Religion...Bitch slapped... by kaneman

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I said that religions COULD be internally consistent. I didn't say that this particular religion was.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 7:59 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"what do you make of the fact that some of them (religions) perform so well transculturally?"

1) The social dynamics that caused them to be formed are still around today. 2) Religions evolve with society. 3) Monotheistic religions have a survival advantage over polytheistic ones.

added:

1) As society went from nomadic gatherers to settled farmers, religions went from goddess and nature worship to monotheistic male-god centered. This major transition is when many of the world's great religions were formed.

2) Religions don't exist outside of society. They are intentionally fostered and maintained by the power elite who have an active interest in keeping them socially viable. In addition you have sects forming to deal with social changes when the religion fails to be adapted. So Catholicism, which was so well melded with feudal society, birthed 'Protestantism' which addressed the rise of Capitalism.

3) It's far easier to go from believing in many gods to one god, than from one god to many.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 8:25 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I think it's interesting that monotheism tends to develop at about the same time as centralized governments. In general, religions tended to follow social development: multiple natural gods for hunting and gathering societies, polytheism for tribal societies in contact with each other, goddesses in matriarchies, and monotheism when tribes are consolidated under a central government. There are all sorts of transitional forms, and the replacement of one religion by another is even encapsulated as myths of warring gods.

...And I see I x-posted with Rue's addendum, saying basically the same thing. Rue has studied religions more than I. And I... I think I've picked on Anti too much and I've had enough yakking about religion to last me for a few days.

Carry on...

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 9:00 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And I... I think I've picked on Anti too much and I've had enough yakking about religion to last me for a few days.

How about communism?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 9:21 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Oh, OK. As I understand it, Engels, Marx, and Lenin saw "the State" as inevitably imposing an unfair power structure on workers, hence the famous quote about the state withering away under communism. I suppose in a sense you could say that Marx, Lenin, and Engels were some form of anarchist.

The proletariat seizes state power, and then transforms the means of production into state property. But in doing this, it puts an end to itself as the proletariat, it puts an end to all class differences and class antagonisms, it puts an end also to the state as the state. Former society, moving in class antagonisms, had need of the state, that is, an organisation of the exploiting class at each period for the maintenance of its external conditions of production; therefore, in particular, for the forcible holding down of the exploited class in the conditions of oppression (slavery, bondage or serfdom, wagelabour) determined by the existing mode of production. The state was the official representative of society as a whole, its embodiment in a visible corporate body; but it was this only in so far as it was the state of that class which itself in its epoch, represented society as a whole: in ancient times, the state of the slaveowning citizens; in the Middle Ages, of the feudal nobility; in our epoch, of the bourgeoisie. When ultimately it becomes really representative of society as a whole, it makes itself superfluous. As soon as there is no longer any class of society to be held in subjection; as soon as, along with class domination and the struggle for individual existence based on the former anarchy of production, the collisions and excesses arising from these have also been abolished, there is nothing more to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a state, is no longer necessary www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/lenin-staterev.html

There was to be some form of proletarian state as a transition to communism but the extended existance of Statism as practiced by the USSR, China, and Cuba, was not anticipated by the theory of communism. Although I suppose it should have been.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 9:57 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

So 'pure' communism is not achieveable, much like 'pure' capitalism. Us humans always find a way to muck things up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 9:59 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

My understanding was that communism would be a product of evolution, not revolution. The countries cited above tried to instill it rather than wait for it to appear.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 11:17 AM

Dude! Great work! You have started another classic intellectual food fight. I bet your just sitting back and watching the fur fly huh. I'm not touching this one, I'm on the fence and people on fences get rocks thrown at them from both sides.

If you're not on Malbadinlatin's side, you're with the terrorists.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 11:22 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:

If you're not on Malbadinlatin's side, you're with the terrorists.

*lurkin' on the fence with MBIL*

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 11:50 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:
Dude! Great work! You have started another classic intellectual food fight.

Where ? Where's the fight ? How do I join ?

***************************************************************
Space cowboy or space cadet ? Too hard to tell at this time, sir.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 3:00 PM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:
Dude! Great work! You have started another classic intellectual food fight. I bet your just sitting back and watching the fur fly huh. I'm not touching this one, I'm on the fence and people on fences get rocks thrown at them from both sides.

If you're not on Malbadinlatin's side, you're with the terrorists.

Just posted a link to a documentary I enjoyed is all. That the retards bash each other is not MY fault....Well, I do giggle a bit....Well, it's true.........

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 6:15 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

I don’t think it is possible to say that Monotheism developed with centralized governments. Monotheistic religions have been around for a very long time. Most of them have roots in the Bronze Age. Abrahamic monotheism developed largely among quasi-nomadic Semitic peoples during the late Bronze Age. All the major monotheistic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) laid their philosophical roots in the first millennia BC, at a time when political entities were largely loosely aligned city-states. I think it is true that monotheism developed from a greater awareness and contemplation of the human condition. Religious leaders begin to develop a much more human-centric approach to philosophy then was true of earlier polytheistic beliefs. I’m not sure why exactly the one-god philosophy is more conducive to this kind of thinking then polytheism, but polytheistic religions tend to be very chaotic and independent of the human condition.

Also I’m not sure why Catholicism would be thought of as “so well melded with [[]feudalism[]],” as opposed to Protestantism. The political framework of Catholicism was, and remains to this day, nearly identical to that laid down by the Roman government, which was not feudal. And to the extent that feudalism is a very decentralized form of government, Protestantism certainly suits that much better then Catholicism. A better argument might bet that centuries of feudalism had eroded the authority of Catholicism. I’m not sure if that is true, but it certainly makes more sense.

And whether religion exists outside of “society,” depends a lot on what is meant by “society.” If society is a reference to the “power elite,” then I would definitely say that religion is much larger. People hold religious beliefs regardless of whether the elite does or not. Saying that religion doesn’t exist outside of society is like saying language doesn’t exist outside of society.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 27, 2007 3:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
No Finn. I know plenty of religous people. The problem I have with Anti is that his/her head is a snakes nest of contradictions.

Also, I'd be curious to know what constitutes a contradiction of this type, if you don't mind sharing.

While I will concede that of late it seems there's been a fair bit of willful misinterpretation of Anti's words; I would like to point out that I found this exchange very frustrating:

Quote:
originally posted by anti.

Quote:
originally posted by FREDGIBLET
First, not nearly as many or as mixed up as would have resulted from a flood of minor proportions much less the catastrophic forces present in a flood of Noahchian magnitude.

Second, I'd love for you to actually demonstrate the ability of a flood of the violence necessitated by the Noahchian Deluge to make the ordered strata that we see.

can i use this as an example of the hypocracy of darwinian evolutionists? so a global flood, a 'seemingly' random event, cant create ordered sedimentary levels.. but complete disorder, chaos, and randomness created all the intricate design of the universe(and its infinite complexities)?

Which I replied with..."Actually, there's several methods where we see 'nature' impose order on chaos. If you'd like to see an example, take some sugar and mix it in water do so until there's persistently some sugar on the bottom; add another... 5 tablespoons of sugar. Heat the water in a microwave; stir in as much sugar as you can while it is still near a boil; decant off about half the liquid, and try to avoid getting any sugar crystals in the new glass (which should be -very- clean, ideally, clean it with distilled water). Let it cool to room temperature... then drop in a single grain of sugar. Check back in a bit, and you should have some nice, organized crystalline structures.

You forget that there's an 'ordering' process to offset the randomizing/chaos factor; in the case of evolution, it is natural selection."

Which anti 'happens' to not respond. I'm sorry, but claiming 'hypocrisy' for the science side, then failing to provide any scientific rational for the stratification is extremely irksome. I'd even have accepted 'God did it to confuse the scientists', I could even provide some come back. So, I'm still waiting for the explanation of what mechanism is proposed that would cause the stratification of the sediments after the Noah's Ark's flood. Until something rational is provided I'm rather in concurrence that Anti's logic is reasonably classifiable as 'snake's nest'.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 27, 2007 3:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
I'd just like to point out two factual inaccuracies in the video:

1) Jesus wasn't born on December 25th. As a matter of fact, Christian religious texts don't say when he was born. The nascent Catholic church began celebrating his birth on December 25th in an effort to co-opt the Saturnalia festival (which, among other things, was observed by the giving of gifts and decorating the home with greenery). But Christian sacred text don't say when Jesus was born.

2) Christian sacred texts don't say how many magi visited Jesus. Church tradition has it that there were three (and it's always portrayed as three) but not because the Christian sacred texts say so.

I say this only to point out that if the maker of the video had taken an intro to world religions course he would have known that, because that's where I got my data. So might I suggest taking the video with a grain of salt.

I don't know about religion 101; but I know this was covered in my Catholic High School religion classes. What Causal says.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 27, 2007 3:45 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

The evolution of religions is fairly well documented, though uneven. The Egyptians exprimented with monotheism after a history of singular rule. The Greeks, orignally a cluster of small independent city-states developed Zeus into the 'king' god over the other gods (all gods are equal but some are more equal than others !) as major centers developed. The Romans followed with Jove/ Jupiter as their 'king' god, and also extended central rule.

Catholicism taught that as there was order (hierarchy) in heaven so on earth. And everyone was to do their part in their alloted role. The church preached against individual and especially monetary benefit and so didn't provide a meaningful role for new merchants and incipient capitalists.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 27, 2007 5:49 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Historically, monotheism emerged gradually out of henotheistic and panentheistic notions from the Late Bronze Age, notably with pharaoh Akhenaten's Atenism.

Most mainstream Old Testament scholars believe that the religion of the early Israelites was neither monotheistic nor polytheistic but “monolatrous.” While the existence of other gods was not denied, Israel was to worship no god but Yahweh. In virtue of the Mosaic covenant, Yahweh became the “confederate god” of Israel, and they become his people (Meek: 215). http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/monotheism/

Some scholars have suggested that Zoroastrianism was where the first prophet of a monotheistic faith arose[1], claiming Zoroastrianism as being "the oldest of the revealed credal religions, which has probably had more influence on mankind directly or indirectly, more than any other faith".[2]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 27, 2007 6:15 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Leadb- I tried pretty hard to get Anti to walk towards that conundrum but... no go.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 28, 2007 4:37 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

The idea of one god being more equal then others goes back far further then the Greeks. In fact it goes back to at least the Bronze Age. Once again the Hebrews in the Bronze Age did not have a centralized authority, but still held a monotheistic type of belief, particularly one in which a ‘king’ god was supreme to all others, in such a way that all other gods were viewed as undeserving of worship or nonexistent. An extent of monotheism far greater then the Roman Capitaline or Greek polytheism, but held much earlier by a quasi-nomadic people. Most cultures throughout history have probably had some degree of monotheistic tendency. Even many of the very primitive animist beliefs probably held one or a few aspect(s) of nature supreme to all others. The Native American cultures represent a snapshot of some of the most primitive religious beliefs, and even they held the notion of a supreme creator. So the idea of a “king” god is not really something the Greeks came up with.

But the formation of the monotheistic religions began in the first Millennia BC. In the first Millennia city-states were common, but central-authorities were weak. Dictatorial leadership was exchanged for councils, leading to new forms of government like the Roman Republic or the Greek Democracies or the Punic Judges. This lead to a high degree of intellectual liberty where ideas could be easily exchanged between networks of city-states, but could not be easily suppressed by weak imperial rule. It is from this period that almost all of the world’s major religions developed. It was not central-authority that created monotheistic religions, but a growing grasp of humanism and reasoning.

And Protestants also believed in order to heaven and earth, and the dangers of greed or wealth and charity for the poor and sick or sacrifice to the church are central philosophies in almost all Christian beliefs including Protestantism. Many Protestant Churches were outright communist, living on agrarian communes and completely abstaining monetary gain. And Catholics were not all monks and priests. Northern Italy has always been Catholic, but the renaissance began there with cities like Pisa, Genoa and Venice developing large mercantile class to become Capitalist centers.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 28, 2007 5:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:
You have started another classic intellectual food fight.

Quote:
Where ? Where's the fight ? How do I join ?

WWHOOOOOSSSSSSSHHHHH SPLAT!!!!!!(one half of Malbad's leftover Taco bell burrito just landed on the side of RUE's head and bounced off, followed by a few hot sauce packets) The food fight is right here! Defend yourself!

If you're not on Malbadinlatin's side, you're with the terrorists.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 28, 2007 5:35 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

FINN: It's always good to have a historian onboard. My hypothesis needs more work!

MBIL: HEY! I just got splattered with hot sauce! Here- have a carton of milk! WHHOOOOSH!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 28, 2007 5:41 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Taco Bell ! Oh yuuuck. Take a Burger King dripping with special sauce on the forehead !

Quote:
Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:
WWHOOOOOSSSSSSSHHHHH SPLAT!!!!!!(one half of Malbad's leftover Taco bell burrito just landed on the side of RUE's head and bounced off, followed by a few hot sauce packets) The food fight is right here! Defend yourself!

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 28, 2007 5:50 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn,

I'll have to post an extended response later.

"particularly one in which a ‘king’ god was supreme to all others" I did want to point out that the OT creation myths do have indications that a newer form of male/ monotheisic belief was overlaid over an older polytheistic one.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 28, 2007 7:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
MBIL: HEY! I just got splattered with hot sauce! Here- have a carton of milk! WHHOOOOSH!

Quote:
Originally posted by Rue: Taco Bell ! Oh yuuuck. Take a Burger King dripping with special sauce on the forehead!

Gang up on me huh! (Mal stands up with special sauce and milk streaming down his face) Eat blueberry death!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(Mal starts rapid firing fresh blueberries at Rue and Sig, pinning them both down with murderous blue berry fire)

If you're not on Malbadinlatin's side, you're with the terrorists.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 28, 2007 8:25 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Yes, I cooked up some mashed potatoes to put the cheese whiz on ... scoops up blueberries - here - for the whipped cream -

MMMMMMMmmmmmmm ... BLuuuuuuuuuuue berries ...

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 28, 2007 9:04 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

AH! AH! AH! Blueberry stains everywhere! THHHHWAAAP! THHHWAAAP! Incoming burger! SPLAAAT!

Siggy... runs for cover and emerges with.... Reddi-wip! ... Cheese Whiz!

SKRRRSSSSSSSSSS.............

I may not get you, but I don't care!

sits down in a pile of blueberries and fries and sucks up more nitrous

Want some?

giggle

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 28, 2007 9:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Siggy... runs for cover and emerges with.... Reddi-wip! ... Cheese Whiz!SKRRRSSSSSSSSSS.............
I may not get you, but I don't care!
sits down in a pile of blueberries and fries and sucks up more nitrous
Want some?
giggle

(Mal jumps out dressed like Rambo....sees Sig and his scowl begins to fade into a childish smile, he takes off his ammo belt filled with babycarrots, drops his handfull of potato salad, the with a childish voice says) Cheeeeeese Whiz sweet! (Sit's down cross legged in front of Sig) Got any more of that?

If you're not on Malbadinlatin's side, you're with the terrorists.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 28, 2007 9:51 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Siggy waits till MBIL gets closer, then whips out the Cheese Whiz takes aim at MBIL and says....
Select to view spoiler:
SURE! HAVE SOME!

---------------------------------
I'm on MAL'S side!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 28, 2007 10:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm on MAL'S side!

Awwww, That's super!!!!

Watch out though...Rue is still out there.......somewhere......she can be very dangerous.....Like those Japanese soldiers on those islands who didn't know the war was over....(Mal scans in all directions with furrowed brow) If we drop our guard it may embolden Rue. She may be off developing foods of mass destruction in some mobile lab....just be careful Sig!

If you're not on Malbadinlatin's side, you're with the terrorists.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 28, 2007 11:20 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

She may be off developing foods of mass destruction in some mobile lab ... Yes, I cooked up some mashed potatoes to put the cheese whiz on ... scoops up blueberries - here - for the whipped cream -

MMMMMMMmmmmmmm ... BLuuuuuuuuuuue berries ...

and, uhhh - that potato salad looks kinda good - I really like those scallions - care to throw - I mean TOSS some over my way ... shame to waste it in a food fight ... :looks wistful: ...

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 28, 2007 1:20 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

mmm... want some whipped cream on those bluebs? How 'bout Cheese Whiz on the 'tato salad?

I'll get the wine and the beer!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 28, 2007 2:12 PM

KANEMAN

Shouldn't you idiots be doing this in a thread that has GUYWHOWANTSAFIREFLYOFHISOWN or fucking Penguin in it?
*hides head*

Seriously........

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 2:23 PM

ANTIMASON

well it appears that this thread has finally died down.. i dont have much more to say, i think my position was clarified pretty well by Finn and Casual(thanks guys), so there is not much more to really add.

i would like to comment on the origin of a centralized government, or monarchy, specifically among the Israelites. initially, the 'laws' established by God were sufficient to govern the Israelite communities internally, and when necessary priests were used to settle disputes. the reason i bring this up is that earlier in the thread, i made the assertion that anarchy could only succeed if people were guided by a common(consistant)acceptance of transcendent moral absolutes, understood to be held accountable by our Creator(eternally). this, according to the bible, was Gods intention, but the Israelites asked for a king 'as the other nations' had, and so it began...

i found this portion of scripture to be very insightful, and especially foretelling, of the nature of governments and the elite who run them

1 Samual 8:1-22

Quote:

8:1
When Samuel became old, he made his sons judges over Israel...

8:4
Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah,

8:5
and said to him, "Behold, you are old and your sons do not walk in your ways; now appoint for us a king to govern us like all the nations."

8:6
But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, "Give us a king to govern us." And Samuel prayed to the LORD.

8:7
And the LORD said to Samuel, "Hearken to the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them.

8:8
According to all the deeds which they have done to me, from the day I brought them up out of Egypt even to this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are also doing to you.

8:9
Now then, hearken to their voice; only, you shall solemnly warn them, and show them the ways of the king who shall reign over them."

8:10
So Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking a king from him.

8:11
He said, "These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen, and to run before his chariots;

8:12
and he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots.

8:13
He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers.

8:14
He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants.

8:15
He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants.

8:16
He will take your menservants and maidservants, and the best of your cattle and your asses, and put them to his work.

8:17
He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves.

8:18
And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves; but the LORD will not answer you in that day."

8:19
But the people refused to listen to the voice of Samuel; and they said, "No! but we will have a king over us,

8:20
that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may govern us and go out before us and fight our battles."

8:21
And when Samuel had heard all the words of the people, he repeated them in the ears of the LORD.

8:22
And the LORD said to Samuel, "Hearken to their voice, and make them a king."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 3:17 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Finn and Causal defended you but did not in the least "clarify" your position, which has waffled from some sort of vague deist "God is behind it all" to "I believe in the Creation and The Flood" to "I don't doubt the basic sciences". All you did was hide behind them in silence, and frankly I don't think you can clarify your point because you have not resolved it in your own mind.

Until you're willing to put some thought into the discussion don't expect much from me.

Happy Bible-thumping.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 4:51 PM

ANTIMASON

i do know what i believe, and thats what the bible says. quote me specifically, and ill resolve any contradictions. my guess is that as someone said above, anyone with a religious belief will appear contradictive to you, because you believe it took billions of years for life to originate(on its own, nevertheless). ive stated my skepticism towards abio-genesis and spontaneous generation, and you disagree; thats fine. atleast i precede each of my comments by saying 'i believe', as in 'this is what i personally think to be true'. i believe the bible. im not pretending that everything i say is correct, but if i knew i was misinformed or inconsistent i would change. i know you believe in your head that you have it figured out better then the rest of us, but i promise youre yet to learn otherwise(as well). but until we die, and we know for sure, im going to believe that their is a purpose behind everything. you think this happened by accident, right? i dont. so lets leave it at that

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 8:18 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

See, this is where yu get kinda... fuzzy. You don't believe in abiogenesis. OK I got that, but the discussion was not about abiogenesis but about evolution. You said that you don't believe in evolution. You also said that you believe the basic sciences. From my viewpoint that's a big split because the "basic" sciences (chemistry, physics, geology... none at all related to biology) all point to an ancient earth and fossils. You can't believe both. And at one point or another you're going to have to dump science completely in favor of the Bible. The only thing that keeps you from reaching that point is your refusal to look at evidence and apply "basic" scientific principles, or learn just a little bit about the science you claim to trust.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 8:46 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Just to play the Devil's, or as it were, God's Advocate Signy, I belive 100% in Science's ability and history of digging up fossils that we've dated as millions of years old. I don't buy Evolution though, although I won't discount it either. It could very well have happened and it could also very well have been the means in which we were "created". Perhaps Earth has been one great experiment that only took 6 days in God's eyes.

I also believe that if there is a God, he could have put all of that there 6,000 or so years ago and he's laughing at us now, struggling so hard to put together the pieces of the 'verses largest scale prank in history.

Truth is, nobody knows, and Science could never prove that theory as absolute truth or absolute bunk. From what I hear from the Science types, it wouldn't even try to.

Just one of the many theories I've imagined in my mind over the years. I won't ever pretend to have these answers. We'll all find out when we're dead. I hope if there is a God, he's been misunderstood and he's a whole lot more forgiving than we've been lead to believe. I know I'm no angel.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 30, 2007 3:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Just to play the Devil's, or as it were, God's Advocate Signy, I belive 100% in Science's ability and history of digging up fossils that we've dated as millions of years old. I don't buy Evolution though, although I won't discount it either. It could very well have happened and it could also very well have been the means in which we were "created". Perhaps Earth has been one great experiment that only took 6 days in God's eyes.

I also believe that if there is a God, he could have put all of that there 6,000 or so years ago and he's laughing at us now, struggling so hard to put together the pieces of the 'verses largest scale prank in history.

Truth is, nobody knows, and Science could never prove that theory as absolute truth or absolute bunk. From what I hear from the Science types, it wouldn't even try to.

Just one of the many theories I've imagined in my mind over the years. I won't ever pretend to have these answers. We'll all find out when we're dead. I hope if there is a God, he's been misunderstood and he's a whole lot more forgiving than we've been lead to believe. I know I'm no angel.

First, the 'only took 6 days in God's eyes' is fine, but a non-literal reading of the Bible. And that's cool, many church's go along with that. Such a position would be one that certain parts of the bible, besides obvious 'stories' being told by Christ or other figures, may also be allegorical. Keep in mind, there are some who say the 6 days means 6 24 hour periods. If I remember correctly, Anti is willing to concede an age of the planet beyond 10,000 years (if you were trying to defend Anti's position and had not caught that).

When you propose a position like 'I also believe that if there is a God, he could have put all of that there 6,000 or so years ago', you start getting into theological discussions; always an interesting topic, but you have to be careful you understand the theological implications. Such a position posits a deceptive, 'tricky' God. Why would God want to cause strife by 'fooling' us with such things; and then care that he succeeded in fooling us? And then he's going to send us to Hell because we 'fell' for his trick? You may be willing to posit such a God, and include it in your theological position, but I would not be a willing practitioner of your proposed religion.

Keep in mind that one of the more contentious parts of this debate has not been about theological concerns, but instead simple definitions of science. For instance, as Sygny has pointed out, Anti has both claimed he accepts fundamental science as valid; yet denies evolution; denies the fossil record that supports it as ancient (less than 10,000 years old), maintaining it was laid down during the flood of Noah's ark, he maintains that the stratification/layering we see 'just happened', and refuses to suggest what the mechanism is that caused it to lay down in such a pattern. We never even got to what, in his opinion, would be the mechanism by which the layers solidify into sedimentary rock, because science provides no mechanism for this to happen without the correct temperatures and pressures, which simply won't happen to layered sediment just sitting there from a flood.

He does not accept the recrystallization of materials after reheating during volcanic actions, which allows us to use decay of radioactive isotopes to date things, this denies some very fundamental chemistry and physics, which if you extend back into what are some 'daily science' use, like making sugar crystals from supersaturated fluids, causes some important inconsistencies with 'basic science'. (Ok, maybe 'rock candy' isn't part of your daily diet, but I'm hoping you get the picture.)

Basically, Anti really ought to give up "I don't doubt the basic sciences" because he does; he just doesn't realize it yet.

For the record, I generally enjoy debating Causal on these issues; his positions are clear and self consistent. If he took positions like the above, and I pointed out some of these inconsistencies, I would expect him to assess and explain. To date, he's always been able to do that. Anti, on the other hand, generally fails to do so, and I've rather hit my frustration point with him. In his most recent post he says "i do know what i believe, and thats what the bible says."; that is a point I accept and in a way does explain all of his positions, except perhaps "I don't doubt the basic sciences"

{{Edit 10 minutes later to clarify a few things, and fix a couple typos }}

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 30, 2007 6:17 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

I have to say, LeadB, that yours is one of the most intelligent and well thought out posts that I've read in this forum so far. I only wish it was on a topic that I could really sink my teeth into and had a firm grasp on.

The truth is, I don't know there is a god anymore than I know there isn't a god, and I have equal distain for people who are blindly on one side or another. I wish them no offense and, I hope them none on me, but anybody here who's absolutely sure about anything that happened before their born, in my eyes, is a close-minded idiot.

And yes, I don't know Einstein's belifs on God, but if he were an Atheist, I would think him a close minded idiot too.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 30, 2007 7:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I have to say, LeadB, that yours is one of the most intelligent and well thought out posts that I've read in this forum so far. I only wish it was on a topic that I could really sink my teeth into and had a firm grasp on.

The truth is, I don't know there is a god anymore than I know there isn't a god, and I have equal distain for people who are blindly on one side or another. I wish them no offense and, I hope them none on me, but anybody here who's absolutely sure about anything that happened before their born, in my eyes, is a close-minded idiot.

And yes, I don't know Einstein's belifs on God, but if he were an Atheist, I would think him a close minded idiot too.

Personally, I probably what would fall into the deist camp; I'd be hard pressed to believe in a God with an ongoing interaction with this world. I lean toward a 'creator' of the universe; but can certainly understand a position where one might argue the material universe iterates between big bang/big crunch/big bang back thru eternity.

There is always the problem of what to accept of that which one has not personally verified. One of the advantages to science, that if properly documented, you can repeat the experiment (though, it's a bit challenging if one needs a particle accellerator ;-) ).

My understanding is that Einstein was most likely what you'd call a deist, I might be wrong. He certainly never put forth a strong statement of atheism.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 30, 2007 7:34 AM

One point, I would not lump all Atheists as 'idiots', any more than I'd lump all Wiccans or Christians as 'idiots.' For me, the simple statement of 'I believe there is no god' or 'I believe there is a God' doesn't qualify anyone for idiocy; however, I don't have much patience with those who say 'I believe there is no god, and it is simply foolish for anyone to ever believe that there is one.' Most of the atheists I know are quite content to hold their beliefs and respect the beliefs of others. Dawkins, on the other hand, is clearly very intolerant of any sort of religious belief, and I think is only going to spark trouble in trying to push such an extreme position.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 30, 2007 7:50 AM