Magic Zombie Receeds.

[Balloon guy 158]

You didn't answer the question, probably on purpose.Let's just say I have not met very many enlisted men that can articulate point in the fashion you are able.

I haven't met many officers who can articulate much either

[crowTrobot 2]

Just exploring the ideas of infinity, not making a treatise on evolution.Especially since it leaves you guys in the faith side of things and we know how you hate to be in that camp....

unlike you i'm not claiming to be certain of the answers to any of those questions. no faith involved.

[crowTrobot 2]

It was Jesus... for the bazillionth time.

jesus created the universe? what, is god just a lazy parent that makes his kid do everything?

[theresa113 0]

jesus created the universe? what, is god just a lazy parent that makes his kid do everything?

OMG! crow made a funny (and a good one at that!)

[SuperJon 175]

You have yet to make a single point. I'm not being condescending. I've always liked you Spade, but if you're just looking to hurl insults and not have meaningful discussion, then let me know, so I can move along.Sam is right. We should laugh at an 'Elvis is alive' believer. The problem with the analogy is that Elvis never claimed to be God. Elvis wasn't a character in a book written 4,000 to 2,000 years old that is completely unchanged, proven by the 1947 discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Remember that your dislike of God's personality doesn't disprove the Bible's claims. What I am asking for is a list of claims the Bible makes about the natural world that is incorrect. I would prefer your own work also, rather than a cut and paste. It's very important to note here also, that in the world of the Bible, God is involved. So saying something stupid like Jonah wasn't swallowed by a fish, because he would have died, doesn't work. Miracles constantly happen when God is around. That should not be confused with the fact that the Koran claims that the Earth is flat, and has an edge... that would be an excellent example of the Bible being incorrect about the natural world. Find anything like that, and the Bible will be easy to dismiss.

Except there is no spoon. The spoon being god, of course.Yeah, I just blowed your mind.

[BaseJester 1]

I'm totally fine with a starting point in regard to Xenu being that their claims are real. How do they back them up?

If we start with the presumption of truth, the burden is on us to disprove the claims of Scientology. What proof do we have that there aren't space aliens behind our planet's history?

[theresa113 0]

I am reluctant to post this but what the hey… I’ve been in a very strange mood the past few days. Did it ever occur to you all that you all could be wrong or that you all could be right? What I mean is that both sides of this argument of Yes there is a God and No there is not a God has validity.For those of you who are in the No God camp… every culture in recorded history has had some belief in some sort of higher power or force. From a cultural standpoint, there is this human nature to believe in something outside or beyond ourselves. I know you can argue that each culture believed in other things that turned out not to be true but it is pretty amazing that throughout recorded history, every culture has had some sort of spiritual beliefs. For those of you in the Yes God camp… don’t you find it contradictory that every culture has a different story in regards to this higher power? Cultures have believed in multiple gods, single God, different prophets, different after-life’s, etc. If every culture developed their own spiritual stories, then how can you ascertain that your story is 100% correct? How can you be so convinced that your story is a true story and that all of the other current and past cultures have it incorrect?Anyway, I would like to propose a third perspective. That perspective is that there is something beyond the physical. As of yet, no one has been able to scientifically determine exactly what that is, maybe it lies in quantum physics or some other intelligence that could be either external or internal (or both) but that there is something. I would also like to propose that this something is way beyond comprehension and that it is human nature to try to define things that we intuitively know has presence; hence culturally we have created stories of this indefinable, intangible something. And maybe, just maybe each one of these stories is true because it has personal resonance, creates a sense of purpose and well being, gives ease to that uncertainty, thus it is valid not in the actual facts but because the belief serves a purposes to keep us civilized, moral, just and sane. At the same time, those who dismiss this uncertainty as nonsense is also equally valid because the dismissal creates the same calm, giving that person the confidence that they are not dictated by uncertainty and having the same faith in the physical world and what can be proven through scientific method. This calmness gives a sense of self which then dictates someone to be civilized, moral, just and sane.OK… I know this all sounds like nonsense but what I am trying to say is that couldn’t the Yes God and the No God people be both right and wrong at the same time? Either side of the argument could be that one person’s perception that creates a balance within society as well as our own internal mental balance. Thoughts? (And yes, I am cool with all of you calling me a nut case. )

[JOhnWaters 0]

really everyone here has been arguing the non issue. say what you want about the religion specifically, but that gets no where and is not the point. the point is that the idea of accepting things on faith is evil. and religious people readily admit that this is what they do.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Thoughts? (And yes, I am cool with all of you calling me a nut case. )

On another forum, I think what I called that sort of view was "abstract Hippy nonsense" because it's very similar to the spirituality arguments i used to hear from hippies when I lived in Olympia washington. They were very passionately against Xianity, but would get very hostile with confronted with the idea that their beliefs have no better logical footing. I think your Idea, theresa is no more or less plausible than all sorts of other views of religion and spirituality. I think all these things are different manifestations of wish thinking as I've seen no evidence for any of them.

[antistuff 0]

jesus created the universe? what, is god just a lazy parent that makes his kid do everything?

OMG! crow made a funny (and a good one at that!)

thats only the second time ive seen him do that (and i think the first was by accident)

[antistuff 0]

I am reluctant to post this but what the hey… I’ve been in a very strange mood the past few days. Did it ever occur to you all that you all could be wrong or that you all could be right? What I mean is that both sides of this argument of Yes there is a God and No there is not a God has validity.For those of you who are in the No God camp… every culture in recorded history has had some belief in some sort of higher power or force. From a cultural standpoint, there is this human nature to believe in something outside or beyond ourselves. I know you can argue that each culture believed in other things that turned out not to be true but it is pretty amazing that throughout recorded history, every culture has had some sort of spiritual beliefs. For those of you in the Yes God camp… don’t you find it contradictory that every culture has a different story in regards to this higher power? Cultures have believed in multiple gods, single God, different prophets, different after-life’s, etc. If every culture developed their own spiritual stories, then how can you ascertain that your story is 100% correct? How can you be so convinced that your story is a true story and that all of the other current and past cultures have it incorrect?Anyway, I would like to propose a third perspective. That perspective is that there is something beyond the physical. As of yet, no one has been able to scientifically determine exactly what that is, maybe it lies in quantum physics or some other intelligence that could be either external or internal (or both) but that there is something. I would also like to propose that this something is way beyond comprehension and that it is human nature to try to define things that we intuitively know has presence; hence culturally we have created stories of this indefinable, intangible something. And maybe, just maybe each one of these stories is true because it has personal resonance, creates a sense of purpose and well being, gives ease to that uncertainty, thus it is valid not in the actual facts but because the belief serves a purposes to keep us civilized, moral, just and sane. At the same time, those who dismiss this uncertainty as nonsense is also equally valid because the dismissal creates the same calm, giving that person the confidence that they are not dictated by uncertainty and having the same faith in the physical world and what can be proven through scientific method. This calmness gives a sense of self which then dictates someone to be civilized, moral, just and sane.OK… I know this all sounds like nonsense but what I am trying to say is that couldn’t the Yes God and the No God people be both right and wrong at the same time? Either side of the argument could be that one person’s perception that creates a balance within society as well as our own internal mental balance. Thoughts? (And yes, I am cool with all of you calling me a nut case. )

reality is objective. you can't have your cake and eat it too, the cat inside the box is either dead or alive, and god either exists or he doesn't.

[brvheart 1,752]

If we start with the presumption of truth, the burden is on us to disprove the claims of Scientology. What proof do we have that there aren't space aliens behind our planet's history?

Well for starters, I would be very skeptical of the validity, due to the following reasons: (..and would need a good explanation from Tom Cruise)-Ron Hubbard said that if you want to get rich you should start a religion. He formed Scientology within 10 years.-Hubbard was said to possess eternal earthly life through Dianetics-Hubbard died

[brvheart 1,752]

jesus created the universe? what, is god just a lazy parent that makes his kid do everything?

Have you read the Old Testament? God is an asshole. right?

[crowTrobot 2]

Did it ever occur to you all that you all could be wrong or that you all could be right? What I mean is that both sides of this argument of Yes there is a God and No there is not a God has validity.

this thread isn't about whether a generic god exists or not. it's about religious fundamentalism, which is intrinsically divisive. no middle ground to be had.

For those of you who are in the No God camp… every culture in recorded history has had some belief in some sort of higher power or force. From a cultural standpoint, there is this human nature to believe in something outside or beyond ourselves. I know you can argue that each culture believed in other things that turned out not to be true but it is pretty amazing that throughout recorded history, every culture has had some sort of spiritual beliefs.

pretty easy to come up with a potential explaination for that without invoking metaphysics.

Anyway, I would like to propose a third perspective. That perspective is that there is something beyond the physical. As of yet, no one has been able to scientifically determine exactly what that is, maybe it lies in quantum physics or some other intelligence that could be either external or internal (or both) but that there is something. I would also like to propose that this something is way beyond comprehension and that it is human nature to try to define things that we intuitively know has presence;

that's a nice theory, but alternate explanations for human tendency towards theism that don't require metaphysics are simpler. in fact you give one below. there would be no reason to think the "purpose and well being" etc. you describe isn't simply a matter of natural selection or other form of selected social fitness and it wouldn't necessarily have to come from anywhere but ourselves.

And maybe, just maybe each one of these stories is true because it has personal resonance, creates a sense of purpose and well being, gives ease to that uncertainty, thus it is valid not in the actual facts but because the belief serves a purposes to keep us civilized, moral, just and sane.

[vbnautilus 48]

Did it ever occur to you all that you all could be wrong or that you all could be right? What I mean is that both sides of this argument of Yes there is a God and No there is not a God has validity.

When we are talking about a specific set of beliefs like christianity, I don't see how the factual claims of the religion (e.g. jesus was resurrected) can be both true and false, unless you mean something like it is true metaphorically but didn't actually happen -- which I think is totally reasonable. The resurrection story is really a cultural archetype that appears in various versions around the world, and as a story it has meaning -- it's a story about spiritual rebirth. There is good evidence that the whole cross symbology predated jesus in that part of the world as well.

For those of you who are in the No God camp… every culture in recorded history has had some belief in some sort of higher power or force. From a cultural standpoint, there is this human nature to believe in something outside or beyond ourselves. I know you can argue that each culture believed in other things that turned out not to be true but it is pretty amazing that throughout recorded history, every culture has had some sort of spiritual beliefs.

We can look beyond ourselves without the superstition involved in religious belief. Looking beyond ourselves to the natural world of which we are a part is certainly an important part of the human experience. But it doesn't require that we abandon reason at all.

Anyway, I would like to propose a third perspective. That perspective is that there is something beyond the physical. As of yet, no one has been able to scientifically determine exactly what that is, maybe it lies in quantum physics or some other intelligence that could be either external or internal (or both) but that there is something. I would also like to propose that this something is way beyond comprehension and that it is human nature to try to define things that we intuitively know has presence; hence culturally we have created stories of this indefinable, intangible something.

I have a somewhat different way of looking at it. There are limitations to the human mind, most notably we tend to think about the world using language. Linguistic concepts divide the world up and draw lines, which we can with practice come to trust as real. For example, where are the actual borders of the sun? Is it that brightest yellow ring that we see clearest? Or is the border of the sun the extent of where its heat radiates to, in which case we are within it? Where we draw the line is ultimately arbitary. Anything that points to the basic reality that transcends those lines and concepts is putting us in touch with the reality of nature - beyond up/down, in/out, me/you, etc. IMO, that's really the original purpose of the "cross" to symbolize that transcendence.

And maybe, just maybe each one of these stories is true because it has personal resonance, creates a sense of purpose and well being, gives ease to that uncertainty, thus it is valid not in the actual facts but because the belief serves a purposes to keep us civilized, moral, just and sane.

Giving us comfort does not make something true. It may make a certain concept useful, but I don't think we need to believe false things to give us comfort. I think we can achieve purpose and well-being even better if we are in tune with the natural world, instead of holding ideas in our heads that are false.

[theresa113 0]

On another forum, I think what I called that sort of view was "abstract Hippy nonsense" because it's very similar to the spirituality arguments i used to hear from hippies when I lived in Olympia washington. They were very passionately against Xianity, but would get very hostile with confronted with the idea that their beliefs have no better logical footing.

I don't think of of myself as hippy, but I can see where you could draw that conclusion.I also am not against Christianity. I think there are lots of good fundamental teachings in that faith. And what I stated is not necessarily my beliefs. To be honest, I love the variety of opinions out there. The only things that sometimes is unnerving is when anyone on any sideof a debate can not concede that maybe they do not know it all. But this is only sometimes. Most of the time I like the certainty because that is where the entertainment of the debate lies. The passion behind the ideas, thoughts, perspectives is energizing.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

I don't think of of myself as hippy, but I can see where you could draw that conclusion.I also am not against Christianity. I think there are lots of good fundamental teachings in that faith.

Oh, I wasn't calling you one or saying that you were ( hostile, that is), that's just the label I put on those sort of new-agey spirituality sort of beliefs, and I was explaining where that label came from.

[theresa113 0]

reality is objective. you can't have your cake and eat it too, the cat inside the box is either dead or alive, and god either exists or he doesn't.

I disagree with you on this. In my opinion, reality is subjective. If it were objective there would be no debates on anything. My mom use to always say there were three sides to each argument: his side, her side and the truth. There is always a perspective and that perspective is subjective to the participant. Even if you are an observer, you are still bringing in your own preconceived ideas to your observation. But just like you all debate the No God, Yes God and can not make either side waiver, I am in the No Objective camp and I know I could never convince any of you that there is no such thing as objectivity just like you could not convince me that there is such a thing as objectivity. And I am cool with that.

[theresa113 0]

I find it funny that those who are in one camp will take my lines on the other camp and debate that but not debate my statements made in favor of your camp.

[Spademan 94]

I am in the No Objective camp and I know I could never convince any of you that there is no such thing as objectivity just like you could not convince me that there is such a thing as objectivity.

Well your very life disproves your statement.If you truly believed there were no such thing as objectivity, you would not function as a member of society. You would not string words together that you assumed would make any sense to us. You would be in a loony bin.There is a discord between a great many peoples actions and behaviors and what they claim to believe.This holds true for most religious types (except for marginalized fundamentalists) and for your "no objectivity-three sides to every coin-maybe everyone is right and wrong" construct.Unfortunately for people who have any construct that speaks of things outside of logic, reason, critical thought, empirical process, testability and the like... unfortunately for them they defeat their own argument by attempting to formulate it and express it.It also leads to absurdity. These are your only tools. That's it. There is nothing else. When you talk about some other faculty... spirit, feeling, "sensing" things... when you talk about these things you are talking nonsense.Invisible dragons are made of spirit. I feel it and I sense it. They exist. Ok, you can't disprove that. You can't say it's impossible. You are both right and wrong to say it isn't true. Great. Now what? What does that mean? Who cares that I claim that nonsense?If you actually lived your life in the way you claim to "believe", you'd be in an asylum. There is no sense in claiming to believe in or attempting to purport that whimsical tripe, since is has no bearing on anything and amounts to absolutely nothing.

[theresa113 0]

Is there what we call objectivity in society when we have a shared experience? Of course there is. This is why we have the same conclusions when we do scientific experiments, why we type and think in the same language, how we communicate, articulate and create. However, the case of pure objectivity I have always had an issue with.Let's just say you are in an 11th grade chemistry class with your peers. You mix whatever solutions you are given, follow the experiment, and everyone in the class draws the same conclusion. For this group of people, the experiment is objective, a theory has been proven, a lesson was learned. However, if you through an African Bush man into that class room, his perspective of that same experiment is that some magic just occurred, he does not draw that same conclusions because this is outside of his own experience.Granted, I may just have an issue letting certain things go... after all it was an anthropology class I took in college 20 something years ago that got me to thinking that nothing is truly objective. I disagreed with many of the conclusions made by the professor, hence it was convenient for me to believe that nothing is completely objective.For me, I enjoy looking at each situation as possibilities, with multiple dimensions and varied perspectives. Do I do this all day long? Of course not, I would never get anything done. Also if I lived my life this way I would definitely be battier than I already am. ;)I also refrain from much debate in these forums because there are many people who are much smarter than I am. My guess is that Spademan has an IQ above 160 and crow is a robot. I know I am not the best at articulating some of my thoughts, especially when I am not 100% convinced that I am right in my thought or that I believe in my thought. And I do contend that some of my "hippy-dippy land of all possibilities" prospective could just be a result of my heavily pot smoking years during high school and college. But I must say, I do read the forum much more than I ever post. And I see the same argument in the religion forum over and over again, and I can't help but wonder if there is some middle ground, where mind, body and spirit can be defined from a scientific standpoint that fits into a religious belief and where a religious belief can have scientific validity. For me, this is an exciting possibility. But I should realize with the passion that you all post on each side of the argument, that this thought would not hold any interest to you but would be dismissed as either metaphysical or pure nonsense. But at least it is kind of cool that the No God and Yes God Camp can agree on something.

[KramitDaToad 0]

There is nothing in the Bible that has been refuted by science and there never will be.

a book written 4,000 to 2,000 years old that is completely unchanged, proven by the 1947 discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

That's why we should investigate their claims.

Irony FTL

[vbnautilus 48]

Let's just say you are in an 11th grade chemistry class with your peers. You mix whatever solutions you are given, follow the experiment, and everyone in the class draws the same conclusion. For this group of people, the experiment is objective, a theory has been proven, a lesson was learned. However, if you through an African Bush man into that class room, his perspective of that same experiment is that some magic just occurred, he does not draw that same conclusions because this is outside of his own experience.

The facts of the chemical reaction that happened are the same regardless of those two people's access to knowledge about it. In other words, just because the bush man does not know that carbon has 6 atoms does mean it doesn't.

But I must say, I do read the forum much more than I ever post. And I see the same argument in the religion forum over and over again, and I can't help but wonder if there is some middle ground, where mind, body and spirit can be defined from a scientific standpoint that fits into a religious belief and where a religious belief can have scientific validity. For me, this is an exciting possibility. But I should realize with the passion that you all post on each side of the argument, that this thought would not hold any interest to you but would be dismissed as either metaphysical or pure nonsense.

There is no conflict between science and the impulse to live a better life. The conflict comes when religious people believe things about the world without the requirements of evidence. Again, it's not necessary to give up reason in order to be compassionate, kind, or generous. You don't have to believe in men coming back to life in order to act selflessly. You don't need an ancient herding culture's myth-book to be connected with the larger universe.

[crowTrobot 2]

Is there what we call objectivity in society when we have a shared experience? Of course there is. This is why we have the same conclusions when we do scientific experiments, why we type and think in the same language, how we communicate, articulate and create. However, the case of pure objectivity I have always had an issue with.Let's just say you are in an 11th grade chemistry class with your peers. You mix whatever solutions you are given, follow the experiment, and everyone in the class draws the same conclusion. For this group of people, the experiment is objective, a theory has been proven, a lesson was learned. However, if you through an African Bush man into that class room, his perspective of that same experiment is that some magic just occurred, he does not draw that same conclusions because this is outside of his own experience.

again, you seem to misunderstand the nature of the debate that goes on here. nobody is debating the validity or virtues of generic spirituality. they are debating the truth of religious claims, which are definitionally objective and have nothing to do with internal perspective. the bible either happened or it didn't. any attempt to link its validitiy to perspective necessarily invalidates it entirely. there is no middle ground to be had.

where mind, body and spirit can be defined from a scientific standpoint that fits into a religious belief and where a religious belief can have scientific validity.

you want a nonsensical foo-foo feel good world where 1+1 can = 3 if you want. wouldn't be a very productive world

[Balloon guy 158]

you want a nonsensical foo-foo feel good world where 1+1 can = 3 if you want. wouldn't be a very productive world

Isn't that the world that Michelangelo, Da Vinci and Maximillian I?