The Origin of Species - 150 years (OT)

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 441 - 460 of total 569 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

drgonzo

Trad climber

east bay, CA

Jul 15, 2008 - 03:01pm PT

I immediately felt like a truck that had been sitting on my chest had been lifted away

Perfect example of a virtual experience. *SPOILER ALERT* Same thing as tearing up when Old Yeller gets done--Mr. Disney really didn't zap a dog in that movie and everybody knows it--but golly, the emotion felt real! Same thing when your sibling jumped out from behind a door and scared you for the 1,000th time. Should emotions be trusted as reliable and truthful gauges of reality?

Why do you think alter calls are always preceded by the big buildup of singing and preaching, etc.? It's emotional staging--oldest trick in the theater.

the Fet

Knackered climber

A bivy sack in the secret campground

Jul 15, 2008 - 03:03pm PT

Thanks Jody, I appreciate your forthright answer. It really helps me understand your viewpoint.

WandaFuca

Gym climber

San Fernando Lamas

Jul 15, 2008 - 03:09pm PT

Blight obviously has a persecution complex.

He accuses "atheists" of "aggression and opposition," but is blind to his own tone of sneering animosity. And if that isn't enough evidence, consider that he accused Ed of attacking him with a blunt instrument: science!

No one except Blight is talking about Atheism. But Blight keeps returning to it again and again. Why?

Of those who are arguing in favor of Evolution, some are atheist, some are agnostic, some are spiritual or believe in some form of God, and some would describe themselves as Christians.

Most of the religious arguments in this thread have been about a biblical literalism that prevents honest discussion of Evolution. And this is where some of us cross the threshold in Blight's mind and become part of the persecutory atheist enemy.

Blight has complained of the pathological [compulsive or (mentally) diseased] behavior of atheists. But his fixation on atheists and his description of atheist behavior--that doesn't fit with anything we can see in this thread--are demonstrative of his own neuroticism and paranoia. We can see this from all the complaints that we've made that Blight twists people's words; it is not Blight being malicious, but instead it is a product of his own disordered mind.

He complains that atheists have "no moral framework, no world view and no ideology." And he complains that they are fanatics. Blight the idealogue, is completely blind to the fact that the one with an ideology, like him, is more likely to be a fanatic, which he of course is, than someone with no ideology.

"Yes." he says, "you've illustrated my point," when you have done no such thing. He always claims that your comment had no substantiative content, and that you have only said the opposite of what he said, which is also his main complaint about atheists. Of course we are all baffled by this because it doesn't match our own experiences.

Most of us do respond to Blight with substantiative content and we know that atheists don't just borrow or steal "religion's key ideas then adding 'not' or 'don't' where appropriate." Atheists and other skeptics on this thread have been asking for biblical evidence--there is evidence for this 'asking' in this thread! There is also evidence on this thread that those opposed to Evolution are the ones who rarely have any substantiative comments, and are more prone to dismiss something with a "not" or a "don't."

But Blight's "reality" is based on his distorted perceptions, and if anyone's differences with Blight exceed a certain threshold, they are lumped in with the cruel, persecuting atheists, and everything they say is seen as confirmation of Blight's worst fears.

It's sad really. Blight does seem intelligent, but it has become a disordered and self-destructive intelligence. For all the comfort or joy faith supposedly gives Blight, I don't sense any of it; I only sense his fear and hostility.

nature

climber

Santa Fe, NM

Jul 15, 2008 - 03:19pm PT

As with Ed's post that is exactly what I was thinking and well on my way to writing it up just like that. We'll except for the part in italics and quotes. And except for the second paragraph until the end. And well... except for every word in the first paragraph. Otherwise spot on with what I was thinking.

(Well said Wanda)

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Jul 15, 2008 - 03:33pm PT

I am less interested in what Blight has to say about me than I am about his criticism of science. I am not sure that I am a "positivist" though I remember studying the philosophy of science when I was younger. I found that not so full of insight, largely because philosophers can't agree on what reality is... where scientists tend not to worry so much about it depending on empirical measurements, and a mathematical model to explain what is going on.

How does it work?

I don't know, and if understanding it would help me do better physics (which I once suspected it would) then I would have tried a lot harder to learn about the philosophy of science. Perhaps Blight can teach me something.

But I think myself more a pragmatist, not so worried to apply the latest thinking of the academy to affirm something that I can go out and verify myself.

And I think it dates back a few centuries, not just the last 50 years. I can sit with Newton's Opticks and reproduce his experiments on light as he did. Now of course Newton did a lot of good optics, but he got a lot "wrong" for the right reasons. Understanding that from a philosophical point of view might open us up to a more "efficient" execution of science. Perhaps Blight has something to say about that.

However, if I believe in anything, it is that the universe is understandable through the scientific method. That's all. And the history of science seems to point to a success there.

Is Blight saying it was all just an accident that would have worked out the same if we applied some other method?

I'm all ears!

Jennie

Trad climber

Idaho Falls

Jul 15, 2008 - 04:07pm PT

"These biblical verses are symbolic and highly metaphorical and can’t logically be used as tangible or literal grounding of Christianity or Judaism in either the flat earth or round earth view."

Graniteclimber:"Jennie, but then might not the biblical verses in Genesis on the creation of the earth also be symbolic and metaphorical can't logically be interpreted literally?"

"Although the Bible is a collection of books written over thousands of years by different people of different times and backgrounds (some Jewish, some Greek and some Roman), some people today consider the Bible to be a single infallible document, of which every word is literally true. That is what I am questioning."

Yes, I, personally, take the Creation story as a metaphor. But the metaphorical and symbolic can be just as powerful or MORE powerful than the literal. I believe a Creator was driving the Creation whether it took more or less than 13.7 billion years for the universe and or 4.6(plus or minus) billion for the earth to come to its present state. Many in Judao-Christian tradition see the Genesis creation as symbolic rather than literal.

I don't view the Bible as infallible and probably many important scriptures were left out because they were not understood.

But whether the fundementalist/literalist or symbolic interpretations are correct, I have difficulty conceiving Creation being imparted, shaped and propelled by accident and randomness. The unity of mechanism in the universe must surely have originated in the mind of God and the intricacy, capacity, creativity and transcendant intelligence of its beings brought forth by a Creator.

WBraun

climber

Jul 15, 2008 - 04:27pm PT

Jennie is the one with the brains here.

Thank God ....

graniteclimber

Trad climber

Nowhere

Jul 15, 2008 - 04:27pm PT

Blight is a troll that ordinarily comes out of his cave only when evolution is discussed.

graniteclimber

Trad climber

Nowhere

Jul 15, 2008 - 04:29pm PT

Good post, Jennie. Your position is very reasonable.

Ouch!

climber

Jul 15, 2008 - 04:37pm PT

DJS

Trad climber

wherever my mind exists

Jul 15, 2008 - 04:57pm PT

Well put Jennie. Your viewpoint opens up more avenues for open minded discussion.

hafilax

Trad climber

East Van

Jul 15, 2008 - 05:01pm PT

I'm surprised that you agree with Jennie's post Jody, after declaring that the priest that agrees with evolution is dead wrong. The model that Jennie is presenting allows for evolution as a mechanism created by God to lead to man. This could include speciation and God igniting the spark of life in the primordial ooze.

This line of thinking allows for the scientific method to explore the rules set out by God without demanding it to rigorously agree with a literal interpretation of the Bible. No system is too complex for God right?

the Fet

Knackered climber

A bivy sack in the secret campground

Jul 15, 2008 - 05:02pm PT

Accident and randomness may be (some of) God's tools to ultimately arrive at life and consciousness, given billions of years for it to work it's magic.

Edit: Accident and randomness are the "imparted" part. "Shaped" is natural selection, or the reproduction of valuable characteristics, which is not a random process, but benificial in the eyes of God/nature.

Jaybro

Social climber

wuz real!

Jul 15, 2008 - 07:40pm PT

Metaphors are useful

Ouch!

climber

Jul 15, 2008 - 09:21pm PT

Lynne Leichtfuss

Social climber

valley center, ca

Jul 15, 2008 - 09:53pm PT

AND I SAY, WHAT WOULD WE ALL AT ST DO WITHOUT OUCH ? LOVE YOU MR. OUCH, YOU ARE A SPECIAL DUDE !

Big smiles from Lynners

Ouch!

climber

Jul 15, 2008 - 10:16pm PT

LOL! Thanks Lynne. I'll ask 46 to be nice to you at Facelift.

WBraun

climber

Jul 15, 2008 - 11:09pm PT

Did you know that Lord Buddha preached atheism even though he was a bona-fide incarnation of God.

This one is difficult to understand for those not in the Brahma disiplic succession.