Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Flat Earth cirruculum..Follow

#202 Feb 14 2014 at 6:20 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
TirithRR wrote:
CoalHeart wrote:
I simply said it was beyond us to understand. That goes for science AND religion.


Except science chooses to keep exploring a possible answer, testing theories and evolving. Religion does not. Saying "We can't ever understand, so why try" is a pretty stupid thing to believe.


Sure. But here's the point that I think some people are failing to grasp. Religion isn't trying to be science. Religion and science don't serve the same purpose in society. Never have. Religion is almost exclusively a method of control of a population. While there are some side aspects to it like "Where do we come from?" and "Why is the sky blue", that's really not the purview of religion, and with some extremely rare exceptions, religions are more than happy to let science answer those questions when it can.

What religion does is get people to adopt a set of moral structures, and then uses those structures to impose order. Period. It's about getting the people in a society to follow "the rules", even when the big guy with the big stick isn't standing right in front of them. If you tell them that failing to follow the rules means their crops will die, or a flood will wash them away, or they'll go to some eternal **** when they die, you can get people to continue following the rules even when the rule makers and enforcers of society aren't right there. There's a reason why organized religion's appearance in human history coincides with the creation of "larger than a tribe" societies. There's a point in a growing society at which "follow my rules or I'll smash your head in with this rock" fails to work, and while secular rules and laws can work, religion generally has a vastly better track record at creating some sort of orderly rules for societies to follow and actually getting people to follow them.


It's why I always find the whole "science vs religion" debate a bit of a misstatement of the real conflict. It's not really about science versus religion. There aren't a whole lot of religious folks standing around in the design rooms at Boeing insisting on aircraft design dependent on "willful prayer to give us lift" or something. Doesn't happen. Also not a lot of people at Broadcom designing network interfaces that work via distance prayer or something. As a society we don't tend to have an issue confusing which of these things is used for which things in our society. I mean, even when we look at groups like the Amish, they aren't abandoning science at all, but choose to limit their personal exposure to the results. It's not like they abandon Pythagoras when they're building cabinets or anything, right?

The bigger conflict isn't about science, but about secular humanism (or some equivalent) as a replacement for religion as the source of ethics and morality within society. It's why Atheists like Smash really want religion (especially Christianity) eliminated from society. It's not really the somewhat esoteric ideas like "the earth was created in 6 days" that bugs them (cause why? I mean, it's not like that affects anyone's day to day life). It's the "thou shalt not kill/steal" stuff that does. It drives them nuts that so many people ultimately think killing is wrong, not because of some objective rational examination of the act itself, but because "it's a sin". The problem is that this is a hard argument for Atheists to make because quite frankly secular humanism (or any non-religious moral source) have pretty darn poor track records when it comes to creating healthy societies, much less ones with good (or even semi-decent) human rights track records.

Sad fact is that for the most part, if you take "it's a sin" out of the equation historically, you actually end out with a society where all rules are costs, not moral right/wrong questions. Death prices were common in most of western civilization prior to the adoption of Christianity. Rich people got away with things, not because they could hire better lawyers as we often lament today, but because the actual rules of society said that you could pay the cost of any harm you did to someone else and no one could legally dispute it. That's what happens when you have rules that derive from objective analysis of actions. Everything becomes a relative "cost" to everyone else. And if it's a cost, it can be paid.

Societies only develop ideas like "life has inherent value beyond a dollar cost" when they have some kind of religious source for that idea. Which is why Atheists have a hard time attacking religion on purely moral/ethical grounds (their alternative is generally worse). So they attack them because they aren't as good as science at doing what science does best. Um... Duh. But there you have it.

Edited, Feb 14th 2014 4:23pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#203 Feb 14 2014 at 6:36 PM Rating: Decent
**
504 posts
TirithRR wrote:
CoalHeart wrote:
I simply said it was beyond us to understand. That goes for science AND religion.


Except science chooses to keep exploring a possible answer, testing theories and evolving. Religion does not. Saying "We can't ever understand, so why try" is a pretty stupid thing to believe.



I agree that just giving up is stupid, that's why I didn't say that. My point is that our current methods and understanding are not up to the task ( IMHO) and that the first step in moving towards actual solutions is to stop thinking out current "science" is some sort of perfect, infallible, leads to all answers tool and figure out what approaches might possibly yield relevant answers.

EDIT: There seems to be some misconception that I'm Anti-science. I find that funny. I've read every book Carl Sagan ever wrote. I paid big bucks ( to me) for the entire Cosmos series on VHS. I'm a Stephen Hawking, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Michio Kaku super fan. However, I'm not so narrow minded that i can't see the limitations of the "scientific" approach.

Edited, Feb 14th 2014 7:42pm by CoalHeart
____________________________
Never regret.To regret is to assume.
#204 Feb 14 2014 at 7:11 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
Stuff


So how does one accept scientific findings and theories about the universe, acknowledge that the stories in religion are just stories made to put fear and servitude into people so they will be moral or act how some (mortal) person(s) in power wants them to act, yet still actually give in to the fear and follow/act accordingly? You are choosing to fear/follow something you know was made up just to get you to fear/follow it? It's as strange to me as people that set their clocks ahead 10-15 minutes so they are never late...
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#205 Feb 14 2014 at 7:54 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
TirithRR wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Stuff


So how does one accept scientific findings and theories about the universe, acknowledge that the stories in religion are just stories made to put fear and servitude into people so they will be moral or act how some (mortal) person(s) in power wants them to act, yet still actually give in to the fear and follow/act accordingly? You are choosing to fear/follow something you know was made up just to get you to fear/follow it? It's as strange to me as people that set their clocks ahead 10-15 minutes so they are never late...


Because, assumptions by people like Smash aside, the overwhelming majority of people who believe in religion are not actually idiots. They are fully capable of realizing that much of what's written in their holy book(s) is allegorical. And they accept that the important parts are the "message" about how best to live together, treat their neighbors, respect their property, etc. They understand that the point of the teachings is about people living together peacefully and not really about literal and dogmatic adherence to a set of rules.

And similarly, if setting your clock ahead helps you get places on time, then it works, right? Why does anything else matter? If a person's faith allows them to be a better person than they would have been otherwise, does it really matter that the idea of a "wizard in the sky" is scientifically improbable? If the results are ultimately positive from a social perspective, then who cares? Atheists do. Because they can't stand the idea that the "irrational" religious ideas can actually better achieve social outcomes than their own rational ones. Kinda drives them nuts really. So they find anything they can to attack religion on any grounds other than social.

It's just funny to me because I've been surrounded by religious people all my life (many of them you'd label as "devout" even), yet none of them obsess over the literal meaning of bible passages even a fraction as much as the average Atheist I've met. The religious person looks to the bible for guidance and thoughts about life, relationships, good, evil, etc. The atheist looks at the bible and tries to find any flaws so he can shove them in front of the religious person and "prove them wrong". To which most religious folks just say "Um... That's not what it means" and move on.


The problem is that there is a small portion of religious people who are actually idiots. And when the atheists point out some flaw in a literal interpretation of the bible, will actually try to defend the flawed literal interpretation. It's rare in actual practice (and as a percentage of the whole), but these are the people that the atheists love to argue with. These are the people they hold up as examples of what all religious people are like. And they love that strawman so much, that when more reasonable heads enter the discussion, they dismiss them with yet more illogical argument.

Cause "no true creationist" interprets Genesis in an allegorical rather than literal way, while still believing in a divine source of creation, right? Isn't that essentially what Smash argued earlier? Now ask why it's so important for him to dismiss the more reasonable religious people and you're closer to an understanding of the real issue. It really isn't about science versus religion. Never has been.

Edited, Feb 14th 2014 5:55pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#206 Feb 15 2014 at 9:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,431 posts
[bSure. But here's the point that I think some people are failing to grasp.[/b]

This has never happened, *ever*. That is, you have never made a post that begins with "what I think people don't understand..." and followed it with anything people didn't understand. Here's a simple test: Do you understand something? Then everyone else does as well.



These are the people they hold up as examples of what all religious people are like. And they love that strawman so much, that when more reasonable heads enter the discussion, they dismiss them with yet more illogical argument.


Have you literally never developed a a sense of irony? Your argument is that "these people" "love strawmen"? ******* seriously? Your strawman is going to be people that love strawmen? How stupid can you possibly be? WHO THE **** DO YOU IMAGINE IS GOING TO BUY IN? That's the part I don't understand. Who???? Who is it you think will read that and think "yeah, those anonymous people we just made up to have a convenient thing to argue against, they're always making up convenient people to argue against!" Really, idiot? REALLY?

Cause "no true creationist" interprets Genesis in an allegorical rather than literal way, while still believing in a divine source of creation, right? Isn't that essentially what Smash argued earlier?


No, what Smash argued earlier was that most people that *self identify* as "creationists" believe in young Earth creationism. Because they do. Because that is an established fact. That seems to be a point you failed to grasp. See? That's what that looks like when it works. Probably the first time you've seen such an example. You're WELCOME.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#207 Feb 16 2014 at 12:30 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Quote:
If I had a dollar for every idiot that wanted to publish an n=1 experiment and confirm their data with a poorly suited statistical test I'd be happily retired.

Well okay, maybe I'd have enough for a new ipad, that's still something though.


If? ...You do charge them, right? More than a dollar, too, I'd hope.

If you don't charge them, that might be the problem.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#208 Feb 16 2014 at 7:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,999 posts
Quote:
Edit: I figured it out. Smash is like Gbaji, but uses less words to look like an idiot.


You are getting really hurt by his challenge to your belief system. I mean, I get it, but wow.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#209 Feb 16 2014 at 9:27 PM Rating: Good
Quote:

I agree that just giving up is stupid, that's why I didn't say that. My point is that our current methods and understanding are not up to the task ( IMHO) and that the first step in moving towards actual solutions is to stop thinking out current "science" is some sort of perfect, infallible, leads to all answers tool and figure out what approaches might possibly yield relevant answers.


I liked hallucinogens too, back in the day. You'll come to find out that your epiphanies are fleeting, though you'll have a good time until The Fear gets you.

Quote:
However, I'm not so narrow minded that i can't see the limitations of the "scientific" approach.


To what? The scientific approach to science has resulted in, well, scientific results. It doesn't really apply to the supernatural. That isn't science's fault, though.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#210 Feb 16 2014 at 10:54 PM Rating: Good
**
612 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Quote:

I agree that just giving up is stupid, that's why I didn't say that. My point is that our current methods and understanding are not up to the task ( IMHO) and that the first step in moving towards actual solutions is to stop thinking out current "science" is some sort of perfect, infallible, leads to all answers tool and figure out what approaches might possibly yield relevant answers.


I liked hallucinogens too, back in the day. You'll come to find out that your epiphanies are fleeting, though you'll have a good time until The Fear gets you.

Quote:
However, I'm not so narrow minded that i can't see the limitations of the "scientific" approach.


To what? The scientific approach to science has resulted in, well, scientific results. It doesn't really apply to the supernatural. That isn't science's fault, though.


Incidentally, from the more you know department..

hallucinogens, such as psylocybin mushrooms were called teonanacatl.. or flesh of god

Other than loose connection to god it barely contributes to the conversation. But then, neither does Gbaji.




Edited, Feb 16th 2014 11:57pm by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#211 Feb 17 2014 at 1:09 AM Rating: Excellent
**
504 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Quote:

I agree that just giving up is stupid, that's why I didn't say that. My point is that our current methods and understanding are not up to the task ( IMHO) and that the first step in moving towards actual solutions is to stop thinking out current "science" is some sort of perfect, infallible, leads to all answers tool and figure out what approaches might possibly yield relevant answers.


I liked hallucinogens too, back in the day. You'll come to find out that your epiphanies are fleeting, though you'll have a good time until The Fear gets you.

Quote:
However, I'm not so narrow minded that i can't see the limitations of the "scientific" approach.


To what? The scientific approach to science has resulted in, well, scientific results. It doesn't really apply to the supernatural. That isn't science's fault, though.



The fear never came to me. Yeah, I saw the giant spiders, but they held no malice towards me. They were always quite polite and were more than happy to converse. Only had one kinda awkward encounter, when this giant spider that appeared to be made out of tree bark "thought" to me that I could not see him.


I explained that I could clearly see and communicate with him. He replied that something must be wrong with my "filter", that I had obviously been compromised, most probably by some chemical.


He then "explained" that multiple entities exist within the multiple dimensions that make up our Universe, but we only see the ones that are relevant to our own existence / purpose.

He said this is why infants scream. They are seeing all of these nightmarish creatures all around them, but slowly they notice which creatures their parents can and can not see. This builds up a filter in their mind and eventually they no longer see or remember the "monsters", other than our collective subconscious fears.

He then said that if I blinked, the filter(s) would auto-adjust and he would vanish. I did.. and he did.
____________________________
Never regret.To regret is to assume.
#212 Feb 18 2014 at 10:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,872 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Quote:
If I had a dollar for every idiot that wanted to publish an n=1 experiment and confirm their data with a poorly suited statistical test I'd be happily retired.

Well okay, maybe I'd have enough for a new ipad, that's still something though.


If? ...You do charge them, right? More than a dollar, too, I'd hope.

If you don't charge them, that might be the problem.
Yes, but I don't get that money. Smiley: frown
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#213 Feb 20 2014 at 9:24 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
15,980 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Time and space didn't exist to create themselves, so whatever created our physical universe must exist outside the constraints of time and space

There's nothing to indicate this is the case. Absolutely nothing. The whole concept that anything had to have been "created" is idiotic. The entire @#%^ing premise BEGINS with the most childish tautology possible "There had to be something before this because I just created the idea "before" and decided arbitrarily that there is a "beginning" to time." Why? Oh right, because people don't understand math.


Salutations all.

Smash, I think you are either not trying very hard or are just being obtuse.. to the same result (your satiating the enormous Judea-Christian chip on your shoulder)
Let me try to reduce this concept to neat bite-sized targets for your to poke at with your stick:

- Time and space are attributes of "stuff in existence", right? (matter, energy, whatever..)

- Dimensionally speaking we have the dimensions of common space.. and the dimension of time which which is the state of change of the space.. Got it? Objects take up space and move through it and time is the dimension that defines the change: 4 dimensional existence.

- Physics describes 10 dimensions.. implying that time and space dimensions are not all that are in existence and the entirety of the existent universe (as it is understood by science) is a compound of these 10 dimensions.

- There are clearly states of energy that contain attributes which show them to operate beyond common 4 dimensional existence.(sic quantum mechanics)

Here is the punchline:
This could logically lead us to conclude that the existence of our free-moral agency is also beyond 4 dimensional space, hence the existence of a soul. One could liken it to the software on a computer.. You could look at the hardware of a computer, take it completely apart and examine every physical aspect of it and yet still never be able to define the software that makes it do what it is designed to do.

Additionally:
If we are to conclude that time itself is just another layer of the entirety of existence.. the OF COURSE we cannot say that there is a "beginning of time" because the very concept of "beginnings" is defined by the time itself... so based on that conclusion then it is sheer foolishness to say that there isn't something that is outside of time and space that is indeed wrapped up within the entirety of existence. If the patterns of energy that are our consciousness are comprised of a substance that can exist beyond space and time then surely our consciousness itself can logically exist beyond space and time.

MORE Additionally:
If a non-locally existent pattern of consciousness can exist beyond time and space then why would it be so far-fetched to logically conclude that there could be an even higher pattern of consciousness that exists beyond any dimension?
Once we, therefore, move the res perceptum (is that right?) out of the limits of time, space, beginnings, and boundaries are we NOT therefore entering into the realm of the eternal? Once we are in the realm of the eternal and acknowledge that there is laying there a possible pattern of conscious will that can exist there then why would it so hard to believe in a conscious, sentient, creator force?





Edited, Feb 20th 2014 10:25pm by Kelvyquayo
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#214 Feb 20 2014 at 10:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Be easier to just link to Time Cube.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#215 Feb 21 2014 at 6:43 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,065 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:


Salutations all.


Ahoy Kelvy. Smiley: smile
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#216 Feb 21 2014 at 12:11 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Quote:
- Time and space are attributes of "stuff in existence", right?


No. Are you from the 18th century, by any chance?
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#217 Feb 21 2014 at 2:53 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
15,980 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Quote:
- Time and space are attributes of "stuff in existence", right?


No. Are you from the 18th century, by any chance?


Are you kidding me? Poor excuse to run and put your head in the sand to the --->FACTS<---Smiley: nod that I am stating. Want me to wrap a little pink bow on it? Well too bad. Don't cry. Here:
Euclidean space.. blah blah blah mathematical blah blah
Time dilation blah blah blah relativistic blah blah..
If you're either not informed enough to process these things nor mature enough to handle the subject matter then just keep on trolling... or grab a textbook and return when you can handle these adult puzzles that exist in life.
uhh.. Time Cube notwithstanding LOL

Elinda, HowDEEE!!!
(family rumor is my grandfather banged Mini Pearl)
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#218 Feb 21 2014 at 3:06 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Adult puzzle? Are you talking about the etruscan pufferfish?

Listen, I can save you a lot of time. I know it looks **** and exotic in the magazines, but the reality is uncomfortable and, frankly, confusing.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#219 Feb 21 2014 at 3:10 PM Rating: Good
******
30,643 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
(family rumor is my grandfather banged Mini Pearl)


Recently...?
#220 Feb 21 2014 at 3:22 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
15,980 posts
Kavekk wrote:
reality is uncomfortable and, frankly, confusing.

You're not alone in feeling that way.. but keep trying. I'll help if I canSmiley: wink


Belkira..
Now that I think of it I don't think people "banged" back in the 40s.. They "got fresh" with one another. So there you have it.
(I hear he made her keep the hat on)
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#221 Feb 21 2014 at 3:31 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Yeah, I was thinking maybe I could decide to believe in some kind of magic dude to inject some certainty into my life. Can you help me with that one?

Quote:
I... "banged"... 40.. So... hat(s)


That's not cool, dude. Those hats made a solemn commitment, and you're ******* on it. Are you sure you're a man of God?
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#222 Feb 21 2014 at 3:44 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,937 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Yeah, I was thinking maybe I could decide to believe in some kind of magic dude to inject some certainty into my life. Can you help me with that one?
Thor. Proof in the lack of ice giants. Also, carries a hammer while the other guy was eating popcorn while his kid was nailed to some 2x4s, with a hammer.

Edited, Feb 21st 2014 4:45pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#223 Feb 21 2014 at 3:46 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
15,980 posts
"What was that about hats, again? " ~Monty Python's The Meaning of Life

(There's no Godwin's like law for Python references yet is there?)
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#224 Feb 21 2014 at 7:13 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
Yeah, I was thinking maybe I could decide to believe in some kind of magic dude to inject some certainty into my life. Can you help me with that one?
Thor. Proof in the lack of ice giants. Also, carries a hammer while the other guy was eating popcorn while his kid was nailed to some 2x4s, with a hammer.


Neo-paganism? I could dig that, only most of the neo-pagans I know are beardy paedos. And by most, I mean all. That was a pretty shockingly bad choice of words, actually, wasn't it? There's only one of the ******** anyway.

Anyway, I'll mjoll it over.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#225 Feb 21 2014 at 9:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,262 posts
Only if you think you can affjord it.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#226 Feb 24 2014 at 8:09 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,065 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:

(family rumor is my grandfather banged Mini Pearl)

Smiley: lol My mom was a fan. Minnie Pearl might have to be the name of my next mmo character.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#227 Feb 24 2014 at 2:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,065 posts
Origins...

Some zircon crystals found in Western Australia were dated at 4.4 billion years old. They were dated by measuring uranium decay to lead.

Quote:
But some scientists pointed out a potential problem: Atoms of lead might move around inside the crystal. "And if that happens, in the places where it's concentrated, you will measure an older age than the true age," Valley explains.

So Valley's team recently tackled this issue with a powerful new instrument that can pluck out and identify individual atoms, to create a kind of map of their distribution inside the crystal. They found that lead atoms do move around, but only a tiny bit — not enough to affect their age calculations. This particular crystal that they analyzed, they say, is 4.374 billion years old, plus or minus 6 million years.

Sam Bowring, a geologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, says it's pretty hard to argue with this new study, which appears this week in the journal Nature Geoscience.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#228 Feb 26 2014 at 11:36 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
15,980 posts
Elinda wrote:
Origins...


The universe is the epitome of awe and mystery. Recognizing that fact and understanding the science that seeks to explore it does in no way contradict my faith in God. Science seeks to explore the creation and not the creator; when science tries to seek the Creator then I no longer be consider it to be science.

Ridiculing the biblical text for not being scientific is like ridiculing a dinner menu for not having the recipes on it.
Science is a human construct; not some cosmic force as many seem to want it to be. It is the tool by which we measure and observe the universe yet it is limited in scope because humans were designed to operate beyond mere observation and reaction. We do think and reason and imagine things that are greater than we have ever experienced and we have the capacity for faith; which is the hope of things unseen. It is what makes us unique from any other thing in our known universe.

Even though I AM a "fundie moran" and I have the capacity to choose to take every word of the Bible literally.. I do not try to deny the possibility of the cosmos being billions of years old. I also have the capacity to say "I don't know" to some things rather than arbitrarily choosing one side or the other simply for comfort or convenience. (but I will posit that my belief in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob does come from the Holy Spirit..[which provides proof after the faith] but that's another matter). There does seem to be (Biblical) 'evidence' that there were things that had happened prior to the 6 day creation. It says that "God created the heavens and the earth" and "the earth was without form and void" yet later on in the Bible it states quite clearly that God does not create things "without form and void". (I'd provide verses if I thought anyone cared lol) Not to mention: Since I do believe in extra-dimensional beings such as demons and angels then there must be a time when they were created. It does seem to me that they were created prior to the 6-day creation of earth (earth as we know it) which implies that things were already happening long before the 6-day creation.

There is nothing in The Bible that contradicts science anymore than cars contradict cabbage. It is a document that purports to be the only reliable hard communication from The Creator, a catalog of humanity, and a message containing the ultimate meaning of our existence.. It doesn't seek to lay out the blueprints of the universe just to satisfy our egocentric curiosity.

I am not ashamed of being a "fundamentalist" (if that's what I am).
It seems that when things like eternity and the Creator of Creation are concerned.. then those concerns should indeed be fundamental.
If you can believe just 2 words from the Bible.. "God created" then there should be no logical reason why you cannot believe the rest of it.

____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#229 Feb 26 2014 at 11:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,431 posts
The universe is the epitome of awe and mystery. Recognizing that fact and understanding the science that seeks to explore it does in no way contradict my faith in God. Science seeks to explore the creation and not the creator; when science tries to seek the Creator then I no longer be consider it to be science.

There's no reason to believe there is a "creator" other than mindless staggering arrogance. Surely, EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS must have come into being via a process that's an analog to a human one. Because, you know, it's all about us.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#230 Feb 26 2014 at 12:43 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,065 posts
Kelvy wrote:
The universe is the epitome of awe and mystery. Recognizing that fact and understanding the science that seeks to explore it does in no way contradict my faith in God. Science seeks to explore the creation and not the creator; when science tries to seek the Creator then I no longer be consider it to be science.
Why? From a scientific standpoint what's the difference between the former and the latter?

Quote:
There's no reason to believe there is a "creator" other than mindless staggering arrogance. Surely, EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS must have come into being via a process that's an analog to a human one. Because, you know, it's all about us.

It is all about us. That's kind of the point.

Humanity - what's the deal with it. Why are we so extraordinary in the animal kingdom and, as far as we know, the cosmos?


____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#231 Feb 26 2014 at 1:25 PM Rating: Good
******
43,937 posts
Elinda wrote:
It is all about us.
Mostly about me.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#232 Feb 26 2014 at 1:36 PM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
15,980 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

There's no reason to believe there is a "creator" other than mindless staggering arrogance. Surely, EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS must have come into being via a process that's an analog to a human one. Because, you know, it's all about us.


Yes and in my view there is no reason to believe that existence is meaningless other than arrogant staggering ignorance. Surely that fact that our minds have the capacity to contain and entertain the notion of meaning outside of standard observation and basic stimulatory reactions (i.e. metacognition) tells me that there is a logical basis for the reality of a higher form of sentient consciousness in existence. If the electrochemical processes in our brains can produce such things then it is not beyond reason that there are processes existent in the universe that can produce a similar state of awareness.
If such is the case then it makes more sense that the lesser has its source in the greater.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#233 Feb 26 2014 at 1:52 PM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
15,980 posts
Elinda wrote:
Kelvy wrote:
The universe is the epitome of awe and mystery. Recognizing that fact and understanding the science that seeks to explore it does in no way contradict my faith in God. Science seeks to explore the creation and not the creator; when science tries to seek the Creator then I no longer be consider it to be science.
Why? From a scientific standpoint what's the difference between the former and the latter?


The difference is simply that we cannot expect to find an ultimate proof of God from our own means any more than an infant can find its own proof that its parents are its parenst or a river can flow higher than its source. The only evidence of such things would have to be provided by the higher source and we cannot gain information that is not provided to us. If God chose to provide you with irrefutable evidence of His existence then your LOVE for Him could never be genuine. It is not simply all about us.. it is all about LOVE and love cannot be imposed.. love must be out of free-will and God will not violate the free-will that he has given us to either reject or accept Him.


Quote:

Humanity - what's the deal with it. Why are we so extraordinary in the animal kingdom and, as far as we know, the cosmos?


Animals, vegetables, and minerals have no free-will. A star cannot choose not to shine.. and an animal cannot choose to reject being an animal. These things are all under direct control of their design (and designer) and have no choice but to do what God wants them to do. Humans are given a choice so that they can choose to love God or to reject God. That is what makes us extra-ordinary.
As far as the rest of the cosmos.. I think that is superfluous to the subject. As far as I have have seen the rest of the cosmos cannot do anything other than remain the cosmos.

Love is the answer; and God's Love is the meaning of existence.
Without that then the only meaning is that which we prescribe to it.. relativism which is chaos and the cosmos is clearly the opposite of chaos; therefore a meaningless existence is the real fantasy.

Edited, Feb 26th 2014 2:53pm by Kelvyquayo
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#234 Feb 26 2014 at 2:44 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,065 posts
You didn't differentiate at all between humans an other animals. Other animals have exhibited 'free will', and humans are not any more able to not be humans than panda's are able to be geese.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#235 Feb 26 2014 at 2:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,872 posts
Elinda wrote:
humans are not any more able to not be humans than panda's are able to be geese.
We're better at pretending to be.

At least that's what I've gathered from Aethien's BDT links...
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#236 Feb 26 2014 at 2:52 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,065 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Elinda wrote:
humans are not any more able to not be humans than panda's are able to be geese.
We're better at pretending to be.

At least that's what I've gathered from Aethien's BDT links...

Free will allows you to make the decision NOT to click on Aeth's links.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#237 Feb 26 2014 at 2:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,872 posts
Elinda wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Elinda wrote:
humans are not any more able to not be humans than panda's are able to be geese.
We're better at pretending to be.

At least that's what I've gathered from Aethien's BDT links...

Free will allows you to make the decision NOT to click on Aeth's links.
But then you'd miss out on any Google-censored wow, that word made it into firefox's spell checker Smiley: lol fun. Smiley: frown

Granted it's not ideal at the workplace, I'll lend you that, but ignorance serves no one in the end!
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#238 Feb 26 2014 at 4:23 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Smiley: lol
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#239 Feb 26 2014 at 7:46 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,581 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
- Physics describes 10 dimensions.. implying that time and space dimensions are not all that are in existence and the entirety of the existent universe (as it is understood by science) is a compound of these 10 dimensions.

Might want to trade in those PBS specials for some linear algebra classes.
#240 Feb 26 2014 at 9:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,999 posts
Allegory wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:
- Physics describes 10 dimensions.. implying that time and space dimensions are not all that are in existence and the entirety of the existent universe (as it is understood by science) is a compound of these 10 dimensions.

Might want to trade in those PBS specials for some linear algebra classes.


I can tell you right now, no god would allow something like n-dimensional transform matrices to exist.

Edited, Feb 26th 2014 10:29pm by Timelordwho
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#241 Feb 26 2014 at 9:52 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,937 posts
Another strike against intelligent design.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#242 Feb 26 2014 at 10:18 PM Rating: Good
**
612 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:

Science is a human construct;



And religion isn't?
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#243 Feb 26 2014 at 10:18 PM Rating: Default
**
612 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Allegory wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:
- Physics describes 10 dimensions.. implying that time and space dimensions are not all that are in existence and the entirety of the existent universe (as it is understood by science) is a compound of these 10 dimensions.

Might want to trade in those PBS specials for some linear algebra classes.


I can tell you right now, no god would allow something like n-dimensional transform matrices to exist.

Edited, Feb 26th 2014 10:29pm by Timelordwho


That's why Carlin thought God had to be a man.

____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#244 Feb 27 2014 at 12:46 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,957 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:

Science is a human construct;



And religion isn't?


No. Religion is the word if God. Don't you know anything?

Edited, Feb 27th 2014 1:48pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#245 Feb 27 2014 at 12:52 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,065 posts
TirithRR wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:

Science is a human construct;



And religion isn't?


No. Religion is the word if God. Don't you know anything?


I suspect the cats.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#246 Feb 27 2014 at 1:17 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,937 posts
There is just as much evidence to the existence of God as there is to Spider-Man.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#247 Feb 27 2014 at 1:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,872 posts
Absolutely.

There's a reason my minions wear web-resistant suits. Smiley: tinfoilhat
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#248 Feb 27 2014 at 1:47 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,065 posts
Is that what they call onesies these days?


____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#249 Feb 27 2014 at 1:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,872 posts
Prior to alteration yes. You can do a lot with some of these synthetic polymers.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#250 Feb 27 2014 at 7:08 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
I can tell you right now, no god would allow something like n-dimensional transform matrices to exist.


That's why Carlin thought God had to be a man.


Carlin was totally wrong though.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#251 Feb 27 2014 at 10:50 PM Rating: Default
**
612 posts
TirithRR wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:

Science is a human construct;



And religion isn't?


No. Religion is the word if God. Don't you know anything?

Edited, Feb 27th 2014 1:48pm by TirithRR


I am god ( albeit in great disguise); just testing your faith chum.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 49 All times are in CDT
RavennofTitan, stupidmonkey, Anonymous Guests (47)