Pagan, Wiccan, Druid worship area at USAFA

[lookin4better]

I'll bet he's one of those manfan's that always gives me the creeps at airshows.

Hahaha too funny! You can spot those guys from a mile away! Same "types" at FBO's.... guys creep in those all over the country.

I once had one of them ask me if I had ever flown in the military.... after telling him I had, he mumbled something and also tagged on the end " at least you're white" ....

My response... " ok time to go! " .... there are some real pieces of work/(insert any word) out there.

But on topic.... if someone wants to worship a trash can, let them, its the price of living in a FREE country. Sometimes freedom is offensive

 

[LowlyPropCapt]

You ask great questions. I will try to address them briefly, but I would be happy to address them through PM on an in depth level as to not flood the thread too much. So feel free to PM me for a respectful debate anytime.

If the bible is the word of god and is inerrant, then you must assume that science's explanations are false. If you believe the bible is just a guide for greater introspection into your personal faith with a supreme deity, then what part of the bible is real, and what part is story?

There are a ton of issues wrapped up in this question, so I will try to answer in general terms. For more specificity about particular passages, feel free to ask. First, the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God. However, that doesn't mean that it is a history or science textbook. One has to read the Bible, especially the Old Testament, in the context of the time in which it was written. Let's take Leviticus, for example, which you cited earlier. Leviticus is part of the Torah (Law) and is one of the earliest expressions of the Law of Moses. While the laws here seem arcane to us now, when you examine them in the context of the time in which they were written its importance is very apparent. These were not arbitrary laws or even there to satisfy some health or social need, by and large. They where specifically ordained to make the Hebrews completely separate from the polytheistic cultures that surrounded them- often at their peril. That exclusivity planted the seed for what later enabled the redemption of the whole world through Christ. There are many examples of where what is strange or even offensive to us makes sense when it is examined in a correct cultural/era context.

As for as the historical accuracy of the Bible, context is again important. Take the creation story. Would "God created the entire universe through the process of the Big Bang which we know is true because of redshift and the cosmic background radiation" have made sense to ancient people? I think that you will agree that it wouldn't. In those most early days, the fact that God was the creator was enough. The Books of Jonah, Ruth and Job are most likely fictional or partially fictional (actually Job is amazing poetry if you get the chance). But Jesus taught in parables and we use fictional examples to demonstrate absolute truths to our kids all the time. Just because an event did not occur exactly does not detract from the truth of the underlying message. Lack of historical or scientific exactitude does not affect the inerrancy of the Bible because the science and history isn't the point. The point is how God and man have related over time and God's ultimate goal of mankind's redemption.

It sounds to me like you put your mind in that "transcendental" state where you believe you are talking to someone and thus you are deriving the supernatural answers... We are able to map the chemical process in brain scans. It's explainable by science.

Remember I was an atheist. Achieving that transcendental state would have required that I had faith to begin with. As for the brain scans, of course faith and prayer produce scientifically measurable reactions! That only proves that something is going on that is affecting the person, not that God does or does not exist.

If you have "studied" this and came to the conclusion a creator is responsible for the universe, I'd be interested to hear your evidence.

Wow we could go on for days on this one, couldn't we? I don't have all of the answers, lets just get that straight now. And I still struggle with faith... But that is a good thing! Struggling with faith and scripture leads us into a deeper, more trusting relationship with God. It is when people become fearful of the questions or impatient for the answers that trouble arises.

As for my evidence, I will try not to type a book. First, the origin of life: I see no scientifically accepted or viable theory that can explain the outstanding complexity of life on earth. To explain it off as a warm pool of goo and some lightning and amino acids is a cop out. The chances against the perfect conditions occurring are so huge that it barely deserves a second thought. Sure there was a process... But it had to be controlled. To believe otherwise is to believe in the most complicated explanation imaginable... One that is completely unable to be replicated, by the way. And no, I don't think the world is 6000 years old! Anyone who thinks that needs to read my context spiel at the beginning of this post.

A purely scientific explanation also cannot account for our "human-ness." It would make no evolutionary sense for us to even contemplate faith. Why did our brains develop beyond what a dolphin has? Why do we even feel the need to love one another and to contemplate the existence of God? There is no advantage to it, as a matter of fact it is often antithetical to what our "survive and thrive" instincts should tell us. There exists as a common thread through nearly all cultures a sense of absolute right and wrong. That is what we call a conscience. What possible reason would that have to evolve unless there IS an absolute morality? Where would this absolute morality come from? Are we not hard wired for faith?

As for what is the "correct" religion, I think that is up to you to decide. Obviously you know my view. But I leave you with this: If asked Muhammed would say he was a messenger. Confucius would tell you to simply seek knowledge. Buddha would tell you to seek the Middle Way and Noble Truths. Jesus Christ is the only one who claimed to be God in the flesh and lived and taught as if he was. He was not a guy who was simply good with ethics; to say that is to water him down and make him "safe" for consumption. To borrow from C.S. Lewis a bit, Christ was either God made flesh or he was an absolute lunatic. There is no other possible explanations. You'll have to study him and judge for yourself.

 

[shagadelic]

First off, I've seen people claim who claim to have been atheists, and now are christian. Most of the time it is a bit of a stretch. It sounds to me you perhaps did not have religion before and have found it. There is a big difference between that, and someone who has become well versed in the science and the arguments, and has chosen atheism, then later in life rejects it and picks up religion. It is clear you don't have a firm grasp on the science, so I'm assuming you just may not have been very religious to start with and found religion.

The origins of life have nothing to do with the diversity of life. Abiogenesis is the hypothesis that scientists generally accept. Notice I did not say theory, as it does not rise to that level, since it's not quite testable and falsifiable. They are close to recreating abiogenisis in the lab, and when they do, I believe it should once and for all put this question to bed. A great video on how abiogenisis works is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

Now once life began, the theory of evolution kicks in, and explains the diversity of life. The theory of evolution is very well understood, it has stood the test of time, it's falsifiable but hasn't been, and it predicts; all important parts of a good theory. Darwin didn't have the fossils, just observation. When fossils began to be discovered, they fit perfectly with what the theory said. Then we finally found the mechanism for evolution in the 50s, DNA. I'm not a geneticist, but supposedly the entire theory of evolution would be iron clad just from what they know of genetic theory. My son is taking Honors DNA science next year, maybe I'll learn more about that and get back to you.

Scientists used to just dismiss creationists and felt the evidence would stand on its own. Unfortunately, through strategies such as the Wedge document (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy), the religious right has introduced enough uncertainty that the common person is easily confused. I'm not going to sit here and regurgitate the reams of science that show how evolution is fact; if you're truly interested there are great books, like The Greatest Show on Earth, or Why Evolution is True, that spell it out in very easy to understand laymen terms.

There is a great video out there showing Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron explaining God's design and the banana and how perfect it is and how it must have been designed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4 What's funny, is the banana he's holding is much different than the natural banana from last century. The banana was designed, but not by god, but by humans, through artificial selection; basically doing it through guided evolution. Kind of irrelevant to our discussion but it's ironic and funny.

(Edited: My son seems to think you may be a theistic evolutionist, and if so disregard my rant on evolution. I disagree with him and tend to think you don't accept it; it's unclear from your previous post so perhaps you could expand your thoughts on evolution.)

You're right about one thing, we do need to narrow the focus quite a bit. Let's start here:

First, the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God.

Ok, that's a BOLD statement. Where is the evidence for that? Because the bible says so? Oh of course, silly me. I am the word of god, and you know it to be true because I said so. Nice circular argument. We haven't come close to establishing there is some sort of god, yet you have in your hands the inspired word of God. No other "revealed" document in the world is the true word of god except the one you have? Can't you even begin to see how silly that sounds???

This one is great too:

Jesus Christ is the only one who claimed to be God in the flesh and lived and taught as if he was.

So he claimed to be god, (based on documents written well after his death), therefore it must be true. Joseph Smith had plates given to him by god, and after translating them discovered Jesus walked here in the US. Who's to say that's wrong? One of the most leading scholars on early Christianity wrote a book called Jesus Interrupted. In it, he lays out the evidence how much of the New Testament is likely forgery, and certainly none of it written when Jesus was actually around. Also, how does the unique fact that Jesus claimed to be god have any bearing on the truth? Does that make Mohammed's testimoney less truthful, or Joseph Smith's, or Budda's?

Christ was either God made flesh or he was an absolute lunatic. There is no other possible explanations.

No, there are myriad possible explanations. Many early gospels wrote about Jesus being a man, not a prophet. But those weren't chosen in 400 AD at the council of Nacea and destroyed, so we'll never know what those said about him. Jesus may have been legend and never actually existed, the stories could have just been myth, he could have just been a regular guy that people liked, like Mother Teresa, and we all know how great people get bigger and bigger over time. Just google inconsistencies in the New Testament, and it will make your head spin with all the things that don't match up with each other in just the first 4 books of the New Testament.

I would like to get in to the old testament debate as well, as I am curious why your god chose to slaughter so many, including women, children, and unborn, as well as the condoning of rape and slavery. I'm afraid the context argument doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Slavery built this country in the 1700-1800's and was widely accepted at that time, but that doesn't make it right. I can't even begin to understand your argument. Are you justifying these heinous acts by your god because they were needed to get people away from polytheism??? If so, it didn't work, as we still have polytheists around today, apparently some like in the title of this thread at USAFA.

Remember, the burden of proof rests with the one making the claim. If I tell you bigfoot exists, it's up to me to produce a body. I could show you a diary of a guy who spent his life tracking bigfoot, but that would not be evidence, just hearsay. I have to offer the proof. Or you could just have faith that I'm telling you the truth and spend your life believing in bigfoot. Your choice. One thing is clear, if you teach your kids bigfoot exists from the time they are infants, they are likely to always believe bigfoot exists.

I do enjoy the debate, and appreciate your civility. I sometimes write with a bit too much sarcasm, mainly to generate debate.

 

[LowlyPropCapt]

Well thought out post, shag… And thanks for responding. This turboscooter Captain is stuck in the snow and is lacking things to do. You have provided me with much needed entertainment. God bless you for it! This is going to get long, so I will have to post twice on this. On this post I think I will stick with the whole God vs. Science on creation thing and get to the rest later.


I didn't get all scientific on my previous post because I was trying to keep it light. You assume much when you make judgements on my ability to understand the science invovled... But, I'll let bygones be bygones and roll with the counter arguement.

For the record, I do find evolution to be a compelling theory and see no conflict between that and the existence of God. Call me an evolutionary theist, an intelligent design believer or whatever; the Bible is not supposed to be a “how to” manual on the mechanisms that God used to create all that we know. Sure, the Bible says 7 days, but what is a day to an eternal God? The Bible is meant to make God’s work understood in a human context. It is not a literal accounting of time and process because it doesn’t need to be. Why must we say that evolution cannot coexist with a creator? If there is a God, who are we to say how it was that he brought forth life on the earth and over what period of time? Science is good and is no threat to God.

As far as abiogenesis goes, I am very familiar with the hypothesis. My great-uncle is a rather well known evolutionary biologist (you may have read one of his books, it was a very big seller) so this is reasonably familiar territory for me. I have seen the YouTube clip before; I prefer to do my research using more scholarly sources but it is a nifty piece of work. The problem is that it ignores that the Law of Entropy and the fact that those chemical reactions can go both ways, quickly destroying any compounds created in the process. The funny part about that video is that it says abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, yet it details an evolutionary selection process (transfer of lipids from a low polymer vesicle to a high polymer vesicle).

You try to divorce the subject of abiogenesis from evolution, and for good reason. The vast majority of atheist evolutionary biologists refuse to discuss it because they realize that without an explanation for the initial existence of complex organisms a purely naturalistic evolutionary theory is implausible. You are obviously familiar with the proposed process of abiogenisis and thus you are familiar with the Miller-Urey experiment in which they created as many as many as 22 (IIRC) amino acids in what was thought to replicate an early earth environment. What Miller-Urey did not and could not explain is how these amino acids (and only some were the correct “left hand” variety) were able to organize themselves into proteins, and how the information was organized to get to complex cellular organisms. I know, I know, nature is replete with spontaneously organizing materials like crystals. But crystalline structures are highly simple. A crystal’s organization is like writing “me me me me me” on a page. Even the simplest cell’s organization is like putting the contents of thousands of Bibles (you know I had to use that!) onto a strand of DNA. Human science has never even approached that level of complexity, and I doubt very much that it will. What are the chances of that level of complexity could arise spontaneously using the crudest of raw materials in what the vast majority of scientists (faithful and atheist alike) would call an adversarial environment?

The atheist must rely on a long series of assumptions, happenstances and must outright ignore the Second Law of Thermodynamics in order to consider abiogenesis plausible. No wonder Richard Dawkins himself has disavowed it as a probablity. Yes, I have read his books… And I rather enjoyed them. Look, neither you nor I are chemists or biologists, but I think we can both agree that abiogenesis is simply spontaneous generation repackaged. Abiogenesis creates more problems than it solves and as such is actually powerful evidence for the existence of an author of life (God).

Oh yeah, and I totally agree with you about the Kirk Cameron video. Bad example!

Off to grab something to eat. I'll be back to finish my response later. I am enjoying the debate, but I will bet the mods will send us a warning shortly.

 

[shagadelic]

Several glasses of wine and I've been watching American Idol and the Bachelor this evening after my 4 day trip, so it's not the time to respond (intellectually I'm neutered for the night), but my son and I both agree we enjoy your response! More to follow... Thanks! You're actually intelligent, and we appreciate that. I have made a decision to quit arguing with YEC's as it's really like arguing with a rock. More to come.

(oh, but I do need to correct some really bad misconceptions of the second law of thermodynamics....ouch)

 

[LowlyPropCapt]

I am looking forward to my physics lesson! Although I did pretty well in those classes…

First, a little more background on myself in order to enhance your understanding of my faith. I was raised in a Roman Catholic household, and a devout one at that. By the time I reached my teens are early twenties, I had absolutely rejected all forms of faith. I was absolutely sure that it all was a sham put on for the benefit of those far less intelligent than I. Being the smart guy I was, I immersed myself in studying was to stupefy and humiliate those who held faith in a divine being. Of course, those studies included philosophy. It was in my late twenties that I became convinced of the logical impossibility of being an atheist. Without sound and absolute scientific evidence that indicated the presence of God, or lack thereof, the only logical conclusion was agnosticism. I determined that there was no way that I could know for sure either way. The curiosity remained and the study continued. I digested everything from C.S. Lewis to Dawkins and just about everything in between (you should see my library- it drives my wife nuts!). Today, I am a practicing Methodist, a servant of the church and a teacher in addition to being a lowly turboprop driver. At any rate, your initial assessment as to the nature of my journey is erroneous.

As for the Bible being the divinely inspired word of God, of course that is a statement of faith on my part and it is central to Christianity. If you are looking for a footnote on the title page that says “copyright: The I Am, year 0” than obviously you will be disappointed and the discussion could end there. Lacking that piece of information we have to analyze the Bible’s characteristics, compare it with other pieces of religious literature and determine the likelihood that such a document could or would be produced for any other purpose. I am currently teaching a class where we read 86% of the Bible over a 34 week period so this stuff is pretty fresh in my mind. I could write pages on this and books have been written about it but here goes the quick and dirty…

The unity of the Bible is for me the most incredible testimony for its authenticity. 66 books, at least 40 authors, 3 languages, 13 different countries on different continents… And one theme. That one theme remained unchanged for the 1500 years it took to produce the Bible. Remember it is not a science book in that it recounts the exact details of the universe’s formation and the earth’s creation. It is salvation history; it tells us the history of man’s relationship with and reconciliation to God. No other book in the history of the world from the Codex Gigas to Tom Clancy can match the extraordinary unity of the Bible as a document created over time. Remember, few if any of the authors knew each other. Most didn’t even live in the same period of time. Yet they managed to create a seamless book with a single unifying theme. What are the chances of that? When else has that occurred in history?

The second argument I will use is historical accuracy. You can google or wiki as well as I can, but I challenge you to find current, peer reviewed archeological evidence that suggests that the Bible is not an accurate historical document. Nearly all of the Bible’s historical claims (people and places especially) have been verified by archeology. If the Bible is so accurate in a historical context, doesn’t that raise the probability that its claims are also true? This historical accuracy is unmatched in any other religious document.

The third argument is the prophesies of the Bible. I know you are rolling your eyes at that one, but hear me out. There are over 300 prophesies concerning Jesus of Nazareth in the Old Testament. The rate of fulfillment? 100%. I know of no other psychic, mystic or even scientist whose rate of success even approaches this. How is that possible? This brings us back to the subject of unity; Jesus is the center of the Bible both before his birth and after his death. How would that be possible if the Bible was not divinely inspired? I am sure you can pull out some Old Testament prophesies you would like to debate. I welcome it!

As for the accuracy of the Old Testament text, the Dead Sea Scrolls pretty much put any objections you may have there to bed. In short, it has remained unchanged.

As for your arguments against the New Testament, your logic and information is highly flawed. The earliest portion of the New Testament is not the Gospels, but the letters of Paul as the early church began organize. Christ was crucified around 33 AD. Paul’s conversion occurred between 33 AD and 36 AD. The earliest New Testament text, Paul’s letter to Galatia was written no later than 49 AD (some scholars believe the first was First Thessalonians about 50 AD, but I remain unconvinced). The Gospels themselves were all written before 90 AD. I actually think (supported by current scholarship) that the Gospels were complete by 70 AD as they lack any mention of the destruction of the second temple in Jerusalem, an absolutely pivotal event in Jewish history. It is extremely unlikely this would have gone without mention since it fulfilled a well known prophesy.

You can get a sense of the New Testament’s remarkable immediacy when you compare it to other works that are considered accurate and dependable by scholars. Take the biography of Alexander the Great. Arrian’s biography of Alexander is considered reliable historically and was written 400 years after his death! In short, the New Testament was written far too quickly to allow for the legendary development of Jesus.

You can look at it this way: How is it possible that a man may have never existed (says you) spawned a movement that in less than a century caused thousands to turn from everything they ever believed was true and live in a way that put them at odds with established society to such a degree that their very lives were threatened? How is it possible that a lie of outrageous proportions could lure still thousands more and contribute to the fall of the greatest empire the world had yet known- and have the secret of that lie remain concealed? Does that not seem extraordinarily unlikely?

I will hit the Old Testament some more tomorrow, because that gets into justice, the morality of God and lots of other neat things I don’t have the energy for now. It sounds like I need to touch on the historicity Jesus and the “other gospels” as well. I am enjoying the debate, keep up the good work!

Just one last question for you to ask yourself: You are obviously a great dad. No doubt you teach your son right from wrong and he sounds like a smart kid. Where does all of that love come from? Is it simply the clicking of biologically predisposed responses? Or is there something far deeper? Isn’t life rather futile if there is not?

I know that despite all of my study and book learnin’, the greatest expression of God’s love I experience is when I hold my little girls’ hands walking into church on a Sunday morning. And while I can justify God’s existence with logic and scholarship, I know it through that one simple act.

 

[c141ip]

Word for word.

The interesting thing is my daughter claims she is an atheist but has no interest in why, she's just listening to her brother and I debate and discuss. I get on to her that she can't claim that if she has no interest in figuring out the answers for herself. I've come to the conclusion that's how most people are. They simply follow what their parents are and figure if it's good enough for their parents its good enough for them. That thinking drives me batty, but she seems content with it. Oh well.

I was a "fall in line with your parents way of thinking" kind of guy for a long time. I became a skeptic, a free thinker, very curious about the whys. I had to satisfy my curiosity, and I really mean HAD to, because the importance of the "meaning of life" to me took up a great deal of my brain power. I came to an opposite conclusion (from shagadelic) after my "due diligence" and that's ok. I guess the point of this post, being a free thinker may take you to a different place than what's normally associated with being a free thinker. I think...

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

Interesting new developments I have been reading about lately:
DNA is a programming language.
Lamarck WAS right, and animals can change themselves (thanks to their DNA) while they're alive, in response to environmentul stimuli. Animals can also pass those changes on to their offspring.

More scientific evidence that God created the universe.

cliff
NBO

 

[partypilot1]

shagadelic, I hate to hit a raw nerve here but it seems that you really got a dog in this hunt. For as much energy you put into converting people into believing in nothing, truly if you believed in nothing, you could care less what other people thought.

 

[shagadelic]

No partypilot. I really don't care what people think, but I do care when the government tries to choose one religion to endorse or schools try to pass creationism off in the classroom as science. Keep religion in your church where it belongs and I could careless what you believe. I've said that all along.

DNA is a programming language.
Lamarck WAS right, and animals can change themselves (thanks to their DNA) while they're alive, in response to environmentul stimuli. Animals can also pass those changes on to their offspring.

There is some evidence that in some cases this is correct. There is much to learn and it is interesting.

More scientific evidence that God created the universe.

WHAT? That's a quite a leap. Let me pray about that and get back to you.

Lowlyprop, I'm not ignoring you, but your post requires more time than my wife will allow while home. I start a trip tomorrow.