The Rue and Causal Thread--Philosophical Grudge Match! by Causal

HK: You make my head hurt ;-) Ok, I'm working up a reply... ***turns thinking cap up to high***

====
Please vote for Firefly hourly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

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

Tuesday, July 31, 2007 1:41 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I think I understand what HK is saying.

When I opine that religions are all about control, I may be drawing just on the AG lineage of religions. It may be that other religions are less ocntrolling.

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

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

Tuesday, July 31, 2007 2:27 PM

Quote:
Mal4prez-

I believe the need for God follows from self-awareness, from being small creatures in a big world. Now, the step of first becoming self-aware, of being able to observe nature and ask "why?", is a larger question, and I'm no expert. My guess is that those who study this hypothesize a gradual process of increasing intelligence in humans. From learning to make tools and hunt, to developing language, to having agriculture. And then we had time to sit in our huts and talk to each other and think, and stuff started really happening.

see.. this is where we run into problems: thats a fair hypothesis, as long as you believe in the strictly evolution theory. but i believe that evidence is shaky, so since i dont believe we ascended from primates, ever, at any point... i have no need to account for a gap between our 'creation'(or that key transition from our missing link), and our current state. i believe once we were 'created', civilization began to appear automatically... so i look at recorded history as my reference point. ill speculate as far as 10,000bc, maybe taking into account the events prior to the flood, in NOAHS time(where the myth of Atlantis probably originated)... but we can only speculate

Quote:
And it's still changing. 500 years ago, logical thought didn't exist as it does now. Read some stuff about Sir Francis Bacon - he pretty much introduced inductive reasoning.

oh.. im quite familiar with Francis Bacon; perhaps youve heard of his "new atlantis" concept, and subsequent relations to secret societies(like the freemasons)?

Quote:
In fact, what I see of history (though, again, I'm certainly not an expert!) are early gods who were closely tied to nature - one for water, one for air, one for death, one for the crops, etc...which have been largely replaced by a White Male in Charge figure.

thats the common secular myth, but i hardly believe thats the truth. to start, even the aborigines of Australia had(prior to the europeans) a similar 'Creator'(and flood))story as the Israelites. its actually an interesting story, but heres an example of an indigenous people, who likely werent influenced by the Sumerians, one of the oldest recorded civilizations(which also have a similar flood story), or any other mesopotamian culture for that matter. the claim that the Israelites plaguerized and hegemonized all these beliefs is absurd.. they all exist in relation to each other

Quote:
Interestingly, this shift has happened since we got more control and understanding of nature. (Our gods fit our needs, is how I interpret that.)

maybe.. i dont rule that out as an occurance; but i also dont use that to blanketly discredit and illegitimize every belief(which you may not be doing.. but it sounds this way)as illusory or psychological. also, if our gods fit our 'needs', define our needs? does that include lust, revenge, etc? i think you begin a slippery slope when you deny an absolute set of correct principles, or 'morals'

Quote:
Anyway, perhaps there was a single span of time when these "nature gods" sprung into existence. But that would be because the human race had evolved to the point of sufficient awareness to ask those "why?" questions.

evolved to ask why? shouldnt we know.. it didnt exactly happen over night(but rather.. MILLIONS OF YEARS!!..). ive noticed that any evolutionary predisposition to this subject will only skew and disorient what is right in front of your eyes(if you're willing to see it)

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

Tuesday, July 31, 2007 2:41 PM

HK,
Well these exchanges are getting pretty long; I'm going to minimize the quotations as much as possible to keep the post to something resembling a moderate size; I hope it doesn't lead to confusion:

Quote:
HK.
... pretty daunting to me.

Me too; though I rather expected it after seeing some of Causal's exchanges in previous threads. It can be the mind bender.

Quote:
.. the same trouble getting my point across with you.

Sadly, it's a different problem; because I'm a different person. Much of of the problem is getting the frames of reference consistent. I once spent about 5 post exchanges with Causal just getting our terms straighted out; we finally did.

Quote:

... piss the believers off.

If it helps any, you haven't pissed me off yet; I just am trying to refute a claim you've made.

Quote:

... But if I come in with my yes-to-god-but-no-to-their-God third option, well, we perhaps get a tiny hint of why human history is soaked in the blood of religious conflict.

As I mentioned in my intro, I'm also a 'yes to god but no to their God' kinda guy. Obviously, I'm playing Devil's Advocate (tho in this case, I suppose I'm playing AG's Advocate ;-) ).

Quote:

So, I hear I'm not playing by your rules. You tell me the rules were plainly stated at the top of the thread. But, leadb, threads change on the internet, evolve, die out and are reborn. The "philosophical grudge match" never materialized in the first place, Rue's hardly even posted. If my thoughts on theology and psychology have no place in your thread then why do you try to argue with me in the first place? If someone shows up to a chess tourney with a cribbage board, don't you just tell'm to go home?

It's not my thread, it's Causal's. In any case, to keep the metaphor somewhat straight, I'll just say I'd rather have played Chess, but for you, for at least a while, I'll play Cribbage

Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Some folk will do exactly as you say, while other will seek out a father or mother figure. Some want a savior. Others will portray whatever they feel will frighten those they wish to control.

Okay, here you're switching context on me. And this is not the first time. Sure, different people conceive of God differently--that's at the heart of my own argument. But I wasn't talking about just any conception of God, my beef is with the "all-powerful" One. I'm talking about how folks define that God.

One of the problems with this type of discussion (as opposed to the philosophic) is there's an easy tendency to not explain things as you go; so in this case I'll have to clarify a bit. I will posit that the following items exists:
Many folks who believe that AG is an all-powerful god and percieve 'him' in a 'father figure' way.
Some folks who believe that AG is an all-powerful god and percieve 'him' in a 'mother figure' way. (IE: despite being 'maybe' male, having motherly characeristics)
Many folks who believe that AG is an all-powerful god and percieve 'him' in a 'savior' way.
This was directly to refutre: "One's concept of God is equivalent to one's ideal self--ideal, not necessarily possible." I maintain I was not switching context, I was merely disagreeing with you, and providing examples of how this might not be true. If you are not willing to grant that these items exist, we have a point of contention to resolve.

Quote:
... I'm not saying that all conceptions of God are a problem (I am not an atheist), only the all-powerful conception thereof.

I know, specificly you claimed in your original post "Such a God would be a dangerous psychopath" It is -exactly- this point I'm trying to 'disprove'. So, to be clear, I am attempting to prove that the following item -could- (but does not necessarily) exist:
An 'all-powerful god' which is -not- 'a dangerous psychopath'.
If you feel I have proven that this is a -possibility-, we can stop. (or at least, I'll let you pick the next 'fine point' we wish to haggle out) I'll risk that you are not yet convinced, and continue.

Quote:

Quote:
In any event, the question has to be asked, what if the Abrahamic God (AG) is real; in which case any projection becomes meaningless, and the quest is not to entertain what people will -project- onto AG, but instead, what is the reality of AG. How does one successfully peel off the projections to understand the truth? That becomes the question, which I surely don't have the answer to.

We could start by looking with discernment at peoples' accounts of AG,... needs than with the nature of the Divine.

Oh, the Bible. Well, that's a weak point for me. First, many folks don't feel the need to take the bible as literally as you seem to wish me to. For the Genesis entry above, I would be willing to state the Genesis story may have originally been composed to be a tale to convince children to obey their parents. As a consquence it has elements in it to appeal to children, like God 'acting like' he didn't know what the humans had done yet, when even a child can see that the humans are in for some bad news. But the point (at least mine) isn't whether AG is or is not an all-powerful god or not. The question is, -if- he's an all powerful god, he need not necessarily be 'a dangerous psychopath. I'm quite willing to grant AG may not be an 'all-powerful god', if he exists, he might merely be 'powerful beyond any hopes of humanity to achieve', and we can discuss that next if you'd like. At the moment, I'd like to discuss 'what if' AG 'is' an 'all powerful god'; what would he be like.

Quote:

Quote:
At this point, I understand your distinction between the church and AG.... I don't know as that necessarily supports the 'psychopath' assessment.

Here's a thing, leadb: show me an all-powerful God and I will show you a Being who puts His enemies in a fiery pit to be tortured for all eternity. Don't you find it at all interesting that there is no religion in human history (correct me if I'm wrong) with an all-powerful God at its head that does not include a divine torture chamber? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say torture is wrong. Really wrong. Anybody who engages in it has gotta be messed up in the head.

Ah, Hell. Hmmm. Here's one definition of Hell commonly held 'lacking being in the "presence" of god'. This isn't torture, it's just sending folks off and about and not allowing them in. We can discuss the nature of Hell later, whoever, for purpose of this discussion, I'd like to posit that Hell is merely the state one is in if one is denied entrance to Heaven after death, and may not have anything terribly unpleasent about it beyond that. Would you agree that this does not constitute torture?

Quote:
Quote:
But if it is in fact true, as many AG adherents maintain that he is merciful, etc., and does not qualify as 'judgmental', does that not undermine the 'psychopath' assessment?

Show me one example of AG showing mercy to anyone ever. ... is hypocrisy.

We need to see if you agree that it is possible to define hell as described above before I can address this.

Quote:

Quote:
Yet if one varies too far, lacks too much in self-judgment, does this not lead to amorality and lack of self control? Show me someone lacking any form of self judgment and I'll be running the other way.

That old wandering context again. I say, "AG is judgemental" You say, "but I know lots of unjudgemental Christians." I say, "No you don't." You say, "But judgement is a good thing."

You're taking advantage of the fluidity of meaning of the word "judgement" when I am talking about hell and damnation. One's psyche can do quite well, be very self-aware and discerning without the threat of everlasting hellfire hanging over one's head.

My comment about self-judgement was in direct response to: "So, I don't think you'll actually find a lot of non-judgemental Christians anywhere if you take into account their self-judgements." Thus my use of 'self-judgement- was directly related to your use of 'self-judgement'. So, I do not find your comment fair that I'm taking advantage of fluidity; I was not at that point addressing your comment of 'AG is judgmental', I was simply responding to your comment. At this point, I'm not sure why I did respond to it, since I'm not sure it was going to take us anywhere, so you could, if you'd like, give me a hard time about not staying 'on topic'. So. 'Is AG judgmental?' This gets somewhat into the interpretation above regarding the nature of hell/heaven. There are proponents of the above hell is 'lacking being in the "presence" of god' is that the 'reality' of the situation is that such souls are chosing, by their actions, to not be in the presense of god. -If- that is the case, then no, AG is not judgmental.

Quote:

FWIW, I mark a distinction between self-assessment and self-condemnation. ....

If you grant the above, we don't need this particular sub-thread, but I'd like to understand your terms. Let's say George kills Henry, and later due to self-assessment decides he has done a terrible wrong... would not self-condemnation follow? If not, what is the 'appropriate' responce be in your idiom?

Quote:
Quote:
It bothers me a bit that you would come in and make a broad claim (that AG is a psychopath) then refuse to engage in a philosophic exchange on the matter.

I haven't refused anything, we've just started talking. As you said, this is a slow process. I'm willing to continue if we can make any progress.

Ah, sorry, I meant specificly using the philisophic idiom; we aren't you know. We are perhaps 'debating', and it is interesting, but it isn't a philosphic debate as I (or Causal) would define it.

Quote:

Quote:
The second problem is you wish to then present your pitch as 'it makes more sense', yet then you refuse to recognize that all the various Christian, Muslim, Jewish sects' pitches which may completely be at ends with your portrayal of AG.

But leadb, I'm not talking about "various Christian blah, blah, blah" I simply wanted to challenge the assumption of an "all-powerful" God. If you take nothing else from my posts on this thread, please understand that I am against a notion of God as "all-powerful." I am not against the notion of God all-together.

I understand this, and I understood it from the begining. Hopefully you will better understand where I'm trying to go with some of the above.

Quote:

And hey, I'm slow to realize it, but I do have something you can disprove for me. You want a debate? Then refute my contention that AG as depicted in Genesis is neither all-powerful nor all-knowing.

Provided above; however, keep in mind, I'm -not- trying to prove that AG -is- all powerful, but merely that if he is he isn't -necessarily- a psychopath.

Quote:
Explain how His all-powerful nature is reconciled with human free will. But if that's too theological for you, that's cool. No hard feelings. I'm an interloper here and I can just as easily de-lope.

Ack! Can of worms alert! I'll be frank, I don't have the theological background to explain that one. I've heard it discussed, but you really ought to open a thread of itself for that one, you'll need it. If you don't mind, I think we are having enough problems keeping on topic with the above, so unless you have something you feel is dependent on proving that any 'all powerful god' must be a psychopath, I'd rather leave that little puzzle for another day.

Also, after pondering this matter over night, I have to question an assumption I suspect is implicit in your statement "Such a God would be a dangerous psychopath"
I'm not sure that it is reasonable to assume that human psychology would be applicable to a divine, all-powerful being. For instance, there's no 'brain' thus no 'brain chemistry' to worry about. It might be reasonable to say that if a human being became all-powerful, they would probably become pyschopathic, because I don't think people deal that well with power; but I'm not even sure that -all- people would fail in this manner. Are you willing to posit that it is possible that there might be some person on the planet who, if he became all powerful, would -not- become pyschopathic?
In any case, what would you present to support that an all powerful being would necessarily become pyschopathic?

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

Tuesday, July 31, 2007 6:18 PM

HK- i suggest you actually read the bible in its entirety. i considered responding to your comments, but you are obviously someone with some deep prejudices against christianity(or maybe all faiths), despite what i would consider a perverse and inaccurate understanding of its message. you have been pretty condescending, and i wish i better understood these supreme standards, absent from my faith, that you feel compelled to judge us by(..since, there seem to be a 'lack' of established principles under atheism). human beings do/and justify what they want, by nature, regardless of their faith(or faithlessness), and even when they know better. 'right' and 'wrong' may be relative to man, but they arent to God

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

Tuesday, July 31, 2007 7:06 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

show me an all-powerful God and I will show you a Being who puts His enemies in a fiery pit to be tortured for all eternity.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say torture is wrong. Really wrong. Anybody who engages in it has gotta be messed up in the head.

Are you claiming that God is 'messed up in the head', HK?
Or just that the primitive dudes that wrote the Bible who thought that the threat of everlasting torture would make peeps 'good' were?

Iron Maiden Chrisisall

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

Wednesday, August 1, 2007 1:17 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
HK- i suggest you actually read the bible in its entirety. i considered responding to your comments, but you are obviously someone with some deep prejudices against christianity(or maybe all faiths), despite what i would consider a perverse and inaccurate understanding of its message. you have been pretty condescending, and i wish i better understood these supreme standards, absent from my faith, that you feel compelled to judge us by(..since, there seem to be a 'lack' of established principles under atheism). human beings do/and justify what they want, by nature, regardless of their faith(or faithlessness), and even when they know better. 'right' and 'wrong' may be relative to man, but they arent to God

Anti- are you so completely thick-headed that you don't recognize a different faith? HK is not an atheist! HK has SAID he's not an atheist! HK has even give some info on the kinds of gods that he believes in!

And I know that you believe (in the nicest possible way of course) that your God is the only real god and that everyone else is doomed if they don't believe as you do, but not only do you come across as insufferably condescending you come across as so utterly unable to see anything outside of your own little world as to be incapable of discussion, or even dealing with a reality outside of your narrow visions.

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

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

Wednesday, August 1, 2007 2:04 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
see.. this is where we run into problems: thats a fair hypothesis, as long as you believe in the strictly evolution theory. but i believe that evidence is shaky, so since i dont believe we ascended from primates, ever, at any point... i have no need to account for a gap between our 'creation'(or that key transition from our missing link), and our current state. i believe once we were 'created', civilization began to appear automatically... so i look at recorded history as my reference point. ill speculate as far as 10,000bc, maybe taking into account the events prior to the flood, in NOAHS time(where the myth of Atlantis probably originated)... but we can only speculate

So Anti, as far as you're concerned "history" only started with recorded history? Well then! All I can say is - at least you finally stopped pretending to look at rocks, water, air, lead decay, the sun, magnetism, electricity, living organisms, DNA, and pretty much the entire non-human world. At least now you've clearly dumped biology, geology, physics, chemistry, astronomy, the "basic sciences" and the concept of cause and effect into the trash. We will no longer fruitlessly discuss the natural world or science with you, because for you it doesn't even exist.

Quote:

oh.. im quite familiar with Francis Bacon; perhaps youve heard of his "new atlantis" concept, and subsequent relations to secret societies(like the freemasons)?

Logic and reason are just traps by the Devil? So we can dump logic and reason too. Thank goodness, It sure limits the conversation.

Quote:
thats the common secular myth, but i hardly believe thats the truth.

Not only have you finally rejected pretty much the entire non-human real world, you've also rejected anyone else's recorded history besides yours!

Quote:
also, if our gods fit our 'needs', define our needs? does that include lust, revenge, etc?

Yep, pretty much. Else how do you explain human sacrifice, religious use of hallucinogens, rape by the elders, holy prostitution, the egregious collection of wealth and power by various religions, and some of the other weird shit that various religions used to promote? OH! I KNOW! THAT'S DIFFERENT. THOSE beliefs aren't 'real" religions. Those beliefs are from Satan. Or they're freely-willed perversions of the real message! Or they've been historically garbled. Because 'real' religion is only what Anti says it is! Well, I say thank GOD you've decided to dump most of recorded history in favor of your narrow set of beliefs. At least we know not to fruitlessly discuss history with you either.

Quote:
ive noticed that any evolutionary predisposition to this subject will only skew and disorient what is right in front of your eyes (if you're willing to see it)

Oh yeah. If we could only dispense with all that... that... that 'stuff' right in front of our eyes...evidence... fossils, layers of rock, DNA, living beings.... then we could all see the purity of truth as Anti sees it!

*shakes head*

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

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

Wednesday, August 1, 2007 2:16 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
see.. this is where we run into problems: thats a fair hypothesis, as long as you believe in the strictly evolution theory. but i believe that evidence is shaky, so since i dont believe we ascended from primates, ever, at any point... i have no need to account for a gap between our 'creation'(or that key transition from our missing link), and our current state. i believe once we were 'created', civilization began to appear automatically... so i look at recorded history as my reference point. ill speculate as far as 10,000bc, maybe taking into account the events prior to the flood, in NOAHS time(where the myth of Atlantis probably originated)... but we can only speculate

How do you account for 4 billion year old rocks? Or stellar phenomena that has taken billions of years to form? Or, for that matter, the fact we can see through telescopes things that are so far away, their light takes billions of years to get here?

Quote:
thats the common secular myth, but i hardly believe thats the truth. to start, even the aborigines of Australia had(prior to the europeans) a similar 'Creator'(and flood))story as the Israelites. its actually an interesting story, but heres an example of an indigenous people, who likely werent influenced by the Sumerians, one of the oldest recorded civilizations(which also have a similar flood story), or any other mesopotamian culture for that matter. the claim that the Israelites plaguerized and hegemonized all these beliefs is absurd.. they all exist in relation to each other

Aborigines came to Australia between 70,000 and 40,000 years ago, bit more than 10,000 years eh

.

Though I'm afraid you're just dead wrong on their beliefs. Some believe as you say, but that's because they're Christians, converted by the missionaries that started arriving with the British colonists in the 1780's. The original native belief though, is a little different. There's no great flood that I'm aware of in the aboriginal creation myth, though every tribe has significantly different dreaming stories. In fact Aboriginal native religion is about as far from Christianity as you could hope to get. The aborigines don't even really have a god or gods that we'd recognise.

There are reasons for the prevalence of flood myths though, it's called the ice age. Huge tracks of land were uncovered by water because it was locked up in huge ice flows. The ice melts, and there are massive floods across the entire globe as sea levels rise. That's why there are prehistoric settlements in areas around the world that are now underwater.

Beliefs intermingle, so the beliefs of the Abrahamic religions, have pretty much extended out from the Sumerian.

Polytheistic religions did indeed appear prior to monotheistic, evidence suggests the native peoples of Europe, prior to cultural contamination by Rome, believed in various gods and goddesses, often the goddess would be supreme and would copulate with a god to give birth to the new life of the following year.

Even in the great civilisations of the era we're looking at polytheism long before monotheism, consider ancient Egypt, ancient Greece, and Rome prior to Roman Catholicism. In fact evidence suggests that the Abrahamic religions themselves grew out of a polytheistic religion, starting life as a cult of one of the Canaanite gods, Ba'al.

Quote:
evolved to ask why? shouldnt we know.. it didnt exactly happen over night(but rather.. MILLIONS OF YEARS!!..). ive noticed that any evolutionary predisposition to this subject will only skew and disorient what is right in front of your eyes(if you're willing to see it)

Inquisitiveness is a consequence of higher intelligence.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

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

Wednesday, August 1, 2007 2:27 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Citizen

Quote:
Aborigines came to Australia between 70,000 and 40,000 years ago, bit more than 10,000 years eh

But that's not what the Bible says, so clearly it's not true! History started 10,000 years ago, I tell you! You're only basing that on carbon dating, paleoecology, geology, and a bunch of other speculation!

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

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

Wednesday, August 1, 2007 2:28 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
there seem to be a 'lack' of established principles under atheism.

You seem to be implying a lack of morality amongst atheists. All I can say is that, based on personal experience, I'll hold the morality of the average atheist up against the morality of the average Christian any day. I prefer relying on moral reasoning rather than hearsay for my principles.

Regardless, I think there's a way to understand HK's bitterness. How would you feel if someone came to your door selling something and told you, and your children, that you'd be tortured for all eternity if you didn't buy what they're selling?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

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

Wednesday, August 1, 2007 2:31 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Regardless, I think there's a way to understand HK's bitterness. How would you feel if someone came to your door selling something and told you, and your children, that you'd be tortured for all eternity if you didn't buy what they're selling?

Because Anti means it in the nicest non-condescending non-judgmental way possible.

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

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

Wednesday, August 1, 2007 3:08 AM

SERGEANTX

I'm not wanting to pile on anti. He usually presents his convictions clearly and honestly and that's all we can ask.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

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

Wednesday, August 1, 2007 3:10 AM

SERGEANTX

I'm not wanting to pile on anti. He usually presents his convictions clearly and honestly and that's all we can ask. I think he does us a service standing up for a viewpoint that wouldn't get much 'airplay' around here otherwise.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

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

Wednesday, August 1, 2007 3:24 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I'm not wanting to pile on anti.

I am.

/rant on/

I expect more from Anti than brainless proselytizing or outright delusion- I expect that Anti might actually listen from time to time to the people s/he intends to converse with. That is the definition of "discussion", which one assumes might take place on a "discussion board".

Unfortunately, much as I happen to personally like Anti, who I perceive as sincere and well-meaning, I feel that s/he is is a deeply religious nutter who makes no attempt to see anyone else's POV and who rejects evidence of the senses, history, logic, science, simple conversational skills, and pretty much everything else in order to maintain a very VERY narrow belief structure. I bet you dollars to donuts that if another Xtian fundamentalist were to argue against one of Anti's core beliefs.... his/her paranoia about the Masons for example... and argue the Bible verse for verse w/ Anti- you'd see that Anti's view has nothing to do with the Bible and everything to do with "They're" all deluded, only I know the truth.

Rejecting senses and reason in favor of a single-minded belief puts one in the very dangerous position of delusion. That is how people come to believe that God told them to kill their child. I can either respond to Anti as if s/he is open to discussion, or I can respond is if s/he is... in psychoparlance... completely florid. Right now, I'm giving Anti the benefit of the doubt with a gentle smack to the head.

/rant off/

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

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

Wednesday, August 1, 2007 4:30 AM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
see.. this is where we run into problems: thats a fair hypothesis, as long as you believe in the strictly evolution theory. but i believe that evidence is shaky, so since i dont believe we ascended from primates, ever, at any point...

And here we'll just have to disagree. There is actually strong, strong evidence for evolution found in several independent lines of research.

Quote:
... but we can only speculate

No, we can do much more. We can look at nature with open eyes, and listen to what it's telling us. But I've lurked these threads long enough to know that I won't be convincing you to open your eyes and see it. You've clearly rejected all that, preferring to believe words in a book rather than nature.

Edit to clarify: I should say "preferring to believe *a narrow interpretation of* words in a book..."

Quote:
thats the common secular myth, but i hardly believe thats the truth. to start, even the aborigines of Australia had(prior to the europeans) a similar 'Creator'(and flood))story as the Israelites.
...snip...
also, if our gods fit our 'needs', define our needs? does that include lust, revenge, etc? i think you begin a slippery slope when you deny an absolute set of correct principles, or 'morals'

Others have replied to these statements much better than I could. Except to add - you're seeing things through your own goggles, anti, and only allowing for tid bits that fit your theory.

Quote:
evolved to ask why? shouldnt we know.. it didnt exactly happen over night(but rather.. MILLIONS OF YEARS!!..).

Um... "shouldn't we know?" Huh.

So the ancient Greeks should have seen lightening and said - "well, obviously that's a discharge of electrons that have built up in the storm cloud, and the loud sound after is merely a shock wave due to the super-heated expansion of the air around the plasma..."

Uh... not so much. But they got a comforting sense of control - and were entertained - by the idea of a powerful human-like God standing in the clouds throwing bolts at anyone who pissed Him off. This way, humans could make sacrifices and pray at alters and feel somewhat safe to be on His good side.

Quote:
ive noticed that any evolutionary predisposition to this subject will only skew and disorient what is right in front of your eyes(if you're willing to see it)

LOL! This does call for some snark... it's just funny, coming from someone who ignores piles and piles of what nature is showing us...

I know, I waste time saying this, but: There is no "evolutionary predisposition." The theory of evolution come after piles of obversations, as a logical conclusion. Evolutionary theory is not blind faith. It is not of human creation. It is what nature has told us. You don't agree with it? Go argue with nature.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

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

Wednesday, August 1, 2007 5:02 AM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
i think you begin a slippery slope when you deny an absolute set of correct principles, or 'morals'

I missed replying to this part...

So... why do you assume that because I don't acknowledge a higher power standing over me with a paddle, I have no morals? Why must morals only exist as some outside force telling me how to behave? Can't it come from within, or from the human community?

Ironically, I was considering this very issue as I drove to work this morning, related to a long ago RWED thread which filled up and went by before I could post to it. Oh... but now I'm tangenting, hijacking, which I'm trying not to do anymore. Will stop.

Except to say: No, I don't believe morals are absolute. Yet, my feet are on solid, level ground. No slippy slopes here!

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

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

Wednesday, August 1, 2007 7:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Anti- are you so completely thick-headed that you don't recognize a different faith? HK is not an atheist! HK has SAID he's not an atheist! HK has even give some info on the kinds of gods that he believes in!

HK said he believes 'gods' are necessary figments of the mind.. am i wrong? so i ask, what do you form your beliefs on then?

Quote:
And I know that you believe (in the nicest possible way of course) that your God is the only real god and that everyone else is doomed if they don't believe as you do,

once again.. quote me 1 time, on this board, that i threatened damnation.. PLEASE?! and ill gladly eat my words. otherwise, accept that i do not do such things, because they are against the scriptures. it seems to me that you all are a bunch of cry babies, who like to make yourselves out to be the victims of some cruel ideology. look.. if you dont believe in hell(or a place unlike 'heaven'), then what do you even care??? please, explain this to me, surely you dont feel guilty in theory

Quote:
but not only do you come across as insufferably condescending you come across as so utterly unable to see anything outside of your own little world as to be incapable of discussion, or even dealing with a reality outside of your narrow visions.

yes, i am skeptical of the age of the earth.. because scientists view phenomenon in a vacuum, and then pretend it amounts to empirical data. that seems equally as condescending, if not arrogant, to claim we know certain things, like through carbon dating, when we have only recorded 50 years worth of data. what are your references? the logic seems entirely circular to me.. based on your presuppositions of evolution. but regardless, until we find more compelling evidence for a protein/fish/?/ape/?/human transition, then i will continue to be skeptical of your artificial timelines

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

Wednesday, August 1, 2007 7:52 AM

Quote:
Signym- I expect more from Anti than brainless proselytizing or outright delusion- I expect that Anti might actually listen from time to time to the people he intends to converse with. That is the definition of "discussion", which one assumes might take place on a "discussion board".

what.. like you 'listen' to my views? you hear me, but youre not 'listening'; it goes both ways. do you think ive never heard the evolutionary theory, or the secular academic view of the universe and its beginnings? but i have my own personal opinions(as you do), largely based on the fact that we know nothing about human beings beyond 10 years ago, outside of speculation and anecdotel inferences

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

Wednesday, August 1, 2007 8:00 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Anti, I know your views so well I could probably say them before you do. I doubt you could say the same about me.

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

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

Wednesday, August 1, 2007 9:35 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
HK said he believes 'gods' are necessary figments of the mind.. am i wrong?

I just re-read HK's posts and as far as I can tell HK said nothing of the sort. What I gather from HK's posts is the the real gods were in everything even in ourselves. What we have done is replace the real gods with false gods: the gods of projection and denial. I'm not an animist so I'm sure HK can explain far better than I, but IMHO HK clearly believes in gods. Just not yours.

Quote:
... so i ask, what do you form your beliefs on then?

What makes you think I have "beliefs", as you understand them?

Quote:
quote me 1 time, on this board, that i threatened damnation.

Oh no Anti, YOU would not threaten damnation. You would simply point out, in a concerned way, that God - whose ahem! humble servant you are on earth

has a bad place prepared for all non-believers.

Quote:
it seems to me that you all are a bunch of cry babies, who like to make yourselves out to be the victims of some cruel ideology. look.. if you dont believe in hell(or a place unlike 'heaven'), then what do you even care???

Well, there's the annoyance factor...kind of like you might feel if I rather kindly asked you in every thread if you had gotten rid of your delusions yet, and sincerely hoped that "they" weren't coming to take you away soon.

Quote:
please, explain this to me, surely you dont feel guilty in theory

Not at all. What I feel guilty about is very specific and very real-life.

Quote:
yes, i am skeptical of the age of the earth

No Anti, "skeptical" doesn't quite cover it. "In denial" is closer. Since you (far as I know) have not progressed to seeing things that aren't there, only to denying thhings that are, I suppose "delusional" is too strong a word.

Quote:
because scientists view phenomenon in a vacuum

The fact that scientists don't include your particular religious mutterings in their calculations does not mean that they consider phenomena "in a vacuum". Unless of course you consider everything outside of your beliefs to BE a vaccum. I which case you have just more or less junked the world of evidence. Which is pretty much what I figured.

Quote:
and then pretend it amounts to empirical data. that seems equally as condescending, if not arrogant, to claim we know certain things, like through carbon dating, when we have only recorded 50 years worth of data...i will continue to be skeptical of your artificial timelines

MY artifical timelines? What, do you think people just pulled these numbers outta their *ss? There are lots of lines of evidence to show that the earth is older than 10,000 years. Now, you may quibble that some results may be off by ten thousand years here and there, but ice core histories (going back over 700,00 years, which can be counted in annual layers back 50,000 years), carbon dating, lead decay, sediment layers, rates of mountain growth and so forth all show that the earth is much, much older than 10,000 years. Your approach to everything that doesn't square with your ideas is to plug your ears and say "I can't hear you".

I prolly should give you the answers I would give any monomaniac ... my eyes will glaze over, I'll mumble a few "Hmmm boy howdie"s every once in a while, and give up on the concept of having a mutual dialogue. But at some later date (when I have a little more time), just to prove that I can, I will restate YOUR case just to show I've been listening.

---------------------------------
Can I have my reality check now, please?

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

Wednesday, August 1, 2007 9:58 AM

RUE

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

"Since you (far as I know) have not progressed to seeing things that aren't there, only to denying thhings that are, I suppose "delusional" is too strong a word."

SignyM - I believe delusion is the correct term, which is an illness of thought. Hallucination is the term used when people sense things that aren't there.

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

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

Wednesday, August 1, 2007 2:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

I just re-read HK's posts and as far as I can tell HK said nothing of the sort. What I gather from HK's posts is the the real gods were in everything even in ourselves. What we have done is replace the real gods with false gods: the gods of projection and denial. I'm not an animist so I'm sure HK can explain far better than I, but IMHO HK clearly believes in gods. Just not yours.

if i'm mistaken then i apologize.. perhaps it was Fred(and someone else agreeing with him) who left me with that impression... but i digress.

Quote:
What makes you think I have "beliefs", as you understand them?

then explain them to me.. perhaps this is exactly my point. people love to criticize our moral principles, what we perceive to be IN THEORY positive ethical guidelines put down by God.. so explain to me your principles and where you derive them(and why yours are better)? otherwise, don't you see that government is necessary only because man cannot establish absolutes by which to self govern? if everyone decided for himself, based on his own logic what was 'right' and 'wrong', there would be no order, because people wouldn't even follow their own rules. in point of fact, its precisely this inconsistency that necessitates centralized government, not our beliefs(as some of you would suggest)

Quote:
Oh no Anti, YOU would not threaten damnation. You would simply point out, in a concerned way, that God - whose ahem! humble servant you are on earth has a bad place prepared for all non-believers.

i wish you wouldn't throw heretical catholic church dogma in my face.. even i will refute that. i know, probably better then you(and i don't mean this condescendingly), just how many false teachings were perpetuated by the Roman papacy.. but none of it was based on biblical teachings. Martin Luther went as far as to call the pope the 'anti-christ'..ok! in Hebrews, Paul essentially says that a 'Jew' is someone who does Gods will, and Jesus says (throughout the gospels) that it is our actions, and whether we produce 'good fruit'(and as the saying goes.. "narrow is the gate"..)

Quote:
Well, there's the annoyance factor...kind of like you might feel if I rather kindly asked you in every thread if you had gotten rid of your delusions yet, and sincerely hoped that "they" weren't coming to take you away soon.

what are you doing that people are condemning you for? i mean seriously.. i've never had anyone tell me, but jokingly, that i'm 'going to hell', for anything; but if anyone did, i would engage them on it.. because that is ultimately Gods judgment(hello?)

Quote:
No Anti, "skeptical" doesn't quite cover it. "In denial" is closer. Since you (far as I know) have not progressed to seeing things that aren't there, only to denying thhings that are, I suppose "delusional" is too strong a word.

fine.. but you weren't there, and don't really know for sure Sig

Quote:
The fact that scientists don't include your particular religious mutterings in their calculations does not mean that they consider phenomena "in a vacuum".

they do, they're called ID'ers and Creationists.. but you don't consider them legitimate scientists, because they don't entirely agree with secular academia

Quote:
Unless of course you consider everything outside of your beliefs to BE a vaccum. I which case you have just more or less junked the world of evidence. Which is pretty much what I figured.

just viewing it through a different lens.. one that doesn't so thoroughly strip us of our divine uniqueness

Quote:
MY artifical timelines? What, do you think people just pulled these numbers outta their *ss?

i think its unproven and speculative yes

Quote:
There are lots of lines of evidence to show that the earth is older than 10,000 years. Now, you may quibble that some results may be off by ten thousand years here and there, but ice core histories (going back over 700,00 years, which can be counted in annual layers back 50,000 years), carbon dating, lead decay, sediment layers, rates of mountain growth and so forth all show that the earth is much, much older than 10,000 years. Your approach to everything that doesn't square with your ideas is to plug your ears and say "I can't hear you".

i listen to both sides and make a decision. young earth ID'ers actually make a decent case, if your willing to listen to them(but i suspect you wont)

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

Wednesday, August 1, 2007 2:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
SignyM - I believe delusion is the correct term, which is an illness of thought.

Hallucination is the term used when people sense things that aren't there.

you mean like the 'missing link'? global warming?.. what

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

Wednesday, August 1, 2007 2:32 PM

Anti "they do, they're called ID'ers and Creationists.. but you don't consider them legitimate scientists, because they don't entirely agree with secular academia"
Hmm, well two months ago, I might have agreed I didn't know enough to say anything about either group. Luckily (or not, since I'm not sure how much the research will benefit beyond these discussions), I've reviewed enough of the two groups approach and claims to say that, for Creationists; that for the presentations to be correct, either
1) God went to a lot of trouble to deceive us (which has interesting theological implications).
or 2) Creationism is in conflict with basic and fundamental science which has proven itself continuously.

For ID, logic is presented, but several problems have been identified at various points in time, and those problems make it clear to me that ID is not supportable.

The above is not based on non-conformation with 'standard science' as it is based on my understanding of how the world works. For instance, if Creationism is correct and God isn't playing mind games by making the world look old when it isn't, then nuclear reactors wouldn't function; crystallization would not occur. The universe as would then be defined would not support life.

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

Wednesday, August 1, 2007 2:57 PM

RUE

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

Rap

"Hallucination is the term used when people sense things that aren't there."

Hallucinations are things that are seen, heard, felt, tasted or smelled by a person, or some combination of sensations, that aren't there. As usual, you misunderstood a simple word - in this case the word "sense".

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

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

Wednesday, August 1, 2007 3:08 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
What makes you think I have "beliefs", as you understand them?-Signy

then explain them to me.. perhaps this is exactly my point. people love to criticize our moral principles, what we perceive to be IN THEORY positive ethical guidelines put down by God.. so explain to me your principles and where you derive them(and why yours are better)? otherwise, don't you see that government is necessary only because man cannot establish absolutes by which to self govern? if everyone decided for himself, based on his own logic what was 'right' and 'wrong', there would be no order, because people wouldn't even follow their own rules. in point of fact, its precisely this inconsistency that necessitates centralized government, not our beliefs(as some of you would suggest)

You're confusing "ethics" and "beliefs" which in my book are not the same. "Ethics" (to me) are a subset of "beliefs", in that ethics describe a person's specific beliefs about right and wrong, whereas beliefs can be about any topic: Whether purple drangons fly faster than blue ones, or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

oops gotta go. later dude.

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

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

Wednesday, August 1, 2007 6:13 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

http://www.thadguy.com/comic/the-proof-is-in-the-poseidon/209

Just a comical little tangent related to the "slippery slope of morals" comment.

"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

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

Wednesday, August 1, 2007 7:23 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
i wish you wouldn't throw heretical catholic church dogma in my face.. even i will refute that. i know, probably better then you(and i don't mean this condescendingly), just how many false teachings were perpetuated by the Roman papacy.. but none of it was based on biblical teachings. Martin Luther went as far as to call the pope the 'anti-christ'..ok! in Hebrews, Paul essentially says that a 'Jew' is someone who does Gods will, and Jesus says (throughout the gospels) that it is our actions, and whether we produce 'good fruit'(and as the saying goes.. "narrow is the gate"..)

I'll get to this later.

Quote:
The fact that scientists don't include your particular religious mutterings in their calculations does not mean that they consider phenomena "in a vacuum".-signy

they do, they're called ID'ers and Creationists.. but you don't consider them legitimate scientists, because they don't entirely agree with secular academia

No Anti, it's because they ignore perfectly obvious evidence- just like you do- in favor of bible-scribblings. Now, I know I've been down this road with you before, and each time I get to some very specific question, one that boggles you, you quietly disappear. I'm NOT going to engage in any further discussion with you on the age of the earth unless you agree to answer my questions with direct, on-point answers, all the way to the end. Do you agree? If not, this conversation is over.

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

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

Thursday, August 2, 2007 5:01 AM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
http://www.thadguy.com/comic/the-proof-is-in-the-poseidon/209

Just a comical little tangent related to the "slippery slope of morals" comment.

"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

Good comic, but I'm laughing at your tag line more LOL!

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

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

Thursday, August 2, 2007 9:12 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

A witty saying proves nothing

Wow. Recursive logic... does not compute... must reset... KA-BAM! (head blows up)

Anti- I didn't have a lot of time to post my last which prolly sounded baselessly accusatory and demanding, so I'm gonna provide some background.

In our last episode...

You had asked me how fossils from different ages could get mixed up. I basically said fossils from different eras could be exposed, eroded, and then deposited in a jumble. I also added that this is NOT the order on which we typically find fossils.

YOUR explanation for the fossil record was the Big Flood, which would account for extinctions and fossils. Then I, and (I believe it was Leadb) asked you how one big flood could explain the non-hydrological sorting that we see today. At which point, as I recall, you kind of faded from view.

Now here you are, with what sounds like it's gonna be the same crap all over again. So you'll pardon me if I don't want to engage in another lengthy discussion that ends with you running away because things are going bouncy off your brain-pan. If you really want to have a discussion in detail, fine. But I'd like some commitment on your part to see it through.

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

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

Friday, August 3, 2007 12:41 PM

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-misc.html

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:
The fact that scientists don't include your particular religious mutterings in their calculations does not mean that they consider phenomena "in a vacuum".

they do, they're called ID'ers and Creationists.. but you don't consider them legitimate scientists, because they don't entirely agree with secular academia

Actually no that's not why, I came across this list recently and figured I'd post it.

Quote:
Let's compare real science to "scientific" creationism.

1. Real scientists, as did Darwin, usually spend some time pointing out the possible weaknesses they see in their theories. This is done not only to highlight areas which need further study but in order to strike a balanced presentation that will not mislead the reader. Truth is the overriding goal.

Creationists usually minimize or ignore the weaknesses in their theories unless the cat is out of the bag. Inserting their views into the public educational system is usually their goal.

2. Real scientists publish scientific literature, which can be very unorthodox, in refereed journals. This serves as a clearing house for ideas as well as a common testing ground.

Creationists, who apparently have nothing worth saying to the scientific community, invariably write for the layman. They have found it necessary to publish their ideas in special "creationist journals" because none of the hundreds of legitimate scientific journals find their work acceptable. Creationist journals mostly serve as a rallying point for the faithful, rarely as a means for criticizing their fellow believers.

3. Real scientists are quick to criticize their colleagues if they suspect an error. (Remember the cold fusion flap?) Catching errors improves their status in the scientific community even as it improves the level of science.

Creationists have a fortress mentality, and they are quick to circle their wagons. To admit error is considered bad form among creationists, and most of them must literally be smoked out before admitting any errors whatsoever. With no effective mechanism for weeding out error, errors are passed down like the family jewels. Today, one can buy many creationist books containing errors that should have been eliminated 20-30 years ago!

4. Real scientists are quick to test promising new ideas (however unorthodox) and those which don't pan out quickly disappear from the literature. Fame and fortune await any scientist who successfully advances a novel idea.

Creationists are largely concerned with protecting their dogma, not advancing new ideas that might question that dogma. Rejection is the likely lot of any creationist who questions the central dogma. Creationist arguments having serious errors, including arguments based solely on obsolete data, circulate indefinitely in the creationist literature.

5. Real scientists are often involved in meaningful laboratory and field work. They are looking for new data which might clarify, overturn, or confirm their views.

Creationists spend most of their time combing through books and technical journals for quotes with which to snipe at evolution, geology, astronomy, and other areas of science which challenge their central dogma. When they're not doing that, they can usually be found out on the stump drumming up support among the uneducated public.

6. Real scientists base their theories on the available evidence. They are not immune to the effects of prejudice, but they all understand that the facts dictate the conclusion. Conclusions are subservient to the data; data are not subservient to conclusions.

Creationists take their science straight from the Bible. Many creationist leaders have publicly stated, often in print, that any evidence at variance with their literal interpretation of the Bible should be rejected out of hand. Their a priori conclusions dictate what data are acceptable. That's not science!

7. No self-respecting scientist would ever think of signing an oath of allegiance to Darwinism as a condition for employment. Evidence is "king" in good science, and there is no room for competing loyalties.

Many creationist societies actually require a "loyalty oath," which is tantamount to an admission that their minds are closed! Such minds are slammed shut and rusted tight!

8. All good scientists admit that they might be wrong, that absolute certainty is not part of science. Scientists long ago recognized that our knowledge of the physical world is largely a product of inductive reasoning. In principle, inductive reasoning can yield a high degree of confidence, but it can never confer 100% certainty. The uncertainty of inductive reasoning follows from the fact that any set of observations can be explained, in principle, by an infinite number of hypotheses! One can never rule them all out no matter how much data one has. Thus, the proper scientific attitude includes a touch of humility no matter how great one's success.

Except for trivial details, creationists cannot conceive of the possibility that they are in error as that would take down their concept of biblical inerrancy. Since "scientific" creationism is really a branch of Bible apologetics, there is no room for compromise. "Scientific" creationism is there to defend the faith, not to probe the unknown.

9. Real scientists are often found in the great universities, where real science is done and advanced. None of those institutions take creationism seriously.

Creationists are usually associated with creationist societies. Those few "universities" where creationism is featured have either failed to get full accreditation or have done so only through the pulling of political strings. What discoveries have they made? Name their Nobel laureates!

10. Scientists build upon previous knowledge accumulated over the years, and only rarely participate in great, revolutionary breakthroughs.

Creationists fancy that they are in the process of overthrowing modern biology, geology, astronomy, anthropology, linguistics, paleontology, archaeology, oceanography, cosmology, physics, and numerous other branches of science. Some creationists (the flat-earth societies) would add the "grease-ball" theory of round-earth geography to that list. Anything that doesn't conform to their interpretation of the Bible is suspect and in need of revision.

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

Friday, August 3, 2007 4:53 PM

Quote:
LeadB

Anti
(for Creationists) that for the presentations to be correct

or 2) Creationism is in conflict with basic and fundamental science which has proven itself continuously.

Creationism isnt in conflict with science. Creation is in conflict with evolution. an evolutionist wants to argue a natural cause to the universe, a process taking over billions(if not trillions) of years. we advocate a supernatural cause, which occurred in an unknown but finite period of time. neither can be produced in a lab. in this case, we should be free to interpret the data through which ever hypothesis better fits the data. right now, both exist outside the bounds of observable 'science' by your own definition! we dont even question our presumptions, and no one will be fair and acknowledge that your side artificially established the rules, inherently excluding our perspective

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

Friday, August 3, 2007 8:14 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Creationism isnt in conflict with science. Creation is in conflict with evolution. an evolutionist wants to argue a natural cause to the universe, a process taking over billions(if not trillions) of years. we advocate a supernatural cause, which occurred in an unknown but finite period of time. neither can be produced in a lab.in this case, we should be free to interpret the data through which ever hypothesis better fits the data. right now, both exist outside the bounds of observable 'science' by your own definition! we dont even question our presumptions, and no one will be fair and acknowledge that your side artificially established the rules, inherently excluding our perspective

Every time you pull up this delusion I just want to put my head through a wall. Anti, let's start with something simple.... the age of the earth. Do you think the earth is not older than 10,000 years? If so, what is your evidence?

Do you reject the hypothesis that the earth is 4 billion years old? If so, what evidence specifically do you reject and why? And don't give me that same hand waving "we haven't been able to reproduce it in the lab. Be specific.

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

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

Saturday, August 4, 2007 1:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:
LeadB

Anti
(for Creationists) that for the presentations to be correct

or 2) Creationism is in conflict with basic and fundamental science which has proven itself continuously.

Creationism isnt in conflict with science. Creation is in conflict with evolution. an evolutionist wants to argue a natural cause to the universe, a process taking over billions(if not trillions) of years. we advocate a supernatural cause, which occurred in an unknown but finite period of time. neither can be produced in a lab. in this case, we should be free to interpret the data through which ever hypothesis better fits the data. right now, both exist outside the bounds of observable 'science' by your own definition! we dont even question our presumptions, and no one will be fair and acknowledge that your side artificially established the rules, inherently excluding our perspective

Sorry, I oversimplified because I didn't feel like getting into the details you normally ignore.

First, any approach that tries to put the creation of the universe less than 10,000 years ago is in conflict with so much basic science with supports an age of the universe beyond a billion (and almost universally believed to be over 13 billion) years old. This is strong refutation to any Young Earth Creationism.

Second, any approach that tries to place humans as being on the earth less than 10,000 years is also in conflict with much basic science.

The problems come in as you take basic science concepts and expand them to estimate the age of things.

I've tried explaining this to you a few times, but you tend to wander away when we get to this level of detail; I'm not going to bother again unless you agree to stick thru the discussion.

If you a feel there's a form of Creationism which is not bound to the 10,000 year clip limits on either aspect, feel free to provide a few details and we can, again if you will indicate that you will stick thru the discussion, some of the weaknesses that end up contradicting basic sciences can be discusssed.

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

Saturday, August 4, 2007 7:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
an evolutionist wants to argue a natural cause to the universe, a process taking over billions(if not trillions) of years. we advocate a supernatural cause, which occurred in an unknown but finite period of time. neither can be produced in a lab.

Naturalistic theories of cosmology and evolution can be tested and indeed have been tested, they have been shown to be correct time and time again. Can we reproduce the Big Bang? No. Can we figure out what the universe should be like if there was a Big Bang and look for the evidence that shouldn't be there if there was no Big Bang? Yes, and we have. Can we recreate a complete tree of life from abiogenesis to the modern day in the lab? No, as the conditions necessary for the evolution of specific sets of traits in a specific order would be absurdly difficult to reproduce even if we knew exactly what they were. Can we make predictions about how the biosphere should look if evolution is true and look for the evidence that shouldn't be there if evolution is not true? Yes, and we have.

Quote:
in this case, we should be free to interpret the data through which ever hypothesis better fits the data.

This has been done, guess who won? Sure you can say "but it looks like creation fits better to me" but that's only because you've already decided that creation is right and will only see things that support it. When evolution was first proposed most biologists were creationists, the evidence for evolution (even in it's unpolished original Darwinian form) was so overwhelming that those creationists almost universally abandoned creationism (though not religion), why do you think that was?

Quote:
we dont even question our presumptions, and no one will be fair and acknowledge that your side artificially established the rules, inherently excluding our perspective

Because it isn't true, the rules of science were developed mostly by believers who thought that science would vindicate creation, a young earth and probably the necessity (if not the existence) of god. Evolution was discovered by Darwin when he was still a Christian, he was a Christian until several years after his discovery and evolution had little if anything to do with his loss of faith. At the time of evolutions discovery creation was the dominant belief by far (though the young earth belief had already been abandoned by educated people), creationism fell by the wayside because the evidence pointed exclusively to evolution.

Your perspective is not excluded, your ideas are given the same treatment that all other ideas are given which is to say that they are judged based on their merits. Unfortunately (for you) ID has been judged on its merits and completely rejected by the scientific community due to lack thereof. ID lacks a coherent hypothesis, evidence and a willingness to accept peer review, the behavior of most of the ID proponents indicates that they have no interest in proving their idea (ID doesn't really deserve the title of hypothesis) instead they want their idea to be unquestioningly accepted by the scientific community, this is simply not going to happen.

If you want your perspective to gain support among the scientific community then you need to give them some reason to support it, make a coherent hypothesis, provide evidence (not Bible quotes or "it looks designed to me!" but rather objective evidence), accept criticism and peer review and modify your hypothesis accordingly. If you want your perspective to be taken seriously don't launch baseless long-debunked attacks against your opposition, don't insist that your ideas are just as legitimate as the prevailing theory until it has been demonstrated so, and don't try to turn your perspective into a PR campaign.

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

Saturday, August 4, 2007 7:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I'm not wanting to pile on anti.

I've been thinking about this lately. One of the complaints that comes out of the Creation\ID camp occasionally and from anti in this thread, is the idea that science treats creationism unfairly. In the interest of fairness we should pile on to anti everything we have. Why? because that's what scientists do, when a theory is proposed they don't try to be nice to the proposer and make sure his feeling aren't hurt, they mercilessly point out every flaw and explain how and why the idea is wrong. To do otherwise would be to treat anti unfairly.

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

Saturday, August 4, 2007 9:22 AM

Quote:
LeadB-

first, any approach that tries to put the creation of the universe less than 10,000 years ago

im not saying the earth is only 10,000 years old... im saying we do not accurately know how old the earth is. however i did say that i find it strange human history, or civilization(more appropriately), has been recorded entirely within this period... and not the past hundreds of thousands(if not millions) of years, like an evolutionist hypothesizes. more importantly though, they believe this is a result of incredible chance, necessitated by perfectly aligned variables, on a magnitude mathematically unfathomable. all preconceived notions aside, this is one isolated conflict of data that doesnt support the evolutionary theory, yet proponents will barrel on with the 'theory' that evolution, over millions of years is the sole mechanism responsible for our current state. can that be proven as of yet? no. we can attempt to justify it within our chosen frame work, but that doesnt mean its the truth

Quote:
is in conflict with so much basic science with supports an age of the universe beyond a billion (and almost universally believed to be over 13 billion) years old. This is strong refutation to any Young Earth Creationism.

personally, the indeterminate age of the universe is less important to me than whether there was a natural or supernatural cause to everything(or not). i am willing to concede that the bible doesn't give an age to creation (except that man was created on the final day). my dispute is that people begin with an a priori assumption, that the causes are strictly material and chaotic, and from there deduce that an incomprehendable amount of time and chance was necessary for the universe to form(then conform the data to fit the hypothesis). the data to me says that life teeters on a very delicate balance, intricately designed, likely beyond probability, and that something had to guide these things in order for them to function as they do. if we dont know what took place prior or immediately after the 'big bang', what initiated this expansion of matter from nothing and so on.. how can we do anything but speculate on these things? i am aware of the methods that are used.. but they cannot possibly take into account all variables, given our extremely limited vantage point

Quote:
The problems come in as you take basic science concepts and expand them to estimate the age of things.

If you a feel there's a form of Creationism which is not bound to the 10,000 year clip limits on either aspect, feel free to provide a few details and we can, again if you will indicate that you will stick thru the discussion, some of the weaknesses that end up contradicting basic sciences can be discusssed.

the crux of my argument centers around design. i am not a scientist, or an expert in the fields of cosmology or astronomy or astrophysics like many of you are apparently.. so i am not the best person to argue the ID side. but its also not an easy task, given that no one will concede that you have fixed the debate to include only what fits within your naturalist paradigm. i will certainly try to lay out our side(as best i can), but only if we can agree to start from a clean slate. otherwise, you all can safely settle back into your comfort zones where no one questions the naturalistic theories of our origins

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

Saturday, August 4, 2007 9:28 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

To do otherwise would be to treat Anti like we might treat a nutcase muttering on a street corner- with tolerance or fear, but definitely not engagement. If Anti want to have a real discussion, I'd be happy to discuss seriously. Heck, I'm even capable of respect and emotional neutrality from time to time!

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

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

Saturday, August 4, 2007 9:29 AM

Quote:
LeadB-

Sorry, I oversimplified because I didn't feel like getting into the details you normally ignore.

its not that i 'ignore' them.. i just dont pretend i know the absolute truth about everything. why do we even discuss this subject, if your side cannot possibly be wrong?

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

Saturday, August 4, 2007 9:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Evolution was discovered by Darwin when he was still a Christian, he was a Christian until several years after his discovery and evolution had little if anything to do with his loss of faith.

so why did Darwin admit that the biggest flaw of his theory was the absence of transitional lifeforms.. the so called 'missing links', paramount to the evolutionary thoery? seems we still dont have any of these half creatures walking around

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

Saturday, August 4, 2007 10:00 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Im not saying the earth is only 10,000 years old

Quote:
im saying we do not accurately know how old the earth is

However, we DO know that it is on the order of "billions" not "thousands". Let me give you something simple: I can extend the earth's time line back at least 200,000 years on the basis of simply counting layers in ice cores. So, will you concede that the earth is at least that old? If not, why not?

Quote:
however i did say that i find it strange human history, or civilization (more appropriately), has been recorded entirely within this period

First of all, you're wrong that human history has only been recorded over the past 10,000, years. There are human-made markings- pictures etc.- well over 30,000 years old and human-made artifacts from well before that. So my first question is: why do you say that recorded human history is only 10,000 old? Which human records and artifacts are you excluding, and why?

Quote:
and not the past hundreds of thousands(if not millions) of years, like an evolutionist hypothesizes.

Uh...are you implying that humans should have been recording their own evolution????

I hope not, because if you are that sets the conversation back quite a ways, starting with "Why fish can't write".

Quote:
more importantly though, they believe this is a result of incredible chance

No. Anti. We've been through this before. "Chance" is not the only natural action. nature is full of all kinds of consistencies and sorting and ordering mechanisms. Just stop thinking of nature as random chaos. It isn't.

Quote:
necessitated by perfectly aligned variables, on a magnitude mathematically unfathomable. all preconceived notions aside, this is one isolated conflict of data that doesnt support the evolutionary theory, yet proponents will barrel on with the 'theory' that evolution, over millions of years is the sole mechanism responsible for our current state.

So what is so all-fired special about our particular state of being? That we're so intelligent? That we have such a refined moral sense? That we're capable of such convincing mental models that we can not only form language, we can also delude ourselves in hundreds of self-destructive ways? Right now, I'd say that we're not acting like a very successful experiment, and our long-term chance of survival isn't looking very good. Maybe the next species to come along will do better.

AFA "fixing the debate to a naturalist paradigm"... tell me, Anti, what IS the "naturalist" paradigm?

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

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

Saturday, August 4, 2007 10:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
so why did Darwin admit that the biggest flaw of his theory was the absence of transitional lifeforms.. the so called 'missing links', paramount to the evolutionary thoery?

First off, when Darwin proposed evolution fossils were scarce because there wasn't much push to get them, that has since been rectified and we now have an extensive (though imperfect) collection of fossils all pointing to (surprise) evolution. Second, unlike creationists scientists freely admit weak points in their own theories, for Darwin to have done otherwise would have been quite strange. Third, Darwin wasn't right about everything, indeed if all you've read is Origin then you do not understand the modern Theory of Evolution. Fourth, we have an abundance of transitional forms, we have a clear fossil record of the transition of whales from land animals to sea animals, we have fossilized ants that clearly show their development from wasps (or rather wasp-like ancestors), we have a good transitional series showing human evolution, once again, your unwillingness to see the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Fifth, he has been intentionally misquoted by creationists to support their own opinions: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part2.html quotes 2.4 and 2.6.

Quote:
seems we still dont have any of these half creatures walking around

By definition all living creatures on the planet are transitional except the ones that will go extinct without a speciation event. Your comment about half-creatures represents a distorted view of evolution, dogs evolving into cats would not get the head and hind legs of a cat one generation and then the body and front legs of a cat the next generation, instead it would very slowly change bit by bit, forming many complete species in between.

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

Saturday, August 4, 2007 11:17 AM

Quote:
Signym-

However, we DO know that it is on the order of "billions" not "thousands". Let me give you something simple: I can extend the earth's time line back at least 200,000 years on the basis of simply counting layers in ice cores. So, will you concede that the earth is at least that old? If not, why not?

thats possible.. but how can you be sure ice core samples are reliable? how do you 'read' an ice core sample, and by what observation to you determine its age? i am highly skeptical of the accuracy of these types of claims, because they tend to use the same circular logic that i have been decrying this entire thread. and even then, we are only talking a few hundred thousand years.. which is much more in the realm of testability then something "on the order of billions"

Quote:
First of all, you're wrong that human history has only been recorded over the past 10,000, years. There are human-made markings- pictures etc.- well over 30,000 years old and human-made artifacts from well before that.

and im perfectly aware of this.. but ive seen the inconsistencies in carbon and radioactive dating methods, and i am inclined to believe that these types of marking and paintings could easily have been done by native, indigenous peoples from any period of time. if you believe man evolved from a primate, with our intelligence coming progressively over time, then you tend to try an map these things to prove your hypothesis

Quote:
So my first question is: why do you say that recorded human history is only 10,000 old? Which human records and artifacts are you excluding, and why?

anything acquired through speculative methods

Quote:
Uh...are you implying that humans should have been recording their own evolution???? I hope not, because if you are that sets the conversation back quite a ways, starting with "Why fish can't write".

so we were once a fish? you said it yourself.. where is the evidence? once again, that is part of your hypothesis, not something that has actually been observed or verified

Quote:
No. Anti. We've been through this before. "Chance" is not the only natural action. nature is full of all kinds of consistencies and sorting and ordering mechanisms. Just stop thinking of nature as random chaos. It isn't.

your claim is that every single living organism began from nothing, and designed its own functions, thereby finding its own niche and particular function. this is your claim about the entire universe, all the order and complexity. how fortunate we are then that the earth settled where it did, by 'chance'.. or no life would be possible

Quote:
So what is so all-fired special about our particular state of being? That we're so intelligent? That we have such a refined moral sense? That we're capable of such convincing mental models that we can not only form language, we can also delude ourselves in hundreds of self-destructive ways?

what other species exhibit this behavior? was this a product of selection and our environment? if there is no purpose for our being here, but that we happened into existence, it makes the case for moral and ethical absolutes impossible(but by all means... show me the flaw in my logic)

Quote:
Right now, I'd say that we're not acting like a very successful experiment, and our long-term chance of survival isn't looking very good. Maybe the next species to come along will do better.

will this species be based loosely on our own? i dont really see any up and comers breaking the mold in any-way. instead, i see the same 'kinds' of species that have always existed, with nary a cross transitional form to be found

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

Saturday, August 4, 2007 11:31 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
thats possible.. but how can you be sure ice core samples are reliable? how do you 'read' an ice core sample, and by what observation to you determine its age? i am highly skeptical of the accuracy of these types of claims, because they tend to use the same circular logic

The earth has seasons. right? Let's assume one winter and one summer per year. More dust falls in summer, more snow falls in winter, creating visible annual layers. Until the ice becomes so compacted (deep ice) that the layers become indistinguishable, except through detailed chemical analysis, it is possible to COUNT the annual layers- just like rings in a tree- to determine the number of years if ice accumulation. It's called Visual (or visible) stratigraphy.

www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004JD005134.shtml

There is nothing at all "circular" about it. There is no assumption of the amount of snow accumulation as creationists mistakenly claim. Furthermore, the visible lines in the ice core are used to correlate other methods of ice core analysis.

So, do you have any problems with the notion that the earth is at least 200,000 years old, based on counting the visible annual layers in ice cores?

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

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

Saturday, August 4, 2007 11:32 AM