Creationists Take Another Called Strike - and run to dugout

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 2141 - 2160 of total 4794 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Nov 20, 2009 - 04:42pm PT
"What is God then, you give us a definition of what he is, and we can see if we can work with it"

Maybe it's BS to try to define God so glibly and admit the limitations of our minds, at least now, for both for science and religion. Just because there is a God doesn't mean we can get a handle on him. Just because our 4 year old kids can't really get a handle on us doesn't mean we don't exist.

For starters though, to see how it fits into the bigger equation, let's take what one Eastern Religion says defines God. Existence, Consciousness and Bliss (which is pretty much the same as Love, except without object) is said to be the nature of God.

If God created this whole shebang from within God's self, using God's own consciousness, naturally we aren't going to find some tiny, petty God within the drama to pin our blame on.

Our minds are very much conditioned by our experience of Time and Space, which are limited in scope even by the finding of science. How can we understand something that exists outside time and space? What experiments have the tools to measure something beyond time and space?

Peace

Karl
Homer

Mountain climber
Santa Cruz, CA
Nov 20, 2009 - 04:47pm PT
jstan - thanks for that. I'm still struggling to understand the difference in what we mean between "believe" and "know". Believing is a perception that you have on your own, and knowing is a perception that is shared between people (with similar perceptions)? And we can "be sure" of things that we don't "know"? It is confusing.
the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Nov 20, 2009 - 04:59pm PT
I never said science was a religion, but I will say that it is a belief system.

Jan your contributions to this thread are great, but that statement is off base.

Science is about knowlege. That knowledge can help form people's belief systems, but it is only a part of it.

I guess this thread, and this conflict in general is when science conflicts with religous beliefs. Personally I would rather go with science in these instances because I am far more likely to believe something that is shown to me, rather than something told to me.

I have never had an experience with religion where they said "this is how to see God" and they gave a systematic, repeatable, reasonable way to experience God. If they did I'd probably be in that religion. Instead religion just says "This is what God is, because we say it is." That doesn't cut it with me.
Jaybro

Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
Nov 20, 2009 - 05:02pm PT
remember that creationism and belief in god are not the same things. 99% of Chrisitans reject creationism for the ignorant head in the sand superstition that it is.
the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Nov 20, 2009 - 05:11pm PT
jaybro, I wish that was the case, but it's much closer to 90% believing in Creationism.

On another note, I would think most scientists would be agnostic because there is no scientific proof for or against God, so denying there could be a God is unscientific.
Jan

Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
Nov 20, 2009 - 05:11pm PT

It's past bed time on my side of the world, but I will get back to you all. I have the feeling in fact, that we might finally be making some headway here. At least we can agree that one of the big problems is lack of a common vocabulary. That's something concrete that we can work on.

Meanwhile, I do agree with Fet that a scientist should be agnostic. I say that as soon as scientists say they think the world is only material, then they are reflecting a belief system, not science.

To take a stance in favor of a material interpretation takes more courage and is more interesting however, than agnosticism, and certainly challenges me to think more deeply about my own beliefs.
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Nov 20, 2009 - 05:30pm PT
Baba
"So are the Christians talking to Jesus and God, does he talk to them individually and tell them good things, like they say?
do you have to surrender yourself to Jesus to be saved?
Or is all this just BS, and you can't really talk to God, and he doesn't really care about single humans"

We are all in a state of relative non-understanding and that includes science. We do the best we can. Your infant kid says "Da da" and you say things to her, but what does she understand?

"Caring" is a human idea. A God that suffers conflicting emotions over the pains, failures and triumphs of trillions and trillions of living beings in a mind boggling universe is a human idea. We think in Linear rational modes but the ultimate Being is nothing like that.

My experience, our relationship with the divine is built into our souls, which are a spark of the God. Some direct inspiration is possible at that level but then our minds often muck it up afterwards. Somebody has a light dawn within, thinks about it, and then concludes "God wants me to skin you alive!!"

Peace

Karl
Jaybro

Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
Nov 20, 2009 - 05:39pm PT
Fet, I suspect that's sampling error and badly worded surveys. I know a lot of people who go to church and I've met like two in my entire life that entertain the notion of creationism. Probably more than that, but once they say that, their credibility is zero and one tunes them out.
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Nov 20, 2009 - 05:44pm PT
Oh this is sure to flame the fire . . .


Researcher: Faint writing seen on Shroud of Turin
By ARIEL DAVID, Associated Press Writer Ariel David, Associated Press Writer – 22 mins ago
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091120/ap_on_re_eu/eu_italy_shroud_of_turin

Barbara Frale, a researcher at the Vatican archives, says in a new book that she used computer-enhanced images of the shroud to decipher faintly written words in Greek, Latin and Aramaic scattered across the cloth.

She asserts that the words include the name "(J)esu(s) Nazarene" — or Jesus of Nazareth — in Greek. That, she said, proves the text could not be of medieval origin because no Christian at the time, even a forger, would have mentioned Jesus without referring to his divinity. Failing to do so would risk being branded a heretic.

"Even someone intent on forging a relic would have had all the reasons to place the signs of divinity on this object," Frale said Friday. "Had we found 'Christ' or the 'Son of God' we could have considered it a hoax, or a devotional inscription."

The shroud bears the figure of a crucified man, complete with blood seeping from his hands and feet, and believers say Christ's image was recorded on the linen's fibers at the time of his resurrection.

The fragile artifact, owned by the Vatican, is kept locked in a protective chamber in a Turin cathedral and is rarely shown. Measuring 13 feet (four meters) long and three feet (one meter) wide, the shroud has suffered severe damage through the centuries, including from fire.

The Catholic Church makes no claims about the cloth's authenticity, but says it is a powerful symbol of Christ's suffering.

There has been strong debate about it in the scientific community.

Skeptics point out that radiocarbon dating conducted on the cloth in 1988 determined it was made in the 13th or 14th century.

But Raymond Rogers of Los Alamos National Laboratory said in 2005 that the tested threads came from patches used to repair the shroud after a fire. Rogers, who died shortly after publishing his findings, calculated it is 1,300 to 3,000 years old and could easily date from Jesus' era.

Another study, by the Hebrew University, concluded that pollen and plant images on the shroud showed it originated in the area around Jerusalem sometime before the eighth century.

While faint letters scattered around the face on the shroud were seen decades ago, serious researchers dismissed them, due to the results of the radiocarbon dating test, Frale told The Associated Press.

But when she cut out the words from enhanced photos of the shroud and showed them to experts, they concurred the writing style was typical of the Middle East in the first century — Jesus' time.

She believes the text was written on a document by a clerk and glued to the shroud over the face so the body could be identified by relatives and buried properly. Metals in the ink used at the time may have allowed the writing to transfer to the linen, Frale said.

She said she counted at least 11 words in her study of enhanced images produced by French scientists in a 1994 study. The words are fragmented and scattered on and around the image's head, crisscrossing the cloth vertically and horizontally.

One short sequence of Aramaic letters has not been fully translated. Another fragment in Greek — "iber" — may refer to Emperor Tiberius, who reigned at the time of Jesus' crucifixion, Frale said.

She said the text also partially confirms the Gospels' account of Jesus' final moments. A fragment in Greek that can be read as "removed at the ninth hour" may refer to Christ's time of death reported in the holy texts, she said.

In her book "The Shroud of Jesus Nazarene," published in Italian, Frale reconstructs from the lettering on the shroud what she believes Jesus' death certificate said: "Jesus Nazarene. Found (guilty of inciting the people to revolt). Put to death in the year 16 of Tiberius. Taken down at the ninth hour."

She said the text then stipulates the body will returned to relatives after a year.

Frale said her research was done without the support of the Vatican.

"I tried to be objective and leave religious issues aside," Frale told the AP. "What I studied was an ancient document that certifies the execution of a man, in a specific time and place."
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 20, 2009 - 06:04pm PT



Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'


People with higher IQs are less likely to believe in God, according to a
new study.


Professor Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at Ulster University, said many more members of the "intellectual elite" considered themselves atheists than the national average.

A decline in religious observance over the last century was directly linked to a rise in average intelligence, he claimed.

But the conclusions - in a paper for the academic journal Intelligence - have been branded "simplistic" by critics.

Professor Lynn, who has provoked controversy in the past with research linking intelligence to race and sex, said university academics were less likely to believe in God than almost anyone else.

A survey of Royal Society fellows found that only 3.3 per cent believed in God - at a time when 68.5 per cent of the general UK population described themselves as believers.

A separate poll in the 90s found only seven per cent of members of the American National Academy of Sciences believed in God.

Professor Lynn said most primary school children believed in God, but as they entered adolescence - and their intelligence increased - many started to have doubts.

He told Times Higher Education magazine: "Why should fewer academics believe in God than the general population? I believe it is simply a matter of the IQ. Academics have higher IQs than the general population. Several Gallup poll studies of the general population have shown that those with higher IQs tend not to believe in God."

He said religious belief had declined across 137 developed nations in the 20th century at the same time as people became more intelligent.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-'less-likely-to-believe-in-God'.html

Bronwyn

Trad climber
Not of This World
Nov 20, 2009 - 06:06pm PT
Dr. F., I will say that yes, God has spoken directly to me in several instances, and that what He had to tell me on at least two of those occassions was NOT what I wanted to hear. I resisted...I argued...I ignored.

But, ultimately, what He said was correct, and even when I tried to ignore Him, it worked out for the greater good. What He was telling me were things I would not ever have told myself, or "made up", as they were diametrically the opposite of what I wanted at the time.

Sometimes what He has to tell us is hard to hear. But He can see the bigger picture when I cannot, and I hope that in most cases now when He tells me something I don't really want to hear at the time, I have the wherewithall to shut up and just let Him work.

The times I have heard Him and just totally said, "Sorry, I hear You but I am still going to do what I want, even though You have warned me," well, let's just say those things didn't turn out so well in the end!
the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Nov 20, 2009 - 06:17pm PT
To take a stance in favor of a material interpretation takes more courage and is more interesting however, than agnosticism,

Maybe in conversations with other people it takes courage to take a stance, but I would say it takes more courage to admit to yourself that you don't know.
Homer

Mountain climber
Santa Cruz, CA
Nov 20, 2009 - 07:05pm PT
I like the idea of the schism. I feel like there’s a natural schism in our body of our thinking (not unlike our body’s thinking) between strictly rational thinking and intuitive emotional spiritual thinking.

On an individual level, strictly rational thinking might produce more accurate results, but intuitive thinking gets the job done quicker (and usually as accurately) with incomplete information. We sometimes have more information than we know.

For our body of thinking, strictly rational thinking requires complete information, which is difficult and costly (infinity?) to obtain. We’re always left feeling a need to fill in the blanks with some irrational belief, which seems to me especially ironic given our rational process in getting there.

In my personal experience, my preference for strictly rational thinking (with it’s attendant slow processing speed) has been less advantageous than I expected. I’m starting to feel that it’s not really that irrational for people to have irrational beliefs.

To me, that seems wacky, like creationism.
Bronwyn

Trad climber
Not of This World
Nov 20, 2009 - 07:09pm PT
Homer, I think you are wiser than you realize...
TripL7

Trad climber
'dago
Nov 20, 2009 - 07:57pm PT
weschrist- "I have no reason to believe that "consciousness" exist beyond a highly adaptive response to external stimulus".

How about guilt? Say your dog(the one who drug home the dead squirrel) tomorrow brought home the next door neighbors dead little girl, and dropped her on your steps. After you were warned by them that he had threatened her, and recommended to you to keep him restrained. And you refused!!

I suppose that is just a highly adaptive response, eh?

FWIW-Let me give you my explanation were it comes from.

When I was 8 yrs old I met a man, an alleged serial killer, attempted to murder me. Sons and daughter say he has murdered over 30+ youth and the DA office in two states seem to agree. Thirty-one days after he was about to murder me(describing in detail how he was about to torture me). I stood alone staring into that mans eyes(he had been electrocuted at work and was at his mothers house, covered from head to toe with a gauze wrap bandage). I stood there peering long and hard thinking to myself "this man will never be able to hurt me or anyone again, he is as good as dead."

Well 5 yrs. later, for the first and only time in my life, as I was getting on my bicycle, I had a flashback. I was suddenly peering into his eyes again, thinking the same thoughts and seething with hate for him(Ed Ginn). Suddenly, as if I crossed some barrier, I realised that my feelings for him were exactly what he felt towards me and the world. Absolutely no empathy/remorse, a bitter hate. For a moment I or felt just the way he felt towards all humanity, towards him, a bitter hate for what he had done. And I did realise, at that moment, that in some strange way, that our souls had become one in a similar type of cold callus hate. I had the identical hate for him that he had for me and the world. In other words I saw into and experienced a part of this mans soul/hate.

As I sat there seething with hate for this man, suddenly, without any invitation or thought on my part, I was hit with a surge of guilt that broke me from that deep gaze into which I had become locked once again. I recall immediately spinning around and bitterly yelling out to God..."Why should I feel guilty, after what he said he was was going to do to me"? I didn't know until years later that I had to forgive him(Ed Ginn), or risk having that hate redirected towards others in some form or fashion.

I rarely, if ever thought about Ed Ginn before that. And never had any nightmares etc. I did have a relationship with my Savior(both literal and spiritual)for He both saved my life that afternoon and I new He was indeed God. And for a long time I could not understand what He was telling me that day. I was certain God was wrong in regards to infusing me with guilt that afternoon. And I had, and have no doubt that it was He who brought it to my attention. For I had no sympathy for that man, and certainly no guilt associated for my hatred and disgust for such a human being. God intervened in my life again that day.

I have only shared this with my brother and one sister. Today I share it with you, think of it as you may. God gave us a conscious in regards to right and wrong, it is up to us to follow it.

I shared my story about that terrifying afternoon and the subsequent encounter 31 days later with this evil man right here on this thread message/post # 1622 for those curious or interested.
Gobee

Trad climber
Los Angeles
Nov 20, 2009 - 08:08pm PT
4damages, your leaf is from a, Ginkgo gĭng'kō or maidenhair tree, tall, slender, picturesque deciduous tree (Ginkgo biloba) with fan-shaped leaves.

Proof of God is all around us, also in the Bible, but you can't pull him out of a hat!
jstan

climber
Nov 20, 2009 - 08:55pm PT
Homer:
Lot of ideas here, too many to deal with all at once.

You mentioned "being sure." I think if you look out at the world it soon becomes apparent there is no such thing as "certainty" or "absolute knowledge."

Absoulte knowledge is a dream founded on our own psychological needs.

Even the statement the earth orbits the sun has limits. As a result of fairly well understood mechanical processes the motions of all the celestial bodies are changing. It will take awhile, the sun may have already burned out, or we may collide with another galaxy, but everything is changing.

And your wondering on the "schism" is pretty much on target. Science has given us incredible material advances since the end of the Dark Ages. But are people that much more satisfied with their lives? I wonder. I think religions have some very good suggestions as to how we might satisfy our psychological needs. Jesus apparently said some very good things. Too bad we are not listening to him.

We are told to stone the people we don't like. Don't hear too many suggestions we turn the other cheek.

As long as the schism persists and we doggedly hold to these old stories and ideas dreamed up two millennia ago we are going to continue to have material success coupled with psychological dependency.

Unless, as has happened so many times in the past, we just kill each other off.
WBraun

climber
Nov 20, 2009 - 08:57pm PT
Absolute knowledge is a dream founded on our own psychological needs.

Don't believe it.

Absolute knowledge is infinity.
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Nov 20, 2009 - 09:54pm PT
"Norton, how could we have evolved from a common ancestor? There is no direct evidence, nobody was there to witness it. All they have are some old bones and a theory. That is nothing compared to ancient fairy tales written by some delusional desert wanderers."

I guess if you believe the bible literally, maybe even figuratively, everyone 'evolved' from a common ancestor.

Otherwise, no matter who you believe it's likely the Earth was uninhabitable in the beginning and when life manifested itself, you could call that the common ancestor.

Others think we are like the zoo animals in an Alien sponsored experiment, seeded here long ago. That would really shake up the debate if they landed to announce their findings.

Makes we wistful, wouldn't it be cool to get some in-your-face undeniable evidence to stir the debate?

PEace

Karl
WBraun

climber
Nov 20, 2009 - 09:57pm PT
everyone 'evolved' from a common ancestor.

What's wrong with that?
Messages 2141 - 2160 of total 4794 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
spacerCheck 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

guidebook icon
Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta