Thanks CmdrTaco, this is the perfect place for me to put this.
The Black, X-Large, high quality T-shirts with 'Potentially Dangerous' on the front and 'Mostly Harmless' on the back in white letters are now available. E-mail sleffer@home.com to order one, they will cost 15$ and they won't be ordered until I have either 50 orders or it is dec 20th, so the more people want one the faster we'll all get them. It should take about 4 weeks after the orders come in for everyone to get their shirt. Make sure you include mailing information with your order, all shirts will be shipped COD.
It wouldn't be the end of the world if I was incorrect about the creation of the universe, or even if I thought that the sun revolved around earth. You can see the sun going around the earth every day, and it seems reasonable. It's only when you look very closely at the paths of the stars in the sky that you realize what's actually happening. Perhaps our Ideas of the big bang are wrong, does it really matter? No, as I've stated before, once you look at the idea of god without pretense (I should state that I originally believed in god, but the more I thought about it, the less likely it seemed, I never found anything particularly wrong with Christianity, it just seemed silly) it seems ridicules. So, even in the big bang theory were wrong, it still doesn't mean that the Bible is right. How the universe got started, once we rule out the hand of god, has no impact on my life.
So you picked the option that made you feel all warm and fuzzy and uncaccountable. To not believe anything at all is just a sign of laziness and intentional apathy. I have more respect for those who believe the earth was spawned by a giant chicken labled 'Trump Universe Farm' than those who believe nothing.
And, current Big Bang theory predicts that we will never know the answers to these questions. If we ever figure it out, we'll have to change the theory to predict that we will be able to figure it out. Ain't science grand?:)
Anyway. This is how we got the big bang theory. We looked at what was going on. Everything in the Universe, at least that we can see, is moving apart. That means that at some point, it was probably all in one spot. Then used our laws of physics to try and figure out what it would have been like.
Actually, if you'd read up on it, you would see that we only have a clue back to a few milliseconds after the big bang, what happened before that is a mystery, and we will never know.
The idea that Santa Clause exists explains why presents are there every year, a child might believe it, because there parents said he does. However after a while, a child will start to notice things, like the 'holiday shopping season' and the fact that there parents are hiding Christmas presents around the house. The religious view would simply say, "Santa exists!" and possibly add, "The rest of the stuff was only put there to test your faith," whereas the Scientific view would be "Well, there's this 'holiday shopping season', and me and my little sister are always finding our Christmas presents hidden around the house, so mom and dad are probably buying them at the store."
Now, clearly the scientific view is correct in this case, but really its no different then the idea of Christian creation. The bible says 'X', and therefore you believe it (I'm assuming you're a creationist), there's no reason to believe it, other then that the bible (witch you're parents said was true). The scientific view says "Well, this is what's going on now, so it was probably going on before, and the most reasonable explanation we can think of, based on what we can see is 'X'" To anyone coming to the situation with no pretenses, the Christian idea is no less ludicrous then the One about Santa clause.
If I were to tell you, that despite all the evidence, that I still believed in Santa, and that you should to because you never really know is idiotic. But, is it really any different than 'Pascal's wager'? Oh, and the only thing science says about the 'big bang' is that it's the most reasonable explanation for the observable events.
A couple of things: 1. My parents did not tell me the bible was true, while I was growing up I was presented with a lot of different religious beliefs and theories. I picked the one that I felt was right. 2. I can watch my parents put presents under the tree, there is no unknown.
Now, you say that the universe is expanding away from something, all well and good. But that is meaningless. We only know that it appears to be expanding away from something based on factors we are able to observe and interpret. We still have no idea what actually happened and never will. But pure accident is not, to me, enough to explain it. It's like asking your parents 'Why is the sky blue' and they say 'It just is'. That's what science is telling you. You are asking 'Why is the universe here' and they are saying 'It just is'.
My second point is that though I intellectually accept such arguments, I choose to ignore them, and believe that Brisbane exists. That other people exist, that this isn't some dream.
So you are accepting existance on faith and/or the word of others. Hence, don't knock faith without evidence, we all have it, we all use it. Most Christians believe, not because it will get them into heaven, but because they believe it is RIGHT. That's why getting into heaven is so easy, you don't really have to do anything, but if you truly believe it, then you will do a lot because it's RIGHT.
Well, first of all, life didn't start immediately after the big bang. In fact the idea of the 'big bang' has absolutely nothing to do with Evolution, or the creation of life (ambiogenisis, I think). You can believe in any of the 3 that you like, ambiogenisys is dependant on evolution, but evolution isn't dependent of Ambiogenisys. The big bang dosn't need any of them
It would be possible for a 'god' to create the universe, and then for evolution to take place.
So, lets say you disagree with the 'scientific explanation for life', and you say its 'ridicules' this is probably because you don't understand biology. There is no difference between living matter, and non-living matter. Life is just an extremely long chemical reaction in 'normal' matter. Nothing special.
And, as far as Pascal's wager goes, what if you belive in the wrong god? And end up in hell? I mean, if you can believe in one god, then what makes others wrong, hrm? Then you'd be screwed.
Ok, first about Pascal's Wager, that's where the Faith part comes in. Second about the big bang and evolution, if you don't believe in the Big Bang (ie, you believe God created the universe) but you don't believe that God created life, then you have a problem...
Ambiogenisys is at least as ridiculous sounding as anything in Christianity. Micro-Evolution occurs, is demonstrable, and is accepted by pretty much everyone, Macro evolution on the other hand is a load of bullshit. I don't care what you do to a mouse it ain't gonna grow wings, develop hollow bones, feathers, and a hard beak, and fly away. Just not gonna happen.
You can believe that life is 'nothing special' if you want to, that's your own business. But I will continue to believe that you are a bit soft in the head for thinking that way, just as you'll continue to believe I'm still soft in the head for believing the way I do.
wrathful and proud... wrathful and proud... let's see... No, I can't remember when that might have been, unless you're thinking of her final, um, conversation with Bartleby. That, IMHO, was played totally wrong. Much more dramatic impact if she just says something, ideally regretful, ideally in no human language. I look at that as just a lapse in characterization rather than a thematic inconsistency.
Yeah, that whole SCREAM thing at the end was just messed up. She should have whispered 'I forgive you' or something like that, but have the volume turned up REALLY loud in the theatre, so the whisper rolls across the theater really loudly. That would have been great! >:) That screaming thing was just silly.
If our universe had a beginning, and "God" is eternal....what took him so long to create the universe?
If you believe that at all.
What do you mean 'long'? Are you trying to apply time as a way to measure something God did? time is a function of God, God does not exist within time, it exists within Him. Hence there was no time before the universe was created, and to God there is no time, Humans are the only things which have time, and we only use it as a way to measure how things are different in this Now than they are in the Now we remember.
An anarchist? I hope you are joking... most people outgrow that around junior year or so of college (when they start getting a clue about the real world outside of literature and high ideals).
There are many varieties of Anarchist, from the All-in-black-down-with-government-loot-the-stores variety to the tamer variety like myself. I'm a political Anarchist. I believe that instead of a huge political body that individuals, families and communities should take more responsibility for their actions and the actions of other members of the community. There is no need for a huge political body which dictates policy to everyone when they have no direct experience in the situation. There is a huge difference between Political Anarchy and Social Anarchy. Social Anarchy is (IMHO) a bad thing. While Political Anarchy can be a good thing.
you specifically stated that religion 'is a personal thing', that is a religious belief. According to my religion it is a community thing and one of my most important tasks in life is to try to educate as many people as possible about what I believe. Notice I did not say convert, I said Educate. All most Christians want to do is make sure you have heard about it and have all of the information necessary to make a good decision. Some will try to sway you to their view (Just like anyone else who wants to convince you of something) and some are insane extremists (Ooh, big surprise that you might find some of those in a group of humans).
How does expressing my religious views make me look bad? I've never looked down on someone for expressing their religious views, I don't know many people who have, and those I do know that look down on people for things like that are usually people that I don't have much respect for.
One word: Noah. With modern knowledge, it's obvious that the Genesis can't be literally interpreted.
Noah wrote about the entire world being flooded, well to him the entire world was the area between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, which IS prone to massive flooding, and especially was then. Also, it speaks of never having rained before, because of the desert climate it is quite possible that in living memory it had not rained in that area. So it IS possible to literally interpret Genesis if you give it a few seconds of thought.
Secondly: (a) Read Axelrod's _Evolution_of_Cooperation_, and study the interated Prisoner's dillema. Basically, if you live in a society with some good people, it's to your advantage to be good, as long as you learn to recongize the evil bastards. Evolution would reinforce any tendancy this way.
Why should I trust in the word of a human with an agenda? What makes HIS opinion or view more valid than anyone elses? Are you suggesting that I should believe something which goes against all of my own research and knowledge just because someone you agree with said it? While you may believe that random chance is all that is to blame for the universe existing, but some of us have better ideas.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, just because it says so in a book, any book, does not make it true or false. This is another great thing about science, no one position is ever held as the end-all-be-all truth of things until it is proven over and over again.
I never bash religion. I don't like it but I don't bash it. I try to explain the virtues of science but I believe bashing a differing position is never the way to explain why your position is good. This is why the creationist movement (to use an example of what I'm talking about, not necessarily because of our recent discussion) is so weak, they consistantly fail to show the strengths of their views, they just bash evolution. That's never the way to do things.
I fail to see how basing your belief on what a human who is alive now tells you is more valid than basing it on what a human who was alive 2000 years ago tells you. Evolution deserves to be bashed because it doesn't work, it's got holes bigger than christianities by far.
Also, you can not prove a negative, hence you can not prove that there is No God.
Hah, there have been no shortage of crazies and loonies throughout history willing to die for their beliefs. Remember Jim Jones, or more recently, the "Heaven's Gate" cult?
And as for "the apostles maneuvered and manipulated events in such a way as to make prophesies become fulfilled" they didn't have to manipulate anything; they were recording the events. However they chose to write it, well, that's how it happened.
What proof have you that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, besides the Gospels? Got his birth certificate handy?
And where, explicitly, is it prophisised that Jesus would die by crucifixion?
Hilarious. So where did your omnipotent being (aka "God") come from? An even bigger cosmic coincidence?
I believe the odds are better that we came into existence "randomly" rather than a "supreme being" came into existence randomly and created us. I will certainly admit that I may not know how we came about and am happy to continue searching for a better explanation. When I find one, I'll let you know... oh wait, you wouldn't listen anyway.
A religious person is simply one who will question all other theories except their own.
Your idea of creation has a chronological framework, ours does not. God was, is, and will be. Time is affects God no more than gravity or another other force. I can't even explain the way God exists in realtion to time in words very well, but I'll try. Reality, existence, the whole shebang, exists in 1 point called 'now' this is the only existence. We provide ourselves a reference point because 'now' changes, so we as humans need some way to measure this change. So we picked a random event (The way the earth and sun move in relation to each other) and divided it up and now we measure things in increments of that. But it is meaningless. We can only say what is now, not what will be or what was. God exists outside of all of this, or we exist within God, however you want to put it. Hmm, maybe I can express it better like this, Time is a function of God.
Religion is a very vague word. It is my belief that God exists, that Jesus Christ was his son, that because Christ died and was reborn I can say a brief, sincere prayer, and I will be able to enter into heaven. In order to show this I attempt to live a good life and live in a manner I believe Christ would approve of. I'm not always capable of this because I am human.
Now, what I believe starts off with a strait decleration that it is all about FAITH, they tell you that it can not be demonstrated or proven, you can not see God, you can not touch him or hear his voice directly. They say that they BELIEVE it is the truth. I believe it is the truth, but I will not tell you it IS the truth, because no one can know that.
It sure is. But we admit it so that the failings don't become blockages to new learning. When one scientist says the Big Bang happened from a thing the size of a basketball, another can say "We don't know that" and then they can go off and find the truth of the situation later. When one religious person (my father for a close-to-home example) says "Fags are going to hell" I can't say "We don't know that" and go about trying to prove him wrong. He won't listen, nor is his position provable in any way.
I can disprove it. If he is a Christian I can show him the specific passages in the Bible which proclaim that God will not deny ANYONE entrance into heaven. I know several Christian homosexuals, I personally don't think homosexuality is right (Mostly on a biological level) but I understand that it doesn't make them evil. They have done what the bible says they must do in order to go to heaven, above and beyond that they are also good people. If you bother to find out about the religion you are bashing you may be able to start proving loud mouthed fundies wrong by showing them a few lines of scripture.
When you look back at the history of christianity, it's clear that the amount of evil greatly, greatly outnumbers the good.
In fact, it's only recently that we've been seeing any real "christian" acts coming out of christians - probably because technology has raised their standard of living to the point where charity is feasible.
For every Mother Theresa, there's a Torquemada. For every starving poor man fed, a thousand tortured and slaughtered.
"Love they neighbor" indeed.
Hmmm... I don't see that at all. For every crusade against the 'Heathens' there was one against poverty. For every Torquemeda there is a mother Theresa, and for every thousand tortured and slaughtered are another thousand fed and clothed. Non christians do terrible things, christians do terrible things. We're all human, we're all fallible. How many starving people has your family fed? How many times do you stop on the side of the road to help out a stranded motorist? Good will is not limited to Christians, and neither is malice.
The "Big Bang" is by the evidence, an excellent theory, but it by no means a doctrinal certainty.
Ask a scientist how the universe began, and the answer is "Probably the "Big Bang", but we don't really know, and quite possibly never will"
Ask a scientist how life began, and you will get an explination of various types of molecules combining under certain conditions, and creating new kinds of molecules that could self-replicate - life. Ask for those exact compunds and conditions, and you will get "we don't know for sure" - but the process is pretty clear. With time and experiment, eventually the creation of life will be duplicated in a lab.
But both the creation of the universe and the creation of life can be explained by the application of various physical laws that you can go out and test for yourself. God is not part of the mix.
You don't need a "final" answer from science to see that god is invalid.
So instead I should take the word of a bunch of people who admit they aren't exactly sure what's going on and believe that is the be all end all of truth? How can you say that when several hundred years ago scientists believed the sun revolved around a flat earth? Science is fallible.
You actually KNOW that life on earth began from protozoa?.... were you there?
You actually KNOW that Henry Ford began mass producing cars on an assembly line in the early 1900s?.... were you there?
You actually KNOW that Japan exists?.... Are you there?
The point of this is that you are relying on what other, fallible human beings tell you, then you are ridiculing others for the same thing.
It is equally as likely as not that the bible is word for word perfectly reproduced except where translation renders that impossible due to missing words.
How much has 2000 years of a philosophy that espouses peace and love, but practices hate, intolerence, slavish obedience to dogma, active obstruction of those who refuse to follow them, - and even torture and murder - cost humanity?
Christians would do well to put aside their bibles and pick up some real history books, and learn just what it is that they are involved in. There is very little good in there.
Oh yes, those evil evil christians feeding thousands of poor and starving homeless people, sacrificing their lives to work for charity for the betterment of their fellow people, all of that nasty 'love thy neighbor' stuff is just terrible.
I'm so so sorry you look at Christianity ONLY by the evil that has been done in its name. Why not take a look at every other organization on earth and tell me that they are all pure and good and have done nothing harmful to anyone, ever...
I don't think anybody wants this story to turn into a 1500 post argument like the infamous Kansas evolution story but I have to say something about your mistaken beliefs about the universe. I'm no physicist but I am interested and I read alot.
First, no physicist I've ever read has ever said anything about the big bang happening from anything "about the size of a basketball." We have no idea what the thing was that spawned the BB was but physicists tend to agree that it was probably a singularity, a point of infinite density with no size as we think of the word, which are also thought to be at the center of black holes.
Second, "life" is not some mystical thing that had to spring in existence wheras before it didn't exist. Stuff just springing into existence only happens in the Bible. Life is all around us in so many different forms just on this planet that to say that life became us is silly, to use your word. "Life" is just a word that we use to talk about things that are not inanimate. Intelligent life, which is what you probably meant, is trickier to pin down but it still didn't just pop into existence, it's taken billions of years to get to us.
Last, even if the universe is only 1 nanosecond old to some outside alien presence, it's still a specific number of our years old to us and finding that number out is a valuable thing. Time, as you said, is a construct of humanity in the way that we measure it but time as a function of entropy in the universe is not a construct, nor is it meaningless. Even if we are in some VL computer, it's still life to us and really, it doesn't matter whether we're in a computer or not.
I'm not trying to bash you or anything, far from it. Anybody who really researches things like God and life is a-ok in my book. I'm just espousing some views of my own.
I've got to stop using the basketball crack... I can't remember where I heard that, but for some reason it just pops up as a good way to describe the Big Bang. I realize that it was not literaly the size of a basketball necessarily, but you can't prove that, so it's still just as valid. Also, you state that Life is all around us, yet before the universe existed where was life? Why was there a singularity? What caused the Singularity to ignite? When science can demonstrate to me how life can be created from nothingness I will rethink my position, until then I can not put much faith (You read that right, science is just as much faith as any other religion) in a theory with so many holes which is being presented as provable. At least my religion admits that it relies on faith in an unprovable constant.
You just walked into a wall. I challenge you to 'prove' anything. You can only prove something to your own satisfaction, never to anyone elses. As far as I know you are simply a figment of my imagination and there is no way you can 'prove' otherwise. This discussion can not be about proof because there is no such thing.
Also, the gospels do not contradict themselves, I challenge you to show me where you believe they do and I will show you why you are wrong.
2) You're putting all your eggs in one basket by assuming that you're betting on the right horse. One of the problems with Pascal's Wager is that the person who puts it forward assumes that there are only two options: either the christian god exists and the christians are right, or no god exists and the atheists are right. But these are not the only two options! What if Zeus is the real god? Then both the christians who worship Yahweh and the atheists who worship nothing are screwed! If you really wanted to play it safe shouldn't you be worshipping everything from Shiva to L. Ron Hubbard?:)
Point 2 invalidates point 1. My faith in God is sincere.I simply have to hope I'm right. Pascals wager is used as a way to get Atheists to at least consider what I'm saying. I didn't mean to imply that I held my beliefs only because of that.>:)
When someone tells me they are a x-tian, or of any type of faith in fact, I generally turn around and walk away. Why? Because people who say things like that in public should be shunned and barred from polite society.:-)
I don't CARE what religion you are. Deal with your spiritual beliefs on your own time. Belief is a personal thing. It should NOT be presented to others carelessly.
who are you to dictate how someone should or should not spread their faith? Apparently you have no problem espousing your own religious views in a public forum. Hypocrite.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks CmdrTaco, this is the perfect place for me to put this.
The Black, X-Large, high quality T-shirts with 'Potentially Dangerous' on the front and 'Mostly Harmless' on the back in white letters are now available. E-mail sleffer@home.com to order one, they will cost 15$ and they won't be ordered until I have either 50 orders or it is dec 20th, so the more people want one the faster we'll all get them. It should take about 4 weeks after the orders come in for everyone to get their shirt. Make sure you include mailing information with your order, all shirts will be shipped COD.
Kintanon
It wouldn't be the end of the world if I was incorrect about the creation of the universe, or even if I thought that the sun revolved around earth. You can see the sun going around the earth every day, and it seems reasonable. It's only when you look very closely at the paths of the stars in the sky that you realize what's actually happening. Perhaps our Ideas of the big bang are wrong, does it really matter? No, as I've stated before, once you look at the idea of god without pretense (I should state that I originally believed in god, but the more I thought about it, the less likely it seemed, I never found anything particularly wrong with Christianity, it just seemed silly) it seems ridicules. So, even in the big bang theory were wrong, it still doesn't mean that the Bible is right. How the universe got started, once we rule out the hand of god, has no impact on my life.
So you picked the option that made you feel all warm and fuzzy and uncaccountable. To not believe anything at all is just a sign of laziness and intentional apathy. I have more respect for those who believe the earth was spawned by a giant chicken labled 'Trump Universe Farm' than those who believe nothing.
Kintanon
Don't know.
:)
And, current Big Bang theory predicts that we will never know the answers to these questions. If we ever figure it out, we'll have to change the theory to predict that we will be able to figure it out. Ain't science grand?
Anyway. This is how we got the big bang theory. We looked at what was going on. Everything in the Universe, at least that we can see, is moving apart. That means that at some point, it was probably all in one spot. Then used our laws of physics to try and figure out what it would have been like.
Actually, if you'd read up on it, you would see that we only have a clue back to a few milliseconds after the big bang, what happened before that is a mystery, and we will never know.
The idea that Santa Clause exists explains why presents are there every year, a child might believe it, because there parents said he does. However after a while, a child will start to notice things, like the 'holiday shopping season' and the fact that there parents are hiding Christmas presents around the house. The religious view would simply say, "Santa exists!" and possibly add, "The rest of the stuff was only put there to test your faith," whereas the Scientific view would be "Well, there's this 'holiday shopping season', and me and my little sister are always finding our Christmas presents hidden around the house, so mom and dad are probably buying them at the store."
Now, clearly the scientific view is correct in this case, but really its no different then the idea of Christian creation. The bible says 'X', and therefore you believe it (I'm assuming you're a creationist), there's no reason to believe it, other then that the bible (witch you're parents said was true). The scientific view says "Well, this is what's going on now, so it was probably going on before, and the most reasonable explanation we can think of, based on what we can see is 'X'" To anyone coming to the situation with no pretenses, the Christian idea is no less ludicrous then the One about Santa clause.
If I were to tell you, that despite all the evidence, that I still believed in Santa, and that you should to because you never really know is idiotic. But, is it really any different than 'Pascal's wager'? Oh, and the only thing science says about the 'big bang' is that it's the most reasonable explanation for the observable events.
A couple of things:
1. My parents did not tell me the bible was true, while I was growing up I was presented with a lot of different religious beliefs and theories. I picked the one that I felt was right.
2. I can watch my parents put presents under the tree, there is no unknown.
Now, you say that the universe is expanding away from something, all well and good. But that is meaningless. We only know that it appears to be expanding away from something based on factors we are able to observe and interpret. We still have no idea what actually happened and never will.
But pure accident is not, to me, enough to explain it. It's like asking your parents 'Why is the sky blue' and they say 'It just is'. That's what science is telling you. You are asking 'Why is the universe here' and they are saying 'It just is'.
Kintanon
My second point is that though I intellectually accept such arguments, I choose to ignore them, and believe that Brisbane exists. That other people exist, that this isn't some dream.
So you are accepting existance on faith and/or the word of others. Hence, don't knock faith without evidence, we all have it, we all use it.
Most Christians believe, not because it will get them into heaven, but because they believe it is RIGHT. That's why getting into heaven is so easy, you don't really have to do anything, but if you truly believe it, then you will do a lot because it's RIGHT.
Kintanon
The Free Software Foundation!!!!!!!!!!!
Heh, ok, you got me there... But they are a relatively new organization, I'm sure they'll screw someone over eventually!! >:)
Kintanon
Well, first of all, life didn't start immediately after the big bang. In fact the idea of the 'big bang' has absolutely nothing to do with Evolution, or the creation of life (ambiogenisis, I think). You can believe in any of the 3 that you like, ambiogenisys is dependant on evolution, but evolution isn't dependent of Ambiogenisys. The big bang dosn't need any of them
It would be possible for a 'god' to create the universe, and then for evolution to take place.
So, lets say you disagree with the 'scientific explanation for life', and you say its 'ridicules' this is probably because you don't understand biology. There is no difference between living matter, and non-living matter. Life is just an extremely long chemical reaction in 'normal' matter. Nothing special.
And, as far as Pascal's wager goes, what if you belive in the wrong god? And end up in hell? I mean, if you can believe in one god, then what makes others wrong, hrm? Then you'd be screwed.
Ok, first about Pascal's Wager, that's where the Faith part comes in.
Second about the big bang and evolution, if you don't believe in the Big Bang (ie, you believe God created the universe) but you don't believe that God created life, then you have a problem...
Ambiogenisys is at least as ridiculous sounding as anything in Christianity. Micro-Evolution occurs, is demonstrable, and is accepted by pretty much everyone, Macro evolution on the other hand is a load of bullshit. I don't care what you do to a mouse it ain't gonna grow wings, develop hollow bones, feathers, and a hard beak, and fly away. Just not gonna happen.
You can believe that life is 'nothing special' if you want to, that's your own business. But I will continue to believe that you are a bit soft in the head for thinking that way, just as you'll continue to believe I'm still soft in the head for believing the way I do.
Kintanon
Questioning Catholicism is a popular American sport. Now, questioning the Baptists or Lutherans...
That's just because more Baptists own shotguns! >:)
Kintanon
wrathful and proud... wrathful and proud... let's see... No, I can't remember when that might have been, unless you're thinking of her final, um, conversation with Bartleby. That, IMHO, was played totally wrong. Much more dramatic impact if she just says something, ideally regretful, ideally in no human language. I look at that as just a lapse in characterization rather than a thematic inconsistency.
Yeah, that whole SCREAM thing at the end was just messed up. She should have whispered 'I forgive you' or something like that, but have the volume turned up REALLY loud in the theatre, so the whisper rolls across the theater really loudly. That would have been great! >:) That screaming thing was just silly.
Kintanon
Ok, answer this one....
If our universe had a beginning, and "God" is eternal....what took him so long to create the universe?
If you believe that at all.
What do you mean 'long'? Are you trying to apply time as a way to measure something God did? time is a function of God, God does not exist within time, it exists within Him. Hence there was no time before the universe was created, and to God there is no time, Humans are the only things which have time, and we only use it as a way to measure how things are different in this Now than they are in the Now we remember.
Kintanon
An anarchist? I hope you are joking... most people outgrow that around junior year or so of college (when they start getting a clue about the real world outside of literature and high ideals).
There are many varieties of Anarchist, from the All-in-black-down-with-government-loot-the-stores variety to the tamer variety like myself. I'm a political Anarchist. I believe that instead of a huge political body that individuals, families and communities should take more responsibility for their actions and the actions of other members of the community. There is no need for a huge political body which dictates policy to everyone when they have no direct experience in the situation. There is a huge difference between Political Anarchy and Social Anarchy. Social Anarchy is (IMHO) a bad thing. While Political Anarchy can be a good thing.
Kintanon
A) I have said nothing about my religious views.
you specifically stated that religion 'is a personal thing', that is a religious belief. According to my religion it is a community thing and one of my most important tasks in life is to try to educate as many people as possible about what I believe. Notice I did not say convert, I said Educate. All most Christians want to do is make sure you have heard about it and have all of the information necessary to make a good decision. Some will try to sway you to their view (Just like anyone else who wants to convince you of something) and some are insane extremists (Ooh, big surprise that you might find some of those in a group of humans).
How does expressing my religious views make me look bad? I've never looked down on someone for expressing their religious views, I don't know many people who have, and those I do know that look down on people for things like that are usually people that I don't have much respect for.
Kintanon
One word: Noah. With modern knowledge, it's obvious that the Genesis
can't be literally interpreted.
Noah wrote about the entire world being flooded, well to him the entire world was the area between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, which IS prone to massive flooding, and especially was then. Also, it speaks of never having rained before, because of the desert climate it is quite possible that in living memory it had not rained in that area. So it IS possible to literally interpret Genesis if you give it a few seconds of thought.
Secondly:
(a) Read Axelrod's _Evolution_of_Cooperation_, and study the interated
Prisoner's dillema. Basically, if you live in a society with some good
people, it's to your advantage to be good, as long as you learn to
recongize the evil bastards. Evolution would reinforce any tendancy this
way.
Why should I trust in the word of a human with an agenda? What makes HIS opinion or view more valid than anyone elses? Are you suggesting that I should believe something which goes against all of my own research and knowledge just because someone you agree with said it?
While you may believe that random chance is all that is to blame for the universe existing, but some of us have better ideas.
Kintanon
I've said it before and I'll say it again, just because it says so in a book, any book, does not make it true or false. This is another great thing about science, no one position is ever held as the end-all-be-all truth of things until it is proven over and over again.
I never bash religion. I don't like it but I don't bash it. I try to explain the virtues of science but I believe bashing a differing position is never the way to explain why your position is good. This is why the creationist movement (to use an example of what I'm talking about, not necessarily because of our recent discussion) is so weak, they consistantly fail to show the strengths of their views, they just bash evolution. That's never the way to do things.
I fail to see how basing your belief on what a human who is alive now tells you is more valid than basing it on what a human who was alive 2000 years ago tells you. Evolution deserves to be bashed because it doesn't work, it's got holes bigger than christianities by far.
Also, you can not prove a negative, hence you can not prove that there is No God.
Kintanon
Hah, there have been no shortage of crazies and loonies throughout history willing to die for their beliefs. Remember Jim Jones, or more recently, the "Heaven's Gate" cult?
And as for "the apostles maneuvered and manipulated events in such a way as to make prophesies become fulfilled" they didn't have to manipulate anything; they were recording the events. However they chose to write it, well, that's how it happened.
What proof have you that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, besides the Gospels? Got his birth certificate handy?
And where, explicitly, is it prophisised that Jesus would die by crucifixion?
Check the Census records taken at that time.
Kintanon
Hilarious. So where did your omnipotent being (aka "God") come from? An even bigger cosmic coincidence?
I believe the odds are better that we came into existence "randomly" rather than a "supreme being" came into existence randomly and created us. I will certainly admit that I may not know how we came about and am happy to continue searching for a better explanation. When I find one, I'll let you know... oh wait, you wouldn't listen anyway.
A religious person is simply one who will question all other theories except their own.
Your idea of creation has a chronological framework, ours does not. God was, is, and will be. Time is affects God no more than gravity or another other force. I can't even explain the way God exists in realtion to time in words very well, but I'll try.
Reality, existence, the whole shebang, exists in 1 point called 'now' this is the only existence. We provide ourselves a reference point because 'now' changes, so we as humans need some way to measure this change. So we picked a random event (The way the earth and sun move in relation to each other) and divided it up and now we measure things in increments of that. But it is meaningless. We can only say what is now, not what will be or what was. God exists outside of all of this, or we exist within God, however you want to put it. Hmm, maybe I can express it better like this, Time is a function of God.
Kintanon
Religion is a very vague word.
It is my belief that God exists, that Jesus Christ was his son, that because Christ died and was reborn I can say a brief, sincere prayer, and I will be able to enter into heaven. In order to show this I attempt to live a good life and live in a manner I believe Christ would approve of. I'm not always capable of this because I am human.
Now, what I believe starts off with a strait decleration that it is all about FAITH, they tell you that it can not be demonstrated or proven, you can not see God, you can not touch him or hear his voice directly. They say that they BELIEVE it is the truth. I believe it is the truth, but I will not tell you it IS the truth, because no one can know that.
Kintanon
It sure is. But we admit it so that the failings don't become blockages to new learning. When one scientist says the Big Bang happened from a thing the size of a basketball, another can say "We don't know that" and then they can go off and find the truth of the situation later. When one religious person (my father for a close-to-home example) says "Fags are going to hell" I can't say "We don't know that" and go about trying to prove him wrong. He won't listen, nor is his position provable in any way.
I can disprove it. If he is a Christian I can show him the specific passages in the Bible which proclaim that God will not deny ANYONE entrance into heaven. I know several Christian homosexuals, I personally don't think homosexuality is right (Mostly on a biological level) but I understand that it doesn't make them evil. They have done what the bible says they must do in order to go to heaven, above and beyond that they are also good people. If you bother to find out about the religion you are bashing you may be able to start proving loud mouthed fundies wrong by showing them a few lines of scripture.
Kintanon
When you look back at the history of christianity, it's clear that the amount of evil greatly, greatly outnumbers the good.
In fact, it's only recently that we've been seeing any real "christian" acts coming out of christians - probably because technology has raised their standard of living to the point where charity is feasible.
For every Mother Theresa, there's a Torquemada. For every starving poor man fed, a thousand tortured and slaughtered.
"Love they neighbor" indeed.
Hmmm... I don't see that at all. For every crusade against the 'Heathens' there was one against poverty. For every Torquemeda there is a mother Theresa, and for every thousand tortured and slaughtered are another thousand fed and clothed.
Non christians do terrible things, christians do terrible things. We're all human, we're all fallible. How many starving people has your family fed? How many times do you stop on the side of the road to help out a stranded motorist?
Good will is not limited to Christians, and neither is malice.
Kintanon
Remember, Christians are people too.
The "Big Bang" is by the evidence, an excellent theory, but it by no means a doctrinal certainty.
Ask a scientist how the universe began, and the answer is "Probably the "Big Bang", but we don't really know, and quite possibly never will"
Ask a scientist how life began, and you will get an explination of various types of molecules combining under certain conditions, and creating new kinds of molecules that could self-replicate - life. Ask for those exact compunds and conditions, and you will get "we don't know for sure" - but the process is pretty clear. With time and experiment, eventually the creation of life will be duplicated in a lab.
But both the creation of the universe and the creation of life can be explained by the application of various physical laws that you can go out and test for yourself. God is not part of the mix.
You don't need a "final" answer from science to see that god is invalid.
So instead I should take the word of a bunch of people who admit they aren't exactly sure what's going on and believe that is the be all end all of truth? How can you say that when several hundred years ago scientists believed the sun revolved around a flat earth? Science is fallible.
Kintanon
You actually KNOW that life on earth began from protozoa?.... were you there?
You actually KNOW that Henry Ford began mass producing cars on an assembly line in the early 1900s?.... were you there?
You actually KNOW that Japan exists?.... Are you there?
The point of this is that you are relying on what other, fallible human beings tell you, then you are ridiculing others for the same thing.
It is equally as likely as not that the bible is word for word perfectly reproduced except where translation renders that impossible due to missing words.
Kintanon
How much has 2000 years of a philosophy that espouses peace and love, but practices hate, intolerence, slavish obedience to dogma, active obstruction of those who refuse to follow them, - and even torture and murder - cost humanity?
Christians would do well to put aside their bibles and pick up some real history books, and learn just what it is that they are involved in. There is very little good in there.
Oh yes, those evil evil christians feeding thousands of poor and starving homeless people, sacrificing their lives to work for charity for the betterment of their fellow people, all of that nasty 'love thy neighbor' stuff is just terrible.
I'm so so sorry you look at Christianity ONLY by the evil that has been done in its name. Why not take a look at every other organization on earth and tell me that they are all pure and good and have done nothing harmful to anyone, ever...
Maybe try looking at both sides of the issue?
Kintanon
I don't think anybody wants this story to turn into a 1500 post argument like the infamous Kansas evolution story but I have to say something about your mistaken beliefs about the universe. I'm no physicist but I am interested and I read alot.
First, no physicist I've ever read has ever said anything about the big bang happening from anything "about the size of a basketball." We have no idea what the thing was that spawned the BB was but physicists tend to agree that it was probably a singularity, a point of infinite density with no size as we think of the word, which are also thought to be at the center of black holes.
Second, "life" is not some mystical thing that had to spring in existence wheras before it didn't exist. Stuff just springing into existence only happens in the Bible. Life is all around us in so many different forms just on this planet that to say that life became us is silly, to use your word. "Life" is just a word that we use to talk about things that are not inanimate. Intelligent life, which is what you probably meant, is trickier to pin down but it still didn't just pop into existence, it's taken billions of years to get to us.
Last, even if the universe is only 1 nanosecond old to some outside alien presence, it's still a specific number of our years old to us and finding that number out is a valuable thing. Time, as you said, is a construct of humanity in the way that we measure it but time as a function of entropy in the universe is not a construct, nor is it meaningless. Even if we are in some VL computer, it's still life to us and really, it doesn't matter whether we're in a computer or not.
I'm not trying to bash you or anything, far from it. Anybody who really researches things like God and life is a-ok in my book. I'm just espousing some views of my own.
I've got to stop using the basketball crack... I can't remember where I heard that, but for some reason it just pops up as a good way to describe the Big Bang. I realize that it was not literaly the size of a basketball necessarily, but you can't prove that, so it's still just as valid. Also, you state that Life is all around us, yet before the universe existed where was life? Why was there a singularity? What caused the Singularity to ignite? When science can demonstrate to me how life can be created from nothingness I will rethink my position, until then I can not put much faith (You read that right, science is just as much faith as any other religion) in a theory with so many holes which is being presented as provable. At least my religion admits that it relies on faith in an unprovable constant.
Kintanon
In respone to #242 chron.
You just walked into a wall. I challenge you to 'prove' anything. You can only prove something to your own satisfaction, never to anyone elses.
As far as I know you are simply a figment of my imagination and there is no way you can 'prove' otherwise. This discussion can not be about proof because there is no such thing.
Also, the gospels do not contradict themselves, I challenge you to show me where you believe they do and I will show you why you are wrong.
Kintanon
2) You're putting all your eggs in one basket by assuming that you're betting on the right horse. One of the problems with Pascal's Wager is that the person who puts it forward assumes that there are only two options: either the christian god exists and the christians are right, or no god exists and the atheists are right. But these are not the only two options! What if Zeus is the real god? Then both the christians who worship Yahweh and the atheists who worship nothing are screwed! If you really wanted to play it safe shouldn't you be worshipping everything from Shiva to L. Ron Hubbard? :)
Point 2 invalidates point 1. My faith in God is sincere.I simply have to hope I'm right. Pascals wager is used as a way to get Atheists to at least consider what I'm saying. I didn't mean to imply that I held my beliefs only because of that.>:)
Kintanon
First lets talk about personal belief.
:-)
When someone tells me they are a x-tian, or of any type of faith in fact, I generally turn around and walk away. Why? Because people who say things like that in public should be shunned and barred from polite society.
I don't CARE what religion you are. Deal with your spiritual beliefs on your own time. Belief is a personal thing. It should NOT be presented to others carelessly.
who are you to dictate how someone should or should not spread their faith? Apparently you have no problem espousing your own religious views in a public forum. Hypocrite.
Kintanon