Pagan, Wiccan, Druid worship area at USAFA

[waka]

Would you rather be the person that doesn't believe in God and spends eternity in Hell, or one of the religious and faithful that are proven wrong by having absolutely nothing happen when they die?

Absolutely nothing"? I disagree. A life of denial and living in fairy tales would leave me cold. I'd rather "risk" going to this mythical hell place.

 

[LowlyPropCapt]

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.



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



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.

No prob, Shag. Unfortunately Christian apologetics isn't a paying job so I'm out flying myself. Fly safe!

 

[sstearns2]

Thanks to everyone for contributing to this thread. It's been an interesting read. I'd like to contribute to it a bit.

I've thought a lot about the question of why I care about other people’s religious beliefs. There's a line that when crosses brings fourth demons throughout history. That line is crossed when a person begins to believe that there is another person on this earth who knows the will of their God. Is there a person on this earth that you would believe if they revealed God's plan for you?

There is no more fundamental question is my mind.

Cheers,
Scott

 

[shagadelic]

Lowlyprop,

Because abiogenesis is just one of many competing hypotheses as to the origin of life, I won't argue the point. It's a compelling hypothesis, but has not been proven, yet. So I won't argue for what is today, unknowable. I am not trying divorce abiogenesis from evolution, they are divorced. No where does evolution seek to describe the origins of life, it describes the diversity of life, and the fact that life necessarily evolves from a common ancestor.

You really need to get off the Christian talking point websites when it comes to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Why is it that apologists can divorce themselves from science so quickly when it doesn't suit them, then when they think it helps them they try to latch on to science to prove their point? The Second Law of Thermodynamics ONLY applies to a closed system. The earth is not a closed system, as we have the sun. It's like a refrigerator that separates warm and cold air, but can only do it while plugged in (external power source). All of biology requires an external power source, so nothing is unusual with it growing more complex over time. The net entropy for the universe is still positive, at some point this power source will fizzle, and so will we.

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?

Ok. Let's say I have more to add. Do I continue with the theme written before me and just add my twist, or do take what is written, throw it out and start over? It only makes sense to continue with the generally accepted rather than try to change everyone's mind. The followers of Mohammed continued the story of the Old Testament God, Joseph Smith added to the old and the new testament when he made up the Book of Moron.

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.

If I were to add more to the bible today, I'd use 9/11, the wars in the middle east, and all kinds of current events in my writings. A thousand years from now, they'd read it and think how historically accurate it was. But that doesn't make my fantasy stories any more real. You seem to think the bible is historically accurate, therefore all the mythology it contains therefore is real. That's a logical fallacy...you assume because parts of the bible can be verified as true, it follows the whole compilation is true.

But, since you challenged me, there is plenty in bible that is historically inaccurate (I'm not even going to begin to start with the impossibility of the flood as historically accurate):

Daniel 5:1-2 says Belshazzar was king of the Chaldean Empire (Babylon), and son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar. In reality, Nebuchadnezzar's son and successor was Amel-Marduk. He was assassinated by his Brother-in-law Nergal-Ashur-Usur, who took the throne. His reign was followed by his son Labashi-Marduk, who was opposed by a faction that overthrew him and placed Nabu-naido on the throne. Belshazzar (who's name was actually Bel-shar-utsur) was the son of Nabu-naido. He was NEVER king, but crown prince, and was no relation at all to Nebuchadnezzar.

Hosea 5:13 tells us the Assyrian King at that time was named Jareb. There was never an Assyrian king by that name, and the name of the king who did rule at that time was Tiglath-Pileser the third.

Daniel 5:30-31 says that Darius the Median took over the Babylon empire, but it was Cyrus of Persia who overthrew the Babylonian Empire. While there is a Darius the first in history, there is no mention of a Darius of Median anywhere.

Esther 1:9 tells us Vashti was queen of Persia at the time the story occures, but the queen at this time was actually Amestris, and there never was a queen of Persia named Vashti. Vashti was the name of an Elamite goddess. Most probably that is the origin of the name in this story.

Jeremiah 29:10 Tells us the Babylonian Exile will last 70 years. 2nd Chronicles 36:21 tells us that this came about. However, the elapsed time from the destruction of the temple (beginning of the exile) in

586 B.C., to the return of the Israelites to their promised land after Cyrus overthrew the Babylonian Empire in 538 B.C. was 48 years, and not 70.

Here are several more inaccuracies:

http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/982front.html

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!

So I am writing a follow-on to the Old Testament. I can read the prophesies from the old testament myself. Would I not want to make my story fulfill those prophesies? If there were ever a driving force for shaping how those books were written I would say that's it. It has nothing to do with what actually happened, but everything to do with making this guy Jesus really appear to be what the old testament foretold. The last time the pope died, I remember they said there was some prophesy somewhere that the next pope, (after Benedict) would take the name Peter. Well, when Benedict dies, if that is supposed to be a true prophesy, then the new guy knows that. I wonder what name he'll choose if he happens to believe in the prophesy? And everyone will then talk about the miracle of that prophesy. (Having said all that, I don't know much more than what I saw on TV that day, so that little story could be inaccurate, but the point's the same).

The old testament is a cruel, hate filled, vengeful book that has no place being associated with the creator of the universe. If that's the best your god could inspire, I'm unimpressed.

I'll have to tackle the New Testament later. Cheers.

 

[LowlyPropCapt]

Thanks for the response, Shag. It gives me plenty to discuss!

I will agree to disagree on abiogenesis, but you must already be aware that no less than Charles Darwin disagreed with your point of view that evolution is divorced from the orgins of life. He recognized the origin of life was a weakness in his theory and in apparent exasperation, he hypothesized that life must have descended from some primitive form he called “the Creator”. If he saw the link between life’s origins and evolution, than so should you. Heck, his treatise was titled “The Origin of Species!” In my view, evolution without life’s origin is like building an airplane without knowing how to make aluminum.

Anyway, this link does a nice job of discussing what early earth’s atmosphere was probably like according to the most modern science. Note that it is nothing like the optimized atmosphere your Miller-Urey hypothesized existed. Your YouTube clip was strangely ambiguous on this subject. This is from Duke University:

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/PBearth.html

(We can discuss organic compounds in space some other time).

Oh by the way, I don’t get all my info from apologist websites, no more than you get yours from YouTube (I am assuming).

Now, on to the OT!

As far as your characterization of the OT as being a vengeful and hateful book, I think your assessment is pretty far off the mark. In order to even discuss this, you would have to stipulate that God exists, which I am assuming you are for the purposes of this discussion. I am assuming that by calling the OT hateful you are referring to God ordering the deaths of the Amaleks, Cannanites and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorah. What you have to remember is that God (you must stipulate he exists!) by his nature must be omnipotent and must have justice. If the people in question were irredeemably bad (i.e. they completely rejected God), how else would God deal with them without messing with free will? Would not ending life that he created be entirely his right, especially if it enabled a greater good? Would not the preservation of justice be entirely consistent with his nature?

I will divert here to the subject of free will, as it is central to an understanding of man’s relationship with God. Man exists to love God, and God to love man. However, love cannot exist outside of free will. Love not given freely is not love at all, but a preconditioned response that is entirely without meaning. Free will is an essential part of being human and is a precondition of loving God.

If you really knew the Scriptures dealing with these “tough love” events, then you would know that even in these stories God shows restraint and compassion. In Joshua, the prostitute Rahab and her family are spared in Jericho. Lot is spared in the destruction of Sodom. The entire of Ninevah is spared in the story of Jonah; God indicates that he would have spared to the entire city for even one righteous person. It is also important to recall that Hebrews who went beyond God’s commands and profited from the spoils of war are punished by God, and punished severely. I could go on but I think you get the idea. By pulling out only the incidents themselves and not the context, you are proof texting, that is, finding Biblical passages that fit your preconceived notions.

Let’s put it another way: Take the WWII, for example. I am sure that you and I would be in agreement that the Nazi regime represented the personification of absolute evil. As a matter of fact they were irredeemably morally corrupt. We went to war with them to end that regime, ourselves killing many thousands of blameless women and children over the course of the conflict. Yet, it was necessary so that a greater good could be realized. Would you not agree that WWII was tragic, yet in the end it produced something better than what existed before it? Or should we have engaged in wishful thinking and compromised our own morality to placate Hitler? This is merely a human example and thus an imperfect one, but it provides a framework for understanding the necessity of the so called “atrocities” of the Bible.

Another important point about OT occurrences is to put them in historical context. Remember back then we (human beings) were barely urbanized and rather unsophisticated. Would the message of Jesus Christ have been resonate then? Not likely. In a society where the order of the day was mere survival those less tangible lessons would not have been learned. When a society is living that low on Maslow’s hierarchy, life and death is what is understood. Only with Christ and time would we eventually come to understand the great, deep lessons of God’s promise of forgiveness and redemption. With Israel the stage was set for the most extraordinary event in human history.

Now, on to your Biblical citations:

Daniel: Nebuchadnezzar is the name used to symbolize a succession of Babylonian kings. The Dead Sea Scrolls indicate the king in question is Balshazaar who was the son of Nabonidus (similar in Hebrew to Nebuchadnezzar). Balshazaar is a member of the Chaldean dynasty in Babylon and was the regent of Babylon beginning in 553 BC (ok, I had to look the year up! Near East History class was a long time ago!). “King” is simply the translation from the Hebrew word for “ruler” or “one with authority.” You need to brush up on your Hebrew and history if you want to debate me on this! At any rate, some of the names were probably adjusted in 2 BC when the original Aramaic and Hebrew (Daniel was written in both) were translated to Greek.

Hosea: “When Ephraim saw his sickness, and Judah his sores, then Ephraim turned to Assyria, and sent to the great king for help. But he is not able to cure you, not able to heal your sores”
…No Jareb here. I checked 7 different translations and the Hebrew. Jareb only makes an appearence in the pre DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls) translations. With the NIV and NRSV translations the scholars went back to the DSS to ensure their accuracy. The Jareb reference is an old translation and is not present in Bibles that represent modern linguistic scholarship. Nice try, though.

Not sure what the character count limit is here... More to follow.

 

[LowlyPropCapt]

Next Daniel: That’s a softball one! Darius was the name of not one, not two but SEVERAL kings of both Persia and Media (the Northwestern Arabian Peninsula). Darius the Median was merely a way from separating him from all the other Dariuses.

Esther: This is an interesting case! Esther is one of what I like to call the “parable books.” The events in Esther did not occur- rather they were written as a parable to talk about how God works through man in the world for his glory. Does this affect the truth of the Bible? Absolutely not! Jesus taught in parables, and I am sure that you have used fictional accounts to convey truths to your own children. A book only needs to be historical if the “historicity” is the intent!

Jeremiah: This is a harder one to pin down and I had to go back to the good book on this one. You are correct; the time from the First Temple’s destruction to the restoration of Israel by Cyrus is about 49 years. However, the exile was not a singular event but began earlier with the transportation of select Israelites to Babylon (ref 2 Chronicles 36:6). Sometime during the reign of King Jehoiakim (about 597 BC) the Babylonian’s made Israel a vassal state. The exile probably began just prior to this with a trickle of people to Babylon during successive Egyptian and Babylonian conflicts. Cyrus restored Israel as an entity in 538 BC. Archeological evidence suggests that this was again a trickle rather than a flood. So, the 70 years of prophesy, while unproven, begins to look reasonable when you consider the actual character of the event. Good find though. If you pulled this out of scripture all by yourself I congratulate you on your scholarship.

It is important to note that there is a distinct difference in the character of the various books of the OT. The first five are Law (Torah) not history books. What follows are the historical books (Joshua, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles) and they are remarkably consistent with the archeological record. Then the prophetic and wisdom books, and finally the “parable books” I referred to earlier. You can only judge the “historicity” of those books that are meant to record history. To do otherwise is to misunderstand the context and apply a standard that exists nowhere else in scholarship.

As for your link which discusses Ai and the Exodus, there is a book we can write on that too but I will be very brief (because I am pooped!). Modern scholarship an only center on which city was Ai (it could be one of two), not on it’s existence. As far as the Exodus goes, I could easily counter with a ton of stuff in my brain, but owing to this posts epic length I will retort with my own link which gives a nice summary. Most of the conclusions I agree with, but not all (I think the location of Ai is still open to discussion based on the other pubs I read).

Cheers! I hope all is well.

http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm

POSTSCRIPT: One last thought. You seem to be under the assumption that the books of the Bible were written on as follow ons to each other. That is simply not true, especially in the OT. Furthermore, your hypothesis that the NT as a planned follow on to the OT is false on it's face, as few of the authors knew each other and even wrote in different languages (Mark was probably writen first in Hebrew or Aramiac). To suggest that the NT is a planned diversion is to suggest a conspiracy of impossible dimensions.

Also, you never answered my closing question from earlier so I will try again:

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?

 

[Huggyu2]

... well, that should cover the flybys.

 

[shagadelic]

Lowlyprop, so many times, these debates get bogged down by so many points that anyone can take away whatever they want to take away. Take for instance the mental giant Huggy, who sees a bunch of retorts and thinks it's game over. Let's break this down in to bite size chunks. One at a time. I'll answer your question, then you answer mine. We take it one question at a time, and try to parse out the truth, so even braniacs like Huggy can get it.

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?

If you have 100 sets of parents who love their kids from a scale of 1 (no love) to 100 (complete love) would you not agree that those on the high end of the scale would have kids who have a better chance of survival? The ones on the low end don't get the food from the hunt, the ones on the high end not only get the food, but the warm clothes made from the hides of the kill. In other words, those loving genes survive while the unloving genes don't. It's not too hard to grasp. Go kill a female moose, and you will find a grieving male who's mate for life just died. Elephants grieve and love. It is extremely common throughout the animal kingdom. It's not that hard of a concept. It certainly is not something that had to be given by some almighty creator. Life is about caring about your offspring, because that ensures our immortality, through them. We have one life, this is it. I do my best to make it the best I can, and to make it the best for my offspring. If I knew we all lived for eternity by just graveling over some deity that was nailed to a cross, why would I care about my life and my kid's life on this planet? What's the point. Just hang out until I can ride my white horse in to the kingdom of heaven. It sounds so friggn stupid just typing that. Love is important, because that's all we have for our children. It's the thing that gives them the selective advantage. Classic evolution.



Ok, now to my question. The second law of thermodynamics. It has been shown, OVER AND OVER, the Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to a closed system. It does not apply to the origins of life, nor to the the complexity or diversity of life. Period, dot. But yet, go to any Christian apologist website, and they still out and out LIE about it. No honesty whatsoever, they just distort the truth to try to add some cred to their argument. The dumbass in the pews just accepts this as truth, and the lie gets perpetuated. Can we not agree this is a distortion of the truth and complete subterfuge? Please illustrate how the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to an open system, or admit the Christian arguments with regards to the Second Law of Thermodynamics are a complete and utter misrepresentation and represent classic intellectual dishonesty. I look forward to your responses on these two questions.

 

[LowlyPropCapt]

Gee, I thought we were done with abiogenesis? Ah well, as you wish!

Now hold on there Shag, you can't have your cake and eat it too! You said that evolution are absolutely and irrevocably divorced, yet at that end of the day you seem to be pinning your entire argument against the evidence for God on the use of the Second Law of Thermodynamics as an evolutionary process that resulted in life. Personally, I see a bit of a disconnect there.

Now, as for the Second Law, let me see if I can state this simply. We agree that the Second Law states that net universal entropy is increasing. Similarly, we agree that it is possible for local entropy to decrease while increasing the entropy in the surrounding area (a refrigerator is a good example). In order for this to work, however, you need both something to isolate that small system from a random exchange of heat and some mechanism to transfer heat from the inside of the local system to the outside in an ordered fashion. Exactly what mechanism has been observed on earth that can provide these conditions?

Whether earth is an open or closed system makes no difference. When energy and matter freely interact net entropy increases unless there is a barrier to stop it (The insulating properties of a refrigerator and its ability to transfer heat from inside to outside). Are you saying that your random thermodynamic process is not random? Even if within our notional refrigerator we are able to decrease entropy, we still can't create life because we lack the information input required for complex organisms. I am surprised you haven't moved from abiogenesis to an "RNA world" hypothesis by now.

If you want to use evolution as a reason for the existence of love, that is weak. People perform loving actions all the time that have nothing to do with perpetuating their genes! The soldier who dives on a grenade, the man who risks his life by stepping out in front of a truck to rescue a child that isn't his, the person who gives money to charity for people they have never met... Not that these things are done for religious reasons only, but if we were exhibiting only evolutionary correct responses than they wouldn't take place. Or maybe that guy that jumps on a grenade to save his buddy is just stupid and is ending his genetic line so a more robust set of genes can replicate itself? Is that really what you are suggesting? Is a selfless act really that meaningless?

No sir, I don't think you are. I just don't think you have really thought through what being human really means. You use the animal kingdom to demonstrate that our emotions are not unique, yet you conveniently leave out how we as humans are unique in our ability to attempt to derive meaning from suffering. I fail to see how evolution explains the panoply of human emotions and mankind’s boundless ability to love even when that love is most disadvantageous to our well being.

I am a little disappointed that you have not yet responded to my response regarding the OT. I am looking forward to a vigorous debate… Struggling with Scripture is an edifying and faith building process for me.

 

[LowlyPropCapt]

... well, that should cover the flybys.

I am afraid I don't get the flyby reference. Enlighten me!

 

[Nado]

Shaggy, keep fighting the good fight. You are right on and are saving me a lot of typing.

I always role my eyes when I hear how the US is a Christian nation etc. Some quotes from our founding fathers and other great Americans makes me think that wasn't the case.
Don't argue with me, argue with these guys....
(from atheistempire.com)
Ben Franklin-
“Lighthouses are more helpful than churches”

Thomas Jefferson-(1743-1826) 3rd American president, author, scientist, architect, educator, and diplomat. Deist, avid separationist-
"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."
"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies."
"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined, and imprisoned, yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites."

James Madison, (1751-1836) American president and political theorist. Popularly known as the "Father of the Constitution." More than any other framer he is responsible for the content and form of the First Amendment.
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."
"In no instance have . . . the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people."
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." [April 1, 1774]



John Adams 1735-1826, 2d President of the United States

"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." [ in a letter to Thomas Jefferson] "The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."
"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
"Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and dogmatism cannot confine it."
"But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed."
"Have you considered that system of holy lies and pious frauds that has raged and triumphed for 1500 years."
"The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles."

Ernest Hemingway, American author (1899-1961)
"All thinking men are atheists." [A Farewell to Arms]


Isaac Asimov, Russian-born American author (1920-1992).
"I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say that one is an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or agnostic. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect that he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time."
"Creationists make it sound like a 'theory' is something you dream't up after being drunk all night."


Gene Roddenberry, Creator of Star Trek (1921-1991).
"I condemn false prophets, I condemn the effort to take away the power of rational decision, to drain people of their free will--and a hell of a lot of money in the bargain. Religions vary in their degree of idiocy, but I reject them all. For most people, religion is nothing more than a substitute for a malfunctioning brain."
"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes."


Carl Sagan, American astronomer and author (1934-1997).

In a March 1996 profile by Jim Dawson in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Sagan talked about his then-new book The Demon Haunted World and was asked about his personal spiritual views:
"My view is that if there is no evidence for it, then forget about it," he said. "An agnostic is somebody who doesn't believe in something until there is evidence for it, so I'm agnostic."
When asked how he would explain a "genuine mystical experience," Sagan responded: "Your question presupposes the existence of a genuine mystical experience and I'm not sure what that is. People have vivid hallucinations. How do you distinguish between altered states of consciousness?"
"It is said that men may not be the dreams of the Gods, but rather that the Gods are the dreams of men."
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."


Samuel Clemens "Mark Twain", American author and humorist (1835-1910).
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true."
"'In God We Trust.' I don't believe it would sound any better if it were true."
"It ain't the parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand."
"Religion consists in a set of things which the average man thinks he believes and wishes he was certain of."
"There is no other life; life itself is only a vision and a dream for nothing exists but space and you. If there was an all-powerful God, he would have made all good, and no bad." [Mark Twain in Eruption]

 

[Cobra17]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100201/ap_on_re_us/us_air_force_academy_earth_religion_3

We always knew the AF highly reveres golf and other outdoor recreational and leisure activities above all else. This recent focus on Earth-centered religious worship is right in line with the existing culture.

Out of control. What's next? Placing nametags above the buttocks?

 

[LowlyPropCapt]

Welcome to the discussion, Nado.

I wish you would do more typing, I am more interested in your views than what your views are than some quotes you pulled off of a website. At any rate, the views of those folks are well known and their views aren't subject to debate.

That being said, I think you may have missed my post where I discussed the difference between religion and faith. As I said before, religion is a human construct (and an imperfect and many times abused one) that exists for the purpose of corporate worship of the divine. Faith, on the other hand, is a belief derived from study, reason and experience. Shag and I have been vigorously debating the existence of God and the reasonableness of faith, not religion per se.

While the quotes are entertaining (indeed, Twain and Hemingway are two of my favorite authors) they add little to the quality of our discourse. Perhaps you can enlighten us with your views.

 

[shagadelic]

Welcome to the discussion, Nado.

I wish you would do more typing, I am more interested in your views than what your views are than some quotes you pulled off of a website. At any rate, the views of those folks are well known and their views aren't subject to debate.

That being said, I think you may have missed my post where I discussed the difference between religion and faith. As I said before, religion is a human construct (and an imperfect and many times abused one) that exists for the purpose of corporate worship of the divine. Faith, on the other hand, is a belief derived from study, reason and experience. Shag and I have been vigorously debating the existence of God and the reasonableness of faith, not religion per se.

While the quotes are entertaining (indeed, Twain and Hemingway are two of my favorite authors) they add little to the quality of our discourse. Perhaps you can enlighten us with your views.

What adds little to the discourse is when you can't even agree on the basic science. I'm not sure how we can continue the debate when you can't even agree on the easy stuff like what the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says. I'll hold your hand through it, but it really tries my patience. How can we discuss the philosophical, which has no answers, when you can't even agree on the things that do have answers. I'm back home and will have to give this BS a rest for a few days. Nado, feel free to jump in for a little while.

Incidently, I'm not hanging the beginning of life on the 2nd law. It is creationists who say abiogenesis violates the 2nd law. It does not. That was my only point. The 2nd law is not germane to the discussion since it clearly does not apply. Like I said, I'm trying for us to agree on the easy stuff, but apparently you are like most xtian apologists and ignore the facts.

 

[Nado]

Your opinion that ' Faith, on the other hand, is a belief derived from study, reason and experience' is what interests me.' I am selling doubt and curiosity. That to me is humble and human. I don't have the answers, but I chafe when people tell me they do and here is what they are....

Maybe not you, but the vast majority of people 'believe' in the faith that there parents have. If your parents are Catholic, chances are you are Catholic. What kind of study, reason and experience is that? I am raising my kids to be critical thinkers and to make their own choice with regards to religion/faith. They can choose if they want to or not, and if so which suits them best.

I would argue that God is an atheist. If he exists, then why doesn't he reveal himself to the masses? It would seem that would be a better way to get people in line. No more images on toast and the like. A good question for the faithful is, "Why are you good?" It would appear to me that faith treats people as being naturally bad, thus needing the threat/promise of Heaven and Hell to coerce their actions. Why is the Atheist good?

Faith and religion converge and diverge. If you choose to get down on your knees and pray, that is your business, but keep that faith/religion out of my government (if you believe in the Rapture and the End of Days, what motivation do you have to improve conditions now?) and school (I think the US education is far enough behind the rest of the world to be taught the world was created in seven days, etc).

I respect your views, they are well articulated LPC, but on balance faith/religion has caused far more pain and suffering than anything else over the course of human history. We can now explain what causes eclipses, tides and earthquakes, we don't need a supreme boogey man to blame.

I choose to steer my airplane with a compass, not the equivalent of tea leaves.