Hmmmmm......there are thousands of religions with their own gods....but if you are sure your god is the only real god and don't believe in the other ones.......you must be nearly an atheist like me
J
@ Warb
The second link in my last post is to that article.
I may be wrong about him not being a Christian, but that is the impression I got when I read it the first time.
RicOlie_2 said:
Bodies that are preserved after death without embalming or mummification, et al.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorruptibility
http://www.howstuffworks.com/incorruptible.htm
I see that Warbler wishes that we never mind his comment, but I'll leave the links up for those who have Googlitophobia.
I posted my original comment before I read the article Leonardo linked to. I was able to figure out was an incorruptible was from it.
RicOlie_2 said:
Jaitea said:
Do you think you would be that religion if you were born in another country, say India or Afghanistan?
Depends where. There are a lot of Catholics in India. Of course I could have been born into a different religion, in which case I would probably still belong to that religion. I would be an entirely different person had I been born somewhere else and I cannot therefore speculate as to whether or not I would have stuck with it.
So probably you would be worshiping a different God with the same enthusiasm,....so really you are a Catholic because of your parents, if you were born in D_E's family you would be a Mormon etc
Thats the way it usually goes, the world over....would you find it unimaginable to switch to another religion?
another question,.....it's fair to believe in evolution now?
J
Jaitea said:
Hmmmmm......there are thousands of religions with their own gods....but if you are sure your god is the only real god and don't believe in the other ones.......you must be nearly an atheist like me
J
Lol, yeah. He's 99.99% atheist and 0.01% theist. Of course, you're both wrong. :p
Jaitea said:
RicOlie_2 said:
Jaitea said:
Do you think you would be that religion if you were born in another country, say India or Afghanistan?
Depends where. There are a lot of Catholics in India. Of course I could have been born into a different religion, in which case I would probably still belong to that religion. I would be an entirely different person had I been born somewhere else and I cannot therefore speculate as to whether or not I would have stuck with it.
So probably you would be worshiping a different God with the same enthusiasm,....so really you are a Catholic because of your parents, if you were born in D_E's family you would be a Mormon etc
Thats the way it usually goes, the world over....would you find it unimaginable to switch to another religion?
Not unimaginable, no. Difficult perhaps, but as I said, I don't know how I would behave because I would be a completely different person. If I were the same person and thought the same way for the most part, except for my religious beliefs, I would not likely continue to adhere to those religious beliefs. But of course I would not think the same way.
another question,.....it's fair to believe in evolution now?
J
I believe in guided evolution (evolution with God guiding it along).
RicOlie_2 said:
Jaitea said:
RicOlie_2 said:
Jaitea said:
Do you think you would be that religion if you were born in another country, say India or Afghanistan?
Depends where. There are a lot of Catholics in India. Of course I could have been born into a different religion, in which case I would probably still belong to that religion. I would be an entirely different person had I been born somewhere else and I cannot therefore speculate as to whether or not I would have stuck with it.
So probably you would be worshiping a different God with the same enthusiasm,....so really you are a Catholic because of your parents, if you were born in D_E's family you would be a Mormon etc
Thats the way it usually goes, the world over....would you find it unimaginable to switch to another religion?
Not unimaginable, no. Difficult perhaps, but as I said, I don't know how I would behave because I would be a completely different person. If I were the same person and thought the same way for the most part, except for my religious beliefs, I would not likely continue to adhere to those religious beliefs. But of course I would not think the same way.
another question,.....it's fair to believe in evolution now?
J
I believe in guided evolution (evolution with God guiding it along).
Ok it's established that the universe is 13.8 billion years old.....the age of the earth is 4.6 billion years old...first life on earth estimated 3.8 billion years ago.....dinosaurs first appeared about 230 million years ago.....mammals first appeared 160 million years ago, but lived under the shadow of the dominant reptiles until 65 million years ago when an asteroid/comet hit near Mexico.....only 200,000 years ago the first homo sapiens appeared....
....up to 5 billion species have gone by the wayside and are extinct due to evolution.....all that to evolve gods perfect creation.....man
Created to worship Him
Sorry if this sounds like superior intellect.....its not.....it's from Google
Enjoy your time on earth
J
Jaitea said:
RicOlie_2 said:
Jaitea said:
RicOlie_2 said:
Jaitea said:
Do you think you would be that religion if you were born in another country, say India or Afghanistan?
Depends where. There are a lot of Catholics in India. Of course I could have been born into a different religion, in which case I would probably still belong to that religion. I would be an entirely different person had I been born somewhere else and I cannot therefore speculate as to whether or not I would have stuck with it.
So probably you would be worshiping a different God with the same enthusiasm,....so really you are a Catholic because of your parents, if you were born in D_E's family you would be a Mormon etc
Thats the way it usually goes, the world over....would you find it unimaginable to switch to another religion?
Not unimaginable, no. Difficult perhaps, but as I said, I don't know how I would behave because I would be a completely different person. If I were the same person and thought the same way for the most part, except for my religious beliefs, I would not likely continue to adhere to those religious beliefs. But of course I would not think the same way.
another question,.....it's fair to believe in evolution now?
J
I believe in guided evolution (evolution with God guiding it along).
Ok it's established that the universe is 13.8 billion years old.....the age of the earth is 4.6 billion years old...first life on earth estimated 3.8 billion years ago.....dinosaurs first appeared about 230 million years ago.....mammals first appeared 160 million years ago, but lived under the shadow of the dominant reptiles until 65 million years ago when an asteroid/comet hit near Mexico.....only 200,000 years ago the first homo sapiens appeared....
....up to 5 billion species have gone by the wayside and are extinct due to evolution.....all that to evolve gods perfect creation.....man
Created to worship Him
Why not? Look at all the complexity of the universe. God could have just made it as it is, but he developed it slowly instead, but why is that a problem?
Sorry if this sounds like superior intellect.....its not.....it's from Google
Enjoy your time on earth
J
It doesn't sound like superior intellect. All those are facts I know myself. I plan to enjoy my time on earth if God wills it, but I would rather enjoy the other side of death than enjoy my time on this side.
So that fits in with your understanding of god, the dinosaurs time on earth at being 165 million years and our species barely on this planet?
All those creatures and species living their lives to evolve just for our benefit? just so we can spend a small time on earth so god can decide if we deserve to go to the afterlife?
J
Jaitea said:
So that fits in with your understanding of god, the dinosaurs time on earth at being 165 million years and our species barely on this planet?
It fits perfectly well with my understanding of God.
All those creatures and species living their lives to evolve just for our benefit? just so we can spend a small time on earth so god can decide if we deserve to go to the afterlife?
J
Partially. I don't know that I would put it that way though. The way you phrased it may not be indicative of the true purpose of it all, but the gist of what you are saying/questioning is correct.
Yikes, still so much to say, and I don't know when I'll ever have time to put it all into words :(
I wish to discuss morals a bit, as it pertains generally to nearly all discussions we have here, though this is in response to no one person or post in particular.
Morals are one of two things (though I will actually argue for a third later): ambiguous and determined entirely by society; absolute and determined entirely by God. As I've stated before, the morality of certain actions is difficult to justify when one leaves God out of the picture (note: this is not an argument for his existence, just that something is not inherently right EVER without him). Let's talk about the biggest question of morality: human life. When can a person take another person's life? I think, apart from abortions, most of us agree on this. But when we discuss the why, it becomes a bit more ambiguous. Why is it wrong to murder? Someone (Leonardo?) mentioned that it's wrong because it is destructive to the overall wellbeing of our species. But this is clearly not the case. How often do we preserve life which technically is nothing but a drain on our species. The elderly offer little to the overall survival of humanity, the severely ill are a substantial drain, the mentally ill or physically or mentally disabled cost our society as a whole so much, yet give nothing in return. Where I work, there is a man so ill, lying on death's door, yet still alive for weeks and weeks. He has surely cost Medicare hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars, yet he remains alive, and it would be wrong for us to kill him. Why? What does he give to us? It is wrong because either God said so, or because our society believes it to be wrong.
Why am I making such a big point out of this? Because the fact of the matter is that those who criticize religion and believe that harmony will come to the earth when religion is (peaceably, according to most) eradicated. What they fail to realize is that the very values they cherish, the very society they have adopted, the very freedom to exercise a belief in no religion, came from those before them who worshiped the Creator of Heaven and earth. Those who are sick of religion telling them what to do and believe fail to realize that their own social/political dogmas do the same. Sure, they are more liberal in their values, but who is to say that a different, future society won't find what present-day non-believers cherish to be outdated, archaic, even barbaric. One day, euthanasia may be commonplace. One day, privacy might be drastically inhibited in order to better preserve humanity. One day, eugenics, population controls, genetic alteration, sterilization, and other things we might call immoral horrors may be put into place because the fact of the matter is we can indeed better preserve humanity if we better controlled the whole of it. Sure, humans lose their individuality, but in return we gain security for our species.
Religion and nonbelief can coexist. In fact they must learn to, for neither will replace the other, unless I'm right and the Second Coming of Christ finally occurs of course ;) The fact of the matter is that both provide good, both can be moral, and both may see things differently. But just because those moral lines are drawn differently does not mean that they cannot ultimately work together for the benefit of all.
Meh even things that have proof miles long and it would take years to mine through people disbelieve. Unless God takes people's ability of free will towards religion away and decides to make people believe there's going to be conspiracy theories. The idea of aliens pretending to be a god is a pretty common cliche in sci-fi now and days. It's not out of the question that people would believe that instead. Difference is only the idiots or the extremely stubborn would not believe in God shortly after that.darth_ender said:
Religion and nonbelief can coexist. In fact they must learn to, for neither will replace the other, unless I'm right and the Second Coming of Christ finally occurs of course ;)
http://twister111.tumblr.com
Previous Signature preservation link
Charles Darwin is to blame.
Survival of the fittest.
Evolution is now accepted by (most) religions, we can trace our common ancestor right back to photosynthesis.
When the first homo sapiens appeared 200,000 years ago in Africa they had evolved behaviours that helped them respond to the challenge of survival.
The first modern humans shared the planet with at least three other species of early humans which eventually became extinct.
Extreme climate change 75,000 years ago almost made our species extinct
40,000 years ago modern humans reach Europe
A close species Neanderthal became extinct 28,000 years ago, a species that we know buried their dead, that had concerns for their young, their sick and their elders.
15,000 humans reach the Americas
The turning point for humans was the discovery that they could control the growth & breeding of certain plants and animals about 12,000 years ago
Farming relied on the Sun to shine, the rain to fall to produce a good harvest
A belief began that if they prayed to the Sun god their crops would flourish
Belief in gods spread through the species as a deal to survive....a promise
Law sprang out of this belief, law being set by the wisemen of the groups,....no stealing,...no killing.....or run the risk of angering the gods
Over 3,500 years ago amongst thousands of other beliefs the Jewish religion explained where we all came from, but not until over 2,000 years ago a man who questioned the teachings and laws set down by the wisemen was put to death, thus resulting in a religion being pushed all over the earth. Naturally being human there are misunderstandings of what happened back then.
....but back to Darwin
He was right of course, we as a species have evolved to where we are by survival, one wrong turn leads to extinction
After he published Origin of the Species world leaders either (1) refused to believe that we are the cousins of all other life on earth, that we were created perfect by god in his image.....(2) decided that there was no god......(3) or worse still, that evolution exists, that god made that happen, therefore god gives his blessing for survival of the strongest
Adolf Hitler fell into that category.
A misunderstanding of Darwin's discovery
Peter Kropotkin argued in his 1902 book Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution that Darwin did not define the fittest as the strongest, or most clever, but recognized that the fittest could be those who cooperated with each other. In many animal societies, "struggle is replaced by co-operation."
It may be that at the outset Darwin himself was not fully aware of the generality of the factor which he first invoked for explaining one series only of facts relative to the accumulation of individual variations in incipient species. But he foresaw that the term [evolution] which he was introducing into science would lose its philosophical and its only true meaning if it were to be used in its narrow sense only—that of a struggle between separate individuals for the sheer means of existence. And at the very beginning of his memorable work he insisted upon the term being taken in its "large and metaphorical sense including dependence of one being on another, and including (which is more important) not only the life of the individual, but success in leaving progeny." [Quoting Origin of Species, chap. iii, p. 62 of first edition.]
While he himself was chiefly using the term in its narrow sense for his own special purpose, he warned his followers against committing the error (which he seems once to have committed himself) of overrating its narrow meaning. In The Descent of Man he gave some powerful pages to illustrate its proper, wide sense. He pointed out how, in numberless animal societies, the struggle between separate individuals for the means of existence disappears, how struggle is replaced by co-operation, and how that substitution results in the development of intellectual and moral faculties which secure to the species the best conditions for survival. He intimated that in such cases the fittest are not the physically strongest, nor the cunningest, but those who learn to combine so as mutually to support each other, strong and weak alike, for the welfare of the community. "Those communities," he wrote, "which included the greatest number of the most sympathetic members would flourish best, and rear the greatest number of offspring" (2nd edit., p. 163). The term, which originated from the narrow Malthusian conception of competition between each and all, thus lost its narrowness in the mind of one who knew Nature.[44]
If the belief in god were to disappear, law will still be there, education in human welfare will still be taught to our children so that they can understand the value of human life
Thats me finished with this discussion, I don't think I can really add any thing else without repeating myself
As I've said before, I've come to a mindset that my time on earth has came about because of my parents and their parents before them, while I'm here it's best to love your loved ones, care for your fellow people, but when I'm gone ......I'm gone..... The only way I'll live on is in the memory of those who knew me and by my DNA that I've passed on to my children.
J
On the discussion of morals, evolution, and cooperation, my POV is closer to Jaitea's than twister's, I'm afraid. I don't believe that morals will disappear. I do believe that they could be drastically different. In fact, as cooperation is what has allowed our species to endure, and as our present set of morals involves much individuality, I could easily see a future set of morals in a completely godless world where the needs of individuals are entirely subservient to those of the whole of humanity. My earlier example of the man who is a drain on society because of his terminal condition is a fine example. In a much more cooperative society, he would be allowed to die for the good of humanity as a whole.
Yes, I'm afraid that morals would remain as strong as ever. They would simply be different from today, with the above example a potential logical conclusion. You see, without God, there is no right or wrong. I'm sorry, but this is an absolute truth. There is only a perceived right and wrong, something which will oscillate over time, especially if we were to lose the rigidity of religious conviction. But even if the future portends morals we find horrific today, they will be no more right or wrong in their time....again, without God dictating.
The morals you enjoy today were passed down by Judeo-Christian culture, even if you don't like what those religions believe. In reality, atheists' morals are only a slightly modified version of the set that the Judeo-Christian God already gave to mankind.
darth_ender said:
You see, without God, there is no right or wrong. I'm sorry, but this is an absolute truth.
I'm sorry, but I find this fairly hilarious. I don't believe in absolute truth.
^Then the irony of your statement is manifest. How can something be right or wrong if there is no absolute truth?
Let me rephrase...I don't believe that you or I or anyone knows the absolute truth.
if nobody knows the absolute truth, no one can know truly know that no one knows the absolute truth.
Ah, okay. Well, in this case I feel one can know it is one or the other. Either there are absolute rights and wrongs or there are not. I don't see any in-between for this. So if you believe in God, you can easily believe there are absolute rights and wrongs, defined by our Creator. If you don't then in reality I don't see any true way to identify absolute rights and wrongs. Really, even those things which most atheists and agnostics hold to be right and wrong are only so because of values they have received in their culture. Even in religious cultures of ancient history, people did not value human life the way we do, and often would kill each other for various reasons without doing anything wrong, according to their cultural standards. Who is the atheist to judge them for doing so? They did what was right, according to their standards. Atheists have their own standards, which didn't just come to them as simply self-evident truths, but actually through a process of evolving culture. And as culture continues to evolve, the standards of mankind will continue to change. Thus, if there is no God, then there is no absolute right and wrong. See my point.
And I feel like I may be coming off as passive-aggressive yet again, but it seems to me that you often ignore the bulk of my arguments and attempt to deflate them by pointing out some small wording problem. Really, I think I present a very strong case, one that all non-believers must contend with as they argue their POV. Their standards aren't absolute.
As you said before, religion crams their morals down everyone's throats. I fail to see how the different morals of non-believers is not similarly crammed. There is no issue that has no moral grounding. Let's look at the VP debates last year. Joe Biden=Catholic. Paul Ryan=Catholic. The point was raised that this is the first time this has ever happened, and the logical question followed regarding the sanctity of life in the unborn child. Joe Biden's response: yes, I believe that unborn life is still sacred, and I personally oppose abortion, but I do not believe in forcing others to accept my moral viewpoint. How is that any different from any other law. Mandated healthcare is indeed forcing others to accept the viewpoint that we must all work together to ensure everyone's health can be taken care of, even though there is a valid argument that everyone should be more independent (that's a simplistic argument, but it shows what I'm getting at). Every action we take, every view we hold is based on some moral premise. And every time religion tries to cram some moral down someone's throat, some non-believer tries to cram some other moral down the religious person's throat. That is life in this world of individuals, I guess, and I'm tired of non-believers claiming that somehow they have risen above such "pettiness".
Warbler said:
if nobody knows the absolute truth, no one can know truly know that no one knows the absolute truth.
Yep. I could be wrong, maybe one of you does know the absolute truth. But I doubt it. :p
darth_ender said:
*stuff*
Look, if you want to distract me from football, it's not going to work. :p
I will just say that non-believer cramming tends to be more inclusive and forgiving in my experience.
TV's Frink said:
darth_ender said:
*stuff*I will just say that non-believer cramming tends to be more inclusive and forgiving in my experience.
It wouldn't be if Christians (including myself) practiced the spirit of their religion instead of focusing too much on pointless technicalities (relatively pointless, that is).
Amen.
I can agree with that, if I understood you correctly. Kinda what the Pope was saying, right?
My wife just reminded my of a (fairly harmless, but still) example of religious cramming. We have lived in a state where alcohol is sold in the grocery store six days a week, but not on Sundays. Cram!