, Christianity is the dominant Western way to understand God. So, since I am undoubtedly a product of the Western way of thinking, trying to understand God or the metaphysical realm (or whatever you want to call It) via an Eastern religion such as Buddhism or Islam seems so foreign to the way I think that I see little point in trying (at least on a personal, practical level). In my mind, to do so would be akin to deciding to relocate to Siberia immediately in spite of my immense ignorance of the language and culture. Whether I like it or not, I am inseparable from the culture I am part of. So, without immersing myself in Eastern culture, I don't think I'd even have a chance at grasping what it really means to be Buddhist or Muslim.
If you understand and believe in Buddhist or Muslim practices, there really is no reason you shouldn't be able to base your life around those beliefs...religion shouldn't have anything to do with where you live, it's about who you are, and who you want to be.

Can anyone tell me why some of my christian friends gets mad when I mix up christianity and catholocism? Didn't christianity/prodestant(sp?) come about because of King Henry V or something?
I don't know, but Mormons tend to get mad when you say that they're not Christians...just thought I'd add that ( :

[BillyTheMountain]

Can anyone tell me why some of my christian friends gets mad when I mix up christianity and catholocism? Didn't christianity/prodestant(sp?) come about because of King Henry V or something?

Because in the USA, Catholics have been targeted by Christian terrorist groups like the KKK (and their British equivalent in Northern Ireland), and when the Italian and Irish Catholics arrived in the USA in the late 1800s, the Protestants/Christians put signs in their window saying things like "No Irish." They taught in the NYC Public Schools that Catholics were inferior, carried disease (typhoid/typhus ass'd with poverty, sewage) and had many children, so the Bishop pulled them all out of the NYC Pub Schools and formed the Catholic School system. And Irish Catholics came to the USA because the British Protestants was allowing them to starve to death, while importing food from Ireland.

All USA presidents have been Protestant except JFK, and there is not likely to be another one, given the anti-Catholic sentiment in the USA.

Catholics haven't exactly been welcomed into the Christian fold.

[GILD]

Can anyone tell me why some of my christian friends gets mad when I mix up christianity and catholocism? Didn't christianity/prodestant(sp?) come about because of King Henry V or something?
It's not quite a simple as that.
These two wiki articles will at least give you a good overview.
You can find sources and research further if you want to.

History of christianity. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity)
History of anglicanism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglicanism)

As for why they get upset, I'm afraid you'll have to ask them.


(And while I'm linking... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism))

[uni57]

I was thinking the other night about why i was so against organised religion. Like UNI57 and Podzol i considered if it was just some sort of rebellion against my parents (both staunch catholics), or the fact that religion has been the basis of so much needless death and hatred.Mark,

Just for the record, that's not really what I was saying. I was trying to enumerate some reasons why atheists get so upset. Not why they became atheists. I think they are two separate issues [edit: see below] -- being an atheist and (optionally) being upset with or against religion (more to the point, religion's effects on the world).

By the way, this is the nicest discussion -- because we are talking about people. About us. About each other. Not arguing (although I'm sure that will come later:)). I really regret not calling this thread Let's Talk About Religion. Oh, well.


Edit: What you said is starting to sink in now. Some people choose to become atheists for the wrong reasons, not through logic and critical thinking. I tend to overlook that, because it wasn't the case for me.

[phlegm]

After a while i came to the conclusion that organised religion was man made, and therefore had all the flaws of man. It is a reprocussion of our highly evolved scientific mind which deals in Cause/effect binaries. Lived experience is the effect...so there must have been a cause for it- UP SPRINGS RELIGION to explain this void in our knowledge.

I agree that organized religion is a product of humanity, and so is science. So how can anyone invoke science as something greater than religion without being dogmatic? Is this any different than the religious fundamentalists that are dogmatic about believing what they think their holy book says.

I'm just an atheist because I've worked with science for too long (even at 19) to be able to believe in God. Take one quick look at the Maxwell equations, and you'll know it too.

That's ironic. I'm a theist because I don't have enough faith in science to answer every question about reality and not because I'm ignorant of science. I have great respect for science, but I also believe it has limits. And that is where other fields of inquiry begin, not to fill in the gaps that science hasn't yet explained but to fill in the gaps that I believe science will never understand.

Further, I think there can be multiple valid accounts about reality. For example, it is unnecessary to insist that a scientific explanation is better than a theological explanation or vice versa. Both can be considered equally valid and equally important.

Isn't that a bit like saying "I play the saxaphone and don't currently know how to play guitar or drums. This means that I can never play guitar or drums without getting rid of my saxaphone.".

No, it's more complex than that because religion is a product of human culture and thus is greatly dependent on the culture that developed it. Eastern and Western cultures/languages/mindsets are still very different. If I studied Buddhism, everthing I read would be shaded by my Western mindset. I would inevitably miss a lot of the meaning. To really grasp what Buddhism means, I believe I should at least physically relocate to be part of a predominantly Buddhist culture.

[BillyTheMountain]

Hi there everyone,

I was thinking the other night about why i was so against organised religion. Like UNI57 and Podzol i considered if it was just some sort of rebellion against my parents (both staunch catholics), or the fact that religion has been the basis of so much needless death and hatred. Or it could be that in a world full of "theists", that partake in religions that at their core profess good things,...there is still so much needless death, hunger, greed etc.
mark

People forgot all the oppression and death performed by atheists, esp. commmnists (who by ideology are atheists), in China, USSR, and elsewhere. For a relatively unpopular religion, atheists may have caused more of that stuff you dislike, person per person.

[cathwood]

I don't think you can blame religion or aethism for stuff that people did. They may have done it in the name of some religion or other but it's man's inhumanity to man that is to blame, people's fear, pain and ignorance.

I don't object to organised religion and infact feel that if it helps you to get by, then have religion. Whatever helps.

I personally 'believe' in people (which may seem strange after the first point above). And I like to think that i will live on in other people's memories and the way that I have helped them in life. It makes the total nothingness to come seem more barable.

Cathy

[BillyTheMountain]

I don't think you can blame religion or aethism for stuff that people did. They may have done it in the name of some religion or other but it's man's inhumanity to man that is to blame, people's fear, pain and ignorance.

I don't object to organised religion and infact feel that if it helps you to get by, then have religion. Whatever helps.

I personally 'believe' in people (which may seem strange after the first point above). And I like to think that i will live on in other people's memories and the way that I have helped them in life. It makes the total nothingness to come seem more barable.

Cathy

You worship people!!?? Come on over to my place!

Unfortunately, you still haven't found the blame for man's inhumanity to man. You've simply created a phrase that captures what they wish to understand.

[cathwood]

You worship people!!?? Come on over to my place!

Unfortunately, you still haven't found the blame for man's inhumanity to man. You've simply created a phrase that captures what they wish to understand.

Ofcoures I don't 'worship' people. I don't go regularly to buildings dedicated to singing thier praises. or have a huge book about them. Oh well, actually, perhaps I do...

Anyway, trying to find out what was to blame for man's inhumanity to man is what got me interested in psychology in the first place. Six years later I'm not much nearer the answer only that there isn't one thing to blame. The reasons for cruelty are as varied as the individuals involved. And the desire isn't always to hurt other people so much as to protect themselves. Perhaps it's more like man's humanity to man but because of the way we're made we just can't help hurting other people sometimes. I don't know. What I do know is that something that can see absolutely aweful when you hear about it in an abstract way is sometimes almost understandable if you really gain an understanding of what was going on.

Cathy

[phlegm]

Anyway, trying to find out what was to blame for man's inhumanity to man is what got me interested in psychology in the first place. Six years later I'm not much nearer the answer only that there isn't one thing to blame. The reasons for cruelty are as varied as the individuals involved. And the desire isn't always to hurt other people so much as to protect themselves. Perhaps it's more like man's humanity to man but because of the way we're made we just can't help hurting other people sometimes.

That is what the Christian creation story is about. It's not a scientific text. The meaning is simple. Humanity has fallen victim to its sinful nature.

[monkeyman]

In a world that shoves God in your face at every turn (it's on money, it's in the Pledge of Allegience, people assume you believe, people "bless you" when you sneeze, and on and on -- without even getting into the long list of atrocities committed throughout history in the name of God).

I have to disagree here...I "know" that it's on the money, but I pretty much never think about it, the Pledge of Allegience is just a series of words that I have to say every day at school, with 'Under God' being jsut two more of them, and I never consider the religious implicaitons of saying "bless you" when someone sneezes.....it's just common courtesy for me.
As for the historical atrocities, just because things are done 'in the name of something' doesn't mean it's that something's fault...
This example is slightly off, but do we blame the cars or the drivers for the accident? True, if there were no cars, then there would be no accident, but at the same time, it's the driver's fault. One thing I can't stand about the 9/11 thing is when people take it out on Islam.....Islam doesn't call on people to slaughter in it's name...it calls for many of the same things as Christianity
I got a little off topic, but my point is, you can't place the blame for the atrocities on the religion, but only the people who committed them.

Sorry if that was a little hard to follow....:o

[cathwood]

That is what the Christian creation story is about. It's not a scientific text. The meaning is simple. Humanity has fallen victim to its sinful nature.

Well a lot of my values may be 'christian', I just don't believe in god.

Cathy

[BillyTheMountain]

Well a lot of my values may be 'christian', I just don't believe in god.

Cathy
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

[Gilby]

Nah, there's certainly absolutes...however, I believe that, while on Earth, it is impossible to truly know what these absolutes are. Therefore we should look towards the astronauts.

[unicus]

Debating religion with a theist is like banging your head against a wall http://doom3.planet-multiplayer.de/forum/html/emoticons/mauer.gif

[James_Potter]

Therefore we should look towards the astronauts.
Haha, yes, the astronauts are the true prophets.
But no, what I mean is, while in this life, we cannot know the "Truth," whatever it may be. Even though I believe there must be something more to everything than we can know right now, I still think it is impossible to know what that is.

[maestro8]

I don't quite understand how a Westerner arrives at Buddhism... I don't think I'd even have a chance at grasping what it really means to be Buddhist or Muslim.
Enlightenment comes in many, many ways.

For me, it came through books. My first exposure to spirituality came through reading the Bible and attending a Christian church. Hated it. In college I was exposed to other philosophies... I read some of the Bhagavad-Gita and some essays on Buddhism and Taoism, and then my perception of the world began to change.

It doesn't matter if you're in the East or the West to become enlightened. All it takes is an open mind.

From my understanding of things, one does not become or be a Buddhist... a Buddhist simply is.

[phlegm]

Enlightenment comes in many, many ways.

How very Western to think that reading a book or opening your mind leads to enlightenment. Is it really possible to escape such a mindset by reading another book or opening your mind some more? Is it really possible to "simply be" a Buddhist in our culture?

I don't want to come off as sounding anti-Buddhist. I'm just skeptical of its relevance in the context of Western culture. That, and I have memories of my nonreligious Chinese father mocking Americans who cling to Americanized Asian ideas that pale in comparison to the real thing.

[maestro8]

How very Western to think that reading a book or opening your mind leads to enlightenment.
It must be hard to hear my words, sitting up there on that high horse of yours, phlegm... why don't you climb down here and join us? :rolleyes:

[monkeyman]

How very Western to think that reading a book or opening your mind leads to enlightenment.

1. I think it's pretty hard to reach enlightenment without an open mind, no matter what part of the world you're from
2. About the 'reading a book leading to enlightenment'...ever heard of the Bible? The Quran? People hear things about religion, then read the book, and that leads them on the path to 'enlightenment', or whatever you call it...how is thinking that 'Western' or false at all?

[phlegm]

I think you all missed what I meant. I didn't mean to be condescending. I'm just questioning our ability to transcend the very culture that we're part of. Who's to say that reading books and opening our minds is the path to enlightenment? (I realize that the word 'enlightenment' often implies some type of education in our culture, but I'm thinking of a more general meaning.)

I agree that reading books and having an open mind are hallmarks of our culture, but who says that our way is right and/or true? What if developing our minds does not lead to true enlightenment? What if the orgy of firing neurons ultimately leads us nowhere? I'm not saying that I think our way is necessarily false or wrong, but how is it that we can use our cultural ways to escape our own culture? Doesn't using our cultural methods (i.e., reading and having an open mind) keep us in our culture?

[James_Potter]

I don't think that religion has that much to do with culture...organized religion, maybe, but true religion, it shouldn't matter who you are, or where you live.
No one has declared that reading a book is the path to enlightenment...but in my experience, the path to enlightenment is different for each and every person. So for some, Christianity may be the way, for others, Buddhism.
I don't really know what is meant by "enlightenment" exactly, so I don't really know what to expect when/if I get there, or how to know if I do. All I know is that religion should give people a sense of meaning in their life, because it makes you realize there is a purpose to this crazy world....
But yes, the main point I was originally trying to convey is that religion != culture.

[Erant]

I have great respect for science, but I also believe it has limits. And that is where other fields of inquiry begin, not to fill in the gaps that science hasn't yet explained but to fill in the gaps that I believe science will never understand.

Here's the catch. Science is, commonly, done by humans. Now, we can all boast about our intelligence, but truth be told, we have no way of knowing how intelligent we are. We also have our limits, stemming from apes, we know only 3 dimensions, we can only GRASP 3 dimensions. Now, as some of you may know, there are quite a few more dimensions. (10 in fact, or more, depending on which string theorist you believe). So, I highly doubt man will be able to understand all the gaps. If science is done by an being with infinite intelligence and brain capacity, I doubt anything would remain hidden.

[cathwood]

I think you all missed what I meant. I didn't mean to be condescending. I'm just questioning our ability to transcend the very culture that we're part of. Who's to say that reading books and opening our minds is the path to enlightenment? (I realize that the word 'enlightenment' often implies some type of education in our culture, but I'm thinking of a more general meaning.)

I agree that reading books and having an open mind are hallmarks of our culture, but who says that our way is right and/or true? What if developing our minds does not lead to true enlightenment? What if the orgy of firing neurons ultimately leads us nowhere? I'm not saying that I think our way is necessarily false or wrong, but how is it that we can use our cultural ways to escape our own culture? Doesn't using our cultural methods (i.e., reading and having an open mind) keep us in our culture?

Yes ofcourse, we always speak/think/behave with/from our culture. But surely aspiring to be better/different is as worthy a goal in life as anything else religion has to offer.

Cathy

[napalm]

I have great respect for science, but I also believe it has limits. And that is where other fields of inquiry begin, not to fill in the gaps that science hasn't yet explained but to fill in the gaps that I believe science will never understand.

Plegm...it is also a very western way of thinking that man will at some stage, understand everything about their existence...wether it be through enlightenment, revelation in the afterlife, or the belief in a religion.

There is a great play by the existentialist Eugene Ionesco called the Chairs which deals with an elderly couple who man a deserted Lighthouse. They set out chairs for an audience of people who arrive to hear their divine revelation. A revelation they have come to during the long length of their lives. The only thing is that the man recognises he can not fully convey this revelation, so enploys an orator to fulfill his wishes. He and his wife promptly commit suicide and the orator is left on stage. He goes to the front of the room full of chairs only to profess a grumbling, un intelligable sound...alas he is a mute.

I think it is unfair to say that the manner in which information is recieved is more inportant than the information itslef. Sure, your context has an influence on the way you wil interpret and implement that information, but it does not mean searching for answers from other contexts is fruitless.

Do competent Muslims need to be from the middle east to understand The teachings of the Quran and Mohammed?...or catholics from the middle east to understand the teachings of Jesus the Nazareth?

Scientists are dogmatic about science becasue there are quantifiable and experimental outcomes that can be proven. As far as i am aware of, no one has yet proven God to exist. Sure there are limits to science (perhaps limits not to the practices of science, but our intellectual ability to implement them)
but when compared to religion where...well...anything goes (flying spaghetti monsters included) it does seem a little more reasnable to back science.

Us atheists in the end face a horrible prediciment (paschals wager). The odds are against us. Even if we are right..we face oblivion, complete nothingness.

Billythemountain- i am just as condemning of the brutal socialsist regime in the USSR as the next sane minded person, because they happened to, albeit half heartedly, expell religion from the country does not in any way change that fact. Religion and politics do have a lot in common. Both profess to help the masses, but in reality they are often just instruments to assist an agenda.

At least the Atheists that killed off their opposition have only themselves and their man made beliefs to blame. They can not pass the buck for their actions onto a higher being as justification for their actions.

mark

[BillyTheMountain]

1. I think it's pretty hard to reach enlightenment without an open mind, no matter what part of the world you're from


I seem to have misplaced my mind opener.


Does anyone have one I can borrow?

Billy

[Gilby]

I seem to have misplaced my mind opener.

Does anyone have one I can borrow?
If you have Shinburger or Aircorp pedals (or maybe some others), you have a opener built into your unicycle which may help you open your mind to let the spirits in. ;)

[cathwood]

I seem to have misplaced my mind opener.


Does anyone have one I can borrow?

Billy

Liar liar your bum's on fire.

Cathy

[Mikefule]

At least the Atheists that killed off their opposition have only themselves and their man made beliefs to blame. They can not pass the buck for their actions onto a higher being as justification for their actions.


All human beliefs are man made (in a gender neutral sesne of man).

You referred to some existentialist writings. I refer you to Existentialism and Humanism by Sartre in which he postulates the person meeting an angel with a message from God. The person still has to decide:

Is it really an angel, or a demon disguised as an angel (or a halucination)?
Is the message really from God?
How to interpret the message.
How to act on that interpretation.
It is also far from trivial to ask whether one should automatically assume that obeying God is the right thing to do.


So whether or not there are gods, all religions are the results of man's (often corrupt) attempts to interpret messages assumed to be from the gods - often sent through the medium of vague predictions, signs in the sky, and the sometimes incoherent babblings or writings of holy men.

Let's face it, if the Christian God really wanted to get his message across, then the Revelation wasn't the clearest medium he could have chosen. It's almost like his marketing department outsourced the job to foreign technical writers whilst the IT department was still debugging the software.

Marxist philosophy has a basis in inevitability. The Marxist's task is to help the birth of the next stage of social development - something that is seen as inevitable. That is little more than a belief in Fate or Destiny by another name.

Here's an interesting difference: I read the Iliad and the Odyssey recently. many of the heroes had a Fate - sometimes they knew, sometimes they didn't. The Fate had a tragic inevitability about it. Twist and turn to avoid it, or meekly comply, and it would still happen. That is a Greek view.

I'm now plugging through the less enjoyable Aeneid. This tells a story from the same period, with many similarities. Here, however, the hero has a Destiny - it is still inevitable, but he actively pursues it, confident that he will achieve it. That is a Roman view.

Marxism and Christianity are very different in many respects, but they share the Roman view.

[drebble]

Here are my thoughts on why there is a God and our reaction:

The universe must have been created because it is impossible for it to be eternal. Our sun, for example, is using up all of its energy and will one day “die” (although it never was alive). In order for something to run out it must have had a beginning because no matter how slow the process is it would have “died” long ago because eternity has an infinite time before and after (it must be after if it is also before). All of the matter in our universe would have always had to have been here (aside from creation) according to the law of conservation of mass and energy. But somewhere along the way it would have had to sporadically form the sun and many other stars according to evolution.
Life can die but life cannot come from death (aside from supernatural powers). In order for the first cell to evolve it would need a cell wall, the ability to grow, the ability to process “food” to create energy, and the ability to split and reproduce. How would random atoms and molecules bond together to form something as complex as this and have the intelligence to know to split? It is pretty much impossible.
Even if the cell manages to reproduce and create many cells, how are coherent thoughts developed? Matter cannot think. It can feel because of nerves and interpret that into pain and maybe pleasure. But matter cannot have emotions; it can not love nor hate. Neither can matter puzzle about whether creationism or evolution is true. Therefore, there must be other forces and existences separate from the world of matter, namely souls or spirits. These spirits can effect what matter does. We control our bodies by thoughts in our spirits communicate into the brain to the rest of our body. It is possible for a soul to be eternal. If they exist why could there not also be an all powerful one able to create the universe? This would avoid having to explain all the nigh impossibilities such as cells forming and the formation of stars. The reason we like to believe the nigh impossibilities over this logic is because we are afraid to admit there is one so powerful out there (and so much more powerful than us and our personal spirits). Unless we become convinced that this almighty spirit, God, is out for our good, our hearts will suppress the knowledge of him. We are trapped in this suppression by our scared souls and the devil and we don’t even know it. The only way we can escape is if this God liberates us. This is a second proof of his goodness along with his amazing creation that continually entertains and enthralls us with new discoveries of its intricacies and workings. Therefore we should thank and glorify him.

[Gilby]

The universe must have been created because it is impossible for it to be eternal.
<snip>
It is possible for a soul to be eternal.

You've obviously got things messed up here. The universe encompases everything, so to say that one thing is not eternal, but that which it contains is eternal, seems pretty far fetched.

[drebble]

The universe meaning the material world. Spirits are in another realm. I am not trying to sound mystical or anything.

[Mikefule]

Spirits are in another realm. I am not trying to sound mystical or anything.

We'll let the profundity of that comment hang in the air for a moment.

The universe cannot possibly be eternal, because it is not possible for something to be eternal. So it must have been made by God, because God is eternal. Er...

The universe cannot have simply come from nowhere because it is impossible to simply come from nowhere. Therefore it was made by God, who, er... simply came from nowhere.

The religious view appears to be that it is insufficient to accept that the universe "just is", but the statement "God just is" is neither more nor less rational. It adds nothing whatsoever to our understanding.

Something so huge and long-lasting that we cannot understand or explain it (the universe) can only be so big and long lasting for one reason: that it was made by something infinite in size and eternal: God. Er...

The universe cannot exist for no reason, so it must have been made for a reason that we cannot possibly understand by an ineffable God. Hmmm.

Here's a genuine creation myth: Out of chaos sprang Gaia, who gave birth to the Uranus. She then lay with Uranus and gave birth to various gods, and the titans.

One of those titans was Cronus, who had several children but ate them all, because it had been foretold that his son would overthrow him. His last child was Zeus. The mother hid Zeus from Cronus, and gave Cronus a large pebble wrapped in swadling clothes. Cronus was fooled and at the pebble. Zeus was then hung from a tree (between the Earth and the Sky) where Crounus couldn't possibly see him.

Zeus grew to maturity (hanging from a tree, obviously) and castrated his father, and cut him open, releasing his siblings. Zeus then married his sister, Hera, and they produced Ares, the god of war. Ares was their only child produced together. (This makes quite a bit of sense, given the state of the world.)

After that, Zeus produced various children by other gods, nymphs and mortal women.

All the troubles of the world and of the human race are caused by the conflicts between Zeus and his wife (who is jealous of his many "illegitimate" children) and between the minor gods. They squabble like a bunch of middle managers in a large corporation, which is why human history has been full of conflicting instructions, last minute changes of plan, and totally foreseeable cock-ups.

Which particular part of this myth is obviously less likely to be true than the Juaeo-Christian myth?

[Gilby]

The universe meaning the material world. Spirits are in another realm. I am not trying to sound mystical or anything.
Actually, though these distilled beverages have caused many people to feel enlightened in the past and be disconnected from reality, science has shown that spirits are simply a chemical effect within the nerve cells in the brain that causes these symptoms.

[monkeyman]

Actually, though these distilled beverages have caused many people to feel enlightened in the past and be disconnected from reality, science has shown that spirits are simply a chemical effect within the nerve cells in the brain that causes these symptoms.

I had to read that three times.
:o

The universe meaning the material world. Spirits are in another realm. I am not trying to sound mystical or anything.
Universe means everything...you can't have two universes

[frankz]

The universe cannot possibly be eternal, because it is not possible for something to be eternal. So it must have been made by God, because God is eternal. Er...

Drebble does not state that "something" cannot be eternal but that the unicverse cannot be. She never say's that God cannot be eternal.


The universe cannot have simply come from nowhere because it is impossible to simply come from nowhere. Therefore it was made by God, who, er... simply came from nowhere.

I do not believe that God came from nowhere, but that he always was.

The difference between having a creator and not having a creator is in the nature of the creator. I believe that God can be eternal and have no problem saying that he came from nowhere. The universe on the other hand can in my opinion not be eternal and cannot have come from nowhere.

[Mikefule]

The difference between having a creator and not having a creator is in the nature of the creator. I believe that God can be eternal and have no problem saying that he came from nowhere. The universe on the other hand can in my opinion not be eternal and cannot have come from nowhere.

You are of course entitled to believe that. However, the internal logic of the position you describe has several inconsistencies.

[frankz]

Such as?

[Borges]

How could logic ever explain life, the univers and everything?
What would you base the explanation on?
Why A? Because B
why B? Because C
why C? etc. etc.
You could go on forever, or you can choose somewhere to stop.

I stopped at "that's just the way the universe is", but if you want to stop at "the universe is that way because God made it like that" that's fine with me.
You choose the theory that makes the most sense to you.
I'm not saying there isn't a god. It just that, to me, not understanding the nature of the universe is just as good as not understanding the nature of God.

[monkeyman]

Such as?
By holding one thing true for one thing, but false for another.
Logically, that argument is inconsistent.
This is pretty far off the mark, but I'd liken to it to someone trying to say that it's possible for boys to do something, but impossible for a girl to do it.

Sorry if I've infringed on your territory Mikefule

[Mikefule]

That about sums it up. The world doesn't have to be logical.

However, logic is a very precise set of analytical tools. These tools can be used to analyse statements about the world (or anything else) to see whther those statements are consistent.

If you hold an opinion that can be shown to be logically inconsistent, then that suggests that some aspect of the opinion may need revision.

I'll break down the argument:

The difference between having a creator and not having a creator is in the nature of the creator.



This says that there is some inherent difference between having a creator and not having one.
Then it says that the nature of the creator is the difference.

At best, this is badly expressed.
X has a creator.
Y has no creator.

The difference between X and Y is the nature of the creator.
Surely the first and most obvious difference is that X has a creator, and Y doesn't.
However, this is not a fundamental part of the argument
.


I believe that God can be eternal and have no problem saying that he came from nowhere.

Assuming that "I believe that" is simply a polite softening of the argument:

God can be eternal.
It is possible that God came from nowhere.


That breaks down to:

It is possible for something (for example, God) to be eternal.
It is possible for something (for example, God) to come from nowhere.



The universe on the other hand can in my opinion not be eternal and cannot have come from nowhere.

Again, taking out the softening reference to opinion:

The universe cannot be eternal.
The universe cannot have come from nowhere.


So we have:

It is possible for something (for example, God) to be eternal, but the universe cannot be eternal.
It is possible for something (for example, God) to come from nowhere, but the universe cannot have come from nowhere.


What you appear to mean, if I can be so bold as to paraphrase your argument as I think you meant it:
The universe cannot be eternal, and cannot have come from nowhere.
Therefore the universe must have been actively created by something that pre-existed it.
That thing is God, who did come from nowhere, and is eternal.

We can ignore the slight semantic hiccup of something eternal coming from anywhere/nowhere. If God (or the universe) were eternal, then there would be no need for any coming from at all.

So all you say is:
X cannot have the characteristic Y
Therefore Z must have the characteristic Y.
And Z must have created X.

There is simply no logical sense there. It is perfectly fair to say this table is not eternal, or this mountain did not come from nowhere. However, your argument says, at its simplest level of expression:
"The universe didn't come from nowhere; it was the sole creation of something that came from nowhere."

Then we look at whether God and the universe are identical. Is God transcendent (that does not mean in everything, or everywhere, as many people think. It means outside of the universe) or is God immanent?

If God is immanent - in every atom, molecule, photon, mountain and blade of grass (etc.) then what is the difference between God and the totality of those atoms, molecules, photons, mountains, baldes of grass etc.?

If God is immanent, therefore, then he is everything. Therefore, God and the universe mean pretty much the same thing - in which case, one cannot have created the other, and if one could have come from nowhere, then so could the other.

A long time ago, I read Spinoza's ethics - he devotes many thousands of words to this problem and digs himself into a bit of a hole. By the end of the book, he is using the words "God" and "nature" almost interchangeably. That was close to heresy in his day. He was devout, but very troubled by the logical problems inherent in theology.

At best, all we end up with is "God" as a synonym for "whatever it is that we can never understand that allows or causes the universe to exist."

[monkeyman]

Yeah, read his, not mine...his was actually good
:o

[frankz]

“The universe cannot be eternal, and cannot have come from nowhere.
Therefore the universe must have been actively created by something that pre-existed it.
That thing is God, who did come from nowhere, and is eternal.” –Mikefule’s paraphrase of opposing view

I agree with everything accept:


“…is God, who did come from nowhere” -Mikefule

“I do not believe that God came from nowhere, but that he always was.” -frankz

There is a slight difference God has never been non-existent so he never “came”.



“Is God transcendent or is God immanent?” –Mikefule

I’m not totally familiar with these words. However I can say that from you definitions God is not imminent. At least he is not “pretty much the same thing as the universe”. God is not the grass or the stars. I’m not sure if I can say that God is transcendent based on your definition. Based on the dictionary definition God is transcendant. You say this: “that does not mean in everything, or everywhere, as many people think.” I do believe that God is everywhere and always present. If this means he is not transcendent than ok. When you say transcendent means “outside of the universe” what exactly are you saying? God is not bound by the rules of the universe, but I do believe he is present in it. Not outside of it. Is there a third option?




“The difference between having a creator and not having a creator is in the nature of the creator.” -frankz

“At best, this is badly expressed.” -mikefule

Ok yeah let me try again. Many people when told that the solution for the question “where did the universe come from?” is a creator ask “Ok if so, who created God?”.
The point I was trying to make is that while the universe needs a creator God doesn’t and therefore the question “Where did God come from?” has no answer because God always has been. (There I didn’t soften up my arguments by calling them opinions or beliefs)



If there are parts of your last post that I didn’t address here (such as the XYZ part) then I probably didn’t understand them and would appreciate it if you would restate them.

[Gilby]

The point I was trying to make is that while the universe needs a creator God doesn’t and therefore the question “Where did God come from?” has no answer because God always has been. Why can't the universe always have been present? The universe just is, needs no creator whatsoever, is eternal and always existed.

[mawesome]

Why can't the universe always have been present? The universe just is, needs no creator whatsoever, is eternal and always existed.

Because of the Big Bang. The universe was, for an infinite amount of time, non-existant.

However, let's just say, God did exist, how would we know about it? If he/she/it has always been, but not been physical or an actual thing, how would one become aware of it's existance?

The point I was trying to make is that while the universe needs a creator God doesn’t and therefore the question “Where did God come from?” has no answer because God always has been.

Where are you getting these facts from? As far as I know of God hasn't been proven or disproven. So, isn't saying that not only he/she/it is, but that he/she/it created existance, jumping to conclusion?

[jake_amos]

what needs to happen is that everyone on earth makes a deal with god if he doesnt prove himself then everyone denounces there allinment with him and we all beleive in buddhism like me :D

[mawesome]

Do not test me, for a test is a lack of faith, and without faith I am nothing

He can't prove his existance without disproving it. Read the Hitchicker's guide to the Galaxy.

Seems to me, the only way for this "God" fellow to exist, is for him to non-exist.... I'd believe God if he told me he didn't exist.

[siafirede]

... so he never “came”.


LOL OMG WTFZZZ!!!!!!11!!!11!!!!eleven!!!!1!!!!!

sorry...had to be immature for a second.

[Gilby]

Because of the Big Bang. The universe was, for an infinite amount of time, non-existant. You clearly do not understand the big bang theory then. Before the big bang, all the matter in the universe was concentrated in a single place. All the matter and energy did exist, but in a different form (hot and dense).

[mawesome]

The matter and energy was all in one singularity. Meaning it wasn't exactly a "universe". It's like saying that I didn't exist 20 years ago, although the matter and energy that I am made of was.

Another explanation of God's non-existance. Nothing is infinite, if God is infinite he is therefore nothing. And as we all know, nothing doesn't exist.

[Mikefule]

Because of the Big Bang. The universe was, for an infinite amount of time, non-existant.



No.

Time is the concept we use to place events in sequence. Events are interactions of objects. If there were no universe, there would be no events. "Before" the universe existed, there was no time. Therefore, the universe has, by definition, existed since the beginning of time.

[unicus]

Because of the Big Bang. The universe was, for an infinite amount of time, non-existant.
In the English language the word universe means everything. So no matter what there has ever been or will be it will be the universe. So whatever there was before the big bang (if there was one) it would have been the universe. How the universe was in the past I don’t know but what we can observe now is just what we can observe now it may have been very different.

Recently people have been going on about more than one universe, which is just stupid and gets on my nerves.

[mawesome]

Recently people have been going on about more than one universe, which is just stupid and gets on my nerves.

Doesn't that seem a bit narrow minded? Can you honestly tell me that you know for a fact that there is/has been/will be only 1 universe ever?

The way you put it is like one day a bunch of high scientist where like "hey man, like what if like, there was like, 2 universes. Or maybe like..... an infinite amount....... Dude that is way out there!"

[cathwood]

You're talking like there is an absolute truth to the matter that we can understand. There might not be. We generally feel that our current understanding of life, the universe and everything is the right one, but it may be just a construction of the current zietgist (or however you spell it - I wanted to put incomprehensible words in too), we've been wrong before.

We don't even understand our own consciousness or how a bunch of neurons can be 'me'.

Perhaps both our consciousness and the nature of the universe will never be undersood by us because we're too much a part of it (kind of like how you can't see your own head with your eyes without a mirror).

So maybe whatever explanations we can come up with will only be the mirror.

However, as humans we strive continually to understand these things. That is our real religion.

Cathy

[unicus]

Can you honestly tell me that you know for a fact that there is/has been/will be only 1 universe ever?
Yes absolutely.

The word universe is a noun that means everything that exists anywhere so you can't have anything more, like another universe, otherwise you would be redefining the word universe to mean something like everything we know about now. If you did that then we'd need a new word to define everything that exists anywhere which would be pointless.

When more things are observed, understood, etc. that we don't know about they are just still parts of the universe, just that we didn't know about them.

[Mikefule]

Unicus,

By your argument, you should use telescopic forks for looking at things that are a long way away. Homophobes would be people who are morbidly afraid of things that are the same, and paedophiles would genuinely love children.

In short, you are changing a discussion of real things into a discussion of the meaning of words. The meanings of words can change.

The original meaning of universe was indeed "everything", from the stem, "uni", meaning "one".

However, just as we have several universities, there can at least conceptually be a meaning of the word "universe" that means something rather less than "everything that exists or can exist anywhere at all in any time or dimension of reality."

The concept of multiple universes is common enough both in science fiction and in discussions among real scientists to have some useful meaning.

Mike:)

[Mikefule]

However, as humans we strive continually to understand these things. That is our real religion.



I like that.:)

[BillyTheMountain]

Nothing is infinite, if God is infinite he is therefore nothing. And as we all know, nothing doesn't exist.

But if nothing doesn't exist, then everything exists, including GOD.

[BillyTheMountain]

Unicus,

In short, you are changing a discussion of real things into a discussion of the meaning of words. The meanings of words can change.

Mike:)

I think there was a poll, and we decided what Mike is saying:
No semantics allowed!!

[mawesome]

But if nothing doesn't exist, then everything exists, including GOD.

But God isn't a thing, making him nothing. Yes everything exists, because of the basic fact that is it a thing.

[BillyTheMountain]

But God isn't a thing, making him nothing. Yes everything exists, because of the basic fact that is it a thing.

Everything is a thing. Even you.

[mawesome]

Yes but I can be proven to be a thing.

God, on the other hand, is by definition not a thing.

[BillyTheMountain]

thing (thng)
n.
1. An entity, an idea, or a quality perceived, known, or thought to have its own existence.
2.
a. The real or concrete substance of an entity.
b. An entity existing in space and time.
c. An inanimate object.
3. Something referred to by a word, a symbol, a sign, or an idea; a referent.
4. A creature: the poor little thing.
5. An individual object: There wasn't a thing in sight.
6.
a. Law That which can be possessed or owned. Often used in the plural: things personal; things real.
b. things Possessions; belongings: packed her things and left.
c. An article of clothing: Put on your things and let's go.
7. things The equipment needed for an activity or a special purpose: Where are my cleaning things?
8. An object or entity that is not or cannot be named specifically: What is this thing for?
9.
a. An act, deed, or work: promised to do great things.
b. The result of work or activity: is always building things.
10. A thought, a notion, or an utterance: What a rotten thing to say!
11. A piece of information: wouldn't tell me a thing about the project.
12. A means to an end: just the thing to increase sales.
13. An end or objective: In blackjack, the thing is to get nearest to 21 without going over.
14. A matter of concern: many things on my mind.
15. A turn of events; a circumstance: The accident was a terrible thing.
16.
a. things The general state of affairs; conditions: "Beneath the smooth surface of things, something was wrong" Tom Wicker.
b. A particular state of affairs; a situation: Let's deal with this thing promptly.
17. Informal A persistent illogical feeling, as a desire or an aversion; an obsession: has a thing about seafood.
18. Informal The latest fad or fashion; the rage: Drag racing was the thing then.
19. Slang An activity uniquely suitable and satisfying to one: Let him do his own thing. See Synonyms at forte1.
Idioms:
first thing Informal
Right away; before anything else: Do your assignments first thing in the morning.
see/hear things
To have hallucinations.

[unicus]

Unicus,

By your argument, you should use telescopic forks for looking at things that are a long way away. Homophobes would be people who are morbidly afraid of things that are the same, and paedophiles would genuinely love children.
Some words are difficult to define simply, as you’ve pointed out, but universe is a simple word with a simple definition.
In short, you are changing a discussion of real things into a discussion of the meaning of words. The meanings of words can change.
I’m not trying to change the discussion, and I don’t want to dwell on this, but people use universe to mean different things because their understanding derives from their observed usage and thus there can be confusion. I like to keep things simple and clear though I’m probably not.
The original meaning of universe was indeed "everything", from the stem, "uni", meaning "one".

However, just as we have several universities, there can at least conceptually be a meaning of the word "universe" that means something rather less than "everything that exists or can exist anywhere at all in any time or dimension of reality."

The concept of multiple universes is common enough both in science fiction and in discussions among real scientists to have some useful meaning.

Mike:)
Yes the concept of multiple universes is there and is most commonly referred to as multiverse (though the word’s not properly defined).

From this we have multiverse as meaning everything and universe as everything we can observe and is a part of the multiverse. The theories of there being a lot more than we can observe is all very well and good but changing the definition of a perfectly good word that already defines everything, well I see it as rather pointless and is little bug bear of mine.

Anyway WHATEVER :cool: ;)

[unicus]

I think there was a poll, and we decided what Mike is saying:
No semantics allowed!!
but i'm being a bit of an anarchist just lately in my old age – look no capitals :p

[mawesome]

From this we have multiverse as meaning everything and universe as everything we can observe and is a part of the multiverse.

Universe=everything
Multiverse= many everythings

I prefer the term "Megaverse". It sounds more eXtreme.

[Mikefule]

Universe=everything
Multiverse= many everythings

I prefer the term "Megaverse". It sounds more eXtreme.
I prefer perverse.

[Borges]

Three things:

Did time even exist before there was a universe? If nothing changes over time, doesn't it loose its meaning?
Was that an over-philosophical threadjack because it isn't about God or does it relate to the discussion about who and what is eternal?
Would someone make the UniVerse joke already? It's long overdue.

[wobbling bear]

At my office there used to be a phone in the lobby, I do not know why this phone was there. nobody was supposed to answer it!
but sometimes it ringed ( I know that because it was on my path to the toilets) So I used to pick up the phone and speak with a bass tone:
- "God speaking what can I do for you?"
- <breathe, gasp,????>

[skroboskim]

god is good god is great
im happy ... :)

[monkeyman]

god is good god is great
im happy ... :)
no no no...
bad skroboskim...this is a thread where we talk/debate about religion...you have to actually give points, and explain your beliefs, not just shamelessly push your own agenda

[johnfoss]

Buddhists go when they die? Where do Atheists believe people go when they die?
They don't go anywhere; you have to move them. :p

More seriously, for many it means "lights out." Many people can accept this idea while many others refuse, and hope for "more tries" in later lives or an afterlife. I believe it's a good idea to make a good try in *this* life, in case it's the only one.

Notice how everyone seems to be mostly getting along in this thread? I'm not sure exactly why, but I think it's because it was started by "non-believers" and most of the Christians (or similar) just stay out. This group tends to get on the case of people who choose to be religious. But why? Many of us have trouble with the "live and let live" concept.

[Mikefule]

Where I go when I die is where I was before I was conceived. (I nearly said, before I was born, but that doesn't produce a nice image for family viewing.)

That is, there was no I. There will be no I. I don't go anywhere; I just cease to be.

I have no problem with the fact that I did not experience, and can never experience the many millions of years before I was born. Why should I worry about the millions of years that will come after I die? I won't exist to know I'm not experiencing them.

However, on a pedantic point, an atheist is someone with no belief in god(s). that does not preclude a belief in either reincarnation or an afterlife. At least conceptually, you could have a worldview in which either or both of these could happen, without that worldview including a god or gods.

It's a bit like asking what vegetarians eat because they don't eat meat. Some eat fresh vegetables; some eat meat substitute; some eat a varied diet; some have avery limited diet. The label, "vegetarian", defines what people don't do, not what they do; the label, "atheist" operates in a similar way.

[johnfoss]

For me, Christianity is the dominant Western way to understand God. So, since I am undoubtedly a product of the Western way of thinking, trying to understand God or the metaphysical realm (or whatever you want to call It) via an Eastern religion such as Buddhism or Islam seems so foreign to the way I think that I see little point in trying (at least on a personal, practical level).
I think it helps to start by assuming all people are mostly alike, not different. I think you are perceiving it the other way around. I have learned little bits and pieces of various cultures by traveling around the world. This doesn't make me an expert, but it gives me a bit of a "feel" for various cultures. Even this little bit gives insight to the way people do things in various cultures.

I was raised in the United States, which I will assume makes me also a product of Western thinking. However I do not "understand" the Christian God. Am I supposed to because I grew up in the Bible Belt? I understand that the majority of people there are (various forms of) Christian, but this is because mostly their parents were as well. They did not "choose" it. Instead it was chosen for them, and they haven't switched. Being born into one religion, or religious category, does not necessarily make it "right" for you. I believe many people follow the religious beliefs they were raised with because to do anything else would be to admit that all of that belief and some of that faith may have been wrong! So unless they have major crises that make them question their current system, they stay with it.

[johnfoss]

As for me i feel like a kid that has found out that santa Clause does not exist...and from this point fowards, no matter how hard i try, forgetting what i know to believe in that nice comforting fantasy is simply foolish.

THEORY:
Santa Claus and God are one in the same.

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE:
1. Ever seen them both in the same place?
2. Both seem to be a little more "real" around Christmas time (at least in places that do Christmas), then you see or hear less of them after the new year starts.

Maybe the Santa Claus myth is part of what did it to me. That guy gets played up pretty hard when you're a kid. Then all of a sudden, you figure out it's a load of doo-doo, intended mostly to help you control yourself between the Halloween candy sugar-rush and December 25. God is supposed to run year-round, but is not very effective either. Some people find religion and it makes them happy, and better people. But others claim to be devoutly (insert religion name here), and yet are dishonest, devious, greedy, or worse.

Religion, on its own, does not make one a better person. This has to come from within, and be a choice that person makes. This seems to happen with about the same frequency among religous, non-religious, and people in between.

[johnfoss]

If God is music, my saxaphone is western religion and guitar/drums are eastern religions.
And you need all three to make a good band.

[cathwood]

Being born into one religion, or religious category, does not necessarily make it "right" for you. I believe many people follow the religious beliefs they were raised with because to do anything else would be to admit that all of that belief and some of that faith may have been wrong! So unless they have major crises that make them question their current system, they stay with it.

For me it was becoming a vegitarian. I used to be a good little christian and went to church with my mother. Then I thought (at about the age of 13) that we shouldn't eat animals (I've always thought too much about stuff). When I went to church I used to have to say something like I was going to drink the blood of our dear lord jesus christ and eat his flesh. (I have quite a 'concrete' imagnination and this made me feel extremely sick).

Well one thing led to another (via some thinking about man's inhumanity to man) and here I am, a paid up member of the aethist club (if there is one), and have been since I was about 15.

So maybe just small crises such as becoming a vegetarian. :)

Cathy

PS I'm no longer a vegetarian.

[monkeyman]

So unless they have major crises that make them question their current system, they stay with it.
I gotta disagree...I was born into a pretty Christian family, and, through no crisis or anything (granted, that I'm aware of), I don't follow Christianity...my belief in Christianity pretty much consists of "you never know, they could be right"

Also, about phlegm's point...I kinda agree with both sides of the issue, but I'm definitely leaning towards the side of "people are more similar than different".
People's backgrounds and cultures affect the way people interpret things. Someone raised in the bad part of town are gonna view someone in a trenchcoat differently than someone who grew up in the rich suburbs. However, when it comes to religion, John is right. (In my opinion). It;s not so much that it's the way you grew up, it's where. Someone who grows up in the Middle East is more likely to be Muslim, just because that's all they're exposed to. If there was a way to somehow equally expose people to both religions (I know this is an extremely close minded example, just go with it), then the followers of each respective religion would be fairly close together in number, simply because it would be based on personal choice.

I hope that made sense...did it?

[johnfoss]

Is it really possible to escape such a mindset by reading another book or opening your mind some more? Is it really possible to "simply be" a Buddhist in our culture?
Sure. Lots of people do it. But each does it a little differently. You seem to suggest that, once raised in a certain type of culture, it is not possible to understand another culture's ways of thinking without immersing yourself in that other culture. To some degree this is probably true. But on the other hand, no two people perceive the same thing(s) the same way(s). You can be raised in the same culture and yet have entirely different ways of looking at the world. We all have to allow for this.

I don't want to come off as sounding anti-Buddhist. I'm just skeptical of its relevance in the context of Western culture. That, and I have memories of my nonreligious Chinese father mocking Americans who cling to Americanized Asian ideas that pale in comparison to the real thing.
LIKE CHINESE FOOD! Heck yes! Once tasting the real thing (by going to China and sampling lots), the American equivalent seems sad by comparison. Like what Taco Bell is compared to actual Mexican food.

You mentioned a Chinese father. 1st generation? Second? At some point, this may have had an effect on your Western upbringing. You must know some things most of us don't. Your perceptions are going to be different as well. All this means is, we each have to interpret things in relation to our own paradigms. We have not choice. Changing the paradigms may be a separate process.

[phlegm]

I think it helps to start by assuming all people are mostly alike, not different. I think you are perceiving it the other way around.

Maybe I am. I didn't purpose to assume one way or the other, but now that you mention it, I do think people are not mostly alike. Maybe this has something to do with my experience in the world--finding that people may be like each other but rarely like me. So I would just as soon assume that people are mostly different, like me. ;)

Here is my personal take on culture and religion. Since it is not humanly possible to know which religion is absolutely true, I choose Christianity as the best religion for me because it meshes with my Western mindset. I'm not saying that I close myself off to other views, but ultimately, the religion that complements the way I've been trained to think is going to provide me the fullest meaning. So it's a practical choice for me. I live in Western culture and am a product of Western culture, so it seems natural that I would choose the religion that is deeply rooted in Western thought.

I do agree though that many Christians are Christians only because their parents raised them that way. This is unfortunate. Paul the Apostle instructed the early Christians to understand their faith, but many Christians have gone off the deep end in ignorance. In the present, it seems that many Christians are still reacting to the scientific mindset of the Modern era. So there are many that are still making every effort to buttress their beliefs by opposing science with their personal interpretation of the Bible. I believe this is a mistake--science and religion are a false dichotomy, and many theologians agree with me. But ignorance breeds ignorance, I guess.

Incidentally, I suppose I had a "major crisis." I grew up around Christian churches, but there was a time when I questioned "everything." And I do still tend to question my beliefs more than many Christians are comfortable doing. I could travel the world in search of "the true religion," however, practically speaking, there are other things I'd rather spend the bulk of my time doing than pining after an unattainable absolute, objective truth. I'm quite content believing what I believe--it's good enough and true enough for me, for now.

Also, since I regard culture very closely with religion, I do think that being born into a culture does to some degree destine one to a particular religion. And that's alright. Once we go down the path of admitting that the absolute truth is unknowable, there's no reason to think that we must look for a "greener" religion on the other side of the hill, so to speak.

[phlegm]

You mentioned a Chinese father. 1st generation? Second? At some point, this may have had an effect on your Western upbringing. You must know some things most of us don't. Your perceptions are going to be different as well. All this means is, we each have to interpret things in relation to our own paradigms. We have not choice. Changing the paradigms may be a separate process.

Yeah, I'm the first generation of immigrant parents. Although my mother was born in Canada, which is not so different. My experience has led me to believe that my perceptions are definitely uncommon. I wasn't raised around Chinese culture much, but my Chinese family name often causes people to treat me as if I am Chinese. It's quite strange, but over the years I've learned to read it better and respond accordingly. I think this contradiction of personal identity and perception by others also encouraged me to formulate my own personal "culture," more than if I were say, born into a WASP family.

I definitely endorse the idea that we try to break free of our culture and open our minds to other cultures, but I think we still have to acknowledge that our understanding may never be as full as we hope for and that breaking cultural ties is practically impossible.

[onewheelisbetter]

funny how in all the other threads about religion, there are heated debates. but in the official religious debate thread, everyone kids:)

[phlegm]

Paul the Apostle...

That should've said "Peter the Apostle." Maybe Paul said it somewhere too.

[BillyTheMountain]

This thread does have a nice tone.

I wonder about 2 things:

1. The people live in submission to GOD/Supreme Reality who have no interest in religion, or consider religion a prison. I might call them Sacred Areligionists.

2. The interspiritualists (those who embrace more than one sacred tradition). I gave examples of this in a thread by that name, but it never went too far. Interspiritualism may be the least popular way to embrace the sacred.

I can understand the Atheists having their own committments, and the same for others with their committments. I don't know. There is little interest in this stuff here. Why?

[phlegm]

1. The people live in submission to GOD/Supreme Reality who have no interest in religion, or consider religion a prison. I might call them Sacred Areligionists.

I'm not sure I understand who you're describing. Perhaps you could give some examples.

2. The interspiritualists (those who embrace more than one sacred tradition). I gave examples of this in a thread by that name, but it never went too far. Interspiritualism may be the least popular way to embrace the sacred.

That's like trying to be in more than one place at a time. It's very tiring and practically impossible. Or, if you make it practical, you end up with haphazardly strewn together bits and pieces of religious mush. Who can make any sense of that?

[podzol]

Hi Folks,
Pardon the interruption.

Seems as if there are two types of religious conversation here. When I signed on as a member there was a tongue-in-cheek dialogue about evolution/creation which was heated at times, but never mean as far as I can remember.

Lately the younger members have started a less productive debate if it can be called that.

I guess maybe the older, wiser, or at least more tolerant of us can continue to show these kids how to co exist peacefully with people who we think are nuts. Honestly, if I had seen the kinds of posts when I first found Unicyclist.com I would not have joined. Now I am starting a regluar no flavor unicycle club, I have unicyclists.com links on my charity website, and people who I refer to the site might look and are going to be confronted with this intolerant or yahoo crap. Maybe we can give Gilby some creative ideas about how to deal with it, but the posts are getting too obnoxious.

Gilby exhibits a tremendous amount of free-speech values by letting so much slide, I think there must be a way that falls far short of censorship that will help preserve the integrity of the forum.

Ideas any one? Best I can think is to have a separate forum just for specialty club information. People who want to learn about a club, can go there. Just a thought.

[Gilby]

Ideas any one? Best I can think is to have a separate forum just for specialty club information. People who want to learn about a club, can go there. Just a thought.

Yes, ideas are more than welcome. Maybe we can figure out something that can suit everyone's needs. Having skroboskim post numerous threads in RSU that are guarenteed to be off-topic is a problem. The first one stayed in RSU for a while, but after I read the entire thread today, it clearly did not belong there, so I moved it to JC. The second thread was moved to JC quite quickly. But the third, which apparently was in protest to the other two being moved to JC, was moved to the "Trash Receptacle" and skroboskim was banned from posting in RSU. Never had I had to take such measures, but multiples threads is clearly spam... I question whether skroboskim is actually a unicyclist to begin with, probably just a christian evangelist.

[uni57]

[responding to the question "where do atheists go when they die?"]

They don't go anywhere; you have to move them. :p
I can't stop laughing at that! Every time I re-read it, I laugh out loud (LOL) some more.

THEORY:
Santa Claus and God are one in the same.

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE:
1. Ever seen them both in the same place?
2. Both seem to be a little more "real" around Christmas time (at least in places that do Christmas), then you see or hear less of them after the new year starts.

MORE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE:
3. Both exhibit the same traits that are documented in a famous Christmas song...

He knows when you are sleeping
He knows when you're awake
He knows if you've been bad or good
So be good for goodness sake!

Oh, you better watch out.
etc. ...


I can understand the Atheists having their own committments ...I'm not sure what you mean about committments. But... be careful about lumping atheists together and making assumptions about them. Their only commonality is their lack of belief in God. Assume two people who both do NOT believe in Santa Claus. What other common traits can be inferred? Not much. One may be an adult Christian. Or an atheist. Or a young Jewish child (of "believing age" if they were Christian). Or a newborn who has not yet learned about the morbidly obese man in the red suit. One may be a serial killer. The other a housewife. Or a closet lesbian serial killer housewife. The lack of belief doesn't really tell you much. So, as a group, atheists are hard to define. Not so with theists. At least one can assume they hold the minimum set of requisite beliefs in order to be validly called Christian (or whatever they are). And, if they take their beliefs seriously, one can also assume they at least try to conduct themselves in accordance with their religion.

[forrestunifreak]

But the third, which apparently was in protest to the other two being moved to JC, was moved to the "Trash Receptacle" and skroboskim was banned from posting in RSU. Never had I had to take such measures, but multiples threads is clearly spam... I question whether skroboskim is actually a unicyclist to begin with, probably just a christian evangelist.


What!

I certainally don't agree with making multiple threads, but the only reason he did was because his other one was congested with crap that might be considered spamming his thread.

[GILD]

Recently people have been going on about more than one universe, which is just stupid and gets on my nerves.
I'm with you.

I suspect it's a similar kind of irritation caused by people who put out CD's with titles like "The Best XYZ Album In The World Ever!...Volume 1" (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000EMG77Y/ref=br_lf_m_h__5/026-8896811-5054050)
I mean really. Come one. Have a little faith in your own product!

here I am, a paid up member of the aethist club (if there is one), and have been since I was about 15.
Yeah, I'll PM you the account number.

Yes, ideas are more than welcome. Maybe we can figure out something that can suit everyone's needs. Never had I had to take such measures, but multiples threads is clearly spam... I question whether skroboskim is actually a unicyclist to begin with, probably just a christian evangelist.
Gilby, I know this couldn't have been an easy decision for you to make.
You'll probably take some flack for it and I don't particularly want to get into the right or wrong of the issue right now. I just wanted to acknowledge that with your commitment to a free-speech forum, it must've been a difficult decision.

[Eddbmxdude]

My socks are holey, should i unicycle for them?

Edd

[podzol]

I think Gilby did the right thing.

Most of us have posted threads that received unanticipated responses. If we all whined and started new threads each time someone contaminated a thread with contrary thoughts this would be a pretty miserable place. Maybe This guy will learn his lesson. No matter what his intentions, he is going about it the wrong way. As as the big kahuna around here, Gilby had to be decisive.

All of this doesn't have an iota to do with religion, either. He might feel he's above forum standards because he's doing it for his god.

A bit of a reminder: The Roman forum was a place for debate and discussion. It was not a place to recruit zealots. My thouhgts are that he needs to find a zealot website, if indeed he feels his god is most important he should be on Jesus fora instead of unicycling fora.

IMHO he's starting to feel guilty because he now realizes that Unicycling is god and he's scrambling to accmodate his epiphany with his older belief structure.
;)

[BillyTheMountain]

That's like trying to be in more than one place at a time. It's very tiring and practically impossible. Or, if you make it practical, you end up with haphazardly strewn together bits and pieces of religious mush. Who can make any sense of that?

Relax, and thank you for asking.

Interspirituality is more akin to dual citizenship, or to being a naturalized citizen of many sacred communities. Like many members of any sacredx community, you're not obligated to attend services every week. It can be very easy.

It's not like a mish-mash, either. That is something else. Each sacred tradition is kept pure, not some combination of your own invention, 2 from column A, 3 from column B, combined into one platter.

When in France, you follow the customs of that nation, and speak French. When you go to England, it's not like you forgot French, or ended your loyalty to France. Or gave up your citizenship to France.

Billy

[GILD]

Didn't the 'mish-mash' happen when mankind mushed up cosmic truth to create his 'religions'?

[BillyTheMountain]

Didn't the 'mish-mash' happen when mankind mushed up cosmic truth to create his 'religions'?

Master,

Please reveal the cosmic truth.

Your Humble Servant,

BillyTheMountain

[GILD]

Take all religions.
Mash together.
Remove all fear-based controlling aspects.
Replace with true love.

Presto.

[monkeyman]

Lately the younger members have started a less productive debate if it can be called that.

I guess maybe the older, wiser, or at least more tolerant of us can continue to show these kids how to co exist peacefully with people who we think are nuts.

Well, I guess I'll be one of the first "younger members" involved to apologize...I let my emotions get the better of me.
I'm sorry to anybody I may of offended.
I'm sorry for clogging up your forums with crap, Gilby.

I'll try to not let it happen again

[podzol]

Well, I guess I'll be one of the first "younger members" involved to apologize...I let my emotions get the better of me.
I'm sorry to anybody I may of offended.
I'm sorry for clogging up your forums with crap, Gilby.

I'll try to not let it happen again

Hey MM,
I didn't mean all the younger members. I should have been more careful in my wording.

When I was in Middle and High school, my best friend was a creationist. It drove me nuts, I am certain it drove her nuts too. Because we cared about our friendship AND the subject matter we learned to enjoy agruing without taking it personally. Kind of like the back and for that goes on in many of the religion threads. If one is open minded, much can be gained from such discussions.

I certainly haven't read the Jesus threads closely enough to engage in a he said-she said commentary, but I think you will agree that some, certainly not all, of the posts were close minded and mean. Nothing productive or insightful comes from that. You and I PM'ed a while ago about something, and my impression is that your posts were not among those I was referring to. K?:)

[UniBrier]

Take all religions.
Mash together.
Remove all fear-based controlling aspects.
Replace with true love.

Presto.Presto, you get this bumper sticker:

[johnfoss]

More props for Gilby, the Supreme Being of Unicyclist.com.
Yes, ideas are more than welcome. Maybe we can figure out something that can suit everyone's needs.
We have many types of users, with various different needs and perceptions:

(1) We have new (and not-so-new) riders who need answers to questions. These are perhaps the most important ones this site can serve. But in most cases the answers are already out there. However the Search function is not prominently labeled, and it is often not very effective in the hands of the average newbie (or myself, for that matter).

(2) Another class of users are the storytellers and posters of news, people who tell about their rides, events and upcoming events. They add lots of flavor to the forums by taking that hardware out into the field and letting us know what's happening, or letting us know where to gather.

(3) Another class are perhaps the longer term members, who may like to discuss existing topics in greater detail, the finer points of how to shift a Schlumph hub for instance, or to explain why the unicycling world does things the way it does currently. This group is the most often annoyed by frequent postings of same-old topics.

(4) A fourth group might be called "the kids." This group is, uh, how to say it properly, still learning how to use a keyboard and written communications skills, and often posts more to get interaction than to actually exchange any useful information. At least that's how it may look to members of group #3. This group is often "inventing" new tricks that they haven't actually done yet, or others that have been around for a long time. Nothing wrong with that, as much of it *is* new, and people who make stuff up are creative thinkers. The energy and creativity are this group's strong points.

Surely there are other breakdowns as well, but there are four categories of diverse users. Should we break them up? I don't think so. We've discussed that before and don't think it would have good results. We want everyone to be able to share a single forum, rec.sport.unicycling, to stay compatible with the more-universal usenet newsgroup of that name, and to keep everyone relatively in touch with all unicycling-related conversations.

But I think there are a couple of things that may help, I've mentioned some of this before, but now might be a good time to re-examine it.

FORUM GUIDELINES:
We don't really have a formal set. We wish for people to follow the traditional rules of forum etiquette, but not everybody knows them. For many new users, this is their first online forum experience. We should offer a "sticky," or other hard-to-miss place where people can read up on the forum guidelines (notice I don't call them rules) *before* making their first post. The process of creating an account could include a step that involves presenting the new member with the guidelines pages, and a button at the bottom to click to say they've read it. You could even put a timer on the button to make sure at least some time is elapsed on that page before first-time users move on.

Having a set of guidelines, we can then refer people to them if they're getting out of line. These guidelines can also be used if action needs to be taken against a member.

The most important guidelines should be on HOW and WHEN to start new threads. Threads already exist on nearly every topic possible. This doesn't mean one must post in a very old thread rather than start a fresh one, but it should mean users should make an effort to *read* before asking the rest of us to *write AGAIN.*

Nearly every common newbie and product-buying topic has been covered ad nauseum over the years, and very few need to be started afresh. How to get people to read what's already there? First make the search function a much more obvious part of the page layout. Then look at options for making the search work better. Not sure what the situation is there, but I've heard people mention how Google can search these forums better than the built-in search function.

Perhaps common questions can be pulled from the "main" forum and moved, by one or more editorial-type persons, to an "answers" or "most common topics" area. If someone starts a new thread on one of those most-common topics, they can be referred or moved to that area or thread. Examples: Should I buy a 20" or 24"? A MUni or a Trials? Which pedals are better? How to mount? We know the most common ones.

The above covers WHEN to start threads. Once a user gets past this, they should be at least a little educated (again, common forum etiquette) on HOW to. The Suject Line Police will enter here and remind people starting threads to put the actual subject in the subject line. Subjects generally are short sentences of more than three words. Your goal in a subject line is to identify your thread from all the other similar ones that have been written before.

In the past I have also made the suggestion of having a "waiting period" for new members; requiring them to read for a while before being able to post. I still think this is a good idea. For the vast majority of newbies who mostly need answers to pressing questions, those answers have already been written; they just need to be able to find them. I think taking away the ability to join, or create accounts on a whim, could cut way down on frivolous or "junk" posts, silly replies, accounts created for a single topic, and non-unicyclists jumping in when they want to make a comment.

Having skroboskim post numerous threads in RSU that are guarenteed to be off-topic is a problem. The first one stayed in RSU for a while, but after I read the entire thread today, it clearly did not belong there, so I moved it to JC. The second thread was moved to JC quite quickly. But the third, which apparently was in protest to the other two being moved to JC, was moved to the "Trash Receptacle" and skroboskim was banned from posting in RSU.
In one way I feel bad for Skroboskim in that I believe his intentions were on-topic and non-destructive in his original thread. Were he a more experienced user he would have been able to predict the path his thread would have taken. In one way, this speaks badly for us as a group, as we often give Christians or otherwise religious people a hard time. There are Christian groups for all sorts of activities, so why not unicycling? Let it work or not work on its own, no need to bash. I personally agreed with pkittle, who said he'd feel bad if a meet were near his home; he wouldn't go because it would not be a meeting of *unicyclists* if it's for Christians only. I think they would figure this out pretty quick on their own.

So once that thread got bogged down in the off-topic creation/evolution/science/nonsense debate it was ready for a move to JC. Sometimes banning users is necessary. I respect the choices of OWNER-MAN in this area, as he has a long track record of being as open and freedom-loving as anyone but the most annoying of civil-liberatarians can see.

[BillyTheMountain]

In one way, this speaks badly for us as a group, as we often give Christians or otherwise religious people a hard time. There are Christian groups for all sorts of activities, so why not unicycling?

Sometimes banning users is necessary. I respect the choices of OWNER-MAN in this area, as he has a long track record of being as open and freedom-loving as anyone but the most annoying of civil-liberatarians can see.

What a point!

You are, and somewhat unfortunately, too correct!

[cathwood]

"In one way I feel bad for Skroboskim in that I believe his intentions were on-topic and non-destructive in his original thread. Were he a more experienced user he would have been able to predict the path his thread would have taken. In one way, this speaks badly for us as a group, as we often give Christians or otherwise religious people a hard time. "

I don't think that this is necessarily true, but even if it is, I don't think this was the problem with Skroboskim's first post. His problem was telling other people not to respond in it. This forum has a history (at least as long as I have been using it, which admitedly isn't very long in the grand scheme of things) of guys posting in threads geared towards girls, girls posting in guy's threads, aetheists posting in christian threads, young kids posting in threads for geezers. It seems to be that now we have got together unicyclists don't want to be separated into different groups.

(Just an observation, nothing to do with advancing the current thread).

I have to say, I don't mind recurrent threads at all, I just mind bad language and nastines.

Cathy

[phlegm]

Regarding the search, I think the people that get annoyed by people asking the same questions over and over should contribute to the wiki, and the wiki should be required reading for new members. Part of the problem with searching for an answer is that the question you have may not be asked quite the same way. Whereas, if we can create a solid wiki, then many angles of advice can easily be addressed and not lost in the myriad other threads.t

[Gilby]

Regarding the search, I think the people that get annoyed by people asking the same questions over and over should contribute to the wiki, and the wiki should be required reading for new members. Part of the problem with searching for an answer is that the question you have may not be asked quite the same way. Whereas, if we can create a solid wiki, then many angles of advice can easily be addressed and not lost in the myriad other threads.t
A wiki, yes, on my todo list for way too long now. I need to set something up.

[phlegm]

Interspirituality is more akin to dual citizenship, or to being a naturalized citizen of many sacred communities. Like many members of any sacredx community, you're not obligated to attend services every week. It can be very easy.

I see what you're saying, but I still think it is pretty impractical--in most places. Some of the larger cities likely offer the oppurtunity to experience various distinct cultures and religions, and perhaps as this experiment we call the U.S. continues we'll have more and more mixing of cultures. But how do you connect with people if you attend different services every week? Isn't social interaction part of most, if not all religions?

Anyway, at some point, one has to draw the line and decide how much time and energy to spend pursuing religion. Personally, I'd just as soon be content with my partial picture and admit it, rather than overinvolving myself in the pursuit of religion.

[monkeyman]

(4) A fourth group might be called "the kids."
OMG!!!1!!! eye invtned a nue tric!! its were u jump and spin teh uni arond under u and then land w/ it bacwrds!!!! im gona cal it teh SPINN!!!!1

:cool:

I certainly haven't read the Jesus threads closely enough to engage in a he said-she said commentary, but I think you will agree that some, certainly not all, of the posts were close minded and mean.
I'd have to be insane, or blind, to not agree
Nothing productive or insightful comes from that. You and I PM'ed a while ago about something, and my impression is that your posts were not among those I was referring to.
Maybe so, but I still encouraged the thread either way

[uni57]

monkeyman, you are now officially awesome.

And if you are really in group #4 then you can't be 100. Either way, you are wise beyond your years. :)

[BillyTheMountain]

I see what you're saying, but I still think it is pretty impractical--in most places. Some of the larger cities likely offer the oppurtunity to experience various distinct cultures and religions, and perhaps as this experiment we call the U.S. continues we'll have more and more mixing of cultures. But how do you connect with people if you attend different services every week? Isn't social interaction part of most, if not all religions?

Anyway, at some point, one has to draw the line and decide how much time and energy to spend pursuing religion. Personally, I'd just as soon be content with my partial picture and admit it, rather than overinvolving myself in the pursuit of religion.

I'm so glad you asked. I can assume people know, when in fact none of this is clear. In addition, everyone has total permission to do it however they like. I happened to have adopted some of Lex Hixon's ideas about it, but wonderfully enough, there will never be a sole authority on Interspirituality. Because that authority's Interspirituality wont' be the same as yours. You can include and exclude any sacred traditions you want. You cannot do it mey way because you don't know my way. You'll find your own way if you want. And you'll find help everywhere, if you want.

Who said anything about religion? Or social interaction? This can be a completely inner experience. Did you see the thread on Interspirituality several weeks ago? Feel free to celebrate with a Passover Seder, Christmans tree, Eid, solstice celebration, whatever you like. I prefer to make it fun, but you can choose a harder path if you like.

And as for attendance, I maintain my citizenship to France even if I never actually go there again. Many people maintain membership to many religions without actually attending.

It can be as convenient or inconvenient as you like. It's up to you.

Billy

[wobbling bear]

And as for attendance, I maintain my citizenship to France even if I never actually go there again.
how come? why be so pessimistic? plenty of unicycling paths around here! (argh sorry ... no Wal-Mart :p )

[maestro8]

FORUM GUIDELINES:
For your wonderfully thoughtful post (and for the fact that I agree with you 110 percent) I give you a round of applause... HOORAY FOR JOHNFOSS!
http://www.duncancc.bc.ca/images/applause%203.jpg

[monkeyman]

monkeyman, you are now officially awesome.
I try
-bows-
Thank you
heh

Phlegm, to simplify Billy's point (at least I think I am)

Interspirituality is whatever makes you feel good, and whatever you feel is right.

[BillyTheMountain]

I try
-bows-
Thank you
heh

Phlegm, to simplify Billy's point (at least I think I am)

Interspirituality is whatever makes you feel good, and whatever you feel is right.

Close.

But getting a massage or jacking off a thread does not an interspiritualist make.

You need to consider yourself a citizen of more than one sacred tradition, either by birth or a naturalized citizen.

[uni57]

You need to consider yourself a citizen of more than one sacred tradition, either by birth or a naturalized citizen.Is there, like, some test you have to take? And is it multiple-choice, essay, experiential? Transcendental?

[BillyTheMountain]

Is there, like, some test you have to take? And is it multiple-choice, essay, experiential? Transcendental?

You only need to know that here you are free to fail.

[cathwood]

You only need to know that here you are free to fail.

Yes!!!
Something rare and valuable indeed.

Cathy

[wobbling bear]

that one (http://www.christianspacemission.org/) sent me wondering .... a site built by a "happening artist" prankster? a funny money extraction scheme? some really nutty religious zealot? or, worse, some deeply serious person? whatever this is a must read!

[BillyTheMountain]

Accoding to David Holmes' book Faiths of our Fathers, none of the first 5 US Presidents were conventional Christians. All were influenced to one degree or another by Deism, the once-popular view that GOD set the world in motion and then abstained from human affairs.

Jefferson cut and pasted his own Bible, and was influenced by the Qur'an. John Adams did not accept the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, etc.

What do you know? Is that why we have separation of Church and State???

[monkeyman]

I guess I'm just dumb, but how would that lead to separation of church and state? The fact that they had differing views and didn't want to fight over them?

[BillyTheMountain]

I guess I'm just dumb, but how would that lead to separation of church and state? The fact that they had differing views and didn't want to fight over them?

It was never too much of a separation. When did the Puritans start the Blue Laws?

Maybe our founding fathers just did not want to see Prohibition of alcohol, so they separated church and state....

[BillyTheMountain]

So Nick says: Ayn Rand is the devil.

What do YOU think? Who is the devil? Is there a devil?




Is there a Principle of Negativity?

[tomtrevor]

the devil is the guy that rides a bike instead of a unicycle.

[BillyTheMountain]

From the Juggling Thread: For some, unicycling is a religious preoccupation. Most feel a primary loyalty to one community.

the devil is the guy that rides a bike instead of a unicycle.

See what I mean?

[Zzagg]

we have separation of Church and Statewhere the hell did I read "In God we trust":confused: ;)

[JJuggle]

where the hell did I read "In God we trust":confused: ;)
Don't be confused monsieur. Nobody ever said anything about a separation of God and money. And money, though issued by the state, is much bigger than the state.

[Mikefule]

where the hell did I read "In God we trust":confused: ;)

I used to ride with the MZ Riders Club - a club for owners of old east European 2 stroke motor bikes. It was more like, "Oh God, wet rust."

[johnfoss]

Don't be confused monsieur. Nobody ever said anything about a separation of God and money.
Funny! And apparently true.

So, Billy, you must have heard that in "One nation, under God." Where we now all know the "under God" part was only added during the McCarthy era. Like a tattoo, it was easy to add but hard to get rid of.

[cathwood]

I used to ride with the MZ Riders Club - a club for owners of old east European 2 stroke motor bikes. It was more like, "Oh God, wet rust."

I don't usually do this cos it's kind of spamming but:

:D :D :D

Cathy

[BillyTheMountain]

Back to the thread: Did anyone see Charlie Rose last night.

They had an ex-nun who now calls herself a "freelance monotheist." Wrote an interesting book.

[Zzagg]

Don't be confused monsieur. Nobody ever said anything about a separation of God and money. And money, though issued by the state, is much bigger than the state.My mistake!:D :D :D
Sorry Billy, didn't intend to ruin your efforts to keep this thread "on the rails":o ...
...I'm leaving, BTW;)

[BillyTheMountain]

I went to a native American "pipe ceremony" the other day. There were many interspiritualists there, so Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim and other chants were added by attendees.

Among other things that stood out, the leader thanked one of the directions "for giving us this earth, so we have something to stand on, and walk on and dance on."

Until then, I took that aspect of the earth for granted.

Billy

[BillyTheMountain]

Nevada backs Wiccan symbol on soldier's headstone, but the Dept of Veterans Affairs refused, because the Dept does not recognize Wiccan.

Sgt. Patrick Stewart, 34, died in Sept when his copter was shot down in Afghanistan.

Do you support the soldier/Nevada/Wiccans, or the Dept of Veterans Affairs???

5/26/06 2,454 American Service members died since Iraq invasion began.

[johnfoss]

Do you support the soldier/Nevada/Wiccans, or the Dept of Veterans Affairs???
I guess I support whoever's paying for the plot and headstone. However, even if the federal (or state) government is paying for both, hopefully their restrictions on such things are clearly stated somewhere. It probably is, but not in a specific way. Probably something more along the lines of "serviceperson can be buried, and a headstone provided." If you want to go custom you might have to go a la carte.

This is a common theme for Billy. The serviceperson's "right" to be buried is not at issue. His freedom of speech is not. The question is whether his family has freedom of speech on a headstone they may not be footing the bill for. But I know scarce details. This could probably go to court and the serviceman's family could win. But what a hassle! My advice is to cremate, and do whatever you want for an urn.

[tumblebug rollin]

'hear about the agnostic dyslexic insomniac who lay awake all night worrying over whether there was a dog?

[BillyTheMountain]

This is a common theme for Billy.

What is? Constitutional Rights? Yeah. It's true. I'm sure it's no surprise I'd support Atheists getting their symbol on their military headstone, too.

My father, who lost his leg in combat, lived to old age, died and got cremated. They buried the cremains in Arlington, with a headstone. The headstones are marked with Crosses, Stars of David, and Crescents. The Wiccan family wants the Pentagram in a circle.

"The nightmare continues today as Roberta struggles to see her husband honored with the very freedoms he fought to preserve for others, including the freedom to express his religious choice by displaying the emblem sacred to him on his memorial plaque.
Thus far, Sgt. Patrick Stewart has been denied the right to have the Pentacle, the emblem of his religious belief, displayed on his memorial marker by the US Department of Veterans Affairs. Despite repeated requests by Wiccan leaders over a 9 year period, the VA still has not added this emblem of belief to its list of emblems that can be inscribed on markers, plaques, and headstones the VA makes available to deceased veterans.
Sgt. Patrick Stewart's marker on the Nevada Wall of Heroes remains a blank space while his comrade at arms, a Christian, who died in the same act of war on the same day, has a marker that includes his emblem of belief, the Christian Cross.
THIS IS DISCRIMINATION AND IT'S AGAINST THE LAW! "
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

http://www.circlesanctuary.org/liberty/veteranpentacle/stewartlifeandtimes.htm

Peace,
Billy

[johnfoss]

I've seen those headstones, like in the movie Saving Private Ryan. Even if those headstones are in France, I get the idea. And I'm on your side. If not anything else, the govt. should offer a "generic" model of stone or urn for people who's religious symbols are very uncommon. Not a "nothing," but at least something something that honorably implies "other."

If not, they should stop advertising the "big three" religious schools on all the other stones. Yes, it *does* sound like our govt. is discriminating on grounds of religious choice. Not that that's a surprise to anyone who's been in the military...

[uni57]

'hear about the agnostic dyslexic insomniac who lay awake all night worrying over whether there was a dog?That's silly, but I can't stop laughing. And I notice that your age is my favorite number. I like you!

[BillyTheMountain]

Dharma Punx & Hardcore Zen
Review by Sven Davisson
Dharma Punx: A Memoir, Noah Levine
(Harper SanFrancisco, 2003, 202pp, $23.95)

Hardcore Zen: Punk Rock, Monster Movies & the Truth About Reality, Brad Warner
(Wisdom Publications, 2003, 202pp. $14.95)

"While it may be that everyone can benefit in some way from hearing the Dharma, it may not be that the language of the Dharma is the same generation to generation. The youth generation may indeed be couched in a different vernacular, based on different experience that is better suited to present those Buddhist truths that transcend time and language.

Dharma Punx and Hardcore Zen are the beginnings of a niche. They are two of the first voices to emerge from a growing group of Gen X punks turned Buddhists.

Hardcore Zen author Brad Warner is a former member of the influential hardcore band Zero DeFex and the creative mind behind the critically lauded Dementia 13.

Levine discovered the straight edge movement within the hardcore scene and began to identify with Krishna Core, the spiritual side of the straight edge scene. He began to attend workshops and spiritual retreats where he met the English born monk Ajahn Amaro who eventually became his teacher.

In Hardcore Zen, Warner discusses his own road to the Dharma. Like Levine, Warner was part of the American hardcore scene. He managed to escape the potential for criminal activity and focused on the musical aspects—first as leadsinger for Zero DeFex and, later, as the creator of Dementia 13.

Important for their generation, both Levine and Warner deconstructs the Dharma, questioning it every step of the way. Through this they extract the important elements while leaving aside the more potentially loaded religious aspects. In this way they begin to cast the Buddha’s truths in ways that are more accessible to their generation—born as it is from skepticism and not the idealism of the generation before—quoting Johnny Lydon, Henry Rollins and Bart Simpson along the way"

[Mikefule]

The serviceperson's "right" to be buried is not at issue. His freedom of speech is not. The question is whether his family has freedom of speech on a headstone they may not be footing the bill for.

Quite right. Freedom of Speech is often used as a "catch all". Over here we have student demonstrators who say that their freedom of expression has been curtailed because they have been told by the Court to protest considerately (e.g. keep a sensible distance from buildings occupied by people who are working/studying, etc.)

My old boss once paraphrased a particularly obnoxious customer: "It's a point of principle, and I will spend every penny you have to defend it."

As an atheist myself, I wonder why any atheist would be too worried about what goes on his headstone.:confused:

[BillyTheMountain]

I get the idea. And I'm on your side.

Yes, it *does* sound like our govt. is discriminating on grounds of religious choice. Not that that's a surprise to anyone who's been in the military...

Thanks!

Ever wonder why religious threads cannot get hits on JC unless you include the name Jesus Christ? Like this thread? Or the Jewish Unicyclist thread?

At LBI Unithon today, someone suggested it had to do with the proseltizing thing. I'm not sure how that works to get those thread so much attention, but hey, I'm always interesting in having someone explain it to me.

Billy

[wobbling bear]

As an atheist myself, I wonder why any atheist would be too worried about what goes on his headstone.:confused:
I would say that since we do not believe in afterlife the only afterlife we get is from rememberance. For sure we won't care anymore ... but this is important for relatives who are still alive! (I mean: not specially the headstone, but any rememberance symbolic places). It also depends of your relatives sensibility: I just cannot stand visiting the tomb of my loved ones.

[johnfoss]

As an atheist myself, I wonder why any atheist would be too worried about what goes on his headstone.:confused:
Then you must not plan/require a headstone upon your death. Not even Kurt Vonnegut's neon "So it goes" as mentioned in another author's fiction novel?

Headstones, funerals, and pretty much everything aside from the disposition of the deceased's assets and possessions, are not for the deceased, they are for the living. What goes on the headstone is going to be viewed by your survivors. Your funeral is a reflection, not so much of you, but of the people who put it together.

And being buried in a box in the ground. What for, other than religious reasons? Are you saving yourself for later? The concept of burial of the dead probably originated from keeping loved ones from being scavenged, as well as to minimize disease. I think we have better options today. When I die, my basic wish is to cut out the good parts (if any -- for organ donation) and burn the rest. Then have a party. What to do with the ashes? Whatever you want.

[BillyTheMountain]

Did anyone hear what the Pope recently said about non-Roman Catholic "Christian religions"?

[Goats_On_Unicycles]

I heard that he had a prayer calling for the conversion of Jewish people.
I love that guy...

Hmmmm... He wouldn't even be the Pope if it wasn't for Judaism.

I love that guy...

[JJuggle]

Did anyone hear what the Pope recently said about non-Roman Catholic "Christian religions"?
Yes, I did.

[dan de man]

there is only one religion that i dont get along with ,mormens and its only the ones that knock on my door at 12 on a saturday

[BillyTheMountain]

Yes, I did.

I missed it.

What'd he say?

[JJuggle]

I missed it.

What'd he say?
He said that BillyTheMountain is an impediment to salvation and that those of the Catholic faith must avoid intercourse with him or face eternal damnation.

[dudewithasock]

He said that BillyTheMountain is an impediment to salvation and that those of the Catholic faith must avoid intercourse with him or face eternal damnation.

Would this include virtual forum-based intercourse? :(

[BillyTheMountain]

He said that BillyTheMountain is an impediment to salvation and that those of the Catholic faith must avoid intercourse with him or face eternal damnation.

Right! That's when you switched to UU.

By the way, how about all those Atheists who believe in an AFTERLIFE???

No GOD, but a soul that lives on? This form of Atheism dates back to the ancient Greeks.

[BluntRM]

.http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e335/johndavidhomeboy/1185960840357.jpg

[oldgeezers940]

Right! That's when you switched to UU.

By the way, how about all those Atheists who believe in an AFTERLIFE???

No GOD, but a soul that lives on? This form of Atheism dates back to the ancient Greeks.


so would they beleive a soul is created when one is born or is there only a finite number of souls that exist and have existed for all of time?

then where would the soul be before birth?? hmm... thats kinda confusing

[BillyTheMountain]

so would they beleive a soul is created when one is born or is there only a finite number of souls that exist and have existed for all of time?

then where would the soul be before birth?? hmm... thats kinda confusing

There are different Atheist beliefs surrounding this issue.

Generally, though, the belief in a soul that goes on arose from contemplating the MIND, and the experience that the MIND, while in some way related to brain function, is experienced so differently, like some form of energy that is briefly connected to the body/brain during a lifetime.

Prolly in some ways connected to those who practice astral projection, traveling to other places without their physical body, just their "astral body." There are exercises to move your consciousness around to various places within your body, then move your consciousness just a bit outside your body, then eventually miles away.

I haven't looked into it too thoroughly, though. It didn't come easy to me, so I gave up.

[GILD]

then where would the soul be before birth??

On a b*cycle?

[oldgeezers940]

On a b*cycle?


ew... those poor poor souls...

[hobo_chuck]

when the Earth needs the nutrients that i have absorbed, i will gladly give them up.




it was funny, my dad was talking about the people who "know".

i managed to get him to say that he doesn't know what they "know", or even the nature of what they "know",but that he knows that they"know" and that somday i will "know", and that he is getting closer to "Knowing"

AAAAAAARGH IT DRIVES ME INSANE!!

[GILD]

Does your old man handle snakes on weekends?

[oldgeezers940]

when the Earth needs the nutrients that i have absorbed, i will gladly give them up.




it was funny, my dad was talking about the people who "know".

i managed to get him to say that he doesn't know what they "know", or even the nature of what they "know",but that he knows that they"know" and that somday i will "know", and that he is getting closer to "Knowing"

AAAAAAARGH IT DRIVES ME INSANE!!



woahhh, so how do you go about gauging how close you are to knowing what other people know when you don't even know what they know in the first place...

I guess you just know when you know? :confused:

[hobo_chuck]

there is only one religion that i dont get along with ,mormens and its only the ones that knock on my door at 12 on a saturday
whenever a relegious group comes to your door trying to convert you or the like, simply listen to em real politely for , oh, 5-10 minutes, then say"Im not sure my Lord would like me listening to this kind of thing"
RESPONSE:
"well, what do you mean?" "what lord?" "my lord is the only lord!" blah blah blah ect.

"well, you see, we worship satan around here......."
i haven't seen any of those fellows anywhere near my house for a looooooong time....

[hobo_chuck]

woahhh, so how do you go about gauging how close you are to knowing what other people know when you don't even know what they know in the first place...

I guess you just know when you know? :confused:
yea, i don't know how he thinks that........well, i suppose he"knows" why:D

actually, i never got him to come up with a proper explaination. He is so thouroughly convenced that there are people out there that "know" .....


i did, however, mention how i "know" how truly little i "know"

therefore, I "know"

he said that was a step in the right direction:p

ROFL!!

[oldgeezers940]

haha,

so being this is a religious thread I find it kinda funny nobody has presented anything substantial to support old testament and new testament Christianity.

Most people seem to assume all we can come up with to back up our beliefs is "it says it in this book so it must be true!!", and I'm pretty sure most people would agree a response like that isn't even worth a debate...:rolleyes:

sorry if someone has already addressed this but i used the search feature and couldn't find anything =/

[BillyTheMountain]

haha,

so being this is a religious thread I find it kinda funny nobody has presented anything substantial to support old testament and new testament Christianity.

Most people seem to assume all we can come up with to back up our beliefs is "it says it in this book so it must be true!!", and I'm pretty sure most people would agree a response like that isn't even worth a debate...:rolleyes:

sorry if someone has already addressed this but i used the search feature and couldn't find anything =/

You are trying to threadjack this to Christianity.

This is about Atheism.

[oldgeezers940]

You are trying to threadjack this to Christianity.

This is about Atheism.


But what better way to respond to a well thought-out and logical Christian/Jewish argument than with a well thought-out and logical Atheist argument?

Of course, thats only possible if the Christian/Jewish argument is fully based in science. So I was wondering if thats been presented yet anywhere in this forum?:confused:


I say "Christian/Jewish" argument because the old testament is really the only part of the Bible that is effective in presenting an argument against Atheism. The *entirely* Christian argument can only be presented after the argument for Judaism..


So, seeing as the title of this thread suggests its about debating religion, is it really threadjacking? Especially since it could, and probably would, be replied to with an Atheistic response. And thus no threadjacking would actually occur...




or maybe i'm just wrong, in which case i'll stop talking. ;)

[monkeyman]

Billy, stop picking on the new guys.

[oldgeezers940]

Billy, stop picking on the new guys.

eh, im not that new...


i joined in 2004 but i lost my password so i had to make a new account.


and i figure its better to be on the safe side and ask nicely before attempting to threadjack :D (If a religious topic would even count as threadjacking...)

[monkeyman]

If you know about Billy, then what are you doing taking him seriously?

[oldgeezers940]

If you know about Billy, then what are you doing taking him seriously?


good point, still posting makes me nervous...


especially when it involves religion. :rolleyes:

[BillyTheMountain]

But what better way to respond to a well thought-out and logical Christian/Jewish argument than with a well thought-out and logical Atheist argument?

Of course, thats only possible if the Christian/Jewish argument is fully based in science. So I was wondering if thats been presented yet anywhere in this forum?:confused:


I say "Christian/Jewish" argument because the old testament is really the only part of the Bible that is effective in presenting an argument against Atheism. The *entirely* Christian argument can only be presented after the argument for Judaism..


So, seeing as the title of this thread suggests its about debating religion, is it really threadjacking? Especially since it could, and probably would, be replied to with an Atheistic response. And thus no threadjacking would actually occur...




or maybe i'm just wrong, in which case i'll stop talking. ;)

Atheist does not always equal Scientist, and vice versa, though the Scientist Atheists would have you believe so. The other, more tolerant Atheists, consider Scientist Atheists the Moral Majority of Atheism, the rigid, reactionary, people who need to get a littel action once in a while. The other Athieists get LOTS of action.

Like the Atheists who believe in an afterlife, or astral projection.

[oldgeezers940]

Atheist does not always equal Scientist, and vice versa, though the Scientist Atheists would have you believe so. The other, more tolerant Atheists, consider Scientist Atheists the Moral Majority of Atheism, the rigid, reactionary, people who need to get a littel action once in a while. The other Athieists get LOTS of action.

Like the Atheists who believe in an afterlife, or astral projection.


O ok, that makes sense. The only thing is how does the nonscientist Atheist explain the begginning of the universe?? Or more specificly how do they think the process that they believe in (such as astral projection) came into being??

And I'm very aware scientist doesn't equal Atheist. Almost any scientific fact can be interpreted to support either the Atheist or Monotheist point of view.

[monkeyman]

The other Athieists get LOTS of action.

http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/1215/quagmire3865gx9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[mscalisi]

...Like the Atheists who believe in an afterlife, or astral projection.

Are they like "jews for Jesus"?

BTM Have we ever met?

[johnfoss]

The only thing is how does the nonscientist Atheist explain the begginning of the universe??Why the assumption that he/she has to? What about "Nobody knows?" which is probably the most accurate answer out there? Certainly that's not much worse than pointing to a very old book of mostly fictional stories...

[oldgeezers940]

Why the assumption that he/she has to? What about "Nobody knows?" which is probably the most accurate answer out there? Certainly that's not much worse than pointing to a very old book of mostly fictional stories...


But when the "fictional" stories end up lining up nicely with newly discovered scientific facts it does look quite nice...


What about "Nobody knows?" which is probably the most accurate answer out there?

Well there has to be some explanation. And there can only be one explanation. The universe did have a beginning so its fair to say there is one accurate explanation for what actually did happen.


So "Nobody knows" isn't the most accurate, what actually happened is the most accurate. ;)

[johnfoss]

But when the "fictional" stories end up lining up nicely with newly discovered scientific facts it does look quite nice...There's that pesky Nostrodamus popping up again... :)

Well there has to be some explanation. And there can only be one explanation. Actually there can be a ton of explanations, which we currently have, though only one of them must be the right one. Let me switch over to saying "nobody knows which one is right." I imagine the answers will come, in bits and pieces, but over an unknown length of time. It may take a really, really long time before we've figured it all out, if ever. I can live with that. Why not, if thousands of generations lived with it before me?

Or to choose to have faith in one of the religious explanations, which have mostly been around for a very long time as well. Being "sure" about those then becomes a matter of faith, with scientific proof not required.

...Or not *desired*, if we are concerned our faith might be wrong...

[lostconch]

Or to choose to have faith in one of the religious explanations, which have mostly been around for a very long time as well. Being "sure" about those then becomes a matter of faith, with scientific proof not required.

...Or not *desired*, if we are concerned our faith might be wrong...

As usual The issue of scientific proof not required or used to support opposing views of origins (universe and man) is completely wrong,, I would be willing to bet that almost nobody on this forum is aware where the basic theories we are and have been taught originated from,, They are all based in mathmatics derived from Einsteins general theory of relativity early 1900's,, There are only a handful of physicists in the world that can actually understand, perform, and debate the mathmatics involved with deriving the applicable theories,, What we are fed is a trickledown effect from such individuals,, no problem I suppose but folks should be fed the entire meal not just one aspect of it,,

Though I could not possibly understand the mathmatics I do understand the 2 basic parameters that set the mathmatics in one direction or the other,, We are not told in our school study's that the Big Bang Theory, in order for the mathmatics to work out correctly, makes one very large ASSUMPTION which is an infinite universe,, This assumption makes issues of Universal Gravity and Time point to a very old universe..

If we were to make another ASSUMPTION that the universe is finite which would presuppose a center and use the same mathmatics the outcome is completely different,,

Now you can see why the universe is considered infinite by todays leaders of science,, Big Bag Theory

Biblically speaking a center to the universe is implied,, Fairly recent (last decade) data of Quantized Red Shifts seem to point to a center and we are near it,, In short scientists for years have been looking at the apparently expanding universe and looking at red shifts of the light of distant stars and galaxies and interpreting the data as a Doppler Effect,, It is now thought that the effect is quantized not doppler,, Which in short is saying that the actual fabric of space is expanding not just the objects in it,, When this data is plotted out, at least at this time, to 100 million light years there is an unmistakable organised pattern that is consistantly present that would not be present unless viewed from our point in the universe,,

This type of info ofcourse goes along with other big bang stuff they don't teach you in school, like... Space would have also had to be created at the big bang not just the objects that we see in it,,

So where or what did space fill?? They also don't tell you that mathmatically Eistein's computations in General Relativity points to atleast one other dimension,, Apparently the mathmatics work out easier when another dimension is assumed,, Now days they call the space that space filled Hyperspace (4th dimension),, Time itself is considered another possible mathmatical dimension,,

My point is we as Man don't know JACK,, Though we think we do,, The more we actually learn about the universe scientifically (word used loosely), Believing in a Creator is not an issue of faith,, It is a position based on assumptions just like the opposing view is a position based on assumptions or you could call both views based on faith

[oldgeezers940]

Space would have also had to be created at the big bang not just the objects that we see in it,,

So where or what did space fill?? They also don't tell you that mathmatically Eistein's computations in General Relativity points to atleast one other dimension,, Apparently the mathmatics work out easier when another dimension is assumed,, Now days they call the space that space filled Hyperspace (4th dimension),, Time itself is considered another possible mathmatical dimension
My point is we as Man don't know JACK,, Though we think we do,, The more we actually learn about the universe scientifically (word used loosely), Believing in a Creator is not an issue of faith,, It is a position based on assumptions just like the opposing view is a position based on assumptions or you could call both views based on faith


In addition to space, time was also "created" or began at the big bang. I find that almost unfathomable.


However in your last paragraph you say both positions are based on assumptions. Although I do believe that, I'd say there is one main difference between the assumptions made by the person who believes in a Creator and the person who doesn't. The difference being the one who doesn't believe in a Creator assumes ahead of time that the one who believes in a Creator is wrong. Not exactly the best assumption to make from the start. =/

[oldgeezers940]

...Or not *desired*, if we are concerned our faith might be wrong...

If my faith were wrong the very first thing I would want to know is that its wrong. If your faiths wrong, whatever it might be, why would you go on still believing it if you could know 100% that is was false. :confused:

The more science can discover the better. And the more I can learn the better. Of course my bio teacher didn't do the best job convincing our class of the whole evolution thing. Dodged every single one of my questions. :(

[johnfoss]

If your faiths wrong, whatever it might be, why would you go on still believing it if you could know 100% that is was false. :confused: People do that sort of thing all the time. Don't you know anybody who refuses to ever admit they're wrong? Same idea. I think it's a basic part of human nature.

Well said by LostConch! Except we knew quite a bit about our universe before Enistein came along. Gravitational theory (Earth goes around the sun), flying is not impossible, etc. Einstein just came along and made life more complicated. :)

[oldgeezers940]

People do that sort of thing all the time. Don't you know anybody who refuses to ever admit they're wrong? Same idea. I think it's a basic part of human nature.

Well said by LostConch! Except we knew quite a bit about our universe before Enistein came along. Gravitational theory (Earth goes around the sun), flying is not impossible, etc. Einstein just came along and made life more complicated. :)


yeah, I suppose some people wouldn't want to hear anything about it if someone tried to tell them they were wrong. =/ o well...


And don't you find it interesting that as time goes on scientist are discovering more and more about our universe and how complex it is, the less likely all of this came about *without* a Creator? Most notably biology, but also in things physics related such as LostConch has pointed out.

[BillyTheMountain]

People do that sort of thing all the time. Don't you know anybody who refuses to ever admit they're wrong? Same idea. I think it's a basic part of human nature.

Sure! That explains the 10% of Americans who continue to support Bush, all evidence to the contrary.

yeah, I suppose some people wouldn't want to hear anything about it if someone tried to tell them they were wrong. =/ o well...


And don't you find it interesting that as time goes on scientist are discovering more and more about our universe and how complex it is, the less likely all of this came about *without* a Creator? Most notably biology, but also in things physics related such as LostConch has pointed out.

Even MORE intriguing, it's becoming such that the Atheists who believe in astral projection and an afterlife will be supported by science. Then, will the other Atheists come into the fold?

[oldgeezers940]

Even MORE intriguing, it's becoming such that the Atheists who believe in astral projection and an afterlife will be supported by science. Then, will the other Atheists come into the fold?

Was that meant in sarcasm? If it wasn't could you give us atleast a hint as to what sort of science is beginning to support astral projection and even an afterlife??(not saying I don't believe in an afterlife, just saying its one of those things that I didn't think science had anything to say about):confused:

[BillyTheMountain]

Was that meant in sarcasm? If it wasn't could you give us atleast a hint as to what sort of science is beginning to support astral projection and even an afterlife??(not saying I don't believe in an afterlife, just saying its one of those things that I didn't think science had anything to say about):confused:

You're playing with me, right?

Or maybe you graduated from medical school before these things were discovered. Today, it's pretty much common knowledge:

Book Review:
"The Afterlife Experiments"

Has science finally proved, through rigorous experiments, that human consciousness survives death? If you're not convinced of life after death, this fascinating book just might change your mind. If there were scientific evidence that human consciousness survives after death, how would you live your life differently?

That is just one of the provocative questions raised in Gary E. Schwartz's fascinating new book, The Afterlife Experiments. The book chronicles a series of laboratory experiments conducted with a group of well-known mediums - including John Edward - to see if their claims of contact with "the other side" could be scientifically measured and documented. The results of those experiments are intriguing, to say the least, and profound, if considered seriously. Schwartz is convinced enough of the findings to subtitle his book, "Breakthrough scientific evidence of life after death."

Schwartz is no New Age pitch man or a guy who's thrown himself into the subject because of a near-death experience. Rather, he is a professor of psychology, medicine, neurology, psychiatry and surgery at the University of Arizona and director of its Human Energy Systems Laboratory; his credentials include a doctorate from Harvard and a professorship at Yale - an impressive background he carefully lays out at the beginning of the book. The point is to show his intention of approaching the subject with objectivity and scientific scrutiny. His intent at the outset was not to prove or disprove the existence of life after death, but to determine whether the successes that many mediums claim could stand up to the scientific method.

Working with his research partner, Dr. Linda G. Russek, Dr. Schwartz devised experiments that, as best they could, would eliminate the possibility of cheating or fraud of any kind. They were able to enlist the cooperation of such well-known mediums as John Edward, Suzanne Northrup and George Anderson, who to their credit placed no conditions on the experiments; they would participate exactly as directed by the scientists.

The early experiments were conducted much like John Edward's "private sittings," if you've seen his popular TV show "Crossing Over with John Edward." In this situation, the medium sits facing a "sitter," whom he or she has never met, and proceeds to apparently receive information from a deceased friend or relative of the sitter. The medium is often able to relay initials, names, dates and specific incidents relevant to the sitter and the deceased. In Schwartz's tests, each medium had a session with the same sitter, and the experiment was repeated with several sitters. The sitters were instructed to reply to any questions from the mediums with either a yes or no, with no elaboration. All "messages" from the deceased were carefully recorded - videotaped, in fact (some of the sessions were shown on a program for HBO) - and then later analyzed, point by point, for accuracy. Accuracy was scored on a hit-or-miss scale in the range of -3 to +3:

[Google it to see more]

[monkeyman]

The difference being the one who doesn't believe in a Creator assumes ahead of time that the one who believes in a Creator is wrong. Not exactly the best assumption to make from the start. =/
http://www.antiquark.com/entropyzone/wallpaper/no_bullshit.jpg

Since we're playing with generalizations, Creationists do the exact same thing. There is no difference between the methods used, only the initial assumption, and the outcome.

[gagtape]

There is a Group of people, that believe a flying Spagethi monster created the universe: http://www.venganza.org/

My mates are stupid like that except they were unaware that it already existed and tried to class it as a new religeon and started to get people to sign that they belong to the religeon lol

[lostconch]

http://www.antiquark.com/entropyzone/wallpaper/no_bullshit.jpg

Since we're playing with generalizations, Creationists do the exact same thing. There is no difference between the methods used, only the initial assumption, and the outcome.

Absolutely right,, Honestly I have no problem with it being that way,, I only have a problem with that situation not being generally known by anyone except those that are willing to search for the information,, As a matter of fact all of these issues make for great reading and great topics of conversation and debate I would think that alone would help general media to throw both points of view out on the air but it doesn't seem to work that way when the Potential for God is included in the mix

[lostconch]

If my faith were wrong the very first thing I would want to know is that its wrong. If your faiths wrong, whatever it might be, why would you go on still believing it if you could know 100% that is was false. :confused:

The more science can discover the better. And the more I can learn the better. Of course my bio teacher didn't do the best job convincing our class of the whole evolution thing. Dodged every single one of my questions. :(

You're right from your previous thread about they automatically assume no Creator,, But when you are talking about debating or discussing all of these things It seems to me intellectual honesty must apply to both sides,, Meaning I do the same thing the other way,, If we allow it for ourselves it has to be allowed the other way..

The issue that is tough to swallow is SCIENCE and EDUCATION,, This is where bias and initial assumptions should not come into play,, Science should follow a path to truth regardless of where the evidence leads,, By the way nice to not be the lone creationist on this site,,

[BillyTheMountain]

Science should follow a path to truth regardless of where the evidence leads,, By the way nice to not be the lone creationist on this site,,

Like Muhammed said: There are as many paths to the truth as there are hearts of humanity.

It's kind of nice there's no real debate going on here, and people are generally respectful.

[monkeyman]

Shut up, you bleeding liberal.

:p

[dudewithasock]

Why is that bull pooping out a ball bearing?

</contribution>

[critter]

love each other,
and respect nature,
make your path better than you found it,
and kill all the evil people

[johnfoss]

And don't you find it interesting that as time goes on scientist are discovering more and more about our universe and how complex it is, the less likely all of this came about *without* a Creator?I think I've heard this before, if I understand correctly. Are you suggesting that as the world gets more complex, for some reason it gets less likely that it developed without some form of "intelligent design?" If so, no. There's absolutely no validity to that argument.

The world has always been more complex than we understand. The more we learn, the more complex it gets. To keep expecting the *next* answers to be simpler than the previous ones is wishful thinking. As we learn more it will continue to get more complex. Does this prove something? If anything, it reinforces the fact that the more complex stuff isn't being learned earlier because it's so much more complex!

Same with the base-assumptions concept. If a creationist approaches the question with the assumption of a creator, the object would seem to be how to connect the existing science with a creator, or a set of accepted stores relating to that creator.

The person approaching the question without assumption of a creator has a simpler environment to work in. I believe this is known as the scientific method. There is no assumption of a creator, nor is there the assumption of no creator. The idea is to work with the facts alone and see what we can learn from them.

[hobo_chuck]

kill all the evil people


HEY!!!

[oldgeezers940]

I think I've heard this before, if I understand correctly. Are you suggesting that as the world gets more complex, for some reason it gets less likely that it developed without some form of "intelligent design?" If so, no. There's absolutely no validity to that argument. .

So when something is discovered that science blatantly says cannot come about by natural causes that doesn't in any way make you think that there is a good chance there is an outside force at work?

I could give examples of these types of things if you'd like

[oldgeezers940]

You're playing with me, right?

Or maybe you graduated from medical school before these things were discovered. Today, it's pretty much common knowledge:


hmm... I think I'll finish high school before I go onto medical school thank you very much.

but thats interesting. I've always heard the thing about how people suddenly lose several pounds the moment they die. I've always shrugged that off as people making a fit over the body releasing lots of gases when it dies.

[oldgeezers940]

Like Muhammed said: There are as many paths to the truth as there are hearts of humanity.

It's kind of nice there's no real debate going on here, and people are generally respectful.


Ok, I think this will be my last post in this run of three...


first, if we all take different paths won't we arrive at different truths? But in the end there is one truth. I don't mean that in a spiritual fluffy way but literally, there is one truth. From the beginning to the end events happened. And they only happened ONCE. So I'm not sure what Muhammed was thinking when he wrote that... except he probably wanted to keep a bunch of people happy with what he was saying so he just told them there all right! Ha, who wouldn't like a guy who came and told you everything you believe is right?


And of course we're respectful! =) without respect, well, we'd just be yelling down each others throats and no one would actually take the time to stop and think about what the other said:cool:

[lostconch]

I think I've heard this before, if I understand correctly. Are you suggesting that as the world gets more complex, for some reason it gets less likely that it developed without some form of "intelligent design?" If so, no. There's absolutely no validity to that argument.

The world has always been more complex than we understand. The more we learn, the more complex it gets. To keep expecting the *next* answers to be simpler than the previous ones is wishful thinking. As we learn more it will continue to get more complex. Does this prove something? If anything, it reinforces the fact that the more complex stuff isn't being learned earlier because it's so much more complex!

Same with the base-assumptions concept. If a creationist approaches the question with the assumption of a creator, the object would seem to be how to connect the existing science with a creator, or a set of accepted stores relating to that creator.

The person approaching the question without assumption of a creator has a simpler environment to work in. I believe this is known as the scientific method. There is no assumption of a creator, nor is there the assumption of no creator. The idea is to work with the facts alone and see what we can learn from them.

You would think what you are saying would be obvious but at one time it was not,, When the idea of Darwin suggested that through natural selection all living things on this planet progressively stepped back and back and back until you reach one simple single celled organism that came from non living things nobody was aware at how complex that organism actually is,, now they know and it throws a huge wrench into the theory.

I think the fact that the more we learn the more complex things get proves a lot,, It proves we know next to nothing

I really wish you were right about science assumes neither but that just doesn't seem to be so,, or maybe the real issue is one has to seperate what is actually science w/ scientific method being used (operational science) from
(theoretical science),, Theoretical science can never apply scientific method to reach absolute conclusions,,

Theoretical science is fickle and changing,, The big Scopes trial that started the turn in our public education is a great example,, Entire scientific presentation and performance (defense) was based on a tooth,, years later tooth is found to be the tooth of an extinct pig not a preman fossil,, Piltdown man, Nebraska man, they all fall years later but the damage is done and simply replaced by the latest so called scientific discovery,, with no mention of the errors of the past,, and the beat goes on

[GILD]

Believing in a Creator is not an issue of faith
Huh?

You've lost me.
When did 'believing' stop being an issue of 'faith'?

[lostconch]

Huh?

You've lost me.
When did 'believing' stop being an issue of 'faith'?

If you look at the last 3 sentences and not just pull out one,, I was trying to make the point that it is no more faith than the opposing view,, it qualifies for just as much so called Science as the so called scientific view,, or the scientific view requires just as much faith,, I happen to be persuaded that the Creation view requires less faith than the other and has more actual science on it's side.. I'll even take it a step further,, My observations, with the relatively new Intellegent Design debate issue being taught in schools show me that the naturalist/agnostic/atheist hold on Darwinism know that their strong hold would fall if scrutinized in schools,, That is why it is faught so feverishly

[oldgeezers940]

My observations, with the relatively new Intellegent Design debate issue being taught in schools show me that the naturalist/agnostic/atheist hold on Darwinism know that their strong hold would fall if scrutinized in schools,, That is why it is faught so feverishly

Intelligent design isn't taught at my school.

Also, we aren't given the possibility to question anything our teacher says on this issue. Basically we watch a movie, the teacher says, "yep, thats how it is", then passes out a quiz. Only for this topic though. All other topics are explored and discussed until the class is satisfied.

[lostconch]

Intelligent design isn't taught at my school.

Also, we aren't given the possibility to question anything our teacher says on this issue. Basically we watch a movie, the teacher says, "yep, thats how it is", then passes out a quiz. Only for this topic though. All other topics are explored and discussed until the class is satisfied.

It's not taught in any public school as far as I know,, I suppose there are private schools that would include the problems with evolutionary theory in their curriculum though,, I live in a county in GA that 3 years ago passed a policy to place stickers on the inside of the covers of text books stating that evolution is in fact a theory,, The very next school year larger political pressures hit and all of those stickers were ordered blacked out,, Ain't that America you can't even state a known fact in a text book,,

If you are genuinly interested in looking into the topic,, PM me and I will give you some great book suggestions that will keep you armed in your classes,, Of course I'm assuming you know that most of the time challenging the instuctor and probably holding your own will not go well for your grade..

[MuniAddict]

You'll find out when you die, so in the meantime, LIVE DAMIT!:rolleyes:

[johnfoss]

So when something is discovered that science blatantly says cannot come about by natural causes that doesn't in any way make you think that there is a good chance there is an outside force at work?

I could give examples of these types of things if you'd likeExamples, please. I guess I'm the most interested in the distinction between "could not have come aboout by natural causes" (your words) and "unknown how it came about." To me, one seems to include an assumption while the other does not.

if we all take different paths won't we arrive at different truths? But in the end there is one truth.This would seem to suggest that possibly none of our personally-arrived-at truths are the One Truth. We could all be wrong.

[johnfoss]

When the idea of Darwin suggested that through natural selection all living things on this planet progressively stepped back and back and back until you reach one simple single celled organism that came from non living things nobody was aware at how complex that organism actually is,, now they know and it throws a huge wrench into the theory.No it doesn't. If the realization of the greater complexity of our universe leads people to choose a creationist solution for themselves, that will cause some people to change sides, but it doesn't throw anything into the idea that there isn't any evidence of a creator yet.

I think the fact that the more we learn the more complex things get proves a lot,, It proves we know next to nothingI prefer to think of it as us still having much to learn.

I really wish you were right about science assumes neither but that just doesn't seem to be so...It is true that there are people with biases in the scientific community, and sometimes even scientists refuse to accept new learnings even after they are confirmed.

Piltdown man, Nebraska man, they all fall years later but the damage is done and simply replaced by the latest so called scientific discovery,, with no mention of the errors of the past,, and the beat goes onKind of like how history is taught in America. If the incorrect science has been replaced by the correct (meaning current) one, is this not more important than the historical information that surrounds it? Yes and no, I suppose. The history teacher will prefer the history while the science teacher prefers to get the science right. I guess I see it as a scientific update with a historical omission.

I happen to be persuaded that the Creation view requires less faith than the other and has more actual science on it's side.I don't think either *requires* huge amounts of faith; it's more a choice people make. Some have strong faith while others are more like taking sides.

Also, someone who prefers the science side should not be expected to believe all current scientific conclusions as facts. History has consistently shown that scientists get things wrong all the time, and must correct themselves. I believe that as long as the scientific approach is being honest, with itself and with it's calculations and conclusions, they're on the right track and we will continue to learn more about our world. We remain infinitely far from knowing all the big answers.

My observations, with the relatively new Intellegent Design debate issue being taught in schools show me that the naturalist/agnostic/atheist hold on Darwinism know that their strong hold would fall if scrutinized in schoolsIs Intelligent Design being taught in schools somewhere? Anyway, the worry for the naturalist/agnostic/atheist camp is the breakdown of our educational system in general. It ain't science--keep it out of the science class! Theology or philosophy? Fine.

I'm assuming you know that most of the time challenging the instuctor and probably holding your own will not go well for your grade..Now THAT is some sterling advice! Do so at your peril, students! It all depends on the teacher of course. Also, on this topic, some schools/districts might have strict rules regarding any debating of the issue.

[monkeyman]

Now THAT is some sterling advice! Do so at your peril, students! It all depends on the teacher of course. Also, on this topic, some schools/districts might have strict rules regarding any debating of the issue.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/211/505871576_ece47bb1b8_o.jpg

[oldgeezers940]

No it doesn't. If the realization of the greater complexity of our universe leads people to choose a creationist solution for themselves, that will cause some people to change sides, but it doesn't throw anything into the idea that there isn't any evidence of a creator yet.



Its not so much the realization of greater complexity but the realization of a complexity that science and mathematics says CANNOT occur by a natural process. Saying that we just need to learn more and we'll understand how those systems came to be doesn't quite cut it, we've learned enough to be able to say that certain things cannot arrise from nature.

And a question, how does the cell theory, which states life can only come from life, work with evolution? They seem to contradict each other. :confused: but maybe not....

[oldgeezers940]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/211/505871576_ece47bb1b8_o.jpg


If I were that students father I'd be proud... :D

[lostconch]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/211/505871576_ece47bb1b8_o.jpg

That letter is great,, Where did it come from?? internet joke I'm assuming

[Matt_V]

I have seen that letter before. It is so ridiculous that I really wonder if it is fake.