# Religulous, Bill Maher, atheism and other stuff



## rgames (Jun 29, 2009)

I think Moore and, to a lesser extent, Maher serve the Democrats the way Limbaugh serves the Republicans:

Take some facts, exaggerate them to make your point, wrap them in a coat of entertainment, and make a show of it.

Fun to watch, but I wouldn't rely on that approach as a source of informed opinion (obviously, one must look elsewhere for facts).

rgames


----------



## Niah (Jun 29, 2009)

NYC Composer @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> I often have the same feeling about Michael Moore's movies.They present one p.o.v., they deride any others, they're sensationalist instead of thoughtful, they snigger and snipe. What's sad is I agree with much of what both Maher and Moore say. I hate the way they say it.
> 
> .



I haven't watched religulous. But I agree what you have said about Bill and Michael Moore.

But you know what? These guys aren't exactly known for being imparcial, so I already what to expect from one of their "documentaries".

With that said I can totally sympathize with their methods in a way even if they are not honest, when living in a country with no free wealth care, no separating between church and state where the president invokes god before waging a war, etc...

Religious organizations in America have become quite agressive in their methods to achieve some of their political goals. They have all been quite influential in the public regarging such issues like abortion rights and gay rights. 

The main factor to me is still the fact that America isn't a secular society which incites this atheism vs criacionists conflict.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 29, 2009)

I agree with rgames. Shows like that only serve to ridicule as entertainment and don't server much purpose beyond that. Bill Maher is at least funny. I've never to this day been interested in any of Michael Moore's work. Maybe someday I'll get around to watching the first thing he did back in the late 80's. What was the name of that film?

And it's always funny to me that atheist don't see themselves as religious. It's a belief system probably worst than most because it's the belief in nothingism. Try to debate an atheist. They get absolutely zealot on the subject. It's funny to watch. You can press the buttons pretty easily and watch it explode.


----------



## cc64 (Jun 29, 2009)

josejherring @ Mon Jun 29 said:


> What was the name of that film?



Roger & Me

CC


----------



## Dave Connor (Jun 29, 2009)

Haven't seen that film so couldn't say. Let's face it, religious people are big huge targets for laughs. One of my all time favorite films is The Life Of Brian because they get it just right in their satirical take on human nature. They don't mock God or the divine but humanity and how we miss the basic messages of the sages. It's not condescending or arrogant in tone but really more a vehicle for masterful comedy. Maher I suspect in his film moves on a much lower strata than the Python players.

Bill Maher should sit down with that dim-witted creationist Thomas Jefferson some day and set him straight. I do wonder if the former President could hang for very long with the intellectual prowess of the cable TV host.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 29, 2009)

He may not do well with Thomas Jefferson but I bet he could take that religious nut Isaac Newton any day.


----------



## mikebarry (Jun 29, 2009)

This is a truly serious issue. I 100 percent support Maher. There is no exaggeration needed with zealotry. Its a dangerous issue, its hard enough dealing with secularism and government, but throw all this brain washing on top of everything and its amazing we have gotten this far as a people. 

But then again, I have read every single one of Richard Dawkin's books, and most of Sam Harris' and Christopher Hitchens and have a Darwin fish on my truck (and my road bike).

And if you think Maher is harsh, you haven't gotten to Hitchens. Wow he can throw it down. I almost feel bad for them.

Either ways its a fun topic to talk/scream about, but as an athiest who is aware of the danger of zealotry I take it pretty seriously. We need more films to point out these issues. AKA Jesus Camp


----------



## José Herring (Jun 29, 2009)

Zealotry swings both ways baby. A zealot is bad whether they are atheist or any other religion. Sure you can point out the hypocrisy but don't belittle the millions of fine people that follow religion everyday and are just fine and sane people. Between God and Atheist I'll choose God.


----------



## Niah (Jun 29, 2009)

josejherring @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> And it's always funny to me that atheist don't see themselves as religious. It's a belief system probably worst than most because it's the belief in nothingism. Try to debate an atheist. They get absolutely zealot on the subject. It's funny to watch. You can press the buttons pretty easily and watch it explode.



I agree with you that it ends up being a belief system as well. But a belief in nothingism? What do you mean by this? Is it because they belief in "nothing"? But you just said it's a belief system,

Anyway there's this,..... belief, that just because atheists don't believe in god they don't belif in nothing. Most from what I've read about atheism and by tò3   ¦DÐ3   ¦DÑ3   ¦DÒ3   ¦DÓ3   ¦DÔ3   ¦DÕ3   ¦DÖ3   ¦D×3   ¦DØ3   ¦DÙ3   ¦DÚ3   ¦DÛ3   ¦DÜ3   ¦DÝ4   ¦DÞ4   ¦Dß4   ¦Dà4   ¦Dá4   ¦Dâ4   ¦Dã4   ¦Dä4   ¦Då4   ¦D


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 29, 2009)

No way in hell is Rush Limbaugh on the other side of the scale from Bill Maher and Michael Moore (not that the two are the same person either). Not in the least. Nor Christopher Hitchens, who is different again. Those people appeal to a totally different level of audience from Rush Limbaugh.

Rush Limbaugh has one talent: being provocative by saying incredibly moronic things that attract needle heads and infuriate anyone with half a brain. His audience (collective IQ 80, seven teeth between them) says "Duh yeah that's right Rush! Don't take away my guns."

Michael Moore, for all his jerkiness and occasional missed facts, is actually a very talented film maker who raises some serious issues and has intelligent, well considered points of view. I don't agree with the Jay Ashers of this world who think he's just a polemic. He's not at all. Yes he shoots his mouth off, but he's not at all Rush Limbaugh.

Bill Maher is a comedian. Religulous was funny, but it wasn't to be taken seriously as a critique of religion. I like his show sometimes, and he's become much better than he was at first, for one reason: he's now much better informed. And he does have a quick wit.

What he said last week to that bimbo was very funny. She said, "I grew up in a conservative household where sex was considered dirty." Without skipping a beat he said, "Only if it's done right."

Christopher Hitchens is another breed altogether. He tends to adopt positions to be iconoclastic, even though I happen to agree with his position on theism. But he's amazingly well spoken.

While we're on the subject of public affairs personalities, I have to say that Rachel Madow is just great. She's so bright, articulate, well informed...and she has to good taste to hold positions that I agree with pretty much across the board.

Finally, the best public affairs show on television is Fareed Zacharia GPS. Wow is he good.


----------



## Alex W (Jun 29, 2009)

Religulous was hilarious!

I didn't think all that much of Maher from the stuff I'd seen on his show, but after seeing that movie, my respect for him went up tenfold.

I admit he did talk to some loonies, which was hilarious, but he does also talk to some smart people - the Catholic astronomer was one of them - and he was very interesting. He basically said that the "creationist" view of the earth is just not true.

Jose - just to clarify - atheism is NOT a religion. It is simply the lack of a belief in a god. Think about the difference. There is no doctrine, no sacred book telling them how to live their lives. There's no common set of principles that all atheists believe in apart from the fact that they all agree that there isn't any good evidence for the existence of god. It doesn't mean that they believe that there is no god, as that too would require evidence.

Some atheists take it further and say that they're 99% sure there is no god, in the same way that they would say that they're 99% sure that there are no faeries.

It may well be that the mechanism by which the universe came into existence will always be beyond our comprehension - but to say "therefore god did it" simply doesn't make sense. If it makes you feel any better, Stephen Hawking said that there's a 50% chance that within 200 years we'll know the answer to everything!


----------



## mikebarry (Jun 29, 2009)

The word Atheist is only a nullification to the worth theist - not a theist literally. Its not like we congregate, or are descended from a land, eat a specific diet, from a specific heritage etc.... we are everybody. Its hard to explain but we are the complete absence of religion, therefore we are not at all religious nor zealous. The atheist argument only exists when it is compared to one of a theist. We are in fact zero religion, not negative religion. 

I never understand why I must be the one to defend my argument (with all the answers sciences has provided and will provide) from an argument with no evidence. 

Is it true that one cannot prove or disprove the existence of god? Well it is true that you can not disprove the existence, how would this be done? If something doesn't exist how can I show "scientific" proof of its non existence? If i made something up in my head, how can I within the laws of acceptable science prove it doesn't exist. There are infinite points where it could actually exist.

But if there is a god, he could easily prove his argument tomorrow evening with some type of grand arrangement of the stars spelling out "There is a God." Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" as Carl Sagan put it correctly.

Anyway, I, like most of you I imagine, believe that everyone would be better off just believing what ever they wish and keeping it to themselves. It is only when they feel the need to spread their thoughts when things get bad. 

I think I became truly interested in this whole topic on the morning of 9-11-2001 when I was trying to figure out why these highly educated Muslims terrorists were blowing themselves up trying to kill all these innocent people just going to work. Three of which were my family (thankfully each of them survived but are different). 

In closing this is why there is an uproar, and why these films are coming out. It is now potentially fatal to let the religious have their way.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jun 29, 2009)

[quote:6c4ecdd83d="Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 12:00 am"]No way in hell is Rush Limbaugh on the other side of the scale from Bill Maher and Michael Moore (not that the two are the same person either). Not in the least. Nor Christopher Hitchens, who is different again. Those people appeal to a totally different level of audience from Rush Limbaugh.

Rush Limbaugh has one talent: being provocative by saying incredibly moronic things that attract needle heads and infuriate anyone with half a brain. His audience (collective IQ 80, seven teeth between them) says "Duh yeah that's right Rush! Don't take away my guns."

Michael Moore, for all his jerkiness and occasional missed facts, is actually a very talented film maker who raises some serious issues and has intelligent, well considered points of view. I don't agree with the Jay Ashers of this world who think he's just a polemic. He's not at all. Yes he shoots his mouth off, but he's not at all Rush Limbaugh.

Bill Maher is a comedian. Religulous was funny, but it wasn't to be taken seriously as a critique of religion. I like his show sometimes, and he's become much better than he was at first, for one reason: he's now much better informed. And he does have a quick wit.

What he said last week to that bimbo was very funny. She said, "I grew up in a conservative household where sex was considered dirty." Without skipping a beat he said, "Only if it's done right."

Christopher Hitchens is another breed altogether. He tends to adopt positions to be iconoclastic, even though I happen to agree with his position on theism. But he's amazingly well spoken.

While we're on the subject of public affairs peròG   ¦J’G   ¦J“G   ¦J”G   ¦J•G   ¦J–G   ¦J—G   ¦J˜G   ¦J™G   ¦JšG   ¦J›G   ¦JœG   ¦JG   ¦JžG   ¦JŸG   ¦J G   ¦J¡G   ¦J¢G   ¦J£G   ¦J¤G   ¦J¥G   ¦J¦G   ¦J§G   ¦J¨G   ¦J©G   ¦JªG   ¦J«G   ¦J¬G   ¦J­G   ¦J®G   ¦J¯G   ¦J°G   ¦J±G   ¦J²G   ¦J³G   ¦J´G   ¦JµG   ¦J¶G   ¦J·G   ¦J¸G   ¦J¹G   ¦JºG   ¦J»G   ¦J¼G   ¦J½G   ¦J¾G   ¦J¿G   ¦JÀG   ¦JÁG   ¦JÂG   ¦JÃG   ¦JÄG   ¦JÅG   ¦JÆG   ¦JÇG   ¦JÈG   ¦JÉG   ¦JÊG   ¦JËG   ¦JÌG   ¦JÍG   ¦JÎG   ¦JÏG   ¦JÐG   ¦JÑG   ¦JÒG   ¦JÓG   ¦JÔG   ¦JÕG   ¦JÖG   ¦J×G   ¦JØG   ¦JÙG   ¦JÚG   ¦JÛG   ¦JÜG   ¦JÝG   ¦JÞG   ¦JßG   ¦JàG   ¦JáG   ¦JâG   ¦JãG   ¦JäG   ¦JåG   ¦JæG   ¦JçG   ¦JèG   ¦JéG   ¦JêG   ¦JëG   ¦JìG   ¦JíG   ¦JîG   ¦JïG   ¦JðG   ¦JñG   ¦JòG   ¦JóG   ¦JôG   ¦JõG   ¦JöG   ¦J÷G   ¦JøG   ¦JùG   ¦JúG   ¦JûG   ¦JüG   ¦JýG   ¦JþG   ¦JÿG   ¦K G   ¦K              ƒæ   ~VG   ¦Ks   ~WI   ¦Kš   ~XI   ¦LU   ~YI   ¦LÆ   ~ZI   ¦M7   ~[I   ¦M¨   ~\I   ¦N   ~]K   ¦NŠ   ~^M   ¦Nû   ~_N   ¦Ol   ~`N   ¦OÝ   ~aO   ¦PN   ~bS   ¦P½   ~cV   ¦Q2   ~dX   ¦Q¥   ~eX   ¦R   ~fX   ¦R‡   ~gX   ¦Rø   ~hX   ¦Si   ~iX   ¦SÚ   ~jX   ¦TK   ~kY   ¦T¼   ~lY   ¦U-   ~m\   ¦Uœ   ~n`   ¦V   ~ob   ¦V|   ~pe   ¦Vç   ~qi   ¦W^   ~rj   ¦WÏ   ~sk   ¦[email protected]   ~tl   ¦X±   ~um   ¦Y"   ~vn   ¦Y‡   ~wp   ¦Yð   ~xs   ¦Za   ~yt   ¦ZÒ   ~zv   ¦[C   ~{v   ¦[´   ~|x   ¦\#   ~}|   ¦\–   ~~}   ¦]   ~   ¦^   ~€€   ¦]Ï   ~ƒ   ¦^Z   ~‚…   ¦^Ù   ~ƒ‡   ¦_P   ~„‡   ¦_Á   ~…‰   ¦`2   ~†Œ   ¦`£   ~‡   ¦a   ~ˆŽ   ¦a…   ~‰   ¦a¸   ~Š‘   ¦bg   ~‹“   ¦c¾   ~Œ•   ¦c   ~™   ¦cœ   ~Ž›   ¦d%   ~œ   ¦d°   ~ž   ¦e   ~‘    ¦e†   ~’¡   ¦eÅ


----------



## NYC Composer (Jun 29, 2009)

I don't believe in 'god'. I don't believe in Beatles. I just believe in me.

Enjoy your social club! do you guys pay dues? do you exclude those who disagree with you?


----------



## john rodriguez (Jun 30, 2009)

tobyond @ Mon Jun 29 said:


> Another proud atheist here, and no it is not a religion, merely the absence of one. The belief in something invisible/unprovable is childish and downright dangerous. The Atheist's of the world need to be heard and represented. Medicines, technologies and great scientific breakthroughs are made by atheist's, civilization is advancing because of those with critical thinking and skeptical minds, why the hell do we prefer our countries to be governed by those who would believe in an invisible man?



This is the kind of divisive rhetoric that makes any mutually respectful conversation regarding divinity difficult and all to infrequent. Childish and downright dangerous? There is no shortage of far greater minds than anyone inhabiting this board who have at least indulged the notion of a higher power if not devoting themselves to one.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 30, 2009)

tobyond @ Mon Jun 29 said:


> Religulous was fantastic, Bills closing statement was poignant and one the world needs to hear.
> 
> Another proud atheist here, and no it is not a religion, merely the absence of one. The belief in something invisible/unprovable is childish and downright dangerous. The Atheist's of the world need to be heard and represented. Medicines, technologies and great scientific breakthroughs are made by atheist's, civilization is advancing because of those with critical thinking and skeptical minds, why the hell do we prefer our countries to be governed by those who would believe in an invisible man?
> 
> ...



It's these kind of statements that make it a religion. Or religious like. This we're right and you're wrong and if you don't believe in what I believe in then I look down upon you.

And actually most of the major breakthroughs that really advanced mankind were done by people that where really quite religious or were trying to find God in their own way. Even Steven Hawkins admitted that he was looking for God in pursuing Quantum Physics. Not finding God of course probably sent him into denial.

Look we've had plenty of Godless societies on Earth. Communist Russia, Communist China. The first step in ruining any society is to wipe out the idea of a higher power. Then from that you get the idea that man is just an animal. Then from that you get the idea that in order to control man he has to be beaten and trained like an animal. Then from that you get totalitarianism.

Now on the flip side of the coin you have people zealously believing in God. So my argument is that I've met very few Atheist that weren't zealot on the idea of denying the existence of God. I'm not saying that they're all zealots but enough to cause alarm. So whether you zealously believe in God or zealously disbelieve in God, it's a belief, not subject to proof.

You say it's childish to believe in something that to you doesn't exist. Prove that It doesn't existence. Bring me hard evidence that there is no God.

Jose


----------



## JB78 (Jun 30, 2009)

josejherring @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> You say it's childish to believe in something that to you doesn't exist. Prove that It doesn't existence. Bring me hard evidence that there is no God.
> 
> Jose




You can't prove that something DOESN'T exist, that's one of the more silly arguments from religious people. Dawkins says it better than me though:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yr4gpuyC_4 (5 minute clip)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg ( 1.5 minute clip)

[edit]Here's a bonus video where Dawkins adress the issue of religion among scientists:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EWyD34FxmI&NR=1[/edit]
Best regards
Jon


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Jun 30, 2009)

Atheism is of course not religion. Let’s try not to just make words mean what we want them to mean. You can of course say that atheism can be practiced _religiously_ which is a poor choice of words, but passable in a regular conversation. 



> And actually most of the major breakthroughs that really advanced mankind were done by people that where really quite religious or were trying to find God in their own way. Even Steven Hawkins admitted that he was looking for God in pursuing Quantum Physics. Not finding God of course probably sent him into denial.



1) Yes. Because the major breakthroughs you are thinking about are from a time where everyone was religious (or needed to fake it). 
2) God is one of those other extremely annoying words which people tend to use from time to time - such as Hawkin - to describe the incomprehensible and amazing universe. It does in no way mean a God, in the Judeo/Christian sense. We're not talking about a god that listens to and answers prayers, or cares about us. God is in a sense a metaphor, and a poor one, as it opens up to all kinds of misunderstandings. 



> The percentage of atheists in the scientific community is no more than in the general population; most scientists have some type of religion. People who don't work in the sciences seem to think there's a contradiction there - there's not.



Where did you come up with that? This is simply false in all possible ways. Many surveys have been done on this, and the picture is clear. If any of you ever see this claim, shoot it down fast! 

34 percent of scientists say “I do not believe in God” (atheist) 

30 percent answer “I do not know if there is a God and there is no way to find out,” (agnostic) 

In comparison, among those in the general U.S. population, about 3 percent claim to be atheists and about 5 percent are religiously agnostic.

52 percent of scientists see themselves as having no religious affiliation – compare this to only 14 percent of the general population.

2% of scientists call themselves "evangelic" or "fundamentalist" - 14% of the general US population would describe themselves as such.

Source: http://religion.ssrc.org/reforum/Ecklund.pdf

And another interesting read: http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm (http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelli ... ligion.htm)

The causes of these facts are widely debated, and more research on it is being done. But don't ever accept a claim like scientists are just as religious as non-scientists... NO! So rgames... in your own words "...check your facts"



> Here's an example: ask a scientist "What is the square root of two?" Nobody knows - we know it exists, and we can pin it down with arbitrary precision, and we use it all the time, but we can't say *exactly* what it is. But we *believe* in the concept because it yields useful results. There are countless such examples in mathematics and the sciences: they're taken on faith.



On faith? Hardly in the religious sense - like the way that you take it on faith that Jesus is the son of God? again... Calling the trust in a human construct such as mathematics to "take it on faith" does nothing further our understanding of anything. It muddies up words to the point where their meanings start to break down.



> I'm not sure I follow you 100%, but if you're stating that there's no room in science for faith, I think you're sorely mistaken.



This is a tricky one. Clearly one can be religious and be a scientist. However for the most part I would contribute that to the human "split-brain" capacity. Like beings unfaithful and loving your wife. For the most part, religious scientists simply shut out their religious beliefs from their scientific mind. In other word they do not apply their scientific scrutiny to their beliefs. They are capable of telling themselves that their scientific world view can be suspended from time to time. They know how babies are made, but accept that virgin births are possible given the right circumstances. So it is not so much that the two perfectly support each other, but rather the human capacity to separate them. 

Now granted, some scientists do try proving the existence of god through science. But even these only apply their scientific methods to parts of their faith… the ones they find are supported obviously

Generally speaking I think that scientific education kills god. Not for everyone, not completely... but the trend is there. Religions try the best they can to adapt to new discoveries, which in itself is really telling. Religious texts and prophecies are always marveled at after the fact. 

There are numerous examples of how science has obliterated traditional understandings of scripture. Some people however fail to update their views, and discard science instead. I think this is an interesting question to the religious of you...
If science and scripture make incompatible claims... which would you discard?


----------



## JB78 (Jun 30, 2009)

Christian Marcussen @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> If science and scripture make incompatible claims... which would you discard?



Heh...I wouldn't bet the farm on them discarding scripture... (o)


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Jun 30, 2009)

> You say it's childish to believe in something that to you doesn't exist. Prove that It doesn't existence. Bring me hard evidence that there is no God



EPIC FAIL... Are you shitting me? Are you serious? Science 101 anyone?

Show me hard evidence that there are no unicorns? Show me hard evidence that no human being in the world can fly? Show me hard evidence that Odin/Allah/Ra/Zeus does not exist. Show me hard evidence that God created the world...

Need I go on? Come on Jose... Let's raise the debate level a bit...


----------



## Richard Wilkinson (Jun 30, 2009)

josejherring @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> You say it's childish to believe in something that to you doesn't exist. Prove that It doesn't existence. Bring me hard evidence that there is no God.
> 
> Jose



The burden of proof lies with he who claims the ridiculous.

You say, "There's a giant invisible teapot orbiting the Earth"

I _don't_ say, "Well, that's completely ridiculous & I'd be a moron to blindly accept it - but I will happily believe you without consulting my sanity first."

I _do_ say, "That sounds unlikely. I'll start from the position of 'probably not true'. If sensible evidence presents itself I might be more inclined to believe you."

Atheism is not a 'club', with costumes, rules or anything like that - atheism is a lack of belief in a deity. 

Personally, I find it frustrating and odd that we have a word for 'doesn't believe in God' yet there aren't words for 'doesn't believe in goblins' or 'thinks ghosts are exclusive to fiction".

And the no-religion = anarchy argument is imbecilic. We don't need morality from a thousands-of-years-old, countlessly mistranslated book. Certainly not the sort of morality which encourages the worst excesses of mysogony, violence and prejudice.
Rather, without religion people get morality from reciprocation, empathy & common sense. Something sorely lacking in most religious believers.

I never impose my atheism on anyone else unprovoked. It would be as ridiculous as me knocking on people's doors claiming, "Good morning, sorry to bother you. I just wanted to spread the wonderful news that Harry Potter is a fictional series of films and books, and is in no way based on reality".

- but if someone claims atheism represents a lack of morality, compassion, emotion, or even sense - then quite frankly they're asking for it...


----------



## Evan Gamble (Jun 30, 2009)

But if you broaden the "idea' of god to, "that which I cannot understand". Don't you have to admit it exists?

Take for instance we find out what caused the big bang but than we find out another thing caused it. Or that there are particles smaller than anit-matter, but what makes up it? There will always be something that we can't understand.

Lets say our whole reality is just a perception that can be unplugged at any moment. What else is there than? I mean there is ALWAYS something that can't be explained. To me that is "god" and why I don't like the word atheism. I suppose agnostic is the best word for me, but that makes it sound like I don't care when I do. Maybe it is best when one's spiritual views can't be quantified in one word.

BTW notice I didn't capitalize god, since for me it is an idea not a person. And this doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue to find out these mysterious. I just know there will ALWAYS be a mystery we can't solve.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Jun 30, 2009)

But please Evan.. I emplore you... could you not use another word than god? There will likely always be things that we don't understand... but calling that god really muddies things up, and created immense confusion. At least consider it... It's no trivial matter


----------



## Evan Gamble (Jun 30, 2009)

Christian Marcussen @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> But please Evan.. I emplore you... could you not use another word than god? There will likely always be things that we don't understand... but calling that god really muddies things up, and created immense confusion. At least consider it... It's no trivial matter



Thats a good point Christian.


----------



## Sovereign (Jun 30, 2009)

Christian Marcussen @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> But please Evan.. I emplore you... could you not use another word than god? There will likely always be things that we don't understand... but calling that god really muddies things up, and created immense confusion. At least consider it... It's no trivial matter


So science of the gaps is acceptable, but not a God of the gaps? Sounds like nothing more than a metaphysical preference to me.


----------



## Richard Wilkinson (Jun 30, 2009)

Evan Gamble @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> But if you broaden the "idea' of god to, "that which I cannot understand". Don't you have to admit it exists?



Isn't that just sidestepping the issue? I don't understand Dutch, but I don't therefore think everyone from the Netherlands is God.



Evan Gamble @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> Take for instance we find out what caused the big bang but than we find out another thing caused it. Or that there are particles smaller than anit-matter, but what makes up it? There will always be something that we can't understand.



Just like 'If there is/was a God (despite the small issue of 'how come no-one has ever seen/spoken to him/presented the tiniest shred of existence in thousands of years of human history?') - then who created God? Where did He/She/It start? The argument is pointless. Science is all about trying to answer these questions - and then deliberately tries to prove their conclusions wrong to test how solid they are. Any religious person trying to apply this mindset to their faith would probably explode.

And that's another frustrating thing. Science constantly questions itself, trying to come up with better explanations and hypotheses. It doesn't wave its arms around like a loon saying, "Everything's made from pineapple!!" over and over again. It changes with time as our knowledge evolves. And an atheist point of view is about being sensible enough to say, "I don't know. Actually, I'm not sure if we ever will know the answer to that - or if there even is one."



Evan Gamble @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> Lets say our whole reality is just a perception that can be unplugged at any moment. What else is there than? I mean there is ALWAYS something that can't be explained. To me that is "god" and why I don't like the word atheism.



- but that isn't anything to do with 'God', in a monotheistic sense. What you believe in is a film from 1999 starring an emotionally vacant Keano Reaves.


----------



## mikebarry (Jun 30, 2009)

Science has critiques by peers, experiment, technology, documentation and records of all sorts, the brightest minds, and more.

Religion has invisible friends and a 2000 year old book. A book that for 1400 years was edited by any king or pope that saw fit. This edited book that is still cherry picked heavily. Mistakes are ignored, injustices are ignored etc... Oh so none of the gospel writers could agree on where jesus (if he even existed) was born? oh too bad. Oh someone got swallowed by a whale and lived? oh yeh no problem etc....

We have quantum physics, they have miracles. We have the fossils and carbon dating they have adam and even and genesis. 

It kind of blows my mind really. 

That's what I mean when I ask why I must be the one to explain my position first. LOL.

Is there room for faith in science? Not in the way faith is being described here. 

Most scientists are atheists or simply don't care, I think one of our must brilliant scientists alive (alan weinberg) did a study on this and came to that conclusion. 

I think the head of the human genome is the only really brilliant scientist who holds a conviction in god.


----------



## Sovereign (Jun 30, 2009)

JB78 @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> josejherring @ Tue Jun 30 said:
> 
> 
> > You can't prove that something DOESN'T exist, that's one of the more silly arguments from religious people. Dawkins says it better than me though:


Dawkins is philosophical twit who uses childish arguments. He's even frowned upon by some of his fellow serious atheists because he uses poor reasoning.

I would recommend this destrictive critique but also Bradley Monton's sitewhich gives a fair atheist appraisal.

Someone above said many atheists are as zealous as some theists. He's right, they are. Ever check out the voluminous vulgar posted in the comments at Pharyngula or Panda's Thumb?


----------



## Evan Gamble (Jun 30, 2009)

Evan Gamble @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> But if you broaden the "idea' of god to, "that which I cannot understand". Don't you have to admit it exists?





wilx @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> Isn't that just sidestepping the issue? I don't understand Dutch, but I don't therefore think everyone from the Netherlands is God.



No because everything we will ever know from science is based in our reality. You can learn dutch you can also learn physics. But there will always be something that science can't explain. Just like trying to understand infinite, it isn't possible.



Evan Gamble @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> Take for instance we find out what caused the big bang but than we find out another thing caused it. Or that there are particles smaller than anit-matter, but what makes up it? There will always be something that we can't understand.





wilx @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> Just like 'If there is/was a God (despite the small issue of 'how come no-one has ever seen/spoken to him/presented the tiniest shred of existence in thousands of years of human history?') - then who created God? Where did He/She/It start? The argument is pointless. Science is all about trying to answer these questions - and then deliberately tries to prove their conclusions wrong to test how solid they are. Any religious person trying to apply this mindset to their faith would probably explode.
> 
> And that's another frustrating thing. Science constantly questions itself, trying to come up with better explanations and hypotheses. It doesn't wave its arms around like a loon saying, "Everything's made from pineapple!!" over and over again. It changes with time as our knowledge evolves. And an atheist point of view is about being sensible enough to say, "I don't know. Actually, I'm not sure if we ever will know the answer to that - or if there even is one."



I agree no spirituality should stop the thought process.



Evan Gamble @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> Lets say our whole reality is just a perception that can be unplugged at any moment. What else is there than? I mean there is ALWAYS something that can't be explained. To me that is "god" and why I don't like the word atheism.





wilx @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> - but that isn't anything to do with 'God', in a monotheistic sense. What you believe in is a film from 1999 starring an emotionally vacant Keano Reaves.



No not in the monotheistic sense. But to limit ones view of god only to what ancient religions defined it is small minded IMO.

And I see where me saying that this is god is confusing. Because no I don't believe in God in a traditional sense. But I am very spiritual, and for me this is what my religion is. 

Also the idea of ones reality being based on information going to the brain did not start with the matrix. It is true right now. And this philosophy is centuries old. 

And I don't think we really disagree at all, I suppose like Christian said it is a semantical argument.


----------



## Sovereign (Jun 30, 2009)

mikebarry @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> Science has critiques by peers, experiment, technology, documentation and records of all sorts, the brightest minds, and more.
> 
> Religion has invisible friends and a 2000 year old book.


You do realize that many of the great minds of the past were religious and that they believed they could know God by stuyding the natural world?



> I think the head of the human genome is the only really brilliant scientist who holds a conviction in god.


I think this is plain ridiculous, on top of that it's fallacious. No argument from authority can settle a clearly metaphysical matter. This is a clash of worldviews, nothing more.


----------



## Sovereign (Jun 30, 2009)

mikebarry @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> No lets not forget that Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist not a philosopher. He is no twit, nor does he use childish arguments. That is ignorance (stupidity) of the subject. He uses scientific evidence to support his claims, and to refute the claims of others. Let's not make this man out to sound like an idiot. He is a practical genius, at least Oxford university thought so. He is one of the greatest biologists of
> modern times and the best writer of evolution yet.


So what you are saying is that Dawkins should be cut some slack re his poor philosphical arguments because he's an Oxford professor? I would exactly argue the opposite, just because he holds that silly title of "professor for public understanding of science" he should be held to the highest standards possible, for fear of misleading the public with subjective, metaphysical presumptions which are his own. His atheism is not what "science sez", although I am sure Dawins thinks differently.



> He also points out that there are points that haven't been figured out yet, junk DNA, jerk evolution, the origins of the cosmos. He concedes this his argument of no god cannot scientifically be proven correct. He can merely get 99.9% of the way there.


Read the link I gave above, Dawkins is not even close. If you truly believe what you wrote here, this says more about how much of Dawkins' presumptions you accept without question than how much effort you put into critically evaluating Dawkins' claims. There are much better philosophical atheists out there with serious arguments, and Dawkins is no match for them.


----------



## Sovereign (Jun 30, 2009)

mikebarry @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> I am merely stating that if you took the top ten scientists alive in the world Weinberg, Hawkings etc.... he would be the only one to hold faith.


And this proves exactly what? Nothing. Furthermore, http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html (it's fallacious reasoning)if you're trying to make a point. 



> I think Sam Harris points this out in one of his books. There is a book I have called the Bell Curve which shows evidence of a survey conducted which links non belief and intelligence.


I can show you polls which link higher education and belief in UFOs. :lol: 



> And using the "in the past" argument for scientists and faith is misleading. It's not like you could openly declare your atheism in ancient times. Look what happened to Galileo.


Galileo was no atheist, and you're perpetuating an atheist myth.


----------



## mikebarry (Jun 30, 2009)

No I think I am agreeing with you in some respect. Dawkins is a scientist, specifically an evolutionary biologist. In terms of understanding and explaining natural selection there are none better. Can he craft an argument for atheism as well as Sam Harris (a philosopher)? Unlinkely. Can he explain quantam mechanics as well as Lawrence Krauss? of course not. He is a biologist. 

Only in his latest book does he turn his focus towards religion. I think he tallied that if you took all his books before god delusion and tallied the word god you would get something like 7 entries of this word. And I tell you he has nothing to be ashamed with what he has done in his career. He is brilliant. For example he was the first published to show natural selection through a computer simulation to n generations. I think he also pointed out that reverse evolution was possible. Most notably he is gifted with the pen, and explaining his findings in non science mumbo jumbo and best selling books. He is the worlds leading evolutionary biologist, he is not a micro biologist, he is not a physicist, he is not an anthropologist, he is not a historian. His field is so complex (since it actually exists) that he has committed his entire life to studying it.


----------



## mikebarry (Jun 30, 2009)

Sovereign @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> mikebarry @ Tue Jun 30 said:
> 
> 
> > I am merely stating that if you took the top ten scientists alive in the world Weinberg, Hawkings etc.... he would be the only one to hold faith.
> ...



Did I even say he was? All he said was that Jupiter had moons, and that Aristotle was wrong and he was basically killed for it. Scientists had to live in fear of persecution. As politicians do today in the United States. The only difference is that in the modern day we have evidence to help push you towards the atheist argument (germs and DNA being two good examples). 

Show me that poll about the UFO's. I am quoting a book reviewed by peers you are making up stuff. The point remains, of the worlds most brilliant and intelligent people, very few practice faith. To me that is convincing.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 30, 2009)

Look, guys, this argument will go nowhere. There are/were brilliant people who are believers and brilliant people who are/were not and all kinds of combos inbetween, like my self-described Jew-Bu daughter.

It is a matter of faith.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Jun 30, 2009)

...and on a curious side note... far more jewish scientists in the US than there are jews.


----------



## madbulk (Jun 30, 2009)

Oh for the love of god, DO NOT show us a poll about the UFO's and higher education!

My dear crazy friends around the globe, Thank You. This was a freakin' DELIGHT to wake up to.
I'm giddy.

Jay, butt out. You're gonna kill it. I'll send you money to just walk away.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Jun 30, 2009)

Sovereign @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> So science of the gaps is acceptable, but not a God of the gaps?



Yes - science with gaps is fine. Science thrives on these gaps - religion uses the gaps for refuge. Surely you can see the difference?



Sovereign @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> Sounds like nothing more than a metaphysical preference to me.



Well, depends on how you define metaphysical. But I do indeed have a preference natural explanations as opposed to the supernatural ones.

Again, I wonder if you are being polemical, or if you actually don't see the difference between the gaps in science, and god of the gaps...


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 30, 2009)

madbulk @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> Oh for the love of god, DO NOT show us a poll about the UFO's and higher education!
> 
> My dear crazy friends around the globe, Thank You. This was a freakin' DELIGHT to wake up to.
> I'm giddy.
> ...



OK, pay my Paypal acoount: [email protected]. $500 should do it.


----------



## madbulk (Jun 30, 2009)

Eh... you should've come with that offer and a THREAT to screw it all up for me. Now I think it may be too late. There will be a next time.


----------



## Ed (Jun 30, 2009)

Sovereign @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> Galileo was no atheist, and you're perpetuating an atheist myth.



That is a stupid article. Its not an "atheist fallacy" that people in medieval times thought the earth was flat its a GENERAL MYTH. A similar myth is that Columbus proved the earth was round. The Greeks had already shown the earth was a sphere centuries earlier. Im sure there were flat earthers at the time but this writer seems to be under the impression that it was so obvious that no one believed it! 

The Bible talks about a fixed flat circle of an earth that doesnt move, with a dome over the top with "windows" to keep the waters out in the "firmament". It speaks of pillers holding it up that god shakes when he gets angry. People still believe in talking animals, people living to 900, a 6,000 year old earth, a global flood and all life being poofed out of nothing by magic words - TODAY. So hundreds of years ago Im sure a flat earth wasnt that difficult to rationalise. 

Galileo defended heliocentrism, which is what the Church didnt like because the Bible says that the earth doesnt move. I assume they didnt mind writing off the rest as allegory but wouldnt budge on this. Your article claims they supported such science! The Pope in 1992 even apologised for how they handled Galileo and said they would errect an statue to commemorate him. According to your article, they had no need to apolgise. 

And on it goes...

Now I have never heard anyone say that Galileo was an atheist, however I have heard lots of religious people claim Hitler was an atheist when he was actually a fundamentalist Christian just as crazy as Martin Luther the 14th century religious reformer and founder of the Protestants, who also wanted to exterminate the Jews,


----------



## Sovereign (Jun 30, 2009)

Christian Marcussen @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> Yes - science with gaps is fine. Science thrives on these gaps - religion uses the gaps for refuge. Surely you can see the difference?


There's a difference, but you're not seeing it.

Science with gaps in the sense of free inquiry into unknowns is fine. Scientists claiming that we'll find a natural answer to every question, eventually - I would call this the naturalistic promissory note - is not. The latter is scientism, coated with metaphysical naturalism.

Furthermore, the claim that religion opposes scientific research is no doubt bunk.
Was Newton guilty of "refuge" when he inquired into gravity? Why did he, as a theist, produce so much scientific work, eh? The claim that theism or religion by definition would stand in the way of further scientific research is at best a lame, unsupported atheistic propaganda point. 



> Again, I wonder if you are being polemical, or if you actually don't see the difference between the gaps in science, and god of the gaps...


I'm not polemical. I'm trying to get some to see and acknowledge their presuppositions. Atheists come with a truckload, and many are not the objective, rational bystanders they claim to be.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 30, 2009)

Christian Marcussen @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> > You say it's childish to believe in something that to you doesn't exist. Prove that It doesn't existence. Bring me hard evidence that there is no God
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm still waiting for the evidence. You can't prove something doesn't exist by equating it to things that have proven not to exist. That's just sophomoric.

Look do I believe that God is some mythical being that over looks all we do. No I do not.

But God can be a personal thing. For me it's the idea of infinite capability, the idea not bound by time or space and the idea that this world is finite. To me God represents infinity. That's why I kind of chuckle it science trying to find God in something as finite as matter. 

So if a person aspires to be God like. If he aspires to be more than he physically thinks he can be. If he aspires to expand his mind to the infinite then is he crazy for believing in God? No I don't think so. 

I see God everywhere. I see God in you and in me and in most creative people. I don't believe or even suspect that all there is to life is this physical universe. I firmly believe( for really personal reasons) that the spirit of man not visible isn't really subject to the laws of this universe. There are people even on this board that have admitted to having out of body type experiences. Me included. I even knew a guy who stop breathing while he was sleeping, "woke up" in the hospital hovering of his body. Decided it wasn't his time yet. He had been gone for about 45 minutes the Doctors were about to call it and then he came too. The men of science, his doctors, called it a miracle. But, that story isn't unusual. We hear about that stuff all the time.

So I chose to believe in the infinite. That which can't be contained in matter. And though I challenge nobody to change his or her beliefs I do challenge people about science quite a bit. To think that the physical sciences will eventually figure it all out by studying matter and energy is taking a huge leap of faith. That atheist don't see it as faith just boggles my mind. They even have a church,

_ Atheists United
Advancing the acceptance of atheism, defending the separation of church and state and inspiring a community of non-believers. _

I mean c'mon guys. "Inspiring a community of non-believers." That's a church. I can see the little atheist barbecues already.


----------



## Ed (Jun 30, 2009)

Sovereign,

Religious people tend to oppose science when they believe it contradicts their worldview. 

Newton was a Christian certianly, but he had no religious problem with Gravity or his experiements into the nature of light. 

It shouldnt be played down that religious scientists in the past have been responsible for scientific progress. Even Darwin only became an atheist later in life, not because of his scientific studies but because his children kept dying. He even credits "the creator" in Origins, for example. It was also Creationist geologists who proved the earth was ancient and the global flood didnt happen centuries before Darwin while trying to find evidence for the opposite. 

But that was a different times, nowadays Creationists are fundamentally opposed and will not change their minds many even signing sworn statements to that. In the same way Scientologists have to sign a sworn statements that they are fundamentally against psychiatry on religious grounds. There are many scientists that are religious such as biologist Ken Miller who testified at the Dover trial, but they are not fundamentalists. The reason more scientists back then were religious isnt just that it was a more religious time and it was looked down upon to be atheist, but because no one had evidence to the contrary so it was okay for them to believe such things. Now we know better. 

I would love to know what presuppositions you think atheism holds that you feel is unreasonable.


----------



## Ed (Jun 30, 2009)

josejherring @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> I'm still waiting for the evidence. You can't prove something doesn't exist by equating it to things that have proven not to exist. That's just sophomoric.



Jose your challenge is a fallacy because we have no reason to believe in god. If you replace "god" with any other claim it becomes absurd as Christian was trying to show. But what you havent understood either is that those gods have not in fact been demonstrated "not" to exist, because there is now way to verify it either way. All we can know is that some things are more probable than others, and the god of the Bible is very unlikely to exist. Any self conscious entity that created the entire universe existing is very improbable and the only reason we give it some kind of credence because we're been brain washed into thinking its more likely than any other weird claim. 

In science you cannot say that something is a certain way and if you dont agree YOU have to show me evidence to the contrary or its correct. You cant say _"there are aliens on mars, prove me wrong"_. Thats never a valid argument, you'd be laughed out of the room. 



> I mean c'mon guys. "Inspiring a community of non-believers." That's a church. I can see the little atheist barbecues already.



A group doesnt mean church.


----------



## mikebarry (Jun 30, 2009)

I just want to clean up a few points made here:

Jose. If you refer to the god of everything. God being nature, music, earth, sea, space, beauty then you are referring to the Spinoza, Einstein god. I assure you most atheists have no problem with this or believe it themselves. But once you cross into the interfering god that's when the atheists take alarm and will rebuke. 

I support the idea that the burden of proof is on the theist to show their argument, since the opposing argument cannot be proven. But again each day that god doesn't show "I am here" in the sky the argument tilts from his side a tiny bit.

In the current Zeitgeist atheists are forced to unite to show their argument. It is difficult and slow and unnatural because we follow no plan nor have leaders, we are again everyone.

Once again using the argument of the past is just so faulted. Imagine if Darwin had access to Watson and Crick's Research or even to Medel's or to Einstein's ? Becoming a doubter back in those days was an accomplishment. Thomas Jefferson, couldn't for the life of him figure out why their were rocks embedded with sea shells in the mountains west of his home. The information wasn't their as it is now. There was no internet to share data or it wasn't even discovered yet.

My personal interpretation is that science does hold all the answers that our brain's are capable of understanding. But I think it is faulty to assume our tiny brains can understand the origins of the cosmos or how the slit experiment works. Even if the brightest people can understand it, it might be beyond the other 99.99999999 percent.


----------



## Sovereign (Jun 30, 2009)

Ed @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> Sovereign @ Tue Jun 30 said:
> 
> 
> > Galileo was no atheist, and you're perpetuating an atheist myth.
> ...


Perhaps, perhaps not. Care to take a poll among atheists? 8) 



> Galileo defended heliocentrism, which is what the Church didnt like because the Bible says that the earth doesnt move. I assume they didnt mind writing off the rest as allegory but wouldnt budge on this. Your article claims they supported such science!


The article claims no such thing, other than that Galileo's research was funded by the church. This was normal at the time! This does not mean they suddenly agreed with his scientific results, which ovbiously they did not in the case of heliocentrism.



> The Pope in 1992 even apologised for how they handled Galileo and said they would errect an statue to commemorate him. According to your article, they had no need to apolgise.


This is nonsense, for the article does not claim Galileo did not encounter any problems with the church re heliocentrism. The article merely claims - justifiably - that some atheists have made a mountain out of a mole hole. And apparently at least one atheist here thought Galileo was an atheist also!



> Now I have never heard anyone say that Galileo was an atheist, however I have heard lots of religious people claim Hitler was an atheist when he was actually a fundamentalist Christian just as crazy as Martin Luther the 14th century religious reformer and founder of the Protestants, who also wanted to exterminate the Jews,


One thing is for sure, Hitler did kill a lot of Christian churchmen. I'm not so sure if that makes him a "fundamentalist Christian"! Neither do some of Hitler's own words. 8)


----------



## Sovereign (Jun 30, 2009)

Ed @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> Jose your challenge is a fallacy because we have no reason to believe in god.


See, that's the difference between an unreasonable atheist and a reasonable theist philosopher like William Lane Craig. Craig can see some potential in the atheist argument and admit atheism can be a plausible worldview. You will not see many atheists admit the opposite, that theism is just as plausible. 

You say there's no reason to believe in God, yet atheism offers no answers to the fundamental questions which are at issue. Atheism simply pretends that no such answers exists or they prop it up with their own supernatural non-empirical answers (e.g. the multiverse as an explanation for the universal constants).

In the end, the dogmatic atheist is reduced to a circular argument: "my metaphysical views are right, because they are. Did I mention theism sucks?".

Atheist Bradley Monton hits the nail on the head:



> And this is the problem. Maher’s supposed doubt does not go both ways. While Monton acknowledges that though he is an atheist, he is not certain about his atheism, Maher is all too certain that the totems of twenty-first century scientific materialism are beyond question. Essentially, Maher is commending doubt, disbelief actually, to religious people, and for the most part, giving a pass to himself and his fellow “rationalists”. Luskin asks Monton: “What do you think happens when a person tries to pretend that there is no reason or room for any doubt or self-introspection in their worldview?” Monton replies:
> 
> “I think that leads to dogmatism, in part, and this sort of emotional reaction to the people who are on the other side. Because, if you think that the other side has nothing going for it, you’re going to dismiss them and react badly to them… Unfortunately what I’ve been encountering lately are more atheists who seem to be completely, incredibly dogmatic about their view, and then, at least in my personal experience, I’m encountering Christians who are more sympathetic.”
> 
> Maher, regrettably, resembles Monton’s observation. The difference between Maher and Monton, I suspect, is that Monton is regularly brushing shoulders with Christian philosophers of the highest intellectual caliber, philosophers who do in fact acknowledge uncertainty and doubt about their own worldviews. For example, he cites William Lane Craig, a leading Christian apologist, who nonetheless acknowledges that “atheism is not an implausible worldview”. Let us hope that it is the likes of Monton and Craig, who do exemplify mutual respect and intellectual humility, that show us the way forward.


----------



## mikebarry (Jun 30, 2009)

Hitler killed a lot of everyone. You can't classify this man. He was part atheist, part Christian, part secularist, part brilliant, part insane. He was raised Catholic - so I guess you can blame them. 
He hated the Jews more for their financial well beings then their religious practices. He killed his own officers for losing battles. He would kill anyone for anything. He was perhaps the greatest nationalist ever to live yet he let his own people starve as the Russians invaded claiming that they were to weak and deserved death. The guy was just nuts. He doesn't belong on either side of this argument.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Jun 30, 2009)

Sovereign @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> Furthermore, the claim that religion opposes scientific research is no doubt bunk.
> Was Newton guilty of "refuge" when he inquired into gravity? Why did he, as a theist, produce so much scientific work, eh? The claim that theism or religion by definition would stand in the way of further scientific research is at best a lame, unsupported atheistic propaganda point.



Try read what I said on the subject. I tried give a nuanced view on that. But in case I failed my point was... People can clearly reconcile religion and science - that is simply a matter of fact. However this is because they have the ability of applying the scientific method only to certain aspects of their life and in regards to certain inquires. Newton is a perfect example. So can one be a scientist and believe in ò   ¦|Ö   ¦|×   ¦|Ø   ¦|Ù   ¦|Ú   ¦|Û   ¦|Ü   ¦|Ý   ¦|Þ   ¦|ß   ¦|à   ¦|á   ¦|â   ¦|ã   ¦|ä   ¦|å   ¦|æ   ¦|ç   ¦|è   ¦|é   ¦|ê   ¦|ë   ¦|ì   ¦|í   ¦|î   ¦|ï   ¦|ð   ¦|ñ   ¦|ò   ¦|ó   ¦|ô   ¦|õ   ¦|ö   ¦|÷   ¦|ø   ¦|ù   ¦|ú   ¦|û   ¦|ü   ¦|ý   ¦|þ   ¦|ÿ   ¦}    ¦}   ¦}   ¦}   ¦}   ¦}   ¦}   ¦}   ¦}   ¦}	   ¦}
   ¦}   ¦}   ¦}    ¦}   ¦}   ¦}   ¦}   ¦}   ¦}   ¦}   ¦}


----------



## Sovereign (Jun 30, 2009)

Christian Marcussen @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> However this is because they have the ability of applying the scientific method only to certain aspects of their life and in regards to certain inquires.


Atheism fails by default if you claim both are in separate magisteria and do not overlap. For science would never have anything to say over the issue whether God exists or not, not even in terms of probability. 



> Newton is a perfect example. So can one be a scientist and believe in virgin births, demons, exorcisms, hell, transformation of water to wine, ressurections, and the healing properties of prayer? Yes, but only if you can shut of your scientific brain when thinking about these issues.


Ah yes, how could I forget. Just mere theism forces one to accept demons, virgin births, hell, etc. How lovely and how could I forget. 8) Sigh... And to reduce theology to the equivalent of "shutting of your brain" is to reduce atheistic philosophers to the equivalent of same. 



> You ask if Newton sought refuge in the gaps... No... But then again Newton has nothing to do with the god of the gaps idea. So I guess I'm missing your point... The god of the gaps idea is that whenever there is a gap in knowledge you insert god. Newton did not do this (actually he did... calling on god to keep it all together - but for the most part he did not)


I'm not saying there is no such thing as the God of the gaps. I' saying it is not a better answer than science of the gaps, with the naturalistic promissory note ("nature dunnit, we just don't know how yet"). This takes extreme forms, for example when Koonin - to solve evolutionary 'issues'' - injects the multiverse. If this is science's answer, is this really much better than "God dunnit"? don't think so.


----------



## spectrum (Jun 30, 2009)

I'm all for pointing out hypocrisy, abuse and corruption in any area of life...seeking Truth is what it's all about after all. 

But what I find disturbing in the attitude expressed in Maher's film and those that agree with him is the strident lack of tolerance and total disrespect for devout people of any faith who may have a different worldview than theirs.

It's basically like this:

Devout person = total idiot worthy of ridicule, who is likely dangerous

There are many people of faith who are also critical thinkers. While you may disagree with their conclusions, they didn't necessarily come to their concepts about faith without a great deal of thought.

To me, the argument as represented by this film does not encourage thoughtful debate at all....just more mudslinging.

My 2 cents. 

Cheers,

spectrum


----------



## mikebarry (Jun 30, 2009)

Spectrum,

Yes actually there is an argument of where Jesus was Born. Since Matthew and Luke are the only ones that document this and since neither were their at the time there are no direct eyewitness accounts. The basic argument is that Jesus was possibly born in Nazereth since there is a disagreement of a few years as to the date by the two authors and the family lived in three locations during the time. Hitchens goes over it in detail on pages 110-112 of God is Not Great.

The problem is that most of everything that confirms Jesus existence has been passed through the mid evil Catholic Church and filtered as necessary. It's hard to believe that they didn't create/delete/edit/add/subtract from this story at will.


----------



## billval3 (Jun 30, 2009)

My personal take on all of this is rooted in what is called the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, which is credited to a Methodist minister named John Wesley (1703-1791). This method of reflection states that one should hold four things in balance:

1. scripture
2. tradition
3. reason
4. experience

The idea is that all of these need to be used in conjunction with each other in order to balance one's own understanding of truth, morality, etc. In my view, the reason many religious fundamentalists go wrong is because they elevate their own understanding of some "scripture" above the other three. I might hypothesize, on the other hand, that many hard-core atheists are elevating their own personal reasoning powers above that of the other three. Of course, it gets much more complicated than that, but I just thought I'd throw this into the works.

I do so because it irks me both that people can be so stubbornly opposed to science AND that "people of faith" (what a dumb term) can be so misunderstood. I suppose part of the problem is that many peoples' EXPERIENCE, #4 above , has shown them that Christianity and Islam (two popular examples) has caused more problems than it's helped. I understand that and think it sucks. That doesn't change the possibility that there is truth behind what these religious adherents believe in. We can not, after all, ONLY rely on our own experience.

I think any good scientist relies on these four things, by the way. A scientist's scripture is the books that have been written by the notable scientists that have gone before. There is tradition in the way that science is carried out. Reason is important, but so are attempts to objectively "experience" the world around oneself through experimentation.

Again, any of these things can lead one down the wrong path if the others are ignored. Also, we have to be willing to question our own comprehension of things, which is something that many religious people AND many scientists are unwilling to do.

Sorry if that was kind of long, I used to study theology and I couldn't resist saying something, however un-eloquently! 8)


----------



## spectrum (Jun 30, 2009)

Christian Marcussen @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> I think this is an interesting question to the religious of you...
> If science and scripture make incompatible claims... which would you discard?


Thanks Christian, that is a good question and I can tell you what it's like for me:

I don't discard either. 

It would be indeed be foolish to ignore the research and efforts of the scientists and I believe it would be equally foolish to ignore the many lessons and experiences of my lifelong faith. If there's truly a contradiction that I can't quite wrap my head around, I put it in the category of the many things that I don't know the answer to or fully understand yet. "Things that need further thought" as it were...

Perhaps you think me a simpleton for saying so, but I'm quite happy to admit that I don't have all the answers quite yet. 

One can only speak from the experience of his/her own life.

Doesn't mean that I don't think seriously about these questions and that I'd like to have those questions answered someday though. It's just that there have been so many things in my life that I have only really understood later as I had more information and gained more insight/experience, so when there are apparent contradictions, I am content to accept that I will likely have a better understanding in the future.....since that has proven itself to be true so often in my own experience.

Thanks for the excellent question!


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Jun 30, 2009)

> I'm not saying there is no such thing as the God of the gaps. I' saying it is not a better answer than science of the gaps, with the naturalistic promissory note ("nature dunnit, we just don't know how yet"). This takes extreme forms, for example when Koonin - to solve evolutionary 'issues'' - injects the multiverse. If this is science's answer, is this really much better than "God dunnit"? don't think so.



But what you don't get is.. God of the Gaps is an actual attempt at an answer. Science of the gaps (as you call it - poor term) is not an actual answer. It's saying... We don't know, but we are working on it. I find that much more humble and inspiring. 

As for the multiverse. This is not a theory on par with say evolution, or gravity. It is a new hypothesis which is being studied, researched and speculated on. Science will judge it... not scripture. Scientists and those who respect science will dismiss a theory with a smile. Being wrong is good - it advances knowledge. 

So back to my question. If scripture and science make incompatible claims - which do you discard?

[EDIT] Hi, Eric.. I just saw you made an asnwer after I posted the above. So the above question is for all the rest. Now to read your reply


----------



## spectrum (Jun 30, 2009)

mikebarry @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> The problem is that most of everything that confirms Jesus existence has been passed through the mid evil Catholic Church and filtered as necessary. It's hard to believe that they didn't create/delete/edit/add/subtract from this story at will.


That's quite a claim indeed. 

It's worth noting that this recent notion of Jesus not have existed at all is an extreme view and contradicts the vast majority of modern historians and the research that's been done outside the church for hundreds of years.

There's quite a bit to contradict that point of view.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 30, 2009)

> Meghan McCain doesn't seem too bright to me, but...' a bimbo'? To me , that where communication breaks down, when you start putting down everyone who disagrees with you or is on the 'other side' with hurtful, and in this case, sexist...language.




But "bimbo" is absolutely the right word for her. For one, she has no idea what the Republican party stands for, yet she's a cheerleader. Her entire presentation is that she's a young woman and a Republican, and the Republican party needs to loosen up to attract people like her.

Well, if she has no idea what she's talking about yet her whole act is being a girl in her sexual prime promoting her lack of any ideas...then actually I'd say it's sexist *not* to call her a bimbo!



> As to Rush Limbaugh, I have no respect for him, or his methods, certainly, but to say he represents only the point of view of needleheads and 80 IQ's flies in the face of something I know from personal experience..there are a goodly amount of intelligent
> conservatives out there, some of them my friends, who agree with him....and plenty of polemical moronic liberals who don't.




Of course there are intelligent conservatives. And the main thing Rush Limbaugh has in common with them is that he's wrong in every case I can think of. There's absolutely nothing intelligent or even thoughtful about Rush Limbaugh. He's a clinical idiot, and it's a mockery of free speech that such an outright asshole is allowed to voice these dangerous opinions unchallenged.

I guess some people are able to see him as funny in a macabre way, but I can't listen to idiots like that without my blood pressure going way up. The reason is that I know there are millions of impressionable people sitting around fondling their guns, just waiting for someone like that to tell them what to believe.


----------



## billval3 (Jun 30, 2009)

Christian Marcussen @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> > I'm not saying there is no such thing as the God of the gaps. I' saying it is not a better answer than science of the gaps, with the naturalistic promissory note ("nature dunnit, we just don't know how yet"). This takes extreme forms, for example when Koonin - to solve evolutionary 'issues'' - injects the multiverse. If this is science's answer, is this really much better than "God dunnit"? don't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



First of all, I don't think scientists happily discard theories. I think they grow attached to them the same way religious people grow attached to their scriptures. For one thing, there is money involved. Sorry if this sounds too cynical, but a lot of bad crap goes down because money is at stake. I'm thinking of pharmaceuticals, for example. Also, there's the matter of people building their careers on their scientific findings or the "establishment" being opposed to someone's theories.

In the same way, religious people sometimes have "too much at stake" to question their understanding of their scripture or traditions. This could stem from their own pride, from fear, or from any number of other things.

Crap, I want to answer you further, but I have to take my son to gymnastic now! :?


----------



## José Herring (Jun 30, 2009)

Christian,

I don't think you can discard any until you've personally studied both.

Not to offend anybody but the Adam and Eve creationism never really panned out for me. I looked at it hard one day when my friends parents took me to church when I was young and I read the whole Genesis story while the sermon was going on. I discarded it as fiction.

But, I've read Darwin's book twice and it has a lot of fiction too. To be honest there is a bit a truth to it. But there's more speculation than experiment in his book. That he went crazy and sick for a year and couldn't finish his experiment is a shame. Because he left quite a cloud of uncertainty around his work.

So if you look yes there are some signs of evolution. But, there are just as many signs of de-evolution happening as well as huge gaps in the time line of it all. Species that suddenly appear rather than slowly evolve. Even one scientist recently found a human foot print dated 4 million years ago. That's 4 million years before there were suppose to be human foot prints. His plausible explanation for it was that, " a species existed with a human size ten foot print, then the species changed and then evolved back." Dude c'mon. Just admit that the theory of evolution isn't quite fully ironed out yet. And after 200 years of the subject, I doubt it ever will be.

Jose


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 30, 2009)

Jose: note that Buddhism is a religion but it's atheistic.

Also, any evolutionary biologist will tell you that Darwin is where the field was in the 1800s. They understand a lot more than they did back then.

I personally don't believe in a supreme being that created everything, nor do I believe there's anyone listening if you pray, so in that sense I'm atheistic. But I do believe in is what I recently found out is called Tao by...Taoists: the inherent force driving life and the universe.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 30, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> Jose: note that Buddhism is a religion but it's atheistic.
> 
> Also, any evolutionary biologist will tell you that Darwin is where the field was in the 1800s. They understand a lot more than they did back then.
> 
> I personally don't believe in a supreme being that created everything, nor do I believe there's anyone listening if you pray, so in that sense I'm atheistic. But I do believe in is what I recently found out is called Tao by...Taoists: the inherent force driving life and the universe.



We're soul brothers. :mrgreen:


----------



## Evan Gamble (Jun 30, 2009)

spectrum @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> But what I find disturbing in the attitude expressed in Maher's film and those that agree with him is the strident lack of tolerance and total disrespect for devout people of any faith who may have a different worldview than theirs.
> 
> 
> spectrum



I thought he was pretty respectful. Simply said what he thought never raised his voice or attacked people really.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Jun 30, 2009)

Thanks for your answer Eric.

I understand what you are saying, and I'm pretty sure you believe what you are saying (I can hear that sounds provoking - that is not my intention!)

But I do think that if such an incompatibility arose, you would either choose scripture, or you would start interpriting scripture to fit the findings of science. At least that is what historically has happned. 

But let us take Evolution. To many people evolution and faith are perfectly compatible. But I know to many people it is not. I believe you once called yourself evangelical, so I suppose you would be in the latter group? Perhaps not - please correct me if I'm wrong. 

Some people at any rate are in the latter category, which makes them distort, ignore and lie about scientific matters such as evolution. In other words, scripture trumps science. That disturbs me... especially when these views are imposed on their children, or sought tought at schools and universities.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 30, 2009)

Eric wrote:

"To me, the argument as represented by this film does not encourage thoughtful debate at all....just more mudslinging"

As I posted above:

"Bill Maher is a comedian. Religulous was funny, but it wasn't to be taken seriously as a critique of religion."

I suspect that you have to be nonreligious to find it funny, or v.v.: people who are religious aren't likely to find it funny. Obviously part of the humor is that he's being so offensive - which is something I personally can laugh at in a film in a way that I wouldn't in real life (because I wouldn't want to offend anyone!).

The thing about religion is that there are many levels of sophistication about it, and the level Bill Maher is attacking is clearly not very deep.


----------



## Ed (Jun 30, 2009)

josejherring @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> But, I've read Darwin's book twice and it has a lot of fiction too. To be honest there is a bit a truth to it. But there's more speculation than experiment in his book. That he went crazy and sick for a year and couldn't finish his experiment is a shame. Because he left quite a cloud of uncertainty around his work.



Thats nonsence, Darwin rewrote origins several times before publishing and he did some of the most extensive studies on mussels and other eco systems for years prior. It is a myth that he had some kind of epiphany when he went to the Galapagos.

And you dont win criticising Darwin, there has been further advances in science since he wrote that, you know? Darwin for example had no knowledge of genetics. 



> So if you look yes there are some signs of evolution. But, there are just as many signs of de-evolution happening as well as huge gaps in the time line of it all.



There is no such thing as de-evolution, Jose. You are talking about things you know nothing about. 



> Species that suddenly appear rather than slowly evolve.



When scientists say suddenly they still mean millions of years.



> Even one scientist recently found a human foot print dated 4 million years ago. That's 4 million years before there were suppose to be human foot prints.



Nonsence. What are you talking about?



> His plausible explanation for it was that, " a species existed with a human size ten foot print, then the species changed and then evolved back."



You made that up, no evolutionary biologist would say that.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Jun 30, 2009)

> First of all, I don't think scientists happily discard theories. I think they grow attached to them the same way religious people grow attached to their scriptures.


 ... Right. Happily might be stretching it in many cases. They are human after all. However scientists in priciple, and most scientists in praksis, will discard a theory if it gets proven wrong. Some happily... 



> But, I've read Darwin's book twice and it has a lot of fiction too. To be honest there is a bit a truth to it. But there's more speculation than experiment in his book. That he went crazy and sick for a year and couldn't finish his experiment is a shame. Because he left quite a cloud of uncertainty around his work.



Reading Darwin is nice, and recommendable. However it is in no way the best read if you want to know about current understandings of evolution. But you get points for having read it though! 



> So if you look yes there are some signs of evolution. But, there are just as many signs of de-evolution happening as well as huge gaps in the time line of it all. Species that suddenly appear rather than slowly evolve. Even one scientist recently found a human foot print dated 4 million years ago. That's 4 million years before there were suppose to be human foot prints. His plausible explanation for it was that, " a species existed with a human size ten foot print, then the species changed and then evolved back." Dude c'mon. Just admit that the theory of evolution isn't quite fully ironed out yet. And after 200 years of the subject, I doubt it ever will be.





1) When you say de-evolution, what do you mean? It's a nonsensical term scientifically speaking. Evolution does not have to make things bigger, stronger, and more complex. Only more adabtable and better at having offspring. But what do you mean?

2) These "sudden" appearences of species are fully compatible with evolution. Are you talking about the Cambrian explotion, or what are you refering to?

3) Could you please link me to that 4 million year old foot print? Sounds suspect.

4) The fact that the theory of evolution still stands after 200 years is a testament of its strength. But why do you assume that we would know all there is to know about evolution after 200 years? This is a pretty complex subject dealing with one of the most complex questions conceivable to man. Scientists observe, and learn more and more about evolution on a daily basis. 

[edit] Lol... instaposted by Ed


----------



## c0mp0ser (Jun 30, 2009)

Wow, great discussion.

I consider myself a person of faith. I think science and faith are completely separate realms and neither should be used as arguments against the other. Science is the persuit of the "how", and religion is the persuit of the "why".

Science offers answers into the mechanics of _how_ things are the way they are. I think the LHC experiment at Cern is going offer us some of the greatest breakthroughs in particle physics. Proving the Higgs field theory will probably be one of the greatest discoveries since General Relativity was proven with that famous solar eclipse observation in 1919. It's really an amazing time to be alive, and to have the technology available to us to look even deeper into the mechanics of our universe.

Faith, much like philosophy, offers an explanation into _why_ things are the way they are. Purpose, meaning, destiny are the topics of discussion. We should never use religion to answer questions that science should answer, and vice-versa.

Now, I think if we limit ourselves to a science-only/naturalistic view of the universe, we may be missing out on something greater. I think that we must continually challenge ourselves, myself included, to open up our minds, to the possibility that there may be more than what science can offer.

I'm definitely not the smartest person in the world, so I'm a bad example, but you can be an intelligent, thoughtful human being and still be a person of faith. C.S. Lewis, Ravi Zacharias and Malcom Muggeridge are some of my heroes. These Christians were no dummies, and well-respected in secular circles. Also, a really good friend of mine, a devout follower of Christ, is completing his doctorate in chemistry at UCLA. He's no dummy either. You'll even find some extremely intelligent scripting gurus on this forum that call themselves followers of Christ. So, we have be careful in thinking that all Christians are country bible-belt bumpkins or something like that. 
It's unfortunate that people, like Moore and Maher, routinely commit simple errors of logic with their strawman arguments against the other side, and for some reason, we rarely catch it. Christians are guilty of committing the same errors too. If there is one thing that DOES apply to both science and philosophy, it's the rules of logic.

Mike

[Edit: I just replaced the word "spirituality" with the word "faith"... just a better word I think]


----------



## Ed (Jun 30, 2009)

Sovereign @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> Care to take a poll among atheists? 8)



What would that prove? Why not suggest a hypothetical poll for people of all faiths? Im sure you'd find people are generally as confused. 



> The article claims no such thing, other than that Galileo's research was funded by the church. This was normal at the time! This does not mean they suddenly agreed with his scientific results, which ovbiously they did not in the case of heliocentrism.



Yes it does imply that, read the article. 

_"In reality, the Church was the leading sponsor of the new science and Galileo himself was funded...Galileo was treated by the church as a celebrity....The Church should not have tried him at all, although Galileo's reckless conduct contributed to his fate _"

So they were the leading sponcer of science, they treated Galileo as a celebrity and it was his fault he had so many problems with the church. Wow.



> This is nonsense, for the article does not claim Galileo did not encounter any problems with the church re heliocentrism. The article merely claims - justifiably - that some atheists have made a mountain out of a mole hole. And apparently at least one atheist here thought Galileo was an atheist also!



The problem of the article is that it significantly plays down the attitude of the church. Now of course there are certainly myths regarding Galileo as I have already said, but being an apologist he continually calls any such misunderstanding an "atheist myth" as if to suggest such things arent believed by anyone else and only concocted by scheming lying conspiring atheists huddled together in darkened rooms hurridly penning their latest attacks on Christianity. 

A far better source for information about Galileo is the wikipedia entry on him which gives a much more sensible picture. 



> One thing is for sure, Hitler did kill a lot of Christian churchmen. I'm not so sure if that makes him a "fundamentalist Christian"! Neither do some of Hitler's own words. 8)



http://vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.p ... 8&start=70

See above. Scroll down to 2 lengthy posts I made ages ago on this. 

As usual being an apologist website they only tell you a small part of the truth in order to mislead you. You really must stop trusting these people for your information.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Jun 30, 2009)

> I consider myself a person of faith. I think science and spirituality are completely separate realms and neither should be used as arguments against the other. Science is the persuit of the "how", and religion is the persuit of the "why".



But would you agree that some of the claims of religion are within the realms of science? Or at the very least require science to be suspended. I am here thinking about stuff I mentioned above like virgin birth, levitation and resurrections?

I think you are kind of proving the point I've been making in a few posts. Science and religion are compatible because people choose not to apply scientific principles to faith... Even the parts which ought be subject to scientific inquiry. In short, I here what you are saying, but religious beliefs go beyond answering the "why" questions as you put it.


----------



## billval3 (Jun 30, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> Eric wrote:
> 
> "To me, the argument as represented by this film does not encourage thoughtful debate at all....just more mudslinging"
> 
> ...



Bill Maher is a political comedian. He says things for a definite reason. Do you really think he didn't have an anti-religious agenda when making that movie? I agree that the level Maher is attacking is not very deep, but is that so clear to the average person?


----------



## Dave Connor (Jun 30, 2009)

Hitler a Christian? That would suggest there is such a thing as a mass murdering Christian. There is a place for him in Christian Theology which would fall under the category as totally Satanic.

Claiming to be a Christian is sort of like claiming to be a musician: it has no bearing on reality. I'm sure the tens of thousands of Christians who died because of Hitler would agree.

Incidentally, Christians follow the teachings of two very well known Jewish prophets: Moses and Jesus. It's not likely that the Fuhrer was enamored of either guy or planned on having their pictures up in classrooms of The Third Reich.


----------



## mikebarry (Jun 30, 2009)

It is my opinion if you actually believe Jesus could walk on water, was conceived of a virgin and that the earth is 6000 years old you are crazy. And I wouldn't want you teaching my children ( I don't have any yet) anything, and I wouldn't want my tax dollars paying you to teach anything to anybody. I wouldn't want wardens in the military on tax dollars unless it is scientifically proven it is good for morale. 

I am hardcore. Religion is not compatible with science, you can have one or the other or cherry pick.

Either god is supernatural or he is not. If he isn't all religions that use him are proven wrong.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Jun 30, 2009)

Bill Maher's attacks are not deep, but that does not make it without merrit. Dawkins, Maher, Hitchens, Harris and Gervais all have different methods, and reach different target audiences. People come in different levels of sophistication, and it's good that there is something for everyone :D

[edit] I think dening the historical Jesus is unfounded. But from that, to claiming any for of devinity or super natural power is a huge step. A more extraordinary claim than claiming he never existed. (Although I think both such claims are wrong)


----------



## José Herring (Jun 30, 2009)

There were some found 1.5 million years ago and some found 3.6 million years ago.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/02 ... ootprints/

They "claim" that they belong to early ancestors of homo sapiens. They say that the footprints belong to a species of homo erectus, just because if falls in that time frame. But, they aren't very convincing especially since all homo erectus foot prints are much more ape like.

De-evoled means that an animal reverts back to an earlier form due to changes in it's environment Scientifically it's called reverse evolution:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 120759.htm

Also there are more extreme examples where a species de-evoled itself all the way back to its original prehistoric forms as well. If I find that I'll post it.

Look I'm not saying that I have all the answers here. All I'm saying is that there are holes in the theory of evolution which doesn't account for the fact of a species reverting back to an earlier form. People haven't really been looking at that because Darwin pointed everybody in another direction with his book. But, I first caught it back in High School.

My theory is that the environment gets so toxic that a species is less able to cope with it and that instead of surviving it begins to fail and becomes less adapted to the environment. The fish in the example had evolved to a less prosurvival form before 1957. Then they cleaned up the lake and it evolved backwards to a more hearty and robust earlier form of species.

So we witness the forces of nature evolving and then de-evolving a species. The force of life isn't just one way.

( and of course I found a book by Dawkins claiming that backwards evolution doesn't exist. Hate for evidence to disprove is holiness.)


----------



## Evan Gamble (Jun 30, 2009)

Christian Marcussen @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> Bill Maher's attacks are not deep, but that does not make it without merrit.



I mean all he does is read scripture that sounds ridiculous. And of course gets the response. "Well its Gods will." or something.

Doesn't have to get deep to make something sound silly.


----------



## Ed (Jun 30, 2009)

Sovereign @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> See, that's the difference between an unreasonable atheist and a reasonable theist philosopher like William Lane Craig. Craig can see some potential in the atheist argument and admit atheism can be a plausible worldview. You will not see many atheists admit the opposite, that theism is just as plausible.



Can you tell me one good reason to believe in a god? I have asked this for years and never has someone given a sensible answer. If I say there are aliens on Mars but that I can see why you might not believe it, it is not therefore reasonable for you to say that my "aliens on Mars" belief is just as plausible as your non-belief.

Jose is saying that if I say there are aliens on Mars, that you have to find evidence to the contrary in order to prove me wrong. Is that a line of argument you find reasonable?



> You say there's no reason to believe in God, yet atheism offers no answers to the fundamental questions which are at issue.



Non sequitur. Even if atheism offers no answers at all that wouldnt make theism any more correct. Atheism isnt a belief system, why is that so hard to understand? All atheism is a non-belief in god/gods. Usually also a term applied to someone to doesnt hold to any supernatural belief at all. If we go with that definition as its the most common, what atheism allows one to do is to look at the universe without the tinted glasses of religious faith. 

Religious faith teaches you nothing all. It is a stubborn adherance to a belief and never changing your mind even if there is evidence to the contrary. The scientific method is the only we we know of to verifiably increase our knowledge, never before in history can it be shown that a supernatural assumption has ever done that. On the other hand religous faith is a good way to stay wrong forever and never know it. It is at best good for people that believe they need the belief in a god in order to feel safe, the idea that there isnt is just too much for some people. I see all religious belief as inherently dishonest as they all rely on faith. 

So all "answers" that religion claims to have are essentially "making it up out of nothing based on nothing, with no will to test or verify in it any way whatsoever".



> Atheism simply pretends that no such answers exists or they prop it up with their own supernatural non-empirical answers (e.g. the multiverse as an explanation for the universal constants).



Atheism does nothing of the kind, Sovereign. Science, not atheism since that is the means by which we can test and verify our knowledge or its just opinion; we understand from science that absolute truth (or absolute knowledge) doesnt exist. We will never know everything, we may never be able to even reconcile classical and quantum physics but its okay to say we dont know. Making things up is what religious people do when they want an answer.

Regarding "multiverse". String theory it turns out is mathematically one of the strongest in science in that it is extremly accurate when it comes to predictions, and from what physicists tell me thats playing it down. "Multiverse" isnt just something they pulled out their collective asses. Its a logical inference of what string theory is based on. There needs to be more research of course, but dont suggest that its comparable to some kind of religious belief in a supernatural claim.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 30, 2009)

Dave Connor @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> Hitler a Christian? That would suggest there is such a thing as a mass murdering Christian. There is a place for him in Christian Theology which would fall under the category as totally Satanic.
> 
> Claiming to be a Christian is sort of like claiming to be a musician: it has no bearing on reality. I'm sure the tens of thousands of Christians who died because of Hitler would agree.
> 
> Incidentally, Christians follow the teachings of two very well known Jewish prophets: Moses and Jesus. It's not likely that the Fuhrer was enamored of either guy or planned on having their pictures up in classrooms of The Third Reich.



Nah he wasn't a christian. Maybe he said he was in order to get the backing of his fellow Germans, but in fact he was a mystic. A devout member of a German sect that believed in all of their primitive mystic faiths. Germanic Odinism. Think Wagner's Ring Cycle. To call Hitler a christian is just slandering the religion.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jun 30, 2009)

[quote:c37a3b1f4f="Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 2:51 pm"]Eric wrote:

"To me, the argument as represented by this film does not encourage thoughtful debate at all....just more mudslinging"

As I posted above:

"Bill Maher is a comedian. Religulous was funny, but it wasn't to be takenò~   ¦šy   ¦šz   ¦š{   ¦š|   ¦š}   ¦š~   ¦š   ¦š€   ¦š   ¦š‚   ¦šƒ   ¦š„   ¦š…   ¦š†   ¦š‡   ¦šˆ   ¦š‰   ¦šŠ   ¦š‹   ¦šŒ   ¦š   ¦šŽ   ¦š   ¦š   ¦š‘   ¦š’   ¦š“   ¦š”   ¦š•   ¦š–   ¦š—   ¦š˜   ¦š™   ¦šš   ¦š›   ¦šœ   ¦š   ¦šž   ¦šŸ   ¦š    ¦š¡   ¦š¢   ¦š£   ¦š¤   ¦š¥   ¦š¦   ¦š§   ¦š¨   ¦š©   ¦šª   ¦š«   ¦š¬   ¦š­   ¦š®   ¦š¯   ¦š°   ¦š±   ¦š²   ¦š³   ¦š´   ¦šµ   ¦š¶   ¦š·   ¦š¸   ¦š¹   ¦šº   ¦š»   ¦š¼   ¦š½   ¦š¾   ¦š¿   ¦šÀ   ¦šÁ   ¦šÂ   ¦šÃ   ¦šÄ   ¦šÅ   ¦šÆ   ¦šÇ   ¦šÈ   ¦šÉ   ¦šÊ   ¦šË   ¦šÌ   ¦šÍ   ¦šÎ   ¦šÏ   ¦šÐ   ¦šÑ   ¦šÒ   ¦šÓ   ¦šÔ   ¦šÕ   ¦šÖ   ¦š×   ¦šØ   ¦šÙ   ¦šÚ   ¦šÛ   ¦šÜ   ¦šÝ   ¦šÞ   ¦šß   ¦šà   ¦šá   ¦šâ   ¦šã   ¦šä   ¦šå   ¦šæ   ¦šç   ¦šè              ò   ¦šê   ¦šë   ¦šì   ¦ší   ¦šî   ¦šï   ¦šð   ¦šñ   ¦šò   ¦šó   ¦šô   ¦šõ   ¦šö   ¦š÷   ¦šø   ¦šù   ¦šú   ¦šû   ¦šü   ¦šý   ¦šþ   ¦šÿ   ¦›    ¦›   ¦›   ¦›   ¦›   ¦›   ¦›   ¦›   ¦›   ¦›	   ¦›
   ¦›   ¦›   ¦›    ¦›   ¦›   ¦›   ¦›   ¦›   ¦›   ¦›   ¦›   ¦›   ¦›   ¦›   ¦›   ¦›   ¦›   ¦›   ¦›   ¦›   ¦›   ¦›    ¦›!   ¦›"   ¦›#   ¦›$   ¦›%€   ¦›&€   ¦›'€   ¦›(€   ¦›)€   ¦›*€   ¦›+€   ¦›,€   ¦›-€   ¦›.€   ¦›/€   ¦›0€


----------



## c0mp0ser (Jun 30, 2009)

Christian Marcussen @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> But would you agree that some of the claims of religion are within the realms of science? Or at the very least require science to be suspended. I am here thinking about stuff I mentioned above like virgin birth, levitation and resurrections?
> 
> I think you are kind of proving the point I've been making in a few posts. Science and religion are compatible because people choose not to apply scientific principles to faith... Even the parts which ought be subject to scientific inquiry. In short, I here what you are saying, but religious beliefs go beyond answering the "why" questions as you put it.



Scientific proof is based on showing that something is a fact by repeating the event in the presence of the person questioning the fact. If we are interested in proving past events, we have to use a different method of proof, the legal-historical proof. This method is based on showing that something is a fact _beyond a reasonable doubt_.

What your asking is, can we prove that events such as the virgin birth, and resurrection occurred using the scientific method. Of course not, unless you get in a time machine to be physically present. The legal-historical method is really the only other option we have. 
It is safe to assume that there is indeed enough legal-historical evidence that these miracles did indeed occur, beyond a reasonable doubt.
And by the way, we can't just say "well, virgin births and resurrections are preposterous, and therefore must never have happened". Just because something seems preposterous, that does not logically lead to "it never happened".

Mike


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 30, 2009)

NYC Composer @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Jun 30 said:
> 
> 
> > Eric wrote:
> ...



I'm completely and utterly non-religious, and I found the movie sniggering, offensive and well...the biggest sin of all in the Maher Universe-just not SMART. OR funny, to me.

Maher doesn't just criticize unsophisticated religion, he devalues and derides ALL religion. I think that's my biggest problem with his view..that religion is obviously stupid, and only practiced by morons.

I think my point has been made by the truly interesting and informed discussion that has gone on here. How do you think Maher would have done in this thread?

The argument that he's a 'comedian' ( though he obviously is) is specious. He has evolved past simple comedy into political commentating, much like Mort Sahl and Lenny Bruce did. That's why I enjoy his show...but I don't enjoy his one size fits all approach to people's beliefs ( i.e.-you'òœ   ¦…œ   ¦†œ   ¦‡œ   ¦ˆœ   ¦‰œ   ¦Šœ   ¦‹œ   ¦Œœ   ¦   ¦Ž   ¦   ¦   ¦‘   ¦’   ¦“   ¦”   ¦•   ¦–   ¦—   ¦˜   ¦™   ¦¨   ¦©   ¦ª   ¦«ž   ¦šž   ¦›ž   ¦œž   ¦ž   ¦žž   ¦Ÿž   ¦ ž   ¦¡ž   ¦¢ž   ¦£ž   ¦¤ž   ¦¥ž   ¦¦ž   ¦§Ÿ   ¦tŸ   ¦uŸ   ¦vŸ   ¦wŸ   ¦xŸ   ¦yŸ   ¦zŸ   ¦{Ÿ   ¦|Ÿ   ¦}Ÿ   ¦¬Ÿ   ¦­Ÿ   ¦®Ÿ   ¦¯Ÿ   ¦°Ÿ   ¦±Ÿ   ¦²Ÿ   ¦³Ÿ   ¦´Ÿ


----------



## NYC Composer (Jun 30, 2009)

Ashermusic @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> NYC Composer @ Tue Jun 30 said:
> 
> 
> > Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Jun 30 said:
> ...



Ya gotta love the diversity of people's opinions, even like minded people.


----------



## Ed (Jun 30, 2009)

josejherring @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> There were some found 1.5 million years ago and some found 3.6 million years ago.
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_minnesota_senate



This link doesnt have anything to do with the topic. Did you mean to post this? :| 



> They "claim" that they belong to early ancestors of homo sapiens. They say that the footprints belong to a species of homo erectus, just because if falls in that time frame. But, they aren't very convincing especially since all homo erectus foot prints are much more ape like.



Still no link to what you are talking about Jose. You're going to need to help us out.



> De-evoled means that an animal reverts back to an earlier form due to changes in it's environment Scientifically it's called reverse evolution:



Dont make up words Jose, "de-evolved" doesnt appear once in that article and it doesnt refer to your skewed understanding of it judging from your previous responces. 

There are lots of evidence for animals that exibit change that scientists will colloquially call "reverse-evolution". Such as salamanders with perfectly good eyes but where skin grows over during development rendering them useless. We just have to look at all the documented examples of isolated cave species where fish and other organisms have lost the functions of eyes for example. 

This doesnt mean "de evolution". They are not reverting to a previous species. Dolphins and whales for example came from animals that were once land animals, go back far enough they came from the sea. You could look at the whale and its useless legs and say thats de-evolution, but it isnt, this is them becoming adapted for the sea it doesnt mean that they "de-evolved".



> Also there are more extreme examples where a species de-evoled itself all the way back to its original prehistoric forms as well. If I find that I'll post it.


Thats absolute rubbish. I hope you do find it but before you post it please read it again and make sure it really says what you think its saying this time. 



> Look I'm not saying that I have all the answers here. All I'm saying is that there are holes in the theory of evolution which doesn't account for the fact of a species reverting back to an earlier form. People haven't really been looking at that because Darwin pointed everybody in another direction with his book. But, I first caught it back in High School.



This whole paragraph dashes your credability with each and every proceeding sentence, Im surprised. Then you top it off by saying that you know all this back in high school. Wow.



> My theory is that the environment gets so toxic that a species is less able to cope with it and that instead of surviving it begins to fail and becomes less adapted to the environment. The fish in the example had evolved to a less prosurvival form before 1957. Then they cleaned up the lake and it evolved backwards to a more hearty and robust earlier form of species.
> 
> So we witness the forces of nature evolving and then de-evolving a species. The force of life isn't just one way.



There really is no mystery here!

To put it simply the way evolution ACTUALLY works here is that the little bony armor of the fish were unnecessary at one time so it may have been advantageous to not have boney armor. Then when its enviroment changed suddenly individuals born with the little bony armor were at high risk from predators. This meant that those with more boney armor were able to survive better, this trait it seems was able to spread quickly within the population.

They call it "reverse evolution" simply because they gained back a trait that they lost. If they were a different species to that previous boney one, they would STILL be a different species. There is no such thing as reverse evolution in the way you are talking about! 



> ( and of course I found a book by Dawkins claiming that backwards evolution doesn't exist. Hate for evidence to disprove is holiness.)



Dawkins is correct, but you dont know what you're talking about and dont know what scientists mean when use these words.


----------



## Ed (Jun 30, 2009)

Dave Connor @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> Hitler a Christian? That would suggest there is such a thing as a mass murdering Christian. There is a place for him in Christian Theology which would fall under the category as totally Satanic.



Want to list all the times this Satan character kills people in the Bible? Then want to put that up against a list of when this god character kills or orders killing of people? I wouldnt even be able to finish the latter list because it would go on for pages and pages and pages.



> Claiming to be a Christian is sort of like claiming to be a musician: it has no bearing on reality. I'm sure the tens of thousands of Christians who died because of Hitler would agree.



No True Scotsmen fallacy, I see looming. 



> Incidentally, Christians follow the teachings of two very well known Jewish prophets: Moses and Jesus. It's not likely that the Fuhrer was enamored of either guy or planned on having their pictures up in classrooms of The Third Reich.



Go read and listen to the guy talk and write. In fact go read the writings of the guy who inspired him Martin Luther, who not only founded the Protestant religion but wrote the book "On the Jews and the Lies", which said we should burn down their schools and synagogues and destroy them. 

Moses isnt exactly the best person in the Bible either, maybe you want to remind everyone how many cultures he wiped out according to the Bible?


----------



## c0mp0ser (Jun 30, 2009)

mikebarry @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> It is my opinion if you actually believe Jesus could walk on water, was conceived of a virgin and that the earth is 6000 years old you are crazy. And I wouldn't want you teaching my children ( I don't have any yet) anything, and I wouldn't want my tax dollars paying you to teach anything to anybody. I wouldn't want wardens in the military on tax dollars unless it is scientifically proven it is good for morale.
> 
> I am hardcore. Religion is not compatible with science, you can have one or the other or cherry pick.
> 
> Either god is supernatural or he is not. If he isn't all religions that use him are proven wrong.



Ouch Mikey. 

Well, my wife, a school teacher, believes in the first two things, but not a 6000 year old universe though. Does that still disqualify her from teaching your children?

You make bold statements my friend. Don't let your emotions effect your reasoning. 

Your last statement is a good one though "Either god is supernatural or he is not. If he isn't all religions that use him are proven wrong." That's logically sound.

Love you,
Mike


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Jun 30, 2009)

rgames @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> Christian Marcussen @ Tue Jun 30 said:
> 
> 
> > Science and religion are compatible because people choose not to apply scientific principles to faith...
> ...



Well what kind of scientific credientials would you require? But to answer your question I have a university degree in Philosophy and Theory of Science... So while I'm not a Ph.D I am very well read on all the subjects we are discussing here. I imagine more so than most here (who in turn are better composers than me )



> I have spent a huge percentage of my life working with scientists, almost all Ph.D.'s, and that statement is patently not true. I have over 40 publications in a variety of scientific fields and the princples I used in those papers are no different than those I use to understand my faith. I'm not an exception: I'm pretty average in that regard.
> 
> What you say is true for some people and some faiths, but not all. Not even most.



Are these the same scientists and Ph.Ds that made you claim that scientists are as religious as the general population? Somehow your credibility on this specific subject is a littel shaky... 

Imagine religious belief as a scale. On one end you have literal interpretation of scripture. On the other end you have deism... Something, incomprehensible, god-like of which we don't know the nature. I'm pretty sure that all of your Phd friends would be closer to the deist end of the scale. And in that end of the scale, religion starts to lose it's meaning. But ok, lets say some of them are in fact religious - believers in the jedeo/christian god or similar. Are you telling me that they apply the same scrutiny and methods to their faith as they do their scientific endevours? (Out of curiosity - what scientific fields are they PHDs in?) - I'm guessing it's not Biology. 




> Do we, at present, think the Earth was created in seven days? Of course not. That's been debunked by understanding gained in the last several hundred years.


 Indeed... yet one third of the US population believe that the Bible is actual word of god, word for word. This number number is absurdly high (and luckily *NOT* that high amongst scientists... phew!)

But you claim to apply the same principles in your publications as you do to your faith? Believe in miracles?


----------



## José Herring (Jun 30, 2009)

Ed your picking small points to argue good luck with that.

Sorry about the posting. I made a mistake. My computers chops are de-evolving.

Here's the link that I missed.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/02 ... ootprints/

And here's the species de-evolving....er pardon me.....Backwards evolving....er sorry, I meant reverse evolution. 
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 120759.htm


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Jun 30, 2009)

c0mp0ser @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> Scientific proof is based on showing that something is a fact by repeating the event in the presence of the person questioning the fact. If we are interested in proving past events, we have to use a different method of proof, the legal-historical proof. This method is based on showing that something is a fact _beyond a reasonable doubt_.



Close, but not quite. 

It is perfectly legitimate for science to infer that what is impossible now, was impossible in the past, unless some natural evidence says otherwise. Science teaches us that when you're dead you are dead, people don't levitate, and tend not to be virgins when they have kids. It is safe to assume that this was true 2000 years ago. This would be well within scientific reasoning. Similar to the claim that some characters within the Bible reached ages of 8-900 years of age, or that a global flood killed most life on earth. Science says NO! And this is inspite of no scientists were there to observe it. 



> What your asking is, can we prove that events such as the virgin birth, and resurrection occurred using the scientific method. Of course not, unless you get in a time machine to be physically present. The legal-historical method is really the only other option we have.



I'm sorry... But t's nonsense. See above. 



> It is safe to assume that there is indeed enough legal-historical evidence that these miracles did indeed occur, beyond a reasonable doubt.



Really? No... not really. But please elaborate. Should be interesting. 



> And by the way, we can't just say "well, virgin births and resurrections are preposterous, and therefore must never have happened". Just because something seems preposterous, that does not logically lead to "it never happened".



You are really grasping at straws here. Do you really believe the above? And if so, how do you seperate the preposterous things you believe from the proposterous claims about Zeus, Allah, and the like? The muslim Prophet is better documented than Jesus, yet I assume you don't believe he flew around the middleast or spoke to god?


----------



## Ed (Jun 30, 2009)

Sovereign @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> Uhuh, didn't we just discuss Galileo - a dedicated Catholic - who discovered that his worldview in part had been in error?



You didnt listen to me. I said that back then things were different, there were honest scientists that were also religious. Back then evolution was in its infancy so it makes sence that there would be so many Creationists. The geologists that showed the earth was in fact ancient and there was no global flood centuries before Darwin changed their minds because they were honest. 

I said religious people "TEND" to oppose science when they believe it contradicts their worldview. 

That is true. If their faith *necessitated* a belief that the world was 6,000 years old that would mean that they would never accept any evidence that it wasnt. That is why we have Creationsits that literally say that if you reject one part, they have to reject it all. This is because they have their whole faith *based *on the *necessity *that the earth is, 6,000 years old and adam and eve are real and the whole world and all life was poofed out of nothing with nothing by magic words by a self proclaimed "jealous" deity. Most Christians today do not base their beliefs on this, its even more wishy washy in a way because it means no amount of scientific findings will ever stop them from believing as god can always exist somewhere in the gaps or in our own incredulity. That is how real religious scientists today think and to a lesser extent many scientists of the past. 




> You're peddling a caricature, it suggests religious people who are also scientists cannot do science.



Never said that, I think I even said the exact opposite several times. 



> Blatant nonsense. For someone so attached to science, where is your scientific evidence that "Religious people tend to oppose science"? Last time I looked even the catholic church today keeps up with developments. Geez, they even have their own Vatican observatory, no doubt to "oppose science" when they get the chance. 8)



As usual the Vatican is contradictory. Somtimes they support evolution and you have one of the main representatives saying that Intelligent Design is nonsence, and the next day we hear then saying something else that sounds like Intelligent Design. I dont know. But aside from evolution, since you bring up the Vatican, thanks for giving me such a great opportunity to mention the fact that its because of the Catholic Church's campaign against condom use that has played a very significant part of why Africa is in such a terrible state regarding STIs and AIDS. How about stem cells and abortion? Im more or less against abortion as well, but for rational reasons not based on the *purely religious arguments* of the "pro-life" campaigners. How about homosexuality, there is absolutely no scientific / rational reason to be against homosexuality, yet many religious people see it as a abominable sin who they should have less rights to then hetrosexual people. On a similar religious side, Scientologists even have to sign a sworn statement that they are inherently against psychiatry on purely religious grounds. 

So yes, religous people *TEND *to oppose science and reason when it conficts with their religious beliefs. Thats not just some opinion, thats just stating the flippin' obvious!



> Creationists, dogmatic atheists... Is there a difference, Ed?



I would say so yes, because atheists need not be dishonest inherently in order to persuade people. You could call me a militant atheist because I believe that all religions are based on faith and therefore inherently unable to change their minds no matter what so are fundamentally dishonest. 

Even the "weak" believers I mentioned before still have faith, but as I said most dont have their faith based on things that can potentially proven wrong in science. So consequently its very easy for them to continue to believe whatever it is forever and never have to seriously question themselves. If they ever did question themselves they would be said to have "lost faith", or "loosing faith". Thats because faith means an unwavering belief where evidence for or against is irrelevant. 



> I also find it ridiculous you would add the qualifier "now we know better". We know better what exactly? That there is no God? We know no such thing.



Now we know better, in that we know evolution happens and is one of the most supported theories in science. Theistic scientists back then didnt know that.


----------



## Ed (Jun 30, 2009)

josejherring @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> Ed your picking small points to argue good luck with that.
> 
> Sorry about the posting. I made a mistake. My computers chops are de-evolving.
> 
> ...



Jose, I read this article and I see nothing like what you claim it says. 

Please explain exactly what your issue with it is. 



> And here's the species de-evolving....er pardon me.....Backwards evolving....er sorry, I meant reverse evolution.
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 120759.htm



I explained this before and you didnt listen. Evolution doesnt go backwards, traits can be lost then gained again but never in the same way and you cant revert to a previous species. When they say reverse evolution they dont mean what you think they mean.


----------



## rgames (Jun 30, 2009)

Christian Marcussen @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> Imagine religious belief as a scale. On one end you have literal interpretation of scripture. On the other end you have deism... Something, incomprehensible, god-like of which we don't know the nature. I'm pretty sure that all of your Phd friends would be closer to the deist end of the scale.



Absolutely. But that doesn't mean they don't believe in something like "God". I also agree that they tend to be less in involved in organized religion, but it doesn't mean they're anti-religious, or atheist.

I've never come across any (legitimate) scientist who believes in literal interpretation of any scripture. As I said in the last post, science requires that we allow ourselves to accept that what we once thought correct is no longer so. There are plenty of people who apply the same thought process to religious scripture. So, sure, the Earth isn't 6000 years old. But, at one point, people thought that was the case. And, of course, there are still people who think that's the case. Again, though, not ALL religious people believe that.

*Don't forget that people have also believed lots of stupid things in the name science, as well.*

Do I believe in miracles? Depends on what you mean by miracle. I believe there are plenty of things that I can't explain. It doesn't meant that they didn't happen, it just means that I can't explain it. So, in that sense, yes, I believe in miracles. Now, do I *believe* that those apparent miracles can, in fact, be described by the laws of physics? Yes, I do. But that's an act of faith 

Here's an example: turbulence is often referred to as the last unsolved problem in classical physics. Our physics don't describe turbulence very well without the use of major hand-waving arguments. In fact, we can take our description of the physical phenomenon (the Navier-Sotkes equations, which describe fluid flow) and we can PROVE that we can't precisely solve problems in turbulence (in mathematical terms, there's a closure problem).

Turbulent flows are, of course, everywhere. But we don't really have the physics to describe them. Does that make them a miracle? Again, depends on what you mean by the term "miracle". Will we ever develop the physics to describe turbulent flows? I believe so because I believe there's an underlying order that describes the phenomenon. We just haven't figured it out yet.

Yup - I said "believe" in reference to a problem in physics. Twice!

rgames


----------



## mikebarry (Jun 30, 2009)

Sorry I was sidetracked by more important matters. The RANGERS traded Scott Gomez !!! YAY YAY YAY !!! Guys is a bum, he is going up to Montreal.

First of all I can assure you Jose that you are wrong about reverse evolution and Dawkins. Once I find the podcast addressing this I will post it. 

Wasn't Jesus only carried in the womb for 40 days also? 

Mike i will get back to you once I find a way to way to properly word my answer.

Anyway back on the phone with the Rangers fans.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Jun 30, 2009)

> I also find it ridiculous you would add the qualifier "now we know better". We know better what exactly? That there is no God? We know no such thing.



Well. We know that we can explain just about everything that god was needed to explain. The "only" things left for god are abiogenisis (beginning of life) and the creation of the universe. Large issues to be sure, and still beyond the reach of science, but not riduclously far out of reach. Because of science we can now explain the diversity of life, morality, large parts of cosmology, and why we get sick (hint - it has nothing to do with demons). These discoveries were not kind to god.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 30, 2009)

mikebarry @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> First of all I can assure you Jose that you are wrong about reverse evolution and Dawkins. Once I find the podcast addressing this I will post it.
> 
> .



Don't worry about assuring me. I'm good. :lol:


----------



## Richard Wilkinson (Jun 30, 2009)

A quick question for the religious here: As a rational person, I believe in things which can be proven beyond reasonable doubt. I'm assuming most of the religious people here don't believe in Santa Claus. But why? Why the belief in one absurd thing but not another - what is specific to the 'creator' idea that makes it more believable to you?

And secondly, where would religious people draw the line as being 'silly', and unbelievable, and why?

A 6,000 year-old Earth?

A sentient, omniscient, ominpresent & omnibelevolent creator? (for whose existence, over the thousands of years of human history, there has been not one single shred of evidence for)

A man parting an ocean?

Someone dying. Then later being not-dead?

Burning old ladies in Kenya because they are seen to be witches? For example the mother of an epileptic boy, deemed to be possessed by evil spirits.

A talking snake? Seriously - a snake, that talks.


Some of these may seem a bit provocative and goading, but I'm genuinely interested in what it takes for a religious person to dismiss something as being implausible, and what it takes to get them to vehemently believe in something implausible.

And how come all of the amazing miracles happened in an age when people were far less educated & enlightened, both individually and as a society, where there was no definitive way of documenting or proving them; yet now, in the age of 24hour news, instant coverage of any story via audio/video recordings & multiple sources of verification, the most we get is the image of a blurry, fat Jesus burnt onto a muffin?


----------



## Ed (Jun 30, 2009)

rgames @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> s I said in the last post, science requires that we allow ourselves to accept that what we once thought correct is no longer so. There are plenty of people who apply the same thought process to religious scripture. So, sure, the Earth isn't 6000 years old. But, at one point, people thought that was the case.




Thats true, but they can only be rational like that up to a certain point without loosing their faith entirely. God can always lurk in our incredulity and in the gaps in our knowledge, so when they get to that point unless they go the extra logical mile they still wont change their minds. Thats a much less destructive form of faith however. 



> Now, do I *believe* that those apparent miracles can, in fact, be described by the laws of physics? Yes, I do. But that's an act of faith



You keep using that word, I dont think it means what you think it means.

You should never have to take on faith anything in science. If you arent a physicist and able to directly test and verify equations and understand experiments, then you can tentatively believe based on these people that seem to know what they are doing. But thats not faith either, because you arent going to stubbornly hold onto that that belief if evidence to the contrary is presented later on, which is why you call it "tentative" at all. All my beliefs are tentative subject to change as the evidence demands, religious people simply cannot say that as faith demands they continue to believe and evidence for or against is merely irrelevant. .


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Jun 30, 2009)

> Turbulent flows are, of course, everywhere. But we don't really have the physics to describe them. Does that make them a miracle? Again, depends on what you mean by the term "miracle". Will we ever develop the physics to describe turbulent flows? I believe so because I believe there's an underlying order that describes the phenomenon. We just haven't figured it out yet.



hehe... first of òÜ   ¦®²Ü   ¦®³Ü   ¦®´Ü   ¦®µÜ   ¦®¶Ü   ¦®·Ü   ¦®¸Ü   ¦®¹Ü   ¦®ºÜ   ¦®»Ü   ¦®¼Ü   ¦®½Ü   ¦®¾Ü   ¦®¿Ü   ¦®ÀÜ   ¦®ÁÜ   ¦®ÂÜ   ¦®ÃÜ   ¦®ÄÜ   ¦®ÅÜ   ¦®ÆÜ   ¦®ÇÜ   ¦®ÈÜ   ¦®ÉÜ   ¦®ÊÜ   ¦®ËÜ   ¦®ÌÜ   ¦®ÍÜ   ¦®ÎÜ   ¦®ÏÜ   ¦®ÐÜ   ¦®ÑÜ   ¦®ÒÜ   ¦®ÓÜ   ¦®ÔÜ   ¦®ÕÜ   ¦®ÖÜ   ¦®×Ü   ¦®ØÜ   ¦®ÙÜ   ¦®ÚÜ   ¦®ÛÜ   ¦®ÜÜ   ¦®ÝÜ   ¦®ÞÜ   ¦®ßÜ   ¦®àÜ   ¦®áÜ   ¦®âÜ   ¦®ãÜ   ¦®äÜ   ¦®åÜ   ¦®æÜ   ¦®çÜ   ¦®èÜ   ¦®éÜ   ¦®êÜ   ¦®ëÜ   ¦®ìÜ   ¦®íÜ   ¦®îÜ   ¦®ïÜ   ¦®ðÜ   ¦®ñÜ   ¦®òÜ   ¦®óÜ   ¦®ôÜ   ¦®õÜ   ¦®öÜ   ¦®÷Ü   ¦®øÜ   ¦®ùÜ   ¦®úÜ   ¦®ûÜ   ¦®üÜ


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Jun 30, 2009)

Billval, I'm curious. Which parts do you take as metaphorical, and which do you take literally? And on what basis...


----------



## rgames (Jun 30, 2009)

Christian Marcussen @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> You say you apply your scientific reasoning to your faith as you do to your publications. I doubt that (just as I doubt it for your religious PHD pals - although I believe that you believe it). That is why I ask you about miracles... I guess you dodged the question since you could see where it was heading. But I'll let it stand...
> 
> Do you believe in Biblical miracles? And explain me how you do so, while applying your scientific principles to your faith. And where do you stand on evolution?



Do I believe in virgin births and people rising from the dead and a man parting the waters in a sea? No, but only because I don't have any experience that would hint that these things could happen. I don't have any way to test the validiòä   ¦²0ä   ¦²1ä   ¦²2ä   ¦²3ä   ¦²4ä   ¦²5ä   ¦²6ä   ¦²7ä   ¦²8ä   ¦²9ä   ¦²:ä   ¦²;ä   ¦²<ä   ¦²=å   ¦²>å   ¦²?å   ¦²@å   ¦²Aå   ¦²Bå   ¦²Cå   ¦²Då   ¦²Eå   ¦²Få   ¦²Gå   ¦²Hå   ¦²Iå   ¦²Jå   ¦²Kå   ¦²Lå   ¦²Må   ¦²Nå   ¦²Oå   ¦²På   ¦²Qæ   ¦²Ræ   ¦²Sæ   ¦²Tæ   ¦²Uæ   ¦²Væ   ¦²Wæ   ¦²Xæ   ¦²Yæ   ¦²Zæ   ¦²[æ   ¦²\æ   ¦²]æ   ¦²^æ   ¦²_æ   ¦²`æ   ¦²aç   ¦²bç   ¦²cç   ¦²dç   ¦²eç   ¦²fç   ¦²gç   ¦²hç   ¦²iç   ¦²jç   ¦²kç   ¦²lç   ¦²mç   ¦²nç   ¦²oç   ¦²pç   ¦²qç   ¦²rç   ¦²sç   ¦²tç   ¦²uç   ¦²vç   ¦²wç   ¦²xç   ¦²yç   ¦²zç   ¦²{ç   ¦²|ç   ¦²}ç   ¦²~ç   ¦²ç   ¦²€ç   ¦²ç   ¦²‚ç   ¦²ƒç   ¦²„ç   ¦²…ç   ¦²†ç   ¦²‡ç   ¦²ˆç   ¦²‰ç   ¦²Šç   ¦²‹ç   ¦²Œç   ¦²ç   ¦²Žç   ¦²ç   ¦²ç   ¦²‘ç   ¦²’ç   ¦²“ç   ¦²”ç   ¦²•ç   ¦²–ç   ¦²—ç   ¦²˜ç   ¦²™ç   ¦²šç   ¦²›ç   ¦²œç   ¦²ç   ¦²žç   ¦²Ÿ              òç   ¦²¡ç   ¦²¢ç   ¦²£ç   ¦²¤ç   ¦²¥ç   ¦²¦ç   ¦²§ç   ¦²¨ç   ¦²©ç   ¦²ªç   ¦²«ç   ¦²¬ç   ¦²­ç   ¦²®ç   ¦²¯ç   ¦²°ç   ¦²±ç   ¦²²ç   ¦²³ç   ¦


----------



## billval3 (Jun 30, 2009)

wilx @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> billval3 @ Tue Jun 30 said:
> 
> 
> > You say there is no evidence for an omnipotent, etc. being...what would constitute evidence for you? Besides the universe, that is. :wink: (I'm half kidding.)
> ...



Well people do claim to "hear" from God. Have they literally done so? It's difficult for me to say. Maybe they have. I'm not sure how you would prove it either way. If I sent you a DVD of a mysterious voice coming from a flaming bush saying, "Hi, Wilx...it's me, God." Would you then believe? Of course not, because your presuppositions would tell you that it was a fake.

What I fail to understand is how science disproves the existence of a god. Science starts with the presupposition that there are no "supernatural" forces at work, doesn't it? So science is, a priori, leaving God out of the equation. Isn't that true?

P.S. Which questions do you feel have not been answered? I'm definitely not purposely dodging any. Just trying to give an overall reply without spending hours at the computer not composing!


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Jun 30, 2009)

When I use it, I mean something like the following (taken from online dictionaries):

"Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence"

"(1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) :* firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2)* : complete trust"


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Jun 30, 2009)

> Do I believe in virgin births and people rising from the dead and a man parting the waters in a sea?





> Maybe 1000 years from now the standard Bible will have Darwin in place of the book of Genesis. Why not? Again, for the fourth time, both science and faith require that we re-examine our basic assumptions as new information is obtained.



Ok, sorry - I thought I was debating a Christian 

Surely you must believe in the miracles of Christ?

How do you figure that faith requires you to re-examine basic asumptions? I find that to be a sound, but unfounded religious principle. An openess to removing the genesis account from the Bible seems like a quite radical way of viewing ones religion. It strikes me as pretty uncommon, and borderline non-religious... I reckon you will turn atheist before you vote for the Democrats


----------



## Richard Wilkinson (Jun 30, 2009)

billval3 @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> Well people do claim to "hear" from God. Have they literally done so? It's difficult for me to say. Maybe they have. I'm not sure how you would prove it either way. If I sent you a DVD of a mysterious voice coming from a flaming bush saying, "Hi, Wilx...it's me, God." Would you then believe? Of course not, because your presuppositions would tell you that it was a fake.



Or rather because all you've done is provide evidence that someone with a voice exists. The problem is that God is regarded to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibelevolent. That's what makes the idea of God so implausible - and those are the qualities for which no evidence has ever been presented. So if he popped up, and, knowing exactly what it would take to make me believe in him, did exactly that, then I would therefore believe in him. You can't show me that - you can't even give me a simple recording of his voice - because he isn't real. Prove otherwise!



billval3 @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> What I fail to understand is how science disproves the existence of a god. Science starts with the presupposition that there are no "supernatural" forces at work, doesn't it? So science is, a priori, leaving God out of the equation. Isn't that true?



As I said - the burden of proof is firmly on the believer. Science also starts with the presupposition that everyone with blond hair isn't actually a squirrel controlling an elaborate, animatronic pretend human. Because it would be equally silly to assume this to be true.



billval3 @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> P.S. Which questions do you feel have not been answered? I'm definitely not purposely dodging any. Just trying to give an overall reply without spending hours at the computer not composing!



The list earlier up this page - about what level of sillyness it would take for a religious person not to believe in something.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 30, 2009)

Ed @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> josejherring @ Tue Jun 30 said:
> 
> 
> > Wilx you seem to be equating all religious people as religious nut cakes. I assure you they are not.
> ...



I saw your posting. I didn't respond just because I knew that I wasn't going to convince you of anything and that I really don't want to convincing you of anything.

Look I know that a lot of right wing nutcases seize upon any inconsistent findings to try and prove their point, just as a lot of left wing nutcases try to do the same from their point of view.

If you really want to know my point of view I will tell you. But, it's my point of view only. And, I'm going out of town tomorrow so today is kind of a chill day for me and I have a lot of time now.

For me, and this is only me, the article on the fish shows two things. Firstly I don't think the scientist in the article are getting the full picture. The fish had began to lose ground. Call it de-evolution if you will. They were less capable of surviving in a polluted environment. Adapting less and less to the pollution in the water and losing key survival features like, size and protective spiny ridges and color. Once the toxins were lifted then the fish reverted back to an earlier form that was more survival. The scientist are calling this Backwards Evolution. Good name for it.

Now the wild variable the Darwin left out was the idea of the environment getting so overwhelmingly counter to survival that the species couldn't adapt. Trying to survive in an overly hostile environment the species lost some of it's survival features. Like if all of a sudden earth became radiated from bomb blast it's hard to for me to imagine that our kids would "adapt" to the changing environment. More likely they would just lose ground and eventually die out.

The human footprints are interesting. One set found 3.6 million years ago. Then man's foot went back to being ape like. Then 1.3 million years ago there was another set of footprints found that according to the discovers was a mens size 9 human footprint. Then it takes another million or so years for the foot print to be found again in modern homo sapiens. Now I wasn't there so I don't know if the footprints were human. But if a human trait surfaces, then disappears, then comes up again then goes away again it immediately brings to light in my mind that evolution may not be a straight path. That's all.

Also I know for a fact that Scientist haven't been able to explain the arrival of Homo sapien adequately. According to discoveries most of the other man like speces on this planet evolved over several hundred thousads of years and in some cases millions. The evolution was slow and took a long time and there were just minor changes along the way. The all of a sudden Homo sapien shows up. With art and music and paintings and advanced tools, ect.... In the past one species of man slowing evolved into another. But, in the case of homo sap. we existed for some years right along side another species of man. And there's even some evidence to suggest that homo sapiens were here 400,000 years ago, then gave way to Neanderthal man, then made a reappearnce some time later living with Neanderthal man until neanderthal man went extinct.

Too many variables for me means that a "theory" isn't fully proven or worked out. This theory has had plenty of time to be proven beyond all doubt, but it hasn't been done. So I observe people kind of clinging to it as kind of faith based truth. There is some truth to evolution, but we don't know the whole truth. Nor can we make anything other than a few flowers and fruit flies evolve.

So you can't just look at one set of evidence and say aha! That's it. 

And as for the species that backwards evolved to prehistoric states all I can say is that it was part of a PBS special that I saw as a kid on sea life and it's evolution. Can't recall the name but like I said if I find it I'll post it.

Jose


----------



## José Herring (Jun 30, 2009)

Christian Marcussen @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> I too read your article Jose, and I see nothing at odds with evolution. It's not even like the article suggests a potential gap or controversy.



Not the article. The data does. But, see it as you will. I'm not going to try to change anybody's opinion here on anything.

Gotta go. See you in a few weeks.

Jose


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 30, 2009)

Jose, you talk about there having been lots of time to prove the theory, but what's a lot more relevant to me is that nobody has come up with a more refined theory or one that disproves it.

And there's a very good reason for that: neither exists.


----------



## Ed (Jun 30, 2009)

josejherring @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> I saw your posting. I didn't respond just because I knew that I wasn't going to convince you of anything and that I really don't want to convincing you of anything.



Its not about convincing, you made a claim about evolution that I know is very wrong and not what evolution is at all, so I would like to know just how you have managed to mangle it so badly. 



> For me, and this is only me, the article on the fish shows two things. Firstly I don't think the scientist in the article are getting the full picture. The fish had began to lose ground. Call it de-evolution if you will. They were less capable of surviving in a polluted environment. Adapting less and less to the pollution in the water and losing key survival features like, size and protective spiny ridges and color. Once the toxins were lifted then the fish reverted back to an earlier form that was more survival. The scientist are calling this Backwards Evolution. Good name for it.



But when they say reverse evolution they dont actually MEAN that evolution has gone in reverse. 



> Now the wild variable the Darwin left out was the idea of the environment getting so overwhelmingly counter to survival that the species couldn't adapt. Trying to survive in an overly hostile environment the species lost some of it's survival features. Like if all of a sudden earth became radiated from bomb blast it's hard to for me to imagine that our kids would "adapt" to the changing environment. More likely they would just lose ground and eventually die out.



Some would survive Im sure. Apparently its a myth that cockroaches have radioactive resistence, but they are hardcore little buggers and maybe there could possibly be a significant number that are and so cockroaches would survive. Scorpians apparently are even more hardcore than cockroaches where they can even be frozen solid and when thawed they are fine. Point, is it all depends on if there is a relevant mutation in enough individuals that would allow the species surive. 




> The human footprints are interesting. One set found 3.6 million years ago. Then man's foot went back to being ape like. Then 1.3 million years ago there was another set of footprints found that according to the discovers was a mens size 9 human footprint. Then it takes another million or so years for the foot print to be found again in modern homo sapiens. Now I wasn't there so I don't know if the footprints were human. But if a human trait surfaces, then disappears, then comes up again then goes away again it immediately brings to light in my mind that evolution may not be a straight path. That's all.



I'd like to bring you back to what you claimed before. You said that a scientist actually SAID that this species of human had a size ten footprint, then changed, then evolved back. Where does it say that in the article? Where does it imply anything like that in the article? 

This is a good video that talks about human evolution. I reccomend you watch it before you glance at a scientific article and misunderstand what it is you are reading:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz52ivJgVx8

And this about the new Ida fossil:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri20shBEsls

And this about Creationist claims about the Ida fossil:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rf85dtyt ... re=related



> The all of a sudden Homo sapien shows up.



Not at all true. See above and stop trusting Creationists for information, because make no mistake your misunderstandings sound just like Creationist misunderstandings. 



> Too many variables for me means that a "theory" isn't fully proven or worked out.


No Jose, please. A theory in science is the highest point of investigation. There is no time in the future that Atomic theory will be Atmoic fact no matter how many nukes we set off. There is no time in the future that the theory of aerodyanmics will be called the fact of aerodyanamics no matter how many people fly in planes everyday. Evolution is a fact and theory. A scientific law isnt a higher certainity, its just describing a mathematical representation and is just as able to be as wrong as any theory which is why Einstein replaced Newtons law of Gravity with the theory of Relativity. This _"its only a theory_" is just a stupid ignorent argument. 



> This theory has had plenty of time to be proven beyond all doubt, but it hasn't been done. So I observe people kind of clinging to it as kind of faith based truth. There is some truth to evolution, but we don't know the whole truth. Nor can we make anything other than a few flowers and fruit flies evolve.



Jose you are just ignorent, but I suggest you educate yourself rather than just pretending your faulty impression is correct, 




> And as for the species that backwards evolved to prehistoric states all I can say is that it was part of a PBS special that I saw as a kid on sea life and it's evolution. Can't recall the name but like I said if I find it I'll post it.



Please do because you've misunderstood everything else so far.


----------



## Dave Connor (Jun 30, 2009)

Ed @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> Want to list all the times this Satan character kills people in the Bible? Then want to put that up against a list of when this god character kills or orders killing of people? I wouldnt even be able to finish the latter list because it would go on for pages and pages and pages.



Well give me a few pages - seriously.

You don't think Hitler was _satanic_ i.e. evil? Fifty million dead in his war? You're saying tens of thousands of Christians didn't die because of this man? What, were all the dead Buddhists?

Martin Luther didn't write the Bible and I don't recall referencing him in any way here. It's well known he was an anti-Semite. Blaming Hitler on him is a huge stretch. Hitler was raised Catholic and bailed on that at the first chance. He used religious rhetoric purely for political aims - who doesn't know that? He wasn't taking communion on Sundays he was plotting killing people.

Why isolate the Jewish tribes as being nefarious for fighting their enemies? Why not the Germanic, Gallic, Greek, Roman, Persian etc? They had their gods they were following as well.

If you were God, what would you have advised Israel to do in '67 when several armies were arrayed against them? (you know, like in the old days when Moses faced similar threats.)


----------



## rgames (Jun 30, 2009)

Christian Marcussen @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> It strikes me as pretty uncommon, and borderline non-religious... I reckon you will turn atheist before you vote for the Democrats



Well, you don't get to define what religion is for the rest of the world, now do you?

You're stepping into the nuances of a specific religion when the topic at hand is whether people can rectify their scientific minds with a belief in ANY God, not one associated with a particular religion.

But to humor you and go down this tangent a bit further, you need to separate Jesus the historical figure from Jesus the Divine Being. For a lot of people, the latter is tough (hence skepticism re: the miracles). However, we believe that Jesus' insights, his teachings, and the way he conducted his life are, in fact, "divine". Maybe the virgin birth, resurrection, and other miracles are facts (I can't disprove them) but to me and many others, that doesn't matter. It certainly does for certain types of Christianity, but not all. Again, though, all of that is really beside the point for the discussion here.

FWIW, I also believe that Einstein's insights were divine, as were Beethoven's.

rgames


----------



## billval3 (Jun 30, 2009)

Christian Marcussen @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> > Do I believe in virgin births and people rising from the dead and a man parting the waters in a sea?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ok, sorry - I thought I was debating a Christian 

Surely you must believe in the miracles of Christ?

How do you figure that faith requires you to re-examine basic asumptions? I find that to be a sound, but unfounded religious principle. An openess to removing the genesis accouò%   ¦¾š%   ¦¾›%   ¦¾œ%   ¦¾%   ¦¾ž%   ¦¾Ÿ%   ¦¾ %   ¦¾¡%   ¦¾¢%   ¦¾£%   ¦¾¤%   ¦¾¥%   ¦¾¦%   ¦¾§%   ¦¾¨%   ¦¾©%   ¦¾ª%   ¦¾«%   ¦¾¬%   ¦¾­%   ¦¾®%   ¦¾¯%   ¦¾°%   ¦¾±%   ¦¾²%   ¦¾³%   ¦¾´%   ¦¾µ%   ¦¾¶%   ¦¾·%   ¦¾¸%   ¦¾¹%   ¦¾º%   ¦¾»%   ¦¾¼%   ¦¾½%   ¦¾¾%   ¦¾¿%   ¦¾À%   ¦¾Á%   ¦¾Â%   ¦¾Ã%   ¦¾Ä%   ¦¾Å%   ¦¾Æ%   ¦¾Ç%   ¦¾È%   ¦¾É%   ¦¾Ê%   ¦¾Ë%   ¦¾Ì%   ¦¾Í%   ¦¾Î%   ¦¾Ï%   ¦¾Ð%   ¦¾Ñ%   ¦¾Ò%   ¦¾Ó%   ¦¾Ô%   ¦¾Õ%   ¦¾Ö%   ¦¾×%   ¦¾Ø%   ¦¾Ù%   ¦¾Ú%   ¦¾Û%   ¦¾Ü%   ¦¾Ý%   ¦¾Þ%   ¦¾ß%   ¦¾à%   ¦¾á%   ¦¾â%   ¦¾ã%   ¦¾ä%   ¦¾å%   ¦¾æ%   ¦¾ç%   ¦¾è%   ¦¾é%   ¦¾ê%   ¦¾ë%   ¦¾ì%   ¦¾í%   ¦¾î%   ¦¾ï%   ¦¾ð%   ¦¾ñ%   ¦¾ò%   ¦¾ó%   ¦¾ô%   ¦¾õ%   ¦¾ö%   ¦¾÷%   ¦¾ø%   ¦¾ù%   ¦¾ú%   ¦¾û%   ¦¾ü%   ¦¾ý%   ¦¾þ%   ¦¾ÿ%   ¦¿ %   ¦¿%   ¦¿%   ¦¿%   ¦¿%   ¦¿%   ¦¿%   ¦¿%   ¦¿%   ¦¿	              ò%   ¦¿%   ¦¿%   ¦¿ %   ¦¿%   ¦¿%   ¦¿%   ¦¿%   ¦¿%   ¦¿%   ¦¿%   ¦¿%   ¦¿%   ¦¿&   ¦¿&   ¦¿&   ¦¿&   ¦¿&   ¦¿&   ¦¿&   ¦¿&   ¦¿&   ¦¿ &   ¦¿!&   ¦¿"&   ¦¿#&   ¦¿$&   ¦¿%&   ¦¿&&   ¦¿'&   ¦¿(&   ¦¿)&   ¦¿*&   ¦¿+&   ¦¿,&   ¦¿-&   ¦¿.&   ¦¿/&   ¦¿0&   ¦¿1&   ¦¿2&   ¦¿3&   ¦¿4&   ¦¿5&   ¦¿6&   ¦¿7&   ¦¿8&   ¦¿9&   ¦¿:&   ¦¿;&   ¦¿<&   ¦¿=&   ¦¿>&   ¦¿?&   ¦¿@&   ¦¿A&   ¦¿B&   ¦¿C&   ¦¿D&   ¦¿E&   ¦¿F&   ¦¿G&   ¦¿H


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 30, 2009)

"Interesting, cause I believe in God and cannot stand Maher usually, but on Batzdorf's recommendation I rented the film and thought it was very funny and thought provoking, much better than I would have expected from Maher."

See? Even when we agree, you're wrong.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Jul 1, 2009)

rgames @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> Christian Marcussen @ Tue Jun 30 said:
> 
> 
> > It strikes me as pretty uncommon, and borderline non-religious... I reckon you will turn atheist before you vote for the Democrats
> ...



No - I tend to go by the general definitions. Like for instance being a Christian requires a belief in the divinity of Christ - that he is the son of God... In fact it seems like having me define it for you may help you decide if you actually _are_ one 



> However, we believe that Jesus' insights, his teachings, and the way he conducted his life are, in fact, "divine". Maybe the virgin birth, resurrection, and other miracles are facts (I can't disprove them) but to me and many others, that doesn't matter. It certainly does for certain types of Christianity, but not all. Again,ò§   ¦Úi§   ¦Új§   ¦Úk§   ¦Úl§   ¦Úm§   ¦Ún§   ¦Úo§   ¦Úp§   ¦Úq§   ¦Úr§   ¦Ús§   ¦Út§   ¦Úu§   ¦Úv§   ¦Úw§   ¦Úx§   ¦Úy§   ¦Úz§   ¦Ú{§   ¦Ú|§   ¦Ú}§   ¦Ú~§   ¦Ú§   ¦Ú€§   ¦Ú§   ¦Ú‚§   ¦Úƒ§   ¦Ú„§   ¦Ú…§   ¦Ú†§   ¦Ú‡§   ¦Úˆ§   ¦Ú‰§   ¦ÚŠ§   ¦Ú‹§   ¦ÚŒ§   ¦Ú§   ¦ÚŽ§   ¦Ú§   ¦Ú§   ¦Ú‘§   ¦Ú’§   ¦Ú“§   ¦Ú”§   ¦Ú•§   ¦Ú–§   ¦Ú—§   ¦Ú˜§   ¦Ú™§   ¦Úš§   ¦Ú›§   ¦Úœ§   ¦Ú§   ¦Úž§   ¦ÚŸ§   ¦Ú §   ¦Ú¡§   ¦Ú¢§   ¦Ú£§   ¦Ú¤§   ¦Ú¥§   ¦Ú¦§   ¦Ú§§   ¦Ú¨§   ¦Ú©§   ¦Úª§   ¦Ú«§   ¦Ú¬§   ¦Ú­§   ¦Ú®§   ¦Ú¯§   ¦Ú°§   ¦Ú±§   ¦Ú²§   ¦Ú³§   ¦Ú´§   ¦Úµ§   ¦Ú¶§   ¦Ú·§   ¦Ú¸§   ¦Ú¹§   ¦Úº§   ¦Ú»§   ¦Ú¼§   ¦Ú½§   ¦Ú¾§   ¦Ú¿§   ¦ÚÀ§   ¦ÚÁ§   ¦ÚÂ§   ¦ÚÃ§   ¦ÚÄ§   ¦ÚÅ§   ¦ÚÆ§   ¦ÚÇ§   ¦ÚÈ§   ¦ÚÉ§   ¦ÚÊ§   ¦ÚË§   ¦ÚÌ§   ¦ÚÍ§   ¦ÚÎ§   ¦ÚÏ§   ¦ÚÐ§   ¦ÚÑ§   ¦ÚÒ§   ¦ÚÓ§   ¦ÚÔ§   ¦ÚÕ§   ¦ÚÖ§   ¦Ú×§   ¦ÚØ              ò§   ¦ÚÚ§   ¦ÚÛ§   ¦ÚÜ§   ¦ÚÝ§   ¦ÚÞ§   ¦Úß§   ¦Úà§   ¦Úá§   ¦Úâ§   ¦Úã§   ¦Úä§   ¦Úå§   ¦Úæ§   ¦Úç§   ¦Úè§   ¦Úé§   ¦Úê§   ¦Úë§   ¦Úì§   ¦Úí§   ¦Úî§   ¦Úï§   ¦Úð§   ¦Úñ§   ¦Úò§   ¦Úó§   ¦Úô§   ¦Úõ§   ¦Úö§   ¦Ú÷§   ¦Úø§   ¦Úù§   ¦Úú§   ¦Úû§   ¦Úü§   ¦Úý§   ¦Úþ§   ¦Úÿ§   ¦Û §   ¦Û§   ¦Û§   ¦Û§   ¦Û§   ¦Û§   ¦Û§   ¦Û§   ¦Û§   ¦Û	§   ¦Û
> §   ¦Û§   ¦Û§   ¦Û §   ¦Û§   ¦Û§   ¦Û§   ¦Û§   ¦Û§   ¦Û§   ¦Û§   ¦Û§   ¦Û§   ¦Û§   ¦Û§   ¦Û§   ¦Û§   ¦Û§   ¦Û§   ¦Û§   ¦Û§   ¦Û§   ¦Û §   ¦Û!§   ¦Û"§   ¦Û#§   ¦Û$§   ¦Û%§   ¦Û&§   ¦Û'§   ¦Û(§   ¦Û)§   ¦Û*§   ¦Û+§   ¦Û,§   ¦Û-§   ¦Û.§   ¦Û/§   ¦Û0§   ¦Û1§   ¦Û2§   ¦Û3§   ¦Û4§   ¦Û5§   ¦Û6§   ¦Û7§   ¦Û8§   ¦Û9§   ¦Û:§   ¦Û;§   ¦Û<§   ¦Û=§   ¦Û>§   ¦Û?§   ¦Û@§   ¦ÛA§   ¦ÛB§   ¦ÛC§   ¦ÛD§   ¦ÛE§   ¦ÛF§   ¦ÛG§   ¦ÛH§   ¦ÛI              ò§   ¦Û¹§   ¦Ü §   ¦Ü¡¨   ¦ÛJ¨   ¦ÛK¨   ¦


----------



## Dave Connor (Jul 1, 2009)

Christian Marcussen @ Wed Jul 01 said:


> I have had this debate with many of my friends actually. They call themselves Christian, yet one of them for instance believes in re-incarnation. I mean, this goes completely against the central idea of Christianity in a way that it's not Christianity.



Actually re-incarnation (for lack of a better term) is a fundamental principle that is central to both Jewish and Christian teaching. Christ spoke more about it than any other figure in the New Testament. Some Christians don't believe in it but it's in the book in crystal clear terms. 

Fact is there are numerous Christian doctrines which omit various aspects of Biblical teaching. Usually whenever there's been a rift in the church it's because someone embraces a truth in the scriptures and someone else says "I don't believe that."


----------



## billval3 (Jul 1, 2009)

Christian Marcussen @ Wed Jul 01 said:


> rgames @ Tue Jun 30 said:
> 
> 
> > Christian Marcussen @ Tue Jun 30 said:
> ...



I would say that a Christian is someone who follows the way of Christ...literally, a Christ-follower.

I don't agree with you that "religious" scientists are "shutting off the scientific mindset when it is convenient to do so." They are saying that some things lie beyond the scope of modern science. Obviously, you disagree.

To believe in the miraculous does not necessitate a rejection of scientific speculation. I think we simply could define a miracle as something that someone is unable to explain....something, perhaps, that seems to defy explanation. That doesn't mean no explanation is possible.

I don't see any reason why we could not speculate that there is some higher power who (which) is able to cause things to happen in ways that are difficult or impossible to explain. Of course, one cannot use the argument that something is simply a "miracle" if a scientific inquiry is called for. I think this is what you're arguing against.


----------



## billval3 (Jul 1, 2009)

By the way, I think an awful lot of Christians themselves are confused about just what it means to be one. Tradition and myopic philosophical views have replaced a more rigorous identification of what it means to follow Christ in a multiplicity of cultures and situations.

And another by the way...

I hope no one gets the impression I'm trying to proselytize anyone. I just feel the need to even out this discussion a bit. Believe me, I have my own misgivings about Christianity in general. I just hate to see one side of an argument misrepresented too much!


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Jul 1, 2009)

Dave Connor @ Wed Jul 01 said:


> Christian Marcussen @ Wed Jul 01 said:
> 
> 
> > I have had this debate with many of my friends actually. They call themselves Christian, yet one of them for instance believes in re-incarnation. I mean, this goes completely against the central idea of Christianity in a way that it's not Christianity.
> ...



Some Christians don't belive it... most Christians I would say? It's simply not part of traditional Christian doctrine - at least not in the Budist form that my "Christian" friend subscribes to 

Would you really call it a findematal principle central to Christian teaching? I have never heard anyone call it that before... Could you tell me where I can read more about it?


----------



## billval3 (Jul 1, 2009)

Christian Marcussen @ Wed Jul 01 said:


> Dave Connor @ Wed Jul 01 said:
> 
> 
> > Christian Marcussen @ Wed Jul 01 said:
> ...



Fundamental? I don't like that word. :wink: 

I'm curious...was it you that said something about having studied philosophy somewhere in this thread? Would you say that you are a a proponent of modernism as opposed to post-modernism?


----------



## Dave Connor (Jul 1, 2009)

Christian Marcussen @ Wed Jul 01 said:


> Would you really call it a findematal principle central to Christian teaching? I have never heard anyone call it that before... Could you tell me where I can read more about it?



The last Chapter of the last book of the Old Testament (Malachi.) There is the famous prophecy of Elijah returning to the Earth. This notion that Elijah would precede the coming Messiah is so central to Jewish thought that the religious leaders discounted Christ as being the Messiah on that point alone. _How can you be the Messiah if Elijah has not yet returned?_ To which Christ replied, _He himself *is* Elijah_ in reference to John The Baptist.

So yes, very fundamental (foundational) to both faiths. Consider that most Christians believe that Christ is going to _return_ so why they would think someone else showing up is weird I couldn't say. The disciple John is also clearly identified as coming back.

Not really comfortable quoting scriptures in this thread but reincarnation is sort of cool so I hope no one is offended. I hope not any way. Preachy Christians are annoying to everyone I imagine and I don't mean to do that.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Jul 1, 2009)

> Fundamental? I don't like that word.
> 
> I'm curious...was it you that said something about having studied philosophy somewhere in this thread? Would you say that you are a a proponent of modernism as opposed to post-modernism?



I used the word fundemental because it was the word used by Dave.

Regarding modermism and post-modernism: My views on this are splitted, and pretty complex as I often find myself torn between them. I would rather not commit to fully to either of the two... but with a gun to my head I would say modernism yes. But for some fields of study, such as communications (my other field) I find some post modern ideas to be helpful in uncovering certain aspects of human understanding and how they come to be. But I would rather not debate it in this thread 

[EDIT] Dave, thanks. It's not quite re-incarnation in the sense I meant it, but I get what you are saying.


----------



## Dave Connor (Jul 1, 2009)

True Christian, I was not referring to _Samsara - Transmigration_ in the Buddhist sense. I think most westerners think of reincarnation as a human spirit having a number of incarnations as different people (like Hollywood movies portray it.) George Patton was convinced he had several lives as a warrior over the centuries. I meant that kind of thing.


----------



## billval3 (Jul 1, 2009)

Christian Marcussen @ Wed Jul 01 said:


> > Fundamental? I don't like that word.
> >
> > I'm curious...was it you that said something about having studied philosophy somewhere in this thread? Would you say that you are a a proponent of modernism as opposed to post-modernism?
> 
> ...



Yeah, I was kind of thinking we don't want to go there as well. Especially, given the fact that I barely know what I'm talking about when it comes to philosophy! 8) 

I don't know if there's much more to belabor, but I just want to say that it's not so easy to just say ___________________ is what Christianity is all about. You have all sorts of traditions, some of which (as Dave pointed out) have been forced out of the spotlight, so to speak. Usually by force and not always with the kind of spirit that I think Jesus himself would embrace. I suspect the same could be said of Islam or other religions. I'm only talking about Christianity because it's the one that I actually know something about! 

In any case, I think that regardless of all of these finer points, your main arguments against religion in general would remain the same.


----------

