New Discovery: Did Apes Descend from Us? - Page 3
Old 10-06-2009, 07:10 PM   #41 (permalink)
is back baby

Large and in charge
 
Snooch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: All up in there
Posts: 8,160
Representing:
Default

Have to also remember that the Bible as we know it was translated under the orders of King James of England. And dont think for one second that some things were ommitted or re-arranged so to speak, to better the king.

But some believe it is a random occurrance of events, some believe it was devine intervention-either way, I'll stick with something bigger and better. I would much rather beleive in "santa clause" so to speak than beleive that we are all absolutly insignificant in terms of the universe and the world.
Snooch is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 07:28 PM   #42 (permalink)
pensive

feat. Otto Neurath
 
Ligeia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,085
Representing:
Default

Well, I reject your argument that a lack of a personal god means that we are insignificant, and I also reject that we should believe what makes us feel good over what we could reason to be true.
Ligeia is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 07:29 PM   #43 (permalink)
is back baby

Large and in charge
 
Snooch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: All up in there
Posts: 8,160
Representing:
Default

Well that is just foolish
Snooch is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 07:37 PM   #44 (permalink)
I believe in Masai!

giant steps

 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 16,682
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snooch View Post
Have to also remember that the Bible as we know it was translated under the orders of King James of England. And dont think for one second that some things were ommitted or re-arranged so to speak, to better the king.

But some believe it is a random occurrance of events, some believe it was devine intervention-either way, I'll stick with something bigger and better. I would much rather beleive in "santa clause" so to speak than beleive that we are all absolutly insignificant in terms of the universe and the world.
so then why not hinduism snooch? why just christianity, and why just the king james version? there are plenty of others...
'trane is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 07:55 PM   #45 (permalink)
is back baby

Large and in charge
 
Snooch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: All up in there
Posts: 8,160
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'trane View Post
so then why not hinduism snooch? why just christianity, and why just the king james version? there are plenty of others...
Well where I am at it is mostly about Christianity and the King James version of the bible is the main text.

What I know of Hinduism it is relativly the same thing, as are all religions when you look at the bare essentials of it.
Snooch is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 08:52 PM   #46 (permalink)
pensive

feat. Otto Neurath
 
Ligeia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,085
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snooch View Post
Well that is just foolish
Well I really don't see what is foolish about it.

With respect to following your feelings, I think this is the least responsible way to decide what you believe. Indeed, most of our moral and intellectual experience tells us that going on "what feels good" rather than what's supported by the best reasons will often lead us astray.

As for whether life is more or less significant when you don't believe in a personal god, I of course find it far more significant without the big brother deity. You see, if there is a god, everything you ever do will pale in comparison to him. In fact, your only real purpose in life is to, apparently, acknowledge his utter and complete dominion over us. If he does not exist, on the other hand, one is able to define their own life, existence, and purpose. Actions taken in the spirit of serving the collective and the individual allow us to shape the lives of others in meaningful ways that can really make the world a better place. Instead of being defined by your belief or lack thereof, you are defined by your actions and how they help the world while we've got it. To me, this is a far more liberating, and significant, experience that we should all embrace.
Ligeia is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2009, 03:40 PM   #47 (permalink)
a dick

Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,151
Representing:
Default

Have you guys ever looked into a mirror facing your front while having another mirror facing more to your back? If you have then you know that when you look into that mirror facing your front you see yourself repeating endlessly as far as your eye can see. This is how I sort of view beyond the universe, an infinite cycle of existence on different levels which as you look beyond your location gets more and more difficult to see. Atoms make up the stars, the stars make up the galaxies, the galaxies make up the universes, the universes make up the...

Last edited by Apollo; 10-07-2009 at 03:45 PM.
Apollo is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2009, 05:10 PM   #48 (permalink)
is pounding the rock!

Senior Member
 
Superjudge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 17,592
Representing:
Default

Stop smoking Pot.

Superjudge is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2009, 03:20 PM   #49 (permalink)
stank

member
 
Someguy again's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,387
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snooch View Post
It says in the bible that one day in heaven is equal to thousands of years on earth and it also says that gad created earth and heaven in 6 days, that could easily mean at a minimum 6000 years. So it is possible that the concept of millions didnt exist when these scriptures were written and that a thousand was as large a number that was understood at the time. It could have easily been 6 million years instead of 6000 which would have left plenty of time for evolution to run its course.
Actually I heard that in ancient language (hebrew or Greek) that can be interpreted into a time period of a span between 24 hours to a millenia.

Either way there is still room for the theory that "with a big bang God created the heavens and the earth"

Last edited by Someguy again; 10-14-2009 at 03:24 PM.
Someguy again is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2009, 12:18 PM   #50 (permalink)
upset that he is forced to write something here

Senior Member
 
macs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: The centre of the universe
Posts: 703
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'trane View Post
totally agree. trying to make religion fit the facts is backwards reasoning and just an attempt to square the circle. also, if god is perfect, why are there so many collossal fuck ups in his design? and if god created the heavens and earth, and the bible is god's word, why is there no mention of anything that can't be seen by human eyes? and why, if god gave man dominion over all animals and beasts, are we completely at the mercy of germs? so many questions unanswered by religion that are completely explainable by science.
Trane, although I agree with most of your points and I'm not the most religious guy out there, I think this post contradicts one of your previous arguments.

You cannot state that there are colossal fuck ups in God's design, unless you were there with Him drawing up the plans. And, maybe your are not meant to see any evidence of God. Maybe He likes His privacy and chooses to challenge you to follow His teachings.

Finally, the "theory" of God is similar to that of the "theory" of evolution.

One is based on a number of incredible coincidences that set up to form a reproducible and logical pattern. However, there is a chance that there are confounding variables that skew the facts and lead us to misinterpret the data. The chances of this are slight, but not 0.

The other, the theory of God, had most of its history documented during a time where most of the population of the known world was illiterate. Stories needed to be simplified for people to understand. There weren't any computers or satellite hard drives to preserve the facts. Stories were skewed and bastardized by humans over time.

Although you may not like what Christianity has become, I am not sure you are in a position to dismiss the notion of a God. I am willing to bet there’s much more to this existence than what our 3-dimensional minds are able to comprehend.

(for the record, I believe in evolution and think there is a God.)
macs is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2009, 12:38 PM   #51 (permalink)
I believe in Masai!

giant steps

 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 16,682
Representing:
Default

evidence can be offered to support the theory of evolution. it can be argued, it can be tested, attempts can be made to verify it, and the theory can be changed and improved. it may indeed be wrong, but at least its proponents (aside from the ones that treat it like a religion, which is bad science) are willing to take a critical look at it. all religion has is insistence of truth in the face of an ever-increasing obviousness that it is a human invention. couple that with a history of coercion and the obfuscation of truth and you get why i'm not willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.

maybe god likes his privacy. maybe god doesn't exist. there's absolutely no possibility of proving it either way, but a simple application of occam's razor tells me which way i'm willing to lean.

what you pulled out of there is just one of my points, taken in isolation. take a look at it this way as well - there is no way that any particular faith has claim to truth. ancient greeks, christians, jews, muslims, egyptians, buddhists, hindus, aztecs, mayans, etc, etc - they are all equal in their claim that they are correct. if we are to believe in any god, it needs to be an abstract notion since none of the faiths can claim to be true. if we end up with simply the notion of a prime mover, and that's all that religion can claim to be, then i say who cares? it's unprovable and irrelevant. to say something is true simply because i believe it is nonsensical to me. why not focus our attention on something that matters?

if i'm going to put my faith in something, it will be my own ability to make a good life for my family and i, not some imaginary character that takes agency out of my hands.
'trane is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2009, 01:08 PM   #52 (permalink)
pensive

feat. Otto Neurath
 
Ligeia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,085
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by macs View Post
I am not sure you are in a position to dismiss the notion of a God.
I think this is part of the problem: it sounds to me as if your null hypothesis is that god exists, and until he is disproven, he is an equally valid theory to explain anything.

I take a rather different approach: no claim or hypothesis (I avoid using the word theory due to conflation between its scientific definition and its colloquial use) is worth accepting until there is considerable positive evidence in support of it. The simplest way of explaining this is that the burden of proof is on those who claim, not those who negate.

The claim of god has almost always been that he is perfect, and that his creation is perfect. We can intuitively see that is not the case (even if we ignore a great many things, looking at anatomy can easily demonstrate that to be so). Have you ever wondered why it might be that there is only one planet in the entire universe that is capable of holding life for any given period of time? Doesn't seem like a particularly good design to me.

Lastly, I positively despise the assertion that god wants to stay hidden. I ask: is it fair of god to stay hidden when his punishment for our not discovering him is supposedly an eternity of torture? The typical response is: "Well, he's god", but I reject such "might = right" arguments on their face.
Ligeia is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2009, 05:03 PM   #53 (permalink)
upset that he is forced to write something here

Senior Member
 
macs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: The centre of the universe
Posts: 703
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'trane View Post
evidence can be offered to support the theory of evolution. it can be argued, it can be tested, attempts can be made to verify it, and the theory can be changed and improved. it may indeed be wrong, but at least its proponents (aside from the ones that treat it like a religion, which is bad science) are willing to take a critical look at it. all religion has is insistence of truth in the face of an ever-increasing obviousness that it is a human invention. couple that with a history of coercion and the obfuscation of truth and you get why i'm not willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.

maybe god likes his privacy. maybe god doesn't exist. there's absolutely no possibility of proving it either way, but a simple application of occam's razor tells me which way i'm willing to lean.

what you pulled out of there is just one of my points, taken in isolation. take a look at it this way as well - there is no way that any particular faith has claim to truth. ancient greeks, christians, jews, muslims, egyptians, buddhists, hindus, aztecs, mayans, etc, etc - they are all equal in their claim that they are correct. if we are to believe in any god, it needs to be an abstract notion since none of the faiths can claim to be true. if we end up with simply the notion of a prime mover, and that's all that religion can claim to be, then i say who cares? it's unprovable and irrelevant. to say something is true simply because i believe it is nonsensical to me. why not focus our attention on something that matters?

if i'm going to put my faith in something, it will be my own ability to make a good life for my family and i, not some imaginary character that takes agency out of my hands.

I don't believe any faith has it right. But, I do believe in a higher intelligence.

There are some hear who believe that God and Science are opposites, with each new discovery we find ourselves further from Him. But, the world of physics is becoming a breeding ground for our future philosophers. Debates about the singularity are leading to radical ideas about consciousness and reality. These debates are being held between academics, and not by the wacko’s on the internet.

Like our ancestors who first were told that the Earth was not at the centre of the universe, we to are at a point where we will be closer to understanding our universe a little better.

My universe includes a “God”. I don’t think that discovering God will be unprovable or irrelevant.
macs is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2009, 05:34 PM   #54 (permalink)
upset that he is forced to write something here

Senior Member
 
macs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: The centre of the universe
Posts: 703
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ligeia View Post
I think this is part of the problem: it sounds to me as if your null hypothesis is that god exists, and until he is disproven, he is an equally valid theory to explain anything.

I take a rather different approach: no claim or hypothesis (I avoid using the word theory due to conflation between its scientific definition and its colloquial use) is worth accepting until there is considerable positive evidence in support of it. The simplest way of explaining this is that the burden of proof is on those who claim, not those who negate.

The claim of god has almost always been that he is perfect, and that his creation is perfect. We can intuitively see that is not the case (even if we ignore a great many things, looking at anatomy can easily demonstrate that to be so). Have you ever wondered why it might be that there is only one planet in the entire universe that is capable of holding life for any given period of time? Doesn't seem like a particularly good design to me.

Lastly, I positively despise the assertion that god wants to stay hidden. I ask: is it fair of god to stay on their face.
Ligeia, part of the problem is that you're thinking like someone who is bounded by the 3+1 dimensions we live in and someone who thinks they understand everything about the universe we live in.

"Have you ever wondered why it might be that there is only one planet in the entire universe that is capable of holding life for any given period of time?" Again, 3+1 dimensional thinking. Have you heard of brane worlds? One theory would have our entire universe (aka brane world) in the form of a string floating within a higher dimension. In this higher dimension, there would be other of these brane worlds similar or vastly different than ours. In each of them, there would have to be at least 1 world capable of producing life. And, even if you don't accept this theory, and let's say you don't believe that any of the more than 10^22 ("10 to the power of 22" or 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) stars have at least one planet with life, realize that there are moons in our solar system that have a liquid ocean beneath its icy surface. Recently, one was also shown to have oxygen in the water. So, primitive life may just be a few planets away. And, if our solar system is capable of having 1 planet with advanced life, and 1 other body with primitive life, and there's no other life outside of our solar system, then that's some serious bad luck.

Finally, despise what you like. But, if He calls the shots, then play by the rules.
macs is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2009, 06:55 PM   #55 (permalink)
the gat'll killya quicker, when I'm drunk off the liquor

The Mara sisters are hot!
 
Bill Haverchuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,221
Representing:
Default

Bill Haverchuck is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2009, 07:12 PM   #56 (permalink)
I believe in Masai!

giant steps

 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 16,682
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by macs View Post
I don't believe any faith has it right. But, I do believe in a higher intelligence.

There are some hear who believe that God and Science are opposites, with each new discovery we find ourselves further from Him. But, the world of physics is becoming a breeding ground for our future philosophers. Debates about the singularity are leading to radical ideas about consciousness and reality. These debates are being held between academics, and not by the wacko’s on the internet.

Like our ancestors who first were told that the Earth was not at the centre of the universe, we to are at a point where we will be closer to understanding our universe a little better.

My universe includes a “God”. I don’t think that discovering God will be unprovable or irrelevant.
this is exactly what i was getting at before, both with occam's razor and with laplance's comment "je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothese." all of these scientific theories work just as well without god, in fact god is totally unnecessary to the explanation. therefore, in my opinion, totally irrelevant, and adding god to science is just trying to square the circle. i could say that plants engage in photosynthesis, and that there is a animate styrofoam hippo that controls the process or that sets it in motion. the hippo is just as unprovable as god, and does just as much to enhance the theory as god does for evolution, orbits, or what have you. photosynthesis is just fine without god. as am i.
'trane is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2009, 07:20 PM   #57 (permalink)
pensive

feat. Otto Neurath
 
Ligeia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,085
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by macs View Post
Ligeia, part of the problem is that you're thinking like someone who is bounded by the 3+1 dimensions we live in and someone who thinks they understand everything about the universe we live in.
On the contrary, macs; you're thinking like someone who believes that anything that is possible is necessarily true or should be considered as such. I'm open to evidence supporting certain concepts (like god or string theory, neither of which has any real supporting evidence), but I will not say that they are true until I'm provided such evidence. I am not claiming any certainty in my knowledge; only certainty in my evaluation of the evidence that has been presented. I will always go where the evidence takes me, even if the evidence continues to evolve and change.

Once again, until positive evidence for gods existence is put forward, I have no good reason to believe that he exists; otherwise, I would have to accept claims of existence for all sorts of things that don't have evidence supporting them just to ensure logical consistency. This is the proper way to assess claims.

Quote:
Originally Posted by macs View Post
Finally, despise what you like. But, if He calls the shots, then play by the rules.
So if god said that murder was appropriate (hello Old Testament), I should play by the rules?

Last edited by Ligeia; 10-31-2009 at 08:22 PM.
Ligeia is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2009, 07:25 PM   #58 (permalink)
I believe in Masai!

giant steps

 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 16,682
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by macs View Post
Ligeia, part of the problem is that you're thinking like someone who is bounded by the 3+1 dimensions we live in and someone who thinks they understand everything about the universe we live in.

"Have you ever wondered why it might be that there is only one planet in the entire universe that is capable of holding life for any given period of time?" Again, 3+1 dimensional thinking. Have you heard of brane worlds? One theory would have our entire universe (aka brane world) in the form of a string floating within a higher dimension. In this higher dimension, there would be other of these brane worlds similar or vastly different than ours. In each of them, there would have to be at least 1 world capable of producing life. And, even if you don't accept this theory, and let's say you don't believe that any of the more than 10^22 ("10 to the power of 22" or 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) stars have at least one planet with life, realize that there are moons in our solar system that have a liquid ocean beneath its icy surface. Recently, one was also shown to have oxygen in the water. So, primitive life may just be a few planets away. And, if our solar system is capable of having 1 planet with advanced life, and 1 other body with primitive life, and there's no other life outside of our solar system, then that's some serious bad luck.

Finally, despise what you like. But, if He calls the shots, then play by the rules.
again, whether any of this is true or not, or even verifiable or not, has no dependency on the existence of any god - he, she, it, christian, hindu, mayan, fling spaghetti monster or otherwise, the whole thing works just fine without humans inserting an extra unverifiable variable.

je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothese.
'trane is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discovery Channel: Real Life Superheroes lang Entertainment Lounge 2 10-04-2008 10:23 AM
I'm going to be on a new show on Discovery Network Jay News & Announcements 6 09-09-2008 11:11 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright RaptorsForum.com 2005-2011

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24