[quote]randman wrote:
I can explain why I believe what I do but I choose not to explain it to either you or XCelticX. Why would I? All you’re going to do is attack my faith, logic, etc. Why would I open myself up for that? You’re not going to change you’re beliefs and I’m not going to change mine.
[/quote]
I think that right there is what the problem with this entire thread is.
I cant believe it, a creationist has popped up.
Was god particularly fond of beetles then. there are more species of beetle than any other.
Go and read a bloody book and get with it.
The bible, with its comment about god allowing people to believe a lie crap is just the sweetest get out, dont you think.
And anyhow, if heaven was such a fantastic place why doesn’t everyone just do the population a favour and end it all to get there?
You sir, are the one beliving a lie.
It amuses me that god said “let there be light”…if that was true, as you say it is, he said it out loud. like there was anyone to hear him???
And he made the earth and the universe before this…in the dark!. me, i would have turned the light on frst, but then i am not god.[/quote]
wow, the bible is right. you sure do sound stupid. you sound like you have all the answers. maybe you should have been god.
you sound so dumb. you must be a bodybuilder.
“pookie” and “miniross”, you guys just proved my point. thank you.
Firstly. no, no body builder here.
secondly, could you please outline your initial point again. my non bodybuilding brain is having some difficulty.
…oohhh
…i think i have seen a ghost
…must be real
…read that in a book once.
I am off to bed now (uk time), if i can manage to sleep coz the scary ghost that must exist because i witnessed it in a pizza.
[quote]miniross wrote:
Firstly, what makes you think we hav free will? When you smell that girls hair, those pheromones go straight to your limbic system and hey presto, you have the hang dog horn…
As far as us being here, well, in every pulsing cell is that most simple of answers, your genes. come hell or high water, they want to carry on. That is why we are here, pure and simple.
As far as this last section of that post…i dont understand it.
at all…I have read it 6 times. am i that stupid, or is it nonsense
[/quote]
Well, I guess if you’re a dog and can’t control yourself you may not have free will. I on the other hand might smell the pheremones and chose not to go leg humping. I believe that is higher intelligence, to be able to make a decision based on standards, morals, and respect.
Second, My question was more relating to the idea that if God placed us here, what is the purpose? I know man continues to propogate the species, but if you believe in God, what do you see as His big plan for us?
Thirdly, Not stupid, I was just trying to relate the idea that maybe a part of this “mortality” was a test like when parents tell a kid to move out of the house after high school to experience life on their own. Make their own way.
[quote]sandyj wrote:
you sound so dumb. you must be a bodybuilder.[/quote]
NO, if i was really stupid i would be a personal trainer.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
ShaunW wrote:
Hi Haney - check your Geology (again) - marine fossils on Everest shows only that Everest was once a seabed.
Throw the following 3 words into google:
tectonics, everest, tethys.
All;
I think the article I posted on page one sums it all up - all our individual experiences are governed by chemicals reacting in the brain (and it seems genetics plays a part in the way they react in the brain).
First, he never said it didn’t show that, and scientifically his statement is correct, the fossils show that water could have completely covered land at some point. I think you are making assumptions about the intent at least in this instance.
Second, quantum physics actually dilineates between sentient brains and non-sentient form of life in their ability to create irreversibility and collapse the wave function of a system. If Schrodinger (in theory) had to look at the cat for it to be 100% alive or dead, his brain was fundamentally different from the cats because the cats brain could not collaps the wave function of its own system. (Or maybe it could have). In either case quantum physics draws a real line somewhere.
[/quote]
Thanks Mert I am glad someone is paying attention
I am working on some stuff to send you in a PM. I have not forgot about you.
[quote]XCelticX wrote:
haney wrote:
I never said it proved water covered the earth.
I only tried to show you that your statement that it could not happen even if the polar ice caps melted is a serious overstatement.
Marine fossils on Everest show that it is possible for water to have covered the Earth.
You didn’t say that specifically, but for Noah’s Ark to be true water would have to cover the Earth. What would be the point of your statement about Everest if not to prove or suggest that the Noah’s Ark story was true?
The land that is now Mount Everest could have been(and likely way) below sea level millions of years ago at some point. That explains why the fossils are there. In later years, moving techtonic plates pushed that area of land up, hence marine fossils on Mt. Everest.
[/quote]
My point in stating that is, to show that your statement that it could not happen is wrong.
You said that water could not cover all land. It is possible. It might not have happened but it is possible. Atleast get the facts right if you are going to argue.
[quote]XCelticX wrote:
haney wrote:
I have refuted your statement about their being stories from the Bible being in other cultures, and all you have said is " I am still right in what I said".
Lets see if you are a man of your word.
You didn’t read enough, or you didn’t comprehend what you read. I said others HAVE refuted what I said, to one degree or another. And I did NOT say “I am still right in what I said”. I believe what you said about other cultures having similar stories. What I said was that that still doesn’t prove anything about the story, only that other cultures came up with similar ones, perhaps as a result of that story being told over and over again, while in other places the native peoples may have come up with it all on their own.
[/quote]
Well you did call me a fool in your first post to me. you also have been saying they are not the same story, when there is a high probability they are the same story and that one of them is either
a.) distorted version of the other
b.) they are both distorted versions of the origional
[quote]XCelticX wrote:
Right, I said MANY stories from the Bible aren’t anywhere else, that includes the resurection(sp?).
[/quote]
Am I suppossed to defend every story that you didn’t site? you sited Noah’s ark, and creation. Those are the ones I said have similiar stories in other cultures. I didn’t know you got to be vague, but I had to be specific and defend every story.
The Jewish view is the body was stolen. If it was stolen why not produce the body to squash the heretical movement? Obviously one of them is lying. Which one? If it is the Christians why persecute them when the most devastating thing would be to show the body. You know there is a whole slew of back and forth arguing about this very thing in the Iconalist thread. bosco and my self had a heavy exchange on it. If you are truly searching I would look at Frank Morris book who moved the stone. He was an atheist bent on following in the footsteps of the idealist systen that thought up the Jesus Seminar thought process. Even if you don’t like the guy, His writing and critical thinking on the subject is very thought provoking. It will either A. make you reconsider being an atheist or b. give you fuel for your atheist fire. either way my recommendation can only help you out.
[quote]
I am decided, but I still enjoy and benefit from discussions like this.[/quote]
Well I fail to see a benefit from it if you are set in your position, unless your intent is to make believers back off of their faith. Which if that is the case I would hardly find that helpfull. Even some atheist recognize that a certain amount of faith helps keep total chaos from breaking out.
[quote]XCelticX wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
The fossils on Everest most certainly DO NOT show that water could have covered ALL LAND at one point. It only shows that water covered the land that is now Mt. Everest.
[/quote]
Again it shows changing land levels. The amount of land above water has varied over time independent of the state of the polar ice caps and it is geolgically possible for all of the land to have been below sea level for some brief period. If the earth had been a perfect ball or near perfect relative to today it would have been completely under water.
[quote]pookie wrote:
As to the historical acurracy of anything written about religion you have to understand most was written by “prophets” after the fact, sometimes a long time afterword. Using the bible as an example, it’s been translated, retranslated, and modified for several langauges for many people. What was originally written could be very different.
Not only that, but many secular writings from the past have been in the Church’s stead for a very long time. Comparison between current version of old text and the originals (in the very rare cases where they do still exist and are accessible to scholars) tend to show some “creative editing” done by the church from one version to the next to make sure that the latest doctrines or dogma were included.[/quote]
This is a strawman argument. Scholars will tell you they believe the Bible is 99.5% accurate. The Bible is the most reliable ancient text we have.
The Dead sea scrolls account for this accuracy in the OT, and the 24k mss of the NT take care of it.
The small errors that do exist are spelling, or a numerical error.
Look up anything written by Metzger.
And by the way, the ancient Egyptians had record of the plagues which followed a Volcanic eruption a few hundred miles away. Now I guess that’s not a miracle because instead of sending plagues magically, he just ordained the laws of physics so that a volcano would erupt. Hey God, we all see your little trick! That’s not a miracle!
As far as “miracles”, good and evil, free will and absolute power/knowledge most of the Atheists posting here have a real inability to imagine the ramifications of a four+ dimensional universe, and are also making the first mistake in the philosophy of science which is summed up by the following statemement:
Maps/theories/words always underdescribe the territory which they attempt to describe.
And by extension, the human words of the bible always will underdescribe the reality that they present.
[quote]pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Just more proof that you are not just an atheist, but a bigoted one at that.
Another one. It’s very amusing how you’re all claiming to be tolerant believers who respect other’s people beliefs.
I guess we’re allowed freedom OF religion, as long as we’ve got one? I want freedom FROM religion, but it seems that’s too much to ask for.
You questions serve no purpose other than to make those that agree with you chuckle.
Actually, I was hoping they’d make some of you think… Even better, maybe I’d see some arguments refuted and I’d have to revise one or two of my convictions. That would be cool.
I really hope no one is counting on this for their entertainment.
You have that right and no one is trying to take that away from you. Just be honest in your smugness.
Yeah, yeah. Whatever. I agree with all you want me to be, ok? I’m a smug elitist asshole. A poisonous god-hater. I piss hate in the morning and I sweat smugness from every pore all day long.
Can we cut the ad hominem attacks and actually talk about the questions themselves?
Because, the way it seems to be to me, all smugness aside, is that whenever a question is raised that makes anyone of you uncomfortable; or that would force you to rethink some idea that was repeatedly imposed to you as a child, you bail out.
Let me count the ways: Zeb offered to “begin to convince me of the existence of God”… but couldn’t get over my loving personality. Seems easier to bash me than do justify his beliefs. Must I deduce that “strenght of faith” is lesser than “hatred of pookie”.
Randmam (the hippo guy) would rather I attack him than his faith. Seems that he too cannot really explain why he believes what he does. Or maybe he can, but he prefers not too. Let’s call Pookie some names and accuse him of being intolerant.
Then you, who while dismissing the notion that we could be no more than chemical interactions between few hundred billion neurons, seem to have no better explanation. Lame jokes, yes. Intelligent debate? We’re still waiting.
You think we’re all trailer-dwelling hayseeds that are amazed everytime someone pulls out one of them there fire makers.
Let’s say I can better understand how people like Benny Hinn manage to live such an easy, comfortable life.
Your questions are those of an elitist - condescending.
So? Not liking the “tone” of the questions does not answer them or make them invalid. Why don’t you simply rephrase them in acceptable tolerant terms before answering them. I could then, from example, at learn how to ask properly respectful questions.
I take exception to that.
Duly noted.
You are not nearly as smart and witty as you fashion yourself to be.
Ok. I can’t squat worth a shit either.
But you probably didn’t need a hayseed to tell you that.
I would just like it, if, for ONCE, one of you would dare to answer/debate/discuss/think about/refute/etc. something that’s relevant to the argument. Make an argument or raise a point that’s pertinent to the topic at hand.
It seems that all your faith is worthy of is jokes, word games, insults and personal attacks. Do you really wonder, after such demonstrations, how we might have some trouble taking it seriously and showing proper respect?[/quote]
Then why did you stop replying to me? Acting like you take the upperhand in an argument is not the same as taking the upperhand in an argument.
I will be out of town for the next few days so it might take a while for a response.
[quote]XCelticX wrote:
I’m a bit at loss as to what quantum physics has to do with this, but I don’t know much about that subject in the first place. Inform me, if you will.[/quote]
OK this is a big one so try to follow. One of the first tenants of quantum physics is that any system exists only as a mathematical set of probabilities called the wave function until that system passes a state of irreversibility (something that causes one of the specific possible states to be “chosen” or to become real). The basic thing that quantum physicist described that caused a system to pass a state of irreversibility was for it to be observed by a mind capable of making a choice about what kinds of observations to make (ie an experiment). The implication was that it requires a mind advanced enough to chose to make a particular kind of observation (experiment) versus other observations to make the wave function of a system collapse and become “real” or in other words for one from the myriad of “probabilities” to become the real state. Some have argued that that’s okay, but the intelligent mind’s observation was already determined by or written in the laws of physics. The problem is that something called the “Bell theorem” proved that the laws of physics could not contain the information needed to determine which choice such an intelligent mind would choose, so the choice cannot be DETERMINED by even a complete evaluation of the laws of physics.
Now, the biggest system is the universe itself. The conclusion is that the entire universe existed only as a wave function outside of the boundary of an irreversible choice. So, the wave function containing all of the probabilities of the universe collapsed and became “real” only when it was first observed by a mind capable of choosing to make a particular observation versus others. The wave function then collapsed, propogating out at the speed of light from the point of the experiment.
In a real sense, it suggests the possibility that the universe became real (relative to us) when the first human being made the first choice observation. Again, in a real sense, the universe could have become “real” only a few thousand years ago, and still be billions of years old! The multidimensional “origin” of the universe need not be at time zero and wasn’t according to this model because time zero became real only when people started making choice observations. The other conclusion is that there was an outside observer who made the wave function collapse by caring to observe the mathematical wave function. This is not science fiction but perhaps the real ultimate question facing quantum physicists today.
Now, biblical literalist have to have a more enlightened view of what it might mean to say the universe IS billions of years old, but began only a few thousand years ago. Evolution could be real today, and yet humans could have been “specially observed” or created by an independent act of reality making of a God choosing to observe us. Our scientific past is not the same as our physical origin. You could argue that God created as in Genesis a world which came to have a real past which included an observable BIG BANG, planetary formation and biological evolution.
[quote]haney wrote:
Well you did call me a fool in your first post to me.
[/quote]
I asked if you were a fool. I didn’t outright say you were one. I don’t think you are, for the record.
It would certainly not be common for the same story to be passed through all or even most of the cultures you mentioned due to their great diversity and location. I’ll admit it is possible, but it would be a true anomoly for that kind of information to be passed all over the globe and over a huge array of cultures, languages, and beliefs.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
(long post about quantum physics snipped)
[/quote]
A few points…
What you describe is known as the “Copenhagen interpretation” of quantum theory. That’s the one that states “nothing is real until someone measures it.” While it is the interpretation used by most physicists, it still does have flaws and it’s share of problems. There’s the “measurement problem” (Google for details) and there’s also the paradox of Schrodinger’s half-dead cat (who’s both dead and alive at the same time until someone observes it…)
As for collapsing the wave only with an mind that’s advanced enough, I’ve not read anything that would indicate that we know where to draw the line. Humans, yes. Animals? Probably. Amoeba? We don’t know. That in itself leads to problems as you can get a universe with different realities that aren’t properly connected to one another. “Wigner’s Friend” is the name given to that particular line of questioning.
It is important to remember that while quantum mechanics is probably the greatest achievement of 20th century physics, it is far from being a complete and finished theory. The math itself is pretty extensive and complete and quite usable as is; but there is still much fudging going on. When QED tries to solve Schrodinger’s wave equation, it gets a bunch of infinities (infinite mass, infinite charge, etc) and gets rid of those by dividing the infinities by one another and basically “plugging” whatever value one wants in there.
Remarkably, that seemingly shoddy math works very well for pratical applications.
I’d just be vary careful of taking all of that as gospel (ha!) because it is certain that physicists of the future will improve, revise and change those theories. Personally, I think that the current “fad” of superstring theory has veered off in a profound dead end. The sooner physicist abandon that theory and start looking elsewhere, the better we’ll be.
[quote]haney wrote:
Am I suppossed to defend every story that you didn’t site? you sited Noah’s ark, and creation. Those are the ones I said have similiar stories in other cultures. I didn’t know you got to be vague, but I had to be specific and defend every story.
[/quote]
No, I’m definately not asking you to defend every one of them. I wanted to make the point that those stories exist, and that many of them cannot be defended in a way that could be considered ‘successful’.
As for the body, a number of things could have happened, and among the LEAST likely of them exists the belief that it came back to life, started talking to people, then floated off into heaven.
By the way, we learned pretty recently on a historical scale that there isn’t heaven up past or in the sky… so where exactly did the body descend to?
[quote]
Well I fail to see a benefit from it if you are set in your position, unless your intent is to make believers back off of their faith. Which if that is the case I would hardly find that helpfull. Even some atheist recognize that a certain amount of faith helps keep total chaos from breaking out.[/quote]
The benefit:
I learn about many peoples’ viewpoints, and have a chance to respond to them. That will make it easier for me to argue/discuss the same subject in the future, if I ever need or want to.
I’ve learned plenty from both Christians and atheists in this thread.
As for faith preventing chaos, the opposite could easily be argued. Faith causes chaos all the time. Proof? The Middle East. There’s one example among thousands.
But then again, from what I know about human nature homo sapiens will always form groups that will eventually disagree, break up, and fight.
Here’s an interesting fact to go along with it:
Chimpanzees, who’s DNA is 98% identical to us, are the only creatures besides humans to participate in war. That is, groups of chimpanzees occupying different territories will commit raids into opposing groups’ territories to kill one or more of the opposing group. Of course, with our cognition war between humans is much more complex. Still, I find it fascinating that the creatures most closely related to us do things that only we and then are known to do.
Things that also only occur in chimps and humans:
Tool usage
Rape(actually orangutans have been known to do that to, but they are great apes and of course VERY closely related to both chimps and humans)
That’s a pretty damn strong argument for evolution, if I’ve ever seen one.
If God thought we were the most important animal above all others, why would he make other animals remarkably similar biologically and behaviorally?