Ha!
Mrebo said:
I second ender's response.
Science doesn't need to prove or disprove anything at all. Doesn't need to prove whether romantic love is anything more than hormones and electrical impulses with the general purpose of motivating reproduction so that monkey men may continue for as long as they are able. Similarly need it prove that love of children exists is a evolutionary development to motivate us to care for them until they too procreate. Whether one wants to accept that's all love is because that's all that science can tell you is another matter.
Only, it can demonstrate those things, and it can do it quite well.
Actually, human mating behaviors is one of the things that has always led me to doubt God to some degree. We can look at mating patterns and behaviors, what women find attractive, what men find attractive, what kind of responses our bodies have to this, chemical releases, etc. All of it fights against monogamy. Why would God program us so contrary to the way he wants us to be.
Whether one "believes" or "knows" love to be more than that (or not) is obviously up to each person, but I can't imagine holding such a stilted view of life. Maybe if I had no concept of love beyond what the scientific method can tell me I'd also put that particular concept on the plane of mermaids and unicorns. Not to say atheists take such a stilted view of love, but belief in God is similar in terms of "knowing" without scientific proof.
Love is an emotion you can see and feel. It can be oppressive, it can be painful, it can be sweet, it can be blissful, it can be overwhelming. We've all experienced it, and we have all seen the crazy things people will do for someone they love. There is no reason to deny it. Anymore than there would be reason to deny depression, sadness, anger, joy, etc. More than just feeling, the body changes while experiencing these things. They are in a way tangible and measurable. The concept of God is not.
Also, love is actually quite selfish. No matter how you try to look at it, deep down, it is "I want you to only mate with me", I want you all to myself, it is the well being of your own children over those of others. Ultimately, the things we do for love, are things we do for ourselves. If you buy your wife flowers, is it because you love her and you want her to feel special? Of course, but it is also because you want to be the one making her feel special, and a demonstration of your value as a mate.
I want to emphasize how much I agree with ender. I like you, Leo, Bingo, Frink, et al. since it can be hard to discuss such topics without coming across as strident. I find it an interesting discussion but it unfortunately comes down to somebody being less than a good guy. Like I told Warbs, I try not to discuss religion. At least one side sees no valid argument to even have and people only end up being disgruntled.
What do you mean by, "it unfortunately comes down to somebody being less than a good guy"?
DuracellEnergizer said:
CP3S said:
When you say you hate atheism, you are essentially saying that you hate disbelief in gods.
Essentially, I am saying I hate the very concept that God(s) do not exist. If there is a defining term for the concept - rather than the adherence to the concept itself - I'd like to know what it is if it'll make my position clearer.
This is such a vague, and rather odd comment.
If I get this right, you are admitting that you do not believe God exists, but you completely resent the term "atheist" and refuse to be called one, because you hate them (but not all of them, because you are cool with your atheist peers here). Seemingly you hate them, because you hate the concept that God doesn't exist. Is that to say, you really want God to be real, but you don't think he is, so you are really pissed at him for it?
Maybe I am way off, I'd like to hear more.
Phew, this thread has been lively lately! Took me a while to dig this up.
darth_ender said:
Well, I do find that the NIV actually seems to drive home a different point, that being that prophets did not privately interpret the revelation as it proceeded from God, while the others seem to emphasize that the readers of scripture are not to privately interpret the revelations of God as they've come through the prophet. The NIV seems to preclude my theory that prophets' revelations aren't word-for-word dictations while the others seem to allow for it.
Hmm, I still feel all translations are explicitly claiming that the words written were from God himself and not from men.wikipedia link to, is no such thing. It merely explains the process I am about to explain.
Even if it wasn't just via visions, there were still only a very small handful of men who are claimed to have ever seen them.
If you were determined enough, you could go see the Dead Sea scrolls (they toured their way through America a few years ago), or any other set of fragments you wanted for yourself.
There isn't even one shred of tangible evidence that the source material for any of the Mormon scriptures ever existed. All evidence points to The Book of Mormon being authored by Joseph Smith (though it could have been someone else), and its original language to have been English.
Ooh, this could be a fun discussion. If we do proceed down this road, I will definitely move my responses to the Mormon thread. But for now, I will offer you this outdated article:
Wordprint is an extremely questionable method. It is far from conclusive, and really determines nothing.
Usually, translated works by different authors but the same translator are shown to be of the same author by the wordprint method, but not always. The inconsistency there goes along way in telling us that, ultimately, this study on the Mormon books really tells us nothing.
We even have the "Book of Abraham" (that's the one, right?) written in Egyptian hieroglyphs, that has no correlation whatsoever to what Smith claims to have translated from that same piece of papyri. This is the point where you start talking about the necessity of faith, which would be an obvious requirement.
Yes, this would be worth discussion as well. Perhaps I will address in the Mormon thread.
We actually discussed it a bit last time.
I still feel that the Book of Abraham and the revelation that it is nothing of the sort, should have been the end of Mormonism.
To his credit as well, he spent relatively little time working on the Book of Mormon, approximately two months of actual reading with transcribers.
That is hardly unreasonable. With people to do the transcription work, this would be very doable.
The variations of the Septuagint and Vulgate are not inconsequential, as they were based on different Hebrew source material than we have before us. If they were modern translations, it would make little difference. But they are ancient translations, taken from a less standardized source, and thus offering their own unique perspective. It's obvious you are knowledgeable on this topic, more than I, but I am at least aware that they are translations of a source different from the Masoretic, making the textual differences valuable for scholars. The Dead Sea Scrolls link I provided above demonstrates such to be true for at least the LXX, and the Vulgate would still contain some similar value.
I didn't mean to claim that they were not inconsequential at all, they are very useful tools. But through the very nature of translation, they are undeniably altered from the get go. Also ancient translation focused more on ensuring meaning was intact, rather than focusing on a literal representation of the document being translated.
The LXX is the one I am most familiar with, since it was Greek that I studied. Many of the variations are found in poetry, a few extended books, and the addition of several books. The Apocrypha, which many Christians use and consider canonical, contain these extra books and the "deleted scenes" from other books.
I'll have to get back to you. I've got to take a hiatus for school reasons. I'm so close to the pass/fail line, it's making me sick. Gotta study! Keep up the crusade ;)
CP3S said:
DuracellEnergizer said:
CP3S said:
When you say you hate atheism, you are essentially saying that you hate disbelief in gods.
Essentially, I am saying I hate the very concept that God(s) do not exist. If there is a defining term for the concept - rather than the adherence to the concept itself - I'd like to know what it is if it'll make my position clearer.
This is such a vague, and rather odd comment.
If I get this right, you are admitting that you do not believe God exists, but you completely resent the term "atheist" and refuse to be called one, because you hate them (but not all of them, because you are cool with your atheist peers here). Seemingly you hate them, because you hate the concept that God doesn't exist. Is that to say, you really want God to be real, but you don't think he is, so you are really pissed at him for it?
Maybe I am way off, I'd like to hear more.
I wanna know what God is....
I want you to show me...
God is anywhere good is. Everything good is from God. Everything bad is from the devil.
Episode II: Shroud of the Dark Side
“Back when we made Star Wars, we just couldn’t make Palpatine as evil as we intended. Now, thanks to the miracles of technology, it is finally possible. Finally, I’ve created the movies that I originally imagined.” -George Lucas on the 2007 Extra Extra Special HD-DVD Edition
I believe that we are asking all the wrong questions, and that we are as a species incapable of asking the right ones.
Consider the world as viewed by a species right "below" us on the evolutionary ladder - say, chimps. Try as we might, a chimp will never understand concepts that we humans consider to be "ultimate questions" - such as the origin of the universe, the vastness of space, the Big Bang, what is "God", etc. Heck, the chimp can't even play checkers, it can't even understand the concept of abstraction at that level. We wouldn't even try to explain any of these concepts to the chimp, because we know it is beyond the chimp's capactity to understand no matter how hard we try. To a chimp, the "ultimate questions" are things like, "how do I get out of this cage?", or "who can I get some food from?", or maybe in a flash of brilliance, "what is on the other side of that hill?". They aren't even capable of some of our modes of thought, such as "irony".
Now, move one rung UP the chain from us - assuming that somewhere in the universe there is a lifeform further evolved than humans. To them, our "ultimate questions" are about as interesting and deep as the chimps "ultimate questions" are to us. We always imagine a superior race landing on earth, answering our questions and enlightening us with their insight. That we would learn so much from them. It think it is far more likely that they won't even try to share their knowledge with us, because even just one step up the chain, it would be completely beyond our capacity to comprehend what they are even referring to, let alone understand it. They might even tell us that, or they might not even bother. Now imagine 5 or 10 steps up the chain - it would be like comparing our insights versus those of an earthworm. And they would have modes of thought that we can't even imagine, let alone experience.
By this line of reasoning, I'm not even sure what we consider to be the "universe", or "time", or "travel", or "creation", or "God", are anything of significance whatsoever, and that whatever is REALLY at the top of it all (if that is a view that even holds), is something of a nature we cannot possibly fathom, let alone interact with. And to me, this makes the message and the medium of religion - in any of its current forms - an almost hilarious concept that by definition misses the point.
"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
And to me, this makes the message and the medium of religion - in any of its current forms - an almost hilarious concept that by definition misses the point.
What alternative form would you propose?
Episode II: Shroud of the Dark Side
“Back when we made Star Wars, we just couldn’t make Palpatine as evil as we intended. Now, thanks to the miracles of technology, it is finally possible. Finally, I’ve created the movies that I originally imagined.” -George Lucas on the 2007 Extra Extra Special HD-DVD Edition
TV's Frink said:
I wanna know what God is....
I want you to show me...
You wanna talk to God? Let's go see him together, I've got nothing better to do.
“Grow up. These are my Disney's movies, not yours.”
The devil is a medieval invension.
He doesn't even appear in the Bible unless you retcon, the Eden serpent, the Tempter, Satan (who isn't a fallen angel), the beast etc into one character.
His look which is non-Biblical is an amalgam of pagan deities.
It's just cultural colonialism.
Anything non-Abrahamic has to be evil and demonic.
Trooperman said:
Everything bad is from the devil.
I'm sorry but I find this extremely unlikely. Bad shit has happened to me in the past, and I don't blame the devil.
And I'm not buying the whole "bad things happen because they're actually good things that we don't understand" argument either. Sometimes bad things just happen.
georgec said:
TV's Frink said:
I wanna know what God is....
I want you to show me...
You wanna talk to God? Let's go see him together, I've got nothing better to do.
I wanna feel what God is...
I know you can show me...
"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist."
-C.S. Lewis
Episode II: Shroud of the Dark Side
“Back when we made Star Wars, we just couldn’t make Palpatine as evil as we intended. Now, thanks to the miracles of technology, it is finally possible. Finally, I’ve created the movies that I originally imagined.” -George Lucas on the 2007 Extra Extra Special HD-DVD Edition
TV's Frink said:
Trooperman said:
Everything bad is from the devil.
I'm sorry but I find this extremely unlikely. Bad shit has happened to me in the past, and I don't blame the devil.
And I'm not buying the whole "bad things happen because they're actually good things that we don't understand" argument either. Sometimes bad things just happen.
Hmmm...sometimes things that we think are bad are actually good, or they have good that can be taken from them. Half glass full, silver lining on the cloud, etc.
A driving mishap, a trainwreck, or losing your job- we call this "bad", but I mean bad in the sense of evil. Everything evil is from the devil, that's probably putting it clearer.
Episode II: Shroud of the Dark Side
“Back when we made Star Wars, we just couldn’t make Palpatine as evil as we intended. Now, thanks to the miracles of technology, it is finally possible. Finally, I’ve created the movies that I originally imagined.” -George Lucas on the 2007 Extra Extra Special HD-DVD Edition
He managed to con a bunch of kids into worshiping a talking lion.
Trooperman said:
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
And to me, this makes the message and the medium of religion - in any of its current forms - an almost hilarious concept that by definition misses the point.What alternative form would you propose?
I prefer science. The main reason is actually opposite what most people think. Most people think that science is about truth and religion is about rules. Actually, religion is fixated on "truth", and just about every religion claims ownership of it. Science (good science, at least), on the other hand, rarely even mentions the word "truth".
Science is a process of coming up with better and better models ("theories") of the world around us based on ever-improving methods of observation. Theories change and improve over time - at least they are better informed by better observations/measurements.
By contrast, religion presupposes that truth has already been laid out some two or three thousand years ago, and never changes. I prefer to believe that we as humans can improve ourselves, improve our methods and our insights, refine our beliefs, etc. over time. I don't agree that whatever we came up with in 0.BC is THE truth and must never change.
There are also some things within particular religions that I find highly unlikely (logically), but my main beef regards the notion of "truth". As far as said truth being the result of divine inspiration or divine intervention - I don't think we are capable of that, for the reasons I outlined in my earlier post.
"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars
TV's Frink said:
I wanna feel what God is...
I know you can show me...
Can you not stop now?
Is it true you have traveled so far?
Do you wish to change this lonely life?
“Grow up. These are my Disney's movies, not yours.”
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
Trooperman said:
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
And to me, this makes the message and the medium of religion - in any of its current forms - an almost hilarious concept that by definition misses the point.What alternative form would you propose?
I prefer science. The main reason is actually opposite what most people think. Most people think that science is about truth and religion is about rules. Actually, religion is fixated on "truth", and just about every religion claims ownership of it. Science (good science, at least), on the other hand, rarely even mentions the word "truth".
Science is a process of coming up with better and better models ("theories") of the world around us based on ever-improving methods of observation. Theories change and improve over time - at least they are better informed by better observations/measurements.
By contrast, religion presupposes that truth has already been laid out some two or three thousand years ago, and never changes. I prefer to believe that we as humans can improve ourselves, improve our methods and our insights, refine our beliefs, etc. over time. I don't agree that whatever we came up with in 0.BC is THE truth and must never change.
There are also some things within particular religions that I find highly unlikely (logically), but my main beef regards the notion of "truth". As far as said truth being the result of divine inspiration or divine intervention - I don't think we are capable of that, for the reasons I outlined in my earlier post.
Fair enough. I believe there is truth and that science attempts to explain the environment we find around us, but can never address the question: why?
Episode II: Shroud of the Dark Side
“Back when we made Star Wars, we just couldn’t make Palpatine as evil as we intended. Now, thanks to the miracles of technology, it is finally possible. Finally, I’ve created the movies that I originally imagined.” -George Lucas on the 2007 Extra Extra Special HD-DVD Edition
Why?
Trooperman said:
Fair enough. I believe there is truth and that science attempts to explain the environment we find around us, but can never address the question: why?
Actually, I think that science has answered a TON of "why's". Or at least has plausible theories for lots of them. That's what science strives to do.
For instance, why do the wandering stars have strange looping paths? It was scientists willing to risk getting their heads getting chopped off by religious leaders, in answering that question by theorizing that they weren't revolving around us, but that they (and we) were revolving around the sun.
Of course, there are a few questions that one could argue that religion attempts to answer, for which science doesn't have a theory. That's fine, but in those cases I simply don't see any reason to believe their hypotheses, which are based on faith rather than on rigor.
"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
By contrast, religion presupposes that truth has already been laid out some two or three thousand years ago, and never changes.
Indeed Hindus measure time in Yugas of billions of years in cycles of time lasting trillions of years, much like modern Science.
DuracellEnergizer said:
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
By contrast, religion presupposes that truth has already been laid out some two or three thousand years ago, and never changes.
Why do so many people use "religion" as a synonym for "Christianity", and a particularly Fundamentalist, inerrantist branch of Christianity at that?
Because they're very vocal about it.